CAR_Public/180205.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


             Monday, February 5, 2018, Vol. 20, No. 26



                            Headlines


ABM INDUSTRIES: Court Certified Three Classes in "Castro" Suit
ADIES AT HOME: "Sanguino" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA
AEROHIVE NETWORKS: March 20 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
AIRSERVICES AUSTRALIA: Senior Public Servants File Class Action
ALLIED INTERNATIONAL: Placeholder Class Certification Bid Filed

ALMOST FAMILY: Rigrodsky & Long Files Class Action in Kentucky
AMERICAN CAMPUS: "Guadalupe" Suit Seeks to Certify Opt-in Class
ANTHEM INC: Must Face Class Action Over Prosthetic Coverage
APPLE INC: Sued Over Spectre, Meltdown Vulnerabilities
APPLE INC: Vietnamese Consumers Join iPhone Class Action

BANGKOK METROPOLITAN: Administrative Court to Hear BTS Suit
BLATT & HASENMILLER: Court Granted Class Certification in "Spice"
BRECK'S RIDGE: Court Certifies Employee Class in "Parker" Suit
BRISTOL BAY: Court Narrows Claims in "Abikar" Suit
CABOT INVESTMENT: Cabot East Seeks to Certify Class & Subclasses

CALGARY STAMPEDE: Sued Over Failure to Investigate Abuse
CANADA: Retired RCMP Doctor Faces Sexual Assault Allegations
CAPITAL ALLIANCE: Northrup Sues over Robocalls
CAREFIRST INC: Murtha Cullina Attorney Discusses Court Ruling
CAVIUM INC: Faruqi & Faruqi Files Securities Class Action

CONSUMER ADVOCACY: Faces TCPA Class Action in California
CREDIT CONTROL: Rodriguez Balks at Debt Collection Practices
CUMMINS INC: Loses Bid to Dismiss Suit Over Faulty Engines
D & J EXPORT: "Soriano" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA
DALLAS, TX: Faces Class Action Over Unfair Cash Bail System

DELANO FARMS: Court Awards $335K Attys' Fees in "Arredondo" Suit
DENKA PERFORMANCE: Court Refuses to Extend Class Cert Filing Date
DOMAIN GROUP: Attys Keep Watch After CEO's Sudden Exit
DONALD TRUMP: Court Refuses to Stay Suit Over EO-4
DONUT KING: Law Firm Investigates Possible Class Action

ECLINICALWORKS LLC: Faces Class Action Over Unsolicited Fax Ads
ELECTRONIC ARTS: "Davis" Suit Seeks to Certify NFL Players Class
ENERGEN RESOURCES: Summary Judgment on Fuel Gas Claim Upheld
EXCELLUS BLUECROSS: Customers Eligible to Rejoin Data Hack Suit
EXXON MOBIL: 5th Cir. Won't Remand "Lester" to State Court

FAMILY CONSTRUCTION: "Navarrete" Suit Seeks OT Wages under FLSA
FLORIDA: Amended Class Action Allegations Denied in "Hernandez"
HEWLETT-PACKARD: 9th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of "Laffen"
HOSPITAL HOUSEKEEPING: Rowe Seeks to Certify Employees Class
INDIANA BOARD: Court Denies Shaw's Post-Judgment Bid in "Perdue"

IOWA: Gender-Based Pay Differences May Spur Class Action
ISLE OF CAPRI: Seeks Approval of Settlement in Brna et al. Case
JAGUAR LAND: Court Dismisses "Baar" Antitrust Suit
JAL CHEMICAL: Bid for Conditional Certification Denied
JAMES HARDIE: Cladding Class Action Opt-in Period Ends

JEFFREY H. JORDAN: "Barrientos" Suit Seeks to Certify Class
JFK MEDICAL: Mendez Seeks to Certify Class over PIP Benefits
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Plaintiffs Wants Talc Class Action Revived
JUSTFOODFORDOGS LLC: Vasquez Sues over Background Checks
KELLOGG CO: "Allred" Remains in Calif. District Court

KONA GRILL: Court Certifies Sous Chefs Class in "Cedeno" Suit
MARATHON OIL: Bid to Transfer "Kunneman" to W.D. Oklahoma Denied
MARCUS & MILLICHAP: Sued Over Unlicensed Skilled Nursing Services
MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Renewed Class Cert. Bid Submitted, Court Says
MDL 1871: Court Dismisses Negligence Claims Against GSK

MDL 1913: Certification of Two Classes Sought
MDL 2672: Volkswagen Must Produce Docs in Clean Diesel Mktg. Suit
MDL 2804: Opioid Class Action Moves to Discovery Phase
MIAMI, FL: $12MM Tax Class Action Settlement Pending
MIDLAND CREDIT: Faces "Clayton" Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania

MIDLAND CREDIT: Faces "Knight" Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
MONSANTO CO: Magistrate Denies Bid to Stay Herbicide Class Action
NEW BOSTON PIE: Class Notice Plan in "Brayak" Suit Approved
NORTHSTAR ALARM: "Braver" Suit Seeks to Certify Class & Subclass
OCALA, FL: Must Face Class Action Over Fire Fees

OCEAN HARBOR: In-House Algorithm Helps Accomplish Settlement
PALM BEACH, FL: PBT Real Estate Suit Seeks Class Certification
PENNSYLVANIA: DRPA Files Foster Care Class Action Against DHS
PHILIP MORRIS: Fla. App. Reverses Final Judgment in "McCall"
PRATT & WHITNEY: Class Status Sought for Acreage Residents

PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP: Settlement in "Kress" Has Prelim OK
RANDSTAD US: "Vasquez" Labor Suit Moved to State Court
RCN TELECOM: "Lane" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages under FLSA
REGRESO FINANCIAL: "Karcauskas" Class Certification Bid Nixed
ROBERTS TOOL: Denial of Arbitration Bid in "Ortiz" Suit Affirmed

ROCKWELL COLLINS: Six of Seven Class Actions Dismissed
RWI TRANSPORTATION: "Craft" Suit Seeks to Certify Drivers Class
SCOTTRADE INC: 8th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of "Lewis" Class Suit
SEATTLE, WA: Truckers Mull Class Action Over New Regulation
SERVICE OF PROCESS: Swinter Can Add Allegations vs. DS Kaiser

SHUTTERFLY INC: "Taylor" Case Removed to N.D. California
SOS SECURITY: "Musa" Suit Seeks to Certify Settlement Class
SOUTH AFRICA: Coronation Park Residents Mull Class Action
SOUTH KOREA: Banpo Homeowner Plans to Join Class Action
SPOKEO INC: ERISA Class Action Nixed Over Lack of Concrete Harm

STARION ENERGY: "Eisenband" Suit Seeks to Certify Class
STATE FARM: Court Dismisses Suit Over Medicare Advantage Plans
STATE FARM: Suit Over Auto Accident Coverage Can Proceed
SUNRISE BANKS: Inmate Files Class Action Over Frozen JPay Card
TASCH L.L.C.: Court Certifies Class of Independent Contractors

TBS: African-American Employees Mull Discrimination Class Action
TEZOS FOUNDATION: Class Action Over Initial Coin Offering Pending
TJ MAXX: Settles Class Action Over False "Compare At" Prices
TOYOTA MOTOR: Denial of Class Cert in "Reynante" Affirmed
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Judge Rejects $3MM Settlement with NY Drivers

UNIFUND CCR: Class Certification Bid in "Livermore" Stayed
UNITED STATES: DOJ Seeks Dismissal of Dental Equipment Lawsuit
UNITED STATES: de Suze, et al. Sue over Rental Increase Orders
UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA: Provost Quits After Female Deans' Lawsuit
US BANCORP: PAGA Claims in "Barker" Dismissed Without Prejudice

VOCUS GROUP: Won't Rule Out Dividends Despite Class Action Threat
WAL-MART ASSOCIATES: Court Certifies 3 Classes in "Magadia" Suit
WAL-MART STORE: May Depose 8 Absent "Brown" Class Members
WELLS FARGO: Feb. 3 Settlement Claims Filing Deadline Set
XSERVE SOLUTIONS: Faces "Torres" Suit in E.D. New York

* Litigation Funding Reinvigorates Australian Class Action System
* Maurice Blackburn Calls for Insurance of Law Firms' Directors








                            *********



ABM INDUSTRIES: Court Certified Three Classes in "Castro" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled MARLEY CASTRO, ET AL., the Plaintiffs, v.
ABM INDUSTRIES, INC., ET AL., the Defendants, Case No. 4:17-cv-
03026-YGR (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers
entered an order on Jan. 26, 2018, certifying these classes:

   (1) EPAY Class:

   "all employees who were, are, or will be employed by ABM in
   the State of California with the Employee Master Job Code
   Description code Cleaner, who used a personal cell phone to
   punch in and out of the EPAY system and who (a) worked at an
   ABM facility which did not contain biometric clock, and were
   (b) not offered an ABM-provided cell phone during the period
   beginning on January 1, 2012, through the date of notice to
   the Class Members that a class has been certified in this
   action";

   (2) Suspicious Incidents Class:

   "all employees who were, are, or will be employed by ABM
   in the State of California with the Employee Master Job Code
   Description code Cleaner who used a personal cell phone to
   report unusual or suspicious circumstances to supervisors and
   were not offered an (a) ABM-provided cell phones or (b) two-
   way radio during the period beginning four years prior to the
   filing of the original complaint, October 24, 2014, through
   the date of notice to the Class Members that a class has been
   certified in this action; and

   (3) Supervisor Communications Class:

   "all employees who were, are, or will be employed by ABM in
   the State of California with the Employee Master Job Code
   Description code Cleaner who used a personal cell phone to
   respond to communications from supervisors and were not
   offered an (a) ABM-provided cell phones or (b) two-way radio
   during the period beginning four years prior to the filing of
   the original complaint, October 24, 2014, through the date of
   notice to the Class Members that a class has been certified in
   this action."

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=qVGo6CkR


ADIES AT HOME: "Sanguino" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------
ARMIDA SANGUINO, on behalf of herself and all other persons
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. ADIES AT HOME, INC. and
ROSLYN WILKINS, the Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-00131 (E.D.N.Y.,
Jan. 9, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid wages for overtime work
under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and similarly situated
employees worked for Defendants as home health aides for more
than 40 hours per week after January 1, 2015, and were not paid
time and half for hours worked after 40 hours per week. The
Plaintiff and similarly situated health aides often worked for
more than one client during a shift and were not paid for the
time travelling between the clients and were not reimbursed for
their travel costs.

Aides at Home, Inc. provides dependable in-home and hospital
health care services to the residents of Nassau and Suffolk
Counties, as well as the five boroughs of New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Peter A. Romero, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF PETER A. ROMERO, PLLC
          103 Cooper Street
          Babylon, New York
          Telephone: (631) 257 5588
          E-mail: promero@romerolawny.com


AEROHIVE NETWORKS: March 20 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
--------------------------------------------------------------
Gainey McKenna & Egleston on Jan. 22 disclosed that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against Aerohive Networks, Inc.
("Aerohive" or the "Company") (:HIVE) in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf
of a class consisting of investors who purchased or otherwise
acquired Aerohive securities on the open market from November 1,
2017 and January 16, 2018, inclusive (the "Class Period"),
seeking to recover compensable damages caused by Defendants'
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The Complaint alleges that Defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) there
were underlying sales execution issues that were uncovered at the
end of the third quarter of 2017; (2) consequently, the Company's
revenue guidance for the fourth quarter of 2017 was overstated;
and (3) as a result, defendants' public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times. When the
true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that
investors suffered damages.

Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares during the
Class Period should contact the Firm prior to the March 20, 2018
lead plaintiff motion deadline.  A lead plaintiff is a
representative party acting on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation.  If you wish to discuss your rights or
interests regarding this class action, please contact Thomas J.
McKenna, Esq. or Gregory M. Egleston, Esq. of Gainey McKenna &
Egleston at (212) 983-1300, or via e-mail at
tjmckenna@gme-law.com or gegleston@gme-law.com

Please visit our website at http://www.gme-law.comfor more
information about the firm. [GN]


AIRSERVICES AUSTRALIA: Senior Public Servants File Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Steven Trask, writing for Canberra Times, reports that senior
public servants will take Airservices Australia to court in what
is believed to be a first of its kind employment class action
that could sting the federal government more than $30 million.

It is alleged that Airservices, a federal government-owned
organisation, systemically breached the Fair Work Act by failing
to pay required salary increases, superannuation contributions,
Christmas leave and redundancy entitlements to a number of
employees.

The suit stemmed from the use of "personal management contracts"
when Airservices staff were promoted following the introduction
of the 2009 Fair Work Act, lawyers representing the employees
said last year.

Staff allegedly signed away the terms of their existing
enterprise agreements and their rights to better leave
entitlements, redundancy payments and superannuation
contributions when they accepted the management contracts.

The suit is being run by Chamberlains law firm on behalf of
employees and funded by Augusta Ventures, a commercial litigation
funder.

Chamberlains employment litigation director Rory Markham has
previously said the suit could represent "the largest
underpayment of workers by a Commonwealth body corporate in
Australian history".

"[It] will demonstrate that not even the public service is immune
from underpayments and breaches of basic employment conditions,"
Mr Markham said last year.

In addition to reclaiming alleged shortfalls in superannuation
and other entitlements, employees would also seek to have
financial penalties imposed on Airservices Australia, according
to court documents.

"Breaches of employment agreements carry penalties of up to
$52,000 per contravention," Mr Markham said last year.

Airservices Australia is the government entity responsible for
air traffic control, fire fighting and navigation services at a
number of federally-leased airports across the country.

An Airservices spokesman said the organisation would not comment
on the case while it was before the court.

"However, we can assure you that the scope and number of the
claims we are now aware of is a fraction of what was reported
last year," the spokesman said.

"Airservices takes its obligations as an employer seriously, and
will vigorously defend any claims that we find to be without
substance, including pursuing costs where it is in our legal
right to do so."

A spokeswoman for Airservices Australia said last year that the
agency had a "total commitment" to its staff.

"Airservices Australia is, and always has been, a responsible
employer and we ensure that every employee's rights and
entitlements are met and protected," the spokeswoman said.

"We have a total commitment to our duty of care for all
Airservices' employees.

The case will return to court for a directions hearing in
February.  [GN]


ALLIED INTERNATIONAL: Placeholder Class Certification Bid Filed
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled MORGAN OTTMANN, Individually and on Behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. ALLIED
INTERNATIONAL CREDIT CORP., (US), the Defendant, Case No. 2:18-
cv-00136-WED (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter
an order certifying a proposed classes in this case, appointing
the Plaintiff as class representative, and appointing Ademi &
O'Reilly, LLP as Class Counsel, and for such other and further
relief as the Court may deem appropriate.

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

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

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

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=n9fSlz3N

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


ALMOST FAMILY: Rigrodsky & Long Files Class Action in Kentucky
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. on Jan. 22 disclosed that it has filed a
class action complaint in the United States District Court for
the Western District of Kentucky on behalf of holders of Almost
Family, Inc. ("Almost Family") (Nasdaq:AFAM) common stock in
connection with the proposed acquisition of Almost Family by LHC
Group, Inc. and its affiliated ("LHC") announced on November 16,
2017 (the "Complaint").  The Complaint, which alleges violations
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against Almost Family, its
Board of Directors (the "Board"), and LHC, is captioned
Rosenblatt v. Almost Family, Inc., Case No. 3:18-cv-00040 (W.D.
Ky.).

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions
concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please
contact plaintiff's counsel, Seth D. Rigrodsky or Gina M. Serra
at Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., 300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220,
Wilmington, DE 19801, by telephone at (888) 969-4242, by e-mail
at info@rl-legal.com, or at http://rigrodskylong.com/contact-us/.

On November 15, 2017, Almost Family entered into an agreement and
plan of merger (the "Merger Agreement") with LHC.  Pursuant to
the terms of the Merger Agreement, shareholders of Almost Family
will receive 0.9150 shares of LHC common stock for each share of
Almost Family they own (the "Proposed Transaction").

Among other things, the Complaint alleges that, in an attempt to
secure shareholder support for the Proposed Transaction,
defendants issued materially incomplete disclosures in a Form S-4
Registration Statement (the "Registration Statement") filed with
the United States Securities and Exchange Commission.  The
Complaint alleges that the Registration Statement omits material
information with respect to, among other things, Almost Family's
and LHC's financial projections, the analyses performed by Almost
Family's financial advisor, and potential conflicts of interest.
The Complaint seeks injunctive and equitable relief and damages
on behalf of holders of Almost Family common stock.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court
no later than March 23, 2018.  A lead plaintiff is a
representative party acting on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation.  Any member of the proposed class may
move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of
their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent
class member.

With offices in Wilmington, Delaware, Garden City, New York, and
San Francisco, California, Rigrodsky & Long, P.A.,
http://www.rigrodskylong.com-- has recovered hundreds of
millions of dollars on behalf of investors and achieved
substantial corporate governance reforms in numerous cases
nationwide, including federal securities fraud actions,
shareholder class actions, and shareholder derivative actions.
[GN]


AMERICAN CAMPUS: "Guadalupe" Suit Seeks to Certify Opt-in Class
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled TYASIA GUADALUPE, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN CAMPUS
COMMUNITIES SERVICES, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-
00967-SS (W.D. Tex.), the Plaintiff moves the Court for orders:

   (a) certifying this case as a "Collective Action" under the
       Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938;

   (b) approving an opt-in class of:

       "all persons who worked for ACC at any time between
       January 26, 2015 and the present as a "Community
       Assistant", "CA", "Resident Assistant", "RA", or in any
       other job title that performed substantially the same
       tasks as any of the foregoing AND who, while working in
       any of the preceding roles (1) did not receive cash wages
       for all time worked, (2) received lodging in lieu of all
       or a portion of cash wages, OR (3) paid rent, whether
       discounted or otherwise, to lease a unit managed and/or
       owned by ACC, its subsidiaries, affiliates, and/or
       customers"; and

   (c) facilitating notice of the action to members of the
       proposed class.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joshua M. David, Esq.
          Nicholas A. Nunes, Esq.
          DAVID, KAMP & FRANK, L.L.C.
          739 Thimble Shoals Blvd., Suite 105
          Newport News, VA 23606
          Telephone: (757) 595 4500
          Facsimile: (757) 595 6723
          E-mail: jdavid@davidkampfrank.com
                  nanunes@davidkampfrank.com

               - and -

          Charles L. Scalise, Esq.
          THE ROSS LAW GROUP
          1104 San Antonio Street
          Austin, TX 78701
          Telephone: (512) 474 7677
          Facsimile: (512) 474 5306
          E-mail: charles@rosslawgroup.com


ANTHEM INC: Must Face Class Action Over Prosthetic Coverage
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dorothy Atkins, writing for Law360, reports that a California
federal judge refused on Jan. 19 to toss a proposed class action
alleging Anthem Inc. and its subsidiary wrongfully denied
coverage for lower limb prostheses, finding that Anthem "had a
hand" in developing the insurance policy's guidelines, and that's
enough to keep it in the suit.

U.S. District Judge Otis D. Wright II rejected Anthem's arguments
that it is not a proper defendant in the case, since its
subsidiary, Anthem UM Services Inc., is the insurance plan
administrator. [GN]


APPLE INC: Sued Over Spectre, Meltdown Vulnerabilities
------------------------------------------------------
John Law, writing for lowyat.net, reports that Intel and AMD have
found new common ground with Apple -- being sued over the Spectre
and Meltdown vulnerabilities.  A class action lawsuit was filed
against Apple back in 8 January 2018; about a week before, an
Israeli firm also dragged the Cupertino-based company into a
similar class action suit against Intel.

The U.S. lawsuit was filed in the state of San Jose, California,
with the plaintiffs listing down six causes of action against
Apple: Breach of Implied Warranty, Breach of Express Warranty,
Negligence, Unjust Enrichment, Violations of New Hampshire's
Consumer Protection Act, and Violations of New York General
Business Law.

The filed suit reads as listed below:

"The Plaintiffs stated in their filing that "all Apple Processors
are defective because they were designed by Defendant Apple in a
way that allows hackers and malicious programs potential access
to highly secure information stored on iDevices.  The Apple
Processors expose users to at least two types of security risks
(the "Security Vulnerabilities"), based on two hacking
techniques, which have been dubbed 'Meltdown' and 'Spectre' by
the technology community. The first hacking technique is known as
'Meltdown' because it 'melts security boundaries which are
normally enforced by the hardware,' and the other hacking
technique is known as 'Spectre' because its root cause is
speculative execution, and "because it is not easy to fix, it
will haunt us for quite some time."

To be fair, Apple had warned its consumers about its products
being susceptible to the flaws nearly a month ago, and said that
it was already working on a fix.  Not to mention that work on a
patch began as soon as the company was informed that there could
be a problem.

Also, this isn't the only lawsuit that Apple is currently facing.
The company already has its hands full dealing with close to 50
lawsuits addressing its decision to throttle the performance of
older iPhone models in order to "protect the batteries in older
devices." [GN]


APPLE INC: Vietnamese Consumers Join iPhone Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Vietnamnet reports that thousands of Vietnamese consumers have
joined in a class-action lawsuit against Apple Inc., accusing the
US tech company of intentionally slowing their iPhones without
consent.

Lawyers Tran Manh Tung and Nguyen Ngoc Hung filed the case
against Apple Vietnam Co. Ltd. with the Ho Chi Minh City People's
Court on January 12 on behalf of some 3,500 local iPhone owners.

"We are waiting to see if the court will require us to submit any
additional documents in order to officially launch the lawsuit,"
Tran Manh Hung, has confirmed to Tuoi Tre (Youth) newspaper.

Both Tung and Hung work for the Ket Noi law office under the
Hanoi Bar Association.

The 600-page case file accuses Apple of using a software update
to deliberately slow the iPhone 6, iPhone 6 Plus, iPhone 6s,
iPhone 7, iPhone 7 Plus, and iPhone SE without notifying users
beforehand.

The lawyers demand that Apple provide a fix for the issue,
compensate the affected users, and prevent software updates and
upgrades from causing damage to iPhone products distributed in
Vietnam.

Both attorneys say they hope the lawsuit can serve as a mechanism
to raise awareness that the rights and interests of Vietnamese
consumers are under attack.

"This is why we demand that Apple take responsibility for
Vietnamese consumers [of its products] rather than only those who
have joined our class-action lawsuit," Tung explained.

Apple confirmed in mid-December that it purposely slowed down
some older iPhone models through a software update which it
claims was meant to "smooth out the instantaneous peaks only when
needed to prevent the [devices] from unexpectedly shutting down."

The smartphone maker cited lithium-ion batteries, the power
source in iPhones, as the reason for the persistent issues.

"[Lithium-ion batteries] become less capable of supplying peak
current demands when in cold conditions, have a low battery
charge, or as they age over time, which can result in the
[devices] unexpectedly shutting down to protect [their]
electronic components," Apple said, claiming that the software
update was meant to prevent the issue.

As iPhone users in some countries began to file lawsuits against
Apple after the confession, the company issued an official
apology later that month and offered to correct the mistake with
a battery-replacement program.

From January 2018 until the end of the year, anyone who owns an
iPhone 6 or newer model can purchase a phone-battery replacement
for just US$29, instead of the normal price of $79.

Apple made up only 9.2% of the Vietnamese smartphone market in
2017 in terms of sales, but its revenue accounted for
approximately 24.1%, considering that the iPhone is considered a
high-end product.

The company's latest smartphones, the iPhone 8 and iPhone X, now
start at VND21 million (US$925) and a whopping VND30 million
(US$1,320), respectively, in Vietnam.

Despite the price tag, Tung says users in Vietnam receive little
after-sales technical support from Apple.

"Apple is to blame for this and should have offered to replace
battery for affected users free-of-charge, instead of only doing
so at a discounted price," he added. [GN]


BANGKOK METROPOLITAN: Administrative Court to Hear BTS Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Pravit Rojanaphruk, writing for Khaosod English, reports that a
judicial committee settled a year-long challenge on Jan. 22 over
which court should hear a class-action suit filed by wheelchair
users against City Hall for repeated delays in to making the BTS
Skytrain accessible.

The seven-member committee -- which included the presidents of
the Supreme and Supreme Administrative courts -- ruled Jan. 22
that the matter should fall under the jurisdiction of the
Administrative Court because it has to do with "dereliction of
duty" on the part of the Bangkok Metropolitan Administration, or
BMA.

The decision came 10 months after the BMA challenged the lawsuit
filed by disabled commuters and activists, led by advocacy group
Transportation for All, on the second anniversary of a landmark
court ruling that gave the city one year to complete the work.

