CAR_Public/180201.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


            Thursday, February 1, 2018, Vol. 20, No. 24



                            Headlines


338 8TH AVE: "Flores" Labor Suit Seeks Overtime Pay, Paystubs
A1 ADVANCED: Trejos-Torrez Moves to Certify Truck Drivers Class
ABC CORP: "Jin" Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay
AFNI INC: Torres Moves for Class Certification Under "Damasco"
AMBIT ENERGY: Court Narrows Claims in "Little" Suit

AMC ENTERTAINMENT: March 13 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
AMCOL SYSTEMS: Certification of Classes Sought in "Lakkard" Suit
APPLE INC: "Freeman" Sues Over Undisclosed Battery Defect
APPLE INC: "Grillo" Sues Over iPhone Bug, Undisclosed Battery Fix
APPLE INC: Ferguson Hits iOS Upgrade Bug, Undisclosed Battery Fix

APPLE INC: "Littlefied" Sues Over Undisclosed Battery Defect
APPLE INC: More Than 380,000 Koreans Join iPhone Class Actions
APPLE INC: Chinese Consumer Group Seeks Info on iPhone Slowdowns
ARIZONA: Parents' Bid for Prelim Injunction Denied
AUSTRALIA: Meetings Set in Defense PFAS Class Actions

AZZ INC: Holzer & Holzer Files Securities Class Suit
BABCOCK & WILCOX: Belczyk Seeks Prelim. Okay of Class Settlement
BANK OF AMERICA: Denied Overtime, Meal Breaks, "Duque" Suit Says
BAYER CORP: "Hines" Remanded to Missouri State Court
BAYER CORP: "Langston" Remanded to Missouri State Court

BAYER CORP: "McPeters" Remanded to Missouri State Court
BAYER CORP: "Whitlock" Remanded to Missouri State Court
BENJAMIN & BROTHERS: Marko Moves for Certification of Two Classes
BLICK ART: Court Approves Settlement in "Andrews"
BP PLC: To Take $1.7BB Charge Related to Deepwater Horizon Deal

BROOME COUNTY, NY: AT Moves for Class Cert.; Feb. 9 Hearing Set
CANADA: WRP Responds to Class Action Over Workplace Harassment
CANADA: St Anne's Residential School Survivors Protest Ruling
CANADIAN PACIFIC: Trial Date Not Yet Fixed in Derailment Case
CANNAVEST CORP: Motions to Dismiss Securities Action Pending

CASH FUND LLC: Illegally Contacted Hardin Using Auto-dialer
CENTENE HEALTH: Faces Class Action Over Ambetter Plans
CERES, CA: "Miranda" Suit Seeks OT Pay, Damages
CHAIR SLIPPERS: Bais Yaakov Sues Over Illegally-faxed Ads
CHICAGO'S BEST: Delivery Drivers' Suit Underway

CHOICE HOTELS: Illegally Recorded Sales Call, "Siu" Suit Says
CLOROX COMPANY: "Cesarini" Suit Asserts Product Mislabeling
COPPER COMPANIES: Settlement of Contact Lens Suit Underway
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Final Judgment in Hot Fuel Suit Affirmed
COSTCO WHOLESALE: "Canela" Class Action Suit Underway

COVELLI ENTERPRISES: "Kis" Action Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay
CREDIT CONTROL: Faces "Kapcits" Suit in Eastern Dist. New York
CSX CORP: Fuel Surcharge Antitrust Suit Underway
DYNAMIC RECOVERY: Class Certification Sought in "Gruentzel" Suit
EARLY WARNING: Seeks Prelim. Approval of "Muir" Suit Settlement

EIGER BIOPHARMACEUTICALS: Class Action Appeal Underway
ENVIRONMENTAL LOGISTICS: Faces "Pascual" Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
FCA US: Faces Class Actions Following Criminal Indictments
FERNANDEZ & FERNANDEZ: "Yanes" Scheduling Conference on March 2
FITNESS 19: Gallion Seeks to Certify 3 Classes Under EFTA & TCPA

FRONTLINE ASSET: Faces "Manashirov" Suit in E.D. New York
GLOBAL POWER: Wins Dismissal of "Budde" Securities Suit
IDT CORP: Stockholders Suit over Straight Path Spin-Off Stayed
INDUCTOR MAKERS: Dependable Component Asserts Sherman Act Breach
INTEL CORPORATION: Dean Files Suit Over CPU Defect

INTEL CORP: Quebec Restaurant Among Plaintiffs in Chip Flaw Case
INTERSTATE CREDIT: "Little" Disputes Vague Collection Letter
KRIEGER BEARD: "Henderson" Seeks OT Pay, Hits Illegal Deductions
LA SELECTA BAKERY: "Tejada" Suit over Unpaid Overtime Ongoing
LAMPS PLUS: Files Writ of Certiorari in "Varela" Sup. Ct. Suit

LOANDEPOT.COM: Faces "Rowe" Suit in Middle District Florida
LOBLAW COS: Sued in B.C. Over Alleged Bread Price-Fixing
LOUISIANA: Denial of Katrina Victims' Class Certification Upheld
LRR ENERGY: Class of Shareholders Certified in "Hurwitz" Suit
MANITOBA: Judge Approves Settlement to Flooded First Nations

MAZGANI SOCIAL: Khosroabadi Asks Court to Certify Fraud Class
MERCHANTS CREDIT: "Fichtel" Suit Disputes Vague Collection Letter
MIAMI LAKES AM: "Cespedes" Suit Seeks Minimum, Overtime Wages
NANTHEALTH INC: Bid to Dismiss in "Deora" Amended Suit Pending
NANTHEALTH INC: Retirement Fund Suit Stayed

NATIONAL ENTERPRISE: Faces "Manashirov" Suit in E.D. New York
NCL CORPORATION: "Crankshaw" Certified as Class Action Under FLSA
NORTHLAND GROUP: Faces "Manashirov" Suit in E.D. New York
NORTHSTAR LOCATION: Faces "Diaz" Suit in E.D. New York
NOVARTIS PHARMA: Miami-Luken Suit Asserts Sherman Act Breach

OKLAHOMA: "Simmons" Suit Can't Proceed as Class Action
OS RESTAURANT SVCS: Denies "Chavira" Overtime Pay
PALO ALTO, CA: Faces Class Action Over Illegal Utility Fees
PATRIOT PIZZA: Class Suit by Delivery Driver Underway
PIL WCNS BEVERAGE: "Kardos" Suit over Use of Biometrics Pending

PINEAPPLE HOSPITALITY: Faces "Smith" Suit over Biometrics Pending
PRESERVE AT CHARLESTON PARK: Homeowners Suit Asserts FDCPA Breach
PROVIDENT FINANCIAL: "Cannon" Suit Settled for $2.75MM
RFS HOLDING: Blackrock Advisors Suit Discovery Still Ongoing
RHODE ISLAND: Scherwitz Moves to Certify Class of Residents

ROCKLEDGE BUS: Faces "Zhong" Suit in Southern District New York
ROYAL BANK: Among Defendants in CDOR Rigging Class Action
SAFEWAY INC: Settles Class Actions Over Olive Oil Labeling
SERVICESOURCE INTERNATIONAL: "Patton" Suit Ongoing
SIXT RENT A CAR: "Shaw" Wage-and-Hour Suit Underway

SNAP INC: Still Defends Against Securities Class Actions
SOLENO THERAPEUTICS: "Garfield" Suit vs. Capnia Dropped
SOUTHWEST CREDIT: Ballard Disputes Conflicting Collection Letters
STAFF PRO LLC: "Galeas" Action Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay
STERICYCLE INC: Feb. 23 Fairness Hearing on $295 Million Accord

STERICYCLE INC: Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit Underway
STUART WEITZMAN: Quinones Sues Over Undisclosed Background Checks
SUPERVALU INC: De Minimis Settlement Reached in Wisconsin Suit
SUPERVALU INC: $9 Million Settlement Has Final Court Approval
SUPERVALU INC: Motion to Dismiss Lone Plaintiff Underway

SWISSPORT CARGO: Denied OT Pay and Meal Breaks, "Ale" Suit Says
TACOMA SCREW: Court Certifies Class in "Viesse" FACTA Suit
TRIBUNE MEDIA: MOU to Settle Individual Claims Pending
TWILIO INC: Still Faces "Flowers" Privacy Suit
TYSON FOODS: Faces 2nd Class Action Over Chicken-Price Fixing

UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Sienkaniec Appeals Ruling to Eighth Circuit
UNITED STATES: Indonesian Christians' Class Action Ongoing
UNITED STATES: Class Certification Bids Filed in "Mosquera" Suit
UNO RESTAURANT: Alvarez Seeks to Certify Bussers & Servers Class
URANIUM ENERGY: "Stephens" Suit Voluntarily Dismissed

UTAH: Health Department Faces Class Action Over ADA Violation
UTI WORLDWIDE: Rule 23 Class Certification Filed in "Angley" Suit
VICTIM SERVICES: 9th Cir. Lacks Jurisdiction in "Breazeale"
WAL-MART STORES: Cook May Amend Bid to Certify Class by Feb. 19
WALT DISNEY: Denied Breaks, Paystubs, "Padilla" Suit Says

WINDHAM PROFESSIONALS: Faces "Rosenblum" Suit in E.D. New York
WIZARDS OF THE COAST: Court Refuses to Certify Class in "Shaw"
WOKCANO STA MONICA: Denied OT Pay and Tips, "Loftin" Suit Asserts
YUME INC: "Franchi" Action to Halt Merger, Seeks Financials
ZAAPPAAZ INC: "Lang" Files Suit Over Product Price-fixing







                            *********



338 8TH AVE: "Flores" Labor Suit Seeks Overtime Pay, Paystubs
-------------------------------------------------------------
Adan Paulino Flores and Eduardo Paulino, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated Plaintiffs, v. 338 8th
Ave., Corp., Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-00082, (S.D. N.Y.,
January 5, 2018), seeks overtime wages, compensatory and
liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees, costs and all
other legal and equitable remedies under the Fair Labor Standards
and Act and New York Labor Law.

338 8th Ave., Corp. operates as City Gourmet Market in Brooklyn
NY where Plaintiffs worked as cooks, cleaners and food preppers.
They claim to have worked approximately 60 hours per week without
overtime compensation and did not receive any wage statements.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
      HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, PC
      69-12 Austin Street
      Forest Hills, NY 11375
      Telephone: (718) 263-9591
      Fax: (718) 263-9598


A1 ADVANCED: Trejos-Torrez Moves to Certify Truck Drivers Class
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit entitled ROBERTO TREJOS-TORREZ, on
behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. A1 ADVANCED
TOWING CORP., a Florida Profit Corporation, A1 ADVANCED WRECKER
CORP., a Florida Profit Corporation, A1 ADVANCED TOWING &
TRANSPORT INC., a Florida Profit Corporation, JEANNETTE MARTIN,
an individual, and FERNANDO MARTIN, an individual, Case No. 1:17-
cv-23896-JLK (S.D. Fla.), seeks class-action certification of
this class ("Rule 23 Class Members"):

     All persons who operated tow trucks for Defendants during
     the five years preceding the filing of this lawsuit and who
     were not paid all minimum wages due for one or more weeks.

Mr. Trejos-Torrez moves the Court for an order certifying a Rule
23 Class Action pursuant to the Florida Minimum Wage Amendment,
Article X, Section 24 of the Florida Constitution and Rule 23 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, authorizing notice to all
class members.

The Plaintiff initiated the action on October 24, 2017, with the
filing of his Collective Action Complaint.  The initial Complaint
has been amended, with the First Amended Class and Collective
Action Complaint filed in this Court on December 22, 2017.  The
Complaint, among other claims, seeks damages for Plaintiff and
others similarly situated for violations of the Florida
Constitution.  Specifically, the Plaintiff alleges that the
Defendants suffered or permitted the Plaintiff and Rule 23 Class
Members to work hours up to 40 per workweek without pay.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=WGSK2EbG

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert W. Brock II, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF LOWELL J. KUVIN
          17 East Flagler Street, Suite 223
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 358-6800
          Facsimile: (305) 358-6808
          E-mail: robert@kuvinlaw.com


ABC CORP: "Jin" Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay
----------------------------------------------------
Jin Zhi Bi, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated Plaintiff, v. ABC Corp. (d/b/a Kung Fu Massage) and Qin
Ju Xia (a.k.a Qiu Ju Xia or Lili), Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-
00023 (D. Conn., January 3, 2018), seeks unpaid wages, overtime,
liquidated damages, declaratory relief, costs, interest and
attorneys' fees pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
Connecticut Minimum Wage Act.

Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a massage therapist at
Kung Fu Massage inside the Connecticut Post Mall at 1201 Boston
Post Rd. #2014, Milford, CT 06460. Jin seeks to recover wages for
all hours worked and overtime compensation at rates not less than
one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for hours worked
in excess of forty hours per workweek.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jian Hang, Esq.
      HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
      136-18 39th Ave., Suite #1003
      Flushing, NY 11354
      Telephone: (718) 353-8588
      Email: jhang@hanglaw.com


AFNI INC: Torres Moves for Class Certification Under "Damasco"
--------------------------------------------------------------
Efrain Torres moves the Court to certify the class described in
the complaint of the lawsuit captioned EFRAIN TORRES,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v.
AFNI, INC., Case No. 2:18-cv-00001-PP (E.D. Wisc.), and further
asks that the Court both stay the motion for class certification
and to grant the Plaintiff (and the Defendant) relief from the
Local Rules setting automatic briefing schedules and requiring
briefs and supporting material to be filed with the Motion.

Dicta in the Supreme Court's decision in Campbell-Ewald Co. v.
Gomez, left open the possibility that a defendant facing a class
action complaint could moot a class representative's case by
depositing funds equal to or in excess of the maximum value of
the plaintiff's individual claim with the court and having the
court enter judgment in the plaintiff's favor prior to the filing
of a class certification motion, the Plaintiff asserts, citing
Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 672 (2016).

To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class
representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh
Circuit instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with
the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the
certification motion.  Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891,
896 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled on other grounds, Chapman v. First
Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015) ("The pendency of
that motion [for class certification] protects a putative class
from attempts to buy off the named plaintiffs.").

While the Seventh Circuit has held that the specific procedure
described in Campbell-Ewald cannot force the individual
settlement of a class representative's claims, the same decision
cautions that other methods may prevent a plaintiff from
representing a class, the Plaintiff tells the Court, citing
Fulton Dental, LLC v. Bisco, Inc., No. 16-3574, 2017 U.S. App.
LEXIS 10839 *9-10 (7th Cir. June 20, 2017).  The Plaintiff
asserts that one defendant has attempted a similar tactic by
sending a certified check to the proposed class representative.
Bonin v. CBS Radio, Inc., No. 16-cv-674-CNC (E.D. Wis.); see also
Severns v. Eastern Account Systems of Connecticut, Inc., Case No.
15-cv-1168, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23164 (E.D. Wis. Feb. 24,
2016).

The Plaintiff is obligated to move for class certification to
protect the interests of the putative class, the Plaintiff
contends.

As the Motion to certify a class is a placeholder motion as
described in Damasco, the parties and the Court should not be
burdened with unnecessary paperwork and the resulting expense
when short motion to certify and stay should suffice until an
amended motion is filed, the Plaintiff contends.

The Plaintiff also asks to be appointed as class representative,
and for the appointment of Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP, as class
counsel.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=5CPDOaFu

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


AMBIT ENERGY: Court Narrows Claims in "Little" Suit
---------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
issued a Memorandum and Order granting in part and denying in
part Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the case captioned JOSHUA
LITTLE, et al, Plaintiffs, v. AMBIT ENERGY HOLDINGS, LLC and
AMBIT NORTHEAST, LLC, Defendants, Civil Action No. 16-cv-8800
(PGS)(D.N.J.).

Plaintiffs allege, on their own behalf, as well as on behalf of
all other similarly situated, that Defendants, Ambit Energy
Holding, LLC and Ambit Northeast, LLC, (Ambit) have engaged in
unconscionable and deceptive commercial practices in violation of
the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act (NJCFA) and other related
tortious acts. Plaintiffs claiming to have been financially
harmed by Ambit's budget billing plan in which they were
enrolled.

In the first Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs raise the following
causes of actions:

In Count I, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants have engaged in
unconscionable and deceptive commercial practices under the New
Jersey Consumer Fraud Act (NJCFA). These actions include
knowingly and falsely (1) promising Plaintiffs that by switching
to Ambit they would save money compared to its competitors
(utility companies) prices; (2) that by enrolling in Ambit's
budget billing plan they would be able to pay their energy
expenses in an even, budgeted manner, and not accumulate a
significant balance; and (3) knowingly concealed and
misrepresented the rates that were actually being charged and
knowingly concealed that the budget payments assessed on their
monthly bills were not covering all Ambit's charges.

In Count II, Plaintiffs raise claims of unjust enrichment
resulting from the Defendants wrongful conduct. They argue that
Defendants collected improper and excessive energy charges, and
it would be unjust and inequitable for them to retain the
benefits of their wrongful conduct.

In Count III, Plaintiffs raise claims of unconscionability
regarding Defendants' budget billing policies and alleged
misleading practices.

With regards to the Rule 12(b)(1) motion, Defendant argues that
the NJCFA claim raised by Plaintiffs is subject to exclusive, or
at least primary, jurisdiction of the Board of Public Utility
Commissioners of the State of New Jersey (NJBPU).

The Board will have general supervision and regulation of and
jurisdiction and control over public utilities as defined in this
section and their property, property rights, equipment,
facilities and franchises so far as may be necessary for the
purpose of carrying out the provisions of this Title. (N.J.S.A.
48:2-13(a)).

The issues raised by Plaintiff appear to be one regarding
Defendant's business conduct, and whether it was sufficiently
deceptive to constitute consumer fraud, as opposed to being
solely based on regulations established by the Board. Resolution
of this matter does not require complex technical knowledge.
Therefore, there is no reason for the Court to refrain from
exercising jurisdiction over this case.

Defendant argues that Plaintiffs' NJCFA claim cannot proceed as
pleaded because the Amended Complaint does not contain sufficient
facts to plausibly plea that Defendant knowingly or intentionally
omitted certain information from bills sent by Plaintiffs'
incumbent utilities.

To state a claim under the NJCFA, a plaintiff must allege three
elements: (1) the defendant's unlawful practice, (2) the
plaintiff's ascertainable loss, and (3) a causal relationship
between the two.

Plaintiffs identify an unlawful practice in Defendant's failure
to disclose the actual rate. They argue that by concealing the
actual rates charged, Defendants caused them to pay more for
their utilities than they would have. Defendants' failure to
disclose that they were accumulating a balance, caused them an
ascertainable loss. In fact, Plaintiffs support that they were
forced to accrue a valid debt that they had no idea was accruing.
Plaintiffs have provided sufficient evidence to support a
connection between the alleged wrongful action and their ultimate
loss. Therefore, the claim is sufficiently supported for purposes
of a motion to dismiss.

Defendant argues that Plaintiffs cannot maintain a claim of
unjust enrichment because New Jersey Law does not recognize tort-
based unjust enrichment claims. In the alternative, even if
Plaintiffs' claim were to be based on quasi-contract, or a
contractual base, rather than tort, they fail to meet the
elements of a claim under New Jersey law.

Plaintiffs argue that the charges imposed at termination of their
contracts with Ambit were improper and excessive. Plaintiff has
provided sufficient support necessary to survive at motion to
dismiss at this juncture, however, the court will review the
validity of this claim again at the summary judgment stage.

Defendants argues that the claim for unconscionability should be
dismissed because an affirmative claim for damages is not
recognized by New Jersey Law, and even if it were, it would lack
merit.

Defendant argues that Plaintiffs' Complaint should be dismissed
pursuant to Rule 23 (b)(2) because it seeks primarily money
damages. At this early stage, there is no basis to doubt
Plaintiffs' Rule 23(b)(2) allegations. Defendant may raise
objections regarding class certification in a Rule 23 motion.

Defendant's motion to dismiss is denied in part and granted in
part. Plaintiffs have sufficiently supported the claims set forth
in Count I and II. Plaintiff's Count III (Unconscionability) is
dismissed at this time.

A full-text copy of the District Court's December 21, 2017
Memorandum and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y7huxhtj
from Leagle.com.

JOSHUA LITTLE, SAMANTHA MASON & GREGORY STEWART, Individually and
on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs,
represented by STEVEN L. WITTELS -- slw@wittelslaw.com -- LAW
OFFICES OF STEVEN L. WITTELS, PC, ALEXIS HELENE CASTILLO, KLAFTER
OLSEN & LESSER LLP & SETH RICHARD LESSER, KLAFTER OLSEN & LESSER,
LLP, 2 International Dr Ste 350, Rye Brook, NY 10573-1066

AMBIT NORTHEAST, LLC & AMBIT ENERGY HOLDINGS, LLC, Defendants,
represented by JOANNA J. CLINE -- clinej@pepperlaw.com -- PEPPER
HAMILTON, LLP.


AMC ENTERTAINMENT: March 13 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC, on Jan. 15 notified investors
that a class action lawsuit has been filed against AMC
Entertainment Holdings, Inc. ("AMC" or "the Company") (NYSE: AMC)
and certain of its officers, on behalf of shareholders who
purchased AMC Class A common shares during the period between
December 20, 2016 and August 1, 2017, inclusive (the "Class
Period"), including purchasers in the Company's secondary public
offering on or about February 8, 2017 (the "SPO").  Such
investors are encouraged to join this case by visiting the firm's
site: http://www.bgandg.com/amc

This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for
alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and/or the Securities Act of
1933.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period,
defendants made materially false and misleading statements and/or
failed to disclose adverse facts regarding the Company's business
and prospects in its Registration Statement and Prospectus
regarding Carmike's revenue growth and omitted material facts and
included materially inaccurate statements associated with AMC's
newly acquired international business.  Specifically, the
complaint alleges that defendants failed to disclose that: (1)
Carmike's operations had been experiencing a prolonged period of
financial underperformance due to a protracted period of
underinvestment in its theaters; (2) Carmike had experienced a
significant loss in market share when its loyal patrons migrated
to competitors that had renovated and upgraded their theaters;
(3) AMC was able to retain only a very small number of Carmike's
loyalty program members after the Carmike acquisition; (4) these
issues were then having a material adverse effect on Carmike's
operations and theater attendance; and (5) as a result of
defendants' false statements and/or omissions, the price of AMC
common shares was artificially inflated during the Class Period,
trading above $35 per share.

On August 1, 2017, after market hours, AMC announced its
preliminary second quarter 2017 financial results, revealing that
it estimated to report total second quarter revenues of about
$1.2 billion and a net loss of about $178.5 to $174.5 million, or
a loss of $1.36 to $1.34 per diluted share.  AMC also said that
its 2017 revenues were expected to range between $5.10 and $5.23
billion and its 2017 net loss between $150 and $125 million, or a
loss of $1.17 to $0.97 per diluted share.  As a result of these
disappointing figures, AMC stock dropped roughly 27% to close at
$15.20 per share on August 2, 2017, or more than 50% below the
price at which the shares were sold in the SPO.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the firm's site:
http://www.bgandg.com/amcor you may contact Peretz Bronstein,
Esq. or his Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484.  If you
suffered a loss in AMC you have until March 13, 2018 to request
that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff.  Your ability to
share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead
plaintiff.

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


AMCOL SYSTEMS: Certification of Classes Sought in "Lakkard" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
John Lakkard moves the Court to certify the classes described in
the complaint of the lawsuit captioned JOHN LAKKARD, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. AMCOL SYSTEMS,
INC., Case No. 2:18-cv-00002-JPS (E.D. Wisc.), and further asks
that the Court both stay the motion for class certification and
to grant the Plaintiff (and the Defendant) relief from the Local
Rules setting automatic briefing schedules and requiring briefs
and supporting material to be filed with the Motion.

Dicta in the Supreme Court's decision in Campbell-Ewald Co. v.
Gomez, left open the possibility that a defendant facing a class
action complaint could moot a class representative's case by
depositing funds equal to or in excess of the maximum value of
the plaintiff's individual claim with the court and having the
court enter judgment in the plaintiff's favor prior to the filing
of a class certification motion, the Plaintiff asserts, citing
Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 672 (2016).

To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class
representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh
Circuit instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with
the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the
certification motion.  Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891,
896 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled on other grounds, Chapman v. First
Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015) ("The pendency of
that motion [for class certification] protects a putative class
from attempts to buy off the named plaintiffs.").

While the Seventh Circuit has held that the specific procedure
described in Campbell-Ewald cannot force the individual
settlement of a class representative's claims, the same decision
cautions that other methods may prevent a plaintiff from
representing a class, the Plaintiff tells the Court, citing
Fulton Dental, LLC v. Bisco, Inc., No. 16-3574, 2017 U.S. App.
LEXIS 10839 *9-10 (7th Cir. June 20, 2017).  The Plaintiff
asserts that one defendant has attempted a similar tactic by
sending a certified check to the proposed class representative.
Bonin v. CBS Radio, Inc., No. 16-cv-674-CNC (E.D. Wis.); see also
Severns v. Eastern Account Systems of Connecticut, Inc., Case No.
15-cv-1168, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23164 (E.D. Wis. Feb. 24,
2016).

The Plaintiff is obligated to move for class certification to
protect the interests of the putative class, the Plaintiff
contends.

As the Motion to certify a class is a placeholder motion as
described in Damasco, the parties and the Court should not be
burdened with unnecessary paperwork and the resulting expense
when short motion to certify and stay should suffice until an
amended motion is filed, the Plaintiff contends.

The Plaintiff also asks to be appointed as class representative,
and for the appointment of Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP, as class
counsel.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


APPLE INC: "Freeman" Sues Over Undisclosed Battery Defect
---------------------------------------------------------
David Matthew Freeman, Andrew Yeganeh, Patricia Vega and Connie
Krueger, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. Apple Inc., Defendant, Case No. 18CV321403, (Cal.
Super., January 3, 2018), seeks monetary damages, including but
not limited to, compensatory, incidental, and consequential
damages, punitive damages, reimbursement of purchase price paid
for those affected devices, or new batteries for those devices
free of charge, all moneys wrongfully obtained, attorney fees and
costs incurred by counsel for Plaintiffs in accordance with
California's Unfair Competition Law.

Apple's iPhone batteries allegedly cause iPhones to shut down
suddenly and unexpectedly, despite being charged enough to last
for hours under normal circumstances. Apple allegedly concealed
the existence of this defect from consumers, prompting consumers
to replace the phone in order to accommodate the newly-released
operating system.

Defendant is a manufacturer of smartphones under the trade name
"iPhone." [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jeffrey L. Fazio, Esq.
     Dina E. Micheletti, Esq.
     FAZIO MICHELETTI LLP
     2410 Camino Ramon, Suite 315
     San Ramon, CA 94583
     Tel: (925) 543-2555
     Fax: (925) 369-0344
     Email: jlf@fazmiclaw.com
            dem@fazmiclaw.com

            - and -

     Adam J. Levitt, Esq.
     Amy E. Keller, Esq.
     DICELLO LEVITT & CASEY LLC
     Ten North Dearborn Street, Eleventh Floor
     Chicago, IL 60602
     Tel: (312) 214-7900
     Fax: (440) 953-9138
     Email: a1evitt@dlcfirm.com
            akeller@dlcfirm.com


APPLE INC: "Grillo" Sues Over iPhone Bug, Undisclosed Battery Fix
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Grillo, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Apple, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-
20057, (N.D. Fla., January 8, 2018), seeks redress for breach of
implied contract, trespass to chattel, breach of covenant of good
faith and fair dealing in violation of California's Consumers
Legal Remedies Act in accordance with California's Unfair
Competition Law.

Apple allegedly failed to inform consumers that updating their
iPhone 6, 6S, SE or 7 to iOS 10.2.1 (and/or later to iOS 11.2)
would dramatically and artificially reduce the performance of
these devices. Apple also failed to inform consumers that phone
performance would be restored by simply replacing the phone's
lithium-ion battery, a much cheaper solution than buying a new
phone.

iPhone users reported sudden shutdowns of iPhones 5 and 6 running
versions of iOS 10 software. In February of 2017, Apple claimed
that it had almost entirely resolved the issue in its latest
10.2.1 iOS update, however users still complained of slow
devices.

Defendant is a manufacturer of smartphones under the trade name
"iPhone." [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Christopher P. Ridout, Esq.
      Caleb L.H. Marker, Esq.
      ZIMMERMAN REED LLP
      2381 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 328
      Manhattan Beach, CA 90245
      Tel: (877) 500-8780
      Fax: (877) 500-8781
      Email: christopher.ridout@zimmreed.com
             caleb.marker@zimmreed.com


APPLE INC: Ferguson Hits iOS Upgrade Bug, Undisclosed Battery Fix
-----------------------------------------------------------------
John Ferguson, Kelli Beaugez, Gregory Stenstrom, individually and
on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Apple,
Inc., Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-00206, (N.D. Cal., January 9,
2018), seeks redress for breach of implied contract, trespass to
chattel, breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing in
violation of California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act in
accordance with California's Unfair Competition Law.

Apple allegedly failed to inform consumers that updating their
iPhone 6, 6S, SE or 7 to iOS 10.2.1 (and/or later to iOS 11.2)
would dramatically and artificially reduce the performance of
these devices. Apple also failed to inform consumers that phone
performance would be restored by simply replacing the phone's
lithium-ion battery, a much cheaper solution than buying a new
phone.

iPhone users reported sudden shutdowns of iPhones 5 and 6 running
versions of iOS 10 software. In February of 2017, Apple claimed
that it had almost entirely resolved the issue in its latest
10.2.1 iOS update, however users still complained of slow
devices. Ferguson purchased an iPhone SE, Beaugez leased an
iPhone 7 as part of her cellphone service while Stenstrom
purchased an iPhone 6s Plus.

Defendant is a manufacturer of smartphones under the trade name
"iPhone." [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Eric H. Gibbs, Esq.
      David Stein, Esq.
      Joshua Bloomfield, Esq.
      GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP
      505 14th Street, Suite 1110
      Oakland, CA 94612
      Telephone: (510) 350-9700
      Facsimile: (510) 350-9701
      Email: ehg@classlawgroup.com
             ds@classlawgroup.com
             jjb@classlawgroup.com

             - and -

      Andrew N. Friedman, Esq.
      Douglas J. McNamara, Esq.
      COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
      1100 New York Ave. NW, Fifth Floor
      Washington, DC 20005
      Telephone: (202) 408-4600
      Email: afriedman@cohenmilstein.com
             dmcnamara@cohenmilstein.com


APPLE INC: "Littlefied" Sues Over Undisclosed Battery Defect
------------------------------------------------------------
Donald Littlefied, Joel Santucci, David Johnson, James Sokol, And
Miriam Feldman, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Apple Inc., Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-
00182, (N.D. Cal., January 9, 2018), seeks monetary damages,
including but not limited to, compensatory, incidental, and
consequential damages, punitive damages, reimbursement of
purchase price paid for those affected devices, or new batteries
for those devices free of charge, all moneys wrongfully obtained,
and attorney fees and costs incurred by counsel for Plaintiffs,
in accordance with California's Unfair Competition Law.

Apple's iPhone batteries allegedly cause iPhones to shut down
suddenly and unexpectedly, despite being charged enough to last
for hours under normal circumstances. Apple allegedly concealed
the existence of this defect from consumers, prompting consumers
to replace the phone in order to accommodate the newly-released
operating system.

Defendant is a manufacturer of smartphones under the trade name
"iPhone." [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


APPLE INC: More Than 380,000 Koreans Join iPhone Class Actions
--------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Herh, writing for Business Korea, reports that more than
380,000 Koreans have joined class action lawsuits in protest of
Apple's international drop in the iPhone's performance.  This
figure crushes the number of plaintiffs while filed the first
lawsuit against Apple with the Consumers United for Consumer
Sovereignty.

On January 15, Hannuri, a Korean law firm with a class action
lawsuit against Apple over iPhone performance degradation, said
on January 15 that litigation participants totaled 381,001 as of
9:54 am on January 12.

