CAR_Public/180125.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


            Thursday, January 25, 2018, Vol. 20, No. 19



                            Headlines


ALLERGAN INC: Allied Services Sues Over Sherman Act Breach
AMERICAN AIRLINES: "Kowalski" Suit Removed to Ill. Dist. Ct.
AMERICAN AIRLINE: Worker's Claim Pre-empted by RLA
APPLE INC: "Eich" Action Seeks Royalties for Online Albums
APPLE INC: 2 Montreal Law Firms Seek to File Class Action Lawsuit

APPLE INC: Faces "Holman" Suit Over iPhone Throttling Issues
APPLE INC: Faces "Liebermann" Suit Over iPhone Throttling Issues
APPLE INC: Faces "Solak" Suit Over iPhone Throttling Issues
APPLE INC: Faces "Bartling" Suit Over IPhone Throttling Issues
AQUA METALS: "Hampton" Sues Over Share Drop from Failed Process

ARC MANAGEMENT: Court Grants Summary Judgment in FDCPA Suit
ASSURANCE TECHNOLOGIES: Certification of FLSA Collective Sought
BARRACUDA NETWORKS: Faces "Bushansky" Suit Over Thoma Merger Plan
BEVERLY HEALTH: Feb. 5 Hearing on Proposed "Ahmed" Class Deal
BMW AG: "Williams" Suit over Vehicle Defects Underway

CACERES DRYWALL: March 20 Settlement Conference in "Blanco" Suit
CAPITAL MANAGEMENT: "Lee" Action Disputes Collection Letter
CERTIFIED EMS: "Fleming" Action Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay
CHEVRON CORP: Court Compels Arbitration in Site Managers' Suit
CINEMARK USA: "Fledderman" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages

COMPASS BANK: Faces "Andrade" Suit Over Default Interest Rate
CORRECTIONS CORP: Court Grants Move to Dismiss Securities Suit
CROWN BUILDING: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "Jimenez" Suit Says
DAVID M. BLASKOVICH: Approval of Class Action Settlement Granted
DELTIC CORPORATION: Faces "Assad" Suit Over Potlatch Merger Plan

DELTIC TIMBER: Amonte Files Suit Over Potlatch Merger Deal
DENKA PERFORMANCE: "Taylor" Suit Seeks to Certify Class
DIANA CONTAINERSHIPS: "Austin" Suit Alleges Stock Manipulation
DONALD J. TRUMP: Suit vs. President Junked for Lack of Standing
DONISI JAX: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Campbell" Suit Claims

DYNAMIC LEDGER: Feb. 22 Deadline to Respond to "Gaviria" ICO Suit
ECLINICALWORKS LLC: CA Suit Will 'Make It Right' for Customers
EDDIE BAUER: Court Continues Deadline to Answer SAC
EDGAR P. BENJAMIN: Faces "Johnson" Suit Over Unlawful Termination
EL REY DE LAS FRITAS: "Aguiar" Action Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages

ENHANCED RECOVERY: Leavy Sues Over Vague Collection Letter
ERKA INC: "Ferrera" Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
EURO RENOVATION: Faces "Rosario" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
F&M TRUST: Tentative $10M Settlement in Class Action
FREE FLOW CONSTRUCTION: "Abreu" Action Seeks Unpaid OT Wages

GIGA WATT: Silver Miller Law Firm Files Class Action
GRANITE TELECOM: "Hair" Action Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay
HOLMAN AUTOMOTIVE: Blumenthal Nordrehaug Files Class Action Suit
INFINITY AUTO: Central Palm Beach Physicians Files Amended Suit
INTEL CORP: 3 Suits Related to Security Vulnerability Filed

INTELEMEDIA COMM: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Johnson" Suit Says
J.A. CAMBECE: "McGriff" Suit Disputes Collection Letter
JAMES M. O'DEA: Common-Interest Exception Ruling Affirmed
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Providence's Remicade Suit Consolidated
KEMPER SPORTS: Faces "Lall" Class Suit Over Failure to Pay OT

KOBE STEEL: Robbins Arroyo Files Securities Class Action
LIBERTY TAX: "Beland" Sues Over Share Price Drop
LIBERTY TAX: Klein Law Firm Files Class Action
LIDS STORE: Managers May Proceed With Pay Class-Action
LOBLAW COS: Suit Filed in Manitoba Over Bread Price-Fixing

LRR ENERGY: Court Approves Class Notice & Notice Procedures
MAGNOLIA FLOORING: "Franklin" Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
MARKETRON BROADCAST: Class Cert. Deadline Extended to 180 Days
MD TLC: Faces "Kaye" Class Suit Over Automated Fax Advertisements
MICHIGAN: Court Dismisses Inmate's Class Certification Bid

MIDLAND CREDIT: Holmes Disputes Vague Collection Letters
ML AUTOMOTIVE: "Bernard" Suit over Unpaid Wages Underway
MONSANTO: Faces "Branum" Suit Over Soybeans & Cotton-Price Fixing
MOTOR VEHICLE ASSURANCE: "Heaton" Hits Illegal Telemarketing
NASSAU, NY: False Arrest Claim in "Bloch" Remains Dismissed

NEW JERSEY: Residents Might Get Payback from E-ZPass Scam
NEW ROCHELLE: Sued Over Failure to Properly Pay Employees
NEW YORK: Must Produce Unredacted Relevant ESI in "Bagley"
NISEN SUSHI: "Zeng" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages
NO PRESSURE: "Armstrong" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay

NYU LANGONE: Must Defend Against "Sacerdote" Pensions Suit
OMNITRITION INT'L: Court Orders Response to Reconsideration Bid
PARKRIDGE PRIVATE: School Lacks Accreditation, Santos et al Claim
PETROLEO BRASILEIRO: To Pay $4BB to Settle US Class Action
PIRATA TAPAS: "Escobar" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT, Spread of Hours Pay

PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Court Grants Bid to Certify Class in "Pollak"
POSTAL FLEET: "Brooks" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay
PRAIRIE PIZZA: "Chenkus" Suit Seeks to Recover Minimum Wages
PROPETRO SERVICES: Blanco Sues Over Denied Overtime Pay
QUDIAN INC: Foat Sues Over Share Price Drop

REHAB SYNERGIES: Faces "Loy" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
ROADRUNNER TRANS: Discovery in "Christian" Suit to End May 7
SAN DIEGO ACCOUNTS: Clark Sues Over Vague Collection Letter
SCI DIRECT: "Romano" Suit Seeks to Certify ISR Class & Subclass
SCI DIRECT: "Romano" Suit Seeks to Certify FLSA Class

SEAWORLD ENTERTAINMENT: Gov't Can Intervene in Shareholders' Suit
SIGNET JEWELERS: Sued by "Aydin" Over Share Price Drop
SMZ IMPEX: "Mathew" Labor Suit Seek Unpaid Overtime Wages
SOOTHE INC: Faces "Haris" Class Suit Over Automated Phone Calls
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON: Sued Over Thomas Fire

SOUTHWEST AIRLINE: Pays $15-Mil. to Settle Class Action Lawsuit
STARWORKS LLC: "Frost" Suit over Unpaid Overtime Underway
STATE FARM FIRE: Faces "Carson" Suit in Medina County, Ohio
TERRIBLE HERBST: Dismissal of Wage & Hour Class Suit Vacated
THEDACARE INC: Court Decertifies Employees Class

TOKYO STATESBORO: "Eigenberger" Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages
ULTIMATE FITNESS: Cline Sues Over Unsolicited SMS Ads
UNITED AUTO CREDIT: "Camayd" Hits Illegal Telemarketing Calls
VITA-MIX CORP: Select Blender Owners to Get $70 Gift Card
ZION HEALTH: "Shin" Suit Seeks to Certify 2 Classes





                            *********



ALLERGAN INC: Allied Services Sues Over Sherman Act Breach
----------------------------------------------------------
Allied Services Division Welfare Fund, on behalf of itself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Allergan, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 17-cv-00775, (E.D. Tex., December 15, 2017),
seeks to recover threefold damages, interest, costs of suit and
reasonable attorneys' fees resulting from Allergan's
anticompetitive foreclosure of cyclosporine sales in violation of
the Sherman Act.

Restasis or cyclosporine ophthalmic emulsion is a prescription
treatment for dry-eye disease.

Allied Services Division Welfare Fund, is a health and welfare
benefit fund and is involved in the business of providing health
benefits for covered members.

Allergan is the holder of approved New Drug Application No. 50-
790 for Cyclosporine Ophthalmic Emulsion, 0.05%, sold under the
Restasis trademark. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lanson Bordelon, Esq.
      James R. Dugan, II, Esq.
      Douglas R. Plymale, Esq.
      David S. Scalia, Esq.
      Bonnie A. Kendrick, Esq.
      THE DUGAN LAW FIRM, APLC
      365 Canal Street, Suite 1000
      New Orleans, LA 70130
      Telephone: (504) 648-0180
      Facsimile: (504) 648-0181
      Email: jdugan@dugan-lawfirm.com
             dplymale@dugan-lawfirm.com
             dscalia@dugan-lawfirm.com
             lbordelon@dugan-lawfirm.com
             bonnie@dugan-lawfirm.com

             - and -

      Art Sadin, Esq.
      SADIN LAW FIRM, P.C.
      121 Magnolia Street, Suite 1022
      Friendswood, TX 77546
      Phone: (281) 648-771
      Fax: (281) 648-7799


AMERICAN AIRLINES: "Kowalski" Suit Removed to Ill. Dist. Ct.
------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Edward Kowalski, individually and on behalf of
a class of similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. American
Airlines, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2017-CH-15328 (Ill. Cir.,
November 17, 2017), was removed to the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois on December 18, 2017,
under Case No. 17-cv-09080.

Plaintiff, an employee of American who works at O'Hare
International Airport, alleges that American actively captures,
collects, stores, and uses, without obtaining informed written
consent or publishing its data retention and deletion policies,
the biometrics of its workers whose fingerprints are captured and
stored for timekeeping purposes in violation of the Biometric
Information Privacy Act of 2008. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Myles McGuire, Esq.
     Evan M. Meyers, Esq.
     MCGUIRE LAW, P.C.
     55 West Wacker Drive, 9th Floor
     Chicago, IL 60601
     Tel: (312) 893-7002
     Fax: (312) 275-7895
     Email: mmcguire@mcgpc.com
            emeyers@mcgpc.com

American Airlines is represented by:

     Bert Ocariz, Esq.
     SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P.
     201 South Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 3200
     Miami, FL 33131
     Tel: (305) 358-5171
     Email: hocariz@shb.com

            - and -

     Patrick J. Castle, Esq.
     SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P.
     111 South Wacker Drive, 51st Floor
     Chicago, IL 60606
     Tel: (312) 704-7700
     Fax: (312) 558-1195
     Email: pcastle@shb.com

            - and -

     Mark W. Robertson, Esq.
     Sloane Ackerman, Esq.
     O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
     7 Times Square
     New York, NY 10036
     Telephone: (212) 326-2000
     Facsimile: (212) 326-2061
     Email: mrobertson@omm.com
            sackerman@omm.com


AMERICAN AIRLINE: Worker's Claim Pre-empted by RLA
--------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division, issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order
granting Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the case captioned THOMAS
BALLARD, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC., a Delaware corporation,
Defendant, Case No. 17-cv-02534 (N.D. Ill.).

Defendant moved to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), arguing that Plaintiff's claims
are all pre-empted under the Railway Labor Act.

Prior to his employment with American, Plaintiff worked as an
aviation maintenance technician for 24 years and earned more than
$30.00 an hour.  After learning about American's Hiring Program,
which offered years-of-service credit and top-of-scale pay rates
for new hires, Plaintiff applied to work at American.  In March
of 2015, Plaintiff interviewed with American for an aviation
maintenance technician position.  American told Plaintiff during
the interview that, if employed by American, he would have to
join the Transportation Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO, the
labor union representing American employees; Plaintiff did not
meet with a Union representative, and did not receive any Union
documentation, at that time.

Plaintiff alleges that American "pulled a fast one," and that its
refusal to honor the benefits it agreed to under the Hiring
Program constitutes a breach of contract.  Plaintiff contends
that American never had any intention of honoring its Hiring
Program and that American knew or should have known when hiring
Plaintiff and the Class that it intended to cancel, revoke,
rescind, and/or breach their agreement with Plaintiff and the
Class.

Plaintiff sued American in state court, claiming breach of
contract, equitable estoppel, promissory estoppel, fraud and
unjust enrichment.

The RLA requires air carriers to negotiate rates of pay, rules,
and working conditions with their employees' collective
bargaining representatives.  Accordingly, the entire collective
bargaining process is governed by federal law through the RLA.
The Supreme Court established, in San Diego Building Trades
Council v. Garmon, that when an activity is governed by the
National Labor Relations Act, state and federal courts must defer
to the National Labor Relations Board and all state and federal
claims are pre-empted. 359 U.S. 236, 244-45 (1959).

Under Garmon, any activity protected or prohibited under the RLA
remains subject to the primary jurisdiction of the RLA Board, and
this Court loses its subject matter jurisdiction-that is, this
Court's federal subject matter jurisdiction is pre-empted.
Espinal v. Northwest Airlines, 90 F.3d 1452 (9th Cir. 1996), is
instructive. There, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant
airline made misrepresentations that induced him to resign his
current job and relocate to begin working for the defendant; a
month after the move, defendant rescinded its offer of employment
based upon a CBA provision that plaintiff had not seen until
after he moved and started working for defendant. The Ninth
Circuit ruled, under well-established precedent, that any
individual contract that conflicts with a CBA must be superseded
by that CBA.

Here, in an attempt to avoid preemption, Plaintiff argues that he
and American entered into an oral contract during his hiring
interview, and that this breached contract existed independently
of the CBA.  As in Espinal, however, the CBA extinguished any
such individual agreements when Plaintiff became a union-
represented employee and received the collectively-bargained
rights in the CBA.  In short, preemption applies and any claim
Plaintiff may have relating to the terms of his employment must
be pursued within the procedures established in the CBA.

The Court finds that Plaintiff's claims are pre-empted by the
RLA. Accordingly, American's motion to dismiss is granted, and
the case is dismissed. Civil case terminated.

A full-text copy of the District Court's December 18, 2017
Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/ycb8wwjl from Leagle.com.

Thomas Ballard, Plaintiff, represented by Larry D. Drury, Larry
D. Drury, Ltd., 205 West Randolph. Suite #1430. Chicago, IL
60606.

Thomas Ballard, Plaintiff, represented by Thomas M. Rebholz,
Larry D. Drury, Ltd., 205 West Randolph. Suite #1430. Chicago, IL
60606.

American Airlines, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Defendant,
represented by Mark W. Robertson -- mrobertson@omm.com --
O'Melveny & Myers LLP, pro hac vice, Larry S. Kaplan --
lkaplan@kmalawfirm.com -- Kaplan, Massamillo & Andrews, LLC, M.
Tristan Morales -- tmorales@omm.com -- O'Melveny & Myers LLP, pro
hac vice & Matthew J. Obiala -- mobiala@kmalawfirm.com -- Kaplan
Massamillo & Andrews.


APPLE INC: "Eich" Action Seeks Royalties for Online Albums
-----------------------------------------------------------
Bryan Eich, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated copyright holders, Plaintiff, v. Apple Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 17-cv-9857, (E.D. N.Y., December 17, 2017), seeks
injunctive and/or declaratory relief, enjoining defendant from
continued copyright infringement and violations of the relevant
provisions of the Copyright Act, removal of all such unlicensed
tracks from its services, restitution of illegally-obtained
proceeds, compensatory and statutory damages, reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs, prejudgment and post-judgment
interest, unpaid royalties and such other and further relief
resulting from copyright infringement.

Eich owns the publishing rights to two copyrighted albums of
music titled "Devil in Disguise" (U.S. Copyright Registration No.
SRu 925-601) and "Sleeping by a Wire" (U.S. Copyright
Registration No. SRu 661-491), covering eighteen musical
recordings.

Apple owns and operates a services called Apple Music which is a
subscription interactive music streaming service. After making
Eich's albums available on their service, Apple failed to pay his
royalties. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Richard M. Garbarini, Esq.
      GARBARINI FITZGERALD P.C.
      250 Park Avenue 7th Floor
      New York, NY 10177
      Telephone: (212) 300-5358
      Facsimile: (347) 218-9478


APPLE INC: 2 Montreal Law Firms Seek to File Class Action Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jacob Serebrin, writing for Montreal Gazette, reports that two
Quebec law firms are seeking authorization from Quebec Superior
Court to file a class action lawsuit against Apple, claiming that
its warranty policies violate Quebec's Consumer Protection Act.

The application, filed on Dec. 29, comes after Apple admitted
that it slows the performance of some iPhone models in certain
situations. The company said that's done to prevent unexpected
shutdowns that result from aging, which makes batteries less
effective.

Apple's statement, and an update to its support website, include
an acknowledgement that all rechargeable batteries have a limited
lifespan.

That acknowledgment, along with the price of Apple products, is
evidence that the company is violating Quebec's Consumer
Protection Act, said Joey Zukran, Esq. -- jzukran@lpclex.com -- a
lawyer at LPC Avocats, which filed the application for
authorization along with Renno Vathilakis Avocats.

"There's something wrong with this," he said. "The law is very
clear on this point, especially on electronic devices, that the
manufacturer of the product . . . has to guarantee the product
for a reasonable amount of time."

Currently, purchasers of Apple products receive a one-year
limited warranty, they can also buy an AppleCare extended
warranty.

According to Zukran, that's not enough.

Under Quebec's Consumer Protection Act, goods "must be durable in
normal use for a reasonable length of time, having regard to
their price, the terms of the contract and the conditions of
their use."

"Considering the high prices paid by Class Members for Apple
products, in normal use Apple products are not durable for a
reasonable length of time," reads the application for
authorization filed with the court.

Additionally, by selling AppleCare, Zukran said, Apple has
profited from failing to inform consumers of their rights under
the province's Consumer Protection Act.

If the class action lawsuit is authorized, a process called
certification in the rest of Canada, it would include every
Quebec resident who has purchased an Apple product with a
rechargeable battery, a group that could include tens of
thousands of people.

The lawsuit would seek compensation for class members, though the
amount is still to be determined. It would also seek punitive
damages of $300 per class member and it would ask the court to
declare that a reasonable amount of time for Apple products to
last -- and therefore be covered by warranty -- is six years.

In England and Wales, sellers are required to repair, replace or
refund faulty goods for six years. In the European Union, that
guarantee lasts two years.

"If my product is the same product as guaranteed in Europe for
two years and in the U.K. for six years, why is it different for
Quebec consumers?" Zukran said.

An authorization hearing could take place within a few months.

Apple did not respond to a request for comment from the Montreal
Gazette on January 4 afternoon, except to confirm that the
request had been received. [GN]


APPLE INC: Faces "Holman" Suit Over iPhone Throttling Issues
------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Holman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Apple Inc., Case No. 5:18-cv-00125 (N.D. Cal.,
January 5, 2018), seeks redress on a class-wide basis for Apple's
unlawful and deceptive practice of intentionally slowing down or
"throttling" the performance of certain iPhone models, including
the iPhone 6, 6 Plus, 6s, 6s Plus, SE, 7, and 7 Plus models.

Apple Inc. operates a technology company located at 1 Infinite
Loop, Cupertino, California 95014. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      BLOOD HURST & O'REARDON, LLP
      Timothy G. Blood, Esq.
      Thomas J. O'Reardon II, Esq.
      501 West Broadway, Suite 1490
      San Diego, CA  92101
      Telephone: (619) 338-1100
      Facsimile: (619) 338-1101
      E-mail: tblood@bholaw.com
              toreardon@bholaw.com

         - and -

      Todd D. Carpenter, Esq.
      CARLSON LYNCH SWEET KILPELA & CARPENTER, LLP
      1350 Columbia Street, Suite 603
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 762-1910
      Facsimile: (619) 756-6991
       E-mail: tcarpenter@carlsonlynch.com


APPLE INC: Faces "Liebermann" Suit Over iPhone Throttling Issues
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alain Liebermann and Romeo James Alba, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated v. Apple Inc., Case No. 5:18-
cv-00110 (N.D. Cal., January 5, 2018), seeks redress on a class-
wide basis for Apple's unlawful and deceptive practice of
intentionally slowing down or "throttling" the performance of
certain iPhone models, including the iPhone 6, 6 Plus, 6s, 6s
Plus, SE, 7, and 7 Plus models.

Apple Inc. operates a technology company located at 1 Infinite
Loop, Cupertino, California 95014. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Rosemary M. Rivas, Esq.
      Quentin A. Roberts, Esq.
      LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
      44 Montgomery Street, Suite 650
      San Francisco, CA 94104
      Telephone: (415) 291-2420
      Facsimile: (415) 484-1294
      E-mail: rrivas@zlk.com
              qroberts@zlk.com

         - and -

      Andrea Clisura, Esq.
      LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
      30 Broad Street, 24th Floor
      New York, NY 10004
      Telephone: (212) 363-7500
      Facsimile: (212) 636-7171
      E-mail: aclisura@zlk.com


APPLE INC: Faces "Solak" Suit Over iPhone Throttling Issues
-----------------------------------------------------------
John Solak, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Apple Inc., Case No. 5:18-cv-00123 (N.D. Cal.,
January 5, 2018), seeks redress on a class-wide basis for Apple's
unlawful and deceptive practice of intentionally slowing down or
"throttling" the performance of certain iPhone models, including
the iPhone 6, 6 Plus, 6s, 6s Plus, SE, 7, and 7 Plus models.

Apple Inc. operates a technology company located at 1 Infinite
Loop, Cupertino, California 95014. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Shana E. Scarlett, Esq.
      HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
      715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 202
      Berkeley, CA 94710
      Telephone: (510) 725-3000
      Facsimile: (510) 725-3001
      E-mail: shanas@hbsslaw.com

         - and -

       Steve W. Berman, Esq.
       Robert F. Lopez, Esq.
       HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
       1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 3300
       Seattle, WA 98101
       Telephone: (206) 623-7292
       Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
       E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com
               robl@hbsslaw.com


APPLE INC: Faces "Bartling" Suit Over IPhone Throttling Issues
--------------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Bartling and Jacqueline N. Olson, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated v. Apple Inc., Case No. 5:18-
cv-00147 (N.D. Cal., January 8, 2018), seeks redress on a class-
wide basis for Apple's unlawful and deceptive practice of
intentionally slowing down or "throttling" the performance of
certain iPhone models, including the iPhone 6, 6 Plus, 6s, 6s
Plus, SE, 7, and 7 Plus models.

Apple Inc. operates a technology company located at 1 Infinite
Loop, Cupertino, California 95014. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

       Rachele R. Rickert, Esq.
       Marisa C. Livesay, Esq.
       WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
       750 B Street, Suite 2770
       San Diego, CA 92101
       Telephone: (619) 239-4599
       Facsimile: (619) 234-4599
       E-mail: 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
      Telephone: (212) 545-4600
      Facsimile: (212) 545-4677
      E-mail: gmn@whafh.com
              pollack@whafh.com
              newman@whafh.com
              mcguire@whafh.com


AQUA METALS: "Hampton" Sues Over Share Drop from Failed Process
---------------------------------------------------------------
Arlis Hampton, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Aqua Metals, Inc., Stephen R. Clarke,
Thomas Murphy and Mark Weinswig, Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-
07142, (N.D. Cal., December 15, 2017), seeks compensatory
damages, including interest, reasonable costs and expenses
incurred in this action, including counsel fees and expert fees
and such other and further relief under the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.

Aqua Metals is engaged in the business of recycling lead,
focusing on its efforts on developing and testing their
"AquaRefining" process. They failed to disclose that their
breaking and separating process was not operating reliably or
efficiently and were negatively impacting their output.

On this news, its stock price fell $0.08 per share, or 2.1%, to
close at $3.71 per share on November 10, 2017. The stock price
continued to decline on the following trading days, falling $0.13
per share (3.5%) on November 13, 2017, and $0.58 per share
(16.2%) on November 14, 2017, to close at $3.00 per share.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
     Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
     Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq.
     Charles H. Linehan, Esq.
     GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
     1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
     Los Angeles, CA 90067
     Telephone: (310) 201-9150
     Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
     Email: rprongay@glancylaw.com


ARC MANAGEMENT: Court Grants Summary Judgment in FDCPA Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Tennessee, Greeneville, issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order
granting Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment in the case
captioned SANDRA K. WATSON, Plaintiff, v. ARC MANAGEMENT GROUP,
LLC, Defendant, No. 2:16-CV-300 (E.D. Tenn.).  Plaintiff's Motion
for Summary Judgment is Denied.