Listening to the Jan. 22 decision, Sonthipong Mongkonsawat, the
activist group's pro-bono lawyer, said the BMA's challenge was
nothing short of a stalling tactic to defer paying damages as a
result of the repeated delays in equipping all of the original
BTS Skytrain stations with elevators as per a 2015 Supreme
Administrative Court order.

"It has slowed down the suit.  Stalling the lawsuit is a legal
technique," Sonthipong said on Jan. 22 after the decision was
announced.  Sonthipong added that it doesn't matter which court
takes up the lawsuit, as he believes justice will eventually be
delivered.

Sonthipong said he expects it to take about a year for the court
to render a verdict in the class-action lawsuit, one of
Thailand's first such suits.

In May, the Civil Court -- where the suit was first filed --
insisted it had the authority to hear it, but the final
disposition was not settled until Jan. 22.

The suit seeks 1,000 baht in damage compensation for each
plaintiff to join the lawsuit for each day since the court-
ordered deadline for the work to be completed passed Jan. 21,
2016.  It seeks four times that amount, or 4,000 baht, for every
day of delay since they filed the suit on Jan. 21, plus 7.5
percent annual interest. [GN]


BLATT & HASENMILLER: Court Granted Class Certification in "Spice"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled GLORIA SPICE, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. BLATT, HASENMILLER,
LIEBSKER & MOORE LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-00366-TLS
(N.D. Ind.), the Hon. Judge Theresa L. Springmann entered an
order on Jan. 24, 2018, for class certification of:

      "all individuals in the State of Indiana to whom Defendant
      sent, within one year before the date of the original
      complaint1 and in connection with the collection of a debt,
      a letter based upon the Template. The Template is defined
      as the form debt collection letter upon which the April 20,
      2016 and April 21, 2016 letters that the Defendant sent to
      the Plaintiff are based, containing the language: 'As of
      the date of this letter, you owe [dollar amount]'."

The Court appoints Thompson Consumer Law Group PLLC as Class
Counsel.

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


BRECK'S RIDGE: Court Certifies Employee Class in "Parker" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled GARRY PARKER, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiff, v.
BRECK'S RIDGE, LLC, et al., the Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-
00633-EAS-EPD (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Edmund A. Sargus, Jr.
entered an order:

   1. granting Parker's pre-discovery motion for conditional
      class certification and court-supervised notice to
      potential opt-in Plaintiffs;

   2. conditionally certifying a class pursuant to the Fair Labor
      Standards Act:

      "all current and former non-exempt employees of Defendants
      who performed general labor and had an automatic meal
      deduction applied in any workweek that they were scheduled
      and worked over 40 hours for the period beginning three
      years immediately preceding the filing of the Motion for
      Conditional Certification until final disposition of this
      case";

   3. directing Defendants to identify all putative class members
      by providing a list in electronic and importable format of
      the names, addresses, and (if known) email addresses of all
      current and former employees fitting the class description
      above; and

   4. approving Parker's proposed opt-in notice for distribution
      to the putative class members.

A copy of the Opinion and Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=j2w4IQWB


BRISTOL BAY: Court Narrows Claims in "Abikar" Suit
--------------------------------------------------
In the case, ABUCAR NUNOW ABIKAR, et al., Plaintiffs, v. BRISTOL
BAY NATIVE CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-
01036-GPC-AGS (S.D. Cal.), Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel of the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California granted in
part and denied in part the Defendants' motion to dismiss
Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint.

The Plaintiffs are East African refugees who currently are, or
formerly were, employees of Defendants BBNC, Glacier Technical
Solutions, LLC ("GTS"), and Workforce Resources, LLC.  BBNC is an
Alaskan Native Corporation based in Anchorage, Alaska.  It wholly
owns GTS and Workforce.  BBNC operates as a joint employer with
GTS and Workforce by sharing or codetermining policies, human
resource functions, management functions, and more.

The Defendants contract with the Department of Defense to train
Marines in foreign cultures.  In doing so, they employ East
African refugees, on a temporary, part-time, and sporadic basis,
to role play as residents of a foreign nation as a way to
accustom American soldiers to African cultures.  The Plaintiffs
performed most of their work on various U.S. military bases,
particularly but not exclusively on Camp Pendleton in Oceanside,
California, but also worked off military bases, particularly but
not exclusively in and near GTS and Workforce's shared offices
outside of Camp Pendleton.

According to the complaint, the Defendants have a consistent and
pervasive history of treating East African role-players less
favorably than role-players who are not East African, such as
employees of Iraqi, Afghani, or Filipino descent.  This
differential treatment was and is advanced and effected by Site
Manager Habit Tarzi, and adopted and endorsed by other management
employees.  These decisions were made and effected from locations
outside military bases including GTS and Workforce offices in
Oceanside and Anchorage, Alaska.  When employees complained of
the disparate treatment and harassment, the Defendants worsened
their actions and threatened the employees with termination.

Between December 2015 and February 2016, East African role
players filed claims of discrimination, harassment, and
retaliation with the federal Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission.  The East African role players also filed an unfair
labor practice charge with the National Labor Relations Board on
July 12, 2016, alleging violations of protected concerted
activity.

In the putative class action, the Plaintiffs categorize
themselves into three putative classes: (1) East African refugees
from Somalia, Ethiopia, the Democratic Republic of Congo, and
Burundi ("East African Class"); (2) female East African refugees
("Female Class"); and (3) Muslim East African refugees ("Muslim
Class").

With respect to the East African Class, the Plaintiffs allege
that the Defendants engaged in a continuing policy and practice
of discrimination and harassment based on race, color, and
national origin by denying them terms and conditions of
employment that were as favorable as those provided to non-East
African Class members.

With respect to the Female Class, they allege that the Defendants
engaged in a continuing policy and practice of discrimination and
harassment based on gender/sex by denying them terms and
conditions of employment that are as favorable as those provided
to Female Class members.

With respect to the Muslim Class, the Plaintiffs allege that the
Defendants failed to provide them religious accommodation as
required by law, and engaged in a continuing policy and practice
of discrimination and harassment based on religion by denying
them terms and conditions of employment that are as favorable as
those provided to non-Muslim Class members.

The Plaintiffs assert the following claims: (1) race
discrimination and harassment in violation of Title VII of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII"); (2) color discrimination
and harassment in violation of Title VII; (3) national original
discrimination and harassment in violation of Title VII; (4) race
discrimination with respect to the making, performance, and
termination of contracts in violation of 42 U.S.C. Section 1981;
(5) gender/sex discrimination in violation of Title VII; (6)
religious discrimination and harassment (including denying a
religious accommodation) in violation of Title VII; (7) race
discrimination and harassment in violation of the California Fair
Employment and Housing Act ("FEHA"); (8) color discrimination and
harassment in violation of FEHA; (9) national original
discrimination and harassment in violation of FEHA; (10)
gender/sex discrimination in violation of FEHA; (11) religious
discrimination and harassment (including denying a religious
accommodation) in violation of FEHA; (12) failure to prevent
discrimination and harassment in violation of FEHA; and (13)
retaliation in violation of FEHA.

The Defendants now move to dismiss the Plaintiffs' complaint in
the entirety, and in the alternative, strike the Plaintiffs'
allegations involving conduct prior to the statute of
limitations.

Judge Curiel granted in part and denied in part the Defendants'
motion to dismiss.  He dismissed the Plaintiffs' Title VII claims
because, under 43 U.S.C. Section 1626(g), the Defendants are
excluded from the definition of "employer" for purposes of Title
VII.  He also dismissed the Plaintiffs' FEHA claims to the extent
they are premised on work performed within the boundaries of Camp
Pendleton only.  It is clear that federal law does not permit the
Plaintiffs' claims under Title VII or under FEHA (to the extent
the FEHA claims are premised on work performed within the
boundaries of Camp Pendleton), and that allegations of other
facts consistent with the challenged pleadings could not possibly
cure the deficiency.  The Judge therefore dismissed those claims
with prejudice.

He denied the Defendants' motion for a more definite statement.
He finds it unnecessary to require the Plaintiffs to specify in
any more definite manner against whom the Plaintiffs seek
declaratory relief. The FAC states that they seek a declaratory
judgment that the practices complained of in the complaint are
unlawful and violate Title VII and 2[8] U.S.C. Section 1981.
This is a routine request that the Court declares the actions
alleged in the FAC unlawful.  The Defendants may ultimately prove
that certain individual defendants did not engage in the actions
that are alleged in the FAC.  That possibility, however, does not
render the allegations themselves improperly vague.

He denied the Defendants' motion to strike the class allegations.
He says at the motion to dismiss stage, what matters is that the
allegations relevant to the named Plaintiffs, not the scope of an
uncertified putative class.  The Defendants may offer objections
to the scope of the putative class when the Plaintiffs seek
certification, if and when this case reaches that phase.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 9, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/C1BL43 from Leagle.com.

Abucar Nunow Abikar, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Barkadle Sheikh Muhamed Awmagan, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Arab Mursal Deh, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Majuma
Madende, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Osman Musa Mohamed, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Osman Musa Muganga, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Rukia Musa, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated & Fatuma
Somow, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, represented by Marilynn Mika Spencer --
mspencer@thespencerlawfirm.com -- The Spencer Law Firm.

Bristol Bay Native Corporation, Glacier Technical Solutions, LLC
& Workforce Resources, LLC, Defendants, represented by Amy Todd-
Gher -- atodd-gher@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, P.C & Ruth
Dapper -- rdapper@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson.


CABOT INVESTMENT: Cabot East Seeks to Certify Class & Subclasses
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled Cabot East Broward 2 LLC and Cabot East
Broward 34 LLC, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Carlton P. Cabot, Timothy
J. Kroll Cabot Investment Properties, LLC, Cabot East Broward
LeaseCo, LLC, Cabot North Orange LeaseCo, LLC, Cabot Oak Grove
Asset Manager, Cabot Trafalgar/Avion LeaseCo, LLC, Cabot Cypress
Creek LeaseCo, LLC, Cabot North University LeaseCo, Inc., Gloria
Hernandez, CBRE, Inc., and Harry L. Silverman, the Defendants,
Case No. 0:16-cv-61218-WPD (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs ask the
Court to certify Class and six Subclasses, and appoint Stearns
Weaver as Class counsel under Fed.R.Civ.Proc. Rule 23(g).

The Class consists of 179 limited liability companies, each of
which held a fractional ownership interest in one of the
following six commercial office buildings in Florida. Each
Subclass consists of the limited liability companies which
invested in a particular Florida Property.

Excluded from the proposed Class and Subclasses are any limited
liability company which is currently owned and/or controlled in
whole or part by: (i) any employee of the Court; (ii) any of the
Defendants in this action or any of their respective
subsidiaries, affiliates, directors, or officers; and (iii) the
legal representatives, heirs, successors, assigns, and family
members of any such excluded party.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=xgad5p3O

Counsel for Plaintiffs and the Class:

          Eugene E. Stearns, Esq.
          Jason P. Hernandez, Esq.
          Matthew W. Buttrick, Esq.
          Mary Barzee Flores, Esq.
          Cecilia Duran Simmons, Esq.
          Matthew M. Graham, Esq.
          Ryan T. Thornton, Esq.
          Joseph J. Onorati, Esq.
          STEARNS WEAVER MILLER WEISSLER
             ALHADEFF & SITTERSON, P.A.
          150 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200
          Miami, FL 33130
          Telephone: 305 789 3200
          Facsimile: 305 789 3395
          E-mail: estearns@stearnsweaver.com
                  jhernandez@stearnsweaver.com
                  mbuttrick@stearnsweaver.com
                  mbarzeeflores@stearnsweaver.com
                  csimmons@stearnsweaver.com
                  mgraham@stearnsweaver.com
                  rthornton@stearnsweaver.com
                  jonorati@stearnsweaver.com

Co-Counsel for Defendant CBRE, Inc.:

          Thomas Meeks, Esq.
          Yolanda P. Strader, Esq.
          CARLTON FIELDS JORDEN BURT, P.A.
          100 SE Second Street, Suite 4200
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 530 0050
          Facsimile: (305) 530 0055
          E-mail: tmeeks@carltonfields.com
                  ystrader@carltonfields.com

Counsel for Defendant Gloria Hernandez:

          Gregory J. Trask, Esq.
          Kevin P. Jacobs, Esq.
          HOMER BONNER JACOBS, P.A.
          1200 Four Seasons Tower
          1441 Brickell Avenue
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 350 5100
          E-mail: gtrask@homerbonner.com
                  kjacobs@homerbonner.com

Counsel for Defendant, Harry L. Silverman:

          Ishmael A. Green, Esq.
          James M. Miller, Esq.
          AKERMAN LLP
          Three Brickell City Centre
          98 Southeast Seventh Street, Suite 1100
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 374 5600
          Facsimile: (305) 374 5095
          E-mail: Ishmael.green@akerman.com
                  james.miller@akerman.com

Co-Counsel for Defendant CBRE, Inc.:

          D. Matthew Allen, Esq.
          Mariko Shitama Outman, Esq.
          CARLTON FIELDS JORDEN BURT, P.A.
          Corporate Center Three at International Plaza
          4221 w. Boy Scout Blvd. - Suite 1000
          Tampa, FL 33607-5780
          E-mail: mallen@carltonfields.com
                  msoutman@carltonfields.com

               - and -

          Hardy L. Roberts, III, Esq.
          CAREY, O'MALLEY, WHITAKER,
          MUELLER, ROBERTS & SMITH
          712 S. Oregon Avenue
          Tampa, FL 33606
          Telephone: (813) 250 0577
          E-mail: hroberts@careyomalley.com


CALGARY STAMPEDE: Sued Over Failure to Investigate Abuse
--------------------------------------------------------
Yolande Cole and Bryan Passifiume, writing for Calgary Herald,
report that a proposed class-action lawsuit filed against
Philip Heerema and the Calgary Stampede Foundation alleges the
Young Canadians failed to adequately investigate the former staff
member.

A statement of claim filed April 5, 2017, on behalf of an unnamed
plaintiff and other former members of the Young Canadians claims:
"The Young Canadians had actual knowledge of Mr. Heerema's
inappropriate conduct, allegations of sexual assault and sexual
exploitation with respect to some of the Class Members as a
result of one or more complaints made by one or more faculty
members of the Young Canadians."

None of the allegations has been proven in court, and a statement
of defence has not been filed.

Mr. Heerema, 55, is currently on trial and is facing 20 charges
involving crimes against eight teenage males between 1992 and
2014.  The charges include sexual assault, internet luring and
sexual exploitation of minors by a person in a position of trust.

The lawsuit claims the Young Canadians "failed to adequately
supervise Mr. Heerema and failed to establish, implement or
enforce adequate policies, practises or procedures to protect the
Class Members against child sexual abuse or exploitation by staff
of the Young Canadians."  It also alleges that the Young
Canadians "failed to adequately investigate and act with respect
to Heerema's sexual exploitation and inappropriate conduct."

The document goes on to claim that after Mr. Heerema's
resignation in the summer of 2014, it came to the plaintiff's
attention that a former teacher of the Young Canadians publicly
posted on her Instagram account she and another faculty member
had previously advised the Young Canadians that Mr. Heerema's
conduct toward students was inappropriate.

"This post on Instagram also stated that the Young Canadians did
not take any steps to address the faculty's concerns at that
time," the suit reads.

"The former teacher's post was removed from her Instagram account
shortly after it was posted."

Calgary Stampede CEO Warren Connell said Mr. Heerema was escorted
from the property within 30 minutes of them learning of the
allegations, adding that the former Young Canadians staffer
tendered his resignation from the Young Canadians two days later.

"From that period on, we've had an ongoing investigation and have
co-operated with the authorities since the beginning," Connell
said.

As for the Instagram allegations, Connell said the Stampede was
only made aware of the post after it had already been taken down.

A statement from the Stampede said they're conducting their own
investigation and are fully co-operating with police and Crown
prosecutors.

"It is difficult for us to respond to the Statement of Claim as
we don't have the details surrounding the allegations.  As an
accountable and transparent organization, we are actively
investigating and we encourage anyone with any information to
reach out to us or directly to the authorities," it said.

"At all times we have fully supported the police investigation
and the prosecutor's office, and continue our own internal
investigation.  Our priority was, and continues to be, the safety
of the students." [GN]


CANADA: Retired RCMP Doctor Faces Sexual Assault Allegations
-----------------------------------------------------------
Gloria Galloway, writing for The Globe and Mail, reports that the
head of the RCMP in Nova Scotia and the force's chief of human
resources say in letters to staff that a doctor who examined new
recruits and regular members for more than two decades has been
accused of committing "numerous" sexual assaults during medical
appointments.

The allegations come after nearly 1,000 women have filed claims
in a class-action lawsuit, settled in 2016, that required the
Mounties to compensate current and former female employees who
were sexually assaulted, harassed or discriminated against at any
point after September, 1974, when the force began to recruit
women.  Many hundreds more claims are expected to be filed before
the deadline of Feb. 8.

Among them are claims from women who allege they were assaulted
by the unnamed doctor who worked at the RCMP's health-services
office in the Halifax suburb of Bedford between October, 1981,
and July, 2003.  No charges had been laid as of Jan, 22.  The
doctor is now retired.

Assistant Commissioner Brian Brennan, the commanding officer of
the RCMP in Nova Scotia, says in a letter sent on Jan. 19 to all
of his staff that he is "at a loss for words" to hear the stories
recounted by female members of the force and those who wanted to
become Mounties who say they were assaulted during health
assessments.  "We are aware of numerous survivors and,
unfortunately, I expect many more will come forward in the weeks
and months ahead," wrote Assistant Commissioner Brennan about the
alleged assaults in Bedford.  "This is an extremely devastating
time for those who have shared their trauma and are reliving
this, and I am beyond unsettled to think that an individual who
this organization entrusted abused their power."

In a separate memo to all RCMP staff, Assistant Commissioner
Stephen White, the RCMP's acting chief of human resources,
describes the allegations levelled against the Nova Scotia doctor
as "disturbing."

Mr. White urges other victims or anyone else who has information
about the alleged crimes to contact officers of the Halifax
Regional Police who have taken over the investigation.

David Klein of Klein Lawyers in Vancouver, whose firm was one of
two that negotiated the class-action settlement, says eight of
the hundreds of women who have come to his office asking for help
in filing their claim say they were assaulted by a physician at
the Bedford clinic who was nicknamed "Dr. Fingers" by recruits.

Mr. Klein said those women say the doctor gave them unnecessary
rectal examinations, inserted his fingers into their vaginas for
no apparent reason and spent unusually lengthy periods of time
rubbing his hands on their breasts.

Those who say they were assaulted at the Bedford clinic during
the process of applying for jobs in the RCMP say they did not
lodge immediate complaints because they did not want to be
perceived as troublemakers, Mr. Klein said.  And regular members
of the forces were reluctant to speak out because female RCMP
officers who complained internally about sexual assaults often
ended up being shunned by their peers, he said.

As part of the class-action settlement, the RCMP is required to
institute 20 changes to its policies and culture that are aimed
at reducing sexual assault, harassment and discrimination.

But the force did not respond to more than a week of requests
from The Globe and Mail for information regarding what has been
done about those required changes, or put forward anyone to speak
to the issue of making the workplace a safer and more welcoming
environment for women.

That is a different approach to the one taken by the military
which, when faced with damning evidence in 2015 that sexual
assaults were endemic within its ranks, took significant steps to
combat it and has put forward senior officers on multiple
occasions to discuss the progress that is being made.

Mr. Klein, who represents more than 600 of the plaintiffs in the
class-action suit, says he is unaware of any significant changes
that are being made within the RCMP to address the types of
behaviours being alleged by his clients.

"I have now read over 300 claims. It is shocking to see what
these women endured," Mr. Klein said. "The settlement agreement
includes a host of change initiatives the RCMP has agreed to
undertake. These are important. For many of my clients, the
change initiatives are more important than the compensation."

According the website maintained by the Office of the Independent
Assessor, 952 claims have already been filed in the class-action
suit and there are another 1,400 people who have registered but
not yet filed.

While plaintiffs don't need to be represented by a lawyer, the
33-page form that must be completed and the highly traumatic
nature of their experiences have prompted more women than
expected to seek legal advice in filing their claims, Mr. Klein
said. "We're scrambling to get them all," he said.  "I have five
lawyers, four paralegals and four articling students working
full-time, flat out on claims for these women."

The federal government has set aside $100-million for the
payouts, but there is no cap on the total amount that will be
awarded to women who are part of the class-action suit.  Each
victim will receive a minimum of $10,000 and the awards will go
as high as $220,000 for those most seriously harmed.

Meanwhile, in Halifax, Assistant Commissioner Brennan is urging
those who were victims of assault at the health clinic to seek
help.

"We have to look out for one another and take care of each
other," he wrote in his letter. "I can assure you the division is
committed to supporting survivors throughout this process." [GN]


CAPITAL ALLIANCE: Northrup Sues over Robocalls
----------------------------------------------
JOHN NORTHRUP, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, Plaintiffs, v. CAPITAL ALLIANCE GROUP, the Defendant,
Case No. 8:18-cv-00023-JLS-DFM (C.D. Cal., Jan. 9, 2018), seeks
to recover damages, injunctive relief, and any other available
legal or equitable remedies, resulting from the illegal actions
of Defendant, in negligently, and/or willfully contacting
Plaintiff through "robocalls" (calls for nonemergency purposes
using an automatic telephone-dialing system without prior express
consent), in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant markets loans to
consumers. The Defendant made the deliberate decision to engage
in bulk marketing by using an automatic telephone-dialing system
to place robocalls to potential customers. Unlike standard
advertising methods, bulk advertising by use of robocalls cost
recipients money, because cell phone users typically pay for
their cell phone service. Over the course of an extended period
beginning no later than in 2017, Defendant and its agents
directed the mass transmission of robocalls to the cell phones of
persons they hoped were potential customers of Defendant's
services. On or about December 14, 2017, Plaintiff received an
unsolicited robocall from (949) 565-4371, to his wireless phone
in Florida. The call was sent to his wireless phone number with
area code 813 (the area code for Tampa, Florida and surrounding
areas). It stated that the call was from Capital Alliance and was
soliciting lending services. The Plaintiff received four
additional calls from Defendant on December 14, 2017, three
additional calls on December 15, 2017, and an additional call on
December 29, 2017. The Plaintiff provided no consent to receive
these calls, which were made by Defendant in an effort to promote
the sale of its lending services. The unsolicited phone calls
were placed to Plaintiff's cellular telephone via an "automatic
telephone dialing system, ("ATDS") as defined by 47 U.S.C.
section 227 (a)(1).[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          Cory S. Fein, Esq.
          CORY FEIN LAW FIRM
          712 Main St., No. 800
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (281) 254 7717
          Facsimile: (530) 748 0601
          E-mail: cory@coryfeinlaw.com


CAREFIRST INC: Murtha Cullina Attorney Discusses Court Ruling
-------------------------------------------------------------
Michael J. Donnelly, Esq. -- mdonnelly@murthalaw.com -- of Murtha
Cullina LLP, in an article for Lexology, reports that in August,
the United States Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit revived a
class action lawsuit, holding that the threat of harm from a data
breach is enough to satisfy the "injury in fact" standing
requirement. Attias v. Carefirst, Inc., 865 F.3d 620 (DC Cir.
2017).  The defendant, a group of health care insurers, filed a
Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States Supreme
Court on October 30 of last year.  While the Supreme Court is
deciding whether to grant the pending Petition, it is worthwhile
to briefly review the standing question in the context of
protecting your business from liability.

The standing requirement serves to ensure that courts only
address actual controversies brought by parties with a personal
stake in the outcome by requiring that a plaintiff show that it
has suffered an injury in fact which is concrete and particular,
was fairly traceable to the actions at issue and can be redressed
by the courts.  Increasingly, the plaintiffs bar has responded to
incidents of data breach by bringing class action lawsuits based
on a number of state law claims and claiming that an increased
threat of identity theft constitutes an injury-in-fact.

Courts have split on the issue of whether the threat of harm from
a data breach is sufficient to impart standing.  The question
turns on whether the allegations support a claim that the
threatened future harm is "certainly impending" or poses a
"substantial risk" of occurring.  When the reviewing court finds
that the risk is not substantial, then it follows that the claim
is speculative and should be dismissed.

In fact, this is what the District Court in Attias did, finding
that the plaintiffs had not suggested or shown how the hackers
could steal their identities without access to social security or
credit card numbers. However, the DC Circuit Court of Appeals
reversed the District Court's decision, finding that the
complaint had actually alleged that social security numbers and
credit card information had been compromised.  Moreover, the DC
Circuit also found that the breach had exposed the plaintiffs to
a risk of medical identity fraud whereby someone impersonates a
victim and obtains medical services in their name.  Such actions
could potentially lead to the depletion of the victim's insurance
or the receipt of improper medical care as a result of inaccurate
medical records.