Law firm Hannuri is planning to ask Apple for compensation for
damages at behalf of iPhone buyers (buyers of the iPhone 6, 6
Plus, 6S, 6S Plus, SE, 7 and 7 Plus).  The industry estimates
that about 10 million units of the iPhone 6 series and 7 series
were sold in Korea as of the end of last year.  Law firm Hannuri
and civic groups will be continuing to invite litigators who will
join their class action lawsuits, the sizes of class action
lawsuits are expected to balloon.

Law firm Hannuri is already in talks with US law firms that filed
similar class action lawsuits against Apple in the US.  Now, in
the US, this scandal is causing a firestorm not only with iPhone
users' class action lawsuits but with the Congress demanding a
formal explanation about the so-called iPhone Gate from Apple.

Law firm Hanunri is in a position to steadily keep a close eye on
overseas situations because trials in Korea may develop in
similar manners if overseas precedents can work in favor of
consumers.  However, enough reviews are needed as it is unclear
whether or not the US court will deal with such cases fairly when
a US class action lawsuit against Apple proceeds in the American
way.

It is expected that law firm Hannuri will begin to take concrete
legal actions in February after going through this process.  To
this end, the law firm is planning to finish consultation and
analysis within this month and finalize the lawsuit plan.

Even though Apple came up with a compensation plan to lower the
battery replacement charge by US$50 along with an announcement to
clarify its position about the controversy, "The compensation
plan significantly fell short compared to the illegal nature of
Apple's behaviors and the level of damage to customers, in
particular, those who already chose to replace their iPhones with
new ones," Hannuri said.

Some civic groups are planning to consider pressing criminal
charges against Apple and holding the three Korean major mobile
carriers legally responsible.  "If the mobile carriers sold
products, knowing that iPhones had some problems, they are also
responsible for the matter," said Koh Kyung-hyun, secretary
general of the Consumers United for Consumer Sovereignty.  "In
Korea, Apple Korea is the subject of the iPhone in Korea but the
three major Korean mobile carriers selling the iPhone Korea like
sales agents.  Therefore, we will thoroughly check the legal
responsibilities such as whether or not the trio have not
reported it to authorities although they were already aware of
the problem."  In fact, if a criminal charge proceeds, the
results may affect civil litigation. [GN]


APPLE INC: Chinese Consumer Group Seeks Info on iPhone Slowdowns
----------------------------------------------------------------
Luke Dormehl, writing for Cult of Mac, reports that a Chinese
consumer group is joining the number of organizations and
individuals asking Apple for more information about its
purposeful slowing down of older iPhones as their batteries
degrade.

In a letter sent to Apple, the Shanghai Consumer Council asks
Apple for details about what it plans to do to rectify the issue.
It wanted a response by Jan. 19.

The Shanghai Consumer Council, a non-government organization that
is nonetheless approved by the Chinese authorities, has said it
received 2,615 complaints about Apple in 2017.  That's up from
964 in 2015.

What do they want from Apple?
What's not clear from the complaint is exactly what the consumer
group hopes Apple will do.  It has already admitted to slowing
down some iPhones as they get older, although it has said that
this is done to prolong the life of their lithium-ion batteries,
rather than anything intended to push users to upgrade.

It has also notified customers that it will reduce the price on
out-of-warranty iPhone battery replacements by $50, putting the
cost at just $29.  The offer covers anyone with an iPhone 6 or
later whose battery needs to be replaced.  Customers can take
advantage of the new price starting later this month. It will be
available worldwide until December 2018.

Nonetheless, the slowdown story has been a PR nightmare for Apple
around the world.  At present, 12 lawsuits have been brought
against the company, while demands for explanations have been
made by officials in countries including Brazil, South Korea, and
France.  In South Korea, 370,000 individuals -- or the equivalent
of one out of every 138 people who live in the country -- have
signed up to join a class action suit against Apple.

Another bump in the road in China
Given Apple's enthusiasm for growing its market in China, the
complaints from the Shanghai Consumer Council could prove
particularly vexing.  While the number of complaints it reports
receiving is relatively tiny, Apple has gone out of its way to
avoid riling Chinese authorities.

Previously, Apple has been forced to accept the Chinese
government's demands that it run network safety evaluations on
all Apple products before they can be imported into the country.
It has also seen its products booted off the list of approved
state purchases in favor of Chinese-made products, and been
forced to shut down its iBooks Store and iTunes Movies in the
country -- just six months after the services were first made
available.

Most recently, Apple agreed to move iCloud accounts in China to
one operated by a local company.  This was done to comply with
China's new cloud computing regulations, stating that cloud
services in China must be operated by Chinese businesses. [GN]


ARIZONA: Parents' Bid for Prelim Injunction Denied
--------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Arizona
issued an Opinion and Order denying Plaintiffs' Motion for
Preliminary Injunction in the case captioned DAVID PELLERIN, et
al., Plaintiffs, v. CARYN WAGNER, et al., Defendants, No. 2:14-
cv-02318 JWS. (D. Ariz.).

Plaintiffs David Pellerin and Angie Pellerin and their children
move for a preliminary injunction.

Plaintiffs' complaint arises from the removal of the Pellerin
children from the Pellerins' family home in 2013 by agents of the
Arizona Department of Economic Security (ADES), which at that
time was the agency tasked with providing child protective
services.

Plaintiffs subsequently filed a complaint that alleges the
defendants ADES itself and other individuals who worked for ADES
or the Arizona Office of the Attorney General at the time and
were involved in their case violated their civil rights in the
course of seizing the Pellerins' children from the family home
and placing them in foster care without an adequate basis.

Their first six claims are brought pursuant to Section 1983.
Plaintiffs seek general, special, and punitive damages based upon
these claims. Plaintiffs' seventh claim is one for declaratory
and injunctive relief. They allege that they have no adequate
remedy at law to prevent or prohibit ADES and its social workers
from continuing, and/or repeating, its unlawful and
unconstitutional conduct and policies other than through
injunctive relief.

The only issue before the court at this time is whether such
injunctive relief is appropriate.

The likelihood of Plaintiffs sustaining future injury because of
CPS's removal policy or practices is highly speculative. Both the
Supreme Court and the Ninth Circuit have repeatedly found a lack
of standing where the litigant's claim relies upon a chain of
speculative contingencies, particularly a chain that includes the
violation of an unchallenged law. In City of Los Angeles v. Lyons
the plaintiff sued the City of Los Angeles for monetary and
injunctive relief based on his allegation that the City's police
officers placed him in a chokehold during a traffic stop without
a constitutional basis for doing so. The plaintiff asked the
court to issue an injunction against the City that would prevent
its police department from using chokeholds except where the
threat of immediate deadly force was present.

The Supreme Court held that the plaintiff lacked standing to seek
injunctive relief because the claim of future injury was
speculative in that it required a string of contingencies before
being capable of recurrence-a traffic or criminal violation, a
stop by police for such conduct, and then post-stop behavior by a
police officer culminating in a chokehold.

Lyons is instructive here. In order for plaintiffs to be
subjected to unconstitutional removal, they would have to harm
their children and be reported to authorities Furthermore, while
it is clear from the record that no warrant would be obtained
before removal, a report of abuse does not automatically lead to
the warrantless removal of children from their homes.49 The
investigating social worker would still have to make a finding
that the Pellerins' children were subject to some impending
danger before Plaintiffs could again suffer the same injury. In
other words, the likelihood of the Pellerins' children being
seized again would not only depend on harm to the children and a
report of such harm, but also on what any one social worker deems
to fit within the DCS's policy for removal.  Therefore, as in
Lyons, Plaintiffs' claim for future injury rests upon a series of
contingencies occurring first.

Plaintiffs argue that, unlike the situation in Lyons, they cannot
avoid future injury by simply avoiding illegal conduct. That is,
citizens innocent of child abuse and neglect are at risk of being
harmed by DCS's removal policies and practices. They contend that
the record shows that the removal of their children was
unwarranted and therefore they are at risk of suffering repeated
harm. The actual prior innocence of the Pellerins is not relevant
to the inquiry; the concern is whether they are sufficiently
likely to again be reported for child abuse and neglect,
triggering the involvement of DCS and the application of the
agency's allegedly unconstitutional practices and policies.
Before they could suffer injury from the unconstitutional removal
of their children despite only legal conduct on their part,
someone would have to falsely report abuse to trigger an
investigation and then the assigned social worker would have to
make the necessary findings.

Therefore, even assuming only legal conduct on the part of the
Pellerins, future harm is still highly speculative. Indeed, the
families that Plaintiffs allege falsely accused them of child
abuse for personal and malicious reasons live in Japan, and there
is no evidence or argument that those families have pursued the
matter after Plaintiffs left Japan. Moreover, there is no
evidence that State Defendants have contacted or threatened
contact with Plaintiffs after the dependency petition was
dismissed, which was close to four years ago.

A full-text copy of the District Court's December 21, 2017
Memorandum and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y8z6kduo
from Leagle.com.

Devin Pellerin, an individual/ as guardian ad litem for minor
children: on behalf of X.X. on behalf of X.Y., Plaintiff,
represented by Dennis B. Atchley --
dennis.atchley.mcmillanlaw@gmail.com -- Law Offices of Shawn A.
McMillan APC, Joy Malby Bertrand, Joy Bertrand Esq LLC, P.O. Box
2734, Scottsdale, AZ 85252-2734. Samuel H. Park --
samuel@muanpark.com -- Law Offices of Shawn A. McMillan APC,
Shawn A. McMillan, Law Offices of Shawn A. McMillan APC, Stephen
D. Daner, Law Offices of Shawn A. McMillan APC & Adrian Michael
Paris -- adrian.mcmillanlaw@gmail.com -- Law Offices of Shawn A.
McMillan APC.

Angie Pellerin, an individual/ as guardian ad litem for minor
children: on behalf of X.X. on behalf of X.Y., Plaintiff,
represented by Dennis B. Atchley, Law Offices of Shawn A.
McMillan APC, Joy Malby Bertrand, Joy Bertrand Esq LLC, Samuel H.
Park, Law Offices of Shawn A. McMillan APC, Shawn A. McMillan,
Law Offices of Shawn A. McMillan APC, Stephen D. Daner, Law
Offices of Shawn A. McMillan APC & Adrian Michael Paris, Law
Offices of Shawn A. McMillan APC.

X.X. & X.Y., Plaintiffs, represented by Adrian Michael Paris, Law
Offices of Shawn A. McMillan APC & Stephen D. Daner, Law Offices
of Shawn A. McMillan APC.

Caryn Wagner, an individual, Lyn Hart, an individual, Arizona
Department of Economic Security, a public entity, Gene M. Burns,
an individual, Stacy Hill, an individual, Sharon Canik, an
individual, Janette Bell, an individual, Carolyn Morescki, an
individual & Jacqueline Cirricione, an individual, Defendants,
represented by James B. Bowen, Office of the Attorney General.
Deborah A. Harper, an individual, Defendant, represented by
Daniel J. O'Connor, OConnor & Campbell PC, Karen Johnson
Stillwell, OConnor & Campbell PC & Shane Paul Dyet, OConnor &
Campbell PC. 7955 South Priest Drive, Tempe, Arizona, USA 85284
Iris Garcia, Guardian Ad Litem, Pro Se.


AUSTRALIA: Meetings Set in Defense PFAS Class Actions
-----------------------------------------------------
Victoria Nugent, writing for Townsville Bulletin, reports that
the law firm behind a series of class actions in toxic
firefighting foam used at Defense bases says far more properties
could be contaminated than originally suspected.

It comes as Defense nears the end of a 12-month investigation
into whether toxic chemicals used in firefighting foam have
contaminated water around RAAF Base Townsville.

In March 2017, Defense started a detailed environmental
investigation to find out if the per and poly-fluoroalkyl
substances (PFAS) had contaminated water or soil around the RAAF
base, following similar investigations across the country.

Shine Lawyers Special Counsel Josh Aylward said about 100
community members turned out for a meeting held in Townsville in
December to discuss the issue.

"What we found out is most people don't even realise they're in
the investigation area," he said.

"A couple of thousand properties are in the area and I believe
that might be extended again."

The investigation area stretches as far as parts of Garbutt and
areas near Castletown Shopping Centre and The Lakes.

Mr Aylward said people were concerned about how this would affect
property values.

"What we have seen in other communities is as the Department of
Defence releases more details, their properties drop in value,"
Mr Aylward said.

"People are going to prefer to live outside the area rather than
in it."

The next round of meetings about the class action will be held on
January 24 and 25 at the Stockland Shopping Centre.

Landowners and business operators will be able to turn up to the
stall at the shopping centre each day between 9am and 5pm to talk
to a lawyer and sign an expression of interest in the class
action.

"I have given out forms out to more than 150 people and many of
those have been returned," Mr Aylward said.

A Defense spokesman has told the Bulletin there was "no evidence
of groundwater being consumed within the investigation area".

"In respect of soil, only four out of approximately 26 samples
detected PFAS all of which are significantly below OEH/NSW Health
2017 PFAS low density residential guidelines," he said. [GN]


AZZ INC: Holzer & Holzer Files Securities Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------
Holzer & Holzer, LLC, on Jan. 15 disclosed that a class action
lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased AZZ,
Inc. ("AZZ" or the "Company") (NYSE: AZZ) securities between
April 22, 2015 and January 8, 2018.  The complaint alleges that
AZZ misstated revenues and lacked adequate internal controls over
financial reporting during that time.

If you purchased AZZ shares between April 22, 2015 and January 8,
2018 and suffered losses on that investment, you are encouraged
to visit the firm's website at www.holzerlaw.com to receive
additional information about your legal rights
You can also contact Corey D. Holzer, Esq. at
cholzer@holzerlaw.com or Alexandria P. Rankin, Esq. at
arankin@holzerlaw.com or call the firm by toll-free telephone at
(888) 508-6832 for more information.

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Texas and the deadline to move for
appointment as lead plaintiff is March 12, 2018.

Holzer & Holzer, LLC -- http://www.holzerlaw.com-- is an
Atlanta, Georgia law firm that dedicates its practice to vigorous
representation of shareholders and investors in litigation
nationwide, including shareholder class action and derivative
litigation.  [GN]


BABCOCK & WILCOX: Belczyk Seeks Prelim. Okay of Class Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit captioned FRANK BELCZYK, et al. v.
BABCOCK & WILCOX ENTERPRISES, INC., et al., Case No. 2:17-cv-
00241-NBF (W.D. Pa.), move for:

   (1) class certification of the Settlement Class (as defined in
       the Settlement Agreement);

   (2) preliminary approval of the Settlement Agreement;

   (3) approval of the proposed Class Notice; and

   (4) entry of an order setting a date for a hearing on the
       fairness of the Settlement Agreement pursuant to
       Rule 23(e)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
       along with other pertinent dates.

Plaintiffs Frank Belczyk, Sophie Belczyk, Michael Jurich, Dolores
Scaia and Jack E. Tallon ("Class Representatives"), and the
United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy,
Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union, AFL-
CIO/CLC, and its Local 3059 (collectively, "USW"), have entered
into a proposed settlement with Babcock & Wilcox Enterprises,
Inc., and the Babcock & Wilcox Retiree Health Care Plan.

The parties have entered into a Stipulation of Settlement and
also have agreed on a proposed Class Notice.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=oGYw6dqY

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Joel R. Hurt, Esq.
          Pamina Ewing, Esq.
          Ruairi McDonnell, Esq.
          FEINSTEIN DOYLE PAYNE & KRAVEC, LLC
          Law & Finance Building, Suite 1300
          429 Fourth Avenue
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Telephone: (412) 281-8400
          Facsimile: (412) 281-1007
          E-mail: jhurt@fdpklaw.com
                  pewing@fdpklaw.com
                  rmcdonnell@fdpklaw.com

Plaintiffs United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber,
Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers
International Union, AFL-CIO/CLC, and United Steel, Paper and
Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and
Service Workers International Union, AFL-CIO/CLC, Local 3059, are
represented by:

          Anthony Resnick, Esq.
          ASSISTANT GENERAL COUNSEL
          UNITED STEELWORKERS
          Five Gateway Plaza, Room 807
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Telephone: (412) 562-2562
          E-mail: aresnick@usw.org


BANK OF AMERICA: Denied Overtime, Meal Breaks, "Duque" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Luis Duque and Daniel Thibodeau, individually, on behalf of
others similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public,
Plaintiff, v. Bank of America, National Association, and Does 1-
50, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-00016, (C.D. Cal., January 5,
2018), seeks redress for meal and rest break violations, failure
to provide proper wage statements and failure to pay earned wages
upon discharge including waiting time penalties under Unfair
Business Practices statures of the California Business and
Professions Code, the California Labor Code and Welfare
Commission Orders.

Plaintiffs worked as Client Advocates working in Bank of
America's Office of the President and CEO, processing high
volumes of individual customer service inquiries, which are
frequently customer complaints. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Rachel M. Terp, Esq.
      Bryan J. Schwartz, Esq.
      DeCarol A. Davis, Esq.
      1330 Broadway, Suite 1630
      Oakland, CA 94612
      Telephone: (510) 444-9300
      Facsimile: (510) 444-9301
      Email: bryan@bryanschwartzlaw.com
             decarol@bryanschwartzlaw.com
             rachel@bryanschwartzlaw.com


BAYER CORP: "Hines" Remanded to Missouri State Court
----------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Missouri, Eastern Division, issued a Memorandum and Order
granting Plaintiff's Motion to Re-remand to the State Court the
case captioned KEITA HINES, et al., Plaintiffs, v. BAYER
CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, No. 4:17-CV-01988JAR (E.D. Mo.).

Plaintiffs first filed this action in the Circuit Court of the
City of St. Louis, Missouri seeking damages for injuries
sustained as a result of the implantation and use of Essure.

Defendants first removed this action to this Court on the basis
of diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(a),
federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section 1331, and
the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA).

Defendants removed this case for a second time, asserting that
all of the non-Missouri Plaintiffs should be dismissed from the
case, and that the Court's diversity jurisdiction then would
apply to the remaining Missouri Plaintiffs' claims.

Defendants' basis for their second removal primarily rests with
the United States Supreme Court's ruling in Bristol-Myers Squibb
Co. v. Superior Court of California, San Francisco City.

In that case, the Supreme Court held that state courts lack
specific jurisdiction over non-resident plaintiffs' claims that
have no connection to the forum where the lawsuit is filed, even
if those plaintiffs join their claims with in-state plaintiffs.
Defendants assert that the ruling in Bristol-Myers Squibb
qualifies as orders and/or other papers because it changed the
legal landscape by clarifying that specific jurisdiction over the
non-Missouri Plaintiffs does not exist and thus triggers a new
30-day period for removal under Section 1446(b)(3).

However, the orders and other paper exception is predominantly
limited to orders and other paper issued in the individual case
that is being removed. Orders and rulings in separate cases with
different parties do not trigger the recommencement of the 30-day
limit.

As a result, Defendants' removal of this matter for a second time
was procedurally improper because Bristol-Myers Squibb does not
constitute other paper. Therefore, the Court will grant
Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand this action to state court.

A full-text copy of the District Court's December 21, 2017
Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/yc7pemhm from Leagle.com.

Keita Hines, Jody Evans, Jennifer Byron, Jessica Wells, Sondra
Jackson, Christie Hollins, Mary Boggs, Malissa Chapman, Sherry
Hitchcock, Sarah Roberts, Donna Samples, Rita Hillard, Onedia
Mason-Maynard, Cynthia Allsmiller, Tanisha Hammond, Candace
Travillian, Tiandra Porter, Trisha Hines, Leslie Allen, Renata
Patton, Shadonna Stiles, Amanda Best, Jamie Burns, Amy Popp,
Tiffany Porter, Barbara Moore, Paulett Marcum, Paige Greenwell,
Stacy Fay, Jamie Kiper, Sandra Deaton, Jennifer Judd-Johnson,
Hiddy Petrey, Danielle Thomas, Drenda McCoy, Kristen McClure,
Megan Cox, Kacee Smith, Brittany Daly, Miana Davis, Chelsea
Blubaugh, Hope Brining, Lucy Gambrell, Jacklyn Luna, Necole
Upshaw, Kathi Wulzer, Kimberly Myers, Aleycia Powe, Kadisha
Rodriques, Arrica Spann, Billie Tinsley, Jazzilyn Davis, Valerie
Contreras, Chrissy Murphy, Amanda Armstrong & Katrina Atkinson,
Plaintiffs, represented by Eric D. Holland eholland@allfela.com,
HOLLAND LAW FIRM LLC, Gregory J. Bubalo, BUBALO GOODE PLC,
Katherine Ann Dunnington, BUBALO GOODE PLC,  PO. Box 231.
Pikeville, KY, 41502-0231, Patrick R. Dowd --
patrick@jimdowdlaw.com. HOLLAND LAW FIRM LLC & Randall S.
Crompton -- scrompton@allfela.com -- HOLLAND LAW FIRM LLC.
Angela Puckett, Plaintiff, represented by Eric D. Holland,
HOLLAND LAW FIRM LLC, Gregory J. Bubalo, BUBALO GOODE PLC,
Katherine Ann Dunnington, BUBALO GOODE PLC, Patrick R. Dowd,
HOLLAND LAW FIRM LLC & Randall S. Crompton, HOLLAND LAW FIRM LLC.

Bayer Corp., Bayer Healthcare LLC, Bayer Essure, Inc., formerly
known as Conceptus, Inc. & Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals Inc.,
Defendants, represented by W. Jason Rankin --
jrankin@heplerbroom.com -- HEPLER BROOM


BAYER CORP: "Langston" Remanded to Missouri State Court
-------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Missouri, Eastern Division, issued a Memorandum and Order
granting Plaintiff's Motion to Re-remand to the State Court the
case captioned SITAFIA LANGSTON, et al., Plaintiffs, v. BAYER
CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, Case No. 4:17-cv-01991-JAR (E.D.
Mo.).

Plaintiffs first filed this action in the Circuit Court of the
City of St. Louis, Missouri, seeking damages for injuries
sustained as a result of the implantation and use of Essure.

Defendants first removed the action to the District Court on the
basis of diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(a),
federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section 1331, and
the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA).

Defendants removed this case for a second time, asserting that
all of the non-Missouri Plaintiffs should be dismissed from the
case, and that the District Court's diversity jurisdiction then
would apply to the remaining Missouri Plaintiffs' claims.

Defendants' basis for their second removal primarily rests with
the United States Supreme Court's ruling in Bristol-Myers Squibb
Co. v. Superior Court of California, San Francisco City.

In that case, the Supreme Court held that state courts lack
specific jurisdiction over non-resident plaintiffs' claims that
have no connection to the forum where the lawsuit is filed, even
if those plaintiffs join their claims with in-state plaintiffs.

Defendants assert that the ruling in Bristol-Myers Squibb
qualifies as orders and/or other papers because it changed the
legal landscape by clarifying that specific jurisdiction over the
non-Missouri Plaintiffs does not exist and thus triggers a new
30-day period for removal under Section 1446(b)(3).

However, the orders and other paper exception is predominantly
limited to orders and other paper issued in the individual case
that is being removed. Orders and rulings in separate cases with
different parties do not trigger the recommencement of the 30-day
limit.

As a result, Defendants' removal of this matter for a second time
was procedurally improper because Bristol-Myers Squibb does not
constitute other paper. Therefore, the District Court will grant
Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand this action to state court.

A full-text copy of the District Court's December 21, 2017
Memorandum and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y7pkp92v
from Leagle.com.

Sitafia Langston, Tammy Pappelis, Danielle Carpenter, Misty
Roxanne Isennock, Alexandra Bunner, Madel Hernandez, Tiffany D.
Cook, Megan Oleszczuk, Erika R. Rodriguez, Amy L. Hill, LaQueesha
M. Jennings, Isla Lyssette Ramirez, Cynthia Carol Mains, Jessica
Mowafy-Francis, TraVivra Arbabe, Cynthia N. Lorenza, Kandice P.
Hill, Melissa Bergs, Alecia M. Nauman, Nicole DeMauro, WaKeshia
Hughes, Janet M. Chessor, Dawn Renee Smith, Shontavia K.
Williams, Hope L. Lopez, Marando E. Acy, Racheal Lynn Bollmeyer,
Jenene J. Hatchard, Tina M. Bacorn, Diana Via, Jennifer
Rodrigues, Patricia Mendez, Perla P. Jimenez, LeeAnn Ferrell,
TynekMinay Lenora Williams, Shanna Higgs-Latham, Brandy Minder,
Cathy Leigh Rademacher, Marisa A. Vieira, Melissa Bloomfield,
Mary Garza, Christine Bond, Elizabeth Goodwin, Angela C. Brink,
Nicola M. Byrd-Holliday, Samantha Cain, Nieves Hernandez,
Catherine L. Terry, Tiffani Bell, Jennifer Rupp, Shauna D.
Yazzie, Candy Lynn Claudio, Julley L. Meyer, Tyhisha Hudson,
Renee Lynn Atkins, Nichole Short, Beth A. Park, Jennifer C.
Bennion, Tabitha Harris-Graham, Lisa M. Wallace, Kimberly S.
Holland, Nicole Amber McAleese, Emilie R. Smith, Dawn Seaney,
Mariola Genge, Crystal Trautman, Anna M. Dukes, La'Toya Jones,
Shelly Marie Scott, Raquel B. Flores, Ann Marie Smith, Christena
Smith, Misty Jo Gibson, Olivia M. Robinson, Michelle Chavez,
Helen Pauline Huxford, Lisa Marie Bundy, Katherine Barnett,
Harley Hernandez, Tracey D. Koontz, Tracey Peterson, Victoria D.
Lawson, Breeanna D. Jackson, Sheba M. Whitiker, Marcy Senica,
Terry Williams, Cecilia Salas, Kristina Pitts, Jhonancy Francois,
Stacie Calixte, Tahina Smith, Danielle Congleton & Takesha
Dublin, Plaintiffs, represented by Gregory Sean Jez, FLEMING AND
NOLEN LLP, 2800 Post Oak Blvd., Suite 4000, Houston, TX, 77056
Thomas E. Schwartz, HOLLORAN AND SCHWARTZ, LLP & Jessica A.
Kasischke, FLEMING AND NOLEN LLP, 2800 Post Oak Blvd., Suite
4000, Houston, TX, 77056

Bayer Corporation, Bayer Healthcare LLC, Bayer Essure Inc.,
formerly known as Conceptus Inc. & Bayer HealthCare
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Defendants, represented by W. Jason Rankin
-- jrankin@heplerbroom.com -- HEPLER BROOM.


BAYER CORP: "McPeters" Remanded to Missouri State Court
-------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Missouri, Eastern Division, issued a Memorandum and Order
granting Plaintiff's Motion to Re-remand to the State Court the
case captioned ROSALIND McPETERS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. BAYER
CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, Case No. 4:17-cv-01993-JAR (E.D.
Mo.).

Plaintiffs first filed this action in the Circuit Court of the
City of St. Louis, Missouri seeking damages for injuries
sustained as a result of the implantation and use of Essure.

Defendants first removed this action to this Court on the basis
of diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(a),
federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section 1331, and
the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA).

Defendants removed this case for a second time, asserting that
all of the non-Missouri Plaintiffs should be dismissed from the
case, and that the Court's diversity jurisdiction then would
apply to the remaining Missouri Plaintiffs' claims.

Defendants' basis for their second removal primarily rests with
the United States Supreme Court's ruling in Bristol-Myers Squibb
Co. v. Superior Court of California, San Francisco City.
In that case, the Supreme Court held that state courts lack
specific jurisdiction over non-resident plaintiffs' claims that
have no connection to the forum where the lawsuit is filed, even
if those plaintiffs join their claims with in-state plaintiffs.
Defendants assert that the ruling in Bristol-Myers Squibb
qualifies as orders and/or other papers because it changed the
legal landscape by clarifying that specific jurisdiction over the
non-Missouri Plaintiffs does not exist and thus triggers a new
30-day period for removal under Section 1446(b)(3).

However, the orders and other paper exception is predominantly
limited to orders and other paper issued in the individual case
that is being removed. Orders and rulings in separate cases with
different parties do not trigger the recommencement of the 30-day
limit.

As a result, Defendants' removal of this matter for a second time
was procedurally improper because Bristol-Myers Squibb does not
constitute other paper. Therefore, the Court will grant
Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand this action to state court.

A full-text copy of the District Court's December 21, 2017
Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/y7uysvvn from Leagle.com.

Rosalind McPeters, Karla Mann, Teresa Zaleski, Steali Stevenson,
Michelle Adkins, Jessica Allgood, Sunnie Anderson, Laquana
Anthony, Cassandra Armstrong, Alexis Beauchesne, Collette
Beckford, Michela Boodry, Pamela Booker, Jessica Bravo, Melynda
Card, Bernice Cassidy, Kasey Cauble, Lashae Celestine, Brenda
Chialastri, Jaime Chmiel, Ashley Conley, Amanda Cooper, Amy
DeFur, Lydia Denson, Leemari Diaz, Maygan Eddens, Anna Ellis,
Danielle Ewing, Sheila Felix, Alicia Ferguson, Noreen-Kate
Finnegan, Kristi Flores, Sarah Forbush, Gillian Forsythe,
Kimberly Fritz, Sheronda Gay, Kristina Giordano, Crystal Green,
Chente Hall, Lori Harmon, Jennifer Hill, Susan Hobbs, Rhonda
Hogge, Christy Idol, Shana Jeffery, Quinetta Jordan, Michelle
Kelley, Nancy Kimmel, Heather Klimp-Holt, Melissa Korsak, Melody
Linderwell, Janice Lumpkin, Julieta Martinez, Janna Merema, Tawni
Messenger, Felicia Miller, Ramie Miranda, Theresa Montgomery,
Dawn Moon, Maria Moore, Sara Moore, Tanya Mower, Sonia Murehead,
Gloria Neal, Gina Otero, Mailena Parks, Sara Perrigo, Stacy
Pixley, Rachel Reed, Katie Ringstad, Tammy Robinson, Stephanie
Rogers, Khady Sadiq, Renee Smith, Alejandra Soto, Jana Spencer,
Jennifer Sturgeon, Sonia Teeples, Shawna Terres, Tasha Thomas,
Nikki Triche, Norma Valenciana, Marilyn Vargas, Sara Vaughn,
Marquessa Veazy, Stacey Walter, Sherrie White, Cathy Whiting,
Charlotte Wilkerson, Kimberly Williams, Josie Williams, Kristi
Wood & Loretta Zuehlke, Plaintiffs, represented by Eric D.
Holland -- eholland@allfela.com -- HOLLAND LAW FIRM LLC, Patrick
R. Dowd, HOLLAND LAW FIRM LLC & Randall S. Crompton, HOLLAND LAW
FIRM LLC.

Bayer Corp., Bayer Healthcare LLC, Bayer Essure, Inc., formerly
known as Conceptus, Inc. & Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals Inc.,
Defendants, represented by W. Jason Rankin --
jrankin@heplerbroom.com -- HEPLER BROOM.


BAYER CORP: "Whitlock" Remanded to Missouri State Court
-------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Missouri, Eastern Division, issued a Memorandum and Order
granting Plaintiff's Motion to Re-remand to the State Court the
case captioned JAN WHITLOCK, et al., Plaintiffs, v. BAYER
CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, Case No. 4:17-cv-02000-JAR (E.D.
Mo.).

Plaintiffs first filed the action in the Circuit Court of the
City of St. Louis, Missouri, seeking damages for injuries
sustained as a result of the implantation and use of Essure.

Defendants first removed this action to the District Court on the
basis of diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(a),
federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section 1331, and
the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA).

Defendants removed this case for a second time, asserting that
all of the non-Missouri Plaintiffs should be dismissed from the
case, and that the Court's diversity jurisdiction then would
apply to the remaining Missouri Plaintiffs' claims.

Defendants' basis for their second removal primarily rests with
the United States Supreme Court's ruling in Bristol-Myers Squibb
Co. v. Superior Court of California, San Francisco City.

In that case, the Supreme Court held that state courts lack
specific jurisdiction over non-resident plaintiffs' claims that
have no connection to the forum where the lawsuit is filed, even
if those plaintiffs join their claims with in-state plaintiffs.
Defendants assert that the ruling in Bristol-Myers Squibb
qualifies as orders and/or other papers because it changed the
legal landscape by clarifying that specific jurisdiction over the
non-Missouri Plaintiffs does not exist and thus triggers a new
30-day period for removal under Section 1446(b)(3).