The plaintiff, Sandra K. Watson, brings this putative class
action lawsuit asserting violations of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act ("FDCPA") by ARC.  The plaintiff is alleged to have
incurred a medical debt of $1,070 to Hamblen Emergency Group,
LLC.  The plaintiff claims that ARC violated the FDCPA by
reporting the debt to Equifax.  She further claims that ARC's
reporting of the debt to Equifax before they were licensed by the
Tennessee Collection Services Board constitutes a violation of
the FDCPA.

Congress enacted the FDCPA in order to eliminate abusive debt
collection practices by debt collectors, to ensure that those
debt collectors who refrain from using abusive debt collections
practices are not competitively disadvantaged, and to promote
consistent State action to protect consumers against debt
collection abuses.  In determining whether a debt collector's
practice violates the FDCPA, the Court is required to use the
objective least sophisticated consumer.

Plaintiff filed a motion for partial summary judgment on her
claims only as to ARC's liability for violations of the FDCPA.
The plaintiff argues that (1) ARC was not a licensed debt
collector at the time it reported the debt to Equifax, and (2)
ARC illegally reported the debt to Equifax in an attempt to
collect the debt from the plaintiff. The plaintiff argues that
ARC's report to Equifax violated specific provisions of the
FDCPA.

The Tennessee Collection Service Board (TCSB) licensing
requirements allow for persons who are alleged to have conducted
collection services without a valid license to cure the default
at any time, even after collection may have started, by filing an
application for a license with the collection services board and
such persons may be subject to sanction by the collection service
board, but may not be subject to other civil action or defense
based on such alleged violation.

The Court recognizes that the satisfaction of the licensing
requirements found in the TCSA, as well as facts indicating the
failure to adhere to these state licensing requirements, are all
relevant factors in determining whether plaintiff has alleged
action that has fallen within the broad range of conduct
prohibited by the FDCPA. In other words, a violation of the
Tennessee licensing requirements does not necessarily constitute
a violation of the FDCPA; the conduct or communication at issue
must also violate the relevant provision of the FDCPA. Indeed,
there is no federal requirement that debt collectors be licensed;
the State of Tennessee has afforded these extra protections for
their citizens, but a license is not required to satisfy the
provisions of the FDCPA, and, in turn, the claims before this
Court.

The next question presented to this Court is whether ARC's act of
reporting the debt to a credit reporting agency qualifies as a
debt collection practice under the FDCPA. The Court finds no
indication that providing credit information or furnishing a debt
to a consumer reporting agency is not a form of communication as
defined in Section 1692a(2).

In a footnote in an unreported opinion, the Sixth Circuit has
assumed without deciding that the reporting of [a] debt to
Equifax constitutes a collection activity. Purnell v. Arrow
Financial Services, LLC, 303 Fed. App'x. 297, 304 n.5 (6th Cir.
2008).

In the present case, there are no facts at all that indicate that
the plaintiff communicated any dispute with the debt she owed to
Hamblen County Emergency Group, LLC. Further, the parties have
not argued that the report to Equifax should have been validated,
nor has either party raised any issue with the limitations period
for reporting the debt. Therefore, the Court of Appeals finding
in Purnell has little bearing on the issues presently before this
Court.

One of the main purposes of the FDCPA is to eliminate abusive
debt collection practices by debt collectors.  There may very
well be situations where reporting or threatening to report a
debt to a credit reporting agency would constitute an abusive
debt collection practice. In the present case, however, as
discussed below, the Court concludes that ARC's report of the
plaintiff's valid debt to Equifax was not an abusive debt
collection practice. Therefore, the question of whether reporting
a debt to a consumer reporting agency constitutes a collection
activity for purposes of FDCPA is a question which this Court
need not presently decide.

The defendant argues that it is entitled to summary judgment as
to all of plaintiff's claims.

Counts I-V: 15 U.S.C. Sections 1692e, 1692e(2)(A), 1692e(5),
1692e(9), 1692e(10)

In the present case, it is undisputed that the debt incurred by
the plaintiff was a valid debt and ARC reported this valid debt
to Equifax. The plaintiff has provided no factual evidence that
ARC reported a false amount, or misled Equifax by representing an
invalid debt as valid. Further, there are no facts suggesting
that any threats were made to the plaintiff by ARC, nor are there
facts indicating ARC made any deceptive representations. In fact,
the plaintiff admits that the debt was valid, thus the material
facts are undisputed.

This Court finds as a matter of law that ARC's reporting of a
valid debt to Equifax was not a false, deceptive, or misleading
representation in connection with the collection of a debt.
Therefore, summary judgment in favor of the defendant is
appropriate for count one.

Furthermore, counts two through five allege specific conduct
which constitute false, deceptive, or misleading representations
in connection with the collection of a debt. Therefore, the
Court's finding as to count one necessarily entails these counts
as well, and summary judgment in favor of the defendant is also
appropriate for counts two through five.

Count VI: 15 U.S.C. Section 1692f

This provision of the FDCPA states that a debt collector may not
use unfair or unconscionable means to collect or attempt to
collect any debt.

The plaintiff has not provided any facts whatsoever, nor any
controlling case, to support a finding that reporting a valid
debt to a consumer credit agency is in any way unfair or
unconscionable. The Court concludes that ARC's reporting of
plaintiff's valid debt to Equifax was not an unfair or
unconscionable means to collect on the debt. Therefore, summary
judgment in favor of the defendant is appropriate for count six.

Class Action Certification

Because the defendant is entitled to summary judgment in its
favor as to all counts, this Court need not consider the
arguments raised in the defendant's motion against class
certification.

The Court, accordingly, ordered that the plaintiff's motion for
partial summary judgment is denied and the defendant's motion for
summary judgment is granted.

A full-text copy of the District Court's December 18, 2017
Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/y9gwehye from Leagle.com.

Sandra K Watson, Plaintiff, represented by Alan C. Lee, Alan C.
Lee, Attorney, Po Box 1357, 518 W 3rd North St, Morristown Tn
37814 3943, Talbott, TN, 37877-1357

ARC Management Group, LLC, Defendant, represented by Thomas C.
Jessee, Jessee & Jessee, 412 E. Unaka Avenue. O. Box 997Johnson
City, TN 37605


ASSURANCE TECHNOLOGIES: Certification of FLSA Collective Sought
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled Bart Deardorff And Phillip Ebbesen,
individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, as
class representative under Illinois Law and/or as members of the
Collective as permitted under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the
Plaintiffs v. Assurance Technologies, INC. and Kenneth J Losacco
and Maria Losacco as individuals under FLSA and Illinois Wage
Laws, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-09263 (N.D. Ill.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order:

   a) certifying a Fair Labor Standards Act Collective and
      allowing an opt-in period of 90 days;

   b) directing Defendants to produce the full names, aliases,
      addresses, phone numbers, email addresses and last date(s)
      of performance of all potential putative class members who
      worked for Defendants, the last known work and home
      physical and email addresses and phone numbers of all
      salaried employees who worked for Defendant three years
      from date of the Court's Order to the present, no later
      than two weeks after the date of the entry of the Order;

   c) approving a notice based on a form to be submitted by the
      parties; and

   d) approving transmittal of the Notice to members of the class
      via US Mail, email, and text message.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=U0LGhvCW

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          John C. Ireland, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF JOHN C. IRELAND
          636 Spruce Street
          South Elgin ILL 60177
          Telephone: (630) 464 9675
          Facsimile: (630) 206 0889
          E-mail: attorneyireland@gmail.com
                  attorneyireland@gmail.com


BARRACUDA NETWORKS: Faces "Bushansky" Suit Over Thoma Merger Plan
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Bushansky, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Barracuda Networks, Inc., William Jenkins, Jr.,
Jeffry R. Allen, Michael D. Perone, John H. Kispert, Chet Kapoor,
and Stephen P. Mullaney, Case No. 5:18-cv-00191-BLF (N.D. Cal.,
January 9, 2017), is brought on behalf of all public stockholders
of Barracuda Networks, Inc., to enjoin the vote on a proposed
transaction, pursuant to which Barracuda will be acquired by
Thoma Bravo, LLC, through Project Deep Blue Holdings, LLC and
Newco's wholly-owned subsidiary, Project Deep Blue Merger Corp
for approximately $1.6 billion.

According to the complaint, Barracuda filed a Preliminary Proxy
Statement on Schedule 14A with U.S Securities and Exchange
Commission, which recommends that Barracuda stockholders vote in
favor of the Proposed Transaction. However, the Proxy omits or
misrepresents material information concerning, among other
things: (i) Barracuda's financial projections, relied upon by
Barracuda's financial advisor Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC; (ii) the
data and inputs underlying the financial valuation analyses that
support the fairness opinion provided by Morgan Stanley; (iii)
the background process leading to the Proposed Transaction; and
(iv) Morgan Stanley's and Company insiders' potential conflicts
of interest. The failure to adequately disclose such material
information constitutes a violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a)
of the Exchange Act as Barracuda stockholders need such material
information in order to cast a fully-informed vote or seek
appraisal in connection with the Proposed Transaction, says the
complaint.

Barracuda Networks, Inc. is a Delaware corporation which delivers
powerful security and data protection to address security
threats, improve network performance and protect and store data.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joel E. Elkins, Esq.
      WEISSLAW LLP
      9107 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 450
      Beverly Hills, CA 90210
      Telephone: (310) 208-2800
      Facsimile: (310) 209-2348
      E-mail: jelkins@weisslawllp.com

         - and -

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


BEVERLY HEALTH: Feb. 5 Hearing on Proposed "Ahmed" Class Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
California issued an Order Continuing Date for Hearing on
Proposed Class Action Settlement and Vacating Pre-Trial and Trial
Dates in the case captioned HENNA AHMED, an individual,
Plaintiff, v. BEVERLY HEALTH AND REHABILITATION SERVICES, INC.;
GGNSC ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, LLC and Does 1-100, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-01747-WBS-KJN (E.D. Cal.).

The hearing set for January 22, 2018, is continued until February
5, 2018, at 1:30 p.m.  The February 12, 2018 pre-trial conference
and the March 13, 2018 trial dates are vacated.

A full-text copy of the District Court's December 18, 2017 Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/yaq9x58d from Leagle.com.

Henna Ahmed, Plaintiff, represented by Robert Joshua Wasserman --
rwasserman@mayallaw.com -- Mayall Hurley P.C.

Beverly Health and Rehabilitation Services, Inc., a California
Corporation, Defendant, represented by Adriana Cara --
adriana.cara@dinsmore.com -- Dinsmore & Shohl LLP, Andrew B.
Millar -- drew.millar@dinsmore.com -- Dinsmore & Shohl LLP, pro
hac vice, Charles Matthew Roesch -- chuck.roesch@dinsmore.com --
Dinsmore and Shohl LLP, pro hac vice, Jessica Grace Wilson --
jessica.wilson@dinsmore.com -- Dinsmore & Shohl LLP & Susan
Jackson -- susan.jackson@dinsmore.com -- Dinsmore & Shohl LLP,
pro hac vice.

GGNSC Administrative Services, LLC, a Delaware Corporation,
Defendant, represented by Adriana Cara, Dinsmore & Shohl LLP,
Andrew B. Millar, Dinsmore & Shohl LLP, pro hac vice, Charles
Matthew Roesch, Dinsmore and Shohl LLP, pro hac vice, Jessica
Grace Wilson, Dinsmore & Shohl LLP & Susan Jackson, Dinsmore &
Shohl LLP, pro hac vice.


BMW AG: "Williams" Suit over Vehicle Defects Underway
-----------------------------------------------------
The motion by BMW of North America LLC to consolidate certain
class action lawsuits including the case titled, Chris Williams,
Ashok Patel, Kenneth Gagnon, Michael Cerny, Erhan Arat, Andre
Malske, Craig Lash and Nicole Guy, on behalf of themselves and
the Putative Class, the Plaintiffs, v. BMW of North America LLC
and Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft, the Defendants,
Case No. 2:17-cv-11567-WHW-CLW, (D. N.J., November 13, 2017),
remains pending.

In his Dec. 18 Order, Judge William H. Walls set the Motion for
hearing Jan. 16.  "Unless otherwise directed by the Court, this
motion will be decided on the papers and no appearances are
required," the judge had said.

The case seeks actual damages and other equitable relief based on
inherent design defects of BMW vehicles with the BMW N26 and BMW
N20 engines.

The lawsuit says Defendant omitted from Plaintiffs and the other
members of the Class, and all others in the chain of
distribution, the existence of the Defect and failed to remove
the Class Vehicles from the marketplace or take appropriate
remedial action. Had Plaintiffs and other members of the Class
known of the Defect at the time of purchase or lease, they would
not have bought or leased their vehicles, or would have paid
substantially less for them.

BMW of North America, LLC is the distributor and warrantor of the
Vehicles in the United States.[BN]

Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Bruce H. Nagel, Esq.
     NAGEL RICE, LLP
     103 Eisenhower Parkway
     Roseland, New Jersey 07068
     Telephone: (973) 618-0400
     Email: bnagel@nagelrice.com

          - and -

     Joseph Santoli, Esq.
     340 Devon Court
     Ridgewood, New Jersey 07450
     Telephone: (201) 926-9200
     Email: josephsantoli@aol.com

Counsel For Defendant(s):

     Argia J. Dimarco, Esq.
     Christopher J. Dalton, Esq.
     Rosemary Joan Bruno, Esq.
     BUCHANAN INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC
     550 Broad Street, Suite 810
     Newark, NJ 07102
     Tel: (973) 424-5603
          (973) 273-9800
     Fax: (973) 273-9430
     E-mail: argia.dimarco@bipc.com
     E-mail: christopher.dalton@bipc.com
     E-mail: rosemary.bruno@bipc.com

          - and -

     Daniel Zev Rivlin, Esq.
     BUCHANAN INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC
     1290 Avenue of the Americas, 30th Floor
     New York, NY 10104
     Tel: (212) 440-4400
     E-mail: daniel.rivlin@bipc.com


CACERES DRYWALL: March 20 Settlement Conference in "Blanco" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Andrea M. Simonton on January 16, 2018, entered
an order Setting Settlement Conference for March 20 at 9:00 a.m.,
in the case, Juan Carlos Flores Blanco, for himself and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Caceres Drywall
Corp. and Jorge E. Caceres, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-
24129-KMM, (S.D. Fla., November 9, 2017).

Blanco on November 15, 2017, filed a First Amended Complaint.

The Plaintiff worked for Defendants as a plaster finisher from
November 15, 2016, through November 3, 2017, in which he worked
an average of 54 hours a week. However, the Plaintiff was never
paid the extra half time rate for any hours worked over 40 hours
in a week as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act.[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Neil Tobak, Esq.
     Rivkah Fay Jaff, Esq.
     Jamie H. Zidell, Esq.
     J.H. ZIDELL P.A.
     300 71st Suite 605
     Miami Beach, FL 33141
     Telephone: (305) 865-6766
     E-mail: ntobak.zidellpa@gmail.com
     E-mail: Rivkah.Jaff@gmail.com
     E-mail: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM

Counsel For Defendant(s):

     Adi Amit, Esq.
     Joshua Howard Sheskin, Esq.
     LUBELL & ROSEN, LLC
     200 S. Andrews Avenue, Suite 900
     Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
     Telephone: (954) 880-9500
     Facsimile: (954) 755-2993
     E-mail: adi@lubellrosen.com
     E-mail: jhs@lubellrosen.com


CAPITAL MANAGEMENT: "Lee" Action Disputes Collection Letter
-----------------------------------------------------------
Sandra Lee, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, vs. Capital Management Services, L.P.,
Defendant, Case No. 17-cv-13221, (D. N.J., December 18, 2017),
seeks statutory and actual damages, declaratory and injunctive
relief, costs of this action, including reasonable attorneys'
fees and expenses, prejudgment interest and post-judgment
interest and such other and further relief under the Fair Debt
Collections Practices Act.

Prior to November 9, 2016, Plaintiff allegedly incurred a
financial obligation to Barclays Bank Delaware over purchases
made on a credit card. Barclays transferred or assigned the
obligation to Capital Management for collection. Defendant sent
Plaintiff a collection letter who then requested for debt
verification. Said collection letter failed to indicate that
interest was still accruing on the debt, the complaint says. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lawrence C. Hersh, Esq.
      17 Sylvan Street, Suite 102B
      Rutherford, NJ 07070
      Tel: (201) 507-6300
      Fax: (201) 507-6311
      Email: lh@hershlegal.com


CERTIFIED EMS: "Fleming" Action Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay
---------------------------------------------------------
Laurie Fleming, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Certified EMS, Inc. (d/b/a CPNS
Staffing), Godson Uchenna Kanu, Individually and CHG Cornerstone
Hospital of Houston, L.P. and Cornerstone Hospital of
Houstonbellaire, Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-03796 (S.D. Tex.,
December 18, 2017), seeks to recover compensable damages caused
by Defendants' violations of federal securities laws and pursue
remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Certified EMS, Inc. is a medical staffing agency that provides
registered nurses, licensed vocational nurses, certified nursing
associates and allied healthcare technicians in the healthcare
industry. Fleming, a registered nurse, is a former employee of
Defendants, who was staffed by CPNS to perform work for
Cornerstone Hospital of Houston, among other hospitals and
medical facilities. Plaintiff worked more than forty hours in a
work week for Defendants, but was not paid the overtime rate of
pay, says the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      J. Moises Cedillos, Esq.
      CEDILLOS LAW FIRM, PLLC
      3801 Kirby Drive, Suite 510
      Houston, TX 77098
      Telephone: (832) 900-9456
      Facsimile: (832) 900-9456
      Email: moises@cedilloslaw.com

             - and -

      John M. Padilla, Esq.
      PADILLA & RODRIGUEZ, L.L.P.
      5433 Westheimer, Suite 825
      Houston, TX 77056
      Telephone: (713) 574-4600
      Facsimile: (713) 574-4601
      Email: jpadilla@pandrlaw.com


CHEVRON CORP: Court Compels Arbitration in Site Managers' Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California issued an Order granting Defendant's Motion to Compel
Arbitration in the case captioned CHRISTOPHER McQUEEN, JAMES
O'NEAL, and DONNIE CUMMINGS, on behalf of themselves and other
similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public,
Plaintiffs, v. CHEVRON CORPORATION, CHEVRON U.S.A., INC. and DOES
1-50, inclusive, Defendants, No. C 16-02089 JSW (N.D. Cal.).

Now before the Court are four motions filed by Defendants Chevron
Corporation and Chevron U.S.A. Inc. to compel arbitration or, in
the alternative, to dismiss (1) Plaintiff Bobby Richardson's
claims; (2) the claims of opt-in plaintiffs Charles Beaty, Kevin
Caudill, Bennie Joe Gipson, Scott Mathis, Armando Medina, William
Perry, Michael Roberts, and Bryan Wood; (3) Plaintiff Charles E.
Coleman, Jr.'s claims; and (4) Plaintiff Ted Nunnery's claims.

Plaintiffs sought and were granted preliminary certification of a
collective action for their claim under the Fair Labor Standards
Act (FLSA) on behalf of well site/drill site managers (Site
Managers) who were allegedly denied proper compensation as
required by federal wage and hour laws. The Court granted
preliminary certification of all persons who have worked for
Defendants Chevron Corporation and Chevron U.S.A., Inc. as Site
Managers who were classified as independent contractors or
consultants and were paid a day rate at any time within three
years of the filing of this action through the trial.
Chevron moves to compel arbitration and to stay the various
plaintiffs' claims in favor of arbitration on the grounds that
these plaintiffs should be compelled by contract to submit their
claims to arbitration.

Pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), arbitration
agreements shall be valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, save
upon such grounds that exist at law or in equity for the
revocation of any contract.

Plaintiff Bobby Richardson's Claims

Chevron contends that Bobby Richardson, a drill site manager who
performed services for Chevron on behalf of ExPert E&P
Consultants (EEP) should be compelled to arbitrate his wage and
hour claims against them pursuant to a valid and enforceable
arbitration agreement with EEP with whom he entered a consultancy
agreement on January 1, 2008.

In his opposition to the motion, Plaintiff Richardson contends
that the arbitration agreements are unenforceable for various
reasons. First, Richardson argues that his claims are statutory
and have nothing to do with contractual obligations.

Second, Richardson argues that the arbitration agreements should
not be enforced because they are unconscionable.

Although this failure obviates the need to address Richardson's
contentions regarding substantive unconscionability, the Court
similarly finds Plaintiff has failed to meet his burden on this
question as well. Richardson's substantive challenge to his
consultancy agreements pertain to terms other than the
arbitration clause.  Richardson's attack is not on the
arbitration provision, but rather is focused on the fee splitting
related to the mediation provision of the contracts. However, no
party has sought to enforce the mediation provision, thereby
rendering it irrelevant here. Accordingly, Plaintiff Richardson
has failed to sustain his burden to demonstrate that the
applicable arbitration provisions are either procedurally or
substantively unconscionable.

Cenergy Opt-In Plaintiffs' Claims

Chevron separately moves to compel arbitration of the Cenergy
Opt-In Plaintiffs also on the basis that these plaintiffs are
bound to arbitrate their unpaid overtime claims against Chevron
pursuant to valid and enforceable arbitration agreements with
Cenergy International Services, LLC (Cenergy).

The Cenergy Opt-In Plaintiffs contend that the agreements are
unconscionably one-sided in that other provisions in the
agreements beside the arbitration clauses indicate an insidious
pattern of one-sided benefits to the employer over the plaintiff
workers.  Plaintiffs also contend the agreements are
unconscionable as a result of a provision requiring plaintiffs to
provide notice to Cenergy and to mediate in the first instance in
the event of a dispute with Cenergy or one of its customers.

With regard to all of these arguments concerning clauses in the
contract aside from the arbitration provision, the law is clear:
unless the challenge is to the arbitration clause itself, the
issue of the contract's validity is considered by the arbitrator
in the first instance. Further, the indemnification clause is a
matter being addressed in a pending declaratory action filed by
Cummings who stipulated to dismissal of his claims and their
submission to binding arbitration, the mediation provisions are
not invoked here, and the carve-out exception provides only an
interim provisional remedy in connection with an otherwise
arbitrable controversy.

The Court does not find that Cenergy Opt-In Plaintiffs have
carried their burden to demonstrate the contracts are
unconscionably one-sided and any provision meeting with the
arbitrator's disapproval may be severed according to the
provisions in the underlying contracts.

Plaintiff Charles E. Coleman, Jr.'s Claims

Chevron contends that Charles E. Coleman, Jr., a drill site
manager who performed services for Chevron on behalf of Fircroft
should be compelled to arbitrate his wage and hour claims against
them pursuant to a valid and enforceable arbitration agreement
with Fircroft with whom he entered contract for services on
October 2, 2013.

The Court finds Coleman must arbitrate his claims. The Court is
similarly unconvinced by Coleman's contentions that his claims
sound in statutory violation and therefore have nothing to do
with his contractual obligations.

Here, Coleman's unpaid overtime claim relates to and is in
connection with his services agreement with Fircroft because it
was pursuant to that agreement that he performed work for Chevron
and the contract set the terms of his compensation for that work.
Coleman's contention that he was required first to notify
Fircroft's Human Resources department before submitting his
claims to binding arbitration does not negate the requirement
that the parties agreed to arbitrate their disputes.

Plaintiff Ted Nunnery's Claims

Finally, Chevron moves to compel arbitration for the claims filed
by Plaintiff Ted Nunnery, a well site manager who performed
services for Chevron on behalf of New Tech Global Ventures, LLC
(New Tech). Chevron argues Nunnery should be compelled to
arbitrate his wage and hour claims against them pursuant to a
valid and enforceable arbitration agreement with New Tech with
whom he entered consultant contract for services on January 1,
2010.

Again, Nunnery argues that the scope of his statutory employment
claims does not sound in or relate to the contract. However,
Nunnery's claims for unpaid overtime wages arises directly from
the services he performed under the consultancy contract. It was
pursuant to the agreement with New Tech that he performed the
services for Chevron. The contract prescribed the compensation he
was to be paid for providing professional consulting services and
personnel for well site operations.

Again, the Court finds Chevron is entitled to enforce the
arbitration agreements under the doctrine of estoppel and by
virtue of their standing as third-party beneficiaries.

Accordingly, the motions to compel arbitration are granted.

A full-text copy of the District Court's December 18, 2017
Memorandum is available at https://tinyurl.com/y9ngod8a from
Leagle.com.

Christopher McQueen, on behalf of themselves and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel S. Brome --
dbrome@nka.com -- Nichols Kaster, LLP.

Christopher McQueen, on behalf of themselves and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Matthew C. Helland --
helland@nka.com -- Nichols Kaster, LLP.

James O'Neal, on behalf of themselves and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel S. Brome, Nichols
Kaster, LLP & Matthew C. Helland, Nichols Kaster, LLP.