The Court of Appeals also addressed the causation requirement.
CareFirst had argued that because the hackers were unaffiliated
with the company, that the claimed injuries would therefore not
be fairly traceable to it.  The court disagreed, remarking that
the causation requirement does not require that the defendant be
the most immediate cause of the claimed injuries.  The court
found that, at the preliminary stages of the case, a claim that
CareFirst had failed to properly secure the data is sufficient.

If the Supreme Court exercises its discretion and grants
CareFirst's Petition for Writ of Certiorari, it will likely
create a clearer blueprint for analyzing standing issues related
to incidents of data breach.  However, in the meantime, the
practical effect of the caselaw on standing is that any business
that suffers a breach where medical, social security, or credit
card information is involved, may be faced with a class action
lawsuit that likely will survive early legal challenges. Although
the plaintiffs must prove the extent of their injuries in order
to establish damages at some later point in the suit, the mere
fact that there has been a theft of the information is enough to
permit plaintiffs to get into court and create expensive
litigation for businesses.

   (1) Collect only the information that is necessary to operate
your business;

   (2) Consider outsourcing payment functions to a vendor so that
no payment information is maintained;

   (3) Provide adequate security protections based on a risk
assessment; and

   (4) Obtain cyber risk coverage that will cover litigation
costs. [GN]


CAVIUM INC: Faruqi & Faruqi Files Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, on Jan. 22 disclosed that it has filed a
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California, case No. 3:18-cv-00011, on
behalf of shareholders of Cavium, Inc. ("Cavium" or the
"Company") (NASDAQ: CAVM) who have been harmed by Cavium's and
its board of directors' (the "Board") alleged violations of
Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the "Exchange Act") in connection with  the proposed merger of
the Company with Marvell Technology Group Ltd. ("Marvell").

On November 19, 2017, the Board caused the Company to enter into
an Agreement and Plan of Merger ("Proposed Transaction"), under
which the Company's shareholders will stand to receive $40.00 in
cash and 2.1757 shares of Marvell common stock for each share of
Cavium stock they own (the "Merger Consideration").

The complaint alleges that the Form S-4 Registration Statement
(the "S-4") filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
("SEC") on December 21, 2017, violates Sections 14(a) and 20(a)
of the Exchange Act because it provides materially incomplete and
misleading information about the Company and the Proposed
Transaction, including information concerning the Company's
financial projections and analysis, on which the Board relied to
recommend the Proposed Transaction as fair to Cavium
shareholders.

If you wish to obtain information concerning this action, you can
do so by clicking here: www.faruqilaw.com/CAVMnotice.

Take Action

Plaintiff is represented by Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a law firm with
extensive experience in prosecuting class actions, and
significant expertise in actions involving corporate fraud.
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, was founded in 1995 and the firm maintains
its principal office in New York City, with offices in Delaware,
California, Georgia, and Pennsylvania.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court
no later than 60 days from the date of this notice.  Any member
of the putative class may move the Court to serve as lead
plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do
nothing and remain an absent class member.  If you wish to
discuss this action, or have any questions concerning this notice
or your rights or interests, please contact:

         Nadeem Faruqi, Esq.
         James M. Wilson, Jr., Esq.
         FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
         685 3rd Avenue, 26th Floor
         New York, NY 10017
         Telephone: (877) 247-4292 or (212) 983-9330
         E-mail: nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com
                 jwilson@faruqilaw.com
         Website: http://www.faruqilaw.com[GN]


CONSUMER ADVOCACY: Faces TCPA Class Action in California
--------------------------------------------------------
John Beauge, writing for PennLive, reports that a document
preparation company in California has been accused in a federal
civil suit of violating regulations governing unsolicited calls
and text messages to cell phones.

Gerald Jackson, who identifies himself as a Pennsylvania resident
but does not provide an address, on Jan. 22 made the accusation
against Consumer Advocacy Center Inc. in a complaint filed in
U.S. Middle District Court.

The webpage of the Irvine, Calif., firm that does business as
Premier Student Loans Center states "we will consult with you to
determine your goals and needs, and will identify the best loan
programs offered by the U.S. Department of Education that you
qualify for.

"Many of the programs can change without notice and can be
difficult to navigate or find on your own."

Mr. Jackson accuses Premier of engaging in intrusive and unlawful
telemarketing campaigns that harass consumers.

He is seeking class-action status to represent all those
nationwide who have received unwanted calls or texts in violation
of the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act and the
Pennsylvania Telemarketer Registration Act.

He contends the Federal Communications Commission in 2012 made it
illegal to call or send texts to cell phones without written
consent.

In his court complaint, Jackson says he been on a no-call list
since Dec. 4, 2006 and cites specific cases in which he has
received calls and text messages without him providing the sender
written permission.

Calls he received Oct. 11 came from a "spoofed" number that was
not in service when he called it, he claims.

A text message he received Nov. 18, according to the complaint,
stated that "you're prequalified for student loan forgiveness"
and it provided a telephone number of resolve his debt.

A person answered Premier Student Loans when he called the
number, the court complaint states.

Besides Jackson's personal experiences, the suit contains
complaints about Premier he claims he received through various
online services.

He charges the unsolicited telemarketing calls are an invasion of
privacy, an inconvenience, nuisance, an aggravation, annoyance,
trespass on his cell phone and unwanted occupation of his
cellphone, his time and mental energy.

Besides an injunction to stop the calls, Jackson seeks $1,500 or
$500 for each regulation violation with the higher amount for
ones determined to be willful. [GN]


CREDIT CONTROL: Rodriguez Balks at Debt Collection Practices
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Richard Rodriguez, the Plaintiff, v. Credit Control,
LLC d/b/a Credit Control & Collections, LLC and LVNV Funding,
LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-00264-SJF-AYS (E.D.N.Y.,
Jan. 15, 2018), the Plaintiff brings this action individually and
as a class action on behalf of all persons similarly situated in
the State of New York from whom Defendants attempted to collect a
consumer debt using a form collection letter that states,
"Because of interest, late charges and other charges that may be
assessed by your creditor that vary from day to day, the amount
due on the day you pay, may be greater," from one year before the
date of this Complaint to the present.

The Class consists of more than 35 persons from whom Defendants
attempted to collect delinquent consumer debts using a form
collection letter that states, "Because of interest, late charges
and other charges that may be assessed by your creditor that vary
from day to day, the amount due on the day you pay, may be
greater." The Plaintiff's claims are typical of the claims of the
Class. Common questions of law or fact raised by this class
action complaint affect all members of the Class and predominate
over any individual issues. Common relief is therefore sought on
behalf of all members of the Class. This class action is superior
to other available methods for the fair and efficient
adjudication of this controversy.

The prosecution of separate actions by individual members of the
Class would create a risk of inconsistent or varying
adjudications with respect to the individual members of the
Class, and a risk that any adjudications with respect to
individual members of the Class would, as a practical matter,
either be dispositive of the interests of other members of the
Class not party to the adjudication, or substantially impair or
impede their ability to protect their interests. Defendants have
acted in a manner applicable to the Class as a whole such that
declaratory relief is warranted.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          BARSHAY SANDERS, PLLC
          100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Telephone: (516) 203 7600
          Facsimile: (516) 706 5055
          E-mail: ConsumerRights@BarshaySanders.com


CUMMINS INC: Loses Bid to Dismiss Suit Over Faulty Engines
----------------------------------------------------------
Judge William H. Walls of the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey denied the Defendant's Rule 12(b)(2)
motion to dismiss the case, T.J. McDERMOTT TRANSPORTATION CO.,
INC., DEMASE WAREHOUSE SYSTEMS, INC., HEAVY WEIGHT ENTERPRISES,
INC., P&P ENTERPRISES CO., LLC, YOUNG'S AUTO TRANSPORT, INC.,
HARDWICK ALLEN, AND JOSE VEGA, Plaintiffs, v. CUMMINS, INC., AND
PACCAR, INC. d/b/a PETERBILT MOTOR COMPANY AND KENWORTH TRUCK
COMPANY, Defendants, Civ. No. 14-04209 (WHW)(CLW)(D.N.J).

In the putative class action, the Plaintiffs allege that the
Defendants manufactured and sold PACCAR tractor-trailer trucks
equipped with faulty Cummins engines.  They seek to represent
members of classes and sub-classes in six states, including New
Jersey, asserting claims under state consumer-fraud laws and for
breach of express warranty.

New Jersey-based Plaintiff T.J. McDermott filed a single-
plaintiff amended complaint on July 2, 2014, invoking the Court's
diversity jurisdiction and alleging that tractors it purchased
from Defendants were equipped with defective engines.  The
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss that complaint, which the
Court partially granted and partially denied on March 11, 2014.

A Second Amended Complaint ("SAC", filed on Jan. 8, 2016, added
Plaintiffs DeMase, Heavy Weight, P&P Enterprises, Young's Auto,
HardwicJose k and Vega.  Cummins filed an answer on Feb. 5, 2016,
and on the same day PACCAR moved to partially dismiss the SAC.

On June 7, 2016, the Court granted in part and denied in part
PACCAR's motion, and granted the Plaintiffs leave to further
amend their complaint to specify the location of the activity
alleged in Count Six of the SAC.  The Plaintiffs did so in a
Sept. 6, 2016 Third Amended Complaint ("TAC"), correcting the
deficiencies in Count Six and revising the definition of the
"Subject Engines" to include both the 2010 ISX15 engine named in
the SAC, and "later model years."  Cummins responded to the TAC
on Oct. 7, 2016 with a motion to strike the portion of the TAC
adding the language "later model years" under Rule 12(f).  The
Court granted Cummins's motion on Jan. 17, 2017.

Cummins now moves under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2)
and 12(b)(6) to dismiss Counts Three through Nine of the TAC,
asserted by the out-of-state plaintiffs.  Generally, Cummins
asserts that (i) it is not subject to personal jurisdiction in
New Jersey regarding these claims; and (ii) Counts Three and
Four, asserted by Plaintiff Vega, must be dismissed because Vega
did not purchase a tractor equipped with a Subject Engine.

In opposition, the Plaintiffs (1) claim that Cummins's Rule
12(b)(2) motion should be denied because Cummins has waived its
personal-jurisdiction defense; and (ii) state their intention to
dismiss Plaintiff Vega's claims without prejudice.  Given the
Plaintiffs' stated intention to dismiss Vega's claims, Judge
Walls addresses only Cummins's 12(b)(2) motion.

The Judge finds that the TAC's jurisdictional statement contains
vague, boilerplate statements about Cummins's business ties to
New Jersey and, as Cummins points out in its opening brief, it
contains no allegations suggesting that any of the nonresident
Plaintiffs' claims have anything to do with Cummins' conduct in
New Jersey.  He says the Plaintiffs' personal-jurisdiction
allegations were sufficient to put Cummins on notice of its
defense, a conclusion that is only reinforced by the fact that
Cummins's opening-brief arguments in support of dismissal relied
exclusively on the bareness of the pleadings.  Because Cummins
made a Rule 12(f) motion to strike after the Plaintiffs filed the
TAC, and because its personal-jurisdiction defense was
"available" at that time, it has waived its personal-jurisdiction
defense under Rule 12(g).  He says he needs not consider the
Plaintiffs' other waiver arguments.

For these reasons, Judge Walls denied the Defendant's Rule
12(b)(2) motion to dismiss is denied.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 9, 2018 Opinion is available
at https://is.gd/a7ACeg from Leagle.com.

T.J. MCDERMOTT TRANSPORTATION CO., INC., Plaintiff, represented
by CAROLINE F. BARTLETT -- cbartlett@carellabyrne.com -- CARELLA
BYRNE, JAMES E. CECCHI -- JCecchi@carellabyrne.com -- CARELLA
BYRNE CECCHI OLSTEIN BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C., JAMES MICHAEL
MULVANEY -- JMULVANEY@MDMC-LAW.COM -- MCELROY, DEUTSCH, MULVANEY
& CARPENTER, LLP, JENNIFER MARIE BENNETT, MCELROY DEUTSCH
MULVANEY & CARPENTER LLP, MICHAEL ANDREW INNES, CARELLA BYRNE
CECCHI OLSTEIN BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C., RYAN P. MULVANEY --
RMULVANEY@MDMC-LAW.COM -- MCELROY, DEUTSCH, MULVANEY & CARPENTER,
LLP, JAMES C. SHAH, SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLP,
LINDSEY H. TAYLOR --  -- CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, BRODY &
AGNELLO & NATALIE FINKELMAN BENNETT, SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER
& SHAH, LLP.

ALLEN HARDWICK, YOUNG'S AUTO TRANSPORT, INC., DeMASE WAREHOUSE
SYSTEMS, INC., JOSE VEGA & HEAVY WEIGHT ENTERPRISES, INC.,
Plaintiffs, represented by CAROLINE F. BARTLETT, CARELLA BYRNE,
MICHAEL ANDREW INNES, CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI OLSTEIN BRODY &
AGNELLO, P.C., JAMES C. SHAH, SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH,
LLP, NATALIE FINKELMAN BENNETT, SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER &
SHAH, LLP & JAMES MICHAEL MULVANEY, MCELROY, DEUTSCH, MULVANEY &
CARPENTER, LLP.

CUMMINS, INC., Defendant, represented by KURT MICHAEL MULLEN,
NIXON PEABODY, LLP.

PACCAR, INC., formerly known as PETERBILT MOTOR COMPANY,
Defendant, represented by ANTHONY M. PISCIOTTI --
apisciotti@pmlegalfirm.com -- PISCIOTTI MALSCH & BUCKLEY PC,
DANNY CHARLES LALLIS -- dlallis@pmlegalfirm.com -- PISCIOTTI
MALSCH & CLIFFORD MARK LANEY, PISCIOTTI MALSCH.

KENWORTH TRUCK COMPANY, Defendant, represented by DANNY CHARLES
LALLIS, PISCIOTTI MALSCH & ANTHONY M. PISCIOTTI, PISCIOTTI MALSCH
& BUCKLEY PC.

PACCAR, INC., Cross Claimant, represented by ANTHONY M.
PISCIOTTI, PISCIOTTI MALSCH & BUCKLEY PC & DANNY CHARLES LALLIS,
PISCIOTTI MALSCH.

CUMMINS, INC., Cross Defendant, represented by KURT MICHAEL
MULLEN, NIXON PEABODY, LLP.

KENWORTH TRUCK COMPANY, Cross Claimant, represented by ANTHONY M.
PISCIOTTI, PISCIOTTI MALSCH & BUCKLEY PC.


D & J EXPORT: "Soriano" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------
REINA SORIANO, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. D & J EXPORT, INC., d/b/a D & J
EXPORT, INC., AMERICAN PREMIUM RAGS INC. dba D&J EXPORT, INC,
JAIME SANCHEZ, and DANNY SALMERON, the Defendants, Case No.
1:18-cv-00194-RRM-RLM (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 11, 2018), seeks to recover
overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act and new York
Labor Law.

According to the complaint, starting January 2017, D&J Export,
self-described in its website as "Top Notch Grader & Exporter of
American Used Clothing" stopped paying employees overtime wages.
Instead, the company began to pay Soriano and her coworkers by
splitting their weekly hours into two paychecks, and paid them at
a straight time hourly rate for all hours worked, including those
over 40.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Louis Pechman, Esq.
          Gianfranco Cuadra, Esq.
          Catalina Cadavid, Esq.
          PECHMAN LAW GROUP
          488 Madison Avenue. 17th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 583 9500
          E-mail: pechman@pechmanlaw.com
                  cuadra@pechmanlaw.com
                  cadavid@pechmanlaw.com


DALLAS, TX: Faces Class Action Over Unfair Cash Bail System
-----------------------------------------------------------
Cary Aspinwall and Naomi Martin, writing for Dallas News, report
that the day that Dallas County leaders have been dreading for
years finally arrived on Jan. 21: four nonprofits filed a federal
civil rights lawsuit alleging the jail's cash bail system
unfairly harms poor people and violates the Texas and U.S.
constitutions.

The lawsuit, which officials feared due to its potentially hefty
price tag, alleges Dallas County's cash bail system fails to
consider a jailed defendant's ability to pay to post bond,
resulting in disparate treatment in the criminal justice system.

Poorer citizens remain jailed for weeks -- even months -- because
they can't afford to pay their way out, while wealthier people
can quickly purchase their freedom, states the lawsuit.  It was
filed on behalf of six Dallas County inmates, jailed on bond from
$500 to $50,000.

"The situation in Dallas County is really a crisis," said
Trisha Trigilio, senior staff attorney for the ACLU of Texas, one
of the groups filing the lawsuit on Jan. 21.  "The system is
unfair and obviously unconstitutional, and we think it's time for
county officials to treat this problem with the urgency it
deserves."

Though inmates are entitled to the presumption of innocence, the
cash bail system effectively coerces guilty pleas and results in
longer jail and prison sentences for poor people, according to
lawyers for the ACLU, Civil Rights Corps and Texas Fair Defense
Project, who filed the suit in northern district of Texas federal
court.

This system of pretrial detention causes people who are already
struggling financially to lose their jobs and housing, and
separates parents and children, the lawsuit alleges.

Dallas County Commissioner John Wiley Price said the county has
long expected this lawsuit, but he was still disappointed.  He
said the county is working toward implementing a risk assessment
tool that "works for the benefit of all."

"I recognize the tenets of the lawsuit," Mr. Price said.  "You've
got to have the instruments to talk about the issue of public
safety, which is first and foremost, and not to indenture
yourself to a debtors' prison."

County Judge Clay Jenkins said he generally supports bail reform.

"Some low-risk suspects that don't need to be there are held in
Texas jails at taxpayer expense simply because they can't afford
to bond out," Mr. Jenkins said.  "That's bad for everyone, and
it's why Dallas County is working to put a risk assessment tool
in place and improve our system."

Sheriff Marian Brown, who was also named as a defendant, declined
to comment.  Presiding State District Judge Brandon Birmingham
declined to comment.

Last year, officials promised to reform Dallas County's system
after The Dallas Morning News published a story about Angela
Jessie, a grandmother jailed for two months after she was caught
shoplifting two school uniforms, a $105 crime.

She could not afford to pay her $150,000 bail.

But while county officials study alternatives to cash bail, such
as pretrial risk assessment tools, poor arrestees continue
languishing in the jail.  The plaintiffs calculate this costs
taxpayers about $225,321 per day -- or $82.2 million per year.

The lawsuit, filed on behalf of several inmates, seeks class-
action status, claiming about 70 percent of the jail population
are presumptively innocent people who simply cannot afford bail.

One-third of the Dallas County Jail population has a mental
illness, the lawsuit alleges.

One of the inmates named as a plaintiff in the lawsuit is
Destinee Tovar, a 19-year-old woman jailed for theft of property
between $100 and $750. Her bail is set at $1,500.  A handwritten
affidavit filed with the lawsuit states she struggles to find
stable housing, doesn't have a job and can't pay for the basic
necessities of life -- but none of the judges who set her bail
amount asked if she could afford it.

Bail is the money people accused but not convicted of crimes pay
to get out of jail until their case goes to trial or is resolved.
It's essentially a promise to show up for court, in cash.

Dallas, Harris and several other counties in Texas have for years
relied on fixed "schedules" to set bond for jailed defendants,
without considering someone's ability to pay or risk to public
safety.

The same groups that are suing Dallas County have already had
some success in Harris County.  Last year, a federal judge there
ruled that the bail system was unconstitutional and ordered the
release of nearly all misdemeanor defendants from jail within 24
hours of their arrest, regardless of their ability to pay bail.

Harris County appealed to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals,
which has not yet ruled on the case.  That order could
dramatically impact Texas' entire criminal justice system.

Nationally, some cities and states have chosen to abolish the
practice in recent years. In other communities, civil rights
groups have won several lawsuits alleging cash bail systems
violate inmates' rights to equal protection and due process under
the law.

Experts say Texas' current system is particularly tough on women,
who usually make less money than men and account for a growing
number of inmates.

The number of women awaiting trial in Texas county jails has
risen by 48 percent since 2011.

Earlier this month, Dallas County officials publicly pledged to
focus new attention on locking up less women pretrial, especially
those deemed low-risk to the public, following several months of
reporting by The News that revealed this trend -- and its
consequences for women and their children.

"Unfortunately, custody is designed for males," Commissioner
Price told officials at that January meeting, called in response
to The News' continuing coverage.  "We have some tremendous
challenges."

People arrested by agencies other than Dallas County Sheriff's
Office or Dallas Police Department typically wait in jail even
longer, the lawsuit alleges.

Most sit in municipal jails in the city of their arrest first,
and often wait several days to be transferred to the larger
county jail.  If an inmate is physically or mentally ill, or
doesn't speak English, the process can take even longer.

The lawsuit also alleges judges leverage Dallas County's cash-
based system to minimize the backlog of cases on their dockets so
that they can process as many cases as possible per week, and
prosecutors use it to increase conviction rates. [GN]


DELANO FARMS: Court Awards $335K Attys' Fees in "Arredondo" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SABAS ARREDONDO, et al., Plaintiffs, v. DELANO FARMS
CO., et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:09-cv-01247- (E.D. Cal.),
Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone of the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of California has entered an order vacating
dates and directing the parties to file dispositive documents.

The action was filed on July 17, 2009.  On Feb. 7, 2017, the
Court conducted a settlement conference.  On Sept. 29, 2017, the
Magistrate Judge issued an order on final approval of the class
action settlement and the claims in the action were settled.  The
only issue remaining was how the attorney fees should be
allocated among the current and former class counsel.

On Jan. 9, 2018, the Court conducted a settlement conference to
address the issue of the allocation of attorney fees.  Counsel
Gregory Ramirez, Mario Martinez, Anna Walther, Brian York, Dennis
Jones, Leonard Comden, and Allen Ball appeared.  During the
settlement conference, the parties reached a settlement
agreement.  The terms of the respective agreements were set forth
on the record.

Based upon the resolution of the attorney fee distribution in the
action, Magistrate Judge Boone vacated all pending matters and
dates in the action.  He authorized the claims administrator to
distribute attorney fees as follows: (i) $200,000 to Wasserman,
Comden & Casselman, LLP; and (ii) $135,000 to Myers, Widders,
Gibson, Jones & Feingold, LLP.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 9, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/xSXofT from Leagle.com.

Sabas Arredondo, Plaintiff, represented by Allen R. Ball --
aball@ballandYorkelaw.com -- Law Office of Ball & Yorke. Sabas
Arredondo, Plaintiff, represented by Gregory Ramirez --
gramirez@ballandyorkelaw.com -- Myers, Widders, Gibson, Jones &
Feingold, LLP, James Engel Perero -- jperero@mwgjlaw.com --
Myers, Widders, Gibson, Jones & Feingold, LLP, Jessica Arciniega
-- jarciniega@alrb.ca.gov --  Wasserman, Comden & Casselman,
Mario Martinez -- mmartinez@farmworkerlaw.com -- Martinez
Aguilasocho & Lynch Aplc, William Cooper Callaham --
wcallaham@wilcoxenlaw.com - - Wilcoxen Callaham, Katherine
Winder, Condon & Forsyth LLP, Marcos Rodrigo Camacho, Marcos
Camacho, A. Law Corporation & Melissa Meeker Harnett, Wasserman,
Comden, Casselman & Esensten, L.L.P.

Jose Cuevas, Plaintiff, represented by Allen R. Ball, Law Office
of Ball & Yorke, Gregory Ramirez, Myers, Widders, Gibson, Jones &
Feingold, LLP, Jessica Arciniega, Wasserman, Comden & Casselman,
Mario Martinez, Martinez Aguilasocho & Lynch Aplc, William Cooper
Callaham, Wilcoxen Callaham, James Engel Perero, Myers, Widders,
Gibson, Jones & Feingold, LLP & Katherine Winder, Condon &
Forsyth
LLP.

Delano Farms Company, Defendant, represented by Ryan Solomon,
Savitt Bruce & Willey LLP, Joshua Green Building1425 Fourth
Avenue, Suite 800Seattle, WA 98101-2272, pro hac vice, William C.
Hahesy -- bill@hahesylaw.com -- Law Offices of William C. Hahesy,
Cynthia A. Stross, Savitt Bruce & Willey LLP, pro hac vice, David
N. Bruce, Savitt Bruce & Willey LLP, pro hac vice, Howard A.
Sagaser, Sagaser, Watkins & Wieland, PC, James P. Savitt, Savitt
Bruce & Willey LLP, pro hac vice, Miles A. Yanick, Savitt Bruce &
Willey LLP, pro hac vice & Sarah Gohmann Bigelow, Savitt Bruce &
Willey LLP, pro hac vice, Joshua Green Building1425 Fourth
Avenue, Suite 800Seattle, WA 98101-2272.