However, the orders and other paper exception is predominantly
limited to orders and other paper issued in the individual case
that is being removed. Orders and rulings in separate cases with
different parties do not trigger the recommencement of the 30-day
limit.

As a result, Defendants' removal of this matter for a second time
was procedurally improper because Bristol-Myers Squibb does not
constitute other paper. Therefore, the Court will grant
Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand this action to state court.

A full-text copy of the District Court's December 21, 2017
Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/yagpk7sd from Leagle.com.

Jan Whitlock, Tiffany Liples, Nydia Cartagena, Charlina Johnson,
Reesa Ammons, Brandi Armstrong, April Austin, Georgette Bennett,
Shawnee Block, Bobbie Blue, Lori Bond, Mandy Jo Bronson, Kimberly
Brown, Eboni Burnam, Sierra Carathers, Loura Chamberlin, Evonne
Chapman, Brandy Clifton, Christine Coleman, Constance Daniels,
Melissa Davis, Randi Dawson, Shantell Dorsey, Shannon Douglas,
Kelisha Eason, Devon Emrath, Desiree England, Heather Fox, Skye
Gibson, Kayliecia Gilleran, Samantha Gillespie, Emily Gorlewski,
Julia Graddy, Lakeisha Graydon, Denise Grice, Lyndsay Griffin,
Jessica Griffith, Monica Hall, Debbie Harris, Amelia Hawkins-
Kovack, Sherrie Hernandez, Jennifer Holland, Jenniffer Isaacs,
Mary Izaguirre, Markita Jernigan, Adrena Johnson, Emberlee
Johnson, Sabrina Johnson, Kimberly Johnson, Helen Ketelhut,
Samantha Kirby, Jamie Lane, Manon Lepage, Crista Long, Katie
Long, Shannan Loupe, Casey Lowery, Amber Maby, Michele Martin,
Angela McBride, Tonya McDonald, Jessica Miller, Nora Molina,
Chardell Neal, Crystal Newbold, Mellody Nichols, Grace Oelklaus,
Cynthia Parson, Julia Piccolo, Ashley Pillsbury, Raigina Preston,
Melissa Ross, Crystal Saiz, Rebecca Sama, Amanda Sanders, Carrie
Segee, Lasheba Seliby, Shawna Sherman, Kennesha Snead, Cynthia
Sturgess, Christine Sweet, Gabrina Tafoya, Erica Taylor, Tasha
Trawick, Diana Ulrich, Olivia Uribe, Jamie Waits, Monica Webb,
Michelle Westmoreland, Marie France Wiesert, Ashley Willhoite,
Tinaria Williams, Mychayla Wright & Angelic Zavala, Plaintiffs,
represented by Eric D. Holland  -- eholland@allfela.com --
HOLLAND LAW FIRM LLC, Patrick R. Dowd, HOLLAND LAW FIRM LLC &
Randall S. Crompton -- scrompton@allfela.com -- HOLLAND LAW FIRM
LLC.

Bayer A.G., Plaintiff, represented by Patrick R. Dowd --
pdowd@allfela.com -- HOLLAND LAW FIRM LLC.

Bayer Corp., Bayer Healthcare LLC, Bayer Essure, Inc., formerly
known as Conceptus, Inc. & Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals Inc.,
Defendants, represented by Gerard T. Noce --
gnoce@heplerbroom.com -- HEPLER BROOM & W. Jason Rankin --
jrankin@heplerbroom.com -- HEPLER BROOM.


BENJAMIN & BROTHERS: Marko Moves for Certification of Two Classes
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit titled MICHAEL MARKO and MIKE'S
INC., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
v. BENJAMIN & BROTHERS, LLC, d/b/a RESERVATIONS.COM, Case No.
6:17-cv-01725-CEM-GJK (M.D. Fla.), ask the Court to certify these
proposed classes:

     All persons and entities in the United States who booked a
     reservation through Reservations.com by telephone or online
     and were charged a $14.99 booking fee on or before
     February 20, 2017. ("the Nationwide Class"); and

     All persons and entities in Illinois who booked a
     reservation through Reservations.com by telephone or online
     and were charged a $14.99 booking fee on or before
     February 20, 2017. (the "Illinois Class")

Excluded from the proposed classes should be: (1) Defendant,
Defendant's agents, subsidiaries, parents, successors,
predecessors, and any entity in which Defendant or Defendant's
respective parents have a controlling interest, and those
entities' current and former employees, officers, and directors;
(2) the Judge to whom this case is assigned and the Judge's
immediate family; (3) Any governmental entities and any
instrumentalities, subdivisions, agencies thereof; (4) any person
who executes and files a timely request for exclusion from the
Class; (5) any person who has had their claims in this matter
finally adjudicated and/or otherwise released; (6) the legal
representatives, successors and assigns of any such excluded
person; (7) Counsel of record.

The Plaintiffs, pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure, move for an order certifying their unfair and
deceptive trade acts claims, unjust enrichment claims, and
conversion claims against the Defendant for class treatment on
behalf of the Classes.

In connection with the certification order, the Plaintiffs
further ask the Court to (a) formally appoint Michael Marko and
Mike's Inc. to serve as Class Representatives of the Classes; and
(b) formally appoint their counsel, Jason K. Whittemore and
Francis J. "Casey" Flynn, Jr., to serve as Co-Lead Class Counsel.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jason Whittemore, Esq.
          WAGNER MCLAUGHLIN, P.A.
          601 Bayshore Blvd., Suite 910
          Tampa, FL 33606
          Telephone: (813) 225-4000
          E-mail: jason@WagnerLaw.com

               - and -

          Francis J. "Casey" Flynn, Jr., Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF FRANCIS J. FLYNN, JR.
          6220 West Third Street, #115
          Los Angeles, CA 90036
          Telephone: (314) 662-2836
          Facsimile: (855) 710-7706
          E-mail: francisflynn@gmail.com


BLICK ART: Court Approves Settlement in "Andrews"
-------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New
York issued a Memorandum and Order granting Approval of
Settlement in the case captioned VICTOR ANDREWS, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. BLICK
ART MATERIALS, LLC, Defendant, No. 17-CV-767 (E.D.N.Y.).

The memorandum and order, approving the parties' settlement,
provides an example of a reasonable resolution of the issues,
providing significant expansion of internet access to the
visually impaired.

This putative class action was brought by a blind person, Victor
Andrews, against Blick Art Materials ("Blick"), a major national
vendor of art materials in stores and over the internet. Andrews,
who holds a college degree in Radio and Broadcasting Technology,
claims that Blick could adjust its website's code so that
visually impaired individuals could more readily purchase art
materials on its primary website, dickblick.com.

The Motion to approve settlement of the case and elimination of
class allegations is granted and that:

   1. Defendant and its parents, subsidiaries, and related
entities bring the Websites into substantial conformance with the
Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0 Level AA, which
are determined by the court to be an appropriate standard to
judge whether Defendant is in compliance with any accessibility
requirements of the ADA, New York State law, or New York City
local law on or before December 31, 2018, implementing changes to
the website in a piecemeal fashion, as practicable.

   2. The court will reasonably modify the accessibility
standards applicable to Defendant's Websites if:

      a. the United States Department of Justice (DOJ)
promulgates a final ADA Title III regulation setting out a
website accessibility technical standard applicable to
Defendant's Website and Other Websites; or

      b. there are changes to international standards or
technology related to sighted impaired individuals' access to the
internet.

      c. Defendant will take reasonable and necessary efforts to
ensure legal compliance with the Court's modifications to the
settlement.

3. The court will retain foot of the decree jurisdiction to
enforce the implementation of Defendant's compliance with WCAG
2.0 AA, including assessing and awarding any damages, costs, or
legal fees reasonably and necessarily incurred by Plaintiff's
counsel in post-judgment enforcement proceedings.

Given that the injunctive relief in this case will necessarily
inure to the benefit of the putative class, the parties have
thoroughly negotiated and supported the terms of the settlement,
and provided the court the opportunity to review the settlement
and suggest changes, it was proper for the plaintiff to settle
this case individually. There is no sign of any collusion by the
parties that would prejudice possible class members, and as
discussed infra, the relief appears to be fair and reasonable.

Plaintiff Andrews has expressed his satisfaction with the
settlement terms. He has been using screen reading software for
20 years, and has extensive knowledge and experience with various
ecommerce websites. He believes that this settlement will allow
him and others to better access Blick's website.

The parties have demonstrated that the two-year timeline is
reasonable. Blick has already begun working to bring its website
into compliance with the WCAG 2.0 Level AA guidelines. Its
technical consultant is using a method that will implement the
changes to the website in piecemeal fashion, focusing first on
the most critical issues that are currently blocking access to
the visually impaired. This method will allow the website to see
a major improvement well before the two-year timeline for total
completion.

The parties agree that the fees should be sealed in this case.
The court has reviewed the sealed affidavit of counsel concerning
the attorneys' fees and concludes that the negotiated fee is
reasonable. The parties skillfully litigated the threshold issue
in this case about whether the ADA applies to the internet. There
is no reason to believe that the fee negotiated between the
parties was not the product of arm's length appropriate
bargaining.

The parties' settlement, including the attorneys' fees, is
approved as fair and reasonable. The attorneys' fee information
will remain under seal.

A full-text copy of the District Court's December 21, 2017
Memorandum and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/ya2cwnzm
from Leagle.com.

Victor Andrews, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Anne Seelig, Lee Litigation
Group, PLLC & C.K. Lee, Lee Litigation Group, PLLC, 30 East 39th
Street, Second Floor. New York, NY 10016.

Blick Art Materials, LLC, Defendant, represented by David Seth
Korzenik, Miller Korzenik Sommers LLP, 88 Madison Avenue, Suite
1120. New York, NY 10022., Steve Baron --
smandell@mandellmenkes.com -- Mandell Menkes LLC, Steven Mandell
-- smandell@mandellmenkes.com -- Mandell Menkes LLC, pro hac vice
& Terence Patrick Keegan, Miller Korzenik Sommers Rayman LLP, 88
Madison Avenue, Suite 1120. New York, NY 10022


BP PLC: To Take $1.7BB Charge Related to Deepwater Horizon Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chad Bray, writing for The New York Times, reports that the
energy giant BP said on Jan. 16 that it expected to take an
additional charge of $1.7 billion in the fourth quarter for
claims related to the 2010 Deepwater Horizon disaster, which
killed 11 people and caused the worst oil spill in American
history.

The company also said that it now anticipated cash payments
related to the disaster to be about $3 billion this year, up from
an estimate issued in the third quarter of more than $2 billion.

"With the claims facility's work very nearly done, we now have
better visibility into the remaining liability," Brian Gilvary,
BP's chief financial officer, said in a news release.  "The
charge we are taking as a result is fully manageable within our
existing financial framework."

The explosion of the Deepwater Horizon oil rig was one of the
worst environmental disasters in United States history, spilling
millions of gallons of crude oil into the Gulf of Mexico.  It
badly damaged BP's reputation and has cost the company tens of
billions of dollars in fines and settlements.

The charge announced on Jan. 16 is related to a court-supervised
settlement program after a class-action lawsuit to resolve claims
for business losses and other claims related to the oil spill.

The company said this month that it would take a separate noncash
charge of about $1.5 billion in the fourth quarter related to a
tax overhaul in the United States, but said it expected its
future earnings in the United States to be "positively impacted"
by the changes, which lowered the corporate income tax rate.
The Deepwater Horizon disaster led to a series of new safety
regulations for offshore oil drilling, which the Trump
administration is preparing to roll back in hopes of generating
more domestic energy production.

The Interior Department's Bureau of Safety and Environmental
Enforcement said in December that the decrease in regulations
would reduce "unnecessary burdens" on the energy industry and
save the sector $228 million over 10 years.

This month, the Trump administration said that it would allow new
offshore oil and gas drilling in nearly all United States coastal
waters, reversing environmental policies put in place by the
Obama administration.

However, the White House backed off opening up more drilling off
the coast of Florida after strong opposition from the state's
Republican governor, Rick Scott. Governors in other coastal
states have now asked for their own exemptions to the offshore
drilling expansion. [GN]


BROOME COUNTY, NY: AT Moves for Class Cert.; Feb. 9 Hearing Set
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit titled A.T., a minor by and through
his parent and natural guardian SHA-KEEMA TILLMAN; B.C., a minor,
by and through KRISTI COCHARDO; and on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated v. DAVID HARDER, Broome County
Sheriff, in his official capacity; MARK SMOLINSKY, Jail
Administrator of the Broome County Correctional Facility, in his
official capacity; KEVIN MOORE, Deputy Administrator, in his
official capacity; CHENANGO VALLEY CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, Case
No. 9:17-cv-00817-DNH-DEP (N.D.N.Y.), move for an order
certifying the proceeding as a class action pursuant to Rule 23
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

The Court will commence a hearing on February 9, 2018, at 10
a.m., to consider the Motion.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=pVeRr6zg

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Joshua T. Cotter, Esq.
          Susan Young, Esq.
          Samuel C. Young, Esq.
          LEGAL SERVICES OF CENTRAL NEW YORK, INC.
          221 South Warren Street, 3rd Floor
          Syracuse, NY 13202
          Telephone: (315) 703-6579
          Facsimile: (315) 475-2706
          E-mail: jcotter@lscny.org
                  syoung@lscny.org
                  samyoung@lscny.org


CANADA: WRP Responds to Class Action Over Workplace Harassment
--------------------------------------------------------------
Liz Monteiro, writing for Waterloo Region Record, reports that
Waterloo Regional Police officers are "hard-working, dedicated
and honourable," Police Chief Bryan Larkin says in a statement he
felt compelled to release to counteract a pending class-action
lawsuit.

Mr. Larkin said the service is committed to treating all members
with respect and dignity and that workplace harassment and
discrimination are not tolerated in the workplace.

"I feel the need to address the issues brought forward against
me, and other members of this police service," he said.  "Most
importantly, I feel compelled to defend the hard-working,
dedicated and honourable people who serve our community every
day."

Mr. Larkin released the statement on Jan. 12.

Six plaintiffs are leading a class-action suit alleging gender-
based discrimination and a culture of sexual harassment and
misogyny. They claim to represent all female members of the local
service.

The plaintiffs include three current police officers, two former
officers and a retired superintendent. Only one officer is on
active duty.

Plaintiffs are Sgt. Karin Eder, Sgt. Shelley Heinrich, Const.
Angelina Rivers, former constable Vera MacKenzie, former
constable Sharon Zehr and retired superintendent Barry Zehr.
Zehr, who retired last April, is married to Sharon Zehr.

The allegations in the suit have not been tested in court and the
suit is set to be certified in June.  Total damages they are
seeking amount to $167 million.

The claim says the officers were routinely harassed, mocked and
bullied by male colleagues and supervisors.  When they spoke up
to supervisors and their union, they felt their concerns were
dismissed, leading to isolation within the ranks and they were
seen as complainers.

Some officers allegedly negatively commented on the appearance of
female officers, blocked the promotion process for some women and
in one case a superintendent allegedly sent an email with a
photograph of his penis to a female officer and asked for a naked
photo of her in return.  She refused.  The superintendent remains
at the service. [GN]


CANADA: St Anne's Residential School Survivors Protest Ruling
-------------------------------------------------------------
Emma Meldrum, writing for timminspress.com, reports that St.
Anne's residential school survivors spoke and rallied in Ottawa
on Jan. 15.

Attawapiskat-born Angela Shisheesh was among them.  The Timmins
resident spent seven years at the residential school in Fort
Albany.

A Jan. 4 ruling of Ontario's Superior Court of Justice dismissed
part of Shisheesh's claim, which asked for relief from the
independent assessment process of the Indian Residential Schools
Settlement Agreement, a pan-Canadian class action settlement
which aims to provide redress for harms done at the schools.

However, the justice did grant Shisheesh the ability to request
documents from the federal government.  Timmins-James Bay MP
Charlie Angus explained in the House of Commons in December that
these files, originally collected as evidence by the Ontario
Provincial Police, aren't being turned over by the federal
government -- despite the court ordering it to do so.

"The huge question that we've never been able to figure out is
why the government has applied such legal brass knuckles against
the survivors of St. Anne's residential school," said Mr. Angus
ahead of the Jan. 15 rally.  "Everybody knows what a horrific
institution this was.  There's so much police documentation and
court records of the torture and abuse of these children, but the
government, at every step of the way, has obstructed the
survivors, they've suppressed evidence, and so out of
frustration, the survivors are coming to Ottawa to challenge the
government to ask for justice."

Angela Shisheesh also spoke to The Daily Press before traveling
to Ottawa. She remembered the trip to Fort Albany, when a barge
took her to school.

"As I was getting on the boat, my father and mother, they were in
tears, especially my mom," she said. Then, when the children
arrived at St. Anne's, their hair was cut short.

"I remember my mother used to braid my hair so nicely.  They
didn't even undo the braids," said Ms. Shisheesh.  "It was very
devastating for me, but I could do nothing.  I was shaking like a
leaf."

She said the abuse she suffered at the school haunts her.  Her
sister, Sophie Spence, also attended for a short time, and
Ms. Shisheesh said she suffered trauma as well.

Ms. Shisheesh remembered her sister being locked in an outhouse
in the winter after having an accident.  She recalled being
forced to eat her breakfast after being sick in her bowl.

She said it took her many years to open up about her experience.

"It haunts me all the time," she said.  "I've got so much hurt in
me. I'm (speaking out) for her, or for anybody that's afraid to
speak up, and people that didn't get a chance to speak."

She said the abuse she endured took away her dignity.

"It didn't only happen at St. Anne's in Fort Albany.  It happened
all across the land. I know there's a little (doubt) from the
government, and that's why I'm doing this."

She said she wants them to understand what she experienced.

"It happened.  Nobody is making up stories," she said.  "How
would they feel if their own children, or themselves, were there?
If it was done to them?"

Angus said St. Anne's "is a black cloud that hangs over our
region."

He said survivors like Ms. Shisheesh are looking for justice and
closure.

"The justice said that Canada's relationship to the St. Anne's
survivors (is) a festering sore of animosity and distrust.  Well,
why is the government acting like that? He said that the
government threat to go after the legal team of Angela Shisheesh
and this woman was a 'settling of scores.'"

Indeed, Justice Perell said both parties' mistakes about the
meaning of the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement
"has been a festering sore of suspicion, animosity, distrust, and
shared resentment."

The justice said both parties misinterpreted the agreement.

Both parties -- Canada and the claimants -- are looking to have
the other pay their legal costs.

"Canada has endless legal resources.  These survivors have
nothing.  Why are they going after them for Canada's costs, when
Canada is the one who obstructed the hearings, suppressed
evidence and blacked out the names of the perpetrators of the
crimes," said Mr. Angus.

The MP said the press conference and rally at the Department of
Justice is part of survivors' attempts to show the next
generation that things can be fixed.

"It's about goodwill, it's about reconciliation," he said.  "It
shouldn't have to be this hard to get justice for people whose
only crime was that they were Indigenous children and they were
taken from their families and they were subjected to things that
no person should ever be subjected to." [GN]


CANADIAN PACIFIC: Trial Date Not Yet Fixed in Derailment Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
Canadian Pacific Railway Limited said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2017, that a trial date has
not been set in a train derailment case.

A class action lawsuit has been filed in the Quebec Superior
Court on behalf of persons and entities residing in, owning or
leasing property in, operating a business in or physically
present in Lac-Megantic at the time of the derailment (the "Class
Action"). That lawsuit seeks derailment damages, including for
wrongful death, personal injury, and property harm. On August 16,
2013, Canadian Pacific Railway Limited (CP) was added as a
defendant. On May 8, 2015, the Quebec Superior Court authorized
(certified) the Class Action against CP, the shipper -- Western
Petroleum, and the shipper's parent -- World Fuel Services
(collectively, the "World Fuel Entities"). The World Fuel
Entities have since settled.

On October 24, 2016, the Quebec Superior Court authorized
proceedings against two additional defendants in the Class
Action, i.e. against MMAC and Mr. Thomas Harding. On December 9,
2016, the Quebec Superior Court granted CP's motion seeking to
confirm the validity of the opt-outs from this Class Action by
the estates of the deceased parties following the train
derailment who had opted out to allow them to sue in the United
States instead (i.e. the wrongful death cases, filed in the
United States, which are further discussed hereinafter).
Accordingly, at present, all known wrongful death claimants in
the class action have opted out and cannot re-join the Class
Action.

In accordance with the initial case protocol set by the Superior
Court on March 27, 2017, CP's statement of defence was delivered
on June 2, 2017. A further case conference was held on July 14,
2017 to review the status of the matter and schedule the next
steps in the case protocol. As a result, production of documents,
examinations for discovery and the exchange of expert reports by
the parties are expected to occur between mid-2017 and the end of
2018. A trial date has yet to be fixed.

On September 28, 2017, the Class Action plaintiffs served (i) a
motion to consolidate the Class Action with the Province's Action
and the two insurance actions; and (ii) a motion to bifurcate the
proceedings into a liability phase (first) and a damages phase
(afterwards), if necessary. These motions, together with CP's
motion relating to document production, were scheduled to be
heard on October 24, 2017.

Canadian Pacific Railway Limited, together with its subsidiaries,
owns and operates a transcontinental freight railway in Canada
and the United States.  The Company offers rail and intermodal
transportation services over a network of approximately 12,400
miles, serving the business centers of Canada from Montreal,
Quebec to Vancouver, British Columbia; and the United States
Northeast and Midwest regions.  In addition, the Company offers
transload, leasing, and logistics services.  Canadian Pacific
Railway Limited was founded in 1881 and is headquartered in
Calgary, Canada.


CANNAVEST CORP: Motions to Dismiss Securities Action Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Motions to dismiss filed in the case, In re: CannaVest Corp.
Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:14-cv-02900-PGG (S.D.N.Y.,
April 23, 2014), remain pending.

No hearing date has been set by the Court at this time with
respect to the motions to dismiss, CV Sciences, Inc. said in its
Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2017.

On April 23, 2014, Tanya Sallustro filed a purported class action
complaint (the "Complaint") in the Southern District of New York
(the "Court") alleging securities fraud and related claims
against the Company and certain of its officers and directors and
seeking compensatory damages including litigation costs. Ms.
Sallustro alleges that between March 18-31, 2014, she purchased
325 shares of the Company's common stock for a total investment
of $15,791. The Complaint refers to Current Reports on Form 8-K
and Current Reports on Form 8-K/A filings made by the Company on
April 3, 2014 and April 14, 2014, in which the Company amended
previously disclosed sales (sales originally stated at $1,275,000
were restated to $1,082,375 - reduction of $192,625) and restated
goodwill as $1,855,512 (previously reported at net zero).

Additionally, the Complaint states after the filing of the
Company's Current Report on Form 8-K on April 3, 2014 and the
following press release, the Company's stock price "fell $7.30
per share, or more than 20%, to close at $25.30 per share."
Subsequent to the filing of the Complaint, six different
individuals filed a motion asking to be designated the lead
plaintiff in the litigation.

On March 19, 2015, the Court issued a ruling appointing Steve
Schuck as lead plaintiff.  Counsel for Mr. Schuck filed a
"consolidated amended complaint" on September 14, 2015. On
December 11, 2015, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint.

After requesting several extensions, counsel for Mr. Schuck filed
an opposition to the motion to dismiss on March 21, 2016.  The
Company's reply brief was filed on April 25, 2016. Defendant
Stuart Titus was served with the Summons & Complaint in the case
and he has recently completed briefing his motion to dismiss,
through separate counsel. No hearing date has been set by the
Court at this time with respect to the motions to dismiss.

The case is pending before Judge Paul G. Gardephe.

CV Sciences said "Management intends to vigorously defend the
allegations and an estimate of possible loss cannot be made at
this time."

CV Sciences operates two distinct divisions, pharmaceuticals and
consumer products. These divisions are supported by the company's
medical and scientific advisory board, and state-of-the art
production facilities. The company is based in Las Vegas, Nevada.

Lead Plaintiff Steve Schuck is represented by:

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

Plaintiff Tanya Sallustro, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

     Laurence Matthew Rosen, Esq.
     The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. (NYC)
     275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor
     New York,, NY 10016
     Tel: (212) 686-1060
     Fax: (212) 202-3827
     E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com

          - and -

     Phillip C. Kim, Esq.
     The Rosen Law Firm P.A.
     350 5th Avenue, Suite 5508
     New York, NY 10118
     Tel: (212) 686-1060
     Fax: (212) 202-3827
     E-mail: pkim@rosenlegal.com

          - and -

     Yu Shi, Esq.
     The Rosen Law Firm. P.A.
     275 Madison Ave, 34th Floor
     New York, NY 10016
     Tel: (212) 686-1060
     Fax: (212) 202-3827
     E-mail: yshi@rosenlegal.com

Movant Anamaria Schelling is represented by:

     Ira M. Press, Esq.
     Thomas W. Elrod, Esq.
     Kirby McInerney LLP
     825 Third Avenue, 16th Floor
     New York, NY 10022
     Tel: (212) 371-6600
     Fax: (212) 751-2540
     E-mail: ipress@kmllp.com
             telrod@kmllp.com


Movant Jane Ish is represented by:

     Andrei V. Rado, Esq.
     Milberg LLP (NYC)
     One Pennsylvania Plaza
     New York, NY 10119
     Tel: (212) 946-9474
     Fax: (212) 868-1229
     E-mail: arado@milberg.com

Movant Mark Williams is represented by:

     Adam M. Apton, Esq.
     Levi & Korsinsky LLP (DC)
     1101 30th, Street, NW
     Washington, DC 20007
     Tel: (202) 524-4290
     Fax: (202) 333-2121
     E-mail: aapton@zlk.com

Defendant Cannavest Corp. is represented by:

     Sean Michael Sullivan, Esq.
     Stacey Todd Neal, Esq.
     Procopio Cory Hargreaves & Savitch LLP
     525 B Street, Suite 2200
     San Diego, CA 92101
     Tel: (619) 238-1900
     Fax: (619) 235-0398
     E-mail: sean.sullivan@procopio.com
             todd.neal@procopio.com

          - and -

     Henry Edward Mazurek, Esq.
     Clayman & Rosenberg, LLP
     305 Madison Ave., Suite 1301
     New York, NY 10165
     Tel: (212) 922-1080
     Fax: (212) 949-8255
     E-mail: mazurek@clayro.com

Defendant Stuart Titus is represented by:

     Jessica L Mackaness, Esq.
     Shustak Reynolds & Partners, P.C.
     401 West A Street, Suite 2250
     San Diego, CA 92101
     Tel: (619) 546-5502
     Fax: (619) 615-5290
     E-mail: jmackaness@shufirm.com

          - and -

     Paul A Reynolds, Esq.
     Shustak Reynolds & Partners
     401 West A Street, Suite 2250
     San Diego, CA 92101
     Tel: (619) 225-7422
     Fax: (619) 615-5290
     E-mail: preynolds@shufirm.com


ADR Provider Otilda LaMont is represented by:

     Thomas James McKenna, Esq.
     Gainey McKenna & Egleston
     440 Park Avenue, South 5th Floor
     New York, NY 10016
     Tel: (212) 983-1300
     Fax: (212) 983-0383
     E-mail: tjmlaw2001@yahoo.com


CASH FUND LLC: Illegally Contacted Hardin Using Auto-dialer
-----------------------------------------------------------
Tenley Hardin, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Cash Fund, LLC, Adam Nelson and Does 1
through 10, inclusive, and each of them, Defendant, Case No. 18-
cv-00048 (D. Colo., January 8, 2018), seeks damages and any other
available legal or equitable remedies resulting from violations
of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and related regulations,
specifically the National Do-Not-Call provisions, thereby
invading Plaintiff's privacy.

Defendant is an online business loan company. Plaintiff, whose
number is in the do-not-call registry, claims to have received
calls from Cash Fund using an auto-dialer and incurred a charge
on her phone bill. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
     21550 Oxnard St. Suite 780,
     Woodland Hills, CA 91367
     Phone: (877) 206-4741
     Fax: (866) 633-0228
     Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com


CENTENE HEALTH: Faces Class Action Over Ambetter Plans
------------------------------------------------------
Katie Keith, writing for Health Affairs, reports that on
January 11, 2018, a group of marketplace enrollees filed a class
action lawsuit against Centene, an insurer that offers individual
health insurance under its Ambetter brand in 15 states.  The
lawsuit alleges that Centene misrepresents the breadth of its
provider networks and, when consumers enroll in the Ambetter
plans, they're unable to find a doctor who will take their
insurance or have to travel long distances to find a doctor who
will see them. The plaintiffs argue that these practices violate
the ACA and state law, are a breach of Centene's insurance
contract with its consumers, and lead to higher out-of-pocket
costs for enrollees through unpaid claims, denied claims, and
balance billing.

Centene covers a significant number of consumers in marketplaces
nationwide. They recently announced that 1.4 million consumers
nationwide had effectuated (paid their initial premium for)
Ambetter coverage for 2018, an increase of at least 400,000
consumers since the third quarter of 2017.  Unlike many other
insurers in recent years, Centene expanded its marketplace
presence to additional states in 2018; its enrollment numbers
could continue to grow since Ambetter plans are available in
states, such as California and Washington, whose open enrollment
periods end later this month.

What's In The Lawsuit?
The lawsuit outlines a number of instances where Ambetter
enrollees have had difficulty finding a doctor, have had to
travel for health care, have been denied care that they thought
was covered and in-network, or have relied on information in
Ambetter's provider directory only to find the data to be
inaccurate.  One of the plaintiffs, for instance, incurred a
charge of about $1,500 for emergency room treatment in part
because Centene had no in-network emergency room physicians in
the Spokane, Washington area.

This is not the first time that concerns have been raised about
Ambetter plans and network adequacy.  In December 2017 -- during
the middle of the 2018 open enrollment period and in response to
140 complaints from enrollees -- the Washington Office of the
Insurance Commissioner ordered Centene to stop selling its 2018
marketplace plans and levied a $1.5 million fine for having an
inadequate provider network. Centene was able to resume offering
plans but only after agreeing to a consent order and compliance
plan to fix its provider network.

The lawsuit alleges that Centene's plans do not comply with
federal ACA rules on network adequacy; plan disclosure standards
(provider directories and the summary of benefits and coverage);
coverage of essential health benefits; and "patient's bill of
rights" protections (such as requiring plans to cover preventive
services without cost-sharing).  Claims are also made under state
law, such as Texas laws on unfair trade practices and deceptive
marketing standards that apply to health insurers and
Washington's state-specific standards on network adequacy and
provider directories.  The consumers allege that Centene engaged
in deceptive marketing because its plans advertise themselves as
qualified health plans that meet ACA requirements.

Because Ambetter policies incorporate many of the ACA's
standards, the consumers allege that Centene has breached its
insurance contracts with enrollees.  In particular, Ambetter
policies state that Centene will "comply with all applicable
state and federal laws and regulation" and that enrollees have
the right to a current network directory, adequate access to
providers, and access to urgent and emergency services at all
times.

The complaint also alleges that Centene refused to pay for
benefits that should have been covered and did not appropriately
address enrollee appeals and grievances.  The complaint cites the
results of a 2016 Medicare audit report that found that Centene
failed to comply with Medicare Part D requirements and that these
failures were "systemic and adversely affected, or had the
substantial likelihood of adversely affecting, enrollees" through
delayed or denied access to covered benefits, higher out-of-
pocket costs, and inadequate grievance or appeal rights.

Implications
Narrow networks and balance billing are not new nor limited to
marketplace coverage.  However, the claims, if true, could affect
a large number of consumers given Centene's significant presence
in the individual market.  The complaint also comes at a time
when the Trump administration has punted much of the authority
and standard setting for network adequacy back to the states. In
April 2017, HHS finalized a new policy to rely on state network
adequacy reviews so long as the state has a standard that is at
least equal to the ACA's standard. (Under the ACA, HHS must
require marketplace plans to "ensure a sufficient choice of
providers" and provide information on the availability of network
and out-of-network providers.) This is a significant departure
from the Obama administration which had taken a number of steps
to improve marketplace plan network adequacy, such as adopting
quantitative standards for certain types of providers.