Donnie Cummings, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel S. Brome,
Nichols Kaster, LLP & Matthew C. Helland, Nichols Kaster, LLP.
Chevron Corporation, Defendant, represented by Theodore J.
Boutrous, Jr. -- tboutrous@gibsondunn.com -- Attorney at Law
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Catherine A. Conway --
cconway@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Jesse A.
Cripps, Jr. -- jcripps@gibsondunn.com --  Gibson Dunn & Crutcher
LLP, Justin Tyler Goodwin -- jgoodwin@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson
Dunn and Crutcher, Michele Leigh Maryott --
mmaryott@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP & Sarah
Zenewicz -- szenewicz@gibsondunn.com -Gibson, Dunn and Crutcher.

Chevron U.S.A. Inc., Defendant, represented by Catherine A.
Conway, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Jesse A. Cripps, Jr., Gibson
Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Justin Tyler Goodwin, Gibson Dunn and
Crutcher, Michele Leigh Maryott, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP &
Sarah Zenewicz, Gibson, Dunn and Crutcher.


CINEMARK USA: "Fledderman" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Robert Fledderman, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Cinemark USA, Inc., Defendants,
Case No. 17-cv-00381 (S.D. Tex., December 18, 2017), seeks to
recover overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys'
fees and costs, pursuant to the provisions the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938.

Cinemark USA, Inc. is movie theatre chain owned by Cinemark
Holdings, Inc. and operates throughout the United States under
several brands, including its flagship Cinemark, Century
Theatres, Tinseltown USA, CinÇArts and Rave Cinemas. Fledderman
worked for Cinemark at a Century 16 theater in Corpus Christi as
an Assistant Manager. He claims that he did not receive overtime
for all hours worked in excess of forty in a workweek. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Clif Alexander, Esq.
      Lauren E. Braddy, Esq.
      Carter T. Hastings, Esq.
      ANDERSON2X, PLLC
      819 N. Upper Broadway
      Corpus Christi, TX 78401
      Tel: (361) 452-1279
      Fax: (361) 452-1284
      Email: clif@a2xlaw.com
             lauren@a2xlaw.com
             carter@a2xlaw.com


COMPASS BANK: Faces "Andrade" Suit Over Default Interest Rate
-------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Andrade, Sr. and Elizabeth M. Andrade, individually and as
the representative of a class of similarly-situated persons v.
Compass Bank d/b/a BBVA Compass and Taherzadeh, PLLC, Case No.
1:18-cv-00019 (W.D. Tex., January 9, 2018), is brought against
the Defendants for breach of contract and violations of the Truth
in Lending Act, specifically by improperly charging an increased
"default" interest rate of 18% on the subject home equity line of
credit loan.

Compass Bank is an Alabama banking corporation, with its
principal place of business at 401 West Valley Avenue, Homewood,
Alabama 35209.

Taherzadeh, PLLC is a law firm that represents BBVA in
foreclosure and other collection lawsuits. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Phillip A. Bock, Esq.
      Tod A. Lewis, Esq.
      BOCK, HATCH, LEWIS & OPPENHEIM, LLC
      134 N. LaSalle St., Ste. 1000
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Telephone: (312) 658-5500
      Facsimile: (312) 658-5555
      E-mail: service@classlawyers.com

         - and -

      Amy E. Clark, Esq.
      AMY CLARK LAW
      11801 Domain Blvd., 3rd Floor
      Austin, TX 78758
      Telephone: (512) 850-5290
      Facsimile: (626) 737-6030
      E-mail: amy@amyclarklaw.com


CORRECTIONS CORP: Court Grants Move to Dismiss Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court of the Middle District of
Tennessee, Nashville Division, issued a Memorandum granting
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the case captioned NIKKI BOLLINGER
GRAE, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF AMERICA, DAMON
T. HININGER, DAVID M. GARFINKLE, TODD J. MULLENGER, and HARLEY G.
LAPPIN, Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-2267 (M.D. Tenn.).

Pending before the court is a Motion to Dismiss filed by
CoreCivic (formerly Corrections Corporation of America), Damon T.
Hininger, David M. Garfinkle, Todd J.  J. Mullenger, and Harley
G. Lappin (Individual Defendants) (CoreCivic).

CoreCivic is a publicly traded real estate investment trust
(REIT) that owns and operates correctional, detention, and
residential reentry facilities.  Due to the nature of its
business, CoreCivic relies on federal, state, and local
governments as clients. In the period from CoreCivic's federal
clients, including the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) and
Immigration and Customs Enforcement, accounted for between 43%
and 51% of the company's annual revenue.  In particular,
CoreCivic's BOP contracts which covered five facilities
collectively housing approximately 8,000 inmates were responsible
for between 11% and 13%2 of CoreCivic's annual revenue.

Nikki Bollinger Grae filed a Class Action Complaint in this case.
Notice of the suit was published in accordance with the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PSLRA), 15 U.S.C.
Section78u-4(a)(3)(A)(i), and Amalgamated filed a timely motion
to be appointed lead plaintiff, Amalgamated claimed to have
purchased or acquired almost 159,000 shares of CoreCivic stock
and suffered over $1.2 million in losses as a result of the
conduct covered by the suit. The court granted Amalgamated's
motion, appointing it the lead plaintiff for the case.
Amalgamated filed an Amended Complaint on March 13, 2017. The
Amended Complaint pleads one claim for violation of Section 10(b)
of the Securities and Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 78j(b), and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, 17 C.F.R. Section 240.10b-5,
and one count for violation of Section 20(a) of the Act, 15
U.S.C. Section 78t(a).

CoreCivic argues that Amalgamated's Complaint fails to state a
Section 10(b) claim in three regards: (1) it has failed to plead,
with particularity, any actionable misstatements or omissions of
material facts; (2) it has failed to plead loss causation; and
(3) it has failed to plead facts sufficient to support a strong
inference of scienter, as required by the heightened pleading
standards imposed by Congress on securities fraud cases.

Actionable Statements

Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder prohibit fraudulent, material
misstatements or omissions in connection with the sale or
purchase of a security. To state a securities fraud claim under
Section 10(b), a plaintiff must allege, in connection with the
purchase or sale of securities, the misstatement or omission of a
material fact, made with scienter, upon which the plaintiff
justifiably relied and which proximately caused the plaintiff's
injury.

Falsity

By the time Hininger made his March 30, 2016 claim that
CoreCivic's "record of operational excellence" had "earned it the
confidence of its government partners," CoreCivic had already
received numerous Notices of Concern documenting chronic
deficiencies related to, among other things, inadequate health
services and understaffing in its BOP facilities. Those
deficiencies had been linked to a deadly riot at Adams and the
mishandling of the health needs of a number of prisoners,
including prisoners who died in CoreCivic's care. CoreCivic
personnel had ample reason to believe that the BOP took these
issues seriously, given that, among other things, the BOP had
expressly threatened to terminate its Cibola contract early due
to health services deficiencies the year before.

Moreover, the BOP's long history of complaints to CoreCivic not
only alerted CoreCivic to the specific deficiencies cited, but
also gave CoreCivic numerous examples of the BOP's concrete
expectations under its contracts. A reasonable juror could
conclude that CoreCivic's statements, in context, were false or
misleading because they ran directly counter to a wealth of
available evidence establishing that its operations had
pervasively failed to live up to the quality standards of the
BOP.

Materiality

While the question of falsity requires the court to compare the
facts on the ground to the substance of the defendants'
statements, the materiality inquiry requires the court to place
itself in the shoes of a reasonable investor deciding whether to
buy, sell, or retain the company's stock. In so doing, the court
must consider the effect of the relevant statements on a
detached, probability-minded assessment of the company's future
value.

CoreCivic's statements about its history of meeting clients'
quality expectations are similar to the statements found by the
Sixth Circuit to meet the pleading requirements for materiality
in In re Omnicare. In that case, the defendant healthcare
corporation's annual reports stated, "We believe that our billing
practices materially comply with applicable state and federal
requirements," and "We believe that we are in compliance in all
material respects with federal, state and local laws."

The Sixth Circuit noted that "one might be skeptical of whether a
reasonable investor would put much stock in Omnicare's statements
regarding legal compliance. Moreover, the vague language that the
defendant had used left it a great amount of wiggle room.
Nevertheless, the court noted, context matters when analyzing
materiality. The court concluded that a reasonable jury, looking
at the full context of the defendant's statements including its
recent history of legal problems surrounding non-compliance could
conclude that the statements were material. Similarly, a
reasonable jury could look at the history of controversy
surrounding CoreCivic and the issue of prison privatization, as
well as CoreCivic's admitted vulnerability to shifts in
government policy, and conclude that CoreCivic's assurances of
the quality of its services and its history of client
satisfaction were material.

It may be that CoreCivic can show that the numerous Notices of
Concern and adverse review findings it received were so
commonplace in contract prison administration that its executives
truly were in the dark about the peril facing their relationship
with the BOP. It may also be that CoreCivic can show that its own
internal quality control systems had not alerted CoreCivic
executives to the extent of its quality problems and what those
problems meant for its client relationships. Both of those
issues, though, go to scienter, not falsity or materiality.

For the purposes of showing falsity and materiality, it is
sufficient that Amalgamated has pled that CoreCivic and its
executives repeatedly claimed or suggested that the company's
history of quality services had gained it the faith and esteem of
its government partners, when, in fact, the perceived low quality
of its services was leading one of its most important client
relationships to the brink of collapse. The court will not
dismiss Amalgamated's claims for having insufficiently pled
falsity or materiality.

Loss Causation

A Section 10(b) plaintiff must plead facts showing a causal link
between the alleged misconduct and the economic harm ultimately
suffered by the plaintiff.

CoreCivic points out that Amalgamated has not specifically
alleged any losses that occurred between the release of the OIG
Review and the Yates Memorandum. CoreCivic argues that, by
Amalgamated's own version of events, the OIG Review unveiled many
of the deficiencies that CoreCivic had previously concealed,
meaning that the market onto which the Yates Memorandum was
released was one that had already accounted for CoreCivic's
shortfalls. Determining the degree to which that is true,
however, would require an in-depth analysis of both the OIG
Review and the market assumptions underlying CoreCivic's
interpretation of events. Such fact- and expertise-intensive
questions are unnecessary and often impossible to resolve at the
pleading stage. The court will not dismiss Amalgamated's claims
for having insufficiently pled loss causation.

Scienter

The PSLRA imposes exacting requirements for pleading scienter.
The plaintiff must, with respect to each act or omission alleged
state with particularity facts giving rise to a strong inference
that the defendant acted with the required state of mind. To
qualify as strong an inference of scienter must be more than
merely plausible or reasonable it must be cogent and at least as
compelling as any opposing inference of non-fraudulent intent.
As Amalgamated points out, CoreCivic's own public statements
about its quality assurance practices go a long way toward
overcoming that hurdle. CoreCivic's 2011 Annual Report boasts of
the company's rigorous and comprehensive" monitoring of
performance "across disciplines, divisions, business units and
the Company as a whole. The resulting QA information, CoreCivic
stressed, was not merely siloed away in the QAD, but provided to
and relied upon by "senior management" as a major part of
CoreCivic's continuous operational risk assessment and management
process.

At the very least, CoreCivic's own statements establish that (1)
the company engaged in ongoing monitoring and analysis of the
quality of its services and (2) key CoreCivic decision makers
were made aware of the results thereof. The information provided
by FE1 completes the picture by confirming that (3) the ongoing
QAD tracking included the results of BOP audits and Notices of
Concern and (4) Hininger, Mullenger, and Lappin were among the
senior executives who routinely received QAD information.8
The PSLRA does not require a plaintiff to definitively rule out
non-fraudulent explanations of a defendant's behavior or even to
establish, at the complaint stage, that the scales tip decidedly
in favor of a finding of scienter. Rather, the court must simply
consider all possible inferences and determine whether the
inference of scienter is at least as strong as any opposing
inference. It is certainly possible that CoreCivic executives did
not understand just how badly the deficiencies at its BOP
facilities had damaged or threatened to damage the company's
relationship with the DOJ. At least as likely, however, is the
explanation offered by Amalgamated: that CoreCivic's executives
were fully apprised of the company's history of falling short of
BOP expectations and knowingly chose to conceal that history in
the hope that the underlying risk of lost business would never
come to fruition.

The PSLRA sets a high bar for a plaintiff attempting to plead
scienter. Construing that high bar as an insurmountable one,
however, would transform that Act into a sub rosa repeal of
Section 10(b). CoreCivic has identified no evidence that Congress
intended such a result. Amalgamated has pled a clear, cogent, and
plausible account of how CoreCivic misled the market about its
history of performance relative to BOP expectations. Amalgamated
has further provided a concrete, plausible explanation of how and
why its executives would have been aware of facts contradicting
their public statements.

Finally, the specific practical realities of CoreCivic's
underlying business model strongly suggest that any reasonable
and competent executive would have paid attention to the very
issues that CoreCivic has identified, because meeting the
expectations of the federal government was absolutely central to
CoreCivic's continued success, or at least its success on
anything close to the scale it had achieved by the time of the
Class Period. While the inference that CoreCivic and its
executives acted knowingly may not be inexorable, it is certainly
at least as strong as any inference that they did not. That is
enough to satisfy Rule 12(b)(6), Rule 9(b), and the PSLRA.

For the reasons stated, the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss will be
denied.

A full-text copy of the District Court's December 18, 2017
Memorandum is available at https://tinyurl.com/yce5rkoy from
Leagle.com.

Nikki Bollinger Grae, Plaintiff, represented by Brian Schall --
brian@goldberglawpc.com -- Goldberg Law PC.

Nikki Bollinger Grae, Plaintiff, represented by J. Alexander
Hood, II -- ahood@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, Jeremy A.
Lieberman -- jalieberman@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, Marc Gorrie
-- mgorrie@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, Michael Goldberg --
michael@goldberglawpc.com -- Goldberg Law PC, Patrick V.
Dahlstrom -- pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, Paul Kent
Bramlett -- pknashlaw@aol.com -- Bramlett Law Offices & Robert P.
Bramlett -- robert@bramlettlawoffices.com -- Bramlett Law
Offices.

Luvell L. Glanton, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher T. Cain,
Scott & Cain, 550 Main Street, Suite 601. Bank of America Center.
Knoxville, TN 37902

Corrections Corporation of America, Defendant, represented by
Anna E. Berces -- anna.berces@lw.com -- Latham & Watkins, Brian
T. Glennon -- brian.glennon@lw.com -- Latham & Watkins LLP, David
J. Schindler -- daVid.schirzdler@lw. Com -- Latham & Watkins LLP,
Milton S. McGee, III -- tmcgee@rwjplc.com -- Riley, Warnock &
Jacobson, Morgan E. Whitworth -- morgan.whitworth@lw.com --
Latham & Watkins &Steven Allen Riley, Riley, Warnock & Jacobson.
Damon T. Hiniger, Defendant, represented by Anna E. Berces,
Latham & Watkins, Brian T. Glennon, Latham & Watkins LLP, David
J. Schindler, Latham & Watkins LLP, Milton S. McGee, III, Riley,
Warnock & Jacobson, Morgan E. Whitworth, Latham & Watkins &
Steven Allen Riley -- sriley@rwjplc. -- Riley, Warnock &
Jacobson.

David M. Garfinkle, Defendant, represented by Anna E. Berces,
Latham & Watkins, Brian T. Glennon, Latham & Watkins LLP, David
J. Schindler, Latham & Watkins LLP, Milton S. McGee, III, Riley,
Warnock & Jacobson, Morgan E. Whitworth, Latham & Watkins &
Steven Allen Riley, Riley, Warnock & Jacobson.

Todd J. Mullenger, Defendant, represented by Anna E. Berces,
Latham & Watkins, Brian T. Glennon, Latham & Watkins LLP, David
J. Schindler, Latham & Watkins LLP, Milton S. McGee, III, Riley,
Warnock & Jacobson, Morgan E. Whitworth, Latham & Watkins &
Steven Allen Riley, Riley, Warnock & Jacobson.

Harley G. Lappin, Defendant, represented by Anna E. Berces,
Latham & Watkins, Morgan E. Whitworth, Latham & Watkins & Steven
Allen Riley, Riley, Warnock & Jacobson.

CCA INVESTOR GROUP, Intervenor Plaintiff, represented by Paul
Kent Bramlett, Bramlett Law Offices.


CROWN BUILDING: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "Jimenez" Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
Elias Jimenez, on his own behalf and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Crown Building Maintenance, Co., Case No.
1:18-cv-00035-PAB (D. Col., January 5, 2018), is brought against
the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work in
excess of 40 hours per week.

Crown Building Maintenance, Co. offers general maintenance,
janitorial, construction cleanup, parking lot, solid waste
recycling, and pest control services, as well as provides
engineering, and integrated facility services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brandt Milstein, Esq.
      MILSTEIN LAW OFFICE
      1123 Spruce Street, Suite 200
      Boulder, CO 80302
      Telephone: (303) 440-8780
      Facsimile: (303) 957-5754
      E-mail: brandt@milsteinlawoffice.com


DAVID M. BLASKOVICH: Approval of Class Action Settlement Granted
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled Derrick Garrett, the Plaintiff, v. David M.
Blaskovich, P.C., et al., the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-00087
(N.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Manish S. Shah entered an order
granting the motion for final approval of class action settlement
and petition for attorneys' fees and costs.

According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on January 18,
2018, the Plaintiff is directed to submit the appropriate
proposed orders to proposed_order_shah@ilnd.uscourts.gov.

A copy of the Notice of Docket Entry is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=uCeFoIV4


DELTIC CORPORATION: Faces "Assad" Suit Over Potlatch Merger Plan
----------------------------------------------------------------
Goerge Assad, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Deltic Corporation, Robert C. Nolan, John D. Enlow,
Sr., Deborah M. Cannon, Randolph C. Coley, Bert H. Jones,
Christoph Keller, III, D. Mark Leland, R. Madison Murphy, R.
Hunter Pierson, Jr., Lenore M. Sullivan, Robert Tudor III,
Potlatch Corporation, and Portland Merger LLC, Case No. 1:18-cv-
01005-SOH (W.D. Ark., January 9, 2018), arises out of the
proposed transaction on October 23, 2017, pursuant to which
Deltic Timber Corporation will be acquired by Potlatch
Corporation and Portland Merger LLC. Pursuant to the terms on the
Merger Agreement, shareholders of Deltic will receive 1.80 shares
of Potlatch common stock for each share of Deltic stock they own.

According to the complaint, Deltic filed a Form S-4 Registration
Statement with U.S Securities and Exchange Commission, which
recommends that Deltic stockholders vote in favor of the Proposed
Transaction. However, the 4 Registration Statement omits or
misrepresents material information concerning, among other
things: (i) Deltic's financial projections, Potlach's financial
projections, and the financial analyses performed by the
Company's financial advisor, Goldman & Sachs & Co. LLC; (ii)
whether any non-disclosure agreements executed by the Company and
the prospective bidders contained standstill and/or "don't ask,
don't waive" provisions that are preventing those counter parties
from submitting superior offers to acquire the Company; and (iii)
potential conflicts of interest of Goldman Sachs.

Deltic Corporation is a natural resources company focused on the
efficient and environmentally responsible management of its land
holdings. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David G. Scott, Esq.
      EMERSON SCOTT, LLP
      700 Rock Street
      Little Rock, AR 72202
      Telephone: (501) 907-2555
      Facsimile: (501) 907-2556
      E-mail: dscott@emersonfirm.com

         - and -

      John G. Emerson, Esq.
      EMERSON SCOTT, LLP
      830 Apollo Lane
      Houston, TX 77058
      Telephone: (281) 488-8854
      Facsimile: (281) 488-8867
      E-mail: jemerson@emersonfirm.com

          - and -

      Brian D. Long, Esq.
      Gina M. Serra, Esq.
      RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
      300 Delaware, Suite 1220
      Wilmington, DE 19803
      Telephone: (302) 295-5310
      Facsimile: (302) 654-7530
      E-mail: bdl@rl-legal.com
              gms@rl-legal.com

         - and -

      Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
      RM LAW, PC
      1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 300
      Berwyn, PA
      Telephone: (484) 324-6800
      Facsimile: (484) 631-1305
      E-mail: rmaniskas@rmclasslaw.co


DELTIC TIMBER: Amonte Files Suit Over Potlatch Merger Deal
----------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Amonte, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Deltic Timber Corp., Robert C. Nolan,
John D. Enlow Sr., Deborah M. Cannon, Randolph C. Coley, Bert H.
Jones, Christoph Keller III, D. Mark Leland, R. Madison Murphy,
R. Hunter Pierson Jr., Lenore M. Sullivan and Robert Tudor III,
Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-01812, (D. Del., December 18, 2017),
seeks to enjoin defendants and all persons acting in concert with
them from proceeding with, consummating, or closing the proposed
merger between Deltic and a subsidiary of Potlatch Corporation,
rescinding it and setting it aside or awarding rescissory damages
in the event defendants consummate the merger.  The Plaintiff
further seeks costs of this action, including reasonable
allowance for attorneys' and experts' fees and such other and
further relief under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Deltic's shareholders stand to receive 1.80 shares of Potlatch
common stock for each share of Deltic stock they own,
representing approximately $1.16 billion in equity value.

Deltic Timber Corporation is a vertically integrated natural
resources company engaged in the growing and harvesting of timber
and the manufacturing and marketing of lumber and medium density
fiberboard.

The complaint says Defendants filed a proxy statement that failed
to include financial projections and valuation analyses performed
by its financial advisor, Goldman Sachs and Co.  Amonte claims
that the merger consideration appears inadequate in light of the
Company's recent financial performance and prospects for future
growth. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Nadeem Faruqi, Esq.
      James M. Wilson, Jr., Esq.
      FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
      685 Third Ave., 26th Fl.
      New Yor006B, NY 10017
      Telephone: (212) 983-9330
      Email: nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com
             jwilson@faruqilaw.com

             - and -

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


DENKA PERFORMANCE: "Taylor" Suit Seeks to Certify Class
-------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled ROBERT TAYLOR, JR., et al., the Plaintiffs,
v. DENKA PERFORMANCE ELASTOMER LLC and E.I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS AND
COMPANY, the Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-07668-MLCF-KWR (E.D.
La.), the Plaintiffs -- Robert Taylor, Jr., Kershell Bailey,
Shondrell P. Campbell, Gloria Dumas, Janell Emery, George Handy,
Annette Houston, Rogers Jackson, Michael Perkins, Allen Schnyder,
Jr., Larry Sorapuru, Sr., Kellie Tabb, and Robert Taylor, III
move the Court for an order:

   1. certifying case to proceed as a class action on behalf of:

      "all natural persons who have lived or been occupants of
      property within an area surrounding the Pontchartrain Works
      facility, that area bounded on the North by Interstate-10,
      on the West by the St. John the Baptist/St. James Parish
      boundary, on the South by Louisiana Highway 3127, on the
      East by the eastern boundary of the community of Killona on
      the West Bank of the Mississippi River and by the western
      boundary of the Bonnet Carre Spillway on the East Bank of
      the Mississippi River ("the defined area"), at any time
      from January 1, 2011, through the present";

   2. appointing class counsel; and

   3. deferring hearing until such time as the parties have had a
      reasonable opportunity to obtain discovery on class
      certification issues, as stated in Rule 23 and applicable
      subparts.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=VFwpg5pP

Counsel for Plaintiffs and all those similarly situated:

          Gladstone N. Jones, III
          Eberhard D. Garrison
          Lynn E. Swanson
          H.S. Bartlett III
          Kevin E. Huddell
          Emma E. Antin Daschbach
          Lindsay E. Reeves
          JONES, SWANSON, HUDDELL & GARRISON, LLC
          601 Poydras Street, Suite 2655
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Telephone: (504) 523 2500
          Facsimile: (504) 523 2508

               - and -

          Hugh P. Lambert, T.A., Esq.
          Cayce C. Peterson, Esq.
          Morgan Embleton, Esq.
          THE LAMBERT FIRM, PLC
          701 Magazine Street
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Telephone: (504) 581 1750
          Facsimile: (504) 529 2931

               - and -

          Sylvia Elaine Taylor, Esq.
          1126 W. Airline Highway
          LaPlace, LA 70068

               - and -

          Randal L. Gaines, Esq.
          7 Turnberry Drive, Esq.
          LaPlace, Louisiana 70068

               - and -

          Darryl J. Tschirn, Esq.
          7825 Fay Avenue, Suite 200
          LaJolla, CA 92037

               - and -

          John Cummings, Esq.
          CUMMINGS & CUMMINGS, LLC
          416 Gravier Street
          New Orleans, LA 70118
          Telephone: (504) 586 0000
          Facsimile: (504) 522 8423


DIANA CONTAINERSHIPS: "Austin" Suit Alleges Stock Manipulation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Emmanuel S. Austin, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Diana Containerships Inc.,
Symeon P. Palios, Andreas Michalopoulos and Anastasios
Margaronis, Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-07329 (E.D. N.Y., December
15, 2017), seeks to recover damages, prejudgment and post-
judgment interest, as well as their reasonable attorneys' fees,
expert fees and other costs and such other and further relief for
violation of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

Diana is a global provider of shipping transportation services
through its ownership of container ships. It is traded on NASDAQ
under the ticker symbol "DCIX."