Cal-Pacific Farm Management, L.P., Defendant, represented by D.
Greg Durbin, McCormick Barstow Sheppard Wayte & Carruth LLP, P.O.
Box 28912 5 River Park Place East Fresno, CA 93720-1501 & Laura
A. Wolfe -- Laura.Wolfe@mccormickbarstow.com -- McCormick,
Barstow, Sheppard, Wayte & Carruth LLP.

T & R Bangi's Agricultural Services, Inc., Defendant, represented
by D. Greg Durbin, McCormick Barstow Sheppard Wayte & Carruth LLP
& Laura A. Wolfe, McCormick, Barstow, Sheppard, Wayte & Carruth
LLP.

Kern Ag Labor Management Inc., Defendant, represented by D. Greg
Durbin, Martin Law Firm.

Elite Ag Labor Services, Inc., Defendant, represented by D. Greg
Durbin, McCormick Barstow Sheppard Wayte & Carruth LLP.

Anderson & Middleton Company, Unknown, represented by William C.
Hahesy, Law Offices of William C. Hahesy.

Wasserman, Comden & Casselman, LLP, Wasserman, Comden &
Casselman, LLP, Claimant, represented by Leonard Jesse Comden,
Wasserman, Comden, Casselman & Esensten, LLP.

Myers, Widders, Gibson, Jones & Feingold, LLP, Claimant,
represented by Kelton Lee Gibson -- KGibson@mwgjlaw.com -- Myers,
Widders, Gibson, Jones & Feingold LLP.


DENKA PERFORMANCE: Court Refuses to Extend Class Cert Filing Date
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ROBERT TAYLOR, JR., et al., v. DENKA PERFORMANCE
ELASTOMER LLC, et al, Section "F," Civil Action No. 17-7668 (E.D.
La.), Judge Martin L.C. Feldman of the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Louisiana denied the Plaintiffs' motion
for an extension of time to file a motion for class
certification.

The litigation arises from the Defendants' production of neoprene
at their St. John the Baptist Parish facility, which allegedly
exposes those living in the vicinity to concentrated levels of
chloroprene well above the upper limit of acceptable risk,
resulting in a risk of cancer more than 800 times the national
average.  The Pontchartrain Works facility ("PWF"), located in
LaPlace, Louisiana, is the only facility in the United States
that continues to manufacture a synthetic rubber known as
neoprene.

Robert Taylor, Jr., Kershell Bailey, Shondrell P. Campbell,
Gloria Dumas, Janell Emery, George Handy, Annette Houston, Rogers
Jackson, Michael Perkins, Allen Schnyder, Jr., Larry Sorapuru,
Sr., Kellie Tabb, and Robert Taylor, III are all individuals
living in the communities surrounding the PWF in Reserve, Edgard,
and LaPlace, Louisiana.  On June 29, 2017, these individuals,
individually and as representatives of a putative class of
similarly situated Plaintiffs, sued DPE and DuPont in the
Louisiana 40th Judicial District Court in St. John the Baptist
Parish.

The Plaintiffs allege that DuPont has emitted chloroprene for
many years at levels resulting in concentrations many times the
upper limit of acceptable risk, and DPE continues to do so.  In
April 2017, the EPA released a redacted inspection report showing
more than 10,000 violations by Denka related to emissions of
chloroprene from the PWF.  It is alleged that the top six census
tracts in the nation with the highest NATA-estimated cancer risks
are the census tracts in the vicinity of the PWF.  Accordingly,
the Plaintiffs allege Louisiana state law claims of nuisance,
trespass, negligence, and strict and absolute liability; they
seek injunctive relief and damages resulting from alleged
exposure to chloroprene released from the PWF.

The Defendants jointly removed the lawsuit on Aug. 9, 2017,
invoking the Court's diversity jurisdiction.  In response, the
Plaintiffs moved to remand.  The Defendants then moved for leave
to file an amended joint notice of removal in connection with the
Plaintiffs' motion to remand on Oct. 20, 2017.  The Court denied
the Plaintiffs' motion to remand and granted the Defendants'
request for leave to file an amended notice of removal on Nov.
15, 2017.  The amended notice of removal was filed that day.

The Plaintiffs now move for an extension of the deadline to file
a motion for class certification under Local Rule 23.1(B).  The
Defendants oppose the motion to extend, arguing that the initial
notice of removal renders the extension untimely and that the
Plaintiffs have shown no good cause to warrant an extension.

The original notice of removal, filed on Aug. 9, 2017, created a
deadline of Nov. 8, 2017, for the Plaintiffs to seek class
certification, or at least request an extension.  The Plaintiffs
submitted a motion to extend on Dec. 6, 2017, nearly one month
later.  The Plaintiffs claim that good cause warrants an
extension for class certification because further discovery would
benefit class certification issues.  In particular, they allege
that the Defendants have geographic information that would help
define the class, as well as scientific data that the Defendants
will likely contest as irrelevant.  Without citing any authority,
they generically assert that good cause exists because it will
take time for the parties to exchange and review discovery on
these important matters and for other issues related to class
certification.

However, Judge Feldman holds that the fact that discovery would
be beneficial to a class action determination does not excuse the
Plaintiffs from seeking a timely extension of the deadline as
Local Rule 23.1(B) requires.  He finds that the Plaintiffs have
failed to show how they acted diligently in attempting to make
discovery related to class certification prior to the deadline.
Because no good cause supports an extension and the request
itself is untimely, the motion to extend must be denied.
Accordingly, for these reasons, the Judge denied the Plaintiffs'
motion for extension of time to file for a motion for class
certification.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 9, 2018 Order and Reasons is
available at https://is.gd/2HoMIm from Leagle.com.

Robert Taylor, Jr., individually and as representative of all
those similarly situated, Kershell Bailey, individually and as
representative of all those similarly situated, Shondrell P.
Campbell, individually and as representative of all those
similarly situated, Gloria Dumas, individually and as
representative of all those similarly situated, Jenelle Emory,
individually and as representative of all those similarly
situated, Annette Houston, individually and as representative of
all those similarly situated, Rogers Jackson, individually and as
representative of all those similarly situated, Michael Perkins,
individually and as representative of all those similarly
situated, Allen Schnyder, Jr., individually and as representative
of all those similarly situated, Larry Sorapuru, Sr.,
individually and as representative of all those similarly
situated, Kelli Tabb, individually and as representative of all
those similarly situated & Robert Taylor, III, individually and
o/b/o his Minor Daughter, N.T. and as representative of all those
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Hugh Palmer
Lambert -- hlambert@thelambertfirm.com -- Lambert Firm, APLC,
Cayce Christian Peterson -- peterson@thelambertfirm.com --
Lambert Firm, APLC, Darryl Jude Tschirn, Law Office of Darryl J.
Tschirn, Eberhard D. Garrison -- egarrison@jonesswanson.com --
Jones, Swanson, Huddell & Garrison, LLC, Gladstone N. Jones, III
-- gjones@jonesswanson.com -- Jones, Swanson, Huddell & Garrison,
LLC, Harvey Sylvanous Bartlett, III, Jones, Swanson, Huddell &
Garrison, LLC, John J. Cummings, III, Cummings & Cummings, PLC,
Joseph M. Bruno, Bruno & Bruno, Kevin Earl Huddell --
khuddell@jonesswanson.com -- Jones, Swanson, Huddell & Garrison,
LLC, Lindsay E. Reeves -- lreeves@jonesswanson.com -- Jones,
Swanson, Huddell & Garrison, LLC, Lynn E. Swanson --
lswanson@jonesswanson.com -- Jones, Swanson, Huddell & Garrison,
LLC, Morgan M. Embleton -- membleton@thelambertfirm.com -- The
Lambert Firm & Randal Leroy Gaines, Randal L.Gaines Law Office.

George Handy, individually and as representative of all those
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Hugh Palmer
Lambert, Lambert Firm, APLC, Cayce Christian Peterson, Lambert
Firm, APLC, Eberhard D. Garrison, Jones, Swanson, Huddell &
Garrison, LLC, Gladstone N. Jones, III, Jones, Swanson, Huddell &
Garrison, LLC, Harvey Sylvanous Bartlett, III, Jones, Swanson,
Huddell & Garrison, LLC, John J. Cummings, III, Cummings &
Cummings, PLC, Joseph M. Bruno, Bruno & Bruno, Kevin Earl
Huddell, Jones, Swanson, Huddell & Garrison, LLC, Lindsay E.
Reeves, Jones, Swanson, Huddell & Garrison, LLC, Lynn E. Swanson,
Jones, Swanson, Huddell & Garrison, LLC, Morgan M. Embleton, The
Lambert Firm & Randal Leroy Gaines, Randal L.Gaines Law Office.

Denka Performance Elastomer LLC, Defendant, represented by James
Conner Percy, Jones Walker, Brett S. Venn --
bvenn@joneswalker.com -- Jones Walker, Justin J. Marocco --
jmarocco@joneswalker.com -- Jones Walker, Michael A. Chernekoff -
- mchernekoff@joneswalker.com -- Jones Walker & Michael R. Rhea -
- mrhea@joneswalker.com -- Jones Walker.

E.I. Dupont De Nemours & Co., Defendant, represented by Deborah
DeRoche Kuchler, Kuchler Polk Weiner, LLC, Kevin T. Van Wart --
kevin.vanwart@kirkland.com -- Kirkland & Ellis, LLP, pro hac
vice, Bradley H. Weidenhammer --
bradley.weidenhammer@kirkland.com --Kirkland & Ellis, LLP, pro
hac vice, Joshua Doguet, Kuchler Polk Weiner, LLC, Rebecca C.
Fitzpatrick -- rebecca.fitzpatrick@kirkland.com -- Kirkland &
Ellis, LLP, pro hac vice, Sarah E. Iiams, Kuchler Polk Schell
Weiner & Richeson, L.L.C. & Stanley M. Wash --
stan.wash@kirkland.com -- Kirkland & Ellis, LLP, pro hac vice.


DOMAIN GROUP: Attys Keep Watch After CEO's Sudden Exit
------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Whalley and John Dagge, writing for Herald Sun, report that
high powered class action lawyers are keeping a "watchful eye" on
Domain after the shock exit of its chief Antony Catalano sparked
a plunge in the company's value.

The resignation of Mr. Catalano only two months after listing
with shareholders shocked the real estate and media sectors as he
was the brash executive identified with the company's rise.

The revelations of his exit for family reasons led to a huge
share market fall on Jan. 22, ripping $328 million off --Domain's
value as its shares plunged 17.17 per cent.

On Jan. 22, Domain shares bounced back by 9.09 per cent to $3,
but were still down $184 million since Mr Catalano revealed his
resignation.

The company has now lost 21 per cent of its value, or $396
million, since being spun out of media player Fairfax in November
last year.

DOMAIN LOSES $320M IN MARKET VALUE AS CHIEF ANTONY CATALANO QUITS

It is also believed the Australian Securities and Investments
Commission is keeping an eye on the matter.

Asked whether the sudden departure only eight weeks after it hit
the Australian share market could lead to a class action, law
firm William Roberts Lawyers said it was watching the situation.
"(We are) aware of the recent announcements associated with
Domain Holdings, together with the price movements," the firm
said in a statement. "We are keeping a watchful eye on the
company."

It is believed Mr Catalano only revealed the decision to the
board after he came back from his Christmas break and it quickly
moved to tell the market.

But the surprise exit, only eight weeks after the company listed,
has angered some investors.

The nation's peak mum-and-dad shareholder group, the Australian
Shareholders Association, said the controversy raised questions
about why these discussions did not occur at the time of the
float. [GN]


DONALD TRUMP: Court Refuses to Stay Suit Over EO-4
--------------------------------------------------
In the case, JOHN DOE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. DONALD TRUMP, et
al., Defendants. JEWISH FAMILY SERVICES, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
DONALD TRUMP, et al., Defendants, Case Nos. C17-0178JLR, C17-
1707JLR (W.D. Wash.), Judge James L. Robart of the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Washington, Seattle, denied the
Defendants' emergency motion for a stay pending the appeal of the
Court's Dec. 23, 2017, order granting the Plaintiffs' motions for
preliminary injunctions in the consolidated cases.

On Dec. 23, 2017, the Court issued a preliminary injunction in
the consolidated cases against certain aspects of Executive Order
No. 13,815 ("EO-4"), and its accompanying memorandum to Pres.
Trump, from Secretary of State Tillerson, Acting Secretary of DHS
Duke, and Director of National Intelligence ("DNI") Coats.

The preliminary injunction enjoins the Defendants from enforcing
those provisions of the Agency Memo that suspend the processing
of [following-to-join ("FTJ")] refugee applications or suspend
the admission of FTJ refugees into the United States and those
provisions of the Agency Memo that suspend or inhibit, including
through the diversion of resources, the processing of refugee
applications or the admission into the United States of refugees
from [Security Advisory Opinion ("SAO") list] countries.

On Dec. 27, 2017, the Defendants filed a motion asking the Court
to reconsider certain aspects of the preliminary injunction
related to SAO countries.  Their motion asked the Court to
reconsider its ruling that a bona fide relationship with an
American organization includes refugee applicants covered by a
formal assurance from a refugee resettlement agency.  At the
request of the Court, the Plaintiffs filed a consolidated
response.  On Jan. 5, 2018, the Court denied the Defendants'
motion for reconsideration.

Meanwhile, on Dec. 29, 2017, the Defendants filed a second
motion, which they denominated as an emergency motion for a stay
of the preliminary injunction pending an appeal.  The Court again
directed the Plaintiffs to file a response to the Defendants'
motion, but this time allowed Doe Plaintiffs and JFS Plaintiffs
to file separately.

The Doe Plaintiffs and the JFS Plaintiffs filed their responses
on Jan. 4, 2018.  On the same day, the Defendants filed a notice
of appeal of the Court's preliminary injunction.  Finally, on
Jan. 5, 2018, the Defendants filed a "notice," which asked the
Court to stay that portion of the preliminary injunction that the
Defendants unsuccessfully challenged in their motion for
reconsideration.

The Defendants declare in their motion they do not understand the
preliminary injunction to require affirmative action to undo any
of the steps that were taken to implement the Joint Memorandum
prior to December 23.  Judge Robart says that to the extent that
this declaration is an attempt to unilaterally modify the
preliminary injunction, he rejected it.  In any event, the
Defendants' arguments that they should be excused from taking any
"affirmative actions" to comply with the preliminary injunction
are conclusory and unsupported by any evidence.  The time to
submit such evidence, to the extent it exists, would have been
when the Court was considering the Plaintiffs' motions for
preliminary injunction.  He again ordered the Defendants to
comply with the preliminary injunction as written.

Having evaluated all the factors that guide its exercise of
discretion, the Judge denied the Defendants' motion for a stay.
In addition, for the same reasons as stated in the Order and in
its order denying their motion for reconsideration, the Judge
also denied Defendants' request in their Jan. 5, 2018, notice for
a more limited stay concerning those refugees who have a bona
fide relationship with an entity in the United States through a
resettlement assurance agency.

Judge Robart finds that nothing in the Defendants' motion for a
stay causes the Court to reevaluate those rulings.  The
Defendants have failed to demonstrate that they will be
irreparably injured absent a stay or that the public interest
favors a stay.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 9, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/xCwHKB from Leagle.com.

John Doe, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated & Episcopal Diocese of Olympia, Plaintiffs, represented
by Alison Chase -- achase@KellerRohrback.com -- KELLER ROHRBACK
LLP, pro hac vice, Alison Gaffney, KELLER ROHRBACK, Amy C.
Williams-Derry -- awilliams-derry@KellerRohrback.com -- KELLER
ROHRBACK, Derek W. Loeser -- dloeser@KellerRohrback.com -- KELLER
ROHRBACK, Emily Chiang, ACLU OF WASHINGTON, Laurie B. Ashton --
lashton@KellerRohrback.com -- KELLER ROHRBACK LLP, pro hac vice,
Lisa Nowlin, ACLU OF WASHINGTON, Tana Lin --
tlin@KellerRohrback.com -- KELLER ROHRBACK & Lynn Lincoln Sarko -
- lsarko@KellerRohrback.com -- KELLER ROHRBACK.

Joseph Doe, James Doe, Council on American Islamic Relations -
Washington, Jack Doe & Jason Doe, Plaintiffs, represented by
Alison Gaffney, KELLER ROHRBACK, Lisa Nowlin, ACLU OF WASHINGTON
& Tana Lin, KELLER ROHRBACK.

Jeffrey Doe, Plaintiff, represented by Lisa Nowlin, ACLU OF
WASHINGTON & Tana Lin, KELLER ROHRBACK.

Afkab Mohamed Hussein, Jewish Family Service of Seattle, Jewish
Family Services of Silicon Valley, Jane Doe 6, Allen Vaught, Jane
Doe 5, Jane Doe 4, John Doe 7, John Doe 2 & John Doe 1, Consol
Plaintiffs, represented by Abigail E. Davis --
abigail.sheehan@skadden.com -- pro hac vice, David J. Burman --
DBurman@perkinscoie.com -- PERKINS COIE, Deepa Alagesan,
INTERNATIONAL REFUGEE ASSISTANCE PROJECT, pro hac vice, Elizabeth
G. Sweet, HIAS, pro hac vice, Esther Sung, NATIONAL IMMIGRATION
LAW CENTER, pro hac vice, Justin B. Cox, NATIONAL IMMIGRATION LAW
CENTER, pro hac vice, Karen C. Tumlin, NATIONAL IMMIGRATION LAW
CENTER, pro hac vice, Kathryn C. Meyer, INTERNATIONAL REFUGEE
ASSISTANCE PROJECT, pro hac vice, Lauren E. Aguiar --
lauren.aguiar@skadden.com -- pro hac vice, Lauren Watts Staniar -
- LStaniar@perkinscoie.com -- PERKINS COIE, Linda Evarts,
INTERNATIONAL REFUGEE ASSISTANCE PROJECT, pro hac vice, Mariko
Hirose, INTERNATIONAL REFUGEE ASSISTANCE PROJECT, pro hac vice,
Mark J. Hetfield, HIAS, pro hac vice, Melissa S. Keaney, NATIONAL
IMMIGRATION LAW CENTER, pro hac vice, Mollie M. Kornreich --
mollie.kornreich@skadden.com -- pro hac vice & Tyler S. Roberts -
- TRoberts@perkinscoie.com -- PERKINS COIE.

Donald Trump, President of the United States, U.S. Department of
State, Rex Tillerson, Secretary of State, U.S. Department of
Homeland Security, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Kevin
McAleenan, Acting Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border
Protection & Michele James, Field Director of the Seattle Field
Office of U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Defendants,
represented by August E. Flentje, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Arjun
Garg, US DEPT. OF JUSTICE CIVIL DIVISION, Joseph Dugan, US
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE CIVIL DIVISION & Michelle R. Bennett, US
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE CIVIL DIVISION.

Office of the Director of National Intelligence & Daniel Coats,
Director of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence,
Defendants, represented by August E. Flentje, DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE, Joseph Dugan, US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE CIVIL DIVISION &
Michelle R. Bennett, US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE CIVIL DIVISION.

Elaine Duke, Acting Secretary of Homeland Security, Defendant,
represented by August E. Flentje, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Tana
Lin, KELLER ROHRBACK, Arjun Garg, US DEPT. OF JUSTICE CIVIL
DIVISION, Joseph Dugan, US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE CIVIL DIVISION &
Michelle R. Bennett, US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE CIVIL DIVISION.

National Association for the Advancement of Colored People,
Advocates for Youth, Chicago Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights
Under Law, Judge David L Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law,
Mississippi Center for Justice, National Center for Lesbian
Rights, People for the American Way Foundation, Southern
Coalition for Social Justice & Washington Lawyers' Committee for
Civil Rights and Urban Affairs, Amicuss, represented by Michael
C. Subit, FRANK FREED SUBIT & THOMAS.

Muslim Advocates, Amicus, represented by Aziz Huq, MUSLIM
ADVOCATES, pro hac vice, Johnathan J. Smith, MUSLIM ADVOCATES,
pro hac vice, Joseph P. Hoag -- josephhoag@dwt.com --  DAVIS
WRIGHT TREMAINE, Matthew W. Callahan, MUSLIM ADVOCATES, pro hac
vice & Sirine Shebaya, MUSLIM ADVOCATES, pro hac vice.

Roderick & Solange MacArthur Justice Center, Amicus, represented
by Amir Ali, RODERICK & SOLANGE MACARTHUR JUSTICE CENTER, pro hac
vice & Joseph P. Hoag, DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE.


DONUT KING: Law Firm Investigates Possible Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
News.com.au reports that a law firm is investigating a possible
class action against Donut King and Gloria Jean's parent company
Retail Food Group on behalf of disgruntled franchisees. [GN]


ECLINICALWORKS LLC: Faces Class Action Over Unsolicited Fax Ads
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kate Monica, writing for HER Intelligence, reports that Goodson &
Company in Ohio has filed a complaint against eClinicalWorks for
allegedly faxing unsolicited advertisement materials about its
EHR system product offerings to the law firm.

As part of the class action lawsuit, the Cincinnati-based law
firm claimed eClinicalWorks violated the Junk Fax Prevention Act
(JFPA) by sending unsolicited product advertisements without
first obtaining permission from the recipient.

"eClinicalWorks did not seek or obtain permission from Goodson &
Company to send ads to Goodson & Company's fax number/fax machine
prior to doing so," stated the plaintiff in court documents.
"The EClinicalWorks Fax did not contain an opt-out notice that
complied with the requirements of the JFPA."

The faxes were allegedly sent back on Feb. 4, 2014.  Goodson &
Company also claims eClinicalWorks illegally faxed unsolicited
advertisements to more than forty other individuals and is
seeking damages of $500 per JFPA violation.

JFPA defines an unsolicited advertisement as "any material
advertising the commercial availability of quality of any
property, goods, or services which is transmitted to any person
without that person's prior express invitation or permission, in
writing or otherwise."

The law firm filed the complaint on behalf of all individuals
that received faxes about the commercial availability or quality
of eClinicalWorks EHR product offerings from 2014 onward without
first giving eClinicalWorks permission to do so.

"The receipt of an unsolicited advertisements via facsimile (or
"junk fax") causes damage to the recipient," stated the
complaint.  "A junk fax uses the office supplies of the recipient
such as paper, toner, and the fax machine itself."

"A junk fax also ties up the phone line and the fax machine of
the recipient, thereby precluding their use for legitimate,
authorized facsimiles and other business," continued the
plaintiff.

This lawsuit is the fourth in a string of allegations brought
against the Massachusetts-based health IT company in the last
nine months.

In November, eClinicalWorks was sued for nearly $1 billion in
monetary damages for breach of fiduciary duty and gross
negligence following claims an individual died of cancer due to
faulty patient EHRs.

The complaint alleged Stjepan Tot was "unable to determine
reliably when his first symptoms of cancer appeared as his
medical records failed to accurately display his medical history
on progress notes."

The legal owner of Stjepan Tot's estate, Kristina Tot, seeks $999
billion in damages.  The lawsuit alleged patients and doctors
cannot rely on the accuracy of eClinicalWorks EHRs.

The lawsuit over faulty patient EHRs followed the $155 million
eClinicalWorks settlement to resolve allegations the health IT
company misled consumers about the legitimacy of its EHR
certifications and paid some users kickbacks for positive product
promotion.

According to the lawsuit, the government claims eClinicalWorks
illegally obtained EHR certifications by concealing the inability
of its EHR technology to comply with certain certification
criteria.  eClinicalWork's EHR technology also allegedly failed
to meet data portability requirements.

Despite the settlement, only 4 percent of eClinicalWorks users
reported plans to find a replacement EHR as a direct result of
the allegations.  However, the settlement did contribute to
growing distrust among providers about the integrity of EHR
vendors.

eClinicalWorks has allegedly failed to significantly improve its
software following the lawsuit.

Carrollton Family Clinic of Mississippi filed a lawsuit early
this year in relation to the $155 million settlement.  The clinic
claimed eClinicalWorks failed to live up to its promises and
guarantees related to its compliance with certification criteria.

Specifically, the clinic alleged eClinicalWorks failed to deliver
on a promise to update its software to ensure compliance with
federal programs -- including meaningful use -- and provide
credits of certain fees paid by customers if its software failed
to meet program requirements.

In total, the complaint included nine counts against the health
IT company. [GN]


ELECTRONIC ARTS: "Davis" Suit Seeks to Certify NFL Players Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled MICHAEL E. DAVIS, aka TONY DAVIS, VINCE
FERRAGAMO, and BILLY JOE DUPREE, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. ELECTRONIC ARTS,
INC., the Defendant, Case No. 3:10-cv-03328-RS (N.D. Cal.), the
Plaintiffs will move the Court on March 29, 2018, for an order
certifying a class of:

   "all former NFL players who did not provide permission to EA
   to use their name, image, identity, persona and/or likeness
   that are listed on a roster for an NFL team that is included
   as a "historic" or "all time" team in a Madden NFL video game,
   and whose actual name appears in the software, or in EA's
   design database(s), for Madden NFL video games that sold or
   distributed in California within the applicable statute of
   limitations."