Although nearly all states have adopted some sort of regulatory
framework for network adequacy, oversight is uneven across and
within states, and state network adequacy requirements often only
apply to certain types of network designs, such as HMOs but not
PPOs.  Given Centene's participation in the marketplace in
multiple states, network adequacy standards and oversight could
vary significantly, making a nationwide class action even more
interesting to watch unfold. [GN]


CERES, CA: "Miranda" Suit Seeks OT Pay, Damages
-----------------------------------------------
Daniel Miranda, on his own behalf and on behalf of all those
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. City of Ceres, Defendants, Case
No. 18-cv-00041 (E.D. Cal., January 9, 2018), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime, other compensation and interest thereon,
liquidated damages, unlawful deductions, declaratory relief,
costs of suit and reasonable attorney fees pursuant to the
California Labor Code.

Ceres is a political subdivision of the State of California and
is a public agency where Miranda worked as a Senior Water
Distribution Operator.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Eric Wiesner, Esq.
      Caren P. Sencer, Esq.
      WEINBERG, ROGER & ROSENFELD - A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
      1001 Marina Village Parkway, Suite 200
      Alameda, CA 94501
      Telephone: (510) 337-1001
      Fax: (510) 337-1023
      E-Mail: ewiesner@unioncounsel.net
              csencer@unioncounsel.net


CHAIR SLIPPERS: Bais Yaakov Sues Over Illegally-faxed Ads
---------------------------------------------------------
Bais Yaakov of Spring Valley, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Chair Slippers, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 18-cv-00054, (S.D. N.Y., January 3, 2018), seeks
statutory damages in excess of $2,500,000; an injunction against
Defendant prohibiting it from sending unsolicited fax
advertisements; and such further relief under the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

Plaintiff is a New York religious corporation, with its principal
place of business at 11 Smolley Drive, Monsey, New York 10952.

Chair Slippers is a Louisiana limited liability company, with its
principal place of business located at 313 North Chestnut Street,
Suite A, Lafayette, Louisiana 70501. It sells covers for the
bottoms of legs of chairs. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Aytan Y. Bellin, Esq.
      BELLIN & ASSOCIATES LLC
      85 Miles Avenue
      White Plains, NY 10606
      Tel: (914) 358-5345
      Fax: (212) 571-0284
      Email: aytan.bellin@bellinlaw.co006D


CHICAGO'S BEST: Delivery Drivers' Suit Underway
-----------------------------------------------
Darwin Serrano and Danny Truong, individually for themselves and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v.
Chicago's Best, Inc. and Martin Flores, the Defendants, Case No.
2017-CH-13482, (Ill. Cir., Cook County, October 6, 2017), seeks
to recover unpaid minimum wage, overtime wages with damages for
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, Illinois Minimum Wage
Law, Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act and Internal
Revenue Code.

Plaintiffs have been employed as delivery drivers by Defendants.
The Plaintiffs state in their complaint that the Defendants
failed to pay them the state mandated minimum wages; have failed
to pay overtime as required by the state and federal law; have
made illegal deductions from Plaintiffs wages in the form of fuel
costs and vehicle maintenance costs; and have fraudulently filed
1099-MISC forms with the Internal Revenue Service.[BN]

Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Carlos G. Becerra, Esq.
     BECERRA LAW GROUP, LLC
     11 E. Adams St., Suite 1401
     Chicago, IL 60603
     Telephone: (312)957-9005
     Facsimile: (888)826-5848
     Email: cbecerra@law-rb.com


CHOICE HOTELS: Illegally Recorded Sales Call, "Siu" Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Siu, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Choice Hotels International, Inc.,
Bluegreen Vacations Unlimited, Inc. (dba Bluegreen Getaways) and
Does 1 through 10, inclusive, and each of them, Defendants, Case
No. 18-cv-00022 (S.D. Cal., January 4, 2018), seeks damages,
injunctive relief and any other available legal or equitable
remedies, resulting from violations of California Penal Code Sec.
632, prohibiting intentionally monitoring or recording of
confidential telephone conversations without the consent of all
parties to the call.

Defendants contacted Siu by telephone to pitch their Choice
Hotels customer loyalty program and a vacation package. Only
after the said sales pitch did the caller inform Plaintiff for
the first time that the call was being recorded.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     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
     Phone: (877) 206-4741
     Fax: (866) 633-0228
     Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
            abacon@toddflaw.com


CLOROX COMPANY: "Cesarini" Suit Asserts Product Mislabeling
-----------------------------------------------------------
Michael Cesarini, individually and on behalf of other similarly
situated individuals, Plaintiffs, v. The Clorox Company and The
Burt's Bees Products Company, Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-00208
(N.D. Cal., January 9, 2018), seeks monetary, punitive and
statutory damages, injunctive relief, reasonable costs and
expenses of suit, including attorneys' fees and any further
relief under California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act, False
Advertising Law, Unfair Competition Law and New York General
Business Law as well as from unjust enrichment, breach of express
and implied warranties.

Clorox manufactures, markets, and distributes for sale to
consumers nationwide several household cleaning products under
the brand name "Gud."  The complaint says Defendant claims its
products to be "natural," when, in fact, they contain unnatural
or synthetic ingredients namely, phenoxyethanol, polysorbate 20,
xanthan gum, potassium sorbate, zinc oxide, glyceryl stearate,
coco-glucoside, and citric acid.

Cesarini made several purchases of Gud products from various
stores in, near, and around the Orange County area. Cesarini
claims that the product packaging indicated "natural," displaying
pictures of leaves and flowers.

The Burt's Bees Products Company is a subsidiary of The Clorox
Company. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joel D. Smith, Esq.
      L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
      Yeremey O. Krivoshey, Esq.
      Thomas A. Reyda, Esq.
      BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
      1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
      Walnut Creek, CA 94596
      Telephone: (925) 300-4455
      Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
      Email: ltfisher@bursor.com
             jsmith@bursor.com
             ykrivoshey@bursor.com
             treyda@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
     Email: rnathan@nathanlawpractice.com


COPPER COMPANIES: Settlement of Contact Lens Suit Underway
----------------------------------------------------------
The settlement of class action complaints launched by contact
lens consumers remains pending, according to The Cooper
Companies, Inc.'s Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended October 31, 2017.

Since March 2015, over 50 putative class action complaints were
filed by contact lens consumers alleging that contact lens
manufacturers, in conjunction with their respective Unilateral
Pricing Policy (UPP), conspired to reach agreements between each
other and certain distributors and retailers regarding the prices
at which certain contact lenses could be sold to consumers. The
plaintiffs are seeking damages against CooperVision, Inc., other
contact lens manufacturers, distributors and retailers, in
various courts around the United States. In June 2015, all of the
class action cases were consolidated and transferred to the
United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida.

CooperVision and the other defendants jointly filed a motion to
dismiss the complaints in December 2015. In June 2016, the motion
to dismiss with respect to claims brought under the Maryland
Consumer Protection Act was granted, but the motion to dismiss
with respect to claims brought under Section 1 of the Sherman Act
and other state laws was denied. The actions currently are in
discovery.

In March 2017, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification. In August 2017, CooperVision entered into a
settlement agreement with the plaintiffs, without any admission
of liability, to settle all claims against CooperVision, subject
to Court approval of the settlement. The Company has recorded a
settlement accrual of $3.0 million for the third quarter fiscal
ended July 31, 2017.

The Cooper Companies, Inc. is a US based multinational company in
the medical specialities sector. With its headquarters in
Pleasanton, California, it has over 8,000 employees and consists
of two subsidiaries, CooperVision (CVI) that provides contact
lenses for both wearers and practitioners, and CooperSurgical
(CSI) that provides products for health care professionals and
establishments that are involved in women's health care. Contact
lens sales, in particular, soft toric lenses which correct
astigmatism, make up for 80% of Cooper Company sales.


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Final Judgment in Hot Fuel Suit Affirmed
----------------------------------------------------------
Costco Wholesale Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended September 3, 2017, that a U.S. Court of Appeals has
affirmed the district court's final judgment in Motor Fuel
Temperature Sales Practices Suit.

Numerous putative class actions have been brought around the
United States against motor fuel retailers, including the
Company, alleging that they have been overcharging consumers by
selling gasoline or diesel that is warmer than 60 degrees without
adjusting the volume sold to compensate for heat-related
expansion or disclosing the effect of such expansion on the
energy equivalent received by the consumer. The Company is named
in the following actions: Raphael Sagalyn, et al., v. Chevron
USA, Inc., et al., Case No. 07-430 (D. Md.); Phyllis Lerner, et
al., v. Costco Wholesale Corporation, et al., Case No. 07-1216
(C.D. Cal.); Linda A. Williams, et al., v. BP Corporation North
America, Inc., et al., Case No. 07-179 (M.D. Ala.); James Graham,
et al. v. Chevron USA, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 07-193
(E.D. Va.); Betty A. Delgado, et al., v. Allsups, Convenience
Stores, Inc., et al., Case No. 07-202 (D.N.M.); Gary Kohut, et
al. v. Chevron USA, Inc., et al., Case No. 07-285 (D. Nev.); Mark
Rushing, et al., v. Alon USA, Inc., et al., Case No. 06-7621
(N.D. Cal.); James Vanderbilt, et al., v. BP Corporation North
America, Inc., et al., Case No. 06-1052 (W.D. Mo.); Zachary
Wilson, et al., v. Ampride, Inc., et al., Case No. 06-2582 (D.
Kan.); Diane Foster, et al., v. BP North America Petroleum, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 07-02059 (W.D. Tenn.); Mara Redstone, et al., v.
Chevron USA, Inc., et al., Case No. 07-20751 (S.D. Fla.); Fred
Aguirre, et al. v. BP West Coast Products LLC, et al., Case No.
07-1534(N.D. Cal.); J.C. Wash, et al., v. Chevron USA, Inc., et
al.; Case No. 4:07cv37 (E.D. Mo.); Jonathan Charles Conlin, et
al., v. Chevron USA, Inc., et al.; Case No. 07 0317 (M.D. Tenn.);
William Barker, et al. v. Chevron USA, Inc., et al.; Case No. 07-
cv-00293 (D.N.M.); Melissa J. Couch, et al. v. BP Products North
America, Inc., et al., Case No. 07cv291 (E.D. Tex.); S. Garrett
Cook, Jr., et al., v. Hess Corporation, et al., Case No. 07cv750
(M.D. Ala.); Jeff Jenkins, et al. v. Amoco Oil Company, et al.,
Case No. 07-cv-00661 (D. Utah); and Mark Wyatt, et al., v. B. P.
America Corp., et al., Case No. 07-1754 (S.D. Cal.).

On June 18, 2007, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
assigned the action, entitled In re Motor Fuel Temperature Sales
Practices Litigation, MDL Docket No 1840, to Judge Kathryn Vratil
in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas.
On April 12, 2009, the Company agreed to settle the actions in
which it is named as a defendant. Under the settlement, the
Company agreed, to the extent allowed by law and subject to other
terms and conditions in the agreement, to install over five years
from the effective date of the settlement temperature-correcting
dispensers in the States of Alabama, Arizona, California,
Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina,
South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, and Virginia. Other than
payments to class representatives, the settlement did not provide
for cash payments to class members. On September 22, 2011, the
court preliminarily approved a revised settlement, which did not
materially alter the terms.

On April 24, 2012, the court granted final approval of the
revised settlement. Plaintiffs moved for an award of $10 in
attorneys' fees, as well as an award of costs and payments to
class representatives. A report and recommendation was issued in
favor of a fee award of $4. On August 24, 2016, the district
court affirmed the report and recommendation. On March 20, 2014,
the Company filed a notice invoking a "most favored nation"
provision under the settlement, under which it sought to adopt
provisions in later settlements with certain other defendants.
The motion was denied on January 23, 2015. Final judgment was
entered on September 22, 2015, which was affirmed by the court of
appeals in August 2017.

Costco Wholesale Corporation operates membership warehouses based
on the concept that offering its members low prices on a limited
selection of nationally branded and private-label products in a
wide range of merchandise categories will produce high sales
volumes and rapid inventory turnover. The company is based in
Issaquah, Washington.


COSTCO WHOLESALE: "Canela" Class Action Suit Underway
-----------------------------------------------------
Costco Wholesale Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended September 3, 2017, that the company continues to
defend itself in a putative class action suit entitled, Canela v.
Costco Wholesale Corp., et al., Case No. 5:13-cv-03598 (N.D.
Cal., July 1, 2013).

The class action alleges violation of California Wage Order 7-
2001 by failing to provide seating to member service assistants
who act as greeters and exit attendants in the Company's
California warehouses. Canela v. Costco Wholesale Corp., et al.
(Case No. 5:13-cv-03598, N.D. Cal. filed July 1, 2013). The
complaint seeks relief under the California Labor Code, including
civil penalties and attorneys' fees. The Company has filed an
answer denying the material allegations of the complaint.

Costco Wholesale Corporation operates membership warehouses based
on the concept that offering its members low prices on a limited
selection of nationally branded and private-label products in a
wide range of merchandise categories will produce high sales
volumes and rapid inventory turnover. The company is based in
Issaquah, Washington.


COVELLI ENTERPRISES: "Kis" Action Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay
-----------------------------------------------------------
Erin E. Kis, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Covelli Enterprises, Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 18-cv-00054, (N.D. Ohio, January 9, 2018), seeks to
recover overtime compensation, liquidated damages, interest and
attorneys' fees under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Ohio
Minimum Fair Wage Standards Law.

Defendant owns and operates more than 300 Panera Bread franchises
and is the country's largest Panera Bread franchisee. Kis worked
as an assistant manager at a Panera Bread restaurant in
Wadsworth, Ohio in Medina County. Kis regularly worked more than
40 hours per week without overtime pay, the complaint says. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Daniel R. Karon, Esq.
      Beau D. Hollowell, Esq.
      KARON LLC
      700 W. St. Clair Ave., Suite 200
      Cleveland, OH 44113
      Tel: (216) 622-1851
      Fax: (216) 241-8175
      Email: dkaron@karonllc.com
             bhollowell@karonllc.com

             - and -

      Randall S. Newman, Esq.
      Robert Abrams, Esq.
      Correy A. Kamin, Esq.
      WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
      270 Madison Avenue
      New York, NY 10016
      Tel: (212) 545-4600
      Fax: (212) 545-4653
      Email: newman@whafh.com
             abrams@whafh.com
             kamin@whafh.com


CREDIT CONTROL: Faces "Kapcits" Suit in Eastern Dist. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Credit Control
Services, Inc. The case is styled as Valentina Kapchits, on
behalf of herself and all other similarly situated consumers,
Plaintiff v. Credit Control Services, Inc. doing business as:
Credit Collection Services, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-00344
(E.D. N.Y., January 18, 2018).

Credit Control Services, Inc., doing business as Credit
Collection Services, provides business process outsourcing
solutions for customers in the United States. It offers automated
voice messaging, live agent/call center, text messaging, email
campaigns, and direct mail solutions; and consumer and commercial
credit collection services, as well as in the recovery of
large/complex contracts and tort-based obligations.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Maxim Maximov, Esq.
   Maxim Maximov, LLP
   1701 Avenue P
   Brooklyn, NY 11229
   Tel: (718) 395-3459
   Fax: (718) 408-9570
   Email: m@maximovlaw.com


CSX CORP: Fuel Surcharge Antitrust Suit Underway
------------------------------------------------
CSX Corporation continues to defend class action lawsuit related
to fuel surcharge practices.  The Company said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2017, that on October 10,
2017, the District Court issued an order denying class
certification.

In May 2007, class action lawsuits were filed against CSXT and
three other U.S.-based Class I railroads alleging that the
defendants' fuel surcharge practices relating to contract and
unregulated traffic resulted from an illegal conspiracy in
violation of antitrust laws. In November 2007, the class action
lawsuits were consolidated in federal court in the District of
Columbia, where they are now pending.

The suit seeks treble damages allegedly sustained by purported
class members as well as attorneys' fees and other relief.
Plaintiffs are expected to allege damages at least equal to the
fuel surcharges at issue.

In June 2012, the District Court certified the case as a class
action. The decision was not a ruling on the merits of
plaintiffs' claims, but rather a decision to allow the plaintiffs
to seek to prove the case as a class. The defendant railroads
petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit for
permission to appeal the District Court's class certification
decision. In August 2013, the D.C. Circuit issued a decision
vacating the class certification decision and remanded the case
to the District Court to reconsider its class certification
decision.

On October 10, 2017, the District Court issued an order denying
class certification. The District Court had delayed proceedings
on the merits of the case pending the outcome of the class
certification remand proceedings, and has not yet issued a
further schedule in light of the order denying class
certification.

CSXT believes that its fuel surcharge practices were arrived at
and applied lawfully and that the case is without merit.
Accordingly, the Company intends to defend itself vigorously.
However, penalties for violating antitrust laws can be severe,
and resolution of this matter or an unexpected adverse decision
on the merits could have a material adverse effect on the
Company's financial condition, results of operations or liquidity
in that particular period.

Based in Jacksonville, Florida, CSX Corporation is one of the
nation's leading transportation companies.  The Company provides
rail-based transportation services including traditional rail
service and the transport of intermodal containers and trailers.


DYNAMIC RECOVERY: Class Certification Sought in "Gruentzel" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Louise Gruentzal moves the Court to certify the class described
in the complaint of the lawsuit captioned LOUISE GRUENTZEL,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v.
DYNAMIC RECOVERY SOLUTIONS, LLC, and CAVALRY SPV I, LLC, Case No.
2:18-cv-00013-DEJ (E.D. Wisc.), and further asks that the Court
both stay the motion for class certification and to grant the
Plaintiff (and the Defendants) relief from the Local Rules
setting automatic briefing schedules and requiring briefs and
supporting material to be filed with the Motion.

Dicta in the Supreme Court's decision in Campbell-Ewald Co. v.
Gomez, left open the possibility that a defendant facing a class
action complaint could moot a class representative's case by
depositing funds equal to or in excess of the maximum value of
the plaintiff's individual claim with the court and having the
court enter judgment in the plaintiff's favor prior to the filing
of a class certification motion, the Plaintiff asserts, citing
Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 672 (2016).

To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class
representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh
Circuit instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with
the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the
certification motion.  Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891,
896 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled on other grounds, Chapman v. First
Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015) ("The pendency of
that motion [for class certification] protects a putative class
from attempts to buy off the named plaintiffs.").

While the Seventh Circuit has held that the specific procedure
described in Campbell-Ewald cannot force the individual
settlement of a class representative's claims, the same decision
cautions that other methods may prevent a plaintiff from
representing a class, the Plaintiff tells the Court, citing
Fulton Dental, LLC v. Bisco, Inc., No. 16-3574, 2017 U.S. App.
LEXIS 10839 *9-10 (7th Cir. June 20, 2017).  The Plaintiff
asserts that one defendant has attempted a similar tactic by
sending a certified check to the proposed class representative.
Bonin v. CBS Radio, Inc., No. 16-cv-674-CNC (E.D. Wis.); see also
Severns v. Eastern Account Systems of Connecticut, Inc., Case No.
15-cv-1168, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23164 (E.D. Wis. Feb. 24,
2016).

The Plaintiff is obligated to move for class certification to
protect the interests of the putative class, the Plaintiff
contends.

As the Motion to certify a class is a placeholder motion as
described in Damasco, the parties and the Court should not be
burdened with unnecessary paperwork and the resulting expense
when short motion to certify and stay should suffice until an
amended motion is filed, the Plaintiff contends.

The Plaintiff also asks to be appointed as class representative,
and for the appointment of Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP, as class
counsel.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


EARLY WARNING: Seeks Prelim. Approval of "Muir" Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in the lawsuit titled STEVE-ANN MUIR, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. EARLY WARNING
SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 2:16-cv-00521-SRC-CLW (D.N.J.), jointly
move the Court for an order certifying the case to proceed as a
class action for settlement purposes and granting preliminary
approval of the Parties' class settlement agreement.

The class is defined as:

     All natural persons residing in the United States, any U.S.
     territory, the District of Columbia, or Puerto Rico who,
     between January 29, 2014 and December 31, 2016, requested a
     copy of his or her file disclosure from EWS and whose
     disclosure reflected that EWS maintained an Internal Fraud
     Prevention Service record about that consumer at the time it
     prepared the disclosure.  Exhibit 1 - Article 2(z).

The Plaintiff filed the class action lawsuit pursuant to the Fair
Credit Reporting Act.  EWS has acknowledged that there are
approximately 211 persons, who meet the class definition.

A copy of the Notice of Class Settlement is available at no
charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=BwVVDc5G

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ari H. Marcus, Esq.
          MARCUS & ZELMAN, LLC
          1500 Allaire Avenue, Suite 101
          Ocean, NJ 07712
          Telephone: (732) 695-3282
          Facsimile: (732) 298-6256
          E-mail: Ari@MarcusZelman.com

               - and -

          Gabriel Posner, Esq.
          POSNER LAW PLLC
          270 Madison Avenue, Suite 1203
          New York, NY
          Telephone: (646) 546-5022
          E-mail: gabe@PosnerLawPLLC.com

Defendant Early Warning Services LLC is represented by:

          Cindy D. Hanson, Esq.
          TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP
          600 Peachtree Street, Suite 5200
          Atlanta, GA 30308
          Telephone: (404) 885-3830
          E-mail: Cindy.hanson@troutman.com


EIGER BIOPHARMACEUTICALS: Class Action Appeal Underway
------------------------------------------------------
The appeal related to a class action lawsuit against Eiger
BioPharmaceuticals, Inc., remains pending, the Company said in
its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2017.

In July 2015, following Celladon's announcements of the negative
CUPID 2 data and the suspension of further research and
development activities and the subsequent declines of the price
of its common stock, three putative class actions were filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
against Celladon and certain of its current and former officers.
The complaints generally alleged that the defendants violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended, or the Exchange Act, by making materially false and
misleading statements regarding the clinical trial program for
MYDICAR, thereby artificially inflating the price of Celladon's
common stock. The complaints sought unspecified monetary damages
and other relief, including attorneys' fees.

On December 9, 2015, the district court consolidated the three
putative securities class actions and appointed a lead plaintiff
to represent the putative class. The lead plaintiff filed a
consolidated amended complaint on February 29, 2016.

On October 7, 2016, the district court granted defendants' motion
to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint and granted leave
to amend within 60 days from the date of the district court's
order. The lead plaintiff subsequently filed a notice of intent
not to amend the consolidated amended complaint and instead
indicated that it intended to appeal the district court's
decision.

On December 9, 2016, the district court closed the case.

On December 28, 2016, the lead plaintiff filed a notice to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit appealing
the district court's order dismissing the consolidated amended
complaint. On May 5, 2017, lead plaintiff filed his opening
brief.  On July 5, 2017, defendants filed their answering
appellate brief.

Eiger BioPharmaceuticals said "It is possible that additional
suits will be filed, or allegations made by stockholders, with
respect to these same or other matters and also naming us and/or
our former officers and directors as defendants. We believe that
we have meritorious defenses and intend to defend these lawsuits
vigorously. Due to the early stage of these proceedings, we are
not able to predict or reasonably estimate the ultimate outcome
or possible losses relating to these claims. While we and
Celladon's former directors and officers have a separate
liability insurance policy dedicated to any claims that may arise
from premerger events, there is no assurance that the coverage
will be sufficient. In addition, any such litigation could result
in substantial costs and a diversion of our management's
attention and resources, which could harm our business."

Eiger BioPharmaceuticals is a clinical stage biopharmaceutical
company focused on bringing to market novel product candidates
for the treatment of orphan diseases. From the time it was
founded on 2008, the company have worked with investigators at
Stanford University and evaluated a number of potential
development candidates from pharmaceutical companies to comprise
a pipeline of novel product candidates. The company is based in
Palo Alto, California.


ENVIRONMENTAL LOGISTICS: Faces "Pascual" Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Environmental
Logistics, Inc. The case is styled as Pascual Gonzalez, on behalf
of himself, all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the
general public, Plaintiff v. Environmental Logistics, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. BCV-18-100109 (Cal. Super. Ct., January 18,
2018).

Environmental Logistics offers large-scale erosion control and
other various services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Matthew E. Crawford, Esq.
   112 E. Mansfield Street - Suite 305
   Bucyrus, OH 44820
   Tel: 419-562-9782
   Fax: 419-562-9533
   Email: prosecutor@crawford-co.org


FCA US: Faces Class Actions Following Criminal Indictments
----------------------------------------------------------
Allen S. Kinzer, Esq. -- askinzer@vorys.com -- of Vorys Sater
Seymour and Pease LLP, in an article for Lexology, wrote that the
U.S. Justice Department has thus far indicted two former UAW
officials and two former Chrysler officials in an embezzlement
scandal involving the joint UAW-Chrysler training center.  Now
two classes of Chrysler workers have filed civil lawsuits against
both the UAW and Chrysler's parent, FCA US LLC based on those
indictments.  The lawsuits claim that former UAW Vice President
General Holiefield and his team accepted bribes from Chrysler to
take company-friendly bargaining positions at the expense of UAW
members.

One class action alleges that UAW VP Holiefield and his
subordinates negotiated away seniority rights and better
retirement and health benefits in a scheme concerning jobs in the
Jeep Wrangler plant's paint shop. Sheets, et al. v. FCA US LLC,
et al., No. 3:18-cv-00085 (N.D. Ohio Jan. 11, 2018). The other
class action alleges that, during these same negotiations, the
UAW and Chrysler agreed to "retire" over 70 employees of the same
paint shop to create job openings.  The complaint further alleges
that certain UAW officials developed a lucrative side business of
selling these open positions.  DeShetler, Jr., et al. v. FCA US
LLC, et al. No. 3:18-cv-00078 (N.D. Ohio Jan. 11, 2018).  The
lawsuits claim that both the UAW and Chrysler violated the
federal Labor Management Relations Act in this bribery scheme.

There could be a wave of such lawsuits by any Chrysler worker who
was somehow disadvantaged in the recent UAW-Chrysler bargaining
agreements. [GN]


FERNANDEZ & FERNANDEZ: "Yanes" Scheduling Conference on March 2
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Ursula Ungaro on Jan. 19 granted the parties' Joint Motion
to Continue Settlement Conference, and Corrected Joint Motion to
Reset the Initial Planning and Scheduling Conference, in the
case, Daylor Yanes, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Fernandez & Fernandez Insurance,
Inc.; Preferred Insurance Network, Inc.; and Antonio Fernandez,
the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-23677-UU, (S.D. Fla., October 6,
2017).

The Initial Planning and Scheduling Conference is reset for March
2, 2018, at 10:00 a.m. in Miami Division, Judge Ungaro said.

The Plaintiff in his complaint states that he and all other
similarly situated employees of the Defendants were non-exempt
employees. They worked as insurance agents and were paid salaries
but were misclassified as exempt from overtime. The Defendants
willfully and intentionally suffered or permitted the Plaintiff
and other similarly situated employees to work more than 40 hours
per week without paying them overtime wages at the rate of one-
and-a-half times their regular rate of pay.[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Robert W. Brock II, Esq.
     LAW OFFICE OF LOWELL J. KUVIN
     17 East Flagler Street, Suite 223
     Miami, FL 33131
     Telephone: (305) 358-6800
     Facsimile: (305) 358-6808
     Email: robert@kuvinlaw.com
     Email: Legal@kuvinlaw.com


FITNESS 19: Gallion Seeks to Certify 3 Classes Under EFTA & TCPA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit entitled STEVE GALLION, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. FITNESS 19 CA
285, LLC and DOES 1-10, Case No. 8:17-cv-01530-JVS-JDE (C.D.
Cal.), moves the Court to certify these classes:

   1) All persons in the United States whose bank accounts were
      debited on a reoccurring basis by Defendants without
      Defendants obtaining a written authorization signed or
      similarly authenticated for preauthorized electronic fund
      transfers within the one year prior to the filing of this
      Complaint;

   2) All persons in the United States whose bank accounts were
      debited on a reoccurring basis by Defendants after that
      person revoked authorization for preauthorized electronic
      fund transfers within the one year prior to the filing of
      this Complaint; and

   3) All persons within the United States who received any
      telephone calls from Defendant to said person's cellular
      telephone made through the use of any automatic telephone
      dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice and
      without their consent within the four years prior to the
      filing of this Complaint.

The lawsuit alleges violations of the Electronic Funds Transfer
Act and the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The Plaintiff also seeks appointment as Class Representative, and
for appointment of Todd M. Friedman, Esq., as Class Counsel.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=p0r1HJY6

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd M. Friedman, 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


FRONTLINE ASSET: Faces "Manashirov" Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Frontline Asset
Strategies, LLC. The case is styled as Samir Manashirov, on
behalf of himself and all other similarly situated consumers,
Plaintiff v. Frontline Asset Strategies, LLC and LVNV Funding,
LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-00343 (E.D. N.Y., January 18,
2018).

Frontline Asset is a collection firm.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


GLOBAL POWER: Wins Dismissal of "Budde" Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Texas, Dallas Division, issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order
granting Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Class
Action Complaint in the case captioned MARGARET BUDDE, Lead
Plaintiff, and DANIEL REAM, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. GLOBAL POWER EQUIPMENT
GROUP, INC.; RAYMOND K. GUBA; LUIS MANUEL RAMIREZ; and DAVID L.
WILLIS, Defendants, Civil Action No. 3:15-cv-1679-M (N.D. Tex.).

Margaret Budde and Daniel Ream, on behalf of all persons who
acquired Global Power stock filed a class action lawsuit against
Global Power and some of its former officers, Raymond K. Guba,
Luis Manuel Ramirez, and David L. Willis. Guba was Global Power's
Senior Vice President and CFO. Ramirez was the President and CEO
Plaintiffs assert that Defendants issued false and misleading
financial reports1 in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Defendants argue that Plaintiffs have failed to adequately plead
scienter and loss causation.

Raymond K. Guba and Luis Manuel Ramirez

The mere publication of inaccurate accounting figures, without
more, does not establish scienter. Plaintiffs must show that
Defendants knew that they were publishing materially false
information or were severely reckless in publishing such
information.

Plaintiffs highlight the magnitude of the corrections in the
restatement as well as the SEC initiating a formal investigation
of Global Power. The magnitude of the misstated financials, while
surely significant, does not support a strong inference of
scienter without allegations showing that Defendants knew or
recklessly disregarded the falsity of their misrepresentations,
which Plaintiffs have failed to allege here.

A holistic review of the allegations demonstrates that Plaintiffs
have failed to adequately plead facts raising a strong inference
of scienter for Guba and Ramirez. Many of the allegations are
open to alternative explanations or are not stated with enough
specificity to be credited under the PLSRA. The remaining
allegations suggest that Ramirez and Guba did not knowingly or
recklessly publish false financial information. In fact, the
allegations suggest the opposite, that Guba and Ramirez took
steps to make sure that financial information was reported
accurately.

David L. Willis

Plaintiffs seek to hold Willis liable for misrepresentations
related to the sale of Global Power's subsidiary, Deltak, in
2011. After the sale, Willis stated that Deltak was not a
separate reporting unit and subsequently treated goodwill in a
way that resulted in a pre-tax gain of $14.1 million. Plaintiffs
argue that Willis's treatment of goodwill violated generally
accepted accounting principles (GAAP) and therefore constitutes
severe recklessness.

Failure to follow GAAP, without more, does not establish severe
recklessness Plaintiffs must still plead facts leading to a
strong inference that Willis was severely reckless. An inference
of severe recklessness is more likely when a statement violates
an objective rule than when GAAP permits a range of acceptable
outcomes.

The decision not to treat Deltak as a separate reporting unit
undeniably involves some subjective judgment. See Owens, 789 F.3d
at 544. Plaintiffs provide no other allegations to suggest that
Global Power's treatment of goodwill was reckless even in light
of the subjective nature of the relevant GAAP.

Plaintiffs have failed to plead scienter as to Willis.

Loss Causation

Defendants argue that Plaintiffs have failed to plead loss
causation for misrepresentations related to the sale of Deltak.
To plead loss causation, Plaintiffs must first identify a
corrective disclosure that reveals the falsity of the prior
misrepresentation.

Plaintiffs identify Global Power's May, 6, 2015, press release as
the relevant corrective disclosure. The press release announced
that accounting errors affected reported numbers from the fourth
quarter of 2014 and that Global Power was investigating whether
other periods may have been impacted.

The Court finds that Plaintiff has not adequately alleged loss
causation, and Section 10(b) claims against Willis and against
Global Power for representations related to the sale of Deltak
must be dismissed.