According to the complaint, Diana engaged in manipulative share
issuance/sales transactions with Kalani Investments Ltd,
underwriter and distributor of Diana common stock, causing Diana
to sell its common shares and securities convertible into common
shares at a significant discount allowing Kalani to resell these
shares into the market. Diana would reverse split the stock,
causing a certain number of outstanding shares to be merged into
a single share, and thereby raising the price of Diana stock.
Then Diana would again sell securities to Kalani. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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

             - and -

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


DONALD J. TRUMP: Suit vs. President Junked for Lack of Standing
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts issued a Memorandum and Order dismissing for lack
of standing the complaint in the case captioned GEORGE KERSEY,
Plaintiff, v. DONALD J. TRUMP, Defendant, Civil Action No. 17-
11635-ADB (D. Mass.).  Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis is
granted.

Plaintiff George A. Kersey filed a self-prepared, class action
complaint naming Donald J. Trump, individually, as the sole
defendant.  With the complaint, Kersey also filed an Application
to Proceed in District Court without Prepaying Fees or Costs.

Kersey alleges that he is a citizen of Rhode Island and that he
receives mail at post office boxes in Framingham, Massachusetts,
and Narragansett, Rhode Island.  Kersey alleges that he
participated in the Second World War against Nazism and now files
the action "to defend the Constitution and to remove the
Defendant from office."  Kersey seeks to bring the suit as a
class action on behalf of more than 100 proposed class members
pursuant to the Tenth Amendment of the United States
Constitution.

Upon review of Kersey's motion to proceed in forma pauperis, the
Court concludes that he is without income or assets to pay the
$400.00 filing fee. Since plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the
Court will construe his complaint generously.

The Court concludes that Kersey's attempt to invoke the
jurisdiction of the Court falls short of the constitutional
requirements for standing. Kersey has failed to allege any direct
personal injury, actual or imminent, that he has suffered as a
result of Defendant's alleged actions. Despite Kersey's numerous
allegations concerning President Trump's fitness for office and
the damage allegedly caused, Kersey's challenge is essentially a
statement of dissatisfaction with various political decisions and
actions taken by President Trump.

Although Kersey describes harm that has been done to others,
including an allegation that the Defendant is partly responsible
for injuries sustained during recent protests in Charlottsville,
Virginia, as well as generalized harms, the complaint fails to
show how President Trump specifically injured Kersey in a manner
apart from the general population.  For example, alleging that
President Trump is opposed to climate change and was not elected
by popular vote, is not enough to demonstrate that Kersey has
standing to file this lawsuit.  Thus, the complaint must be
dismissed for lack of standing.

A full-text copy of the District Court's December 18, 2017
Memorandum and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y8qb9q6h
from Leagle.com.

George Kersey, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, Pro Se.


DONISI JAX: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Campbell" Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Malcolm Campbell, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Donisi Jax, Inc. d/b/a Nationwide Health
Advisors, Case No. 0:18-cv-60043-KMM (S.D. Fla., January 9,
2018), seeks to put an end to the Defendant's practice of placing
prerecorded and autodialed telemarketing telephone calls to
telephones without prior express written consent in violation of
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Donisi Jax, Inc. is an accident and health insurance agency with
its headquarters in Pompano Beach, Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Bradford R. Sohn, Esq.
      THE BRAD SOHN LAW FIRM, PLLC
      2600 South Douglas Road, Suite 1007
      Coral Gables, FL 33134
      Telephone: (786) 708-9750
      Facsimile: (305) 397-0650
      E-mail: brad@sohn.com

         - and -

      Jeremy M. Glapion, Esq.
      THE GLAPION LAW FIRM, LLC
      1704 Maxwell
      Drive Wall, NJ 07719
      Telephone: (732) 455-9737
      Facsimile: (732) 709-5150
      E-mail: jmg@glapionlaw.com


DYNAMIC LEDGER: Feb. 22 Deadline to Respond to "Gaviria" ICO Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Alejandro Gaviria, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Dynamic Ledger
Solutions, Inc.; Kathleen Breitman, Arthur Breitman and Tezos
Foundation, the Defendants, Case No. 6:17-cv-01959-PGB-KRS, (M.D.
Fla., November 13, 2017), Magistrate Judge Karla R. Spaulding
entered an order dated January 17, 2018, granting a Motion for
Extension of Time to Respond to Plaintiff's Complaint and
Incorporated Memorandum of Law.  The deadline for Defendant to
respond to the complaint is extended up to and including February
22, 2018.

The Plaintiff states that the class action is brought by him
individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated
investors who contributed more than $232 million worth of
cryptocurrency to an Initial Coin Offering by Defendants.
Defendants have purported that the funds they raised were
donations and not investments in an attempt to evade federal
securities laws and scrutiny from the investors. The Plaintiff
alleges violations of the Securities Act.[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     David Silver, Esq.
     Coral Springs, FL 33065
     SILVER MILLER
     11780 W Sample Rd
     Coral Springs, FL 33065
     Tel: (954) 516-6000

Defendant is represented by:

     John Armando Boudet, Esq.
     Shayne Ashley Thomas, Esq.
     GRAYROBINSON, PA
     301 East Pine Street, Suite 1400
     Post Office Box 3068 (32802-3068)
     Orlando, FL 32801
     Tel: (407) 843-8880
     Fax: (407) 244-5890
     E-mail: john.boudet@gray-robinson.com


ECLINICALWORKS LLC: CA Suit Will 'Make It Right' for Customers
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Sullivan, writing for Healthcare IT News, reports that
eClinicalWorks was charged in a class-action suit, the second
since its $155 million dollar False Claims settlement with the
U.S. Department of Justice on May 31, 2017.

The complaint alleges that the EHR vendor engaged in deceptive
practices that cost customers of Carrollton Family Clinic money
and caused them not to switch to a rival electronic health record
vendor.

eClinicalWorks, for its part, said "the allegations are wholly
without merit."

Mark Chalos, Esq. managing partner at the law firm Lieff Cabraser
Heimann & Bernstein LLP's, Nashville office, is named in the
complaint among attorneys representing the plaintiffs in
Carrollton Family Clinic v. eClinicalWorks.

"A significant number of eClinicalWorks customers are
dissatisfied and believe the software is not compliant with
government regulations and does not function as promised," Chalos
said.

Chalos added that the suit is asking the court to require that
eClinicalWorks both fix its software and put its hospital and
practice customers back in the position they were in before
encountering the problems with eClinicalWorks technology.

Under the initial False Claims settlement in May of last year,
the DOJ mandated that eClinicalWorks offer free upgrades of its
software or transfer data to rival EHR vendors if customers
elected to switch.

The vendor announced version 11 of the EHR at its annual user
group in October and CEO Girish Navani said in late November it
would be finalized on Dec. 15 and existing customers would
implement the cloud-based services in January and February of
2018.

Navani said during a previous interview that the company is
focusing on its internal compliance program to measure all the
checks and balances in the meaningful use criteria. It will
likely take until many, if not most, of the vendor's customers
implement eClinicalWorks 11 and use it to understand whether the
upgrade adequately fixed the known problems or not.

The Carrollton complaint document, however, suggests that any
eClinicalWorks customer who paid the vendor between Jan. 14, 2010
and May 30, 2017, could potentially be eligible under the class
action suit.

"Any company that puts out a product that doesn't perform as
promised should make it right for the customers. If they refuse
to make it right for the customers they are certainly at risk of
being held accountable in the civil justice system," Chalos said.
"I don't have any information at large that EHR vendors are
specifically bad but any company that cheats its customers should
make it right."

While the first suit, filed in mid-November, is seeking $999
million, Chalos said the new complaint does not allege a specific
dollar amount, other than to say "greater than $5 million," and,
as allowable under Massachusetts Consumer Protection Law Chapter
93A, asking for treble (or triple) damages.

"We don't know the full extent of the damages. We have not gotten
into the discovery process yet so it's difficult to put an exact
number on it at this point," Chalos said. "We expect to learn a
lot more about the exact number of potential class numbers and
the extent of the damages." [GN]


EDDIE BAUER: Court Continues Deadline to Answer SAC
---------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington issued an Order granting Defendant's Motion to
Continue Deadline to Answer in the case captioned VERIDIAN CREDIT
UNION, on behalf of itself and a class of similarly situated
financial institutions, Plaintiff, v. EDDIE BAUER LLC, Defendant,
No. 2:17-cv-00356-JLR (W.D. Wash.).

A full-text copy of the District Court's December 7, 2017 Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/y73okx98 from Leagle.com.

Veridian Credit Union, on behalf of itself and a class of
similarly situated financial institutions, Plaintiff, represented
by Brian C. Gudmundson -- brian.gudmundson@zimmreed.com --
ZIMMERMAN REED LLP, pro hac vice.

Veridian Credit Union, on behalf of itself and a class of
similarly situated financial institutions, Plaintiff, represented
by Bryan L. Bleichner -- bbleichner@chestnutcambronne.com --
CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PA, pro hac vice, Chase Christian Alvord --
calvord@tousley.com -- TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS, Erin Green Comite
-- ecomite@scott-scott.com -- SCOTT + SCOTT LLP, pro hac vice,
Gary F. Lynch -- glynch@carlsonlynch.com -- CARLSON LYNCH SWEET
KILPELA & CARPENTER, LLP, pro hac vice, Joseph P. Guglielmo --
jguglielmo@scott-scott.com -- SCOTT + SCOTT, ATTORNEYS AT LAW,
LLP. pro hac vice, Karen H. Riebel -- khriebel@locklaw.com --
LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN, pro hac vice, Kate M. Baxter-Kauf --
kmbaxter-kauf@locklaw.com --  LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN, pro hac
vice, Kevin W. Tucker -- ktucker@carlsonlynch.com -- CARLSON
LYNCH SWEET KILPELA & CARPENTER LLP, pro hac vice, Kim D.
Stephens -- kstephens@tousley.com -- TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS &
Stephen J. Teti -- steti@scott-scott.com --  SCOTT + SCOTT LLP,
pro hac vice.

Eddie Bauer LLC, Defendant, represented by Dyanne Cho --
dyanne.cho@lewisbrisbois.com -- LEWIS BRISBOIS BIGAARD & SMITH
LLP, pro hac vice, Gordon Calhoun, LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD &
SMITH LLP, pro hac vice, Jon P. Kardassakis --
jon.kardassakis@lewisbrisbois.com -- LEWIS BRISBOIS BIGAARD &
SMITH LLP, pro hac vice, Kathleen A. Nelson --
kathleen.nelson@lewisbrisbois.com -- LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD &
SMITH LLP & Sarah E. Demaree -- sarah.demaree@lewisbrisbois.com -
- LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP.


EDGAR P. BENJAMIN: Faces "Johnson" Suit Over Unlawful Termination
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Goret Johnson, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. The Edgar P. Benjamin Healthcare Center, Inc., Case
No. 1884CV00033 (Mass. Super. Ct., January 8, 2018), arises out
of the Defendants' unlawful retaliation practice of terminating
the Plaintiff after reporting to the company's CEO that she
believed fellow employees were not being paid for every hour
worked.

The Edgar P. Benjamin Healthcare Center, Inc. is a non-profit
skilled Nursing and Rehabilitation Center with a staff of
approximately 200 employees. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael B. Walsh, Esq.
      Heather M. Nikolyszyn, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL B WALSH
      6 Beacon Street, Suite 1020
      Boston, MA 02108
      Telephone: (617) 523-3200


EL REY DE LAS FRITAS: "Aguiar" Action Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Yamileysi Aguiar, and other similarly-situated individuals,
Plaintiff, v. El Rey De Las Fritas Corporation and Mercedes
Gonzalez, individually, Defendant, Case No. 17-cv-24552 (S.D.
Fla., December 15, 2017), seeks to recover regular wages,
overtime compensation, liquidated damages, costs and reasonably
attorney's fees under the provisions of Fair Labor Standards Act.

El Rey De Las Fritas operates three Cuban restaurants within the
Miami-Dade area. Aguiar worked as s cook helper from
approximately May 10, 2016, through August 19, 2017, working
regularly 6 days per week, from Monday to Saturday from 8:00 AM
to 4:30 PM, or later with no lunch breaks, says the complaint.
[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ENHANCED RECOVERY: Leavy Sues Over Vague Collection Letter
----------------------------------------------------------
Ariel Leavy, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Enhanced Recovery Company, LLC and John
Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-01313, (W.D. N.Y., December
18, 2017), seeks statutory and actual damages, declaratory and
injunctive relief, costs of this action, including reasonable
attorneys' fees and expenses, prejudgment interest and post-
judgment interest and such other and further relief under the
Fair Debt Collections Practices Act.

Enhanced Recovery is a debt collection agency who attempted to
collect an obligation Leavy allegedly incurred to Capital One via
a collection letter. Said letter failed to identify the
Plaintiff's current creditor, instead it merely stated,
"Creditor: Kohl's Department Stores, Inc." and failed to indicate
whether the "Creditor" refers to the original, current or
principal creditor, says the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Daniel Kohn, Esq.
      RC LAW GROUP, PLLC
      285 Passaic Street
      Hackensack, NJ 07601
      Phone: (201) 282-6500
      Fax: (201) 282-6501


ERKA INC: "Ferrera" Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
Maria Iliana Tejada Ferrera, Carolina Mandujano and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, vs. Erka, Inc., Mirela Ercan,
Ismail Ercan, Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-24542 (S.D. Fla.,
December 15, 2017), requests double damages and reasonable
attorney fees from Defendants, jointly and severally, pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act for all overtime wages still owing
from Plaintiff's entire employment period along with court costs,
interest and any other relief.

Plaintiffs worked as cashiers for Erka Inc., a gas station
located in Hallandale Beach, Florida. They allegedly were never
paid the extra half time rate for any hours worked over 40 hours
in a week as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


EURO RENOVATION: Faces "Rosario" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Carlos Idenis Marte Rosario, Edgar Gonzalez Licona, Edgar
Gonzalez Oliva, and Manuel Sanchez Vielma, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated v. Euro Renovation, Inc.
(d/b/a Euro Renovation), Structural Preservation Systems, LLC
(d/b/a Structural), Structural Group, Inc. (d/b/a Structural),
John Crigler, Garry Naughton, Peter H. Emmons, and Marek
Wnorowski, Case No. 1:18-cv-00083 (S.D.N Y., January 5, 2018), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages
in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own, operate, or control three construction
companies, located at 39 Utter Ave, Hawthorne, New Jersey 07506
under the name "Structural".

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael Faillace, Esq.
      MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, PC
      60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2540
      New York, NY 10165
      Telephone: (212) 317-1200
      E-mail: Michael@Faillacelaw.com

F&M TRUST: Tentative $10M Settlement in Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
Joel Berg, writing for Central Penn Business Journal, reports
that F&M Trust Co. could be absorbing a $10 million hit to its
earnings to settle a class-action lawsuit stemming from a trust
company it bought in 2008.

The settlement, which requires court approval, would close out
claims arising from allegedly improper oversight of funds first
held by Community Trust Co., a Cumberland County firm purchased
by F&M Trust in 2008.

The cost will be reflected in F&M Trust's fourth-quarter earnings
for 2017, said Tim Henry, the bank's president and CEO.

Henry declined to forecast the bank's eventual results. But for
the first nine months of 2017, the bank's parent, Franklin
Financial Services Corp., earned net income of $9.4 million, up
nearly 50 percent from $6.4 million for the same period in 2016,
according to filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.

The $10 million hit won't derail the Chambersburg based bank from
its plans moving forward, said Henry, adding that the bank will
remain well capitalized. "This doesn't keep us from looking at
2018 with great expectations."

The bank has assets of about $1 billion and operates 22 branches
throughout Central Pennsylvania.

                        About the Suit

The class-action suit, filed in 2015 in federal court, alleged
that Community Trust and F&M Trust did not exercise proper
oversight of funds they held between 2002 and 2010 on behalf of
employee-benefit plans created by an independent lawyer. The
settlement is not an admission of any wrongdoing on the bank's
part.

The lawyer, John Koresko, Esq. created several employee-benefit
plans for doctors' offices and other small employers around the
country but spent plan money for his own personal benefit,
according to the 2015 complaint. Koresko's spending included a
$4.5 million purchase of seven condominiums on the Caribbean
island of Nevis, the complaint said.

The plans, which covered more than 500 participants, involved
employer-owned life insurance policies for company principals and
employees. Those participants are the class covered by the
proposed settlement with F&M Trust.

A Philadelphia-based attorney for the plaintiffs, Ira
Silverstein, Esq. said he planned to file a preliminary motion
for approval of the settlement.

If and when preliminary approval is granted, class members will
be notified and then the settlement will move toward final
approval, Silverstein said.

It would represent the fifth class-action settlement of claims
arising from Koresko's actions, Silverstein said. The four
others, totaling about $1.5 million, involved recouping fees
Koresko paid to law firms using money from the employee-benefit
plans. [GN]


FREE FLOW CONSTRUCTION: "Abreu" Action Seeks Unpaid OT Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Jorge L. Abreu, and other similarly-situated individuals,
Plaintiff, v. Free Flow Construction, Inc. and Felipe A.
Rodriguez Jr., Individually, Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-24575
(S.D. Fla., December 18, 2017), seeks to recover minimum wages,
overtime compensation, liquidated damages, costs and reasonable
attorney's fees under the provisions of Fair Labor Standards Act.

Free Flow Construction is a general residential and commercial
construction company specializing in the installation of water
and sewer lines where Abreu worked as a full-time construction
employee from approximately April 3, 2017 through July 28, 2017.
[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


GIGA WATT: Silver Miller Law Firm Files Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
JD Alois, writing for Crouwdfund Insider, reports that any US
based initial coin offering (ICO) that raised a fair amount of
money and did not file for a securities exemption should be quite
nervous now. Giga Watt, an ICO that raised $20 million last
summer, was hit with a class action lawsuit by the law firm of
Silver Miller as a Christmas present.

The allegations have now become fairly standard as the plaintiff,
StormsMedia, alleges that Giga Watt conducted an unregistered
offering of securities. Something that is obviously against the
law.

But, like many other lawsuits filed against a successful ICO, the
complaint goes further stating:

Defendants appear to have already pocketed for themselves large
sums of money

It appears Plaintiff et al will not see any return on their
investment

Defendants used deceptive activity and intentional deprivation of
investor rights and protection

                         And Much More. . .

StormsMedia may not be very happy that when it (and others)
invested the price of Bitcoin etc. was rather low.

In the ensuing months, the price of many cryptocurrencies
rocketed. The complaint estimates the investment of $20 million
is now worth over $100 million. For StormsMedia, their investment
is now pegged at a valuation of $5.1 million. Perhaps it would
have been better for the investors to have not invested at all?
Yes, a rhetorical question.

The Plaintiff apparently requested a recision of the deal back on
November 22, 2017. The Defendants have "failed to provide a
meaningful response" to the demand -- allegedly in violation of
the terms of their own white paper including terms for an
investor remedy.

David Silver, from Silver Miller, told Crowdfund Insider that all
pre-functional tokens promised in an ICO fit the definition of
the sale of a security which means the seller has to comply with
US securities law;

"In this case, the defendant -- whether intentionally or not --
did neither and is therefore strictly liable for offering and
selling unregistered securities," said Miller. "Just because
utility tokens might one day have a consumptive use does not
remove them from being a "security" prior to that use.  Promoting
the expectation of profit from pre-functional tokens, like Giga
Watt did and continues to do, is by definition the sale of a
security; and this case will hold Giga Watt accountable for its
actions."

Miller added they are pursuing a longer list of crypto companies
that are allegedly in breach of US securities law;

"We currently have pending cases against Coinbase, Kraken, Tezos,
Monkey Capital and Giga Watt.  I expect more to be filed as 2018
progresses," said Silver.

Having $100 million in crypto & cash is a pretty fat target for
disgruntled investors. Lawyers almost always win in a case like
this. Everyone else, well that depends.  Giga Watt is most
certainly lawyering up -- just as every other US based ICO that
raised big money, minus a Form D, should be doing now as suing
ICO issuers is becoming a cottage industry of sorts. [GN]


GRANITE TELECOM: "Hair" Action Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay
------------------------------------------------------------
James Hair and Christopher Witkowski, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Granite
Telecommunications, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 17-cv-81361 (S.D.
Fla., December 18, 2017), seeks overtime wages due, prejudgment
interest, attorneys' fees, costs and other compensation pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Hair and Witkowski worked as account managers whose primary job
duty was selling Granite telecommunications services (telephone
and data) to business and commercial enterprises by direct
telephone and email solicitations, including its voice, data,
mobile and network plans. Both claim to have been denied overtime
pay. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Benjamin Williams, Esq.
     FELDMAN WILLIAMS PLLC
     6940 W. Linebaugh Ave, #101
     Tampa, FL 33626
     Tele: (877) 946-8293
     Fax: (813) 639-9376
     Email: mitch@feldmanwilliams.com
            ben@feldmanwilliams.com
            casemail@feldmanwilliams.com


HOLMAN AUTOMOTIVE: Blumenthal Nordrehaug Files Class Action Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The San Diego employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug
Bhowmik De Blouw LLP filed a class action lawsuit that alleges
Holman Automotive Group, Inc., failed to provide their
commissioned employees with meal and rest periods in accordance
with the California Wage Order and Labor Code. The Holman
Automotive Group, Inc., class action lawsuit, Case No. 37-2017-
00049749-CU-OE-CTL is currently pending in the San Diego County
Superior Court for the State of California.

According to the lawsuit, Holman Automotive Group, Inc.,
allegedly failed to provide their employees the legally required
off-duty meal breaks as required by the applicable Wage Order and
Labor Code. The Complaint further claims that Holman Automotive
Group, Inc., allegedly failed to accurately record missed meal
and rest breaks and also allegedly failed to pay the proper
minimum wages causing the wage statements being issued to the
employees by Holman Automotive Group, Inc., to allegedly violate
California law, and in particular, Labor Code Section 226(a).
Additionally, the Complaint alleges that Holman Automotive Group,
Inc., failed to reimburse and indemnify their employees for
required business expenses incurred by the employees in direct
consequence of discharging their duties on behalf of the company.

Cal. Lab. Code Sec 2802 expressly states that "an employer shall
indemnify his or her employee for all necessary expenditures or
losses incurred by the employee in direct consequence of the
discharge of his or her duties, or of his or her obedience to the
directions of the employer, even though unlawful, unless the
employee, at the time of obeying the directions, believed them to
be unlawful."

If you would like to know more about the Holman Automotive Group,
Inc., lawsuit, please contact attorney Nicholas De Blouw today by
calling (858)-952-0354

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


INFINITY AUTO: Central Palm Beach Physicians Files Amended Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action has been filed against Infinity Auto Insurance
Company. The case is titled as Central Palm Beach Physicians &
Urgent Care, Inc. doing business as Total MD, a/a/o Ferica Brown,
on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, v. Infinity Auto Insurance Company, the Defendant,
Case No. 0:17-cv-62201-WPD, (S.D. Fl., November 13, 2017). The
case is assigned to Judge William P. Dimitrouleas.

A first amended complaint was filed by Central Palm Beach
Physicians & Urgent Care on Jan. 17, 2018.

Judge Dimitrouleas on Dec. 12 entered an order granting the
Motion for Extension of Time to File Answer to a Complaint or
Other Case Initiating Document.  Infinity Auto's Answer was due
Jan. 12.[BN]

Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

Counsel For Defendant(s):

     Peter David Weinstein, Esq.
     COLE SCOTT KISSANE PA
     600 N Pine Island Road, Suite 500
     Plantation, FL 33324
     Telephone: (954) 343-3929
     Facsimile: (954) 474-7979
     E-mail: peter.weinstein@csklegal.com


INTEL CORP: 3 Suits Related to Security Vulnerability Filed
-----------------------------------------------------------
Alex Cranz, writing for Gizmodo, reports that it's been just two
days since The Register first reported that all Intel x86-64x
processors were subject to a severe security vulnerability, and
already Intel has been hit with at least three separate class
action lawsuits related to the vulnerability.

The Register first reported the news on January 2nd, noting that
the solution to fixing the vulnerability could result in slowdown
of the affected computers. Intel has since claimed that any
performance penalties would be negligible, and Google, which has
implemented a fix on its affected servers (which host its cloud
services, including Gmail) wrote that, "On most of our workloads,
including our cloud infrastructure, we see negligible impact on
performance."

Plaintiffs in three different states disagree. As Law.com first
noted, a class action complaint was filed January 3rd in United
States District Court for the Northern District of California.
Since then Gizmodo has found two additional class action
complaints filed just eleven minutes apart -- one in the District
of Oregon and another in the Southern District of Indiana.