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=0jtjbFmb

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          Brian D. Henri, Esq.
          HENRI LAW GROUP
          640 W. California Ave, Suite 210
          Sunnyvale, CA 94806
          Telephone: (650) 614 5807
          Facsimile: (650) 618 1937
          E-mail: brianhenri@henrilg.com

               - and -

          Austin Tighe, Esq.
          FEAZELL & TIGHE LLP
          6618 Sitio Del Rio Boulevard
          Building C-101
          Austin, TX 78730
          Telephone: (512) 372 8100
          Facsimile: (512) 372 8140
          E-mail: austin@feazell-tighe.com


ENERGEN RESOURCES: Summary Judgment on Fuel Gas Claim Upheld
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, THE ANDERSON LIVING TRUST f/k/a The James H.
Anderson Living Trust; THE PRITCHETT LIVING TRUST; J. RICHIE
FIELDS; THE TATUM LIVING TRUST; NEELY-ROBERTSON REVOCABLE FAMILY
TRUST, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. ENERGEN RESOURCES CORPORATION,
Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 16-2124 (10th Cir.), Judge Terrence
L. O'Brien of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit (i)
affirmed the district court's dismissal and summary judgment
orders with respect to the New Mexico Trusts' claims regarding
the marketable condition rule and the New Mexico Natural Gas
Processors Tax Act; (ii) affirmed the summary judgment order with
respect to the Anderson and Pritchett Trusts' fuel gas claim;
(iii) reversed the summary judgment order with respect to the N-R
Trust's and Tatum Trust's fuel gas claims and the N-R Trust's
claim under the New Mexico Oil and Gas Proceeds Payments Act and
remanded those matters to the district court for a decision
consistent with his Opinion; (iv) denied the Trusts' motion to
certify the marketable condition rule issue to the New Mexico
Supreme Court; and (v) will address Energen's motion to seal its
supplemental appendix in a separate order.

The San Juan Basin, located in northwestern New Mexico and
southern Colorado, is a rich source of oil and natural gas.
Energen owns and operates oil and gas wells in the Basin.  Its
wells are subject to leases and other agreements (many of which
are quite old) requiring it to pay a monthly royalty or
overriding royalty on production to the Anderson Living Trust,
the Pritchett Living Trust, the Neely-Robertson Revocable Family
Trust ("N-R Trust"), and the Tatum Living Trust.  The royalty
interests of the Anderson, Pritchett, and N-R Trusts ("New Mexico
Trusts") derive from wells located in New Mexico, the Tatum
Trust's royalty interest from wells located in Colorado.

Believing Energen was systematically underpaying royalties, all
of the Trusts filed a putative class action complaint against it.
The New Mexico Trusts claimed Energen was improperly deducting
from their royalties their proportionate share of (1) the costs
it incurs to place the gas produced from the wells in a
marketable condition (post-production costs) and (2) a privilege
tax the State of New Mexico imposes on natural gas processors
(the natural gas processors tax).  They also alleged Energen had
not timely paid royalties or interest thereon, as required by the
New Mexico Oil and Gas Proceeds Payments Act.  Both the New
Mexico Trusts and the Tatum Trust further claimed Energen was
wrongfully failing to pay royalty on the gas it used as fuel.

The district judge dismissed the New Mexico Trusts' marketable
condition rule claim for failure to state a claim under Fed. R.
Civ. P. 12(b)(6) and entered summary judgment in favor of Energen
on the remaining claims.  All of the Trusts appeal from those
judgments.

For the most part, Judge O'Brien agrees with the district judge,
particularly in the following respects: First, under New Mexico
law, Energen had the duty to diligently market the gas for the
benefit of the New Mexico Trusts but that duty did not prohibit
it from deducting from their royalty payments their proportionate
share of post-production costs--those costs necessary to make the
gas marketable (i.e., the marketable condition rule does not
apply in New Mexico).  Second, nothing in the New Mexico Natural
Gas Processors Tax Act or other New Mexico law prohibited Energen
from deducting the Trusts' proportionate share of the tax from
their royalties.  Finally, the Anderson and Pritchett Trusts'
lease allows Energen to use produced gas as fuel without paying
royalty on it.

In some respects, the Judge part ways with the district judge.
They relate to: (1) the fuel gas claims made by the N-R Trust and
Tatum Trust and (2) the New Mexico Trusts' claim under the New
Mexico Oil and Gas Proceeds Payments Act.  As to the former, he
says the N-R Trust's overriding royalty agreement requires
royalty to be paid on all gas produced, including that gas used
as fuel.  And the Tatum Trust's leases explicitly prohibit
Energen from deducting post-production costs (Energen treats its
use of the fuel gas as an in-kind post-production cost).
Moreover, the "free use" clauses and royalty provisions in the
Tatum Trust's leases limit the free use of gas to that occurring
on the leased premises.  Because use of the fuel gas occurs off
the leased premises, Energen owes royalty on that gas.

With regard to the latter, he says the district judge was right
in permitting Energen to hold funds owed to the N-R Trust in a
suspense account until a title issue concerning a well was
resolved in favor of that Trust.  However, he did not address
whether the N-R Trust was entitled to statutory interest on those
funds.  It was so entitled, yet the current record (at least as
he reads it) does not show interest to have been paid on the
funds.

On New Mexico Trusts' claim under the Marketable Condition Rule,
Judge O'Brien concludes that the district judge properly
dismissed the New Mexico Trusts' implied duty to market claim as
it was based on the marketable condition rule, which does not
exist in New Mexico.  On their New Mexico Gas Processors Tax Act
claim, he concludes that the summary judgment on this claim was
proper.  Nothing in the 1998 amendment to Section 7-33-4(A)
prohibits the processors from passing the tax onto Energen or
from Energen passing the tax onto the New Mexico Trusts.  The
amendment simply prohibits the State of New Mexico from seeking
payment from the Trusts.

On New Mexico Trusts and Tatum Lease's claim that they are
entitled to royalties on the gas used as fuel, he concludes that
Energen was entitled to summary judgment on the Anderson and
Pritchett Trusts' fuel gas claim.  He also concludes that the
summary judgment entered in favor of Energen on the N-R Trust's
fuel gas claim was improper.  A remand is necessary for
appropriate factual findings and required calculations.  And
finally, he reversed the summary judgment and remanded the Tatum
Trust's fuel gas claim to the district court for reconsideration.
At first blush, it may appear the Court's resolution of the Tatum
Trust's fuel gas claim is inconsistent with that of the Anderson
and Pritchett Trusts' fuel gas claim.  Any "inconsistency,"
however, derives from the different state law and lease
provisions applicable to each.

Lastly, on New Mexico Trusts' claim under the New Mexico Oil and
Gas Proceeds Payment Act, Judge O'Brien holds that the district
judge erred in granting summary judgment to Energen on this
claim.  He says Energen claims the New Mexico Trusts provided no
evidence that the N-R Trust was not paid interest on the funds.
However, the Trusts provided documentation on how the amount of
the funds was calculated.  As he reads it, nothing in that
documentation indicates whether the amount the N-R Trust received
included statutory interest.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 9, 2018 Opinion is available
at https://is.gd/mtApTZ from Leagle.com.

Bradley D. Brickell, Brickell & Associates, P.C., Norman,
Oklahoma ( Margaret M. Branch -- mbranch@branchlawfirm.com -- and
Cynthia L. Zedalis, Branch Law Firm, Albuquerque, New Mexico,
Karen Aubrey, aw Office of Karen Aubrey, Santa Fe, New Mexico,
and Brian K. Branch, Law Office of Brian K. Branch, Albuquerque,
New Mexico, with him on the briefs) for Appellants.

Christopher A. Chrisman -- cachrisman@hollandhart.com -- Holland
& Hart LLP, Denver, Colorado (Bradford C. Berge --
bberge@hollandhart.com -- Holland & Hart LLP, Santa Fe, New
Mexico, Jessica M. Schmidt -- jmschmidt@hollandhart.com --
Holland & Hart LLP, Denver, Colorado, with him on the brief) for
Appellee.


EXCELLUS BLUECROSS: Customers Eligible to Rejoin Data Hack Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Orr, writing for Democrat & Chronicle, reports that
millions of Excellus BlueCross BlueShield customers whose
sensitive personal data was exposed during the massive hack of
the Rochester health insurer will be eligible to rejoin the
class-action lawsuit against the company.

In a ruling dated on Jan. 19, U.S. District Judge Elizabeth
Wolford restored standing to all plaintiffs whose data might have
been stolen by the hackers.  A decision by the judge last
February had greatly reduced the size of the potential class of
plaintiffs.

A fortuitously timed ruling by a higher court in another hacking
case provided much of the justification cited by the judge for
her about-face.

But the provocative discovery of some customers' personal data
for sale on the dark web, the hidden corners of the Internet
where hackers peddle their stolen wares -- as reported by the
Democrat and Chronicle -- also influenced her decision.

If the ruling stands, it appears most or all of the 10.5 million
current and former customers and vendors whose data was
compromised could be eligible to join the case once the class is
certified.

The class is not yet certified, Judge Wolford has not ruled
Excellus BlueCross BlueShield is liable for any damages, and the
case is still months or years from resolution.

The latest ruling greatly expands Excellus' potential financial
exposure.

But lest anyone get dollar signs in their eyes, consider the
result of a similar lawsuit filed against Anthem, an Indiana-
based BlueCross BlueShield company that disclosed a hack in
February 2015 that exposed the records of nearly 79 million
customers.

The company agreed last summer to a $115 million settlement.
That's the largest sum ever paid out for a data breach, but it
works out to just $1.45 per customer.

Individual plaintiffs will get $50 or two years' additional
credit monitoring.  They also can be reimbursed for out-of-pocket
expenses incurred dealing with instances of identity theft --
time lost at work, for instance, or hiring a lawyer to unsnarl a
problem.

The lawyers who brought the suit will split up to $41 million.

The break-in and the rulings
Excellus, the dominant insurer in the Rochester region and one of
the largest in the state, revealed in September 2015 that its
cyber-security had been breached.

The break-in was part of a string of health-insurer hacks that
included Anthem's.

In the worst incident of its kind in local history, unknown
hackers were able to rummage through the company's data banks for
nearly 20 months before being detected.

During that time, they were able to access a treasure trove of
sensitive information -- names, addresses, dates of birth, Social
Security numbers, account passwords, credit card numbers, email
addresses and some health-care records, among other things.

Excellus officials have maintained there is no evidence the
hackers copied the data.  But the plaintiffs' lawyers and the
expert consultants they hired say the facts argue otherwise.

In her decision, Judge Wolford said evidence submitted by the
plaintiffs last year that data had in fact been stolen and was
available in dark-web marketplaces "supports an argument that
cyber attackers committed the data breach and stole Plaintiffs'
information . . . for nefarious reasons and to commit identity
fraud."

The key issue in her decision, however, was the question of who
is allowed to participate as a plaintiff in a hacking case with a
large number of potential victims.

Federal appeals courts have been split on this point in recent
years.

Some courts have said only plaintiffs whose data is stolen and
then misused in a way that harms them should have standing to
sue. Other courts have held that the mere threat that one's data
was stolen and could be misused by hackers is enough to join a
case.

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals, which covers New York state
and part of New England, had not waded in on that point.

Judge Wolford took the more restrictive approach in her ruling
last year, removing plaintiffs from the Excellus case who
couldn't show they've suffered actual harm.  The plaintiffs'
lawyers promptly filed a motion asking Judge Wolford to
reconsider.

A month and a half later, the Second Circuit ruled in a suit
filed against Michaels Stores over a data intrusion it disclosed
in 2014.

That ruling contained language that Judge Wolford interpreted to
mean the appeals court would support the more expansive view of
who can sue over a hacking incident -- that "a risk of future
identity theft is sufficient to plead an injury," as she put it.

Judge Wolford's decision noted that a district court judge in
Manhattan hearing a mass-hacking case had reached a similar
conclusion about the appellate decision in October.

Largely on the basis of that appeals court ruling, Judge Wolford
granted the motion to reconsider and revised her definition of
who could join the suit.

"The plaintiffs are pleased by the Court's ruling and are
thankful that the claims of the representative plaintiffs whose
personally identifiable and health information has been stolen,
but not yet misused, are reinstated and will move forward on
behalf of this class of individuals," said Hadley Matarazzo, a
Rochester lawyer who is one of the lead counsels for the
plaintiffs.

Excellus BlueCross BlueShield, through a spokesman, declined to
comment on the case while the litigation is underway. [GN]


EXXON MOBIL: 5th Cir. Won't Remand "Lester" to State Court
----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Priscilla R. Owen of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's order denying the
Plaintiffs' respective motions to remand the case, WARREN LESTER;
ALFREDA MARSHALL; DAVID QUINN; DEMETRIA STERLING; DAWN HUMPHRIES;
ET AL., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION;
CHEVRON USA, INCORPORATED; JOSEPH GREFER; CAMILLE GREFER;
ROSEMARIE GREFER HAASE; HENRY GREFER; OFS, INCORPORATED;
INTRACOASTAL TUBULAR SERVICES, INCORPORATED; RATHBORNE
PROPERTIES, L.L.C.; RATHBORNE LAND COMPANY, L.L.C.; RATHBORNE
COMPANIES, L.L.C.; ALPHA TECHNICAL SERVICES, INCORPORATED; SHELL
OIL COMPANY; SHELL OFFSHORE, INCORPORATED; BP AMERICA PRODUCTION
COMPANY, formerly known as Amoco Production Company; VARCO, L.P.;
TEXACO, INCORPORATED; UNION OIL COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA;
CONOCOPHILLIPS COMPANY; MARATHON OIL COMPANY; FREEPORT MCMORAN,
INCORPORATED; IMC GLOBAL, INCORPORATED; EXCHANGE OIL & GAS
COMPANY; KERR-MCGEE OIL AND GAS CORPORATION; TORCH ENERGY
SERVICES, INCORPORATED; TORCH OPERATING COMPANY; FRENCH JORDAN,
INCORPORATED, doing business as Shield Coat, Incorporated; PLACID
OIL COMPANY; ROSEWOOD RESOURCES, INCORPORATED; DYNAMIC
EXPLORATIONS, INCORPORATED; CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYDS
LONDON; CERTAIN LONDON MARKET INSURANCE COMPANIES; HYDRIL
COMPANY, INCORPORATED; OILFIELD TESTERS, INCORPORATED; KBR,
INCORPORATED; MCDERMOTT, INCORPORATED; BREDERO PRICE COMPANY,
Defendants-Appellees. SHIRLEY BOTTLEY; JOVANE BENOIT; JUAJUAN
BENOIT, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION; EXXON
MOBIL OIL CORPORATION; HUMBLE OIL & REFINING COMPANY; HUMBLE OIL
& REFINING CORPORATION; CHEVRON USA, INCORPORATED; BP CORPORATION
NORTH AMERICA, INCORPORATED; DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION COMPANY,
L.P.; CONOCOPHILLIPS COMPANY; SHELL OIL COMPANY; MARATHON OIL
COMPANY; OXY, INCORPORATED; VARCO, L.P.; INTRACOASTAL TUBULAR
SERVICES, INCORPORATED; BP AMERICA PRODUCTION COMPANY,
Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 14-31383 (5th Cir.).

The lawsuits originated in Louisiana civil district court.  In
2002, over 600 Plaintiffs filed a petition in Warren Lester, et
al. v. Exxon Mobil, et al. alleging personal injury and property
damage claims arising from naturally occurring radioactive
material.

In 2013, Shirley Bottley, Jovane Benoit, and Juajuan Benoit filed
a wrongful death and survival action -- Shirley Bottley et al. v.
Exxon Mobil Corp., et al. -- seeking to recover for injuries to
and the death of Cornelius Bottley.  Prior to his death,
Cornelius Bottley had been a Plaintiff in Lester. The Lester and
Bottley Plaintiffs are represented by the same counsel.

Shortly thereafter, the state court in Lester set for trial a
flight of eight Plaintiffs -- the Louisiana Texas Oilfield
Inspection Service Flight ("LTOIS") -- which included Cornelius
Bottley's claim.  Apparently hoping to join the LTOIS flight for
trial, the Bottley Plaintiffs moved to transfer and consolidate
their three-Plaintiff suit with Lester.  ExxonMobil Oil Corp. --
a named defendant only in Bottley -- promptly removed both suits.
It claimed Bottley and Lester were removable as a newly commenced
mass action under CAFA. At the time of removal, over 500
Plaintiffs remained in Lester.

Both the Bottley and Lester Plaintiffs moved for remand asserting
a lack of subject matter jurisdiction.  They claimed that the
Bottley Plaintiffs' consolidation motion did not give rise to a
mass action, and in any event, CAFA did not provide an
opportunity for removal because the Lester action was commenced
prior to CAFA's effective date.

The district court denied remand, ordered Bottley consolidated
with Lester, and later denied the Plaintiffs' Motion for
Reconsideration.  Recognizing that its decision resolved a
significant jurisdictional question, the district court advised
that it might be wise for the parties to seek review at the
beginning of the long and costly process of serial trials in the
matter.  The Bottley and Lester Plaintiffs then filed a petition
for permission to appeal under 29 U.S.C. Section 1292(b), and the
Court granted that petition.

Judge Owen concludes that Mobil Oil was permitted to remove both
Bottley and Lester to federal court as a mass action under CAFA.
She finds that the quandary in which the Plaintiffs find
themselves in is of their own making.  The Plaintiffs were well
aware that amending the Lester complaint to add the Bottley
claims asserted against Mobil Oil could trigger CAFA based on the
reasoning of Braud.  In fact, the Lester Plaintiffs sought leave
to file a petition adding seven new defendants, including Mobil
Oil, in 2006.

The Lester action was promptly removed by one of the potential
new Defendants but ultimately remanded because the amendment had
not yet been filed.  Now, Plaintiffs seek to do by means of
consolidation what Braud prohibits.  But their theory would
permit groupings of 99 Plaintiffs to seek out sufficiently
similar pre-CAFA suits, move for consolidation, and evade CAFA.
Construing CAFA to permit this procedural gamesmanship is at odds
with CAFA's intent to curb abuses of the judicial system.

The Judge finds that the district court consolidated Lester and
Bottley when it denied the Plaintiffs' motion to remand.  A
district court is permitted to order consolidation pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a) sua sponte.  The Plaintiffs
did not dispute the correctness of the district court's
consolidation order.  They claim they moved for state court
consolidation for the very reasons animating Rule 42(a), and the
district court did not err in consolidating the cases after
removal.

For these reasons, Judge Owen accordingly affirmed the district
court's order.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 9, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/W3k6Dx from Leagle.com.

Frank M. Buck, Jr., for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Bettye Anne Barrios, for Defendant-Appellee.

Jacques F. Bezou, for Defendant-Appellee.

Michael P. Cash -- mcash@liskow.com -- for Defendant-Appellee.

Walter W. Christy -- wchristy@coatsrose.com -- for Defendant-
Appellee.

Charles Bruce Colvin -- ccolvin@kingsmillriess.com -- for
Defendant-Appellee.

Caleb H. Didriksen, III -- caleb@didriksenlaw.com -- for
Defendant-Appellee.

Stephen Porter Hall, for Defendant-Appellee.

John William Hite, III -- jhite@shmrlaw.com -- for Defendant-
Appellee.

Marguerite K. Kingsmill -- mkingsmill@kingsmillriess.com -- for
Defendant-Appellee.

Kenneth Hugh Laborde -- klaborde@glllaw.com -- for Defendant-
Appellee.

Timothy John Falcon, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Jeremiah Alexander Mark Sprague, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Jarrett Stephen Falcon, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Juan Cruz Obregon -- Juan.Obregon@jacksonlewis.com -- for
Plaintiff-Appellant.


FAMILY CONSTRUCTION: "Navarrete" Suit Seeks OT Wages under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Roberto Navarrete, Jose Luis Gutierrez, Benjamin Vergara, Angel
Maldonado, Cristobal Hernandez Mejia, Marco Vergara, on behalf
themselves and others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v.
Family Construction and Home Improvement, Inc., an Illinois
Corporation, Ion Vanciu and "John Doe,", the Defendants, Case No.
1:18-cv-00219 (N.D. Ill., Jan. 11, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid
wages, unpaid overtime wages, and liquidated damages under the
Fair Labor Standards Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, and the
Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants failed to pay
Plaintiffs, and other similarly situated workers, wages owed, and
overtime compensation at the rate of one and one-half times their
regular rates of pay for all hours worked in excess of forty in a
workweek. Defendants also violated the IMWL by failing to pay
Plaintiffs and similarly situated workers at the minimum hourly
wage and by not paying the prescribed rate of one and one-half
times the employees' regular wage rates for all overtime hours
worked. Defendants violated the IWPCA by failing to pay wages
when due and failing to pay final compensation when due.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jorge Sanchez, Esq.
          Baldemar Lopez, Esq.
          LOPEZ & SANCHEZ LLP
          77 W. Washington St., Suite 1313
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 420 6784


FLORIDA: Amended Class Action Allegations Denied in "Hernandez"
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled ISIDOR HERNANDEZ, the Petitioner, v.
SECRETARY OF THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY
SERVICES, et al., the Respondents, Case No. 3:15-cv-01414-TJC-JRK
(M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Timothy J. Corrigan entered an order
on Jan. 22, 2018:

   1. denying Petitioner's amended class action allegations and
      request for appointment of counsel to represent the class;

   2. denying Petitioner's amended motion for an extension of
      time; and

   3. denying Petitioner's amended motion requesting this Court
      consider two civil rights cases with respect to exhaustion
      of administrative remedies.

This case does not involve issues relating to all residents at
the Florida Civil Commitment Center. Petitioner filed a reply to
the State's supplemental response that the Court will consider
when reviewing the Amended Petition.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=GvfmP4kE


HEWLETT-PACKARD: 9th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of "Laffen"
-------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MIKE LAFFEN; KARYN LUSTIG KEELAN; PAUL HIGGINS, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY; HEWLETT-
PACKARD COMPANY 401(K) PLAN; CATHERINE A. LESJAK; JOHN N.
MCMULLEN; JAMES T. MURRIN; MARC A. LEVINE, Defendants-Appellees,
Case No. 15-16360 (9th Cir.), Judge Cynthia M. Rufe the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district
court's dismissal, with prejudice, of Laffen's Second Amended
Complaint ("SAC").

The appeal arises out of HP's failed acquisition of Autonomy
Corp. Plc, a British software company.  Plaintiffs-Appellants
Laffen, Keelan, and Higgins ("Laffen") initiated the class action
on behalf of current and former HP employees who participated in
HP's 401(k) Savings Plan and whose accounts purchased or held HP
Common Stock Fund at any time between Oct. 3, 2011 and Nov. 21,
2012.

The Defendants-Appellees -- who are the Plan's fiduciaries --
allegedly breached their fiduciary duties by permitting the Plan
and Plan participants to purchase and hold HP common stock when
the stock was artificially inflated and was an imprudent
investment for the Plan, purportedly in violation of section
404(a) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, 29 U.S.C.
Section 1104(a) ("ERISA").

Laffen appeals from the district court's dismissal, with
prejudice, of the Second Amended Complaint ("SAC").  Judge Rufe
affirmed.

Judge Rufe finds that Laffen's theory that HP concealed that it
knew about Autonomy's allegedly questionable accounting practices
which led HP to report inflated revenues and overpay for Autonomy
is implausible because this theory is inconsistent with the
overall complaint and the Defendants-Appellees offer a convincing
alternative explanation.  The Judge finds that the SAC alleges
that the Defendants-Appellees hid knowledge about Autonomy's
inflated value until a whistleblower forced the Defendants-
Appellees to investigate and disclose it.  But the information
the whistleblower divulged is not the same information the
Defendants-Appellees supposedly concealed.  Therefore, Laffen's
concealment theory is inconsistent with the complaint because the
information Defendants-Appellees allegedly concealed is not the
same information that forced HP to reduce Autonomy's valuation
and hurt the value of HP stock.  Accordingly, the SAC failed to
plead a plausible set of particular facts to support the
concealment theory.

The Judge further finds that Laffen also contends that pursuant
to the Defendants-Appellees' duty of prudence, the latter should
have at least prevented the Plan from making new investments in
HP Common Stock Fund and/or made public disclosures about HP
stock's risks following the whistleblower's allegations.  But a
prudent fiduciary in the same circumstances as the Defendants-
Appellees could view Laffen's proposed alternative course of
action as likely to cause more harm than good without first
conducting a proper investigation.