Accordingly, Defendants' Motion is granted. Plaintiffs fail to
state a claim under Section 10(b) because Plaintiffs do not
adequately allege scienter against Defendants. Plaintiffs also do
not adequately allege loss causation for misrepresentations
related to the sale of Deltak.

A full-text copy of the District Court's December 27, 2017
Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/yc78lh9t from Leagle.com.

Margaret Budde, Lead Plaintiff pursuant to 7/29/2015 Order,
Consol Plaintiff, represented by Jeffrey C. Block --
jeff@blockesq.com -- Block & Leviton LLP, pro hac vice, Jacob
Allen Walker -- jake@blockesq.com -- Block & Leviton LLP, pro hac
vice, Jamie Jean McKey -- jmckey@kendalllawgroup.com -- Kendall
Law Group LLP & Joe Kendall -- jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com --
Kendall Law Group LLP.

Daniel Ream, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Jacob Allen Walker, Block &
Leviton LLP, pro hac vice & R. Dean Gresham --
dean@stecklerlaw.com -- Steckler Gresham Cochran.

Global Power Equipment Group Inc., Defendant, represented by
David G. Januszewski -- djanuszewski@cahill.com -- Cahill Gordon
& Reindel, pro hac vice, Bradley J. Bondi -- BBondi@Cahill.com --
Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP, pro hac vice, Rachel Kingrey --
rkingrey@gardere.com -- Gardere Wynne Sewell LLP, Scott Louis
Davis -- sdavis@gardere.com -- Gardere Wynne Sewell, Tammy L.
Roy, Cahill Gordon -- troy@cahill.com -- & Reindel LLP, pro hac
vice & Todd A. Murray -- tmurray@gardere.com -- Gardere Wynne
Sewell LLP.

Raymond K. Guba, Defendant, represented by Paul Edward Coggins --
pcoggins@lockelord.com -- Locke Lord LLP & Kiprian E. Mendrygal -
- Locke Lord LLP.

Luis Manuel Ramirez, Defendant, represented by Arthur Harold
Aufses, III -- aaufses@kramerlevin.com -- Kramer Levin Naftalis &
Frankel LLP, pro hac vice, Rachel Kingrey -- rkingrey@gardere.com
-- Gardere Wynne Sewell LLP, Scott Louis Davis --
sdavis@gardere.com -- Gardere Wynne Sewell & Todd A. Murray,
Gardere Wynne Sewell LLP.

David L. Willis, Defendant, represented by Sarah L. Cave, Hughes
Hubbard & Reed LLP, pro hac vice, Rachel Kingrey, Gardere Wynne
Sewell LLP, Sara E. Echenique, Hughes Hubbard & Reed LLP, pro hac
vice, Scott Louis Davis, Gardere Wynne Sewell, Terence Healy,
Hughes Hubbard & Reed, pro hac vice & Todd A. Murray, Gardere
Wynne Sewell LLP.


IDT CORP: Stockholders Suit over Straight Path Spin-Off Stayed
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Delaware Chancery Court has stayed a class action lawsuit
pending the closing of a transaction between Verizon and Straight
Path, IDT Corporation disclosed in a regulatory filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

IDT said in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal year ended July
31, 2017, that on July 31, 2013, the Company completed a pro rata
distribution of the common stock of the Company's subsidiary
Straight Path Communications Inc. to the Company's stockholders
of record as of the close of business on July 25, 2013 (the
"Straight Path Spin-Off").  On July 5, 2017, plaintiff JDS1, LLC,
on behalf of itself and all other similarly situated stockholders
of Straight Path, and derivatively on behalf of Straight Path as
nominal defendant, filed a putative class action and derivative
complaint in the Delaware Chancery Court against the Company, The
Patrick Henry Trust (a trust formed by Howard S. Jonas to hold
record and beneficial ownership of all of his shares of Straight
Path), Howard S. Jonas, and each of Straight Path's directors.

The complaint alleges that the Company aided and abetted Straight
Path's directors and Howard S. Jonas in his capacity as
controlling stockholder of Straight Path, in breaching their
fiduciary duties to Straight Path in connection with the
settlement of claims between Straight Path and the Company
related to potential indemnification claims concerning Straight
Path's obligations under the Consent Decree it entered into with
the FCC, as well as the proposed sale of Straight Path's
subsidiary SPIP to the Company in connection with that
settlement.

That action was consolidated with a similar action that was
initiated by The Arbitrage Fund. The Plaintiffs are seeking,
among other things, (i) a declaration that the action may be
maintained as a class action or in the alternative, that demand
on the Straight Path Board is excused; (ii) that the term sheet
is invalid; (iii) awarding damages for the unfair price
stockholders are receiving in the merger between Straight Path
and Verizon Communications Inc. for their shares of Straight
Path's Class B common stock; and (iv) ordering Howard S. Jonas,
Davidi Jonas, the Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive
Officer of Straight Path, and the Company to disgorge any profits
for the benefit of the class Plaintiffs. On August 28, 2017, the
Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. On September 24, 2017, the
Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint.

IDT said in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended
October 31, 2017, that the Company intends to vigorously defend
the action. On November 20, 2017, the Delaware Chancery Court
issued an order staying the case pending the closing of the
transaction between Verizon and Straight Path on the grounds that
the claims are not ripe.

In the three months ended October 31, 2017, the Company incurred
legal fees of $0.8 million related to this putative class action.

IDT is a multinational holding company with operations primarily
in the telecommunications and payment industries. The company has
three reportable business segments, Telecom Platform Services,
UCaaS and Consumer Phone Services. Telecom Platform Services,
UCaaS and Consumer Phone Services comprise its IDT Telecom
division. The company is based in Newark, New Jersey.


INDUCTOR MAKERS: Dependable Component Asserts Sherman Act Breach
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dependable Component Supply Corp., Plaintiff, on behalf of itself
and others similarly situated, v. Murata Manufacturing Co., Ltd.,
Murata Electronics North America, Inc., Panasonic Corporation,
Panasonic Corporation Of North America, Panasonic Electronic
Devices Co. Ltd, Panasonic Electronic Devices Corporation Of
America, Sumida Corporation, Sumida Electric Co., Ltd., Sumida
America Components, Inc., Taiyo Yuden Co., Ltd., Taiyo Yuden
(U.S.A.) Inc., TDK Corporation, TDK-EPC Corporation, And TDK
U.S.A. Corporation, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-00198 (N.D. Cal.,
January 9, 2018), seeks damages and any other available legal or
equitable remedies resulting from violations of the Sherman Act.

Defendants are manufacturers of discrete inductors and are
accused of fixing and stabilizing the prices of inductors.
Discrete inductors are passive electronic components fixed to a
circuit board and are ubiquitous in thousands of products that
rely on electronic circuits for power including laptop and
desktop computers, cars, televisions, wireless handsets, video
game consoles and wireless LAN boxes. Defendants allegedly formed
a cartel in the late 1990s resulting from increased competition
from Korean and Taiwanese manufacturers.

Dependable Component Supply purchased inductors directly from
TDK, TOKO, Murata, Panasonic and Taiyo Yuden and sold them to
customers that included leading Original Equipment Manufacturers
of telecommunications products. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lesley E. Weaver, Esq.
      Matthew S. Weiler, Esq.
      Emily C. Aldridge, Esq.
      BLEICHMAR, FONTI & AULD LLP
      1999 Harrison Street, Suite 670
      Oakland, CA 94612
      Tel.: (415) 445-4003
      E-mail: lweaver@bfalaw.com
              mweiler@bfalaw.com
              ealdridge@bfalaw.com


INTEL CORPORATION: Dean Files Suit Over CPU Defect
--------------------------------------------------
Zachary Dean and Christopher Vogt, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Intel Corporation,
Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-00210, (N.D. Cal., January 9, 2018),
seeks all proper measures of monetary relief and damages, plus
interest, equitable, injunctive and declaratory relief including
restitution and restitutionary disgorgement, costs of suit,
including reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses and such
further relief resulting from negligence, unjust enrichment and
breach of implied warranty, in violation of Connecticut's Unfair
Trade Practices Act, New York General Business Laws and the
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.

Intel manufactures the central processing units (CPU) that power
most servers, laptops, desktop computers, tablets, smartphones,
and other computing devices. The complaint says said CPUs suffer
from several defects that allow hackers to access to what was
supposed to be secure data. These Defects cannot be fixed
remotely via a software update while any mitigation efforts would
seriously affect CPU performance.

Dean purchased from Apple a Macbook Pro laptop computer
containing an Intel Core i7 processor while Vogt purchased a
Microsoft Surface 3 tablet computer containing an Intel Atom x7-
Z8700 CPU. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Todd A. Seaver, Esq.
      Matthew D. Pearson, Esq.
      A. Chowning Poppler, Esq.
      Sarah Khorasanee McGrath, Esq.
      BERMAN TABACCO
      44 Montgomery Street, Suite 650
      San Francisco, CA 94104
      Tel.: (415) 433-3200
      Fax: (415) 433-6282
      Email: tseaver@bermantabacco.com
             mpearson@bermantabacco.com
             cpoppler@bermantabacco.com
             smcgrath@bermantabacco.com

             - and -

      Vincent Briganti, Esq.
      Christian P. Levis, Esq.
      Lee J. Lefkowitz, Esq.
      Matt Acocella, Esq.
      LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C.
      44 South Broadway
      White Plains, NY 10601
      Tel: (914) 997-0500
      Fax: (914) 997-0035
      Email: vbriganti@lowey.com
             clevis@lowey.com
             llefkowitz@lowey.com
             macocella@lowey.com


INTEL CORP: Quebec Restaurant Among Plaintiffs in Chip Flaw Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Howard Solomon, writing for IT World Canada, reports that an
unidentified Quebec restaurant is among those trying to sue Intel
Corp. over the Meltdown/Spectre processor flaws which infosec
teams are busy trying to patch.

The restaurant is a numbered company named in court documents as
9085-4886 Quebec Inc., which will ask a Superior Court judge in
Montreal to certify a class action lawsuit against Intel of
Canada, Intel International and the parent Intel Corp. for as yet
unspecified damages on behalf of all Quebec residents who
purchased or leased an Intel-powered x86-64 device or CPU.

The application for certification of the class action also
demands Intel "recall, repair, and/or replace the Intel
Processors free of charge."

According to industry experts, the current generation of Intel
chips include the flaw and cannot be replaced or repaired. They
say it will take a new generation of CPUs to permanently get rid
of the problems.  However, Intel has released some patches and
Microsoft and some Linux distributions are issuing patches to
mitigate.

The application was filed January 8 by the Montreal law firm
Consumer Law Group.  Three separate class-action lawsuits against
Intel have been filed in California, Oregon, and Indiana.

On Jan. 16 a New York law firm announced it will seek court
approval for a class action suit against chipmaker AMD for
damages, while a California law firm has also started a class
action suit there against AMD.  Separately a Northern California
court has been asked to certify a class action suit against Apple
products with ARM-based processors.

In the Quebec application it is alleged that Intel "designed,
developed, manufactured, licensed, marketed, distributed,
promoted, sold and/or warranted Intel Processors which contain
security flaws that may be exploited by hackers to access class
members' personal and/or private information, such as passwords,
usernames, security keys, credentials, cryptographic keys, social
security/insurance numbers, personal photos, credit card and
banking information, emails and other data." [GN]


INTERSTATE CREDIT: "Little" Disputes Vague Collection Letter
------------------------------------------------------------
Kianna Little, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Interstate Credit and Collection, Inc.
and John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-00052, (E.D. Pa.,
January 8, 2018), seeks statutory and actual damages, reasonable
attorneys' fees and expenses, prejudgment and post-judgment
interest and such other and further relief for violation of the
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Interstate Credit and Collection, Inc. is a debt collector
located at 21 West Fomance Street, Suite 200, Norristown, PA
19401.

Plaintiff allegedly incurred medical debts where the owner of the
obligation contracted Interstate to collect the alleged debt.
Defendant sent Little an initial collection letter that did not
identify who the original or current creditor is. The top portion
of the Letter states "Re: Einstein Comm Healthcare Asso," without
indicating the role it had in the collection matter. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Antranig Garibian, Esq.
      GARIBIAN LAW OFFICES
      1800 JFK Blvd., Suite 300
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Tel: (215) 326-9179
      Email: ag@garibianlaw.com


KRIEGER BEARD: "Henderson" Seeks OT Pay, Hits Illegal Deductions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Aunshawn Henderson, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Krieger Beard Services, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 18-cv-00006 (S.D. Ohio, January 8, 2018), seeks overtime
compensation, liquidated damages and attorneys' fees and costs
under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Henderson worked as an installation technician who performed
satellite television installation services for Krieger Beard
Services in Indiana and Illinois. He claims to be classified as
independent contractor and asserts that the Defendant failed to
pay him time-and-a-half his regular rate for hours worked in
excess of 40 a week. Plaintiff had deductions made from his pay
for his uniform and equipment which was allegedly lost and for
installations which he was told were not performed properly.

Plaintiff is represented by:

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

             - and -

      Harold Lichten, Esq.
      Olena Savytska, Esq.
      LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
      729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
      Boston, MA 02116
      Tel: (617) 994-5800
      Email: hlichten@llrlaw.com
             osavytska@llrlaw.com

             - and -

      Camille Fundora, Esq.
      Sarah R. Schalman-Bergen, Esq.
      BERGER & MONTAGUE, RC.
      1622 Locust Street
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Telephone: (215) 875-3000
      Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
      Email: sschalman-bergen@bm.net
             cfundora@bm.net


LA SELECTA BAKERY: "Tejada" Suit over Unpaid Overtime Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Antonio Tejada and Andres Edgardo Larroca Franco, on
behalf of themselves, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly-situated, the Plaintiffs, v. La Selecta Bakery, Inc.
and Rafael Reynos, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-05882-CBA-
RER, (E.D.N.Y., October 6, 2017), Plaintiffs on Jan. 25 filed a
Motion to Amend/Correct/Supplement Plaintiff's Complaint and
Motion for Joinder of Additional Plaintiff.

On Dec. 15, 2017, the Clerk of Court entered a default.
According to the Entry of Default, "it appear[s] from the docket
maintained in this action that defendant La Selecta Bakery, Inc.,
Rafael Reynoso has failed to appear or otherwise defend this
action, the default of defendant La Selecta Bakery, Inc., Rafael
Reynoso is hereby noted pursuant to Rule 55a of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure."

Plaintiff's complaint states that Defendants employed him as a
baker from on or about July 4, 2013 until on or about May 19,
2017. The claims for relief of the Plaintiff against the
Defendants are unpaid overtime, unlawful deductions, failure to
furnish proper wage statements, and failure to furnish proper
wage notices.[BN]

Plaintiffs are represented by:

     David D. Barnhorn, Esq.
     Alexander T. Coleman, Esq.
     Michael J. Borrelli, Esq.
     BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C.
     655 Third Avenue, Suite 1821
     New York, New York 10017
     Telephone: (212) 679-5000
     Facsimile: (212) 679-5005


LAMPS PLUS: Files Writ of Certiorari in "Varela" Sup. Ct. Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Lamps Plus, Inc., et al., have filed with the Supreme
Court of United States a petition for a writ of certiorari in
their lawsuit entitled Lamps Plus, Inc., et al., Petitioners v.
Frank Varela, Case No. 17-988.

Response to the petition is due on February 12, 2018.

Justice Anthony Kennedy has previously extended the Defendants-
Petitioners' time to file until January 10, 2018.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, issued a
Memorandum affirming the District Court order permitting class
arbitration of claims related to a data breach of personal
identifying information of Lamps Plus, Inc.'s employees in the
case, and vacating the stay of arbitration.

Lamps Plus appeals an order permitting class arbitration of
claims related to a data breach of personal identifying
information of its employees.

The appellate case is captioned Frank VARELA, on behalf of
himself and all other similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellee v.
LAMPS PLUS, INC.; et al., Defendants-Appellants, Case No. 16-
56085, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit.

After Lamps Plus released his personal information in response to
a phishing scam, Frank Varela filed a class action complaint
alleging negligence, breach of contract, invasion of privacy, and
other claims.  Lamps Plus moved to compel bilateral arbitration
pursuant to an arbitration agreement.  The (Agreement) it drafted
and required Varela to sign as a condition of his employment.

Mr. Varela has sued for negligence, breach of implied contract,
violation of the California Consumer Records Act, violation of
the California Unfair Competition Law, invasion of privacy, and
negligent violation of the Credit Reporting Act.  The causes of
action stem from Lamp Plus giving out its 1,300 employees' 2015
W-2 income and tax withholding statements, in response to a
February 11, 2016 phishing scam.

The complaint alleges that the Company's approach to securing the
privacy of employee records was "lackadaisical, cavalier and
reckless."

The District Court case is styled Frank VARELA, on behalf of
himself and all other similarly situated v. LAMPS PLUS, INC., et
al., Case No. 5:16-cv-00577-DMG-KS, in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California.[BN]

The Plaintiffs-Respondents are represented by:

          Richard Dale McCune, Jr., Esq.
          Michele M. Vercoski, Esq.
          David Christopher Wright, Esq.
          MCCUNE WRIGHT AREVALO, LLP
          3281 East Guasti Road, Suite 100
          Ontario, CA 91761
          Telephone: (909) 557-1250
          Facsimile: (909) 557-1275
          E-mail: rdm@mccunewright.com
                  mmv@mccunewright.com
                  dcw@mccunewright.com

               - and -

          John A. Yanchunis, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, PA
          201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 223-5505
          E-mail: jyanchunis@ForThePeople.com

The Defendants-Petitioners are represented by:

          Michael Grimaldi, Esq.
          Eric Y. Kizirian, Esq.
          LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP
          633 West 5th Street, Suite 4000
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 599-7761
          Facsimile: (213) 250-7900
          E-mail: Michael.Grimaldi@lewisbrisbois.com
                  Eric.Kizirian@lewisbrisbois.com

               - and -

          Jeffry A. Miller, Esq.
          LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP
          701 B Street, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 699-4971
          Facsimile: (619) 233-8627
          E-mail: Jeff.Miller@lewisbrisbois.com

               - and -

          Andrew J. Pincus, Esq.
          MAYER BROWN LLP
          1999 K Street, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 263-3220
          Facsimile: (202) 263-5220
          E-mail: apincus@mayerbrown.com


LOANDEPOT.COM: Faces "Rowe" Suit in Middle District Florida
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Loandepot.com, LLC.
The case is styled as David Rowe, Fred Parlato and Dana Norris,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. Loandepot.com, LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company, Defendant, Case No. 8:18-cv-00147-VMC-JSS (M.D. Fla.,
January 18, 2018).

LoanDepot.com, LLC focuses on originating, financing, and selling
of mortgage loans secured by residential real estate.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Manuel Santiago Hiraldo, Esq.
   Hiraldo PA
   401 E Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400
   Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
   Tel: (954) 400-4713
   Email: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com

      - and -

   Stefan Coleman, Esq.
   Law Offices of Stefan Coleman, PLLC
   28th Floor
   201 S Biscayne Blvd
   Miami, FL 33131
   Tel: (877) 333-9427
   Fax: (888) 498-9827
   Email: law@stefancoleman.com


LOBLAW COS: Sued in B.C. Over Alleged Bread Price-Fixing
--------------------------------------------------------
Business Vancouver reports that Burnaby resident Kira-Lynne
Fantov is suing Loblaw Cos. Ltd. and 10 others in a class action
for their alleged role in a conspiracy to fix the price of
packaged bread products sold in Canada since November 2001.

Ms. Fantov filed a notice of civil claim under the Class
Proceedings Act on December 28 in BC Supreme Court. The
defendants include Canada Bread Co. Ltd., Grupo Bimbo S.A.B. de
C.V., George Weston Ltd., Loblaw Cos. Ltd., Weston Foods (Canada)
Inc., Empire Co. Ltd., Sobeys Inc., Metro Inc., Wal-Mart Canada
Corp., Wal-Mart Stores Inc. and Giant Tiger Stores Ltd.

According to the claim, the companies conspired "to set the price
of packaged bread sold in Canada by controlling output, price and
other aspects of the manufacture, production or supply of
packaged bread."

"Their conduct caused and is causing loss and damage to
individuals in Canada who purchased packaged bread," the claim
states.

On December 19, Loblaw Cos. admitted its role in the conspiracy.
Ms. Fantov seeks class certification and $100 million in damages.

The allegations have not been tested or proven in court, and the
defendants had not responded to the claim by press time. [GN]


LOUISIANA: Denial of Katrina Victims' Class Certification Upheld
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fifth Circuit, issued an
Opinion affirming the trial court judgment denying Plaintiffs'
Motion for Class Certification in the case captioned ROBERT
HARVEY, DARLEEN JACOBS LEVY AND SUSAN AND WILLIAM LAURENDINE, v.
THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS FOR THE ORLEANS LEVEE DISTRICT, PARISH
OF ORLEANS, No. 17-CA-271 (La. App.).

In this case arising out of flooding following Hurricane Katrina,
plaintiffs/appellants appeal a trial court judgment that denied
class certification under La. C.C.P. art. 591.

Plaintiffs filed a claim for damages with a request for class
action certification against the Board of Commissioners for the
Orleans Levee District for the Parish of Orleans, asserting that
the Levee District was negligent in its design and construction
of flood walls along the 17th Street and London Avenue Canals in
Orleans Parish, which flood walls collapsed during and in the
aftermath of Hurricane Katrina on August 29, 2005, resulting in
damages to their respective properties located in Orleans Parish.

Plaintiffs further asserted that the number of business and
property owners affected by the negligence of the defendant are
too numerous to mention and that this lawsuit should be certified
as a class action for all residents, business owners, and
occupants of the affected areas in the New Orleans area.

The proposed class was defined by plaintiffs as follows:

     All residents, domiciliaries, property owners and business
owners of the parishes of Orleans and Jefferson (limited to
Hoey's Basin) in the State of Louisiana whose properties or
businesses were damaged by flooding caused by the failure of the
17th Street Canal and London Avenue Canal hurricane protection
levees and floodwalls in New Orleans, Louisiana on or after
August 29, 2005.

The trial court granted defendants' oral motion for involuntary
dismissal and denied class certification, finding that plaintiffs
had failed to produce evidence to support the requirements of
commonality and typicality, as required by La. C.C.P. art.
591(A)(2) and (3), respectively, and superiority, as required by
La. C.C.P. art. 591(B)(3).

Upon review, the La. App. finds that plaintiffs' arguments in
this assignment of error are without merit.  Given that
plaintiffs bore the burden of proof regarding class
certification, the La. App. finds no merit to plaintiffs'
assertion that the use of this procedural device is inappropriate
at a hearing for class certification.

At the hearing, the trial court noted that this was not a Daubert
hearing. It considered James Phipps' testimony only in the
context of whether it would aid the court in determining whether
to certify the proposed class and if it met the other criteria in
Article 702. After considering Mr. Phipps' testimony at the
hearing, the trial judge was careful to explain that while he
recognized Mr. Phipps' educational qualifications, he found that
Mr. Phipps' testimony and report would not be helpful to the
court in determining whether to certify the class, i.e., whether
plaintiffs had met the requirements of numerosity, commonality,
typicality, adequacy, and identifiability.

The court implicitly found that Mr. Phipps' testimony was not
based on sufficient facts or data, given the limited scope of
materials he consulted prior to making his report, and further
that the testimony was not the product of reliable principles and
methods, given the facts that Mr. Phipps considered only
materials furnished to him by plaintiffs' counsel, which he did
not thoroughly read, that he did not conduct any other research
into the levee breaches, and that he spent a relatively scant
amount of time reviewing the materials and formulating his
report, considering the volume of materials provided.

After careful review of the record and the applicable law, the
La. App. finds no abuse of the trial court's discretion in
excluding the testimony and report of Mr. Phipps at the class
certification hearing.  The trial court's assessment of the
limited scope of Mr. Phipps' report is supported by the record.
Further, given that limited scope, we find no abuse of the trial
court's discretion in its conclusion that the testimony would not
aid the court in determining the existence of the required
factors for class certification found in Article 591(A). This
assignment of error is without merit.

Class certification: Commonality

On the issue of class certification, plaintiffs argue that the
trial court erred in finding that they failed to prove the
commonality of plaintiffs' claims.

Plaintiffs cite Chicago Property Interests, LLC v. Broussard, 11-
0788, as supportive of class certification, because that case
allowed the certification of a class of property owners who
suffered flooding damages in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina
in Jefferson Parish, finding commonality. However, that case is
clearly distinguishable from the instant case because the
evidence in Chicago Property Interests showed that the flooding
arose from the same set of operative facts and related to all
class members: the shutting off of drainage pumps in Jefferson
Parish during the hurricane and its immediate aftermath,
allegedly stemming from a plan or policy promulgated by Jefferson
Parish.  In the instant case, the evidence showed that the causes
of flooding varied throughout the geographical area and thus were
not common to all plaintiffs, as in Brooks v. Union Pacific
Railroad Company, 13 So.3d, and Chicago Property Interests. Thus,
though the two cases both involved flooding in the aftermath of
Hurricane Katrina, the plaintiffs in Chicago Property Interests
met the required burden of proving commonality, whereas
plaintiffs in this case did not. This assignment of error is
without merit.

Class certification: Superiority

In its extensive oral reasons for judgment, the trial court found
that the superiority requirement had not been met because
individual issues predominated this case. Plaintiffs argue in
brief that the court erred because aggrieved persons may be
without effective means of redress absent the class action device
and that the alternatives, (including joinder, intervention,
consolidation, and the use of a test case), do not sufficiently
protect the legal rights of the aggrieved parties, yet such
statements are conclusions without supporting evidence. As such,
plaintiffs have failed to show that the trial court abused its
discretion in so finding.

This assignment of error is without merit.

Class certification: Typicality

The trial court also found that the typicality requirement of La.
C.C.P. art. 591(A)(3) was not met, but plaintiffs do not brief
this on appeal.  The trial court must find that plaintiff proved
all of the requirements of Article 591(A), including typicality.
Briefing only the commonality requirement and failing to brief
the typicality requirement is thus necessarily fatal to this
appeal.

The La. App. finds no manifest error in the trial court's factual
conclusions, nor abuse of discretion in its conclusion that
plaintiffs failed to bear their burden of proof at the hearing of
the motion to certify the class.

Accordingly, the judgment denying class certification is
affirmed.

A full-text copy of the Court of Appeals' December 27, 2017
Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/y87d44r8 from
Leagle.com.

Darleen M. Jacobs, Hunter P. Harris, Richard M. Martin, Jr.,
823 St. Louis Street. New Orleans, LA 70112, counsel for
Plaintiff/Appellant, Susan and William Laurendine, et al.
Jeffrey M. Landry, Timothy W. Hassinger, Kelsey L. Bonnaffons,
1885 N 3rd St, Baton Rouge, LA 70802-5159, Counsel for
Defendant/Appellee, State of Louisiana, Department of
Transportation and Development.

Charles M. Lanier, Jr., J. Warren Gardner, Jr., Oscar M. Gwin,
IV, COunsel for Defendant/Appellee, Sewerage and Water Board of
New Orleans.


LRR ENERGY: Class of Shareholders Certified in "Hurwitz" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Mark A. Kearney entered an order in the lawsuit styled
ROBERT HURWITZ v. LRR ENERGY L.P., et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-
00711-MAK (D. Del.), granting the Plaintiff's motion for class
certification as to claims in the amended complaint presently
sustained after Judge Sue L. Robinson's March 13, 2017 Order and
the Court's December 29, 2017 Order challenging material
omissions and misrepresentations in the September 3, 2015 Proxy
and Registration Statement concerning the possibility of future
defaults in Vanguard Natural Resources, LLC's debt ratios in its
credit facilities and in its "Reasons for the Merger" regarding
its ability to pay distributions post-acquisition based on
potential credit facility defaults.

The Court preliminarily certifies the action to proceed on Mr.
Hurwitz's claims as a class action on behalf of all persons or
entities:

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

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

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

Mr. Hurwitz is certified as Class representative and his counsel,
Robbins Arroyo LLP, is authorized to act as Lead Class Counsel on
behalf of the Class, along with Liaison Class Counsel Cooch and
Taylor, P.A.

The Court directed the Counsel to, as soon as practicable, confer
regarding appropriate notice to the Class. The Plaintiff's
counsel was directed to file a motion to approve a form and
protocol for notice to the Class to satisfy the terms and due
process required under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, including fully describing both parties' position on
any remaining irreconcilable objection to the negotiated notice.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Z8qCtVGt


MANITOBA: Judge Approves Settlement to Flooded First Nations
------------------------------------------------------------
Lyle Adriano, writing for Insurance Business, reports that a
judge has approved a multimillion settlement to First Nations
residents in four Manitoba communities.

The settlement resolves a class-action lawsuit filed by members
of the four First Nations communities that were flooded nearly
seven years ago -- Lake St. Martin, Dauphin River, Little
Saskatchewan and Pinaymootang.

In the court document, First Nations alleged that their members
were forced to evacuate their homes in 2011 after the Manitoba
government diverted water from the nearby Assiniboine River to
reduce the risk of flooding in Winnipeg.

The communities claimed that the government was negligent in its
operation of several water-control structures, which included the
Shellmouth Dam and the Portage Diversion.

Last October, both the federal and Manitoba governments agreed to
pay $90 million to as many as 7,000 recipients, but the offer
required a judge's approval.

On Jan. 12, Justice James Edmond told the Court of Queen's Bench
in Winnipeg that the settlement is reasonable and offers a faster
resolution than proceeding to trial.

"A settlement need not be perfect," Justice Edmond said.

The First Nations communities affected by the flooding had
originally filed a $950 million class-action lawsuit, but it was
denied in 2014.

"It's not what we asked for, we asked for more than that, but one
of the reasons we asked for more than that is because the
government always try to chip away at it," Pinaymootang First
Nation member and class-action plaintiff Clifford Anderson told
CBC News.  "But $90 million, I think is a fairly significant
amount." [GN]


MAZGANI SOCIAL: Khosroabadi Asks Court to Certify Fraud Class
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled IRAJ KHOSROABADI, an
Individual v. MAZGANI SOCIAL SERVICES, INC, a California
Corporation, MAHVASH MAZGANI, NEYAZ MAZGANI, MAHNAZ MOGHADDAM,
SHOHREH SHARIFZADEH, and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Case No.
8:17-cv-00644-CJC-KES (C.D. Cal.), moves the Court to certify the
matter as a class action.

Mr. Khosroabadi moves the Court to find that he has met his
burden of proof and persuasion under Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b) of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and certify this class, with
him being appointed as class representative:

     A. RICO/UCL/FA/Intentional Fraud Assigned Class

     "All persons who were charged by Defendants, and each of
      them, for a fee related to obtaining Social Security
      Administration benefits or California State benefits in
      excess of the established permissible amount pursuant to
      Code of Federal Regulations Section 404.1720 from
      December 23, 2005, to the present."