All three complaints cite the security vulnerability as well as
Intel's failure to disclose it in a timely fashion. They also
cite the supposed slowdown of purchased processors. However that
is still up for debate. In a press release, Intel claimed it has
"issued updates for the majority of processor products introduced
within the past five years." Moreover, it says the performance
penalty is not as significant as The Register initially claimed.

Intel continues to believe that the performance impact of these
updates is highly workload-dependent and, for the average
computer user, should not be significant and will be mitigated
over time. While on some discrete workloads the performance
impact from the software updates may initially be higher,
additional post-deployment identification, testing and
improvement of the software updates should mitigate that impact.

This claim -- of things not being as dire as they seemed -- was
seconded by Google. In a post on its Security Blog, Google
claimed "we have found that microbenchmarks can show an
exaggerated impact," which seems to suggest that localized
attempts to benchmark affected processors before and after the
fix has been applied may not yield reliable results.

Intel continues to claim it is not the only CPU maker affected
and has posited that CPUs made by AMD, Qualcomm, and ARM (Apple
uses ARM architecture in its iPhone and iPad devices) are all
potentially affected.

If you're not sure if your device has been affected, be sure to
back it up and then perform all available updates. [GN]


INTELEMEDIA COMM: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Johnson" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tara Johnson and Melvin Brown, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. Intelemedia Communications, Inc. and
Intelemedia Premier Leads, LLC, Case No. 2:18-cv-02018 (W.D.
Ten., January 5, 2018), seeks to put an end to the Defendants'
practice of contacting the Plaintiff and Class Members on their
cellular telephones via an "automatic telephone dialing system,"
or using "an artificial or prerecorded voice", without their
prior express written consent.

The Defendants offer telephone and database solutions to
pharmaceutical, direct response and call center industries. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mark P. Chalos, Esq.
      Andrew R. Kaufman, Esq.
      LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
      222 Second Avenue South, Suite 1640
      Nashville, TN 37201
      Telephone: (615) 313-9000
      Facsimile: (615) 313-9965
      E-mail: akaufman@lchb.com

         - and -

      Jonathan D. Selbin, 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

         - and -

      Benjamin J. Miller, Esq.
      HIGGINS FIRM PLLC
      524 Fourth Avenue
      South Nashville, TN 37210
      Telephone: (615) 353-0930
      Facsimile: (888) 210-5883
      E-mail: ben@higginsfirm.com


J.A. CAMBECE: "McGriff" Suit Disputes Collection Letter
-------------------------------------------------------
Valerie McGriff, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. J.A. Cambece Law Office P.C.
and John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-02106, (D. Conn.,
December 18, 2017), seeks statutory and actual damages,
reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses, prejudgment interest and
post-judgment interest and such other and further relief for
violation of the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act.

J.A. Cambece sent a collection letter to McGriff attempting to
collect a consumer debt from Cach, LLC. Said letter failed to
state that interest may be accruing on the debt when it was not
currently accruing, says the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Yaakov Saks, Esq.
      RC Law Group, PLLC
      285 Passaic Street
      Hackensack, NJ 07601
      Phone: (201) 282-6500
      Fax: (201) 282-6501


JAMES M. O'DEA: Common-Interest Exception Ruling Affirmed
---------------------------------------------------------
The Appellate Court of Illinois, First Judicial District, Fourth
Division, affirmed the trial court's ruling that recognized the
common-interest exception to the waiver rule in the case
captioned FRANK SELBY, MARTIN YOUNG, ADRIANA LOPEZ, and KATHERINE
SCHEIWE, n/k/a Katherine Polk, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. JAMES M.
O'DEA, Individually and d/b/a James M. O'Dea & Associates, and
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTO INSURANCE COMPANY Defendants, (State Farm
Mutual Auto Insurance Company, Defendant-Appellee), No. 1-15-1572
(Ill. App.).

Between 2006 and 2009, State Farm Mutual Auto Insurance Company
filed a series of subrogation lawsuits through its counsel, James
M. O'Dea, individually and doing business as James M. O'Dea &
Associates, including suits against Frank Selby, Martin Young,
Adriana Lopez, and Katherine Scheiwe, now known as Katherine
Polk.  In October 2010, these four individuals, as named
plaintiffs, filed a purported class-action lawsuit in which they
claim that their subrogation lawsuits were part of "a large scale
scheme perpetrated by defendants in subrogation lawsuits" to
obtain "fraudulent default judgments" against subrogation
defendants "by circumventing the State of Illinois [r]ules
governing service of process."

Plaintiffs claimed that O'Dea, an attorney engaged by State Farm
in its subrogation cases, was bypassing the office of the sheriff
of Cook County for the purposes of service of summons, using
unlicensed process servers, and obtaining default judgments
without service of process, resulting in the suspension of their
drivers' licenses based on these void judgments and requiring
them to take steps to vacate their default judgments.  The
complaint further alleged an overall scheme involving State Farm
and claimed that this scheme was financed by State Farm's payment
of invoices from O'Dea for sheriff's fees -- fees that were never
incurred, permitting O'Dea to retain these funds for his own use.

Relevant to this appeal, plaintiffs sued State Farm for abuse of
process, civil conspiracy, and malicious prosecution. The trial
court dismissed the abuse-of-process claims for failure to state
a claim.  The court later entered summary judgment on the claims
of civil conspiracy and malicious prosecution. The action is
still pending in the trial court against O'Dea. This appeal only
concerns the judgments as to State Farm.

Plaintiffs appeal from several of the circuit court's orders,
including the court's application of the "joint legal defense
privilege," other discovery orders, the dismissal of plaintiffs'
abuse-of-process action against State Farm for failure to state a
claim, and grant of summary judgment on plaintiffs' claims of
civil conspiracy and malicious prosecution.

The appeals case requires the Ill. App. to decide whether two co-
defendants to a lawsuit waived these privileges when they met and
shared information about that lawsuit as part of a joint defense
agreement they executed.

Within the discovery matters alone, there are sub-issues.
One is the trial court's recognition of the "joint legal defense
privilege."  Another is the trial court's refusal to require a
privilege log for information it deemed covered by that
privilege.  Third, plaintiffs complain of a protective order
entered in this case to protect confidential and sensitive
information disclosed in discovery.  Finally, plaintiffs claim
that the trial court erred in sequencing discovery such that they
were permitted to issue discovery requests only regarding the
four named plaintiffs and not concerning other members of the
purported class of subrogation defendants sued by State Farm and
O'Dea during the relevant time period.

The Ill. App. held, "Federal courts and many state courts have
recognized an exception to the waiver rule in this context,
protecting the confidentiality of these joint communications as
to third parties.  Other states have codified this exception to
the waiver rule into statute. Surprisingly, no published decision
in Illinois has ever decided whether parties with a common
interest in defeating a litigation opponent may share and pool
information without waiving their attorney-client and work-
product privileges as to third parties."

"After considering our supreme court's decisions on related
issues and taking into account case law from other jurisdictions,
we likewise recognize a common-interest exception to the waiver
rule. As in virtually every other jurisdiction, we hold that co-
parties in a case who agree to share information pursuant to
their common interest in defeating their litigation opponent do
not waive either the attorney-client or work-product privilege
when they do so."

"While we agree with the trial court's recognition of this
common-interest exception to the waiver rule, we remand this
matter to the trial court to conduct an in camera, communication-
by-communication review of the challenged conversations involving
the co-defendants and their attorneys."

"We vacate the trial court's dispositive rulings the dismissal of
one count, the grant of summary judgment on two others pending
the outcome of the in camera review, given the possibility that
additional facts may become discoverable after that review."

A full-text copy of the Ill. App.'s December 7, 2017 Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y9d2s856 from Leagle.com.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Providence's Remicade Suit Consolidated
----------------------------------------------------------
The case titled, City of Providence, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Johnson &
Johnson and Janssen Biotech, Inc., the Defendants, Case No. 2:17-
cv-05058-JCJ, (E.D. Pa., November 9, 2017), has been
consolidated, together with other individual cases comprising the
Remicade Class Actions, under docket number 17-cv-04326 and
captioned as "In re Remicade Antitrust Litigation."

According to a Nov. 21 Stipulation, any additional class action
complaints filed in this district containing substantially
similar allegations as those in, and related to, In re Remicade
Antitrust Litigation and accepted by the Court as such --
Subsequent Action -- shall also be consolidated under docket
number 17-cv-04326.

Plaintiffs in In re Remicade Antitrust Litigation shall serve
written notice of such consolidation on the plaintiff(s) in the
Subsequent Action and on any defendant in such Action who is not
a party in In re Remicade Antitrust Litigation, and any party in
the Subsequent Action shall have 10 days from the date that
notice is served to file a motion with the Court objecting to
such consolidation and setting forth the basis for objection.

Providence's complaint states that J&J engaged in an anti-
competitive scheme designed to prevent competition to its
blockbuster biologic, Remicade -- infliximab -- thereby raising
and maintaining infliximab prices above competitive levels. The
Defendant also forced health insurance companies and healthcare
providers to enter into exclusionary agreements that effectively
blocked competition for Remicade, thus causing Plaintiff and
Class members to overpay on their infliximab purchases.[BN]

The City of Providence is represented by:

     Deborah R. Gross, Esq.
     KAUFMAN, COREN & RESS, PC
     Two Commerce Sq., Ste 3900
     2001 Market Street
     Philadelphia, PA 19103
     Tel: (215) 735-8700
     Fax: (215) 735-5170
     E-mail: dgross@kcr-law.com

          - and -

     Stephen J. Teti, Esq.
     BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
     155 Federal Street, Suite 400
     Boston, MA 02110
     Tel: (617) 398-5600
     E-mail: steti@blockesq.com

          - and -

     Whitney E. Street, Esq.
     BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
     610-16th Street Suite 214
     Oakland, CA 94612
     Tel: (415) 968-1852
     E-mail: whitney@blockesq.com

Johnson & Johnson is represented by:

     Leslie E. John, Esq.
     BALLARD SPAHR ANDREWS & INGERSOLL LLP
     1735 Market St., 51st Fl
     Philadelphia, PA 19103
     Tel: (215) 864-8212
     Fax: (215) 864-9748
     E-mail: john@ballardspahr.com

          - and -

     Matthew Vahey, Esq.
     BALLARD SPAHR
     1735 Market St 51st Fl
     Philadelphia, PA 19103
     Tel: (215) 575-4252
     E-mail: vaheym@ballardspahr.com


KEMPER SPORTS: Faces "Lall" Class Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Alex Lall and Andrew Lall, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Kemper Sports Management, Inc., and
The Village Club of Sands Point, Case No. 715118/2017 (N.Y. Sup.
Ct., January 10, 2018), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the New York Labor
Law.

Kemper Sports Management, Inc. owns and operates more than a
dozen membership clubs across the country in different states
which provide restaurant, lodging and recreational facilities to
members and the public all year round.

The Village Club of Sands Point is one of the membership clubs
owned and operated by KSM, and which provided restaurant, lodging
and recreational facilities to members and the public. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Abdul K. Hassan, Esq.
      ABDUL HASSAN LAW GROUP, PLLC
      215-28 Hillside Avenue
      Queens Village, NY 11427
      Telephone: (718) 740-1000
      Facsimile: (718) 355-9668
      E-mail: abdul@abdulhassan.com


KOBE STEEL: Robbins Arroyo Files Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights law firm Robbins Arroyo LLP disclosed that
investors filed a class action complaint against Kobe Steel, Ltd.
(Other OTC: KBSTY) on behalf of all purchasers of Kobe American
Depositary Receipts ("ADRs") between May 29, 2013 and October 12,
2017, for alleged violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 by Kobe's officers and directors. Kobe engages in materials,
machinery, and electric power businesses in Japan, China, and
internationally.

According to the complaint, on May 29, 2013, Kobe launched a new
business plan that was intended to make the company more
efficient and profitable for sustained growth. Throughout the
class period, Kobe maintained that the business plan was "making
steady progress" and emphasized that the company fostered a
culture of high ethical standards and was "highly sensitive to
compliance issues." To the contrary, Kobe falsified data on its
aluminum, copper, and steel products and sold products that
failed quality control tests in violation of laws and
regulations. On October 10, 2017, Reuters reported that several
manufacturers had confirmed use of Kobe's affected products, and
on October 13, 2017, several media outlets revealed that the
number of impacted customers had more than doubled from the
initial estimates of 200 customers. Since news of Kobe's troubles
became public, the company's ADRs declined over 40% to close at
$3.55 per ADR on October 13, 2017, and have yet to regain their
value.

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

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

             Leonid Kandinov, Esq.
             Robbins Arroyo LLP
             Tel: (619) 525-3990
             E-mail: LKandinov@robbinsarroyo.com [GN]


LIBERTY TAX: "Beland" Sues Over Share Price Drop
------------------------------------------------
Patrick Beland, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. Liberty Tax, Inc., Edward L.
Brunot, John T. Hewitt and Kathleen E. Donovan, Defendants, Case
No. 17-cv-07327 (E.D. N.Y., December 15, 2017), seeks to recover
compensable damages caused by Defendants' violations of federal
securities laws and pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.

Liberty Tax provides tax preparation services and solutions in
the United States and Canada with 212 tax offices in New York.
Defendants failed to disclose that Liberty Tax's former CEO, John
Hewitt created an inappropriate tone at the top that led to
ineffective entity level controls over the organization, says the
complaint.

On this news, shares of Liberty Tax fell $0.80 per share or over
6% from its previous closing price to close at $11.15 per share
on December 11, 2017, damaging investors. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Phillip Kim, Esq.
      Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
      THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
      275 Madison Ave., 34th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 686-1060
      Fax: (212) 202-3827
      Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
             pkim@rosenlegal.com


LIBERTY TAX: Klein Law Firm Files Class Action
----------------------------------------------
The Klein Law Firm disclosed that a class action complaint has
been filed on behalf of shareholders of Liberty Tax, Inc.
(NASDAQ: TAX) who purchased shares between June 29, 2016 and
December 11, 2017. The action, which was filed in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of New York,
alleges that the Company violated federal securities laws.

In particular, the complaint alleges that throughout the Class
Period, defendants made materially false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that (1) Liberty's former
CEO, John T. Hewitt, created an inappropriate tone at the top;
(2) the inappropriate tone at the top led to ineffective entity
level controls over the organization; and (3) as a result,
defendants' statements about Liberty's business, operations and
prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a
reasonable basis at all relevant times.

On September 6, 2017, Liberty announced that founder and CEO
Hewitt had been terminated. On November 7, 2017, Liberty
announced the resignation of Kathleen Donovan, its Vice President
and Chief Financial Officer. On December 11, 2017, Liberty report
that KPMG LLP resigned as its independent registered public
accounting firm and that Liberty would delay the filing of its
quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended October 31,
2017.

Shareholders have until February 13, 2018 to petition the court
for lead plaintiff status. Your ability to share in any recovery
does not require that you serve as lead plaintiff. You may choose
to be an absent class member.

If you suffered a loss during the class period and wish to obtain
additional information, please contact Joseph Klein, Esq. by
telephone at 212-616-4899 or visit
http://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-sb/liberty-tax-inc?wire=2.

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


LIDS STORE: Managers May Proceed With Pay Class-Action
------------------------------------------------------
Dave Stafford, writing for The Indiana Lawyer, reports that
Indianapolis-based Lids store managers who claim they were denied
overtime pay in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act cleared
the first hurdle January 2 in a proposed class-action lawsuit.

Lids, which sells college and professional sports team branded
hats and apparel at more than 1,000 stores and kiosks in malls
nationwide, is accused of failing to pay managers for overtime
under a fluctuating work week method of payment. Under this
method, employees are paid a salary whether they work more or
less than 40 hours a week. Hours worked in excess of 40 hours a
week are compensated at a minimum of one-half the worker's normal
hourly pay rate.

But the suit alleges Lids store managers didn't receive that
overtime compensation and instead were paid a bonus based on
meeting sales quotas.

Judge Richard Young in the District Court for the Southern
District of Indiana denied Lids' motion to dismiss the case and
granted the managers' motion for conditional certification of an
opt-in class of current and former store managers.

Young wrote that lead plaintiff Julia Shumate "has made a modest
factual showing that she and the potential opt-in plaintiffs were
victims of a common policy that violated the FLSA." At this
stage, Young wrote, that showing is sufficient to establish a
conditional opt-in class.

The judge ordered Lids to provide an Excel spreadsheet within 30
days listing the names and last known addresses of non-exempt
store managers who were entitled to overtime pay since Feb. 2,
2014.

The case is Julia Shumate, on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Genesco, Inc., Hat World Inc., d/b/a Lids Sports
Group, 1:17-cv-3574. [GN]


LOBLAW COS: Suit Filed in Manitoba Over Bread Price-Fixing
----------------------------------------------------------
CKOM News reports that a former grand chief from Manitoba is
looking for a lot more than a $25 gift card when it comes to
price-fixing on Canadian bread.

Loblaw and parent company George Weston Ltd. admitted back in
December to taking part in what was described as an industry-wide
arrangement with other major grocery retailers and another bread
wholesaler to co-ordinate price increases between 2001 and 2015.

Loblaw has since offered to distribute $25 gift cards by way of
an apology to Canadian consumers.

However, The Winnipeg Free Press reported January 3 that the
price-fixing is now the subject of a class action lawsuit filed
in Manitoba's Court of Queen's Bench.

The Free Press reported that Derek Nepinak, who previously served
as grand chief of Manitoba's Assembly of Chiefs, filed the suit
on Dec. 29 on behalf of all Canadians who bought bread since
2001.

Nepinak is represented by Norman Boudreau of Winnipeg's Boudreau
Law firm.

The lawsuit reportedly seeks a total of $1 billion in damages
from Loblaw, Weston Foods Ltd, Weston Foods Canada Inc., Weston
Bakeries Ltd., Canada Bread Company Ltd., Wal-Mart Canada Corp.,
Sobeys Inc., Metro Inc. and Giant Tiger Stores Ltd.

Nepinak's would be at least the third class-action suit filed
over the price-fixing scandal, which is also still under
investigation by Canada's federal Competition Bureau.

None of the claims made in Nepinak's lawsuit have been tested in
court. [GN]


LRR ENERGY: Court Approves Class Notice & Notice Procedures
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled ROBERT HURWITZ v. LRR ENERGY L.P., et al,
Case No. 1:15-cv-00711-MAK (D. Del.), the Hon. Judge J. Kearney
entered an order approving Class Notice, Notice Procedures and
appointment of Notice Administrator.

The Court said, "Each of these notices and protocol satisfy Fed.
R. Civ. P. 23, due process, other applicable law, and constitutes
the best notice practicable under the circumstances and
constitutes due and sufficient notice to all person and entities
entitled thereof with non-material changes to the forms of Notice
made without further Order. Defendants, through their counsel,
agreed to provide Class Counsel with an electronic copy of the
most recent complete mailing list in Defendants' possession and
control of all former LRR Energy, L.P. ("LRR")/Vanguard Natural
Resources, LLC ("Vanguard") unit holders under the Class
definition which list shall be expeditiously turned over to the
Notice Administrator to facilitate prompt and efficient mailing
of the Print Notice. This list will be submitted to the National
Change of Address registry maintained by the United States Postal
Service requesting updated address information. Any updated
address information will be appended to the data file used to
complete the mailing of the Notice. Providing the list shall not
waive or otherwise limit the Defendants' right or ability to
challenge or object to the inclusion of a specific individual or
entity in the Class. Class Counsel is authorized to retain Garden
City Group, LLC ("GCG") as the Notice Administrator responsible
to create and maintain the website established for this action
and supervise and administer the Notice procedure below: a. No
later than March 30, 2018, Class Counsel, through the Notice
Administrator, shall cause a copy of the Print Notice,
substantially in the form submitted to the Court and conformed as
needed to comport with this Order, to be mailed by first class
mail to all Class members who can be identified with reasonable
effort appearing on the mailing list.

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



MAGNOLIA FLOORING: "Franklin" Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
McCoy Franklin, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Magnolia Flooring Mill, LLC, and Watson Sawmill
Incorporated, Case No. 17-cv-01073, (E.D. Ark., December 15,
2017), seeks monetary damages, liquidated damages, prejudgment
interest, civil penalties and costs, including reasonable
attorneys' fees under the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act and Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Defendants jointly operate a hardwood flooring manufacturing and
installation company where Franklin worked as a forklift
operator. He claims overtime for hours rendered over 40 per work
week. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MARKETRON BROADCAST: Class Cert. Deadline Extended to 180 Days
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled RENEE REESE, on behalf of herself and other
persons similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. MARKETRON BROADCAST
SOLUTIONS, MAG. JUDGE JANIS VAN MEERVELD LLC, STUDIO NETWORK-
ORPHEUM, LLC, CITADEL BROADCASTING COMPANY, BREAD WINNERS'
ASSOCIATION (BWA), LLC, and ATLANTIC RECORDING CORPORATION, the
Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-09772-SSV-JVM (E.D. La.), the Hon.
Judge Sarah S. Vance entered an order on January 18, 2018:

   1. granting Ex-Parte/Consent Motion to Extend Deadline for
      Class Certification to 180 days after the Court rules on
      Defendant Marketron Broadcast Solutions, LLC's forthcoming
      Motion to Dismiss; and

   2. withdrawing Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification, and
      reserving her right to bring it at a later time.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=UPl3wUEg


MD TLC: Faces "Kaye" Class Suit Over Automated Fax Advertisements
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Roger H. Kaye and Roger H. Kaye, MD PC, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated v. MD TLC, Inc., Flo Goshgarian
and Dianne Quibell a/k/a Dianne Q. Frustaci, Case No. 3:18-cv-
00026-VAB (D. Conn., January 5, 2018), seeks to stop the
Defendants' practice of sending out over 5,000 unsolicited and
solicited fax advertisements for goods and services without
proper opt-out notices to persons throughout the United States.

The Defendants own and operate a medical cosmetic center located
at 25 Walnut Street, Suite 400, Wellesley Hills, Massachusetts
02481. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      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


MICHIGAN: Court Dismisses Inmate's Class Certification Bid
----------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned BRUCE PARKER, Plaintiff, v. UNKNOWN REDDIN et
al., Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-956 (W.D. Mich.) is a civil
rights action brought by a state prisoner under 42 U.S.C. Section
1983.  Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, Pub. L. No. 104-
134, 110 Stat. 1321 (1996) (PLRA), the Court is required to
dismiss any prisoner action brought under federal law if the
complaint is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a
defendant immune from such relief.

Plaintiff claims that Defendants Reddit, Klatt, Stevenson,
Stephan, and Andersen have retaliated against him in violation of
the First Amendment and destroyed his legal property in violation
of his right to access the courts. He alleges that all Defendants
have subjected him to constant harassment and racial bias in
violation of the Eighth Amendment. In addition, he claims that
Defendant Washington has failed to protect Plaintiff and all
other African-Americans from being targeted on the basis of race.
Finally, Plaintiff claims that Defendants Washington, Reddin,
Stevenson, and Stephan have denied Plaintiff equal protection and
due process solely on the basis of his race.

Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief, together with compensatory and
punitive damages.

The United States District Court for Western District of
Michigan, Southern Division, issued an Opinion dismissing  the
Plaintiff's complaint for failure to state a claim.

To the extent that Plaintiff purports to bring his action on
behalf of others, his claims will be dismissed.  Plaintiff lacks
standing to assert the constitutional rights of other prisoners.
As a layman, Plaintiff may only represent himself with respect to
his individual claims, and may not act on behalf of other
prisoners.  Because Plaintiff is an incarcerated pro se litigant,
the Court finds that he is not an appropriate representative of a
class. Therefore, the Court will deny Plaintiff's request for
class certification.

Government officials may not be held liable for the
unconstitutional conduct of their subordinates under a theory of
respondeat superior or vicarious liability. The acts of one's
subordinates are not enough, nor can supervisory liability be
based upon the mere failure to act.  Moreover, Section 1983
liability may not be imposed simply because a supervisor denied
an administrative grievance or failed to act based upon
information contained in a grievance or complaint from a
prisoner. A plaintiff must plead that each Government official
defendant, through the official's own individual actions, has
violated the Constitution.

Defendants Reddin, Klatt, Stevenson, and Stephan
The Court concludes that Plaintiff's allegations against
Defendants Reddin, Klatt, Stevenson, and Stephan are sufficient
to warrant service of the complaint.

The Court determines that Defendants Washington and Andersen will
be dismissed for failure to state a claim. The Court also will
dismiss Plaintiff's claims on behalf of others and his request
for class certification. The Court will serve the complaint
against Defendants Reddin, Klatt, Stevenson, and Stephan.

A full-text copy of the District Court's December 7, 2017 Opinion
is available at https://tinyurl.com/ycc864aj from Leagle.com

Bruce Parker, named as Bruce-X Parker, plaintiff, Pro Se.