Because Laffen has not plausibly alleged an alternative action
the Defendants-Appellees could have taken that was consistent
with securities laws and that a similarly situated prudent
fiduciary would not have viewed as more likely to harm than help
the Plan, Laffen fails to plead a claim for breach of the duty of
prudence.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 9, 2018 Memorandum is
available at https://is.gd/5BmcjS from Leagle.com.


HOSPITAL HOUSEKEEPING: Rowe Seeks to Certify Employees Class
------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled ZABIAN ROWE, the Plaintiff, v. HOSPITAL
HOUSEKEEPING SYSTEMS, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-09376-
LMA-JVM (E.D. La.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to conditionally
certify the following collective:

   "all nonexempt hourly employees of Hospital Housekeeping
   Systems, LLC, who worked within the State of Louisiana at any
   time between September 20, 2014 to the date of judgment in
   this action."

The Plaintiff further asks the Court to authorize that notice be
sent to the members of the collective, that the Court approve the
proposed Form of Notice, that Defendant be ordered to disclose
contact information on an expedited basis, and for such other and
further relief as the Court may deem appropriate based on the
record.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=ufpA4Rje

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Charles J. Stiegler, Esq.
          STIEGLER LAW FIRM LLC
          318 Harrison Ave., Suite 104
          New Orleans, La. 70124
          Telephone: (504) 267 0777
          Facsimile: (504) 513 3084
          E-mail: Charles@StieglerLawFirm.com

               - and -

          Christopher L. Williams, Esq.
          WILLIAMS LITIGATION, LLC
          639 Loyola Avenue, Suite 1850
          New Orleans, LA 70113
          Telephone: (504) 308 1438
          Facsimile: (504) 308 1446
          E-mail: Chris@WilliamsLitigation.com


INDIANA BOARD: Court Denies Shaw's Post-Judgment Bid in "Perdue"
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, AMANDA PERDUE on her own behalf and on behalf of a
class of those similarly situated, et al. Plaintiffs, v. THE
INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE INDIANA STATE BOARD OF LAW EXAMINERS in
their official capacities, Defendant, Case No. 1:09-cv-00842-TWP-
MJD (S.D. Ind.), Judge Tanya Walton Pratt of the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis
Division, denied  non-party Andrew Straw's post-judgment motion.

Thelawsuit began in 2009 when Perdue sued the Indiana Board
contending that they were violating the Americans with
Disabilities Act ("ADA") by requiring applicants to the Indiana
bar to answer questions about their mental health history.  The
ACLU of Indiana -- Indiana University School of Law --
Indianapolis Chapter later joined the lawsuit as a Plaintiff.
The Counsel of the ACLU of Indiana represented both the
Plaintiffs.  The Court granted the Plaintiffs' motion to certify
a class.  On Oct. 6, 2011, the Court entered a Judgment that
enjoined the Indiana Board from using certain questions on the
Indiana bar examination.

The motion presently before the Court was filed by Straw.  He is
an attorney who has been disciplined by the Indiana Supreme Court
and the Court.  He seeks, among other things, the Indiana
discipline to be obliterated.

Judge Pratt denied Mr. Straw's post-judgment motion.  She holds
that the case is not the proper vehicle for Mr. Straw to seek
reinstatement of his law license.  Indeed, Mr. Straw has brought
suit against the Indiana Supreme Court and challenged his
attorney discipline in several cases in the Court.  There is no
basis to litigate these issue in the case, not least because --
even if Mr. Straw is a member of the class certified by the
Court, which he is not -- only the class counsel may seek relief
for the class because individual class members lack standing to
individually litigate matters relating to the class action.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 9, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/Mul4Ht from Leagle.com.

AMANDA PERDUE, on their own behalf and on behalf of a class of
those similarly situated & ACLU OF INDIANA - INDIANA UNIVERSITY
SCHOOL OF LAW - INDIANAPOLIS CHAPTER, Plaintiffs, represented by
Kenneth J. Falk -- kfalk@aclu-in.org -- ACLU OF INDIANA.

THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE INDIANA STATE BOARD OF LAW
EXAMINERS, in their official capacities, Defendant, represented
by Anthony W. Overholt -- aoverholt@fbtlaw.com -- FROST BROWN
TODD LLC & Darren Andrew Craig -- dcraig@fbtlaw.com -- FROST
BROWN TODD LLC.

ROBERT M. SHAW, Interested Party, Pro Se.


IOWA: Gender-Based Pay Differences May Spur Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Jason Clayworth, writing for Des Moines Register, reports that
median pay for women working in Iowa state government is about
$5,300 less a year than men, a dollar gap that has changed little
over the past decade, a Register analysis has found.

In fiscal year 2017, median pay for male government workers was
$55,879, about 11 percent more than the $50,537 median for female
workers.

While the gap in median salaries between the two genders has
dropped in the last decade from 15 percent to 11 percent as pay
for both rose, the dollar gap remains virtually unchanged.

A typical male worker earned $5,476 more than a female worker in
2007 and $5,342 more in 2017.

The pay gap is much larger in several university jobs, such as
assistant and associate professors and lecturers, where men make
25 percent to 33 percent more than their female co-workers, the
Register found.

It's an issue that, if left unaddressed, exposes the state to
class-action lawsuits, as well as an erosion of talent within its
workforce, state and national critics contend.

"This is what I view as a systemic problem, when it comes to
women and pay," said Des Moines attorney Thomas Newkirk, who last
year helped former University of Iowa associate athletic director
Jane Meyer win a $1.43 million jury award against the university
for gender discrimination, unequal pay, and retaliation and
whistleblower violations.

Ms. Meyer accused her former boss, Gary Barta, of forcing her out
because she was a gay woman who was outspoken about gender
inequities in his department.

Men dominate top salaries
The Register's analysis of state pay showed that men took home
nine of the top 10 government salaries in Iowa, led by University
of Iowa football coach Kirk Ferentz's $5.1 million salary.

The highest-paid woman was Ms. Meyer, at No. 9, whose $950,000 in
pay in 2017 was mostly attributable to the jury award.

But the true measure of inequity, critics such as Mr. Newkirk
say, lies in specific job titles held by the state's 59,400
employees.

Female nurse clinicians, for example -- positions held at
multiple state departments -- make on average $73,074 -- $18,113
less than men who hold the same title.

And female clinical assistant professors at the University of
Iowa make $158,469 on average -- $52,145 less than their male
counterparts, according to the Register's analysis.

University officials point to factors not accounted for in the
state database -- such as the fact that a greater percentage of
men pursue tenure -- as an explanation for at least some of the
disparities.

The reasons often used to explain pay differences often center on
the disproportionate number of women who work in lower-paid
fields, such as social work.

"My frustration is I think there are a lot of people who are
willfully ignoring there is a problem," said Nate Boulton, D-Des
Moines, the lead Senate sponsor of Senate File 340, a bill that
would create a state "Equal Pay Task Force" that would
investigate pay gaps in Iowa's private and public sectors.
"People aren't accepting how widespread this is."

Brenna Smith, a spokeswoman for Gov. Kim Reynolds, noted the
state salary data doesn't take into account factors such as years
of experience that directly influence pay.

Ms. Smith did not answer whether the governor supports the
proposal to create a task force to investigate pay equity.

"The governor believes paying men and women differently, simply
because of their gender, is discrimination," Ms. Smith said.
"Period."


National and statewide differences

The gender pay gap may not close for more than 100 years. Experts
look at how it's calculated and interpreted for women in the
workforce. Video provided by Newsy Newslook

Gender-based pay differences are hardly unique to Iowa's state
government, according to a study published last year by the
National Partnership for Women & Families.

When nongovernment sectors of Iowa's workforce are factored in,
the gender pay gap is even more pronounced.

The partnership, a nonpartisan group based in Washington, D.C.,
found that the median annual pay for Iowa women who work full
time is $36,264, $11,034 less than full-time male workers.

Women in Iowa are paid 77 cents for every dollar a man earns,
putting them slightly below the national average of 80 cents, the
study said.

Statewide, Iowa women earned $8.5 billion less than Iowa men over
a year's time. Overall, Iowa had the 16th-largest pay gap, the
study determined.

Families, businesses and the economy suffer as a result, the
study concluded.

"There a lot of reasons people use to excuse the wage gap," said
Sarah Fleisch, director of workplace policy at the partnership.
"Sometimes, people will say, 'Yeah, but you're not comparing
people of the same jobs and you're comparing averages.'

"But we do know even when you do account for things like
education, industry and work pattern, there still is a gender-
based wage gap."

Wendy Robertson, a University of Iowa digital scholarship
librarian, was among a group of researchers who in 2016 published
"Equity at Iowa," an online project that reviewed data found in
the state's salary databases.

The project explored reasons for some of the salary differences,
looking in detail at specific colleges or majors. It found that
many of the college's departments had higher percentages of male
employees who had been promoted to full professorships.

Robertson said the group's work parallels efforts by others at
the University of Iowa, such as work by officials in the
college's engineering department to recruit more women into
science studies as a step to address the issue.

"We weren't trying to push an agenda so much as saying, 'Let's
look at this and see what it's saying,' Robertson said. "In some
cases, the data looks pretty good, and we tried to tell that as
well."

For example, data shows that the median number of years
difference between men and women to become a professor at the
university's public health and business schools is less than a
year.

But that's countered by larger disparities in other areas, such
as in the university's pharmacy school, where there is a six-year
median gap between men and women who become professors.

Even in schools such as nursing, where women employees outnumber
men, it still takes women three years longer to achieve the rank
of professor, compared with their male peers, the project showed.

"These are dismaying charts," the project concludes. "The loss of
income and status that female faculty suffer as a result of
taking longer to make it to the highest rank has a cumulative
impact as salary increases are often based on percentages of
previous salaries, and some faculty honors are bestowed only on
full professors."

Iowa State University Economist Dave Swenson said a salary review
based on gender-based averages is important but demands more
scrutiny. He noted that differences in the percentages of men and
women in some state jobs contribute to the overall gap.

"It remains that large fractions of administrative support
employment are female, which do earn substantially less than
management, technical and other professional occupations,"
Swenson said.

What's causing the wage gap?
A 2006 study at the University of Iowa found that almost all
faculty pay variations were the result of known factors that were
expected to affect salary, including the discipline taught,
seniority, tenure status and faculty rank.

When those factors were taken into account, "there were no
overall statistically significant gender- or minority-status
based salary differences," Jeneane Beck, a University of Iowa
spokeswoman, said.

Betsy Altmaier retired in 2015 after working for the UI for 35
years.

The former psychology professor, associate dean and associate
provost remembers a stint at the University of Florida in 1977 in
which pay for her summer fellowship was cut by about a third
because "I had a husband to help support me," while the other
recipient "had a wife and himself to support."

When she was hired at the University of Iowa, Ms. Altmaier said
she remembers her starting salary was lower than some men who
started in the same positions and who had less experience.

Pay studies -- which she was part of in her role in the provost's
office -- are "inordinately challenging" because factors such as
the value of research and publications can be subjective. She
noted that individual pay bumps sometimes are associated with
retention efforts, which are hard to track.

"I truly believe there are some differences.  I don't know,
however, that they are quote 'fixable,'" Ms. Altmaier said about
pay inequities.  "It used to be so much more obviously this way,
but just because it was worse doesn't necessarily mean it is fair
now."

'An accident waiting to happen'
The Iowa Board of Regents reviews its workforce at the three
state universities as part of an annual human resources report.

The report shows women who are part of the system's professional
and scientific employee groups make $3,000 to $5,000 less a year
on average than their male counterparts.

The regents' most recent faculty tenure report shows men continue
to hold more tenured positions.

Mr. Newkirk, the Des Moines attorney who represented Ms. Meyer,
said acknowledging factors that contribute to differences does
not address the problem.  He has urged the university to more
thoroughly review its salaries and address the disparities.

"It's an accident waiting to happen," Mr. Newkirk said.  "A lack
of accountability creates an atmosphere favorable for someone to
pursue a class-action (lawsuit) and cost a lot of money."

About this story
The Des Moines Register used the state's most recent fiscal year
as a base for its salary review.

The data includes all salaries in the fiscal year that ended June
30, 2017, for 59,400 state government employees.

The data includes employee gender but does not include other
factors that influence salaries, such as level of education,
experience or starting wage.  The Register then compared those
salaries with data from fiscal year 2007.

The last decade of salaries can be searched on the Register's
website, DesMoinesRegister.com. [GN]


ISLE OF CAPRI: Seeks Approval of Settlement in Brna et al. Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled DANIEL A. BRNA, RAMON FERNANDEZ and JAMES
E. SCOTT, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. ISLE OF CAPRI CASINOS, INC. AND
INTERBLOCK USA, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 0:17-cv-60144-FAM
(S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs ask the court to enter an order
which:

   1. grants final approval of (i) the certification of the
      settlement class, (ii) the designation of the class
      representatives, and (iii) the designation of class
      counsel, all as conditionally approved in the preliminary-
      approval order;

   2. grants final approval of the settlement as fair,
      reasonable, and adequate to the settlement class;

   3. provides for the release of all released claims and enjoins
      settlement class members from asserting, filing,
      maintaining, or prosecuting any of the released claims in
      the future;

   4. orders the entry of judgment for Defendants on all claims,
      causes of action, and counts alleged in the lawsuit, and
      incorporates the releases and covenant not to sue stated in
      the settlement agreement, with each of the parties to bear
      its or his own costs and attorneys' fees, except as
      provided in Section 10 of the settlement agreement;

   5. authorizes Defendants to pay (i) valid claims approved by
      the settlement administrator in accordance with the terms
      of the settlement agreement, (ii) the incentive awards to
      each plaintiff, and (iii) the fees/costs to Class Counsel
      as approved by the Court; and

   6. preserves the Court's continuing jurisdiction over the
      administration and enforcement of the settlement agreement.

The settlement class is defined as:

   "IOC Fan Club members who played the game of craps on
   Interblock's Organic Dice machines at IOC's Pompano Park
   casino and placed a winning "buy bet" during the class period
   of July 8, 2015 to January 22, 2017.2 According to the Fan
   Club records, approximately 6,000 Fan Club members inserted
   their membership card to play the Organic Dice machines at the
   Pompano Park casino during the class period and were,
   therefore, potentially eligible to claim settlement relief in
   this case upon certifying that they placed winning buy bets
   while playing craps during the class period."

The settlement affords every member of the settlement class the
opportunity to receive direct monetary relief in form of a $15
settlement check or, if the participation rate in the settlement
does not exceed 17.5%, then each eligible class member will
instead receive the increased amount of $30. Consequently, the
settlement class was entitled to receive as much as $90,000 in
aggregate monetary relief, plus the additional value derived.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=t5koMgU0

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Cristina M. Pierson, Esq.
          KELLEY UUSTAL, PLC
          500 North Federal Highway, Suite 200
          Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
          Telephone: (954) 522-6601
          Facsimile: (954) 522-6608
          E-mail: cmp@kulaw.com

               - and -

          Daren Stabinski, Esq.
          DAREN STABINSKI P.A.
          700 SW 78th Ave., No. 916
          Plantation, FL 33324
          Telephone (954) 540-9517
          E-mail: daren@tenderbox.tv

Attorneys for Defendant Isle of Capri, Inc.

          Gary C. Rosen, Esq.
          Daniel L. Wallach, Esq.
          BECKER & POLIAKOFF, P.A.
          1 East Broward Blvd., Suite 1800
          Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 985 4133
          Facsimile: (954) 985 4176
          E-mail: grosen@bplegal.com
                  dwallach@bplegal.com

Attorneys for Interblock USA L.L.C. and Isle of Capri Inc., n/k/a
Isle of Capri LLC:

          Allison Kernisky, Esq.
          HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP
          701 Brickell Avenue, Suite 3300
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 374 8500
          Facsimile: (305) 789 7799
          Stephen Warren, Esq.
          E-mail: stephen.warren@hklaw.com
                  allison.kernisky@hklaw.com


JAGUAR LAND: Court Dismisses "Baar" Antitrust Suit
--------------------------------------------------
Judge William J. Martini of the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss
the case, BRIAN BAAR, Plaintiff, v. JAGUAR LAND ROVER NORTH
AMERICA, LLC, and JAGUAR LAND ROVER LIMITED, Defendants, Civ. No.
2:17-04142 (D. N.J.).

The Plaintiff is a California resident who purchased one of the
Defendants' products, a 2015 Range Rover, from a dealership in
Carlsbad, California on April 1, 2015.  The dispute centers on a
significant price differential of the Defendants' products in
foreign countries such as China.

Apparently, demand for luxury vehicles in certain foreign
countries commands a sale price of the Defendants' products three
or four times greater than the price in the United States.  This
price differential creates an arbitrage opportunity for the
Purchasers of JLR Vehicles in the United States who wish to have
the ability to export them to foreign markets for resale at
higher resale prices than in the United States.

To protect their profit margins in these foreign markets,
Defendants implemented a "No-Export Policy" in April 2013.  The
Policy requires that a purchaser agree to the following at the
time of sale: (i) he or she has no intention of exporting the JLR
Vehicle outside the United States for up to one year from the
date of delivery; (ii) if the JLR Vehicle is exported (even by
subsequent purchasers), the Purchaser is subject to liquidated
damages ranging from $25,000 to $40,000, losses and expenses; and
(iii) the warranty will be voided if the JLR Vehicle is exported.

The Defendants required the Plaintiff to sign "the No-Export
Agreement" when he purchased his Range Rover.  The Plaintiff
maintains that he would have freely re-sold the JLR Vehicle for
export within one year of delivery absent the No-Export
Agreement.  He alleges that the Agreement is nonnegotiable and
that every purchaser must sign it at the end of the transaction
process, after agreeing upon all financial terms of the
transaction.  The Plaintiff also alleges that the Defendants
require their United States dealers to undertake certain actions
of due diligence to enforce the Policy.

The Plaintiff alleges a conspiracy among the Defendants, their
dealers, and a third-party consulting company to violate the
Sherman Act and unreasonably restrain trade through the
enforcement of the Policy.  He claims, and the Defendants do not
deny, that the purpose and effect of the Policy is to prevent the
purchasers from taking advantage of an arbitrage opportunity that
exists in foreign countries, such as China, to obtain and
maintain higher profits abroad.  The Plaintiff submits that the
relevant market affected by the Policy is the market for
exporting JLR Vehicles for resale.

The Plaintiff's Amended Complaint asserts five causes of action:
(1) Count 1: declaratory relief under 15 U.S.C. Section 1; (2)
Count 2: injunctive relief under 15 U.S.C. Section 1; (3) Count
3: violation of 24 state antitrust laws; (4) Count 4: violation
of 26 state consumer protection laws; and (5) Count 5: unjust
enrichment under 48 States' common law.

The Defendants move for dismissal of all claims.  They first
argue that the Plaintiff has failed to allege any concerted
action to restrain trade between the Defendants and other
independent entities.  They next argue that the Plaintiff's
claims fail under a rule of reason analysis because Plaintiff
fails to identify a cognizable relevant market and does not
allege an antitrust injury incurred in the United States.

The Defendants also argue that the Plaintiff lacks standing to
pursue all state law claims other than his California claims and
that his California antitrust claims fail for the same reasons as
his federal antitrust claims.  They further argue that the
Plaintiff's claim under the California Unfair Competition Law
fails because he failed to allege fraudulent, unlawful or unfair
conduct.  Finally, they argue that the Plaintiff's unjust
enrichment claim fails because the Court previously determined
that California does not recognize such claims.

The Plaintiff counters, among other things, that the Court should
reject the Defendants' arguments on the merits because such
arguments require the development of a factual record and are
inappropriate at the dismissal phase of litigation; that he
properly pleaded the existence of concerted action between
Defendants, their dealers and the consulting company, as required
by the Sherman Act; and that the Policy unreasonably restrains
trade under both the per se and rule of reason analyses.

The Plaintiff further submits that a determination as to his
standing to bring non-California based state law claims should be
deferred until class certification.  Finally, he contends that he
plausibly alleges his California claims for the same reasons as
his federal claims and that unjust enrichment is a viable claim
under California law.

Judge Martini finds that the alleged facts of the instant case
are not in dispute.  The Defendants do not deny that they
maintain a no-export policy or that they make prospective
purchasers agree to it at the time of sale.  The only real
dispute before the Court is whether the Policy violates federal
and state antitrust laws by unreasonably restraining the resale
of the Defendants' products in foreign markets.

The Plaintiff's other state law and unjust enrichment claims are
tethered to the alleged illegal antitrust conduct.  The Judge,
therefore, rejects the Plaintiff's contention that merits-based
determinations as to his pleadings are untimely and inappropriate
at the instant stage of litigation.  To the contrary, he finds
that the undisputed facts lead to a straightforward conclusion:
the Plaintiff's antitrust claims fail because he fails to allege
an illegal concerted action and to identify a cognizable relevant
market under the rule of reason.  The Plaintiff's other claims
suffer from the same fatal flaw.

For the reasons he stated, Judge Martini granted the Defendants'
motion to dismiss, and dismissed with prejudice all counts.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 9, 2018 Opinion is available
at https://is.gd/Ki8Ppc from Leagle.com.

BRIAN BAAR, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by MICHELLE C. ZOLNOSKI --
mzolnoski@motleyrice.com -- MOTLEY RICE LLC & PETER S. PEARLMAN -
- psp@njlawfirm.com -- COHN, LIFLAND, PEARLMAN, HERRMANN & KNOPF,
LLP.

JAGUAR LAND ROVER NORTH AMERICA, LLC & JAGUAR LAND ROVER LIMITED,
Defendants, represented by BRIAN D. SULLIVAN --
bsullivan@foxrothschild.com -- FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP.


JAL CHEMICAL: Bid for Conditional Certification Denied
------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled TAYLOR PETTY, each individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated, the PLAINTIFFS, v. JAL
CHEMICAL CO., INC. d/b/a TEPH SEAL, Case No. 4:17-cv-00331-JM
(E.D. Ark.), the Hon. Judge James S. Moody, Jr. entered an order
denying, without prejudice, Plaintiff's motion for conditional
certification, for approval and distribution of notice, and for
disclosure of contact information.

The Court said, "After reviewing Plaintiff's motion in light of
these standards, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to
meet even the lenient burden of proof required for conditional
certification at this time. The evidence before the Court does
not suggest that Plaintiff is similarly situated to the proposed
conditional class as to job titles, geographic location, and
company policies and practices. The Court would have to make a
fact-intensive inquiry as to the job duties and type of pay
received by each employee to determine if the putative class
members were similarly situated to Plaintiff. The Court is not
making a credibility determination at this point. But without
more proof from Plaintiff, such as the name of any individual who
told him not to clock in to avoid excessive overtime or any
confirming evidence of a company-wide policy, and considering the
detailed nature of the proof put on by Defendant, the Court is
not willing to put Defendant "to the expense and effort of
notice" to a conditional class that would cover 12,000
individuals in over 24 states at this time. The Court cannot fail
to take into account the affidavit of Plaintiff's long-time
friend and fellow employee, Jonathan Billado stating that
Plaintiff had told him that he had filed this lawsuit out of
spite to get back at Defendant for demoting him and that
Plaintiff was actively soliciting other employees to join the
lawsuit. His affidavit stands uncontradicted. For the Court to
conditionally certify this class on the evidence before it, "the
conditional-certification standard would not merely be a lenient
one, but a meaningless one." See White v. SLM Staffing LLC, No.
8:16-CV-2057-T-30TBM, 2016 WL 4382777, at 2 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 17,
2016)."

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=U86jE5QD


JAMES HARDIE: Cladding Class Action Opt-in Period Ends
------------------------------------------------------
Parker and Associates on Jan. 22 disclosed that with only days
left to opt-in, leaky homeowners are being invited to join a
class action against cladding manufacturer, James Hardie in
relation to its cladding products Harditex and Titan Board.

The opt-in period closes on 30 January 2018.  That will be the
last chance to join the cladding claim.

Dan Parker of Parker & Associates, acting for the owner group,
said: "We want people to know that this claim will be the last
chance to seek redress.

"New claimants continue to come forward from all over the
country. Many have often only just heard about the Cladding Class
Action and haven't realised the 10-year Building Act limitation
longstop and the general 15 year limitation longstop do not apply
to this claim.

"It shows how wide-spread the issue is and the challenges in
informing those potentially affected.

"A number of owners have approached us unaware of any weather-
tightness issues with their properties.  After experts have
investigated and found problems those owners have joined the
claim.

"The group's numbers are growing each day. We are dealing with
over 300 active enquiries.  So far around 85 people have joined
and we expect the final tally will increase before the deadline
on 30 January 2018.

"As it is a self-funded action, the bigger the group is, the
lower the costs per participant," Mr Parker said.