Mr. Khosroabadi, on behalf of himself and similarly situated
individuals, seeks to hold the Defendants responsible for
engaging in alleged false advertising whereby they advertise
their services in "Attorney Service Bureaus" sections of phone
books and where Defendant Mahvash Mazgani advertises herself as
an "Attorney[]" when she is not; engaging in a pattern and
practice of charging illegal fees to Social Security Disability
claimants through fraudulent misrepresentations and then
concealing these fees from the SSA through a pattern of money
laundering, check fraud, wire fraud and mail fraud; engaging in
unlawful business activities by charging their customers illegal
fees; and intentionally making false misrepresentations and
omissions to convince SSA disability claimants to pay their
illegal fees and/or accepting the fruits of that fraud with
knowledge of the fraud and in furtherance of the fraud.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=bsylvOJ3

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert B. Salgado, Esq.
          APERTURE LAW FIRM
          5755 Oberlin Drive, Suite 301
          San Diego, CA 92121
          Telephone: (858) 223-6552
          Facsimile: (858) 223-6557
          E-mail: robert@aperturelaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Felton Newell, Esq.
          THE NEWELL LAW FIRM
          12777 W. Jefferson Blvd., Bldg. D, Suite 300
          Playa Vista, CA 90066
          Telephone: (213) 263-0103
          E-mail: felton@thenewelllawfirm.com


MERCHANTS CREDIT: "Fichtel" Suit Disputes Vague Collection Letter
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Fichtel (a/k/a Elizabeth Harris), individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Merchants
Credit Guide Co., and John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-
00011, (E.D. Tex., January 5, 2018), seeks statutory and actual
damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses, prejudgment and
post-judgment interest, and such other and further relief for
violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Merchants Credit Guide Co. is a debt collector based in Chicago,
IL. Illinois Emergency Medical Specialists contracted the
Defendant to collect the alleged debt. Said letter deceptively
fails to identify who the original or current creditor is to whom
the alleged debt is owed, though is lists Illinois Emergency
Medical Specialists as "our client" but nowhere does the letter
clearly identify who the current creditor is. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jonathan Kandelshein, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICES OF JONATHAN KANDELSHEIN
      18208 Preston Rd, Suite D-9 #256
      Dallas, TX 75252
      Phone: (469) 677-7863
      Fax: (972) 380-8118
      Email: Jonathan.kandelshein@gmail.com


MIAMI LAKES AM: "Cespedes" Suit Seeks Minimum, Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Cespedes, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Miami Lakes AM, LLC, Atlantic Coast
Automotive, Inc. (d/b/a Miami Lakes Auto Mall and Driver's Auto
Mart), Kendall Lakes Automotive, LLC (d/b/a Kendall Dodge
Chrysler Jeep Ram and Miami Lakes Auto Mall) and Faisal Ahmed,
individually, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-20057, (S.D. Fla.,
January 5, 2018), seeks to recover money damages for unpaid
minimum wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Cespedes worked as an automobile salesperson at a conglomerate of
automobile dealership locations known as Miami Lakes Auto Mall
and Driver's Auto Mart. Plaintiff worked under a commissions-only
pay plan in place at both dealerships. Plaintiff routinely logged
approximately 120-130 hours or more during bi-weekly pay-periods.
They allegedly were paid less than the minimum wage required for
every hour worked during bi-weekly pay periods. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


NANTHEALTH INC: Bid to Dismiss in "Deora" Amended Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case, Atul Singh Deora v. NantHealth, Inc. et al., Case No.
2:17-cv-01825 (C.D. Cal., March 7, 2017), has been assigned to
Judge Terry J. Hatter, Jr., from the calendar of Judge Beverly
Reid O'Connell.

The hearing on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Amended Consolidated
Class Action Complaint, originally set for November 6, 2017,
before Judge O'Connell was vacated.  The hearing will be
rescheduled for the calendar of Judge Hatter.

NantHealth, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2017, that in March 2017, a number of putative
class action securities complaints were filed in U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California, naming as
defendants the Company and certain of its executive officers and
directors. These complaints have been consolidated with the lead
case captioned Deora v. NantHealth, Inc., 2:17-cv-01825.  In June
2017, the lead plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated
complaint, which generally alleges that defendants violated
federal securities laws by making material misrepresentations in
NantHealth's initial public offering registration statement and
in subsequent public statements.  In particular, the complaint
refers to various third-party articles in alleging that
defendants misrepresented NantHealth's business with the
University of Utah, donations to the university by non-profit
entities associated with the Company's founder Dr. Soon-Shiong,
and orders for GPS Cancer.  The lead plaintiffs seek unspecified
damages and other relief on behalf of putative classes of persons
who purchased or acquired NantHealth securities in the IPO or on
the open market from June 1, 2016 through May 1, 2017. Defendants
have filed a motion to dismiss.

NantHealth said "The Company believes that the claims lack merit
and intend to vigorously defend the litigation."

NantHealth is a leading next-generation, evidence-based,
personalized healthcare company focused on enabling its clients
to fundamentally change the diagnosis, treatment and
pharmacoeconomics of cancer and other critical illnesses. The
company is based in Culver City, California.


NANTHEALTH INC: Retirement Fund Suit Stayed
-------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit by the Bucks County Employees Retirement
Fund has been stayed, according to NantHealth Inc.'s regulatory
filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

In May 2017, a putative class action complaint was filed in
California Superior Court, Los Angeles County, asserting claims
for violations of the Securities Act based on allegations similar
to Deora v. NantHealth, Inc., 2:17-cv-01825. That case was
removed to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California and is captioned Bucks County Employees Retirement
Fund v. NantHealth, Inc., 2:17-cv-03964.

NantHealth, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2017, that plaintiffs have filed a motion to remand the
action to state court.

NantHealth, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2017, that the parties in the case, now captioned
Bucks County Employees Retirement Fund v. NantHealth, Inc., BC
662330, have agreed to a stay of the case pending resolution of
the motion to dismiss in the federal Deora case.

NantHealth said "The Company believes that the claims lack merit
and intend to vigorously defend the litigation."

NantHealth is a leading next-generation, evidence-based,
personalized healthcare company focused on enabling its clients
to fundamentally change the diagnosis, treatment and
pharmacoeconomics of cancer and other critical illnesses. The
company is based in Culver City, California.


NATIONAL ENTERPRISE: Faces "Manashirov" Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Enterprise
Systems, Inc. The case is styled Samir Manashirov, on behalf of
himself and all other similarly situated consumers, Plaintiff v.
National Enterprise Systems, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-
00341 (E.D. N.Y., January 18, 2018).

National Enterprise Systems, Inc. is a debt collection
agency.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


NCL CORPORATION: "Crankshaw" Certified as Class Action Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Darrin P. Gayles granted the Plaintiffs' Consent Motion
for an Order Certifying this Case as a Collective Action for
Settlement Purposes and Authorizing Notice of Settlement filed in
the lawsuit captioned HILDE CRANKSHAW, SEAN FREIXA, and VICTOR
PETRENKO, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated
v. NCL CORPORATION LTD., a Foreign Corporation, NCL (BAHAMAS)
LTD., a Bermuda Company, PRESTIGE CRUISE SERVICES LLC, a Delaware
Limited Liability Company, PRESTIGE CRUISE HOLDINGS, INC., a
Foreign Corporation, and PRESTIGE CRUISES INTERNATIONAL, INC., a
Foreign Corporation, Case No. 1:16-cv-20415-DPG (S.D. Fla.).

The Named Plaintiffs were employed by Defendant Prestige Cruise
Services LLC as Personal Vacation Consultants selling cruises
directly to customers.  On July 22, 2015, Freixa filed a
collective action complaint against the Defendants alleging that
throughout their employment, the Defendants failed to properly
pay minimum wages and overtime pay as required by the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Judge Gayles ruled that within 10 days of this Order, the
Defendants shall provide the Claims Administrator, in electronic
format (i.e., Microsoft Excel), data showing names, most recent
addresses, phone numbers, and e-mail addresses if available,
dates of birth, if available, and social security numbers of all
potential opt-in plaintiffs.

Within 14 days after receiving the class data, the Claims
Administrator shall mail the Notice of Settlement.  The Notice of
Settlement shall be accompanied by the Claim Form and Settlement
Share Form, and a pre-addressed postage-paid return envelope.
Potential opt-in plaintiffs shall be given 45 days to file a
Claim Form joining the settlement.

The Claims Administrator shall mail a Reminder Postcard 20 days
after the initial mailing of the Notice of Settlement to all Opt-
In Class members for whom a Claim Form has not been received.  If
any potential opt-in plaintiff inquires about the lawsuit or the
settlement, the Defendants and their management shall refer the
employees to contact Class Counsel at 1-866-647-3110.

The Claims Administrator shall provide electronic copies of all
executed Claim Forms and any Objections to counsel for Plaintiffs
and Defendants.  The Plaintiffs' counsel shall file the Claim
Forms and Objections with the Court within 15 days after the
claims receipt deadline.

The parties are directed to file any memorandum seeking final
approval of the settlement on or before March 5, 2018.

A final approval hearing is scheduled for March 14, 2018, at
10:00 a.m.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=M3LtU9zG

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

               - and -

          Robert S. Norell, Esq.
          ROBERT S. NORELL, P.A.
          300 N.W. 70th Avenue, Suite 305
          Plantation, FL 33317
          Telephone: (954) 617-6017
          Facsimile: (954) 617-6018
          E-mail: rob@floridawagelaw.com

               - and -

          Sam J. Smith, Esq.
          Loren B. Donnell, Esq.
          Tamra C. Givens, Esq.
          BURR & SMITH, LLP
          111 2nd Ave. N.E., Suite 1100
          St. Petersburg, FL 33701
          Telephone: (813) 253-2010
          Toll Free (866) 647-3110
          E-mail: ssmith@burrandsmithlaw.com
                  ldonnell@burrandsmithlaw.com
                  TGivens@burrandsmithlaw.com


NORTHLAND GROUP: Faces "Manashirov" Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Northland Group
Inc. The case is styled as Samir Manashirov, on behalf of himself
and all other similarly situated consumers, Plaintiff v.
Northland Group Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-00342 (E.D.
N.Y., January 18, 2018).

Northland Group provides accounts receivable management and
collection services to national credit grantors, debt buyers, and
student loan lenders.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Maxim Maximov, Esq.
   Maxim Maximov, LLP
   1701 Avenue P
   Brooklyn, NY 11229
   Tel: (718) 395-3459
   Fax: (718) 408-9570
   Email: m@maximovlaw.com


NORTHSTAR LOCATION: Faces "Diaz" Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against NorthStar Location
Services, LLC. The case is styled as Edgar Diaz, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NorthStar
Location Services, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-00353 (E.D.
N.Y., January 18, 2018).

Northstar Location provides receivables debt collection services
to customers in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Daniel C Cohen, Esq.
   Daniel Cohen, PLLC
   407 Rockaway Avenue
   Brooklyn, NY 11212
   Tel: (646) 645-8482
   Fax: (347) 665-1545
   Email: dancohenlaw@gmail.com


NOVARTIS PHARMA: Miami-Luken Suit Asserts Sherman Act Breach
------------------------------------------------------------
Miami-Luken, Inc., on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation,
Novartis AG, Novartis Corporation and Sun Pharma Global Fze, Sun
Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc., Case No. 17-cv-00766, (E.D. Pa.,
January 9, 2018), seeks to recover threefold damages, interest,
costs of suit and reasonable attorneys' fees resulting from
anticompetitive foreclosure of imatinib mesylate sales in
violation of the Sherman Act.

Novartis allegedly agreed with Sun not to compete in the market
for imatinib mesylate (Gleevec), an FDA-approved prescription
drug used to treat chronic myeloid leukemia, a cancer of the
blood and bone marrow.

Miami-Luken, Inc. is an Ohio-based pharmaceutical wholesaler who
supplies independent pharmacies.

Sun Pharma Global FZE is a pharmaceutical company organized and
existing under the laws of the United Arab Emirates. Sun
Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc. is the FDA-registered U.S. agent
for Sun Pharma Global FZE.

Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, a subsidiary of Novartis
AG, is a distributor for the prescription drug Gleevec. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Erin Leger, Esq.
      Susan C. Segura, Esq.
      David Raphael, Esq.
      SMITH SEGURA &RAPHAEL LLP
      3600 Jackson Street, Suite 111
      Alexandria, LA 71303
      Tel: (318) 445-4480
      Email: eleger@ssrllp.com
             ssegura@ssrllp.com
             draphael@ssrllp.com

             - and -

      Bruce E. Gersein, Esq.
      Joseph Opper, Esq.
      Elena K. Chan, Esq.
      GARWIN GERSTEIN & FISHER LLP
      88 Pine Street, 10th Floor
      New York, NY 10005
      Tel: (212) 398-0055
      Fax: (212) 764-6620
      Email: echan@garwingerstein.com
             jopper@garwingerstein.com
             bgerstein@garwingerstein.com

             - and -

      David F. Sorensen, Esq.
      Daniel Simons, Esq.
      Richard Schwartz, Esq.
      BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
      1622 Locust Street
      Philadelphia, PA 19103-2793
      Tel: (215) 875-3000
      Email: dsorensen@bm.net
             zcaplan@bm.net

             - and -

      Russell Chorush, Esq.
      Miranda Jones, Esq.
      HEIM PAYNE &CHORUSH LLP
      111 Bagby, Suite 2100
      Houston, TX 77002
      Tel: (713) 221-2000
      Fax: (713) 221-2021
      Email: rchorush@hpcllp.com
             mjones@hpcllp.com


OKLAHOMA: "Simmons" Suit Can't Proceed as Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of
Oklahoma issued an Order adopting the Report and Recommendation
of Magistrate Judge Shon Erwin dismissing the case captioned
GLYNN SIMMONS, et al., Plaintiff, v. MARY FALLIN, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. CIV-17-908-SLP (W. D. Okla.).

Judge Erwin recommends that the Court: (1) dismiss, without
prejudice, all Plaintiffs, with the exception of Plaintiff
Simmons, on grounds of infeasible joinder; (2) order Plaintiff
Simmons to file an amended complaint, asserting only claims
specific to him; and (3) deny certain applications for joinder
pending at the time the Report and Recommendation was entered.
Plaintiff Gwendolyn Fields moved for appointment of counsel and
appointment of a special master. Ms. Fields signed the motion as
Gwendolyn Fields, Pro Se. Plaintiff Gwendolyn Fields again moved
for appointment of counsel and also moved for class
certification.

The record before the Court demonstrates that this lawsuit has
primarily been engineered by Ms. Fields as lead organizer of the
non-profit entity, the All In One Project.

It is well-settled that an individual, who is not an attorney
admitted to practice law, is unauthorized to represent another
person or entity. Although Ms. Fields could appear on her own
behalf, she lacks standing to bring any claims in this action.
The Complaint identifies no injury specific to her.

For all these reasons, this action is dismissed without prejudice
as to the All in One Project and as to Ms. Fields, to the extent
she purports to bring individual claims.

Judge Erwin found joinder was not feasible for a number of
reasons including the complications that accompany multiple
plaintiff-prisoner litigation and the fact that Plaintiffs
otherwise failed to satisfy the standard for permissive joinder.
With respect to the two prisoner applications for joinder pending
at the time the Report and Recommendation was entered. Judge
Erwin found the prisoners had similarly failed to satisfy the
standard for joinder and their conclusory allegations were
insufficient. Judge Erwin also found that of the Complaint's five
counts, the only Count which mentions Plaintiff Simmons is Count
III and therefore, the standard for permissive joinder could not
be satisfied.

The Court agrees with Judge Erwin's analysis.

The Interested Party filings "in support of class certification"
filed by multiple prisoners who are not named in the Complaint
are not properly before the Court as this time and otherwise, are
wholly conclusory. Those filings, therefore, are stricken.

A full-text copy of the District Court's December 27, 2017 Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/yc8qju8x from Leagle.com.

Glynn R. Simmons, Plaintiff, represented by Rand C. Eddy --
Rand@lawokc.com -- Mulinix Goerke & Meyer PLLC.

Wadress H. Metoyer, Jr, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

Cheryl Williamson, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

Deborah Franks, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

Cory Carter, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

Johnathan Davis, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

Darrell Wiggins, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

Wilbert L. Nubine, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

Kirby Johnson, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

Ricky Cordell Robertson, Plaintiff, Pro Se.


OS RESTAURANT SVCS: Denies "Chavira" Overtime Pay
-------------------------------------------------
Carlos Chavira, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. OS Restaurant Services, LLC and
Bloomin' Brands, Inc., together doing business as Outback
Steakhouse, Case No. 18-cv-10029 (D. Mass., January 5, 2018),
seeks unpaid overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 in a
workweek and liquidated damages pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act and Massachusetts General Laws.

Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a FOH Manager at Outback
locations located in Bellingham, Framingham, and Westboro,
Massachusetts. Chavira regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per
workweek, without receiving overtime compensation.

OS Restaurant Services, LLC is a wholly owned subsidiary of
Defendant Bloomin' Brands, Inc., operator of 584 company-owned
Outback Restaurants in the United States.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Fran L. Rudich, Esq.
     Seth R. Lesser, Esq.
     Christopher M. Timmel, Esq.
     KLAFTER OLSEN & LESSER LLP
     Two International Drive, Suite 350
     Rye Brook, NY 10573
     Telephone: (914) 934-9200
     Facsimile: (914) 934-9220
     Website: www.klafterolsen.com


PALO ALTO, CA: Faces Class Action Over Illegal Utility Fees
-----------------------------------------------------------
Allison Levitsky, writing for Daily Post, reports that a woman is
waging a class-action lawsuit against the city of Palo Alto,
claiming that residents and businesses have been hit with illegal
taxes under the guise of electricity and natural gas fees charged
by the city's utilities department.

Miriam Green, a Palo Alto resident, claims that the city's
practice of transferring surplus utility revenue to the general
fund, without being earmarked for a specific purpose, is illegal
and characterizes the revenue as a tax. If the surplus revenue is
a tax, it should have gone up for a vote, she argues.

Ms. Green filed the suit on Oct. 6, 2016, after filing an
administrative claim on Sept. 23. City Attorney Molly Stump
rejected that claim on Nov. 8, 2016.

Ms. Green is being represented by a team of lawyers: Thomas
Kearney and Prescott Littlefield of the Glendale firm Kearney
Littlefield, Gene Stonebarger and Richard Lambert of the Folsom
firm Stonebarger Law and Moris Davidovitz of the San Francisco
firm Davidovitz and Bennett.

Palo Alto is unusual in the state because it provides residents
and businesses with six utility services: water, sewage,
electricity, natural gas, trash pickup and storm drainage, and
it's done so for more than 100 years.  Millions of dollars in
utilities revenue subsidize the city's libraries, parks and
police and fire departments.

Utility fees subsidize city services

Ms. Green argues that it's the city's responsibility to prove
that the charges aren't a tax and that the amount is no more than
necessary to cover the costs of the utility service.  She said
the city's practice is illegal under Proposition 26, the
Supermajority Vote to Pass New Taxes and Fees Act, approved by
California voters in 2010.

Ms. Green also cites Proposition 218, the Right to Vote on Taxes
Act, passed by state voters in 1996, in arguing that the charges
are illegal because, if they constitute a tax, that tax should
have come up for a vote.

She argues that the city is charging residents higher rates to
subsidize rates for businesses and public utilities like street
lights.

Ms. Green also objects to the city utility users tax, a 5% tax on
gas, water and electricity, which is imposed by many cities in
California.  Ms. Green says this constitutes a "tax on a tax,"
which is illegal.

Ms. Green wants to stop the city from transferring "surplus"
utilities funds into the general fund, to refund this money and
to obtain voter approval for "what is, in effect, a tax."

City responds

In a response filed on March 10, attorneys for the city denied
that the transfer of money from its electricity enterprise funds
to its general fund was illegal, stating that the city's charter
authorizes the transfer and use of the funds for general fund
purposes. They also denied that the utility users tax was
illegal.

Attorneys for the city pointed out that the state constitution
bars an injunction against revenue measures such as the city's
electric and gas rates, or its transfers from its electric and
gas funds to its general fund.

City Council is scheduled to meet behind closed doors to discuss
the lawsuit on Jan. 22.

Ms. Green's attorneys are set to meet with lawyers for the city
for a case management conference on April 20. [GN]


PATRIOT PIZZA: Class Suit by Delivery Driver Underway
-----------------------------------------------------
Jared Hudson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Patriot Pizza & Subs, Inc.; Christos
Pappas and Nancy J. Pappas, the Defendants, Case No. 17-2996,
(Mass. Super. Ct., October 7, 2017), seeks relief for Defendants'
violations of state and hour laws.

The Plaintiff began his employment with Patriot Pizza as a
delivery driver in or around July 2017. The Plaintiff and other
delivery drivers were required to make multiple deliveries each
workday and used their personal vehicles that they drove in
excess of 250 miles in many workweeks. Patriot Pizza charges
customers delivery charges that Patriot Pizza fails to remit to
their delivery drivers and fails to reimburse their delivery
drivers for their transportation expenses in violation of
Massachusetts wage and hour laws.[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Raven Moeslinger, Esq.
     Nicholas F. Ortiz, Esq.
     LAW OFFICE OF NICHOLAS F. ORTIZ, P.C.
     99 High Street, Suite 304
     Boston, MA 02110
     Telephone: (617) 338-9400
     Email: rm@mass-legal.com


PIL WCNS BEVERAGE: "Kardos" Suit over Use of Biometrics Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Kardos, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. PIL WCNS Beverage Services, LLC d/b/a
Westin Chicago North Shore; Marriott Internationall, Inc.; TPG
Hotels & Resorts, Inc. and Rockbridge Capital, the Defendants,
Case No. 2017-CH-13516, (Ill. Cir., Cook County, October 6,
2017), alleges that Westin Chicago North Shore uses the employee
database to monitor the time worked by its hourly employees.
Westin's employees are required to have their fingerprints
scanned by a biometric timekeeping device unlike the conventional
methods for tracking time worked such as ID badge swipes or punch
clocks. Biometric Information Privacy Act or BIPA was enacted in
Illinois specifically to regulate companies that collect and
store Illinois citizens' biometrics, such as fingerprints. Westin
disregards employees' statutorily protected privacy rights and
unlawfully collects, stores, and uses their employees' biometric
data in violation of BIPA. Westin disregards employees'
statutorily protected privacy rights and unlawfully collects,
stores, and uses their employees' biometric data in violation of
BIPA.  It also fails to inform its employees of the purposes and
duration for which it collects their sensitive biometric data,
and fails to obtain written releases from employees before
collecting their fingerprints. Furthermore, Westin fails to
provide employees with a written, publicly available policy
identifying its retention schedule and guidelines for permanently
destroying employees' fingerprints when the initial purpose for
collecting or obtaining their fingerprints is no longer relevant,
as required by BIPA. Westin fails to comply with these BlPA
mandates and it breached its duty by failing to implement
reasonable procedural safeguards around the collection of
biometric information.[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Andrew C. Ficzko, Esq.
     James B. Zouras, Esq.
     Ryan F. Stephan, Esq.
     STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
     205 N. Michigan Avenue Suite 2560
     Chicago, Illinois 60601
     Telephone: (312) 233-1550
     Facsimile: (312) 233-1560


PINEAPPLE HOSPITALITY: Faces "Smith" Suit over Biometrics Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Molly Smith, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
individuals, the Plaintiff, v. Pineapple Hospitality Company and
Pineapple Restaurant Group, LLc, the Defendants, Case No.
2017CH13506, (Ill. Cir., Cook County, October 6, 2017), alleges
that Plaintiff worked at a facility owned and operated by
Defendants wherein the time keeping practice has relied on a
biometric information device which scan a workers' fingerprints
to track their workers' time. The Plaintiff and other similarly
situated employees have their fingers scanned by their biometric
timekeeping devices, which captured, collected, and stored their
fingerprint. However, Defendants did not inform the Plaintiff and
other similarly situated workers or employees in writing that a
biometric identifier or biometric information was being
collected, stored, or used, nor did Defendants make their policy
about collection, retention, and use of such information publicly
available as required by the Biometric Information Privacy Act or
BIPA. Defendants knowingly and willfully failing to comply with
the BIPA's mandatory notice, release, and policy publication
requirements. Defendants have violated workers' substantive
privacy rights protected under the BIPA, and as a result,
Plaintiff and the other members of the Class have continuously
been exposed to substantial and irreversible loss of privacy by
Defendants' retention of Plaintiff's biometric information
without consent, with such constant and ongoing exposure
constituting a severe harm and violation of their rights.[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PRESERVE AT CHARLESTON PARK: Homeowners Suit Asserts FDCPA Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Canan Erdogan, Rachel E. Lindman, Dana B. Rumer, Corey Truesdale,
and Alexandra Statsenko on behalf of themselves and those
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Preserve at Charleston Park
Homeowners Association, Inc., Hawthorne Ridge Homeowners'
Association, Inc., Pennington Square Homeowners Association,
Inc., Waccamaw Village Property Owners Association, Inc., Cole
Creek Homeowners Association, Inc., McCabe, Trotter & Beverly,
P.C., Simons & Dean, Attorneys At Law, McCutchen, Mumford, Vaught
& Geddie, P.A., Black, Slaughter & Black, P.A., Southern
Community Services, LLC, Hinson Management Inc., IMC Charleston
LLC, Sisbro Properties, LLC, and Red Rock Management Agency,
LLC,, Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-00084 (D. S.C., January 9, 2018),
seeks damages, injunctive relief and attorneys' fees and costs
under the Homestead Act and the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act for breach of contract.

Canan Erdogan, Rachel E. Lindman, Dana B. Rumer, Corey Truesdale,
and Alexandra Statsenko are all owners of residential real estate
in the various counties of South Carolina.

Defendants are homeowners associations organized as non-profit
corporations under the South Carolina Nonprofit Corporation Act
and are represented by the law firms, McCabe, Trotter & Beverly,
P.C., Simons & Dean, Attorneys At Law, McCutchen, Mumford, Vaught
& Geddie, P.A. and Black, Slaughter & Black, P.A.

Defendants assert a lien for unpaid dues and seek to enforce this
alleged right by first filing a lien and then foreclosing this
lien. Plaintiffs refuse to settle face foreclosure on their homes
and eviction by the Defendants as the prevailing party since the
process designed by the Defendants is based on the deception that
they can use an equitable remedy to collect monetary damages.
Defendants seek to evict Plaintiffs from their homes despite that
they are still or would remain contractually obligated to make
payments to mortgage holders even though they are no longer in
possession of their homes. The value of the real estate owned by
Plaintiffs is negatively affected by the foreclosures brought by
the Defendants as the properties become rental properties.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brian C. Gambrell, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICES OF JASON E. TAYLOR, P.C.
      810 Dutch Square Blvd., Suite 112
      Columbia, SC 29210
      Telephone: (800) 351-3008
      Facsimile: (828) 327-9008
      Email: bgambrell@jasonetaylor.com


PROVIDENT FINANCIAL: "Cannon" Suit Settled for $2.75MM
------------------------------------------------------
In a Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2017,
Provident Financial Holdings, Inc. said that no litigation
reserve had been previously established by the Bank resulting in
the full $2.75 million settlement expense being recognized in the
first quarter of fiscal 2018.

On August 6, 2015, a former employee of Provident Savings Bank,
FSB ("Bank"), Christina Cannon, filed a lawsuit, Cannon vs.
Provident Savings Bank, in the California Superior Court for the
County of San Bernardino (Civil Action No. CIVDS1511235) seeking
to represent a class of all non-exempt employees of the Bank in a
class action lawsuit brought under California's Unfair
Competition Law, Business & Professions Code section 17200 (the
"Cannon Lawsuit"). The underlying claims include unpaid overtime
(including off-the-clock work), meal and rest period violations,
minimum wage violations, and failure to reimburse business
expenses.

On September 8, 2017, the attorneys for the plaintiffs in the
Cannon Lawsuit sent notification to the Bank and to the
California Labor & Workforce Development Agency informing them of
their intent to bring a claim under the Private Attorneys'
General Act of 2004 ("PAGA") on behalf of all non-exempt
employees and covering a variety of alleged wage and hour
violations.

On September 12, 2017, the Bank, the wholly-owned subsidiary of
Provident Financial Holdings, Inc. (the "Company") entered into a
Memorandum of Understanding with the plaintiffs' representatives
to memorialize an agreement in principle to settle the pending
Cannon Lawsuit.

The Memorandum of Understanding assumes class certification for
purposes of the settlement only and provides for an aggregate
settlement payment by the Bank of $2.75 million, which includes
all settlement funds, the class representative enhancement award,
settlement administrator's expenses, any employer-side payroll
taxes, and class counsel's attorneys' fees and costs. The Bank's
decision to settle this matter was the result of the significant
legal costs, distraction from day-to-day operating activities and
substantial resources that would be required to defend the Bank
in protracted litigation. In addition, the Bank determined that
the settlement would reduce the Bank's potential exposure to
damages, penalties, fines and plaintiffs' legal fees in the event
of an unfavorable outcome in a court trial.

The settlement includes the dismissal of all claims against the
Bank and related parties in the Cannon Lawsuit and claim under
the PAGA, without any admission of liability or wrongdoing
attributed to the Bank. The settlement described in the
Memorandum of Understanding remains subject to court approval and
other customary conditions.

Provident Financial said "Because of the uncertainty surrounding
this litigation, no litigation reserve had been previously
established by the Company resulting in the full $2.75 million
settlement expense being recognized in the first quarter of
fiscal 2018."

Provident Financial Holdings, Inc. operates as the holding
company for Provident Savings Bank, F.S.B. that provides
community and mortgage banking services to consumers and small to
mid-sized businesses in the Inland Empire region of Southern
California.


RFS HOLDING: Blackrock Advisors Suit Discovery Still Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------
RFS Holding, L.L.C. said in its Form 10-D Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the monthly distribution
period from September 1, 2017 to September 30, 2017, that
discovery is ongoing in a class action lawsuit in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York.

On June 18, 2014, a group of investors, including funds managed
by Blackrock Advisors, LLC, PIMCO-Advisors, L.P., and others,
filed a derivative action against DBNTC and DBTCA in New York
State Supreme Court purportedly on behalf of and for the benefit
of 544 private-label RMBS trusts asserting claims for alleged
violations of the U.S. Trust Indenture Act of 1939 ("TIA"),
breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty and negligence based
on DBNTC and DBTCA's alleged failure to perform their duties as
trustees for the trusts. Plaintiffs subsequently dismissed their
state court complaint and filed a derivative and class action
complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York on behalf of and for the benefit of 564 private-label
RMBS trusts, which substantially overlapped with the trusts at
issue in the state court action.

The complaint alleges that the trusts at issue have suffered
total realized collateral losses of U.S. $89.4 billion, but the
complaint does not include a demand for money damages in a sum
certain. DBNTC and DBTCA filed a motion to dismiss, and on
January 19, 2016, the court partially granted the motion on
procedural grounds: as to the 500 trusts that are governed by
pooling and servicing agreements, the court declined to exercise
jurisdiction. The court did not rule on substantive defenses
asserted in the motion to dismiss. On March 22, 2016, plaintiffs
filed an amended complaint in federal court. In the amended
complaint, in connection with 62 trusts governed by indenture
agreements, plaintiffs assert claims for breach of contract,
violation of the TIA, breach of fiduciary duty, and breach of
duty to avoid conflicts of interest. The amended complaint
alleges that the trusts at issue have suffered total realized
collateral losses of U.S. $9.8 billion, but the complaint does
not include a demand for money damages in a sum certain.

On July 15, 2016, DBNTC and DBTCA filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint. On January 23, 2017, the court granted in part
and denied in part DBNTC and DBTCA's motion to dismiss. The court
granted the motion to dismiss with respect to plaintiffs'
conflict-of-interest claim, thereby dismissing it, and denied the
motion to dismiss with respect to plaintiffs' breach of contract
claim (except as noted below) and claim for violation of the TIA,
thereby allowing those claims to proceed. On January 26, 2017,
the parties filed a joint stipulation and proposed order
dismissing plaintiffs' claim for breach of fiduciary duty.

On January 27, 2017, the court entered the parties' joint
stipulation and ordered that plaintiffs' claim for breach of
fiduciary duty be dismissed. On February 3, 2017, following a
hearing concerning DBNTC and DBTCA's motion to dismiss on
February 2, 2017, the court issued a short form order dismissing
(i) plaintiffs' representation and warranty claims as to 21
trusts whose originators and/or sponsors had entered bankruptcy
and the deadline for asserting claims against such originators
and/or sponsors had passed as of 2009 and (ii) plaintiffs' claims
to the extent they were premised upon any alleged pre-Event of
Default duty to terminate servicers. On March 27, 2017, DBNTC and
DBTCA filed an answer to the amended complaint. Discovery is
ongoing.


RHODE ISLAND: Scherwitz Moves to Certify Class of Residents
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit captioned CHRISTOPHER SCHERWITZ AND
JOHN E. FIGURIED, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated v. ERIC BEANE in his official capacity as
Secretary of the R.I. Office of Health & Human Services, Case No.
1:18-cv-00005-WES-LDA (D.R.I.), move the Court for an order
certifying this class:

     All Rhode Island residents who now or in the future have
     received inadequate advance written notice of Medicare
     Premium Payment termination or who had (or will have)
     Medicare Premium Payment benefits terminated without
     adequate advance written notice.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=o2S0R6ps

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Ellen Saideman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF ELLEN SAIDEMAN
          7 Henry Drive
          Barrington, RI 02806
          Telephone: (401) 258-7276
          Facsimile: (401) 709-0213
          E-mail: esaideman@yahoo.com


ROCKLEDGE BUS: Faces "Zhong" Suit in Southern District New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rockledge Bus Tour
Inc. d/b/a Rockledge Bus. The case is styled as Zhi Li Zhong, on
behalf of all other employees similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Rockledge Bus Tour Inc. d/b/a Rockledge Bus, Harmonious Grand
Tour Co, Ltd. d/b/a HG Bus Ltd, Xinnix Ticketing, Inc., Fox Bus,
Inc., New Everyday Bus Tour, Inc., Lun Dong Chen, "Jenny" (first
name unknown) Chen and Lucy Fisher, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-
00454 (S.D. N.Y., January 18, 2018).