MIDLAND CREDIT: Holmes Disputes Vague Collection Letters
--------------------------------------------------------
Rachel Holmes, individually and on behalf of other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Midland Funding LLC, Midland
Credit Management, Inc., Allied Interstate LLC and Atlantic
Credit and Finance Inc., Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-1752, (E.D.
Wisc., December 15, 2017), requests statutory damages, actual
damages and attorney's fees and costs of suit along with
injunctive relief under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Prior to December 20, 2016, Holmes opened a "Walmart Mastercard"
account with Synchrony. She claims that after her credit card
defaulted, her account was transferred between the Defendant
collection companies, thus resulting in a confusion as to whom to
settle her debt with.

Midland Funding is engaged in the business of taking title to
charged-off consumer debts, including credit card, auto
deficiency and telecom receivables purchased from national
financial institutions, major retail credit corporations, telecom
companies and resellers of such portfolios. Midland Credit
Management, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Encore Capital
Group, Inc. Atlantic is engaged in the business of collecting
debts and is a subsidiary of Encore Capital Group. [BN]

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
     Tel: (414) 482-8000
     Fax: (414) 482-8001
     Email: jblythin@ademilaw.com
            meldridge@ademilaw.com
            jfruchter@ademilaw.com
            bslatky@ademilaw.com


ML AUTOMOTIVE: "Bernard" Suit over Unpaid Wages Underway
--------------------------------------------------------
The case, Jose Bernard and Jose Rojas, individually and on behalf
of others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. ML Automotive
Group, LLC doing business as Palmetto57 Auto Group; NM1, LLC
doing business as Palmetto57 Auto Group and Palmetto57 Nissan and
VWI, LLC doing business as Palmetto57 Auto Group and Palmetto57
Volkswagen, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-24131-FAM, (S.D.
Fla., November 9, 2017), remains pending.

The complaint alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act
for failure of the defendant to pay minimum wages since on or
about November 2017 through the present.[BN]

The District Court on January 2 issued a series of orders:

     -- granting Defendants' Unopposed Motion for Extension of
time to respond to Plaintiffs' Initial Estimate of Wage Claims
and Preliminary Calculations for good cause shown and for the
time period requested.  Defendants' response date was moved to
January 8, 2018.

     -- denying as moot Defendants' Unopposed Motion for
Extension of Time to file a Response to Plaintiffs' Motion for
Conditional Certification of Collective Action. On December 29,
2017, Defendants timely filed their response to Plaintiffs'
motion.  Accordingly, Defendants' Motion for an Extension of Time
is denied as moot.

     -- granting Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for an Extension of
Time to File a Reply in Support of their Motion for Conditional
Class Certification for good cause shown and for the time period
requested. Plaintiffs' Reply was moved to January 12, 2018.

On January 8, the Defendant filed a Response to Notice of Court
Practice, Set/Clear Flags Plaintiff's Statement of Claim.

Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Anthony F. Sanchez, Esq.
     ANTHONY F. SANCHEZ, P.A.
     6701 Sunset Drive, Suite 101
     Miami, FL 33143
     Telephone: (305) 665-9211
     Facsimile: (305) 328-4842
     Email: afs@laborlawfla.com

Counsel for Defendant(s):

     Suhaill Machado Morales, Esq.
     Susan Potter Norton, Esq.
     ALLEN NORTON & BLUE, P.A.
     121 Majorca Avenue, Suite 300
     Coral Gables, FL 33134
     Telephone: (305) 445-7801
     Facsimile: (305) 442-1578
     E-mail: smorales@anblaw.com
     E-mail: snorton@anblaw.com


MONSANTO: Faces "Branum" Suit Over Soybeans & Cotton-Price Fixing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sam Branum, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v.
Monsanto Company, Case No. 4:18-cv-00032 (E.D. Miss., January 8,
2018), is brought on behalf of a class of direct purchasers of
Monsanto's genetically modified trait in soybeans and cotton at
prices artificially inflated because of an anticompetitive scheme
by Monsanto and its conspirators.

Monsanto Company is the leading supplier of agricultural
products, including biotechnology traits, seeds, and crop
protection products, with licenses to other companies and
customer sales throughout the United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Don M. Downing, Esq.
      Gretchen Garrison, Esq.
      Jason Sapp, Esq.
      Kaitlin Bridges, Esq.
      Jack Downing, Esq.
      GRAY, RITTER & GRAHAM, P.C.
      701 Market Street, Suite 800
      St. Louis, MO 63101
      Telephone: (314) 241-5620
      Facsimile: (314) 241-4140
      E-mail: ddowning@grgpc.com
              ggarrison@grgpc.com
              jsapp@grgpc.com
              kbridges@grgpc.com
              jdowning@grgpc.com


MOTOR VEHICLE ASSURANCE: "Heaton" Hits Illegal Telemarketing
------------------------------------------------------------
John Heaton and Christopher Horigan on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Motor Vehicle
Assurance, National Auto Protection Corp. and Sunpath, Ltd.,
Defendant, Case No. 17-cv-40169, (D. Mass., December 18, 2017),
seeks statutory damages for willful violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act, an injunction requiring Defendant to
cease all telemarketing communications, and such further relief.

Sunpath is a company that offers extended warranties on
automobiles. Sunpath hired National Auto Protection Corp to
generate new customers. National Auto Protection Corp initiated
pre-recorded telemarketing calls to the Paintiffs for the
purposes of advertising Sunpath goods and services, using an
automated dialing system. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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

            - and -

     Alex M. Washkowitz, Esq.
     Jeremy Cohen, Esq.
     CW LAW GROUP, P.C.
     188 Oaks Road
     Framingham, MA 01701
     Email: alex@cwlawgrouppc.com

            - and -

     Matthew P. McCue, Esq.
     THE LAW OFFICE OF MATTHEW P. MCCUE
     1 South A venue, Suite 3
     Natick, MA 01760
     Tel: (508) 655-1415
     Email: mmccue@massattorneys.net


NASSAU, NY: False Arrest Claim in "Bloch" Remains Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New
York issued a Memorandum and Order denying Plaintiff's Motion for
Reconsideration in false arrest and poor jail conditions claims
in the case captioned MARILYN BLOCH, Plaintiff, v. COUNTY OF
NASSAU AND NASSAU COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, Defendants, No.
16-CV-6082 (DRH)(GRB) (E.D.N.Y.).

Bloch filed a timely motion for reconsideration and for leave to
file an amended complaint.

Plaintiff Marilyn Bloch, a resident of Florida, commenced the pro
se action against Nassau County and Nassau County Correctional
Facility alleging false arrest, poor jail conditions and an
unlawful strip search related to an arrest on January 19, 1999.
By Order dated June 20, 2017, Judge Mauskopf dismissed the case
for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec
1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) as the complaint did not allege sufficient
facts to support a Monell claim against Nassau County, the Nassau
County Correctional Facility does not have a legal identity
separate and apart from the county, and because the challenged
actions occurred in 1999, well beyond the three-year statute of
limitations applicable to actions pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Sec 1983.
(See DE 21.)

Thereafter, Bloch filed a timely motion for reconsideration and
for leave to file an amended complaint. In her motion, she made
clear for the first time that she was seeking "special damages
for an illegal strip search on January 18, 1999" as a member of
the class certified by this Court in In re Nassau County Strip
Search Cases, 99-CV-2844. The case was therefore reassigned, with
the consent of Judge Mauskopf, to the undersigned as presider
over that class action to determine the motion for
reconsideration and to amend.

To the extent that she is seeking to recover for false arrest and
poor jail conditions in 1999, these claims are clearly barred as
this action was filed in 2016, well beyond the three-year statute
of limitations applicable to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. Therefore
the Court adheres to the earlier determination. In other words,
the claims for false arrest and poor jail conditions remain
dismissed.

The proposed amended complaint seeks damages for an illegal strip
search, for holding on Jan. 18, 1999 and for 3 days after
illegally done. To the extent the amended complaint seeks damages
for the latter two incidents on behalf of Bloch, the motion to
amend is futile given the claims are barred by the statute of
limitations.

The motion for reconsideration and to amend the complaint is
granted to the following extent: (1) Bloch may file an amended
complaint limited to her claim for special damages arising from
her strip search at the Nassau County Correctional Center on
January 18, 1999; (2) to the extent that Bloch has been appointed
administrator or executor for her father's estate, the amended
complaint may include a claim solely for special damages arising
from her father's strip search at the Nassau County Correctional
Center during the class period.

A full-text copy of the District Court's December 18, 2017
Memorandum and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/ycg2up7b
from Leagle.com.

Marilyn Bloch, Plaintiff, Pro Se.


NEW JERSEY: Residents Might Get Payback from E-ZPass Scam
---------------------------------------------------------
Sergio Bichao, writing for New Jersey 101.5, reports that New
Jersey resident Jennifer Ahmad's E-ZPass transponder missed a 50-
cent toll one day in February and a $1.50 toll on another day.
She got hit with a $102 fine.

Roman Wach, of Maryland, missed a 75-cent toll in March. His E-
ZPass account was fined an extra 50 bucks.

Yudelka Reynoso, of Pennsylvania, missed three tolls amounting to
$9.65 over the course of two days in April. She ended up paying
$159.65.

Most people who use E-ZPass might not bother to check their
monthly statements.

But forget to update that credit card after it expires and you
could be in for a shock.

That's what happens to tens of thousands of E-ZPass users in New
Jersey every year. Now these three customers want a federal court
to refund hundreds of millions of dollars to countless drivers
who've been hit with the $50 administrative fee since 2011, the
year the New Jersey Turnpike Authority doubled it.

Their lawsuit seeks class action status, which, If granted, would
automatically include all affected E-ZPass users in any
settlement.

The allegations also could also result in lawmakers in Trenton
investigating how the Authority is managing the 20-year-old E-
ZPass system.

The complaint, filed in December in U.S. District Court, says the
$50 fee violates both the 8th Amendment's excessive fines clause
and a state law that prohibits profiting off E-ZPass fines.

The Authority, which oversees the E-ZPass system in the state and
manages the Turnpike and Garden State Parkway, said in 2011 that
it needed to double the fee in order to keep up with rising costs
of process violations.

But according to a copy of the lawsuit obtained by New Jersey
101.5, officials may have used inflated and misleading numbers to
justify an "exorbitant" fee that the lawsuit describes as an
"extortionate money grab," a "massive theft and a most egregious
breach of the public trust, which has resulted in hundreds of
millions of dollars in ill-gotten gains."

Does it add up?

The lawsuit says the increased fee is being used to generate
money that is funneled to the state. Budget documents show that
the Authority had more than $200 million in excess revenue last
year.

The lawsuit points to a January 2011 financial analysis that
officials generated to justify the increase. The analysis, using
2010 figures, said that it costs the Authority $51.36 to process
each violation.

The lawsuit, however, argues that the analysis used numbers based
on the previous year's contract with a third-party company. The
following year's contract, however, was $15.75 million cheaper.
The analysis also assumed a $50 fee to calculate the third-party
company's contingency fee instead of using the $25 fee in effect
at the time. And the analysis divided the costs by the 664,203
violation payments that the Authority collected the previous
year, leaving out the millions of violations that went unpaid.

"In other words, NJTA committed itself to the draconian principle
that a select few must pay for the sins of many -- 664,204
motorists must pick up the slack for the 8,085,796 motorists that
pay nothing," the lawsuit argues.

The lawsuit says that dividing the costs of the new contract by
the number of collected violations would have generated a $18.37-
per-violation cost. Dividing the costs by 10 million annual
violations, including those never collected, would have brought
the per-violation cost to just $3.41.

In a separate financial analysis prepared in 2011, Finance
Manager Lou Polise calculated that the $50 fee would generate a
profit of more than $8 million, which the lawsuit says proves
that that fee increase was unjustified.

Tom Feeney, a spokesman for the Authority, declined to respond in
detail to the lawsuit, saying only that "literally none of these
claims is true."

The proposed class action lawsuit is not the first time the
administrative fee was challenged last year.

In May, E-ZPass users James Long and Homer Walker petitioned the
Authority in a challenge to the fee that raised the same points
the federal lawsuit later did.

In a response to the challenge, the Authority defended the fee as
conservative. And unlike previous financial analyses used to
justify the raise, the Authority said for the first time that the
true costs of processing each violation is actually twice as much
as the $50 fee.

The Authority said its 2011 calculation did not take into account
the hidden costs of processing violations, including the
maintenance of the toll-collecting infrastructure such as radar,
cameras and antennas to read transponders and plates, as well as
computers, fiber optic networks, and the employees who do the
work.

The Authority also loses money because vast numbers of toll
violators never pay. According to budget documents, the Authority
lost $19.3 million in uncollected tolls on the Turnpike in 2016
and another $6.5 million on the Parkway. The Authority brought in
$1.42 billion and $424.8 million in tolls on each of the
highways, respectively.

In its answer to the petition, the Authority said taking all
those aspects into account would have brought the cost of
processing violations in 2010 to $59.5 million, or $91 per
violation.

As a result of reduced collection costs and the number of
collected violations increasing to 718,000 last year, the per-
violation cost dropped to $80 -- still much higher than the $50
fee.

The Authority argued that trying to calculate a fee on a case-by-
case basis would be "impractical and unreasonable" because they
would not be able to calculate the cost until they tracked down
each violator and got them to pay.

The Authority's decision on the petition is being appealed in
Superior Court.

                     Taking a Closer Look

Assemblyman John Wisniewski, D-Middlesex, said the issues raised
in the lawsuit should be investigated by lawmakers.

"It's outrageous that the state of New Jersey would be preying on
motorists to balance its budget," the Transportation Committee
chairman said January 3 after learning about the lawsuit from New
Jersey 101.5. "I think everybody would agree it was never
envisioned or contemplated to be a system that would be a slush
fund for state government. That's what it has become, and that
has got to change."

He said no one has an objection to the collection of tolls to
fund the operation of those roadways, "but when that mechanism is
used to create a windfall for the state to help plug its budget
holes, it creates suspicion and animosity by the public that
their hard-earned dollars are not being used for their intended
purposes."

Wisniewski said if the Authority is able to generate surplus
money, it should consider eliminating the $1 monthly charge on
users or lower its administrative fee.

Cathleen Lewis, the director of public affairs and government
relations for AAA Northeast, said that fines and fees need to be
"fair and reasonable" and that the state should ensure that
"monies that are collected for transportation infrastructure stay
in transportation infrastructure."

Lewis added that this underscores the importance of reviewing
statements carefully.

"Make sure you're checking your E-ZPass bills. Make sure to look
and see if you have those excessive fees or fines on your bills."
[GN]


NEW ROCHELLE: Sued Over Failure to Properly Pay Employees
---------------------------------------------------------
John Huerta, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. New Rochelle Hotel Associates LLC d/b/a Radisson
Hotel New Rochelle and Colby Brock, Case No. 7:18-cv-00102
(S.D.N.Y., January 5, 2018), is brought against the Defendants
for failure to pay non-management employees minimum wage for all
hours worked and all earned tips and gratuities.

The Defendants own and operate Radisson Hotel New Rochelle
located at One Radisson Plaza, New Rochelle, New York 10801. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brent E. Pelton, Esq.
      Taylor B. Graham, Esq.
      Alison L. Mangiatordi, Esq.
      PELTON GRAHAM LLC
      111 Broadway, Suite 1503
      New York, NY 10006
      Telephone: (212) 385-9700
      E-mail: pelton@peltongraham.com
              graham@peltongraham.com
              mangiatordi@peltongraham.com


NEW YORK: Must Produce Unredacted Relevant ESI in "Bagley"
----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New
York issued a Memorandum and Order directing the Defendants in
the case captioned MICHELLE BAGLEY et al., Plaintiffs, v. THE NEW
YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH et al., Defendants, No. 15 CV
4845(FB)(CLP)(E.D.N.Y.), to produce relevant electronically
stored information (ESI) without redactions, but subject to a
carefully-tailored protective order.

Presently before the Court is the parties' dispute regarding
whether and under what conditions relating to plaintiffs' claims
should be produced.

The plaintiffs challenge the design and administration of the
Nursing Home Transition and Diversion (NHTD) waiver program, and
allege that but for defendants' failure to design and administer
New York's Medicaid Plan in accordance with federal law and
regulations, plaintiffs would be able to maintain their dignity
and independence by safely receiving the care that they need
through home and community-based Medicaid services.

After a review of the information sought, and based on its
familiarity with the case gained through two years of pre-trial
supervision, the Court is confident that the instant discovery is
sought entirely for proper purposes and is indispensable to the
issue of class certification. To the extent that the information
sought also relates to the merits of the claims, this case
presents circumstances in which it is appropriate to allow some
merits discovery prior to certification.

The Court therefore orders the defendants to produce relevant ESI
without redactions, but subject to a carefully-tailored
protective order in order to protect the privacy interests of
putative class members and other non-parties.

The protective order must provide that: (1) access to and
dissemination of any information produced is limited to the
parties' attorney only1, (2) the parties are prohibited from
using or disclosing protected health information outside of this
litigation or for a purpose other than that for which it was
requested in this litigation; and (3) any information provided in
response to or subject to the protective order must be returned
to the provider or destroyed at the end of this litigation.

A full-text copy of the District Court's December 7, 2017 Opinion
is available at https://tinyurl.com/yc826gtu from Leagle.com.

Michelle Bagley, Plaintiff, represented by Jacqueline Lee Bonneau
-- jbonneau@pbwt.com -- Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP.

Michelle Bagley, Plaintiff, represented by Jesse A. Townsend --
jtownsend@pbwt.com -- Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP, Daniel
Adam Ross, Mobilization for Justice, Inc., Kevin M. Cremin,
Mobilization for Justice, Inc., Orier Okumakpeyi, Mobilization
for Justice, Inc., 100 William St, 6th Fl, New York, NY 10038-
5039 & Michael F. Buchanan -- mfbuchanan@pbwt.com -- Patterson
Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP.

Gary Milline, Plaintiff, represented by Jacqueline Lee Bonneau --
jbonneau@pbwt.com -- Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP, Jesse A.
Townsend, Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP, Daniel Adam Ross,
Mobilization for Justice, Inc., Kevin M. Cremin, Mobilization for
Justice, Inc., Orier Okumakpeyi, Mobilization for Justice, Inc. &
Michael F. Buchanan, Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP.

Hamilton Smith, Plaintiff, represented by Jacqueline Lee Bonneau,
Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP, Jesse A. Townsend, Patterson
Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP, Daniel Adam Ross, Mobilization for
Justice, Inc., Kevin M. Cremin, Mobilization for Justice, Inc.,
Orier Okumakpeyi, Mobilization for Justice, Inc. & Michael F.
Buchanan, Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP.

Marcella Urban, and other similarly situated individuals,
Plaintiff, represented by Jacqueline Lee Bonneau, Patterson
Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP, Jesse A. Townsend, Patterson Belknap
Webb & Tyler LLP, Daniel Adam Ross, Mobilization for Justice,
Inc., Kevin M. Cremin, Mobilization for Justice, Inc., Orier
Okumakpeyi, Mobilization for Justice, Inc. & Michael F. Buchanan,
Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP.

The New York State Department of Health, Defendant, represented
by John Peter Gasior, Assistant Attorney General.

Howard Zucker, Commissioner of the New York State Department of
Health in his official capacity, Defendant, represented by John
Peter Gasior, Assistant Attorney General.

Visiting Nurse Association Health Care Services, Inc., doing
business as VNA of Staten Island, Defendant, represented by Laura
Baldwin Juffa -- ljuffa@kbrlaw.com -- Kaufman Borgeest & Ryan
LLP, Daniel Evan Clarkson -- clarksond@gtlaw.com -- Greenberg
Traurig LLP, Francis J. Serbaroli -- serbarolif@gtlaw.com --
Greenberg Traurig LLP, Lauren Beth Grassotti --
lgrassotti@msek.com -- Greenberg Traurig LLP & Stephanie L. Fox -
- sfox@kbrlaw.com -- Kaufman Borgeest & Ryan LLP.


NISEN SUSHI: "Zeng" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sheng Zeng, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Nisen Sushi of Commack, LLC, Tom Lam, Robert Beer,
John Does and Jane Does #1-10, Case No. 715573/2016 (N.Y. Sup.
Ct., January 8, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages,
spread of hours compensation, damages for failure to provide wage
statements, liquidated damages, interest, costs, and attorneys'
fees for violations of the New York Labor Law.

The Defendants own, operate, and control a restaurant located at
5032 Jericho Turnpike, Commack, New York 11725. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      William Brown, Esq.
      HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
      136-20 38th Avenue, Ste 9E
      Flushing, NY 11354
      Telephone: (718) 353-8588
      Facsimile: (718)353-6288
      E-mail: wbrown@hanglaw.com


NO PRESSURE: "Armstrong" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay
-------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Armstrong, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. No Pressure Roof Cleaning LLC, a Florida
Limited Liability Company and Paul Guitard, individually,
Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-81356, (S.D. Fla., December 15, 2017),
seeks unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, costs and
reasonable attorneys' fees of this action under the provisions of
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendants own and operate a pressure cleaning business with
operations serving customers throughout Palm Beach, Broward, St.
Lucie and Martin Counties. Armstrong worked as a spray
technician. He claims to have worked for approximately 55-60
hours per week without overtime pay.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Keith M. Stern, Esq.
      Hazel Solis Rojas, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF KEITH M. STERN, P.A.
      One Flagler
      14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 800
      Miami, FL 33132
      Telephone: (305) 901-1379
      Facsimile: (561) 288-9031
      E-mail: employlaw@keithstern.com
              hsolis@workingforyou.com


NYU LANGONE: Must Defend Against "Sacerdote" Pensions Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Katherine B. Forrest on January 18, 2018, denied, as moot,
the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint in the case
titled, Dr. Alan Sacerdote, Dr. Herbert Samuels, Mark Crispin
Miller, Marie E. Monaco, Dr. Shulamith Lala Straussner, and James
B. Brown, individually and as representatives of a class of
participants and beneficiaries of the New York University
Retirement Plan for Members of the Faculty, Professional Research
Staff and Administration and the NYU School of Medicine
Retirement Plan for Members of the Faculty, Professional Research
Staff and Administration, the Plaintiffs, v. NYU Langone
Hospitals, f/k/a NYU Hospitals Center, NYU Langone Health System,
a/k/a NYU School of Medicine, Retirement Plan Committee, Richard
Bing, Michael Burke, Catherine Casey, Martin Dorph, Sabrina
Ellis, Thomas Feuerstein, Andrew Gordon, Patricia Halley, Tim
Hesler, Kathleen Jacobs, Marina Kartanos, Ann Kraus, Margaret
Meagher, Cynthia Nascimento, Nancy Sanchez, Tina Surh, Linda
Woodruff, Maurice Maertens, Joseph Monteleone, Ray Oquendo and
Chris Tang, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-08834-UA, (S.D.N.Y.,
November 13, 2017).

According to Judge Forrest, Plaintiffs have filed an Amended
Complaint as of right.  As such, Defendants' pending motion to
dismiss is moot.  Any new motion or pleading shall be filed
according to the applicable rules, she said.

The lawsuit seeks to declare that the Defendants have breached
their fiduciary duties and seeks to remove the fiduciaries and
enjoin them from future ERISA violations, after Plaintiffs and
other similarly situated persons lost tens of millions of dollars
of their retirement savings.[BN]

                           *     *     *

Robert Steyer, writing for Pensions & Investments' pionline.com,
reported on Nov. 21 that participants in two New York University
403(b) plans have filed an amended complaint in federal District
Court in New York, alleging that plan executives violated their
fiduciary duties in the management of the plans.

"A prudent process would have produced a different outcome," the
complaint alleged.

The complaint, filed Nov. 13 and seeking class-action status, was
a follow-up to an original complaint for which U.S. District
Court Judge Katherine B. Forrest dismissed most of the
plaintiffs' allegations on Aug. 25, 2017. The plans offered more
than 100 investment options, including "duplicative funds in
numerous investment styles and higher-cost retail shares," said
the complaint in Sacerdote et al. vs. NYU Langone Hospitals et
al. Plaintiffs alleged that "identical lower-cost" versions of
the same funds were available.

The plaintiffs argued that the plans paid "excessive
administrative fees" in part because the plans had an
"inefficient multi-record keeper structure."

The record keepers are Vanguard Group Inc. and TIAA-CREF for one
of the plans; TIAA-CREF became the sole record keeper of the
other plan in late 2012, the complaint said. Neither Vanguard nor
TIAA-CREF was named as a defendant.

"There is no reason why" one of the plans consolidated record
keepers in late 2012 or why the other plan "has failed to do so"
even though both have the same fiduciary committee and the same
members on this committee overseeing both plans, the complaint
said.

Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Andrew D. Schlichter, Esq.
     SCHLICHTER, BOGARD & DENTON LLP
     100 South Fourth Street, Suite 1200
     St. Louis, MO 63102
     Telephone: (314) 621-6115
     Facsimile: (314) 621-5934
     Email: aschlichter@uselaws.com

Defendant NYU Langone Hospitals et al. are represented by:

     Evan David Parness, Esq.
     Brian S. Kaplan, Esq.
     DLA PIPER US LLP
     1251 Avenue of the Americas
     New York, New York 10020-1104
     Tel: 212 335 4782
     Fax: 917 778 8577
     E-mail: evan.parness@dlapiper.com


OMNITRITION INT'L: Court Orders Response to Reconsideration Bid
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington, Seattle, issued an Order to Respond to Motion for
Reconsideration in the case captioned DEANA PATTISON, Plaintiff,
v. OMNITRITION INTERNATIONAL, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No.
C17-1454JLR (W.D. Wash.).

The court orders Plaintiff Deana Pattison to respond to
Defendants Roger M. Daley and Barbara Daley's motion for
reconsideration.  Ms. Pattison must limit her response to no more
than five pages and must address only the issue of jurisdiction
under the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d),
raised by the Daleys in their motion.

A full-text copy of the District Court's December 7, 2017 Opinion
and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yd8kv8ad from
Leagle.com.

Deana Pattison, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Tyler K. Firkins --
tfirkins@vansiclen.com -- VAN SICLEN STOCKS & FIRKINS.

Deana Pattison, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Victor J. Torres --
vtorres@vansiclen.com -- VAN SICLEN STOCKS & FIRKINS.

Omnitrition International, Inc., a foreign corporation,
Defendant, represented by Douglas W. Greene --
greened@lanepowell.com -- LANE POWELL PC, Heidi Brooks Bradley --
bradleyh@lanepowell.com -- LANE POWELL PC & Kristin Beneski --
beneskik@lanepowell.com -- LANE POWELL PC.

Roger M. Daley, individually and their marital community
comprised therewith, Defendant, represented by Douglas W. Greene,
LANE POWELL PC, Heidi Brooks Bradley, LANE POWELL PC & Kristin
Beneski, LANE POWELL PC.

Barbara Daley, individually and their marital community comprised
therewith, Defendant, represented by Douglas W. Greene, LANE
POWELL PC, Heidi Brooks Bradley, LANE POWELL PC & Kristin
Beneski, LANE POWELL PC.


PARKRIDGE PRIVATE: School Lacks Accreditation, Santos et al Claim
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Efrain Santos and Evelyn Lambert, on behalf of themselves and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v.
Parkridge Private School, Inc.; Joan Marie Horton; Stephanie
Marie McDaniel; and Does 1 through 25, the Defendants, Case No.
BC683528, (Cal. Sup. Ct., November 13, 2017), seeks restitution,
an order to cease and desist, and other relief based on
violations of the Business and Professions Code and Consumer
Legal Remedies Act.

According to the lawsuit, the United States Department of
Education conducted an investigation into Parkridge and the
institution was discovered to be unaccredited.  Parkridge offers
diplomas or certification for a fee but requires little or no
education or coursework. Parkridge charged students such as the
Plaintiffs and other similarly situated persons a flat fee for
their diploma. The US DOE investigation revealed that officials
from Parkridge devised a scheme in which students could get a
high school diploma from the online Parkridge Private School.
The Plaintiffs allege Fraud and Deceit, Negligent
Misrepresentation, violations of the Business and Professions
Code, violations of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act and
Conspiracy to Commit Common Law Fraud.[BN]

On Dec. 12, 2017, Presiding Judge Ann I. Jones held an initial
status conference and entered an Order determining that the case
is complex.

Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Mark J. Skapik, Esq.
     Geralyn L. Skapik, Esq.
     Blair J. Berkley, Esq.
     SKAPIK LAW GROUP
     5861 Pine Avenue, Suite A-l
     Chino Hills, CA 91709-6540
     Telephone: (909) 398-4404
     Facsimile: (909) 398-1883
     Email: mskapik@skapiklaw.com
     Email: gskapik@skapiklaw.com
     Email: bberkley@skapiklaw.com


PETROLEO BRASILEIRO: To Pay $4BB to Settle US Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
The Straits' Times reports that Brazil's state-controlled oil
company Petroleo Brasileiro on January 3, 2017 agreed to pay
US$2.95 billion (S$3.95 billion) to settle a US class action
corruption lawsuit, in what is said to be the biggest such payout
in the United States by a foreign entity.

Petrobras denied any wrongdoing in the deal, which was one of the
largest securities class action settlements in US history. With
the settlement, it will pay out more than six times what it has
received so far under a Brazilian probe into bribery schemes that
involved company executives and government officials.

The settlement, smaller than many analysts anticipated, was an
important milestone for the oil firm as it tries to emerge from
the scandal that has entangled two former Brazilian presidents
and dozens of the country's corporate executives.

But the deal reduces chances that the world's most indebted oil
company will pay a dividend for 2017, much anticipated by
investors who have not seen such payments since 2014 when the
scandal came to light, a source said.

For the last four years, Brazil has been rocked by the so-called
Car Wash investigation into kickbacks from contractors to
executives of state-run companies and politicians in return for
public projects.

The settlement put an end to "extremely high uncertainty" about
the company's potential liability, JPMorgan said in a client
note, adding that it had expected a figure above US$5 billion.

Analysts at Brazilian bank BTG Pactual said the market had
expected a settlement of US$5 billion to US$10 billion.

Moody's brushed off concerns about the impact of the settlement
on the company's balance sheet, noting it was expected to
generate some US$30 billion in cash this year and make capital
investments of around US$15 billion.

"Petrobras' liquidity position is adequate and the payment of the
agreed class action settlement amount is not a material concern,"
it said.

Mr Jeremy Lieberman, Esq. an attorney for the investors, called
the deal an "excellent result" and said it was the largest
involving a foreign securities issuer in the US.

The deal came as the US Supreme Court is set to consider whether
to hear Petrobras' appeal of a lower court decision certifying
the case as a class action. Petrobras said it and the investors
would ask the Supreme Court to put off considering the case while
the settlement awaits approval. If the Supreme Court does take
the case, it could delay its resolution for years.

US District Judge Jed Rakoff in Manhattan must still approve the
accord.

Investors had sued Petrobras after prosecutors in Brazil accused
executives of accepting more than US$2 billion in bribes over a
decade, mainly from construction and engineering companies.

In a securities filing on January 3, Petrobras claimed it was a
victim and denied wrongdoing, adding that it has recovered only
1.475 billion reais (S$607 million) for itself from the Car Wash
investigation.

But its market value has plunged as its central role in the
scheme continues to be unwound by investigators. Petrobras said
it hoped the settlement would resolve all investor claims in the
US where 13 individual lawsuits remain open, following
settlements in 20 other cases.

Some claims involving non US-based Petrobras securities purchased
outside the US also still remain open.

The new settlement came days after Brazil's securities regulator
CVM formally accused eight former Petrobras executives of
corruption.

The accusations relate to possible irregularities in the
contracting process for three drilling ships, according to a
legal filing by the regulator last January 5.

Among the accused in CVM's filing are former Petrobras chief
executives Maria das Gracas Foster and Jose Sergio Gabrielli.
[GN]


PIRATA TAPAS: "Escobar" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT, Spread of Hours Pay
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Ricardo Bahena Escobar, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Pirata Tapas, Inc., Freddy
Tejada, Dewin Rafael Mateo and Elvis Martinez, Defendants, Case
No. 17-cv-09850 (S.D. N.Y., December 15, 2017), seeks unpaid
minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
and New York Labor Law and "spread of hours" and overtime wage
orders of the New York Commissioner of Labor, including
applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and
costs.

Defendants own, operate, or control an Italian restaurant,
located at 3950 Tenth Avenue, Store 1, New York, NY 10034 under
the name "Viale" where Bahena was employed as a cook. She
allegedly worked in excess of 40 hours per week, without
appropriate minimum wage, overtime and spread of hours
compensation for the hours that he worked. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Court Grants Bid to Certify Class in "Pollak"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled BRACHA POLLAK and DAVID BENELI, the
Plaintiffs, v. PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES, LLC, and JOHN DOES
1-25, the Defendants, Case No. 3:15-cv-04025-BRM-DEA (D.N.J.),
the Hon. Judge Brian R. Martinotti entered an order on January
17, 2018:

   1. denying Plaintiffs' and PRA's Motions for Summary Judgment
      as to the issue of whether the LL1 Letter violated section
      1692e(5) and section 1692e(10) by threatening imminent or
      immediate legal action;

   2. denying Plaintiffs and PRA's Motions for Summary Judgment
      as to whether the LL1 Letter violates section 1692e(10) by
      setting a 30-day deadline to respond;

   3. granting PRA's Motion and denying Plaintiffs' Motion for
      Summary Judgment as to the issue of whether PRA violated
      section 1692e(3) and section 1692e(10) by referencing the
      "Litigation Department";

   4. granting PRA's Motion as to the issue of whether it
      violated section 1692e(10) by stating the Account was
      transferred to the Litigation Department;

   5. grating Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Class; and

   6. directing Plaintiffs' counsel to submit an appropriate
      motion for approval of class notification for the Court's
      approval within 30 days of entry of the accompanying Order.

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


POSTAL FLEET: "Brooks" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay
-----------------------------------------------------
Ernest Brooks, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Postal Fleet Services, Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 17-cv-02120, (N.D. Ala., December 18, 2017), seeks to
recover any and all unpaid compensation owed, liquidated damages,
equitable and injunctive relief, costs and reasonable attorneys'
fees of this action under the provisions of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Postal Fleet Services, Inc. provides mail transportation for the
United States Postal Services where Brooks was employed at its
Chelsea, Alabama location as an assistant manager, regularly
working eighty hours a week without overtime pay.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      J. Allen Schreiber, Esq.
      Lauren E. Miles, Esq.
      SCHREIBER LAW FIRM, P.C.
      6 Office Park Circle, Suite 209
      Birmingham, AL 35223
      Phone: (205) 971-9140
      Tel: allen@schreiber.law
           lauren@schreiber.law


PRAIRIE PIZZA: "Chenkus" Suit Seeks to Recover Minimum Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Heather Chenkus and Gene Michael Christiansen, Individually and
on behalf of similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs, v. Prairie
Pizza, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 17-cv-00723 (W.D. N.C., December
15, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages under the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act.

Prairie Pizza operates numerous Domino's Pizza franchise stores
including in and around the Charlotte, North Carolina area where
Plaintiffs worked as delivery driver. Delivery drivers use their
own automobiles to deliver pizza and other food items to its
customers. Plaintiff claims that vehicle reimbursement rates are
unreasonably low that the unreimbursed expenses cause their wages
to fall below the federal minimum wage. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Philip J. Gibbons, Jr., Esq.
     PHIL GIBBONS LAW, P.C.
     15720 Brixham Hill Ave #331
     Charlotte, NC 28227
     Tel: (704) 612-0038
     Fax: (704) 612-0038
     Email: phil@philgibbonslaw.com

             - and -

     J. Forester, Esq.
     FORESTER LAW PC
     1701 N. Market Street, Suite 210
     Dallas, TX 75202
     Tel: (214) 288-8519
     Fax: (214) 346-5909 fax


PROPETRO SERVICES: Blanco Sues Over Denied Overtime Pay
-------------------------------------------------------
Carlos Blanco and Jessie Bishop, each individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, v. Propetro Services, Inc.,
Case No. 17-cv-00253 (W.D. Tex., December 15, 2017), seeks
overtime compensation pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act
and the New Mexico Minimum Wage Act.

ProPetro Services, Inc. is an oilfield services company operating
throughout North America, including in New Mexico. Blanco was
employed by ProPetro as an equipment operator from August 2012 to
March 2016 while Bishop was employed as a flowback operator and
then a Coil Operator from March 2015 to April 2016. Both
regularly worked 80 or more hours in a week without overtime, the
complaint asserts.  [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
     Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
     JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM
     11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
     Houston, TX 77046
     Tel: (713) 352-1100
     Fax: (713) 352-3300
     Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
            adunlap@mybackwages.com

            - and -

     Richard J. Burch, Esq.
     Matthew S. Parmet, Esq.
     BRUCKNER BURCH, P.L.L.C.
     8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
     Houston, TX 77046
     Tel: (713) 877-8788
     Fax: (713) 877-8065
     Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com
            mparmet@brucknerburch.com


QUDIAN INC: Foat Sues Over Share Price Drop
-------------------------------------------
Bryan D. Foat, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, vs. Qudian Inc., Min Luo, Chao Zhu, Li Du,
Shilei Li, Yi Cao, Lianzhu Lv, Carl Yeung, Morgan Stanley & Co.
International PLC, Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC, Citigroup
Global Markets Inc., China International Capital Corporation Hong
Kong Securities Limited, UBS Securities LLC, Stifel, Nicolaus &
Company, Inc., Needham & Company, LLC, and Nomura Securities
International, Inc., Case No. 17-cv-09875, (S.D. N.Y., December
18, 2017), seeks compensatory damages, reasonable costs and
expenses incurred in this action, including counsel fees and
expert fees and such equitable/injunctive or other relief under
the Securities and Exchange Act of 1933.

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

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

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
      ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
      58 South Service Road, Suite 200
      Melville, NY 11747
      Telephone: (631) 367-7100
      Fax: (631) 367-1173 (fax)
      Email: srudman@rgrdlaw.com

             - and -

      Brian E. Cochran, Esq.
      ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
      655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
      San Diego, CA 92101-8498
      Tel: (619) 231-1058
      Fax: (619) 231-7423
      Email: bcochran@rgrdlaw.com

             - and -

      Corey D. Holzer, Esq.
      HOLZER & HOLZER, LLC
      1200 Ashwood Parkway, Suite 410
      Atlanta, GA 30338
      Telephone: (770) 392-0090
      Fax: (770) 392-0029
      Email: cholzer@holzerlaw.com


REHAB SYNERGIES: Faces "Loy" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Valerie Loy, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Rehab Synergies, LLC, Case No. 7:18-cv-000 (S.D.
Tex., January 5, 2018), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime pay for all hours worked 40 in a
workweek.

Rehab Synergies, LLC provides residential and transitional
healthcare services in approximately 46 Skilled Nursing
Facilities throughout the state of Texas. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Charles S. Siegel, Esq.
      WATERS KRAUS & PAUL
      3141 Hood Street, Suite 700
      Dallas, TX 75219
      Telephone: (214) 357-6244
      Facsimile: (214) 357-7252
      E-mail siegel@waterskraus.com

         - and -

      WM. Paul Lawrence II, Esq.
      WATERS KRAUS & PAUL
      3141 Hood Street, Suite 700
      Dallas, TX 75219
      Telephone: (214) 357-6244
      Facsimile: (214) 357-7252
      E-mail plawrence@waterskraus.com

         - and -

      Caitlyn E. Silhan, Esq.
      WATERS KRAUS & PAUL
      3141 Hood Street, Suite 700
      Dallas, TX 75219
      Telephone: (214) 357-6244
      Facsimile: (214) 357-7252
      E-mail csilhan@waterskraus.com

         - and -

      Jerry E. Martin, Esq.
      David Garrison, Esq.
      BARRETT JOHNSTON MARTIN & GARRISON LLC
      414 Union Street, Suite 900
      Nashville, TN 37219
      Telephone: (615) 244-2202
      Facsimile: (615) 252-3798
      E-mail: jmartin@barrettjohnston.com
              dgarrison@barrettjohnston.com


ROADRUNNER TRANS: Discovery in "Christian" Suit to End May 7
------------------------------------------------------------
The case titled, Darrow Christian, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Roadrunner
Transportation Services, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-
04524-SCJ (N.D. Ga., November 9, 2017), remains pending.

RoadRunner filed its answer to the complaint on Dec. 6, 2017.

Discovery ends on May 7, 2018.

The Plaintiff states that he was employed by the Defendant as a
forklift operator and he regularly worked in excess of 40 hours
per workweek.  Defendant did not pay the Plaintiff one and one-
half times his regular rate of pay for each hour worked over 40
hours in any given workweek. The Plaintiff and all others
similarly situated employees were non-exempt employees. The
Defendant willfully failed to properly compensate them for the
hours they worked in excess of 40 hours during a given
workweek.[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Dean R. Fuchs, Esq.
     SCHULTEN WARD TURNER & WEISS, LLP
     260 Peachtree Street, N.W. Suite 2700
     Atlanta, GA 30303
     Telephone: (404) 688-6800
     Facsimile: (404) 688-6800
     Email: d.fuchs@swtwlaw.com

Counsel For Defendant(s):

     Andrew J. Butcher, Esq.
     SCOPELITIS GARVIN LIGHT HANSON & FEARY, P.C.
     Suite 600
     30 West Monroe St.
     Chicago, IL 60603
     Telephone: (312) 255-7200

          - and -

     David Frank Root, Esq.
     CARLOCK COPELAND & STAIR, LLP
     Suite 3600
     191 Peachtree St., NE
     Atlanta, GA 30303
     Telephone: (404) 522-8220
     Facsimile: (404) 523-2345
     E-mail: droot@carlockcopeland.com

          - and -

     Paul D. Root, Esq.
     SCOPELITIS GARVIN LIGHT HANSON & FEARY, P.C.
     Suite 1400
     10 West Market St.
     Indianapolis, IN 46204
     Telephone: (317) 637-1777

          - and -

     Abby C. Grozine, Esq.
     CARLOCK COPELAND & STAIR, LLP
     Suite 3600
     191 Peachtree St., NE
     Atlanta, GA 30303
     Telephone: (404) 522-8220
     Facsimile: (404) 523-2345
     E-mail: agrozine@carlockcopeland.com


SAN DIEGO ACCOUNTS: Clark Sues Over Vague Collection Letter
-----------------------------------------------------------
Eugene Clark, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. San Diego Accounts Service, a California
Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 17-cv-02529 (S.D. Cal., December
18, 2017), seeks actual damages, statutory damages, injunctive
relief, attorneys' fees and costs and other relief for violation
of the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and Rosenthal
Fair Debt Collections Practices Act.

Plaintiff received a collection letter dated April 27, 2017 from
Defendant, attempting to collect a debt in the amount of $77.49
from Plaintiff. It did not state that the $77.49 debt is
increasing due to accruing interest, late charges, or other fees.
In fact, it is completely devoid of any language that would
either confirm or deny the existence of acquiring interest, late
charges, or other fees, says the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Alex Asil Mashiri, Esq.
      MASHIRI LAW FIRM
      11251 Rancho Carmel Drive #500694
      San Diego, CA 92150
      Tel: (858) 348-4938
      Fax: (858) 348-4939
      Email: alexmashiri@yahoo.com

             - and -

      Tamim Jami, Esq.
      THE JAMI LAW FIRM P.C.
      3525 Del Mar Heights Rd #941
      San Diego, CA 92130
      Tel: (858) 284-0248
      Fax: (858) 284-0977
      Email: tamim@jamilaw.com


SCI DIRECT: "Romano" Suit Seeks to Certify ISR Class & Subclass
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled Nicole Romano and Jonathan Bono, on behalf
of themselves and on behalf of other members of the general
public similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. SCI Direct, Inc.,
the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-03537-ODW-JEM (C.D. Cal.), Nicole
Romano and Jon Bono will move the Court on March 19, 2018, for an
order granting Plaintiffs' motion for Class Certification
concerning violations of the California Labor Code and Unfair
Competition Law, on behalf of:

   ISR Class:

   "all persons who worked for Defendants in California, as an
   Independent Sales Representative, who were, at any time within
   four years of the filing of the Complaint, classified as an
   independent contractor"; and

   Terminated ISR Subclass:

   "all members of the ISR Class whose working relationship ended
   during the Class Period".

The Plaintiffs will also move the Court for their appointment as
Class Representatives, and for appointment of their attorneys as
Class Counsel.

A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=h9y8ykAq

Attorneys for Plaintiffs Nicole Romano and Jonathan Bono:

          Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
          Adrian R. Bacon, 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
                  bacon@toddflaw.com


SCI DIRECT: "Romano" Suit Seeks to Certify FLSA Class
-----------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled Nicole Romano and Jonathan Bono, on behalf
of themselves and on behalf of other members of the general
public similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. SCI Direct, Inc.,
the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-03537-ODW-JEM (C.D. Cal.), Nicole
Romano and Jon Bono will move this Court on March 19, 2018, for
an order granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Conditional
Certification pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, on behalf
of:

   "all persons who worked for Defendants in the United States,
   as an Independent Sales Representative, who were, at any time
   between April 6, 2014 and present, classified as an
   independent contractor, and worked overtime hours but were not
   paid overtime wages or minimum wages during all or part of
   their employment."

A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=jp9XFoxU

Attorneys for Plaintiffs Nicole Romano and Jonathan Bono:

          Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
          Adrian R. Bacon, 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


SEAWORLD ENTERTAINMENT: Gov't Can Intervene in Shareholders' Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
California issued an Order granting the United States' Motion to
Intervene in the case captioned LOU BAKER, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
SEAWORLD ENTERTAINMENT, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No.
14cv2129-MMA (AGS) (S.D. Cal.).

The United States filed a second unopposed motion to intervene
for the limited purpose of extending the partial stay of
discovery in this case through April 2, 2018.

Plaintiffs commenced the class action against Defendants,
alleging violations of federal securities laws. Discovery is
currently ongoing in this action, with a fact discovery cutoff
date of January 22, 2018.

The Court finds that permissive intervention is appropriate for
the same reasons articulated in the Court's previous order.
First, the United States' motion is timely because discovery is
ongoing.  Second, the United States does not assert a new claim
based on state law; thus, the Court has independent grounds for
jurisdiction.  Third, the civil action and the criminal
investigation clearly involve common questions of law and fact,
as the Department of Justice is investigating the same
disclosures and public statements made by SeaWorld and its
executives which form the basis of the civil complaint.

The Court concludes, in its discretion, that the United States
may intervene to extend the partial stay of discovery.

Accordingly, the Court grants the government's motion to
intervene for the limited purpose of extending the partial stay
of discovery in the civil action.

The United States moves to extend the partial stay civil
discovery in this action in light of the ongoing criminal
investigation.

The Court finds that the Keating factors weigh in favor of a
extending the temporary and partial stay of discovery. First, the
parties do not oppose extending the partial stay. Additionally,
as noted above, the United States does not seek an indefinite
stay; rather, the United States seeks to stay depositions for
approximately four months. Further, the nature of the criminal
investigation and the subject matter of the civil action are
substantially similar.

The Court grants the United States' motion to extend the partial
stay of discovery through April 2, 2018.  The Court grants the
government's motion to intervene and to extend the partial stay
of discovery.

A full-text copy of the District Court's December 7, 2017 Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/ya2gaag7 from Leagle.com.

Lou Baker, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Ethan Thomas Boyer --
eboyer@noonanlance.com -- Noonan Lance Boyer & Banach LLP.

Lou Baker, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Gregory M. Castaldo --
gcastaldo@ktmc.com -- Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP, pro hac
vice, Joshua E. D'Ancona --  jdancona@ktmc.com -- Kessler Topaz
Meltzer & Check LLP, pro hac vice, Joshua A. Materese --
jmaterese@ktmc.com --  Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP, pro hac
vice, Laurence M. Rosen -- lrosen@rosenlegal.com -- The Rosen Law
Firm, P.A., Megan Koneski -- mkoneski@ktmc.com --  Kessler Topaz
Meltzer & Check LLP, pro hac vice & Michael K. Yarnoff --
myarnoff@kehoelawfirm.com -- Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP,
pro hac vice.

Pensionskassen for Borne-Og UngdomspAedagoger, Plaintiff,
represented by Bradley E. Beckworth, Nix Patterson & Roach LLP,
3600 N Capital of Texas Hwy Ste B350 Austin, TX 78746-3308, pro
hac vice, David J. Noonan --  dnoonan@noonanlance.com -- Noonan
Lance Boyer & Banach LLP, Eli R. Greenstein --
egreenstein@ktmc.com -- Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, Ethan
Thomas Boyer, Noonan Lance Boyer & Banach LLP, Gregory M.
Castaldo, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP, pro hac vice, Joshua
E. D'Ancona, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP, pro hac vice,
Joshua A. Materese, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP, pro hac
vice, Megan Koneski, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP, pro hac
vice & Michael K. Yarnoff, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP, pro
hac vice.