There were thousands of buildings constructed between 1987 and
2004 using Harditex.  Titan board was used from 1995.  The
claimants allege that their homes have inherent defects, which
cause weather-tightness damage. James Hardie denies the
allegations.

The group first brought the product liability claim against James
Hardie New Zealand Limited and James Hardie Company Studorp
Limited in negligence and for breach in the Fair Trading Act in
October 2015.

For further information contact Parker & Associates, 04 499 0390,
www.parkerandassociates.co.nz [GN]


JEFFREY H. JORDAN: "Barrientos" Suit Seeks to Certify Class
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled SONIA BARRIENTOS, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. LAW
OFFICE OF JEFFREY H. JORDAN, the Defendant, Case No. 2:15-cv-
06282-JAK-GJS (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff Sonia Barrientos and
Defendant Law Office of Jeffery H. Jordan will move the Court on
March 5, 2018, for an order:

   A. conditionally certifying a class for settlement purposes
      only;

   B. conditionally appointing Class Counsel as counsel for the
      Class for settlement purposes only and conditionally
      appointing Plaintiff as the Class Representative;

   C. preliminarily approving the settlement and this Agreement
      as fair, adequate and reasonable, and within the reasonable
      range of possible final approval;

   D. approving the form of Notice and find that the notice
      program set forth herein constitutes the best notice
      practicable under the circumstances and satisfies due
      process the California Rules of Civil Procedure;

   E. authorizing dissemination and publication of the Notice to
      the Class consistent with the notice program;

   F. approving the claim form;

   G. setting the date and time for the Final Approval Hearing,
      which may be continued by the Court from time to time
      without the necessity of further notice; and

   H. setting appropriate deadlines, including the Objection
      Deadline -- 90 days after entry of the Preliminary
      Approval Order -- the Opt-Out Deadline -- 90 days
      after entry of the Preliminary Approval Order -- and
      deadlines for filing papers in connection with the Final
      Approval Hearing; and

   I. enjoining all Class Members from prosecuting separate
      actions against Defendant asserting any of the claims
      alleged in the Action.

A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=O1V05UHY

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

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

Attorney for Defendant:

          David J. Kaminski, Esq.
          CARLSON & MESSER
          5959 W. Century Blvd., Ste 214
          Los Angeles, CA 90045
          E-mail: kaminskid@cmtlaw.com


JFK MEDICAL: Mendez Seeks to Certify Class over PIP Benefits
------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled SANDRA LOIS MENDEZ, AMY R. BRAZEE, SETH
GATES, and LORI R SINGER f/k/a Lori R. Kogan, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v.
CLASS REPRESENTATION JFK MEDICAL CENTER LIMITED PARTNERSHIP d/b/a
JFK Medical Center, NPAS, INC., HCA HOLDINGS, INC., PALMS WEST
SURGERY CENTER, LTD. d/b/a Palms West Surgicenter, UNIVERSITY
HOSPITAL, LTD. d/b/a University Hospital & Medical Center, and
MIAMI BEACH HEALTHCARE GROUP, LTD. d/b/a Aventura Hospital and
Medical Center, the Defendants, Case No. 9:17-cv-80866-KAM (S.D.
Fla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to grant Plaintiffs' Motion
for Class Certification of:

   "all other patients (or their legal representatives) who were
   provided treatment covered by Personal Injury Protection
   benefits at a facility within the State of Florida during the
   applicable period and in the future".

This case is about how much hospitals and treatment facilities
can bill and/or collect from patients who are covered under
Florida's Personal Injury Protection Statute, section 627.736,
Fla. Stat. (the "PIP Statute"). Specifically, Plaintiffs contend
that it is unlawful for providers such as Defendants to balance
bill patients who were injured in motor vehicle crashes where the
providers are statutorily bound to accept the amount set forth in
Sec 627.736(5)(a)1., Fla. Stat. (the "Fee Schedule") as full
payment when they bill an individual's motor vehicle insurance
policy. Florida's Fourth District Court of Appeal recently
confirmed this in Green v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 225
So. 3d 229 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017).

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=v3kDqpA1

Counsel for Plaintiffs:

          Seth A. Kolton, Esq.
          William J. Cornwell, Esq.
          One Boca Place, Suite 218-A
          2255 Glades Road
          Boca Raton, FL 33431
          Telephone: (561) 997 9995
          Facsimile: (561) 997 5280
          E-mail: wjc@whcfla.com
                  filings@whcfla.com
                  sak@whcfla.com
                  jh@whcfla.com

               - and -

          Bruce F. Silver, Esq.
          SILVER & SILVER, P.A.
          6100 Glades Road, Suite 201
          Boca Raton, FL 33434
          Telephone: (561) 488 3344
          Facsimile: (561) 488 5899
          E-mail: brucesilver@silverlawoffices.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Walter J. Tache, Esq.
          Magda C. Rodriguez, Esq.
          TACHE, BRONIS, CHRISTIANSON AND DESCALZO
          150 SE Second Avenue, Suite 600
          Miami, FL 33131
          E-mail: wtache@tachebronis.com
                  mrodriguez@tachebronis.com

               - and -

          John Emmanuel, Esq.
          Ashley Bruce Trehan, Esq.
          BUCHANAN INGERSOLL & ROONEY, PC
          401 E Jackson Street, Suite 2400
          Tampa, FL 33602
          E-mail: Ashley.trehan@bipc.com


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Plaintiffs Wants Talc Class Action Revived
-------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for Law.com, reports that plaintiffs
lawyers have asked an appeals court to revive the only class
action in federal court brought over an alleged link between
Johnson & Johnson's baby powder and ovarian cancer.

Unlike the thousands of cases that have landed double-digit
verdicts for women alleging they got ovarian cancer from
prolonged use of Johnson & Johnson's talcum powder products, the
class action claimed that consumers suffered from economic
injuries when they relied on the company's marketing, which made
no mention of known health risks.  On July 14, U.S. District
Judge Freda Wolfson of New Jersey, who is overseeing all the
Johnson & Johnson talcum powder cases in federal court, dismissed
the class action for lack of standing.  On Jan. 5, plaintiffs
lawyers filed their opening brief before the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit, relying on its October 18 ruling
in Cottrell v. Alcon Labs that reversed Wolfson on standing in a
class action brought over eye drops.

"What happened was she didn't have the benefit of the Third
Circuit's ruling in Cottrell when she ruled on the talc case,"
said Timothy Blood of San Diego's Blood, Hurst & O'Reardon, lead
plaintiffs attorney in the talc class action. "So she approached
it in the same way as the eye drops case."

Johnson & Johnson, which is due to file its response brief on
March 2, is being represented in the case by O'Melveny & Myers
partner Allen Burton -- aburton@omm.com -- in New York.  Johnson
& Johnson spokeswoman Carol Goodrich declined to comment.

The class action is one of two originally filed over Johnson &
Johnson's baby powder. It was brought on behalf of California
consumers.  In 2015, U.S. District Judge Troy Nunley of the
Eastern District of California dismissed the case, which
plaintiffs amended.  In 2016, the U.S. Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation transferred the case to multidistrict
litigation in New Jersey.  On Sept. 28, Blood agreed to dismiss
the second class action, brought on behalf of Illinois consumers,
in light of Judge Wolfson's order. But he said the California
appeal, if successful, could open the door for consumers
nationwide to pursue a case.

In her order dismissing the amended complaint, Judge Wolfson
found that the plaintiff, Mona Estrada, hadn't proved she was
economically injured based on three different theories of
damages.  On appeal, plaintiffs lawyers claim Judge Wolfson
inappropriately considered the damages theories despite the fact
that plaintiffs attorneys weren't necessarily relying on them
and, moreover, were pursuing injunctive relief.

They also relied on Cottrell, a 2-1 March 6 ruling that split
with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in a
similar case.

"The Third Circuit said the district court erred in analyzing
what potential damages theories might be," Blood said, referring
to Cottrell.  "You look to see if the person has an alleged
injury in fact.  If the person has, the person can proceed with a
lawsuit in federal court, and the issue of what damages theories
exist is left for another day." [GN]


JUSTFOODFORDOGS LLC: Vasquez Sues over Background Checks
--------------------------------------------------------
LAURA VASQUEZ, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. JUSTFOODFORDOGS, LLC, a California
limited liability company, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, the
Defendant, Case No. BC689098 (Cal. Super. Ct., Jan. 9, 2018),
seeks to recover statutory damages, punitive damages, costs and
attorneys' fees, all of which are expressly made available by
statute at 15 U.S.C. section 1681 et seq., and a permanent
injunction enjoining Defendants from continuing their unlawful
practice of willfully violating Fair and Accurate Credit
Transactions Act's provisions intended to safeguard against
identity theft and credit and debit card fraud.

The Defendants have willfully violated this law and failed to
protect Plaintiff and others similarly situated against identity
theft and credit card and debit card fraud by printing of the
credit and/or debit card expiration date on receipts provided to
cardholders transacting business with Defendants.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kenneth S. Gaines, Esq.
          Daniel F. Gaines, Esq.
          Alex P. Katofsky, Esq.
          Sepideh Ardestani, Esq.
          GAINES & GAINES, APLC
          27200 Agoura Road, Suite 101
          Calabasas, CA 91301
          Telephone: (818) 703 8985
          Facsimile: (818) 703 8984
          E-mail: ken@gaineslawftnn.com
                  daniel@gaineslawfirm.com
                  alex@gaineslawfirm.com
                  sepideh@gaineslawfirm.com


KELLOGG CO: "Allred" Remains in Calif. District Court
-----------------------------------------------------
Judge Anthony J. Battaglia of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California denied Allred's motion for remand
the case, Barry Allred and Mandy C. Allred, on behalf of
themselves, all others similarly situated, and the general
public, Plaintiffs, v. Kellogg Company, a Delaware Corporation,
et al., Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-1354-AJB-BLM (S.D. Cal.).

The action arises from Kellogg's alleged violations of
California's consumer protection laws relating to the packaging,
labeling, and advertising of Kellogg's "Salt and Vinegar Flavored
Potato Crisps."  Allred brings the lawsuit on behalf of "all
consumers who purchased the product from a retailer within the
state of California at any time during the period six years prior
to the filing of the Complaint and continuing until the Class is
certified.

Allred originally filed the action in San Diego Superior Court.
Kellogg removed the action, arguing CAFA's requirements for
removal were met.  Allred then filed the instant motion to
remand.  Allred argues remand to state court is necessary because
Kellogg (1) failed to carry its burden of proving that CAFA's
jurisdictional amount is met, and (2) removed the action in bad
faith.

Judge Battaglia finds that Kellogg has provided the "chain of
reasoning" from their evidence to their assumption as required by
the Ninth Circuit.  With a total calculation that is 2.63 times
over the minimum amount-in-controversy required, even if Kellogg
was off by 50% in their estimations, they would still meet the $5
million threshold in spades.  Thus, the Court finds Kellogg's
calculation model sufficient and meets its burden of establishing
the minimum amount-in-controversy.  Since he has already found
Mr. Kramer's assumptions and calculations were based in fact and
reasonably deduced, he holds that Kellogg's use of a declaration
in proving these calculations is appropriate.

The Judge concludes by resolving the issue in favor of the
Plaintiffs seeking injunctive relief.  He says it should be noted
that Davidson came out months after the parties briefed these
motions, yet, this is the very problem Allred is complaining of.
Nevertheless, he rejects Allred's arguments of bad faith.  As
evident from the district court split, Kellogg's positions are
not only logically consistent, but are positions parties have
argued -- and won on -- before.  Thus, he finds Kellogg's removal
and subsequent dismissal motion for lack of Article III standing
does not amount to bad faith.

For these reasons, Judge Battaglia concluded that Kellogg
properly alleged the amount-in-controversy exceeds $5 million and
that Kellogg did not remove the action in bad faith.
Accordingly, he denied Allred's motion for remand.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 9, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/wJjEkO from Leagle.com.

Barry Allred, on behalf of themselves, all others similarly
situated, and the general public & Mandy C. Allred, on behalf of
themselves, all others similarly situated, and the general
public, Plaintiffs, represented by David Elliot --
davidelliot@elliotlawfirm.com -- The Elliott Law Firm, Ronald
Marron, Law Office of Ronald Marron & Michael Houchin, Law
Offices of Ronald A. Marron.

Kellogg Company, a Delaware corporation, Kellogg Sales Company, a
Delaware corporation & Pringles LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company, Defendants, represented by Kenneth Kiyul Lee --
klee@jenner.com -- Jenner & Block, LLP.


KONA GRILL: Court Certifies Sous Chefs Class in "Cedeno" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled MIGUEL CEDENO, the Plaintiff, v. KONA
GRILL, INC. and KONA MACADAMIA, INC., the Defendants, Case No
8:17-cv-01039-JSM-AEP (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge James S. Moody
entered an order:

   1. granting Plaintiff's renewed motion;

   2. conditionally certifying a class of:

      "current and former sous chefs in the state of Florida
      employed by Defendant Kona Macadamia, Inc. beginning on
      June 1, 2014 through the date of this Order, who worked
      overtime hours but were not paid overtime wages all or part
      of their employment"; and

   3. directing parties to have 14 days from the date of this
      Order to confer and file a joint proposed notice to send to
      the putative class.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=M08qgmUE


MARATHON OIL: Bid to Transfer "Kunneman" to W.D. Oklahoma Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, KUNNEMAN PROPERTIES LLC, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. MARATHON OIL COMPANY
(including affiliated predecessors and affiliated successors),
Defendant, Case No. 17-CV-456-JED-FHM (N.D. Okla.), Judge John E.
Dowdell of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Oklahoma denied the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss or Transfer and
Brief in Support.

Kunneman brings several claims against Marathon, all concerning
royalty payments on oil and gas wells in the State of Oklahoma.
It is undisputed that the Defendant has contracted with IBM in
Tulsa to provide services related to royalty payments.  It
purports to bring its claims as a representative party on behalf
of others similarly situated, though the Court has not yet
considered the Plaintiff's request for class certification
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c).

The Plaintiff asserts that the Court has subject matter
jurisdiction over these claims based on 28 U.S.C. Section
1332(d), which, in relevant part, grants federal district courts
original jurisdiction in any civil action in which the matter in
controversy exceeds the sum or value of $5,000,000, exclusive of
interest and costs, and is a class action in which any member of
a class of plaintiffs is a citizen of a State different from any
defendant.  It contends in its Complaint that the amount in
controversy in the case exceeds the jurisdictional amount and
that the members of the classes and Marathon are citizens of
different states.

The Plaintiff further contends that venue is proper in the
District because Marathon transacts business and is found within
the District, and/or has agents within the District, and a
substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims asserted
occurred in the District.

The Defendant disputes this characterization, arguing that
neither Marathon nor the claims have a sufficient connection to
the Northern District to authorize venue under 28 U.S.C. Section
1391(b).

Before the Court is the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss or Transfer
and Brief in Support.  The document was docketed as two separate
motions: a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim and a
motion to transfer to the Western District of Oklahoma due to
improper venue.

Judge Dowdell concludes that venue lies in the Northern District
of Oklahoma.  He finds that substantial events relevant to the
Plaintiff's claims occurred in the Northern District.  He notes
that the underlying acts alleged in the case are the underpayment
or nonpayment of royalties, misrepresentations or omissions on
royalty check stubs, and the refusal to pay interest on untimely
payments.  In looking at the entire sequence of events underlying
the claims, he says it is clear that Tulsa plays a significant
role.  Any underpayment or nonpayment of royalties and interest
occurred as a direct result of calculations completed in Tulsa by
IBM on behalf of Marathon.

Judge Dowdell holds that the Defendant has failed to carry its
burden to establish that the choice of forum is inconvenient --
even assuming the Plaintiff's choice of forum is accorded no
weight.  He notes that the Western and Northern Districts are
adjacent to each other, thus minimizing any concern over travel
times.  According to the Defendant, other types of proof will be
more accessible and less costly in the Western District, as well.
Yet the record contains no evidence concerning the relative costs
of litigating the case in the Western District versus the
Northern District.  Finding no factor that weighs in favor of
transfer and that venue lies in the Northern District, Judge
Dowdell denied the Defendant's Motion to Transfer.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 9, 2018 Opinion and Order is
available at https://is.gd/AuVRzL from Leagle.com.

Kunneman Properties LLC, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Barbara Chase Wiley
Frankland -- bfrankland@midwest-law.com -- Rex A. Sharp PA,
Reagan Edward Bradford, Lanier Law Firm, Rex A. Sharp, Rex A.
Sharpe PA, Ryan C. Hudson -- rhudson@midwest-law.com -- Sharp Law
& W. Mark Lanier, Lanier Law Firm PC.

Marathon Oil Company, (including affiliated predecessors and
affiliated successors), Defendant, represented by Graydon Dean
Luthey, Jr. -- dluthey@gablelaw.com -- Gable & Gotwals, Guy
Stanford Lipe -- glipe@velaw.com -- Vinson & Elkins LLP, Jay
Patrick Walters -- jwalters@gablelaw.com -- Gable Gotwals & John
David Russell -- jrussell@gablelaw.com -- Gable & Gotwals.


MARCUS & MILLICHAP: Sued Over Unlicensed Skilled Nursing Services
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Florida Politics reports that from December 2016 until just
before her death in January 2017, 74-year-old Shirley Cox resided
at Woodbridge Care, a Tampa nursing home that is one of 22
Florida facilities purportedly owned by New York residents
Eliezer Scheiner and Teddy Lichtschein.  According to a proposed
class-action lawsuit filed on behalf of Cox and roughly 3,000
other residents, the nursing homes provided more than $900-
million in "unlicensed skilled nursing services" because their
licenses were obtained via "fraud and deception."  Cox's estate
and two other plaintiffs say the owners of the 22 homes --
currently on the market by defendant Marcus & Millichap --
operate them as a single entity for all practical purposes,
extracting maximum profit while providing "substandard" care.
But in dealings with the state's licensing agency, the Florida
Agency for Healthcare Administration, the owners portrayed each
of the 22 homes as individually owned to minimize liability to
creditors.  The plaintiffs accuse Marcus & Millichap of being
"fully aware of the deception" and are misleading in marketing
the homes for sale. [GN]


MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Renewed Class Cert. Bid Submitted, Court Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled Shonntey Moodie, et al., the Plaintiffs, v.
Maxim Healthcare Services, et al., the Defendants, Case No. 2:14-
cv-03471-FMO-AS (C.D. Cal.), the Court will take the Plaintiff's
unopposed renewed motion for class certification and preliminary
approval of settlement agreement under submission.

No later than January 24, 2018, plaintiff shall file a revised
class notice, the Court says.

A copy of the Civil Minutes - General is available at no charge
at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=6BEXkIMD

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher P. Ridout, Esq.
          ZIMMERMAN REED, LLP. A
          Website: contact@zimmreed.com
          1100 IDS Center, 80 South 8th Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (888) 596 6274

The Defendant is represented by:

          Joseph Duffy, Esq.
          MORGAN LEWIS
          300 South Grand Ave., 22nd Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-3132
          Telephone: (213) 612 7378
          Facsimile: (213) 612 2501
          E-mail: joseph.duffy@morganlewis.com


MDL 1871: Court Dismisses Negligence Claims Against GSK
-------------------------------------------------------
Judge Cynthia M. Rufe of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District Pennsylvania granted GSK's motion for summary judgment
the case, IN RE: AVANDIA MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES AND PRODUCTS
LIABILITY LITIGATION, THIS DOCUMENT APPLIES TO: Siddoway v. GSK,
MDL No. 1871, No. 07-md-01871., 09-5599 (E.D. Pa.).

When Avandia was initially approved by the FDA in 1999 to treat
Type II diabetes, the drug's package insert ("label") contained
no warning of an increased risk of heart attack.  On May 21,
2007, however, the FDA issued a safety alert for Avandia,
notifying consumers that data from controlled clinical trials
have shown that there is a potentially significant increase in
the risk of heart attack and heart-related deaths in patients
taking Avandia.  The FDA directed GSK to add this information in
a boxed warning on the Avandia label.

After this change to the label and after the Plaintiffs filed the
lawsuit, GSK and the FDA conducted extensive research on
Avandia's safety.  In 2013, the FDA ultimately concluded that
there was no increased risk of heart attack associated with
Avandia use compared to alternative diabetes medications.  In a
decisional memorandum dated Nov. 19, 2013, it wrote that the data
support no statistically significant difference between
rosiglitazone [Avandia] and metformin/sulfonylurea for the risk
of death or major adverse cardiovascular outcomes, other than the
known class effect of heart failure.  Rather, re-adjudication of
long-term trials of Avandia provide considerable reassurance
regarding the cardiovascular safety of rosiglitazone.  Therefore,
in 2014, the FDA approved an updated Avandia label that removed
the boxed warning for a potential increased risk of heart attack.

Plaintiffs John and Sarah Siddoway allege that Mr. Siddoway was
harmed as a result of his use of Defendant GlaxoSmithKline LLC
("GSK")'s diabetes medication Avandia.  Mr. Siddoway's physician,
Dr. Dennis Peterson, prescribed Avandia to Mr. Siddoway for two
years, from 2001 through 2002.  In 2003, Mr. Siddoway suffered
two heart attacks, and ultimately underwent a successful heart
transplant operation.  Four years after Mr. Siddoway's heart
transplant, the FDA issued a safety alert describing a potential
increased risk of heart attack associated with Avandia use.

The Plaintiffs subsequently sued GSK, raising nine claims against
the drug manufacturer: (1) negligence, (2) strict liability, (3)
failure to warn, (4) breach of express warranty, (5) breach of
implied warranty, (6) breach of implied warranty of
merchantability, (7) negligent misrepresentation, (8) violation
of Utah's Consumer Protection Sales Act, and (9) loss of
consortium.

GSK now moves for summary judgment, arguing that all of the
Plaintiffs' claims are premised on GSK's alleged failure to
adequately warn of an increased risk of heart attack associated
with Avandia use, and the Plaintiffs are unable offer evidence
showing that GSK's failure to warn of this association was the
proximate cause of Mr. Siddoway's injuries.

Judge Rufe finds that when all risk information is considered by
Dr. Peterson, he testified that he would still prescribe Avandia
for Mr. Siddoway, as he had done.  The Plaintiffs have failed to
establish a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Dr.
Peterson would have prescribed a different medication for Mr.
Siddoway, rather than Avandia, prior to his injuries in 2003, if
GSK had provided a warning regarding a risk of heart attacks.
Because they have failed to establish an issue for trial with
regard to whether GSK's conduct was a proximate cause of Mr.
Siddoway's injuries, their negligence and failure to warn claims
must be dismissed.

As to the Plaintiffs' remaining claims, the Judge further finds
that the Plaintiffs have the burden of establishing proximate
causation to sustain these claims.  However, like the negligence
and failure to warn claims, they cannot meet this burden because
Dr. Peterson testified that even if he were in possession of all
the information that is contained in the Avandia label today when
he originally prescribed Avandia to Mr. Siddoway, he still would
have made the same prescribing decision.  Therefore, these claims
fail.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Rufe granted GSK's motion for
summary judgment and dismissed the claims with prejudice.  An
appropriate order follows.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 9, 2018 Memorandum Opinion
is available at https://is.gd/gZva1x from Leagle.com.

PATRICK A. JUNEAU, Special Master, Pro Se.

BRUCE P. MERENSTEIN, Special Master, Pro Se.

ANDREW A. CHIRLS, COMMON BENEFIT FUND ADMINISTRATOR,
Administrator, Pro Se. ANDREW A. CHIRLS COMMON BENEFIT FUND
ADMINISTRATOR

STEVEN M. JOHNSON, Respondent, represented by ERNEST A. YOUNG.

PLAINTIFFS' STEERING COMMITTEE, Amicus, represented by BILL
ROBINS, III -- robins@robinscloud.com -- HEARD ROBINS CLOUD &
BLACK, DIANNE M. NAST -- dnast@nastlaw.com -- NASTLAW LLC, JASON
E. DUNAHOE, HEARD ROBINS CLOUD & BLACK LLP, PAUL R. KIESEL --
kiesel@kbla.com -- KIESEL LAW LLP, STEPHEN A. CORR --
scorr@begleycarlin.com -- BEGLEY CARLIN & MANDIO LLP & TURNER W.
BRANCH, BRANCH LAW FIRM.