Rockledge Bus offers daily bus services from Baltimore,
Wilmington, Norfolk to New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


ROYAL BANK: Among Defendants in CDOR Rigging Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Stempel and Matt Scuffham, writing for Reuters, report
nine large banks, including six from Canada, have been accused in
a lawsuit of conspiring to rig a Canadian rate benchmark to
improve profits from derivatives trading.

The complaint, filed by a Colorado pension fund in U.S. District
Court in Manhattan late on Jan. 12, accused Royal Bank of Canada,
Toronto-Dominion Bank, Bank of Nova Scotia and the other banks of
suppressing the Canadian Dealer Offered Rate (CDOR) from Aug. 9,
2007, to June 30, 2014.

According to the Fire & Police Pension Association of Colorado,
the banks hoped to reduce interest they would owe investors on
CDOR-based derivatives transactions in the United States,
including swaps and Canadian dollar futures contracts, and
generate potentially billions of dollars of improper profit.

The fund is seeking unspecified damages for investors in the
proposed class action for alleged violations of U.S. antitrust,
commodity and anti-racketeering laws over the nearly seven-year
period.

Other defendants include Bank of Montreal, Canadian Imperial Bank
of Commerce, National Bank of Canada, Bank of America Corp,
Deutsche Bank AG and HSBC Holdings Plc.

Eight of the banks declined to comment on Jan. 15.  The ninth,
Bank of Montreal, did not respond to requests for comment.

CDOR is a rate at which banks will lend to corporate clients
using bankers' acceptances, a short-term credit instrument.  It
is now known as the Canadian Dollar Offered Rate, and calculated
daily by Thomson Reuters based on rate submissions from banks.

Canadian regulators updated the CDOR-setting process after the
Investment Industry Regulatory Organization of Canada in January
2013 identified the "potential" for manipulation.

That came after regulators worldwide began accusing, and
eventually fined, many banks for manipulating the London
Interbank Offered Rate and other benchmarks.

According to the Jan. 12 complaint, the Colorado fund conducted
more than $1.2 billion of CDOR-based derivatives transactions,
including with seven defendants, during the alleged conspiracy.

The fund said banks coordinated false CDOR submissions after
their CDOR-based derivatives portfolios, on which they made
interest payments, had grown far larger than their CDOR-based
loan portfolios, on which they collected interest.

It said the conspiracy was intended in part to address this
imbalance, and included a 151-day stretch when four banks made
identical submissions.

The federal court in Manhattan is home to a wide variety of
private litigation accusing banks of conspiring to rig rate
benchmarks, markets such as U.S. Treasuries, and prices for
commodities such as gold and silver.

One case, over alleged currency manipulation, led to agreements
by 15 banks to pay out $2.31 billion.

The case is Fire & Police Pension Association of Colorado v Bank
of Montreal et al, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New
York, No. 18-00342.


SAFEWAY INC: Settles Class Actions Over Olive Oil Labeling
----------------------------------------------------------
Tracy Armbruster, writing for News4JAX, reports that Safeway has
settled two class-action lawsuits over complaints that its olive
oils were mislabeled as "extra virgin" and "imported from Italy."

Consumers who bought the select products can get up to $7.50 in
vouchers -- or at most $2.50 in cash payments.

You can claim up to five purchases per household without a
receipt or as many as you can with proof.

The company maintains there is nothing wrong with the labeling.
[GN]


SERVICESOURCE INTERNATIONAL: "Patton" Suit Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------
The case, Sarah Patton, et al v. ServiceSource Delaware, Inc.
Case No. 3:15-cv-01013 (M.D. Tenn., Sept. 21, 2015), remains
pending.  The case is before the Hon. Judge Marianne O Battani
and referred to the Hon. E Clifton Knowles.

ServiceSource International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2017, that on August 23,
2016, the United States District Court for the Middle District of
Tennessee granted conditional class certification in a lawsuit
originally filed on September 21, 2015 by three former senior
sales representatives. The lawsuit, Sarah Patton, et al v.
ServiceSource Delaware, Inc., asserts a claim under the Fair
Labor Standards Act alleging that certain sales account
representatives and senior sales representatives in our Nashville
location were not paid for all hours worked and were not properly
paid for overtime hours worked.  The complaint also asserts
claims under Tennessee state law for breach of contract and
unjust enrichment; however, the plaintiffs have not yet filed a
motion to certify the state law breach of contract and unjust
enrichment claims as a class action.

Servicesource International said "The Company will continue to
vigorously defend itself against these claims."

ServiceSource International, Inc. is a global leader in
outsourced, performance-based customer success and revenue growth
solutions. The company is based in Denver Colorado.


SIXT RENT A CAR: "Shaw" Wage-and-Hour Suit Underway
---------------------------------------------------
Iman Zhane Shaw, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Sixt Rent A Car, LLC and
Does 1 through 50, the Defendant, Case No. BC679138, (Cal. Sup.
Ct., October 6, 2017), seeks damages and or penalties including
attorneys' fees and costs based on Defendant's violation of the
California Labor Code.

The Plaintiff brings the class action for himself and all other
similarly situated employees of the Defendant solely based on
failure of the Defendant to provide accurate itemized wage
statements or the wage statements provided failed to identify the
correct pay period start and end dates and the correct overtime
commission rates.

A first amended complaint was filed on Dec. 28, 2017.

Sixt Rent A Car provides carrier and transportation services.[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Larry W. Lee, Esq.
     Nick Rosenthal, Esq.
     DIVERSITY LAW GROUP
     515 S. Figueroa St., Suite 1250
     Los Angeles, CA 90071
     Telephone: (213) 488-6555
     Facsimile: (213) 488-6554
     Email: lwlee@diversitylaw.com

        - and -

     Edward W. Choi, Esq.
     Paul M. Yi, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF CHOI & ASSOCIATES
     515 S. Figueroa St., Suite 1250
     Los Angeles, CA 90071
     Telephone: (213) 381-1515
     Facsimile: (213)465-4885
     Email: edward.choi@choiandassociates.com

        - and -

     Thomas M. Lee, Esq.
     LEE LAW OFFICES, APLC
     3435 Wilshire Blvd Suite 2400
     Los Angeles, California 90010
     Telephone: (213) 251-5533
     Facsimile: (213) 251-5534


SNAP INC: Still Defends Against Securities Class Actions
--------------------------------------------------------
Snap Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September
30, 2017, that the company continues to defend securities class
actions brought on behalf of purchasers of their Class A common
stock.

Beginning in May 2017, the company, certain of its officers and
directors, and the underwriters for their IPO were named as
defendants in securities class actions purportedly brought on
behalf of purchasers of its Class A common stock, alleging
violation of securities laws in connection with our IPO.

Snap Inc. said "Management believes these lawsuits are without
merit and intend to vigorously defend them. Based on the
preliminary nature of the proceedings in this case, the outcome
of this matter remains uncertain."

Snap Inc. is a United States based technology and social media
company, founded on September 16, 2011 by Evan Spiegel and Bobby
Murphy and based in Venice, Los Angeles.


SOLENO THERAPEUTICS: "Garfield" Suit vs. Capnia Dropped
-------------------------------------------------------
The case, Garfield v. Capnia, Inc., has been dismissed, Soleno
Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2017.

Soleno Therapeutics, said "On February 16, 2017, a purported
stockholder class action lawsuit captioned Garfield v. Capnia,
Inc., et al., Case No. C17-00284, or the Lawsuit, was filed in
Superior Court of the State of California, County of Contra Costa
against us and certain of our officers and directors. The Lawsuit
alleged, generally, that our directors breached their fiduciary
duties to our stockholders by seeking to sell control of the
company through an allegedly defective process, and on unfair
terms."

The Lawsuit also alleged that defendants failed to disclose all
material facts concerning the merger with Essentialis to
stockholders. The Lawsuit sought, among other things, equitable
relief that would have enjoined the consummation of the merger,
compensatory and/or rescissory damages, and attorneys' fees and
costs.

On February 28, 2017, the company settled the Lawsuit by making
certain supplemental disclosures in a Current Report on Form 8-K
filed with the SEC on February 28, 2017 in connection with the
plaintiff's agreement to voluntarily dismiss plaintiff's claims
in the Lawsuit. The company also agreed to pay $175,000 in
attorney's fees. This amount was accrued as a current liability
on the balance sheet as of December 31, 2016 and recorded as a
general and administrative expense on the statement of operations
for the year ended December 31, 2016. The stipulation of
dismissal was approved by the court on April 14, 2017.

Soleno Therapeutics operates as a pharmaceutical company. The
company develops novel therapeutic and diagnostic products for
allergic rhinitis and for the detection of hemolysis. The company
is based in Redwood City, California.


SOUTHWEST CREDIT: Ballard Disputes Conflicting Collection Letters
----------------------------------------------------------------
Martha Ballard, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Southwest Credit System, LP, a
Texas limited partnership, and Amsher Collection Services, Inc.,
an Alabama corporation,, Case No. 18-cv-20019, (S.D. Ind.,
January 3, 2018), seeks statutory damages, costs,  reasonable
attorneys' fees and such further relief under the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

Defendants operate nationwide defaulted debt collection
businesses who attempted to collect a defaulted consumer debt,
which Plaintiff allegedly owed T-Mobile. Both Southwest and
Amsher were collecting the same debt via collection letters with
no information as to how each demands for payment fit together.
Their conflicting collection demands left Plaintiff without the
statutorily-required information of how long she had to exercise
her validation rights, and to whom she had to exercise them, or
to whom she needed to make payment, says the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      David J. Philipps, Esq.
      Mary E. Philipps, Esq.
      Angie K. Robertson, Esq.
      PHILIPPS & PHILIPPS, LTD.
      9760 S. Roberts Road, Suite One
      Palos Hills, IL 60465
      Tel: (708) 974-2900
      Fax: (708) 974-2907
      Email: davephilipps@aol.com
             mephilipps@aol.com
             angiekrobertson@aol.com

             - and -

      John T. Steinkamp, Esq.
      5214 S. East Street, Suite D1
      Indianapolis, IN 46227
      Tel: (317) 780-8300
      Fax: (317) 217-1320
      Email: steinkamplaw@yahoo.com


STAFF PRO LLC: "Galeas" Action Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay
--------------------------------------------------------
Maria Galeas, on behalf of herself and other persons similarly
situated Plaintiff, v. Staff Pro, LLC and Marriott International,
Inc., Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-00121 (E.D. La., January 3,
2018), seeks to recover unpaid regular and overtime wages,
interest, liquidated damages and attorneys' fees and costs for
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff was employed as a housekeeper by Staff Pro, LLC to work
at the New Orleans Downtown Marriott at the Convention Center.
Galeas usually works 48 hours per week without overtime for hours
in excess of 40.

Staff Pro is in the business of providing labor, including room
attendants and other hotel staff, to hotels, convention centers,
and airports in Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana, Texas,
Tennessee, Florida and Arkansas. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Roberto Luis Costales, Esq.
      William H. Beaumont, Esq.
      Emily A. Westermeier, Esq.
      BEAUMONT COSTALES LLC
      3801 Canal Street, Suite 207
      New Orleans, LA 70119
      Telephone: (504) 534-5005
      Email: rlc@beaumontcostales.com
             whb@beaumontcostales.com
             eaw@beaumontcostales.com


STERICYCLE INC: Feb. 23 Fairness Hearing on $295 Million Accord
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
will hold a fairness hearing for February 23, 2018, to consider
final approval of a $295.0 million settlement of a class action
lawsuit, Stericycle said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2017.

Stericycle, Inc. said in a Form 8-K filing in October 2017 that
the company entered into a settlement with the plaintiffs and
their counsel in the case, In re: Stericycle, Inc., Steri-Safe
Contract Litigation, Case No. 1:13-cv-05795, N.D. Ill.

On October 17, 2017, Stericycle entered into a Settlement with
Plaintiffs and their counsel in the multidistrict litigation
proceeding known as In re: Stericycle, Inc., Steri-Safe Contract
Litigation, Case No. 1:13-cv-05795 (N.D. Ill.).  The Settlement
incorporates the terms of an agreement in principle with
Plaintiffs and their counsel that was previously disclosed by the
Company in August 2017.  The Settlement, upon approval by the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, will fully and finally resolve all claims against the
Company alleged in the MDL.  Based on execution of the
Settlement, it is anticipated that Plaintiffs will file a motion
in the near term, seeking preliminary approval of the Settlement
by the Court.

The Settlement proposes a global resolution of all cases and
claims against the Company in the MDL, including the allegation
that price increases implemented by the Company allegedly
violated the contracts between the Company and its customers as
well as various state consumer protection statutes.  Under the
terms of the Settlement, the Company will establish a common fund
of $295 million from which all compensation to members of the
Settlement class, attorneys' fees and costs to class counsel,
incentive awards to the named class representatives and all costs
of notice and administration will be paid.  The Company's
existing contracts with its customers will remain in force, but
the Company has agreed to certain caps on annual price increases
for a specified period. The Settlement also provides for
guidelines for future price increases, added transparency
regarding such increases and periodic monitoring.  The Settlement
will address additional matters, including the availability of
alternative dispute resolution for members of the settlement
class.

Under the terms of the Settlement, the Company is admitting no
fault or wrongdoing whatsoever, and it is entering into the
Settlement in order to avoid the cost and uncertainty of
litigation.

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, the Court must
first grant preliminary approval of the Settlement. Provided that
preliminary approval is granted, members of the Settlement class
will then be provided notice of the Settlement and an opportunity
to object or opt out.  Any members of the Settlement class who
opt out will not receive any benefit from the Settlement or be
bound by it.  The Company would, in turn, have the right to
withdraw from the Settlement if a certain number of members of
the Settlement class opted out.  Following notice and an
opportunity for opt outs and objections, the Court will schedule
a fairness hearing to consider final approval of the Settlement.
There can be no assurance, however, that the Settlement will not
be amended further or that the Court will grant final approval of
the Settlement.

Stericycle, Inc. is a compliance company that specializes in
collecting and disposing regulated substances, such as medical
waste and sharps, pharmaceuticals, hazardous waste, and providing
services for recalled and expired goods. It also provides related
education and training services, and patient communication
services. The company was founded in 1989 and is headquartered in
Lake Forest, Illinois, with many more bases of operation around
the world, including toxic waste incinerators in Utah and North
Carolina.


STERICYCLE INC: Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit Underway
-------------------------------------------------------
Defendants' motion to dismiss a securities class action lawsuit
against Stericycle, Inc., remains pending, Stericycle said in its
Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2017.

On July 11, 2016, two purported stockholders filed a putative
class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois. The plaintiffs purported to sue
for themselves and on behalf of all purchasers of our publicly
traded securities between February 7, 2013 and April 28, 2016,
inclusive, and all those who purchased securities in our public
offering of depositary shares, each representing a 1/10th
interest in a share of our mandatory convertible preferred stock,
on or around September 15, 2015. The complaint named as
defendants the Company, our directors and certain of our current
and former officers, and certain of the underwriters in the
public offering. The complaint purports to assert claims under
Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as well as SEC Rule 10b-5, promulgated thereunder. The complaint
alleges, among other things, that the Company imposed
unauthorized or excessive price increases and other charges on
its customers in breach of its contracts, and that defendants
failed to disclose those alleged practices in public filings and
other statements issued during the proposed class period
beginning February 7, 2013 and ending April 28, 2016.

On August 4, 2016, plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint that
purports to assert additional misrepresentations in public
statements through July 28, 2016, and therefore to change the
putative class period to the period from February 7, 2013 to July
28, 2016, inclusive. On October 21, 2016, plaintiffs filed a
Corrected Amended Complaint adding the Company as a named
defendant in plaintiff's claim under Section 11 of the Securities
Act, which had previously been asserted only against the
Underwriters and certain officers and directors.

On November 1, 2016, the Court appointed the Public Employees'
Retirement System of Mississippi and the Arkansas Teacher
Retirement System as Lead Plaintiffs and their counsel as Lead
Counsel. On February 1, 2017, Lead Plaintiff filed a Consolidated
Amended Complaint with additional purported factual material
supporting the same legal claims from the prior complaints for a
class period from February 7, 2013 through September 18, 2016.
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Consolidated Amended
Complaint on April 1, 2017. On May 19, 2017, plaintiffs filed a
response in opposition to the motion to dismiss and on June 19,
2017, Defendants filed a reply brief in support of their motion.
The motion to dismiss is currently pending.

Stericycle, Inc. is a compliance company that specializes in
collecting and disposing regulated substances, such as medical
waste and sharps, pharmaceuticals, hazardous waste, and providing
services for recalled and expired goods. It also provides related
education and training services, and patient communication
services. The company was founded in 1989 and is headquartered in
Lake Forest, Illinois, with many more bases of operation around
the world, including toxic waste incinerators in Utah and North
Carolina.


STUART WEITZMAN: Quinones Sues Over Undisclosed Background Checks
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Julian Quinones, on behalf of himself, all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Stuart Weitzman, LLC, Stuart Weitzman
Retail Stores, LLC, Stuart Weitzman Holdings, LLC and Does 1
through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-00053, (N.D.
Cal., January 4, 2018), seeks redress for violations of the Fair
Credit Reporting Act, Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies
Act and California's Unfair Competition Law.

Quinones was employed with Defendants beginning on or about
October 2016 and was terminated on or about June 28, 2017. When
Plaintiff applied for employment, Defendants performed a
background investigation on Quinones but did not provide legally
compliant disclosure and authorization forms, the complaint
asserts.

Stuart Weitzman Holdings, LLC manufactures and distributes
footwear and bags for women, bridal and baby shoes and care and
cleaning products. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SUPERVALU INC: De Minimis Settlement Reached in Wisconsin Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Supervalu Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 9, 2017, that the company reached a preliminary
settlement for a nominal amount and entered into a final
settlement agreement.

In September 2008, a class action complaint was filed against
Supervalu, as well as International Outsourcing Services, LLC
("IOS"); Inmar, Inc.; Carolina Manufacturer's Services, Inc.;
Carolina Coupon Clearing, Inc. and Carolina Services in the
United States District Court in the Eastern District of
Wisconsin. The plaintiffs in the case are a consumer goods
manufacturer, a grocery co-operative and a retailer marketing
services company that allege on behalf of a purported class that
Supervalu and the other defendants (i) conspired to restrict the
markets for coupon processing services under the Sherman Act and
(ii) were part of an illegal enterprise to defraud the plaintiffs
under the Federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
Act. The plaintiffs seek monetary damages, attorneys' fees and
injunctive relief.

All proceedings had been stayed in the case pending the result of
the criminal prosecution of certain former officers of IOS. The
final criminal trial concluded in December 2016. The District
Court has indicated that it will release the stay of the civil
case and issue a scheduling order. At a mediation on May 22,
2017, Supervalu reached a preliminary settlement for a nominal
amount and on September 5, 2017, entered into a final settlement
agreement.

SuperValu Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as a
grocery wholesaler and retailer in the United States.  The
Company operates through two segments, Wholesale and Retail.  It
was founded in 1871 and is headquartered in Eden Prairie,
Minnesota.


SUPERVALU INC: $9 Million Settlement Has Final Court Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------
Supervalu Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
December 2, 2017, that a U.S. court granted final approval of a
$9 million class action settlement on November 17, 2017.

In December 2008, a class action complaint was filed in the
United States District Court for the Western District of
Wisconsin against Supervalu alleging that a 2003 transaction
between Supervalu and C&S Wholesale Grocers, Inc. ("C&S") was a
conspiracy to restrain trade and allocate markets. In the 2003
transaction, Supervalu purchased certain assets of the Fleming
Corporation as part of Fleming Corporation's bankruptcy
proceedings and sold certain assets of Supervalu to C&S that were
located in New England. Three other retailers filed similar
complaints in other jurisdictions and the cases were consolidated
and are proceeding in the United States District Court in
Minnesota. The complaints allege that the conspiracy was
concealed and continued through the use of non-compete and non-
solicitation agreements and the closing down of the distribution
facilities that Supervalu and C&S purchased from each other.
Plaintiffs are seeking monetary damages, injunctive relief and
attorneys' fees.

On July 5, 2011, the District Court granted Supervalu's Motion to
Compel Arbitration for those plaintiffs with arbitration
agreements and plaintiffs appealed. On July 16, 2012, the
District Court denied plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification
and on January 11, 2013, the District Court granted Supervalu's
Motion for Summary Judgment and dismissed the case regarding the
non-arbitration plaintiffs. On February 12, 2013, the 8th Circuit
reversed the District Court decision requiring plaintiffs with
arbitration agreements to arbitrate and remanded to the District
Court. On October 30, 2013, the parties attended a District Court
ordered mandatory mediation, which was not successful in
resolving the matter. On May 21, 2014, the 8th Circuit (1)
reversed the District Court's decision granting summary judgment
in favor of Supervalu, and (2) affirmed the District Court's
decision denying class certification of a class consisting of all
retailers located in the States of Illinois, Indiana, Iowa,
Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio and Wisconsin that purchased wholesale
grocery products from Supervalu between December 31, 2004 and
September 13, 2008, but remanded the case for the District Court
to consider whether to certify a narrower class of purchasers
supplied from Supervalu's Champaign, Illinois distribution center
and potentially other distribution centers.

On June 19, 2015, the District Court Magistrate Judge entered an
order that decided a number of matters including granting
plaintiffs' request to seek class certification for certain
Midwest Distribution Centers and denying plaintiffs' request to
add an additional New England plaintiff and denying plaintiffs'
request to seek class certification for a group of New England
retailers. On August 20, 2015, the District Court affirmed the
Magistrate Judge's order. In September 2015, the plaintiffs
appealed to the 8th Circuit the denial of the request to add an
additional New England plaintiff and to seek class certification
for a group of New England retailers and the hearing before the
8th Circuit occurred on May 17, 2016. On March 1, 2016, the
plaintiffs filed a class certification motion seeking to certify
five District Court classes of retailers in the Midwest and
Supervalu filed its response on May 6, 2016. On September 7,
2016, the District Court granted plaintiffs' motion to certify
five Midwest distribution center classes, only one of which is
suing Supervalu (the non-arbitration Champaign distribution
center class).

On March 1, 2017, the 8th Circuit denied plaintiffs' appeals
seeking to join an additional New England plaintiff and the
appeal seeking the ability to move for class certification of a
smaller New England class.

At a mediation on May 25, 2017, Supervalu reached a settlement
with the non-arbitration Champaign distribution center class,
which is the one Midwest class suing Supervalu. Supervalu and the
plaintiffs have executed a final settlement agreement and on
August 10, 2017, the court granted preliminary approval of the
settlement.

The material terms of the settlement include: (1) denial of
wrongdoing and liability by Supervalu; (2) release of all claims
against Supervalu related to the allegations and transactions at
issue in the litigation that were raised or could have been
raised by the non-arbitration Champaign distribution center
class; and (3) payment by Supervalu of $9 million.

SuperValu said "There is no contribution between C&S and
Supervalu, and C&S did not settle the claims alleged against
them. The New England Village Markets plaintiff is not a party to
the settlement and is pursuing its individual claims and
potential class action claims against Supervalu, which at this
time are determined as remote."

SuperValu Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as a
grocery wholesaler and retailer in the United States.  The
Company operates through two segments, Wholesale and Retail.  It
was founded in 1871 and is headquartered in Eden Prairie,
Minnesota.


SUPERVALU INC: Motion to Dismiss Lone Plaintiff Underway
--------------------------------------------------------
SuperValu, Inc.'s motion to dismiss the remaining plaintiff in a
class action lawsuit remains pending, the Company said in a
regulatory filing.

SuperValu Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ended September 9, 2017, that in August and November 2014,
four class action complaints were filed against Supervalu
relating to the criminal intrusions into its computer network
announced by Supervalu in fiscal 2015 (the "Criminal Intrusion").
The cases were centralized in the Federal District Court for the
District of Minnesota under the caption In Re: SUPERVALU Inc.
Customer Data Security Breach Litigation.

On June 26, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Class
Action Complaint. Supervalu filed a Motion to Dismiss the
Consolidated Class Action Complaint and the hearing took place on
November 3, 2015. On January 7, 2016, the District Court granted
the Motion to Dismiss and dismissed the case without prejudice,
holding that the plaintiffs did not have standing to sue as they
had not met their burden of showing any compensable damages.

On February 4, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a motion to vacate the
District Court's dismissal of the complaint or in the alternative
to conduct discovery and file an amended complaint, and Supervalu
filed its response in opposition on March 4, 2016. On April 20,
2016, the District Court denied plaintiffs' motion to vacate the
District Court's dismissal or in the alternative to amend the
complaint. On May 18, 2016, plaintiffs appealed to the 8th
Circuit and on May 31, 2016, Supervalu filed a cross-appeal to
preserve its additional arguments for dismissal of the
plaintiffs' complaint. On August 30, 2017, the 8th Circuit
affirmed the dismissal for 14 out of the 15 plaintiffs finding
they had no standing. The 8th Circuit did not consider
Supervalu's cross-appeal and remanded the case back for
consideration of Supervalu's additional arguments for dismissal
against the one remaining plaintiff.

SuperValu said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended December 2
9, 2017, that on October 30, 2017, Supervalu filed its motion to
dismiss the remaining plaintiff and on November 7, 2017, the
plaintiff filed a motion to amend its complaint. The Court held a
hearing on the motions on December 14, 2017.

SuperValu Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as a
grocery wholesaler and retailer in the United States.  The
Company operates through two segments, Wholesale and Retail.  It
was founded in 1871 and is headquartered in Eden Prairie,
Minnesota.


SWISSPORT CARGO: Denied OT Pay and Meal Breaks, "Ale" Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alexander Sanele Ale, an individual, on his own behalf and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Swissport
Cargo Services, L.P., a California limited partnership and Does 1
through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. BC688965, (Cal.
Super., January 4, 2018), seeks redress for meal and rest break
violations, failure to provide proper wage statements under the
California Labor Code and failure to pay overtime compensation
under Welfare Commission Orders and Labor Code.

Swissport USA provides ground and cargo handling services in the
aviation industry where Ale was employed by Defendants as a cargo
agent in the San Francisco Airport. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Marcus J. Bradley, Esq.
      Kiley L. Grombacher, Esq.
      Taylor L. Emerson, Esq.
      BRADLEY GROMBACHER, LLP
      2815 Townsgate Road, Suite 130
      Westlake Village, CA 91361
      Telephone: (805)212-5124
      Facsimile: (805) 270-7589
      E-Mail: mbradley@bradleygrombacher.com
              kgrombacher@bradleygrombacher.com


TACOMA SCREW: Court Certifies Class in "Viesse" FACTA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District
Washington, Seattle, issued an Order granting Plaintiffs'
Unopposed Motion for Class Certification in the case captioned
ALBERT VIESSE, Plaintiff, v. TACOMA SCREW PRODUCTS, INC., et al.,
Defendants, Case No. C16-1026 JCC (W.D. Wash.).

The Court orders that the following Settlement Class is
preliminarily certified for settlement purposes only:

     All consumers, as defined by the Fair and Accurate Credit
Transactions Act (FACTA) to whom Tacoma Screw Products, Inc.
(TSP) provided, at any time during the period from July 1, 2013
to July 14, 2016, an electronically printed receipt at the point
of a sale or a transaction at any TSP store, on which receipt was
printed the expiration date of the consumer's credit card or
debit card.

The Court finds that the Settlement Class meets all of the
requirements for class certification. The Court further finds
that, for purposes of the Agreement, the requirements of FRCP 23
are satisfied and that (a) the Settlement Class is ascertainable,
(b) the members of the Settlement Class are so numerous that
joinder is impracticable, (c) there are questions of law and fact
common to the Settlement Class members which predominate over any
individual questions, (d) the representative Plaintiff's claims
are typical of the claims of the Settlement Class members, (e)
the Class Representative and Class Counsel have fairly,
adequately, reasonably, and competently represented and protected
the interests of the Settlement Class, and (f) a class action is
superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient
adjudication of the controversy.

The Court appoints Plaintiff Albert Viesse as the Class
Representative for the Settlement Class.

The Court appoints attorneys Chant Yedalian of Chant & Company, a
Professional Law Corporation, and James A. Sturdevant as Class
Counsel for the Settlement Class.

The Court appoints Atticus Administration, LLC as the Settlement
Administrator.

A full-text copy of the District Court's December 27, 2017 Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/yc8qju8x from Leagle.com.

Albert Viesse, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Chant Yedalian --
chant@chant.mobi -- CHANT & COMPANY, pro hac vice & James A.
Sturdevant -- jsturdevant@sturdevantlaw.com

Tacoma Screw Products Inc., Defendant, represented by Bradley
Bishop Jones -- bjones@gth-law.com -- GORDON THOMAS HONEYWELL LLP
& Stephanie L. Bloomfield, -- sbloomfield@gth-law.com -- GORDON
THOMAS HONEYWELL LLP.


TRIBUNE MEDIA: MOU to Settle Individual Claims Pending
------------------------------------------------------
A memorandum of understanding to resolve the individual claims
asserted by the Plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit against
Tribune Media Company remains pending.

Tribune Media Company said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission that the parties entered into
a memorandum of understanding to resolve the individual claims
asserted by the plaintiffs.

In July 2017, following the initial filing of the Proxy
Statement/Prospectus, four purported Tribune shareholders (the
"Plaintiffs") filed putative class action lawsuits against
Tribune, the members of the Tribune board, and in certain
instances Sinclair and Merger Sub ("Defendants" and together with
the Plaintiffs, the "Parties") in the United States District
Court for the Districts of Delaware and Illinois. The Actions are
captioned McEntire v. Tribune Media Co., et al., 1:17-cv-05179
(N.D. Ill.), Duffy v. Tribune Media Co., et al., 1:17-cv-00919
(D. Del.), Berg v. Tribune Media Co., et al., 1:17-cv-00938 (D.
Del.), and Pill v. Tribune Media Co., et al., 1:17-cv-00961 (D.
Del.) (collectively, the "Actions"). These lawsuits allege that
the Proxy Statement/Prospectus omitted material information and
was materially misleading in violation of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended, and SEC Rule 14a-9. The Actions
generally seek preliminary and permanent injunctive relief,
rescission or rescissory damages, and unspecified damages.

On September 15, 2017, the Parties entered into a memorandum of
understanding (the "MOU") to resolve the individual claims
asserted by the Plaintiffs. The MOU acknowledges that Tribune, in
part in response to the claims asserted in the Actions, filed
certain supplemental disclosures with the United States
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 16, 2017 and that
Tribune, solely in response to the Actions, communicated to four
third parties that participated in the sale process and twenty-
three third parties that have signed confidentiality agreements
in connection with potential divestitures that the "standstill"
obligations of such third parties were waived. The Parties
further agreed that Tribune would make the additional
supplemental disclosures set forth. Further, the MOU specifies
that within five business days of the closing of the merger of
Tribune and Sinclair, the Parties will file stipulations of
dismissal for the Actions pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 41(a). This stipulation will dismiss Plaintiffs'
individual claims with prejudice, and dismiss the claims asserted
on behalf of a purported class of Tribune shareholders without
prejudice.

The MOU will not affect the timing of the special meeting of
Tribune shareholders, the timing of the Merger or the amount or
form of consideration to be paid in the Merger.

The Defendants believe that the Actions are without merit and
that no supplemental disclosure is required to the Proxy
Statement/Prospectus under any applicable rule, statute,
regulation or law. However, to, among other things, eliminate the
burden, inconvenience, expense, risk and disruption of continuing
litigation, Tribune has determined that it will make a
supplemental disclosures. The Tribune board of directors
continues to recommend unanimously that you vote "FOR" the
proposals being considered at the special meeting of Tribune
shareholders.

Tribune Media Company, a Delaware corporation, is a diversified
media and entertainment company.  The Company was founded in 1847
and is headquartered in Chicago Illinois.