Arkansas Public Employees Retirement System, Plaintiff,
represented by Bradley E. Beckworth, Nix Patterson & Roach LLP,
pro hac vice, Cody L. Hill, Nix Patterson & Roach LLP, pro hac
vice, David J. Noonan, Noonan Lance Boyer & Banach LLP, Eli R.
Greenstein, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, Ethan Thomas
Boyer, Noonan Lance Boyer & Banach LLP, Gregory M. Castaldo,
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP, pro hac vice, Jeffrey J.
Angelovich, Nix Patterson & Roach LLP, pro hac vice, Joshua E.
D'Ancona, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP, pro hac vice, Joshua
A. Materese, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP, pro hac vice,
Lloyd Nolan Duck, III, Nix, Patterson & Roach, LLP, pro hac vice,
Megan Koneski, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP, pro hac vice,
Michael K. Yarnoff, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP, pro hac
vice & Susan Whatley, Nix Patterson & Roach, LLP, pro hac vice.
Seaworld Entertainment, Inc., Defendant, represented by Chet A.
Kronenberg --  ckronenberg@stblaw.com -- Simpson Thacher and
Bartlett LLP, Dean Michael McGee -- dean.mcgee@stblaw.com --
Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP, pro hac vice, Janet Gochman --
jgochman@stblaw.com -- Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP, pro hac
vice, Jonathan Youngwood -- jyoungwood@stblaw.com -- Simpson
Thacher & Bartlett LLP, pro hac vice & Meredith Karp --
meredith.karp@stblaw.com -- Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP, pro
hac vice.

James M Heaney, Defendant, represented by Chet A. Kronenberg,
Simpson Thacher and Bartlett LLP, Dean Michael McGee, Simpson
Thacher & Bartlett LLP, pro hac vice, Janet Gochman, Simpson
Thacher & Bartlett LLP, pro hac vice, Jonathan Youngwood, Simpson
Thacher & Bartlett LLP, pro hac vice & Meredith Karp, Simpson
Thacher & Bartlett LLP, pro hac vice.

Marc Swanson, Defendant, represented by Chet A. Kronenberg,
Simpson Thacher and Bartlett LLP, Dean Michael McGee, Simpson
Thacher & Bartlett LLP, pro hac vice, Janet Gochman, Simpson
Thacher & Bartlett LLP, pro hac vice, Jonathan Youngwood, Simpson
Thacher & Bartlett LLP, pro hac vice & Meredith Karp, Simpson
Thacher & Bartlett LLP, pro hac vice.

The Blackstone Group L.P., Defendant, represented by Chet A.
Kronenberg, Simpson Thacher and Bartlett LLP, Dean Michael McGee,
Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP, pro hac vice, Janet Gochman,
Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP, pro hac vice, Jonathan Youngwood,
Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP, pro hac vice & Meredith Karp,
Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP, pro hac vice.

James Atchison, Defendant, represented by Michael Joseph Diver --
michael.diver@kattenlaw.com -- Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP, pro
hac vice, Michael J. Lohnes -- michael.lohnes@kattenlaw.com --
Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP, pro hac vice, Richard H. Zelichov --
richard.zelichov@kattenlaw.com -- Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP, Gil
M. Soffer -- gil.soffer@kattenlaw.com -- Katten Muchin Rosenman
LLP & Jason Yuegin Kelly -- jason.kelly@kattenlaw.com -- Katten
Muchin Rosenman LLP.

The Blackstone Group, L.P., Defendant, represented by Dean
Michael McGee --  dean.mcgee@stblaw.com -- Simpson Thacher &
Bartlett LLP, pro hac vice.

The Oklahoma City Employee Retirement System, Third-Party
Plaintiff, represented by Jeffrey Almeida -- jalmeida@gelaw.com -
- Grant & Eisenhofer P.A., pro hac vice & Timothy G. Blood --
tblood@bholaw.com -- Blood Hurst & O'Reardon, LLP.

Pembroke Pines Firefighters and Police Officers Pension Fund,
ThirdParty Plaintiff, represented by Jeffrey Almeida, Grant &
Eisenhofer P.A., pro hac vice & Timothy G. Blood, Blood Hurst &
O'Reardon, LLP.

United States of America, Intervenor, represented by Michael John
Rinaldi, U.S. Department of Justice.


SIGNET JEWELERS: Sued by "Aydin" Over Share Price Drop
------------------------------------------------------
Nebil Aydin, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Signet Jewelers Limited, Virginia C.
Drosos and Michele L. Santana, Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-09853
(S.D. N.Y., December 15, 2017), seeks compensatory damages,
reasonable costs and expenses incurred in this action, including
counsel fees and expert fees and such other and further relief
under the Securities and Exchange Act.

Signet is a retailer of diamond jewelry with stores in North
America and in the United Kingdom. On November 21, 2017, Signet
issued a press release disclosing that its third quarter 2017
store sales were down five percent, in part due to systems and
process disruptions associated with outsourcing of the credit
portfolio.

On this news, Signet's share price fell $23.05 per share, or
30.4%, to close at $52.79 per share on November 21, 2017, on
unusually heavy trading volume. Signet allegedly failed to timely
disclose these material facts to its stockholders, thus Signet's
securities were traded at artificially inflated prices during the
said period, notes the complaint. Plaintiff owns common stock of
Signet. BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq.
      GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
      230 Park Ave, Suite 530
      New York, NY 10169
      Telephone: (212) 682-5340
      Email: lportnoy@glancylaw.com

             - and -

      Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
      Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
      Charles H. Linehan, Esq.
      GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
      1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
      Los Angeles, CA 90067
      Telephone: (310) 201-9150
      Facsimile: (310) 201-9160

             - and -

      Howard G. Smith, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF HOWARD G. SMITH
      3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112
      Bensalem, PA 19020
      Telephone: (215) 638-4847
      Facsimile: (215) 638-4867


SMZ IMPEX: "Mathew" Labor Suit Seek Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------
Roy Mathew, Abdur Howlader and Jayson Yesudasan, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. SMZ
Impex, Inc., Farm and Grocery, Inc., Kusum Shah, individually,
Bharat Shah, individually, Jigar Shah, individually, Mangesh
Shah, individually and Jagesh Shah, individually, Defendants,
Case No. 17-cv-9870 (S.D. N.Y., December 18, 2017), seeks damages
and equitable relief based on violations of minimum wage,
overtime provisions and tip credit provisions of the Fair Labor
Standards Act, anti-retaliation and wage statements provisions of
the New York Wage Theft Prevention Act, spread of hours
violations and meal breaks provisions pursuant to New York Labor
Law.

Defendants own and operate an East Village-based grocery store.
Defendants worked for SMZ as delivery drivers, cashiers and night
watchman, typically working between 9-12 hours per day without
overtime premium, and claims to have never received a wage
statement. Mathew was eventually terminated for complaining,
while Howlader and Yesudasan resigned. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Chaya M. Gourarie, Esq.
      225 Broadway, Suite 2700
      New York, NY 10007
      Tel: (212) 227-5700
      Email: chaya@norinsberglaw.com


SOOTHE INC: Faces "Haris" Class Suit Over Automated Phone Calls
---------------------------------------------------------------
Arezo Haris, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Soothe, Inc., Case No. 4:18-cv-00106-HSG (N.D. Cal.,
January 5, 2018), seeks to stop the Defendant's practice of using
an automatic telephone dialing system in order to deliver
telemarketing messages without prior express written consent.

Soothe, Inc. is a massage service provider located at 1800 North
Highland Avenue, Suite 600, Los Angeles, California 90028. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Timothy Fisher, Esq.
      BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.L.
      1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
      Walnut Creek, CA 94596
      Telephone: (925) 300-4455
      Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
      E-mail:  ltfisher@bursor.com

         - and -

      Scott A. Bursor, Esq.
      BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
      888 Seventh Avenue
      New York, NY 10019
      Telephone: (212) 989-9113
      Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
      E-mail: scott@bursor.com

         - and -

      Reuben D. Nathan, Esq.
      NATHAN & ASSOCIATES, APC
      600 W. Broadway, Suite 700
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 272-7014
      Facsimile: (619) 330-1819
      E-mail: rnathan@nathanlawpractice.com


SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON: Sued Over Thomas Fire
-------------------------------------------------
Beth Farnsworth, writing for keyt.com, reports that a Westlake
attorney who filed a class-action lawsuit blames Southern
California Edison (SCE) for starting the Thomas Fire.

Alex Robertson, Esq. the head of Robertson and Associates, LLP,
told NewsChannel 3 that he has roughly 50 clients impacted by the
devastating wildfire and expects to represent many more.

"It's really a tragic story and just a catastrophic loss for the
community," Robertson said January 4 by phone.

Robertson said the lawsuit alleges SCE started the fire in a
canyon near Anlauf Canyon Road, above Steckel Park, He said SCE
crews were working in the canyon weeks before the flames broke
out on December 4, he believes, replacing poles.

"Our client said she saw this power pole with the blown
transformer on it taken out," Robertson said. "There were two Cal
Fire trucks in the lead and the Edison flatbed with the evidence
of the pole and two Cal Fire investigator trucks behind and it
was a whole procession that came down the canyon."

Robertson said power lines/poles are the second leading cause of
wildfires in California and by law, power companies must preserve
evidence of "the ignition source of wildfires."

Robertson said he is representing roughly 40 clients in Ventura,
10 in Upper Ojai and two in Santa Barbara County; one in the Toro
Canyon area of Montecito and one in Carpinteria.

The trial attorney also filed suit against the City of Ventura
for failing to have backup generators to operate the pumps when
the power went out.

"We allege that's why so many neighborhoods were completely
destroyed, every house is gone," Robertson said. "There was no
water."

Robertson says firefighters simply had no water pressure for the
hillside hydrants when the fire came roaring over the hill into
the city between 2:00 a.m. and 4:00 a.m. on December 5.

Robertson anticipates representing even more residents impacted
by the Thomas Fire. [GN]


SOUTHWEST AIRLINE: Pays $15-Mil. to Settle Class Action Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
CBS DFW reports that Southwest Airline will pay $15 million
dollars to settle class-action lawsuits.

The lawsuits accuse the four biggest U.S. airlines of conspiring
to boost prices by holding down the supply of tickets for sale.

Dallas-based Southwest Airline denies breaking the law, but says
it settled to avoid the expense of more litigation.

Officials with American Airline and United Airline say they will
continue to defend themselves against the lawsuits.

Representatives for Delta Airline did not immediately comment.

Lawyers for consumers filed dozens of lawsuits against the
airlines in mid-2015.

The feds demanded documents from the airlines to see if they were
colluding to limit capacity, and the number of seats to keep
prices high.

The U.S. Justice Department hasn't taken any further action. [GN]


STARWORKS LLC: "Frost" Suit over Unpaid Overtime Underway
---------------------------------------------------------
Colleen Frost, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Starworks LLC, d/b/a Starworks Group
LLC and Vice Media LLC, the Defendants, Case No. BC682547, (Cal.
Super., Los Angeles County, November 13, 2017), seeks claims
under the California Labor Code and California's Unfair
Competition Law.

The complaint alleges that Defendants staffed Plaintiff and other
VIP Showroom Interns in Starworks's Fashion Showroom where it
houses clothing, beauty products, and other luxury items.
Defendants assigned manual labor and other tasks to Interns in
Starworks' Fashion Showroom, also they determined the work
schedules and were required to run errands which they were not
reimbursed.  The Defendants failed to pay them overtime and thus
violated and continue to violate the overtime provisions of the
state Labor Code. Also, Defendants failed to provide Plaintiff
and class members with wage statements that clearly itemize their
hours worked, an hourly wage, overtime, or other earnings.[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Rachel Bien, Esq.
     OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
     685 Third Avenue, 25th Floor
     New York, New York 10017
     Telephone: (212) 245-1000
     Facsimile: (646) 509-2060
     Email: rmb@outtengolden.com


STATE FARM FIRE: Faces "Carson" Suit in Medina County, Ohio
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against State Farm Fire and
Casualty Company on January 11, 2018, in the Court of Common
Pleas Medina County. The case is styled as Tim Carson and
Gabrielle Gillota, Plaintiffs v. State Farm Fire and Casualty
Company, American Consulting Inc., American Structurepoint Inc.,
American Consulting Inc. and American Consulting Inc.,
Defendants, Case No. 18CIV0041.

State Farm Fire and Casualty Company is an insurance company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   THOMAS CONNICK, Esq.
   25550 CHAGRIN BLVD STE 101
   CLEVELAND, OH 44122


TERRIBLE HERBST: Dismissal of Wage & Hour Class Suit Vacated
------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of Nevada issued an Opinion vacating the
Judgment of the District Court granting in part Defendant's
Motion to Dismiss in the case captioned JOHN W. NEVILLE, JR., ON
BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Petitioner,
v. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN
AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE ADRIANA ESCOBAR,
DISTRICT JUDGE, Respondents, and TERRIBLE HERBST, INC., Real
Party in Interest, No. 70696 (Nev.).

Neville filed a class-action complaint against Terrible Herbst
alleging (1) failure to pay wages in violation of the Nevada
Constitution's Minimum Wage Amendment, Nev. Const. art. 15,
Section 16; (2) failure to compensate for all hours worked in
violation of NRS 608.016; (3) failure to pay overtime in
violation of NRS 608.018; (4) failure to timely pay all wages due
and owing in violation of NRS 608.020 through NRS 608.050; and
(5) breach of contract. All of Neville's NRS Chapter 608 claims
also referred to NRS 608.140.

The district court granted the motion to dismiss in part,
dismissing Neville's NRS Chapter 608 claims on the basis that no
private right of action exists.  The district court also
dismissed Neville's claim pursuant to the Nevada Constitution's
Minimum Wage Amendment, concluding that there is no private right
of action under the Nevada Constitution for minimum wage claims.
The only cause of action that the district court did not dismiss
was Neville's breach of contract claim.  A writ petition
followed.

A writ of mandamus is available to compel the performance of an
act that the law requires or to control an arbitrary or
capricious exercise of discretion. Where there is no plain,
speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law,
extraordinary relief may be available.  Whether a writ of
mandamus will be considered is within this court's sole
discretion.

In this case, the district court's dismissal of Neville's claim
under the Nevada Constitution's Minimum Wage Amendment
indisputedly was an arbitrary and capricious exercise of
discretion, the state Supreme Court held.  The constitution
expressly provides for a private cause of action to enforce the
provisions of the Minimum Wage Amendment.

Neville argues that the district court erred in dismissing his
NRS Chapter 608 claims (payment for hours worked, overtime, and
payment upon termination) on the basis that there is no private
right of action to enforce those claims under that chapter. In
particular, Neville contends that the relevant statutes, as well
as precedent from this court, expressly allow employees to seek
unpaid wages in court. Terrible Herbst maintains that there is no
private right of action under NRS Chapter 608 to support
Neville's claims.

Because NRS 608.016, NRS 608.018, and NRS 608.020 through NRS
608.050 do not expressly state whether an employee could
privately enforce their terms, Neville may only pursue his claims
under the statutes if a private cause of action for unpaid wages
is implied. The determinative factor is always whether the
Legislature intended to create a private judicial remedy. The
state Supreme Court concludes that the Legislature intended to
create a private cause of action for unpaid wages pursuant to NRS
608.140. It would be absurd to think that the Legislature
intended a private cause of action to obtain attorney fees for an
unpaid wages suit but no private cause of action to bring the
suit itself.   The Legislature enacted NRS 608.140 to protect
employees, and the legislative scheme is consistent with private
causes of action for unpaid wages under NRS Chapter 608.

Neville's NRS Chapter 608 claims involve allegations that wages
were unpaid and due to him at the time he brought his suit before
the district court. Moreover, in his complaint, Neville tied his
NRS Chapter 608 claims with NRS 608.140. Thus, the state Supreme
Court concluded that Neville has and properly stated a private
cause of action for unpaid wages. As a result, granting Terrible
Herbst's motion to dismiss pursuant to NRCP 12(b)(5) was
improper.

Accordingly, the state Supreme Court grants Neville's petition
for extraordinary writ relief and directs the clerk of the court
to issue a writ of mandamus instructing the district court to
vacate its order dismissing Neville's claims.

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

Thierman Buck, LLP, and Joshua D. Buck -- josh@thiermanbuck.com
-- Leah L. Jones -- leah@thiermanbuck.com -- and Mark R. Thierman
-- mark@thiermanbuck.com -- Reno, for Petitioner.

Littler Mendelson, P.C., and Rick D. Roskelley --
rroskelley@littler.com -- Kathryn B. Blakey --
kblakey@littler.com -- Roger L. Grandgenett, II  --
rgrandgenett@littler.com -- and Montgomery Y. Pack --
mpaek@littler.com -- Las Vegas, for Real Party in Interest.

Sutton Hague Law Corporation, P.C., and S. Brett Sutton and Jared
Hague, Reno, for Amicus Curiae Nevada Restaurant Association.


THEDACARE INC: Court Decertifies Employees Class
------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled JUELAINE MILLER et al., the Plaintiffs, v.
THEDACARE INC., the Defendant, Case No. 2:15-cv-00506-WCG (E.D.
Wisc.), the Hon. Judge William C. Griesbach entered an order:

   1. denying Plaintiffs' motion for final certification and to
      certify a class of:

      "all persons who have been or are employed by ThedaCare at
      the Appleton Medical Center or Theda Clark Medical Center
      hospitals on an hourly basis as direct patient care
      providers, administrative associates, unit resource
      associates and employees of the Staffing Resources
      department at any time three years prior to the
      commencement of this lawsuit to the present whose scheduled
      hours included an automatic deduction for unpaid meal
      breaks and who were denied minimum wage or overtime wages
      for hours for compensable "oncall" time and/or hours
      performing work during unpaid meal periods."

   2. granting Defendant's motion to decertify, decertifying
      collective action and dismissing claims of the opt-in
      plaintiffs without prejudice;

   3. directing Plaintiffs' counsel to notify the opt-in
      plaintiffs of this order decertifying the class and
      informing them of their ability to bring individual claims
      and warning them that the statute of limitations on their
      ability to file suit has resumed running.

   4. directing Clerk to set this matter on the court's calendar
      in not less than ten days for a telephone conference to
      address further scheduling.

A copy of the Order available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=SbOSWV6u


TOKYO STATESBORO: "Eigenberger" Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kyra Eigenberger and Danielle Tuck, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Tokyo Statesboro
GA, LLC and Ling Lin, Case No. 17-cv-00160, (S.D. Ga., December
15, 2017), seeks compensation for all unpaid and underpaid wages,
liquidated damages, litigation costs, expenses, and attorneys'
fees and such other and further relief under the federal Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Defendant operates Tokyo Japanese Restaurant where Plaintiffs
worked for the Defendants as waitresses, earning compensation
solely from tips despite rendering over 40 hours per work week.
[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Tyler B. Kaspers, Esq.
      THE KASPER FIRM LLC
      152 New Street, Suite 109B
      Macon GA 31201
      Tel: (404) 994-3128
      Email: tyler@kaspersfirm.com


ULTIMATE FITNESS: Cline Sues Over Unsolicited SMS Ads
-----------------------------------------------------
Christopher Cline, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Ultimate Fitness Group, LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-81364 (S.D. Fla., December 18, 2017),
seeks compensatory damages, reasonable costs and expenses
incurred in this action, including counsel fees and expert fees
and such other and further relief under the Telephone Consumers
Protection Act.

Defendant operates an Orangetheory franchise fitness studio
located at 6000 Broken Sound Parkway, NW, Suite 201, in Boca
Raton FL. Cline was a member in 2016 and received unsolicited
text messages even after his membership lapsed. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Steven G. Wenzel, Esq.
      WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, PA
      1110 N Florida Ave., Ste. 300
      Tampa, FL 33602-3343
      Tel: (813) 223-6545
      Fax: (813) 229-8712
      Email: swenzel@wfclaw.com

             - and -

      Shanon Carson, Esq.
      Arthur Stock, Esq.
      Lane L. Vines, Esq.
      BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
      1622 Locust Street
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Tel: 215-875-5704
      Fax: 215-875-4604
      Email: scarson@bm.net
             astock@bm.net
             lvines@bm.net

             - and -

      James A. Hunter, Esq.
      HUNTER AND KMIEC
      255 West 94th St., No. 10M
      New York, NY 10025
      Telephone: (646) 666-0122
      Facsimile: (646) 462-3356
      Email: hunter@hunterkmiec.com


UNITED AUTO CREDIT: "Camayd" Hits Illegal Telemarketing Calls
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jeannette Camayd, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. United Auto Credit Corporation,
Defendant, Case No. 17-cv-24538, (S.D. Fla., December 15, 2017),
seeks statutory damages of up to $1,500 dollars per call for each
willful violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, an
injunction requiring Defendant to cease all telemarketing
communications and such further relief.

United Auto Credit Corporation, is a California based non-prime
automotive lender conducting business across the country. Camayd
received automated calls from Defendant in an attempt to collect
an alleged debt that she did not incur. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Max Story, Esq.
      Austin Griffin, Esq.
      MAX STORY PA
      328 2nd Avenue North
      Jacksonville Beach, FL 32250
      Tel: (904) 372-4109
      Fax: (904) 758-5333
      Email: max@storylawgroup.com

             - and -

      Keith J. Keogh, Esq.
      Amy L. Wells, Esq.
      KEOGH LAW, LTD.
      55 West Monroe Street, Suite 3390
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Tel: (312) 726-1092
      Fax: (312) 726-1093
      Email: Keith@KeoghLaw.com
             AWells@KeoghLaw.com


VITA-MIX CORP: Select Blender Owners to Get $70 Gift Card
---------------------------------------------------------
Lindsey Murray, writing for Good Housekeeping, reports that if
you own a Vitamix blender, you could be entitled to a
compensation thanks to a class-action lawsuit settlement.

Vita-Mix Corporation agreed to a preliminary settlement last fall
for a class-action lawsuit that developed after owners claimed
that tiny pieces of a black nonstick coating on the blender
chipped off into food and drinks. Based on the settlement, owners
of select models are eligible to receive a $70 Vitamix gift card
or a new blade assembly.

Affected models included in the settlement have a blade assembly
date between January 1, 2007 and October 1, 2016. The blade
assembly date can be found on the top side on one of the blades.

You may also be eligible if you purchased your appliance through
a third party and not directly from Vitamix on or after September
15, 2015 but before August 9, 2016.

The proposed settlement notice claims nearly 6 million Vitamix
blenders are affected, however Vitamix denies that this number is
accurate.

"Vitamix does not know the number of blenders affected because
not all blenders experienced flecking, but we anticipate that the
number of claimants will be small," Scott Tennant, director of
communications for the company, explained to Consumer Reports.

Owners who are entitled to the settlement have started being
notified by email or mail as of January 2, and will need to file
a claim by September 28, 2018. If you believe your Vitamix was
affected, you can fill out a claim form at blendersettlement.com.

If you are unsure if you are included in this settlement or have
other questions, you can visit the settlements Frequently Asked
Questions page or contact the Settlement Administration toll-free
at 1-855-233-4747.

Vitamix provided GoodHousekeeping.com with the following
statement:

"We have been involved in class action litigation relating to
seals in the bottom of older containers. We began replacing those
seals in 2015, and all containers coming off our production line
now have the new seal.

We have agreed to a preliminary settlement in the interest of
putting this matter behind us so we can continue moving forward
with our purpose and mission -- to create relationships for life
by designing, developing and producing the world's best
performing and most reliable blending solutions.

We deny any liability in the case and disagree with many of the
characterizations made by the plaintiffs, including any attempt
to put a value on the settlement, which won't be known until all
claims have been made. Typically, in such litigation the actual
number of people who participate in a class settlement is very
small." [GN]


ZION HEALTH: "Shin" Suit Seeks to Certify 2 Classes
---------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled JONG ICK SHIN, Individually and On Behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated, v. DIANA LEE, ZION HEALTH TECH,
INC., and ION CO. LTD., and DOES 1 through 10, the Defendants,
Case No. 8:16-cv-01225-CJC-DFM (C.D. Cal.), Jong Ick Shin will
move the Court on February 26, 2018, for an order certifying
following classes defined as:

   (a) all persons who purchased the Zion Health Tech, Inc.'
   Ionizers, which includes SMART3000, SMART 5000, SMART7000, and
   SMART 9000, throughout the United States, on or after June 1,
   2012. Excluded from the Class are Defendants Zion, Ion, and
   Lee, their affiliates, employees, officers and directors,
   persons or entities that distribute or sell the Ionizer, the
   Judge(s) assigned to this case, and the attorneys of record in
   this case.;

   (b) all persons who purchased the Zion Health Tech, Inc.'
   Ionizers, which includes SMART3000, SMART 5000, SMART7000, and
   SMART 9000, in California, on or after June 1, 2012. Excluded
   from the Class are Defendants Zion, Ion, and Lee, their
   affiliates, employees, officers and directors, persons or
   entities that distribute or sell the Ionizer, the Judge(s)
   assigned to this case, and the attorneys of record in this
   case.

The Plaintiff also asks Court to appoint himself as Class
Representative, and appoint Law Office of Juan Hong as Class
Counsel.

A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=OsBXDs5S

Attorney for Plaintiff:

          Juan Hong, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JUAN HONG, A LAW CORP.
          4199 Campus Drive, Suite 550
          Irvine, CA 92612
          Telephone: (949) 509 6505
          Facsimile: (949) 335 6647
          E-mail: jhong48@gmail.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  * * *