A copy of the supplemental disclosure is available at
https://goo.gl/LaCDtZ.


TWILIO INC: Still Faces "Flowers" Privacy Suit
----------------------------------------------
The case, Angela Flowers v. Twilio Inc., Case No. RG16804363
(Cal. Super., Alameda County, Feb. 18, 2016), remains pending.

Twilio Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2017, that on February 18, 2016, a putative class
action complaint was filed in the Alameda County Superior Court
in California, entitled Angela Flowers v. Twilio Inc., Case No.
RG16804363 (Cal. Super., Alameda County).  The complaint alleges
that the Company's products permit the interception, recording
and disclosure of communications at a customer's request and are
in violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act. The
complaint seeks injunctive relief as well as monetary damages.

On May 27, 2016, the Company filed a demurrer to the complaint.
On August 2, 2016, the court issued an order denying the demurrer
in part and granted it in part, with leave to amend by August 18,
2016 to address any claims under California's Unfair Competition
Law. The plaintiff opted not to amend the complaint. Discovery
has already begun.  A hearing on the class certification motion
was slated for December 2017.

Plaintiff Angela Flowers, Individually, and on Behalf of Others
Similarly Situated, is represented by:

     Laura L. Ho, Esq.
     GOLDSTEIN, BORGEN, DARDARLAN & HO
     300 Lakeside Drive, Suite 1000
     Oakland, CA 94612
     Fax: (510) 835-1417
     Phone: (510) 763-9800
     E-mail: lho@gbdhlegal.com

Twilio Inc. is a leader in the Cloud Communications Platform
category. The company enables developers to build, scale and
operate real-time communications within their software
applications via our simple-to-use Application Programming
Interfaces, or APIs. The company is based in San Francisco,
California.


TYSON FOODS: Faces 2nd Class Action Over Chicken-Price Fixing
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ally Marotti, writing for Chicago Tribune, reports that a second
lawsuit has been filed against some of the nation's largest
poultry producers, alleging they have conspired to fix the price
of broiler chickens for nearly a decade.

The complaint filed by Winn-Dixie Stores and its sister grocery,
Bi-Lo Holdings, against Tyson Foods, Perdue Farms and Park Ridge-
based Koch Foods comes two months after a federal judge refused
to dismiss a similar lawsuit against the three companies.

In the suit filed on Jan. 12 in U.S. District Court in Chicago,
Jacksonville, Fla.-based Winn-Dixie Stores and Bi-Lo Holdings
allege the companies conspired to fix the price of chickens for
nearly a decade, in part by "destroying" their own breeder hens
and eggs to hamper production, according to a lawsuit.  Since
2008, the coordinated production cuts have resulted in a roughly
50 percent increase in the price of broiler chickens -- the most
popular kind of chicken meat in the country, according to the
lawsuit.

The chicken manufacturers named in the suit together control
about 90 percent of the $30 billion broiler market, according to
the lawsuit.

Tyson spokesman Worth Sparkman called the Jan. 12 case an "add-on
lawsuit" and said it doesn't "change the fact that these claims
are unfounded because we've not done anything wrong," he said.
"We will defend our company in court."

Representatives from Koch Foods could not be reached for comment
on Jan. 15. A lawyer representing Winn-Dixie and a spokesman for
Perdue Farms declined to comment.

The grocery stores allege they paid artificially inflated prices
for chicken and have suffered as a result.  It's an "injury of
the type that the antitrust laws were meant to punish and
prevent," according to the suit.

Maplevale Farms, a food service distributor based in New York,
led a class-action lawsuit filed in federal court in Chicago in
2016 that made similar allegations.  A judge declined to dismiss
the suit in November. [GN]


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Sienkaniec Appeals Ruling to Eighth Circuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Joseph Sienkaniec filed an appeal from a court order
and judgment filed December 18, 2017, in the lawsuit styled
Joseph Sienkaniec v. Uber Technologies, Inc., et al., Case No.
0:17-cv-04489-PJS, in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Minnesota - Minneapolis.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
seeks to recover all unpaid wages/compensation, liquidated
damages, statutory damages, attorney's fees and costs owed under
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Uber Technologies, Inc., is a Delaware corporation headquartered
in San Francisco, California.  Uber allegedly misclassifies its
drivers as contractors, not employees, thus, denying them basic
employee benefits like minimum wages, overtime pay, workers'
compensation and benefits to include unemployment insurance,
income tax withholding, and the ability to participate in Uber's
retirement plan(s), meal and rest breaks.

The Plaintiff is an Uber Driver, who provide on-demand
transportation services for Uber.

The appellate case is captioned as Joseph Sienkaniec v. Uber
Technologies, Inc., et al., Case No. 18-1136, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.

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

   -- Appendix is due on February 27, 2018;

   -- Brief of Appellant Joseph Sienkaniec is due on February 27,
      2018;

   -- Appellee brief is due 30 days from the date the court
      issues the Notice of Docket Activity filing the brief of
      appellant; and

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

Plaintiff-Appellant Joseph Sienkaniec, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Christopher J. Moreland, Esq.
          Melissa S. Weiner, Esq.
          HALUNEN LAW
          1650 IDS Center
          80 S. Eighth Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 605-4098
          Facsimile: (612) 605-4099
          E-mail: weiner@halunenlaw.com
                  moreland@halunenlaw.com

Defendants-Appellees Uber Technologies, Inc., and Rasier, LLC,
are represented by:

          John H. Lassetter, Esq.
          Andrew James Voss, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON P.C.
          1300 IDS Center
          80 S. Eighth Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402-2136
          Telephone: (612) 630-1000
          E-mail: jlassetter@littler.com
                  avoss@littler.com


UNITED STATES: Indonesian Christians' Class Action Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------
Judi Currie, writing for Fosters.com, reports that attorneys
representing local Indonesian Christians were set to return to
federal court in Boston on Jan. 17 for a hearing on their request
to prevent deportation before they have been given an opportunity
to reopen their asylum cases.

In September, attorneys at Nixon Peabody LLP, with offices in
Boston and Manchester, filed a motion for a temporary restraining
order, a class-action complaint, and a preliminary injunction.

The 51 people in the suit are members of the local Indonesian
immigrant community who fled religious persecution, but were
denied asylum in the United States.

They have been under orders of supervision and have been allowed
to stay in the United States, some for 20 years.  Many now have
children born in the United States.

Attorney Dan Deane, of Nixon Peabody, said in September that they
are not seeking to litigate their individual immigration cases,
but to prevent ICE from deporting these individuals before they
have had a chance to raise some new arguments.

He said they have a decent argument that conditions in Indonesia
have worsened for Christians and they have a higher fear of being
persecuted if they return to Indonesia than when their cases were
originally decided.

Chief Judge Patti Saris at the U.S. District Court granted the
temporary restraining order in September just hours before a
couple from Somersworth was expected to leave the United States.

According to court documents, the Jan. 17 hearing is for the
preliminary injunction and could also address the class action
request.

On Jan. 16 local Indonesian families are expected to check in at
the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) office in
Manchester.

American Friends Service Committee was planning to gather at both
events for prayer vigils on Jan. 16 and Jan. 17, to show support
for the Indonesian community. [GN]


UNITED STATES: Class Certification Bids Filed in "Mosquera" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Andrews, Michael A. Blankenship, Timothy Geemsly, Rome Lee
Harmon, Luis J. Rivera and Michael Daniels separately ask the
Court to grant their motions for class certification of the civil
action styled OMAR ANCHICO MOSQUERA, ET AL. v. UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA, ET AL., Case No. 1:17-cv-02160-UNA (D.D.C.),

The Plaintiffs, who are incarcerated federal inmates at the FCC
Coleman-Medium, in Coleman Florida, allege that they are all
illegally and unlawfully incarcerated, where they have been
convicted and sentenced pursuant to federal drug statutes.  The
Plaintiffs seek declaratory judgment and injunctive relief
against the Defendants, who have allegedly violated their
Constitutional, statutory and legal rights by illegally,
unlawfully and unconstitutionally applying the federal drug
statutes when convicting and sentencing them.

Although only several plaintiffs are listed and signed the civil
complaint, the present civil complaint will have thousands of
other plaintiffs, who are also federal inmates that are
illegally, unlawfully and unconstitutionally incarcerated, the
Plaintiffs tell the Court.  The Plaintiffs contend that the other
thousands of plaintiffs have had their Constitutional, statutory
and legal rights violated by the Defendants.

Copies of the Motions are available at no charge at:

   * http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=FxhcrKrm
   * http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=AAYEjaPs
   * http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=iS2cNvaR
   * http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=C6ZK7Uli
   * http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=N4TJywfx
   * http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=RZA4QTFT
   * http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=xFCbvbbc

UNO RESTAURANT: Alvarez Seeks to Certify Bussers & Servers Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled JOSE SANTOS ALVAREZ, on
behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. UNO RESTAURANT
ASSOCIATES, INC. d/b/a Prime Italian, a Florida for-profit
corporation, and MYLES CHEFETZ, an individual, Case No. 1:17-cv-
24452-RNS (S.D. Fla.), seeks class-action certification of this
class:

     All bussers and servers ("tipped employees") who worked for
     Defendants during the five (5) years preceding this lawsuit
     and who, as a result of Defendants' policy of requiring them
     to share their tips with non-tipped employees, earned less
     than the applicable minimum wage for one or more weeks
     during the Relevant Time Period.

Mr. Alvarez moves the Court for an order certifying a Rule 23
Class Action pursuant to the Florida Minimum Wage Amendment,
Article X, Section 24 of the Florida Constitution and Rule 23 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, authorizing notice to all
class members.

The Plaintiff initiated this action on December 8, 2017, with the
filing of his Class and Collective Action Complaint.  The
Complaint seeks, among other claims, minimum-wage damages under a
five-year statute of limitations for Plaintiff and others
similarly situated for violations of the Florida Constitution.
Specifically, the Plaintiff alleges he and Rule 23 Class Members
were forced to participate in a mandatory and illegal tip-sharing
scheme in which tipped employees shared their tips with non-
tipped employees and were paid below the minimum wage for tipped
employees.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=cli3IuJ8

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert W. Brock II, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF LOWELL J. KUVIN
          17 East Flagler Street, Suite 223
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 358-6800
          Facsimile: (305) 358-6808
          E-mail: robert@kuvinlaw.com


URANIUM ENERGY: "Stephens" Suit Voluntarily Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------
Uranium Energy Corp. said in its Form 10-Q report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended October 31, 2017, that the judgment in favor of the Company
is final, in a case filed by Heather M. Stephens, in the United
States District Court, Southern District of Texas.

On or about June 29, 2015, Heather M. Stephens filed a class
action complaint against the Company and two of its executive
officers in the United States District Court, Southern District
of Texas, with an amended class action complaint filed on
November 16, 2015 (the "Securities Case"), seeking unspecified
damages and alleging the defendants violated Section 17(b) of the
Securities Act and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss and on July 15, 2016, the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas entered a
final judgment dismissing the case in its entirety with
prejudice.

On September 22, 2016, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their
appeal of the district court's judgment and on September 26, 2016
the Fifth Circuit dismissed the Securities Case pursuant to the
plaintiffs' motion. As a result, the judgment in favor of the
Company is final. No settlement payments or any other
consideration was paid by the Company to the plaintiffs in
connection with the Securities Case dismissal.

Uranium Energy has been engaged in uranium mining and related
activities, including exploration, pre-extraction, extraction and
processing on uranium projects located in the United States and
Paraguay. The company is based on British Columbia, Canada.


UTAH: Health Department Faces Class Action Over ADA Violation
-------------------------------------------------------------
John Franchi, writing for Fox13, reports that the Disability Law
Center has filed a class action lawsuit against the Utah
Department of Health, The Utah Division of Service for People
with Disabilities, the Utah Department of Human Services and
others.  The lawsuit alleges the state is violating the Americans
with Disabilities Act.

Staci Christiansen is listed as a plaintiff in the lawsuit.  She
says she has been living in institutionalized care for nine
years.

"Why am I so different? Why should I be treated any differently
instead of being treated as an equal and respected,"
Ms. Christiansen said of living in an institution.

The plaintiffs claim the state's actions unfairly segregate
people living with intellectual disabilities.

"What I've learned with this case is that the idiom, out of sight
out of mind remains powerful and true and can have terrible
consequences," said Juliette White of the Disability Law Center.

The lawsuit alleges the state has an obligation to devise a plan
to get people with intellectual disabilities out of intermediate
care facilities and living in the community.  The lawsuit claims
Utah is doing the opposite.

"Nationwide, states tend to be moving away from this model for
multiple reasons," said Aaron Kinikini of the Disability Law
Center.  "Utah is an outlier in that way.  Not only is the ICF
system healthy and robust and profitable.  They are building more
of them."

The plaintiffs are asking the court to demand that the state
transition people living institutions into home and community-
based services.  They also want the state to reverse what they
believe is the alarming trend of relying on institutionalized
care for people with developmental disabilities.

In a statement sent to Fox 13, the Utah Department of Health
said, "we are engaged in an ongoing process to use funding
appropriated by the State Legislature to transition individuals
to community settings."

For Staci Christiansen, that change can't come soon enough.
She's waited nearly a decade to break away from living in an
institution.

"It's something that I want to live for every day -- to be able
to complete my full potential," Ms. Christiansen said. [GN]


UTI WORLDWIDE: Rule 23 Class Certification Filed in "Angley" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Stratesis, LLC, Lead Plaintiff in the lawsuit entitled MICHAEL J.
ANGLEY, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. UTI WORLDWIDE, INC., et al., Case No. 2:14-cv-02066-
CBM-E (C.D. Cal.), moves the Court for an order certifying the
action as a class action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure.

Stratesis also asks to be appointed as Class Representative.
Stratesis further asks the Court to designate Lead Counsel
Federman & Sherwood as Class Counsel for the certified class.

The Court will commence a hearing on February 27, 2018, at 10:00
a.m., to consider the Motion.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=my3CTyof

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James Robert Noblin, Esq.
          GREEN & NOBLIN, P.C.
          4500 East Pacific Coast Highway, Fourth Floor
          Long Beach, CA 90804
          Telephone: (562) 391-2487
          E-mail: jrn@classcounsel.com

               - and -

          William B. Federman, Esq.
          A. Brooke Murphy, Esq.
          FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
          10205 N. Pennsylvania Ave.
          Oklahoma City, OK 73120
          Telephone: (405) 235-1560
          Facsimile: (405) 239-2112
          E-mail: wbf@federmanlaw.com
                  abm@federmanlaw.com


VICTIM SERVICES: 9th Cir. Lacks Jurisdiction in "Breazeale"
-----------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, issued an
Opinion affirming the trial court's denial of Defendant's Motion
to Strike in the appeals cases captioned KEVIN BREAZEALE; KAREN
SOLBERG; KEVIN HIEP VU; NANCY MORIN; NARISHA BONAKDAR, on their
own behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. VICTIM SERVICES, INC., DBA
CorrectiveSolutions; NATIONAL CORRECTIVE GROUP, INC., DBA
CorrectiveSolutions; MATS JONSSON, Defendants-Appellants, Nos.
15-16549, 16-16495 (9th Cir.).

Before the Ninth Circuit are two consolidated appeals from
separate orders of the district court. VSI first pursues an
interlocutory appeal of the district court's denial of its motion
to strike under California's Anti-SLAPP statute.  VSI also
appeals the district court's denial of its motion to compel
arbitration.

Plaintiffs are individuals who are subject to potential
prosecution for violations of California's bad check statute,
which criminalizes the writing of bad checks with intent to
defraud.  The Defendants, Victim Services and related companies
(VSI), pursuant to an agreement with the District Attorney's
office, sent notices to the Plaintiffs that to avoid criminal
prosecution they could participate in California's Bad Check
Diversion Program, including payment of specified fees.
Plaintiffs filed this putative class action claiming VSI's
practices violated state law and the federal Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act (FDCPA).

Plaintiffs also allege violations of the California Unfair
Competition Law (UCL), California Business & Professions Code
Section, which broadly prohibits unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent
business practices, as well as false or misleading advertising.
Plaintiffs claim that VSI's conduct exceeds the authority granted
under the diversion program's governing statutes, and therefore
is unlawful within the meaning of the UCL. Plaintiffs also allege
that VSI's conduct constitutes the unauthorized and deceptive
practice of law. Also included were common law claims of
fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation.

VSI's Motion to Strike State Law Claims Under California's Anti-
SLAPP Statute

In VSI's motion to strike, it argued plaintiffs were seeking to
discourage VSI's communications made in connection with
proceedings authorized by law, and that plaintiffs did not have a
reasonable possibility of prevailing because, inter alia, VSI was
entitled to prosecutorial immunity.  VSI also argued the public
interest exception to the Anti-SLAPP statute did not apply. The
district court rejected these contentions and denied VSI's Anti-
SLAPP motion on the ground that the case was within the public-
interest exception.

VSI's Motion to Compel Arbitration

In its consolidated appeals, VSI argues the district court erred
in applying the Anti-SLAPP statute's public interest exception.
VSI also argues the district court erred in denying its motion to
compel arbitration.

The Ninth Circuit agrees with plaintiffs that it lacks
jurisdiction to review the denial of the Anti-SLAPP motion and
that the district court correctly denied the motion to compel
arbitration.

After the circuit court's decision in Batzel v. Smith, 333 F.3d
1018 (9th Cir. 2003), however, the California legislature amended
the Anti-SLAPP law to add the public interest exception to the
right of immediate appeal of orders denying Anti-SLAPP motions.
The amendment effectively stripped the right of immediate
appealability from all cases in which the trial court determines
the public interest exception applies.

The law has thus changed since Batzel.  That case is no longer
controlling.  The California legislature has now made the
substantive determination that in public interest cases, the
Anti-SLAPP statute does not provide immunity from suit, and
denials of Anti-SLAPP motions to strike are no longer immediately
appealable.  In this case, as in Batzel, the Ninth Circuit said
it must follow the intent of the California legislature under the
applicable state law.

Accordingly, the Ninth Circuit held that it lacks jurisdiction to
review the district court's order denying the motion to strike.
The appeal from that order must be dismissed for lack of
jurisdiction.

Denial of the Motion to Compel Arbitration

VSI relied on the arbitration provision in the diversion
agreement, invoking the FAA.

The district court concluded the FAA does not apply to an
arbitration provision in the type of agreement at issue in this
case. The court reasoned the agreement was not a contract
evidencing a transaction involving commerce under 9 U.S.C.
Section 2.  The district court explained its reading was
supported by the language of the FAA and further bolstered by the
lack of any indication that Congress intended the FAA to cover
agreements between prosecutors and criminal suspects resolving
potential violations of state law. The district court observed
that even if Congress intended the FAA to capture the type of
agreement at issue in this case, this would likely exceed the
scope of Congress's commerce power.

The Ninth Circuit agrees with the district court that Congress
never intended the FAA to apply to agreements between citizens
and prosecutors resolving an individual's potential criminal
liability. As the Supreme Court's seminal decision in Concepcion
noted, the FAA applies to privately negotiated commercial
agreements. An agreement with an entity acting on behalf of a
prosecutor is not a private agreement. The FAA would therefore
provide no basis to compel arbitration here or in any contract
where the underlying agreement is a plea agreement, quasi-plea
agreement, or deferred prosecution agreement between an
individual and a party acting on behalf of the state.

Accordingly, VSI's appeal from the district court's denial of its
motion to strike is dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction.
The district court's order denying VSI's motion to compel
arbitration against Narisha Bonakdar is affirmed.

A full-text copy of the Ninth Circuit's December 27, 2017 Opinion
is available at https://tinyurl.com/ybw69jqx from Leagle.com.

Sean M. Hardy -- smhardy@ftllp.com -- (argued) and Michael A.
Taitelman -- mtaitelman@ftllp.com -- Freedman & Taitelman LLP,
Los Angeles, California, for Defendants-Appellants.
Deepak Gupta -- deepak@guptawessler.com -- (argued) and Matthew
W.H. Wessler -- matt@guptawessler.com -- Gupta Wessler PLLC,
Washington, D.C.; Paul Arons -- lopa@rockisland.com -- Law
Offices of Paul Arons, Friday Harbor, Washington; Beth E. Terrell
and Blythe Chandler -- bterrell@terrellmarchall.com -- Terrell
Marshall Law Group PLLC, Seattle, Washington; for Plaintiffs-
Appellees.

R. Orion Danjuma odanjuma@aclu.org, Rachel Goodman, Nusrat J.
Choudhury, and Dennis D. Parker, New York, New York, as and for
Amicus Curiae American Civil Liberties Union Foundation Inc, 125
Broad Street, 17th Floor | New York, NY 10004.

Jennifer D. Bennett -- jbennett@publicjustice.net -- and Brian
Hardingham -- bhardingham@publicjustice.net -- Public Justice
P.C., Oakland, California; David Seligman, 1535 High Street,
Suite 300, Denver, CO 80223, Towards Justice, Denver, Colorado;
for Amici Curiae Public Justice, The National Consumer Law
Center, Towards Justice, and Professors of Arbitration, Consumer,
and Contract Law.


WAL-MART STORES: Cook May Amend Bid to Certify Class by Feb. 19
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Brian J. Davis entered an order in the lawsuit styled
THOMAS COOK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated and EMANUEL BERMUDEZ, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. WAL-MART STORES, INC and PALMER,
REIFLER & ASSOCIATES, Case No. 3:16-cv-00673-BJD-JRK (M.D. Fla.):

   1. granting, in accordance with the amended briefing schedule
      set forth in this Order, the Defendants' Motion for Leave
      to Amend and Supplement Opposition to Class Certification
      with Expert Rebuttal Report;

   2. denying without prejudice the Plaintiff's Motion for Class
      Certification;

   3. granting the Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Defendants'
      Supplemental Authority; and

   4. striking the Defendants' Notice of Filing Supplement to
      Defendants' Response in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to
      Certify Class.

The Court also set this amended briefing scheduling to govern the
case:

   a. The discovery deadline is extended to January 31, 2018, and
      Plaintiff shall have up to and including January 31, 2018,
      to depose Defendants' expert witness;

   b. Plaintiff shall have up to and including February 19, 2018,
      to file an amended motion for class certification;

   c. Defendants shall have up to and including March 8, 2018, to
      file a response in opposition to Plaintiff's amended motion
      for class certification; and

   d. All other deadlines in the Fourth Amended Case Management
      and Scheduling Order (Doc. 87) shall remain in effect.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=CI9rbIjU


WALT DISNEY: Denied Breaks, Paystubs, "Padilla" Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------
David Anthony Padilla, an individual, and on behalf of others
similarly situated Plaintiff, v. Walt Disney Parks and Resorts
Inc., Disney Entertainment Productions, The Walt Disney Company,
Disney Worldwide Services, Inc., Walt Disney Parks and Resorts
Worldwide and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. BC689172,
(Cal. Super., January 3, 2018), seeks redress for failure to
provide required meal/rest periods, overtime and minimum wages,
failure to pay all wages due to discharged and quitting
employees, failure to maintain and furnish accurate itemized wage
statements and failure to indemnify employees for necessary
expenditures incurred in discharge of duties under California's
Unfair Competition Law and California Labor Code.

Walt Disney operates theme parks worldwide where Padilla worked
at its Los Angeles facilities. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Matthew J. Matern, Esq.
      Tagore Subramaniam, Esq.
      Daniel J. Bass, Esq.
      MATERN LAW GROUP, PC
      1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 200
      Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
      Tel: (310) 531-1900
      Facsimile: (310)531-1901
      Email: mmatem@matemlawgroup.com
             tagore@matemlawgroup.com
             dbass@maternlawgroup.com


WINDHAM PROFESSIONALS: Faces "Rosenblum" Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Windham
Professionals, Inc. The case is styled as Blima Rosenblum, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, and on
behalf of the general public, Plaintiff v. Windham Professionals,
Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-00357 (E.D. N.Y., January 18,
2018).

Windham Professionals, Inc. provides accounts receivable
management and customer care services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Daniel C Cohen, Esq.
   Daniel Cohen, PLLC
   407 Rockaway Avenue
   Brooklyn, NY 11212
   Tel: (646) 645-8482
   Fax: (347) 665-1545
   Email: dancohenlaw@gmail.com


WIZARDS OF THE COAST: Court Refuses to Certify Class in "Shaw"
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Edward J. Davila denied the Plaintiffs' motion for
conditional certification in the lawsuit captioned ADAM SHAW, et
al. v. WIZARDS OF THE COAST, LLC, Case No. 5:16-cv-01924-EJD
(N.D. Cal.).

The Plaintiffs have moved for an order conditionally certifying
the case as a collective action on behalf of all individuals who
participated as "Magic: the Gathering" judges at events
sanctioned by Defendant from April 12, 2013, through the
resolution of this case.

A case management conference was scheduled for January 25, 2018,
at 10:00 a.m.  The parties were directed to file an updated joint
case management conference statement no later than January 15,
2018.

The case is an unconventional wage and hour suit brought by
Plaintiffs Adam Shaw, Justin Turner, Peter Golightly and Joshua
Stansfield, 126 opt-in plaintiffs and the putative class
("Plaintiffs") against Defendant Wizards of the Coast, LLC, to
recover alleged unpaid minimum wages and overtime compensation to
which they contend they are entitled because they performed
"work" for the benefit of the Defendant, according to the Order.
The Plaintiffs contend that the Defendant has a policy of
treating the Plaintiffs and other similarly situated putative
class members as volunteers instead of employees and refusing to
pay them for their "work."

The Defendant sells products relating to a fantasy collectible
card game called "Magic: the Gathering."  The Defendant
organizes, promotes, sponsors and administers an extensive and
highly regulated system of "Events" for its customers.  The
Events are "created, controlled and regulated by Defendant"
through its network of certified "Judges."  Events are used as a
marketing tool to keep customers active in playing Magic and to
give the Defendant a means to sell magic products.  The
Plaintiffs are certified Judges.

Judge Davila opined that in the absence of evidence of a single
decision, policy or plan governing the engagement and
compensation of Judges at sanctioned Events, adjudication of the
Plaintiffs' claims would require an individualized Plaintiff-by-
Plaintiff analysis of the specific circumstances under which each
Plaintiff "worked" as a Judge at every one of the over one
million sanctioned events that were conducted by stores,
tournament organizers and/or the Defendant throughout the United
States.  Under these circumstances, Judge Davila stated, it would
not serve judicial economy to adjudicate the potential claims of
a nation-wide putative class consisting of approximately 3,850
Judges in a single action.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=ZwXKh1Mn


WOKCANO STA MONICA: Denied OT Pay and Tips, "Loftin" Suit Asserts
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kyle Loftin, in a Representative capacity, and on behalf of other
members of the general public similarly situated, v. Wokcano
Santa Monica, Inc., Defendants, Case No. BC689155 (Cal. Super.,
January 4, 2018), seeks redress for Defendant's failure to
provide required meal/rest periods, overtime and minimum wages,
failure to pay all wages due to discharged and quitting
employees, failure to maintain and furnish accurate itemized wage
statements and failure to indemnify employees for necessary
expenditures incurred in discharge of duties and improper
retention of gratuities tip-pooling under California's Unfair
Competition Law, California Labor Code and applicable Industrial
Welfare Commission Wage Orders.

Wokcano Santa Monica is a Chinese Restaurant in Santa Monica CA.
[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      William B. Sullivan, Esq.
      Eric K. Yaeckel, Esq.
      Clint S. Engleson, Esq.
      SULLIVAN LAW GROUP, APC
      2330 Third Avenue
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Tel: (619) 702-6760
      Fax: (619) 702-6761
      Email: helen@sullivanlawgroupapc.com
             yaeckel@sullivanlawgroupapc.com
             cengleson@sullivanlawgroupapc.com


YUME INC: "Franchi" Action to Halt Merger, Seeks Financials
-----------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Franchi, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. YuMe, Inc., Mitchell Habib,
Adriel Lares, Elias Nader, Christopher Paisley, Eric Singer, John
Mutch, Brian Kelley, Steve Domenik, Rhythmone, PLC, Redwood
Merger Sub I, Inc., and Redwood Merger Sub II, Inc., Defendants,
Case No. 18-cv-00075, (D. Del., January 9, 2018), seeks to enjoin
defendants and all persons acting in concert from proceeding
with, consummating or closing the acquisition of YuMe, Inc. by
RhythmOne, PLC and its wholly-owned subsidiary, Redwood Merger
Sub I, Inc., and rescinding it in the event defendants consummate
the merger.  The Plaintiff further seeks rescissory damages,
costs of this action, including reasonable allowance for
plaintiff's attorneys' and experts' fees and such other and
further relief under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

RhythmOne will acquire all of YuMe's outstanding common stock for
$1.70 in cash and 0.7325 ordinary shares of RhythmOne for each
share of YuMe common stock. YuMe will survive as a wholly-owned
subsidiary of RhythmOne.

The complaint says the merger documents omitted material
information regarding YuMe's financial projections as well as
projected free cash flows as well as the valuation analyses
performed by Deutsche Bank Securities Inc. Said disclosure of
projected financial information is material because it provides
stockholders with a basis to project the future financial
performance of a company, and allows stockholders to better
understand the financial analyses in support of its fairness
opinion, says the Plaintiff.

YuMe is an independent provider of multi-screen programmatic
video advertising technology, connecting brand advertisers,
digital media property owners, and consumers of video content
across a growing range of Internet-connected devices. YuMe offers
advertising customers full service marketing solutions by
combining programmatic buying tools and data-driven technologies
with deep insight into audience behavior. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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

             - and -

      Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
      RM LAW, P.C.
      1055 Westlakes Dr., Ste. 3112
      Berwyn, PA 19312
      Tel: (484) 324-6800


ZAAPPAAZ INC: "Lang" Files Suit Over Product Price-fixing
---------------------------------------------------------
Summer Lang, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff; v. Zaappaaz, Inc. (d/b/a WB Promotions,
Inc., Wrist-Band.com and Customlanyard.net), Custom Wristbands
Inc. (d/b/a Kulayful Silicon Bracelets, Kulayful.com,
Speedywristbands.com, Promotionalbands.com,
Wristbandcreation.com, and 1inchbracelets.com), Netbrands Media
Corp. (d/b/a 24hourwristbands.com and imprint.com f/k/a
Lightbeam, Inc., Casad Company d/b/a Totally Promotional),
Brandeco, LLC (d/b/a brandnex.com), Azim Makanojiya, Mashnoon
Ahmed, Christopher Angeles and Akil Kurji, Defendants, Case No.
18-cv-00044, (S.D. Tex., January 8, 2018), seeks damages,
measured as the overcharges that Plaintiff paid as a result of
Defendants' anticompetitive conduct; trebled,  prejudgment and
post-judgment interest on any amounts awarded; injunctive relief
to prevent further anticompetitive conduct; costs of suit,
including reasonable attorneys' fees; and such other or further
relief under the Sherman Antitrust Act.

Lang purchased customized promotional products directly from
Zaappaaz's website Wrist-Band.com. Defendants, sellers of
customized promotional products throughout the United States,
allegedly conspired to fix and maintain prices for certain
customized promotional products, specifically customized silicone
wristbands, customized lanyards, and customized pin buttons. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Bruce W. Steckler, Esq.
      STECKLER GRESHAM COCHRAN
      12720 Hillcrest Road - Suite 1045
      Dallas, TX 75230
      Telephone: (972) 387-4040
      Facsimile: (972) 387-4041
      Email: bruce@stecklerlaw.com

             - and -

      Austin B. Cohen, Esq.
      Keith J. Verrier, Esq.
      Charles E. Schaffer, Esq.
      LEVIN, SEDRAN & BERMAN
      510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
      Philadelphia, PA 19106
      Telephone: (215) 592-1500
      Facsimile: (215) 592-4663
      Email: cschaffer@lfsblaw.com
             acohen@lfsblaw.com
             kjverrier@lfsblaw.com

             - and -

      Joseph J. Siprut, Esq.
      Stewart M. Weltman, Esq.
      Todd McLawhorn, Esq.
      SIPRUT PC
      17 N. State Street, Suite 1600
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Tel: (312) 236-0000
      Fax: (312) 948-9212
      Email: jsiprut@siprut.com
             sweltman@siprut.com
             tmclawhorn@siprut.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  * * *