MDL 1913: Certification of Two Classes Sought
---------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit IN RE: TRANSPACIFIC PASSENGER AIR TRANSPORTATION
ANTITRUST LITIGATION, Case No. 3:07-cv-05634-CRB (N.D. Cal.), the
Plaintiffs will move the Court for certification of two classes:

   Japan Class:

   "all persons and entities that directly purchased tickets for
   passenger air transportation from Japan Airlines International
   Company, Ltd. ("JAL") or All Nippon Airways Corporation, Ltd.
   ("ANA"), or any predecessor, subsidiary or affiliate thereof,
   that originated in the United States and included at least one
   flight segment from the United States to Japan between the
   period beginning February 1, 2005 and ending December 31,
   2007. Excluded from the class are tickets exclusively acquired
   through award or reward travel or any tickets acquired for
   infant travel with a 90% discount. Also excluded from the
   class are p purchases by government entities, Defendants, any
   parent subsidiary or affiliate t hereof, and Defendants' or
   any other commercial airline's officers, directors, employees,
   agents, and immediate families"; and

   Satogaeri Class:

   "all persons and entities that directly purchased Satogaeri
   fares from JAL or ANA or any predecessor, subsidiary or
   affiliate thereof that originated in the United States and
   included at least one flight segment to Japan and does not
   include travel to countries other than the United States and
   Japan between the period beginning January 1, 2000 and ending
   April 1, 2006. Excluded from the class are purchases by
   government entities, Defendants, any parent subsidiary or
   affiliate thereof, and Defendants' officers, directors,
   employees and immediate families. Also excluded are purchases
   of Satogaeri Special fares."

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=ABU7vslm

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Joseph W. Cotchett, Esq.
          Adam J. Zapala, Esq.
          Elizabeth T. Castillo, Esq.
          COTCHETT PITRE & McCARTHY, LLP
          840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200
          Burlingame, CA 94010
          Telephone: (650) 697 6000
          Facsimile: (650) 697 0577
          E-mail: jcotchett@cpmlegal.com
                  azapala@cpmlegal.com
                  ecastillo@cpmlegal.com

               - and -

          Michael D. Hausfeld, Esq.
          Michael L. Lehmann, Esq.
          Christopher L. Lebsock, Esq.
          Seth Gassman, Esq.
          HAUSFELD LLP
          1700 K Street, N.W., Suite 650
          Washington, D.C. 20006
          Telephone: (202) 540 7200
          Facsimile: (202) 540 7201
          E-mail: mhausfeld@hausfeldllp.com
                  sgassman@hausfeldllp.com
                  mlehmann@hausfeldllp.com
                  clebsock@hausfeldllp.com


MDL 2672: Volkswagen Must Produce Docs in Clean Diesel Mktg. Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California granted the Plaintiffs' motions
to compel and their motion for leave to depose two former
Volkswagen supervisors in the case, IN RE: VOLKSWAGEN "CLEAN
DIESEL" MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY
LITIGATION This Order Relates To: MDL Dkt. Nos. 4580, 4581, 4606.
City of St. Clair Shores, 15-6167 Travalio, 15-6168 George Leon
Family Trust, 15-6168 Charter Twp. of Clinton, 16-190
Wolfenbarger, 16-184, MDL No. 2672 CRB (JSC) (N.D. Cal.).

The multidistrict litigation involves claims against Volkswagen,
related corporate entities, and members of Volkswagen management
arising from the company's "clean diesel" emissions scheme.  In
an ongoing shareholder class action that is part of the MDL, the
Plaintiffs have moved to compel the production of certain
documents from Volkswagen.

The documents the Plaintiffs have requested are:

     a. Documents Related to European Union Emissions Standards:
(i) Document Request No. 11: All documents concerning any
presentations by Volkswagen management or employees regarding
emissions standards for the period Jan. 1, 2007 to August 2017;
and (ii) Document Request No. 46: All documents concerning any
formal or informal meetings of the Management Board regarding
clean diesel and defeat devices for the period Jan. 1, 2006 to
August 2017.

     b. Documents Concerning the "Akustikfunktion" Technology:
Document Request No. 8: All documents concerning the
akustikfunktion technology from the period of Jan. 1, 1999
through August 2017.

The Plaintiffs have also filed a motion for leave to depose two
former Volkswagen supervisors, James Robert Liang and Oliver
Schmidt, who are now in prison.

Judge Coley holds that the documents that concern only EU
emissions standards and that otherwise fit within the limits
drawn by Document Request Nos. 11 and 46 are relevant to the
Plaintiffs' claims.  She says the requests also are proportional
to the needs of the case given the substantial number of vehicles
that allegedly did not comply with EU emissions standards, and
the lack of any arguments suggesting that the requested
production would be overly burdensome.  She accordingly granted
the Plaintiffs' motion to compel the production of documents that
are responsive to Document Request Nos. 11 and 46 and that
concern EU emissions standards.

Although the time period covered by the Plaintiffs' request is
substantial, Document Request No. 8 itself is narrowly tailored
to documents concerning the "akustikfunktion" technology.
Volkswagen has not offered reason to believe that there are a
significant number of documents responsive to this request.
Having concluded that documents concerning the "akustikfunktion"
technology dating back to Jan. 1, 1999 are relevant to the
Plaintiffs' claims, and that the Plaintiffs' request for these
documents is proportional to the needs of the case, the Judge
granted the Plaintiffs' motion to compel the production of
documents responsive to Document Request No. 8 from the period of
Jan. 1, 1999 through August 2017.

Finally, Judge Coley finds that the indictments of Liang and
Schmidt, their plea agreements, and their sentencing memoranda
support that each is likely to have knowledge of facts that are
relevant to the Plaintiffs' claims, including Volkswagen's senior
executives' role in the fraud.  She accordingly granted the
Plaintiffs' request for leave to depose Liang and Schmidt.  The
Plaintiffs may depose Liang and Schmidt one time each.  The Court
leaves the timing of the depositions to the Plaintiffs'
discretion, so long as the timing is otherwise consistent with
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the parties' Joint Case
Management Statement.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 9, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/7NNVfM from Leagle.com.

Nicholas Benipayo, Plaintiff, represented by Robert B. Carey --
rob@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice.

Nicholas Benipayo, Plaintiff, represented by Steve W. Berman --
steve@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac
vice & Thomas Eric Loeser -- toml@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman
Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice.

David Fiol, Plaintiff, represented by William M. Audet, Audet &
Partners, LLP, Jeff D. Friedman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP,
Peter B. Fredman -- peter@peterfredmanlaw.com -- Law Office of
Peter Fredman, Robert B. Carey, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP,
pro hac vice, Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP,
pro hac vice & Thomas Eric Loeser, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
LLP, pro hac vice.

Nadine Bonda, Plaintiff, represented by Adam M. Stewart --
astewart@shulaw.com -- Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP & Thomas G.
Shapiro -- tshapiro@shulaw.com -- Shapiro Haber and Urmy, LLP.

Brian Connelly, Plaintiff, represented by Thomas G. Shapiro.

Nicholas Allen, Plaintiff, represented by Caleb Marker --
caleb.marker@zimmreed.com -- Zimmerman Reed LLP, pro hac vice &
Charles S. Zimmerman -- charles.zimmerman@zimmreed.com --
Zimmerman Reed, PLLP, pro hac vice.

Brett Alters, Plaintiff, represented by Elizabeth J. Cabraser,
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, David S. Stellings,
Lieff Cabraser Heimann and Bernstein, Kevin R. Budner, Lieff,
Cabraser, Heimann and Bernstein, LLP, Nicholas Diamand, Lieff
Cabraser Heimann and Bernstein LLP, Phong-Chau Gia Nguyen, Lieff
Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, Tana Lin --
tlin@kellerrohrback.com -- Keller Rohrback LLP & Todd A. Walburg,
Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann, Bernstein.

Donald Ardine, Plaintiff, represented by Amy Williams-Derry --
awilliams-derry@kellerrohrback.com -- Keller Rohrback L.L.P.,
Dean Noburu Kawamoto -- dkawamoto@kellerrohrback.com -- Keller
Rohrback LLP, Derek William Loeser -- dloeser@kellerrohrback.com
-- Keller Rohrback, LLP, Gretchen Freeman Cappio --
gcappio@kellerrohrback.com -- Keller Rohrback, LLP, pro hac vice,
Lynn L. Sarko -- lsarko@kellerrohrback.com -- Keller Rohrback
L.L.P., pro hac vice & Tana Lin, Keller Rohrback LLP.

Annie Argento, Plaintiff, represented by Amy Williams-Derry,
Keller Rohrback L.L.P., Dean Noburu Kawamoto, Keller Rohrback
LLP, Derek William Loeser, Keller Rohrback, LLP, Gretchen Freeman
Cappio, Keller Rohrback, LLP, pro hac vice, Lynn L. Sarko, Keller
Rohrback L.L.P., pro hac vice & Tana Lin, Keller Rohrback LLP.

Arkansas State Highway Employees Retirement System, Plaintiff,
represented by Jai K. Chandrasekhar -- jai@blbglaw.com --
Bernstein Litowitz Berger Grossmann LLP, pro hac vice, James A.
Harrod -- jim.harrod@blbglaw.com -- Bernstein Litowitz Berger
Grossmann LLP, Matthew I. Henzi -- mhenzi@swappc.com -- Sullivan,
War, Niki L. Mendoza, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP,
Ross M. Shikowitz -- ross@blbglaw.com -- Bernstein Litowitz
Berger Grossmann LLP, pro hac vice & Susan Rebbeca Podolsky, The
Law Offices of Susan R. Podolsky.

Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Defendant, represented by Amie
Adelia Vague -- avague@lightfootlaw.com -- Lightfoot Franklin &
White, Casey Erin Lucier -- clucier@mcguirewoods.com --
McGuireWoods LLP, Charles J. Baker, III -- cbaker@wcsr.com --
Womble Carlyle Sandridge and Rice, Colin Hampton Tucker --
chtucker@rhodesokla.com -- Rhodes Hieronymus Jones Tucker &
Gable, Dana Woodrum Lang -- wlang@wcsr.com -- Womble Carlyle
Sandridge and Rice, David M. Eisenberg, Baker, Sterchi, Cowden &
Rice, LLC, Elizabeth L. Deeley -- elizabeth.deeley@kirkland.com -
- Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Henry Buist Smythe, Jr., Womble Carlyle
Sandridge and Rice, Howard Feller, McGuireWoods LLP, Hugh J.
Bode, Reminger & Reminger Co LPA, J. Randolph Bibb, Jr., Lewis,
Thomason, King, Krieg & Waldrop, P.C., James K. Toohey, Johns &
Bell LTD, Jeffrey L. Chase, Chase Kurshan Herzfeld & Rufin LLC,
Jeffrey S. Rugg, Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP, Jennifer
Marino Thibodaux, Gibbons PC, John W. Cowden, Baker, Sterchi,
Cowden & Ric, LLC-KCMO, John W. Cowden, Baker Sterchi Cowden and
Rice LLC, John L. Hone, Lipshultz and Hone Chtd, John H. Tucker,
Rhodes Hieronymus Jones Tucker & Gable, Kerry R. Lewis, Rhodes
Hieronymus Jones Tucker & Gable, Kurt E. Lindquist, II, Womble
Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, PLLC, Larry Martin Roth, Rumberger,
Kirk & Caldwell, PA, Michael D. Begey, Rumberger, Kirk &
Caldwell, PA, Michael R. McDonald, Gibbons PC, Natalie Marie
Lefkowitz, Chase Kurshan Herzfeld & Rubin LLC, Ronald G. DeWald,
Lipshultz and Hone Chtd, Russ Ferguson, Womble Carlyle Sandridge
& Rice LLP, Ryan Nelson Clark, Lewis, Thomason, King, Krieg &
Waldrop, P.C., Sara Anne Ford, Lightfoot Ffanklin & White LLC,
Seth Abram Schaeffer, McGuireWoods LLP, Thomas R. Valen, Gibbons
PC, William L. Boesch, Sugarman Rogers Barshak & Cohen, Adam K.
Bult, Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, Allison Rachel McLaughlin,
Wheeler Trigg O'Donnell LLP, Andrew Brian Clubok, Kirkland &
Ellis, pro hac vice, Andrew R. Levin, Sugarman Rogers Barshak &
Cohen, PC, Andrew R. Levin, Sugarman, Rogers, Barshak & Cohen,
P.C., Anne Katherine Guillory, Dinsmore & Shohl LLP, April L.
Watson, Sessions, Fishman & Nathan, Benjamin K. Reitz, Brownstein
Hyatt Farber Schreck, Blake Adam Gansborg, Wheeler Trigg
O'Donnell, LLP, Brett R. Leland, Verrill Dana LLP, Brian C.
Langs, Johnson & Bell LTD, C. Vernon Hartline, Jr., Hartline
Dacus Barger Dreyer LLP, pro hac vice, Carine M. Williams,
Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, pro hac vice, Caroline M. Tinsley, BAKER
AND STERCHI, LLC, Charles William McIntyre, Jr., McGuireWoods
LLP, Charles Pendleton Mitchell, Rumberger Kirk & Caldwell,
Christine Kingston, Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP,
Christopher Edward Tribe, McGuireWoods LLP Gateway Plaza, Dan R.
Larsen, Dorsey and Whitney LLP, Darrell L. Barger, Hartline Dacus
Barger Dreyer LLP, David L. Ayers, Watkins and Eager PLLC, David
A. Barry, Esq., Sugarman Rogers Barshak & Cohen, David N. May,
Bradshaw Fowler Proctor & Fairgrove, David M.J. Rein, Sullivan &
Cromwell LLP, David T. Schaefer, Dinsmore & Shohl LLP, Edward W.
Hearn, JOHNSON & BELL, PC, Elena Lalli Coronado, Sullivan and
Cromwell, Elizabeth Righton Johnson, Balch & Bingham LLP, Emily
Anne Ellis, Brownstein Hyatt Farber Shreck, Eric R. Burris,
Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, Erin Patricia Mead, Thorn,
Gershon, Tymann & Bonanni, LLP, Gail Ponder Gaines, Barber Law
Firm PLLC, Garrett L. Boehm, Jr., Johnson & Bell LTD, Harlan I.
Prater, IV, Lightfoot, Franklin & White, Hugh Brown McNatt,
McNatt, Greene & Peterson, J. Gordon Cooney, Jr., Morgan Lewis &
Bockius LLP, James L. Hollis, Balch & Bingham, Jeffrey L. Chase,
Herzfeld & Rubin PC, Jimmy B. Wilkins, WATKINS & EAGER, Jo E.
Peifer, Lavin, O'Neil, Ricci, Cedrone & DiSipio, John David
Ayers, WATKINS & EAGER, PLLC, John D. Donovan, Jr., Ropes and
Gray LLP, John Alan Knox, Williams Kastner & Gibbs, John Garrett
McCarthy, Sullivan and Cromwell LLP, pro hac vice, John Thomas
Prisbe, Venable LLP, Jonathan M. Hoffman, MB Law Group, LLP, Joy
Goldberg Braun, Sessions, Fishman, Nathan & Israel, Kenneth
Abrams, McGuire Woods LLP, Kevin P. Polansky, Nelson Mullins
Riley & Scarborough LLP, Laura Kabler Oswell, Sullivan & Cromwell
LLP, Mark A. Weissman, Herzfeld & Rubin, P.C., pro hac vice, Mary
E. Bolkcom, Hanson Bolkcom Law Group, Ltd., Matthew A. Schwartz,
Sullivan and Cromwell LLP, pro hac vice, Melissa Fletcher
Allaman, Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough, LLP, Meredith J.
McKee, Womble Carlyle Sandridge & RIice, PLLC, Meredith J. McKee,
Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, Michael Thad Allen, Day Pitney
LLP-HTFD, Michael B. Gallub, Herzfeld and Rubin, pro hac vice,
Michael E. Hale, Barber Law Firm PLLC, Michael L. O'Donnell,
Wheeler Trigg O'Donnell, LLP, Michael H. Steinberg, Sullivan &
Cromwell, LLP, Michael A. Yoshida, MB Law Group, LLP, Mickey W.
Greene, Hanson Bolkcom Law Group, Ltd., Miranda Hanley, Smith
Welch Webb & White, LLC, Ningur Akoglu, Herzfeld & Rubin PC,
Patricia Rodriguez Britton, Nelson Mullins Riley Scarborough LLP,
Patrick Demetrios Grindlay, Paul T. Collins, Nelson Mullins Riley
& Scarborough LLP, pro hac vice, Paul E.D. Darsow, Hanson Bolkcom
Law Group, Ltd., Paul D. Williams, Day Pitney LLP-Htfd-CT,
Richard White Crews, Jr., Hartline Dacus Barger Dreyer LLP,
Righton Johnson, Robert J. Giuffra, Jr., Sullivan and Cromwell
LLP, Ryan P. McCarthy, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, Ryan A.
Morrison, Dinsmore & Shohl LLP, S. Keith Hutto, Nelson Mullins
Riley & Scarborough, Sarah Motley Stone, Womble Carlyle Sandridge
& Rice, PLLC, Sharon L. Nelles, Sullivan and Cromwell LLP, Sharon
L. Nelles, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, pro hac vice, Shawn P.
George, George & Lorensen, Stanley Abbott Roberts, McGuireWoods
LLP, Stephen D. Bell, Dorsey & Whitney LLP, Steve S. Tervooren,
Hughes Gorski Seedorf Odsen & Tervooren LLC, Stuart A. Drake,
Kirkland and Ellis LLP, pro hac vice, Suhana S. Han, Sullivan and
Cromwell LLP, pro hac vice, Sverker K. Hogberg, Sullivan &
Cromwell LLP, Thomas R. Ferguson, III, Womble Carlyle Sandridge &
Rice, PLLC, Thomas W. Purcell, MB Law Group LLP, William B.
Monahan, Sullivan and Cromwell LLP, pro hac vice & William Henry
Wagener, Sullivan and Cromwell LLP, pro hac vice.

Audi AG, Defendant, represented by Elizabeth L. Deeley --
elizabeth.deeley@kirkland.com - Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Matthew
Henry Marmolejo -- mmarmolejo@mayerbrown.com -- Mayer Brown LLP,
Michael Howard Steinberg -- steinbergm@sullcrom.com -- Sullivan &
Cromwell, LLP, Andrew Brian Clubok - andrew.clubok@kirkland.com -
- Kirkland & Ellis, pro hac vice, Andrew R. Levin --
levin@sugarmanrogers.c0m -- Sugarman, Rogers, Barshak & Cohen,
P.C., Brett R. Leland - bleland@verrilldana.com -- Verrill Dana
LLP, David Maxwell James Rein --  reind@sullcrom.com -- Sullivan
& Cromwell LLP, G. Stewart Webb, Jr. -- gswebb@Venable.com --
Venable LLP, Garrett L. Boehm, Jr. -- boehmg@jbltd.com -- Johnson
& Bell LTD, J. Gordon Cooney, Jr. --
gordon.cooney@morganlewis.com -- Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP,
James K. Toohey -- tooheyj@jbltd.com -- Johns & Bell LTD, John
Thomas Prisbe -- jtprisbe@venable.com -- Venable LLP, Laura
Kabler Oswell -- oswelll@sullcrom.com -- Sullivan & Cromwell LLP,
Robert J. Giuffra, Jr. -- giuffrar@sullcrom.com -- Sullivan and
Cromwell LLP, Ryan P. McCarthy -- ryan.mccarthy@morganlewis.com -
- Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, Sharon L. Nelles --
nelless@sullcrom.com -- Sullivan and Cromwell LLP, Sharon L.
Nelles, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, Stephen D. Bell --
bell.steve@dorsey.com -- Dorsey & Whitney LLP, Stuart A. Drake --
stuart.drake@kirkland.com -- Kirkland and Ellis LLP, pro hac vice
& William B. Monahan -- monahanw@sullcrom.com -- Sullivan and
Cromwell LLP.

Volkswagen AG, Defendant, represented by Elizabeth L. Deeley,
Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Matthew H. Marmolejo, Mayer Brown LLP,
Michael H. Steinberg, Sullivan & Cromwell, LLP, Andrew Brian
Clubok, Kirkland & Ellis, pro hac vice, Andrew R. Levin,
Sugarman, Rogers, Barshak & Cohen, P.C., Brett R. Leland, David
M.J. Rein, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, G. Stewart Webb, Jr., Venable
LLP, John D. Donovan, Jr., Ropes and Gray LLP, Laura Kabler
Oswell, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, Robert J. Giuffra, Jr., Sullivan
and Cromwell LLP, Sharon L. Nelles, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP,
Stuart A. Drake, Kirkland and Ellis LLP, pro hac vice & William
B. Monahan, Sullivan and Cromwell LLP.

Audi of America LLC, Defendant, represented by Matthew H.
Marmolejo, Mayer Brown LLP, Andrew R. Levin, Sugarman Rogers
Barshak & Cohen, PC, Andrew R. Levin, Sugarman, Rogers, Barshak &
Cohen, P.C., Brett R. Leland, C. Vernon Hartline, Jr., Hartline
Dacus Barger Dreyer LLP, pro hac vice, Cheryl A. Bush, Bush,
Seyferth & Paige, PLLC, David A. Barry, Esq., Sugarman Rogers
Barshak & Cohen, David M.J. Rein, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, Laura
Kabler Oswell, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, Michael R. Williams, Bush
Seyferth & Paige PLLC, Ritchie E. Berger, Esq., Dinse, Knapp &
McAndrew, P.C., Robert J. Giuffra, Jr., Sullivan and Cromwell
LLP, Sharon L. Nelles, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, Stephen D. Bell,
Dorsey & Whitney LLP, W. Scott O'Connell, Nixon Peabody LLP, pro
hac vice & William B. Monahan, Sullivan and Cromwell LLP.

Volkswagen Group of America, a New Jersey corporation, Defendant,
represented by P. Arley Harrel, Williams Kastner & Gibbs, PLLC,
Gerard Cedrone, Lavin, O'Neil Ricci Cedrone & DiSipio, Kenneth
Abrams, McGuire Woods LLP, Laura Kabler Oswell, Sullivan &
Cromwell LLP & William B. Monahan, Sullivan and Cromwell LLP.

Audi of America, Inc., Defendant, represented by Matthew H.
Marmolejo, Mayer Brown LLP, Carine M. Williams, Sullivan &
Cromwell LLP, pro hac vice, Cheryl A. Bush, Bush, Seyferth &
Paige, PLLC, Colin H. Tucker, Rhodes Hieronymus Jones Tucker &
Gable, David M.J. Rein, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, pro hac vice,
John H. Tucker, Rhodes Hieronymus Jones Tucker & Gable, Laura
Kabler Oswell, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, Melissa Fletcher Allaman,
Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough, LLP, Michael R. Williams,
Bush Seyferth & Paige PLLC, Robert J. Giuffra, Jr., Sullivan and
Cromwell LLP & William B. Monahan, Sullivan and Cromwell LLP.

Dr. Ing. h.c.F. Porsche AG, Defendant, represented by Abby L.
Parsons, King & Spalding LLP, Adam G. Sowatzka, King & Spalding
LLP, Alexander K. Haas, King & Spalding LLP, Andrew R. Levin,
Sugarman, Rogers, Barshak & Cohen, P.C., Brett R. Leland, David
M. Fine, King, Spaulding Law Firm, G. Stewart Webb, Jr., Venable
LLP, Garrett L. Boehm, Jr., Johnson & Bell LTD, J. W. Codinha,
Nixon Peabody, LLP, James K. Toohey, Johns & Bell LTD, James K.
Vines, King & Spalding, John Thomas Prisbe, Venable LLP, Joseph
Eisert, King & Spalding LLP, Kenneth Yeatts Turnbull, King &
Spalding LLP, Matthew A. Goldberg, DLA Piper LLP, pro hac vice,
Matthew A. Holian, DLA Piper LLP, Nathan P. Heller, DLA Piper
LLP, Sheldon T. Bradshaw, KING & SPALDING, Sonya R. Braunschweig,
DLA Piper LLP, W. Scott O'Connell, Nixon Peabody LLP, pro hac
vice & William F. Kiniry, Jr., DLA Piper LLP, pro hac vice.

David Antellocy, Defendant, represented by Thomas Eric Loeser,
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice, Scott Moen,
Defendant, represented by Peter B. Fredman, Law Office of Peter
Fredman, Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro
hac vice & Thomas Eric Loeser, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP,
pro hac vice.

Porsche AG, Defendant, represented by Alexander K. Haas, King &
Spalding LLP, Christina Courtney Sheehan, Modrall Sperling Roehl
Harris & Sisk PA, Joseph Eisert, King & Spalding LLP, Laura
Kabler Oswell, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, Matthew A. Goldberg, DLA
Piper LLP, Nathan P. Heller, DLA Piper LLP, Susan Miller Bisong,
Modrall Sperling Roehl Harris & Sisk PA & William F. Kiniry, Jr.,
DLA Piper LLP.

Robert Bosch GmbH, Defendant, represented by Matthew D. Slater,
Cleary Gottlieb Steen and Hamilton LLP, pro hac vice, Carmine D.
Boccuzzi, Jr., Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP, pro hac vice
& David Lloyd Anderson, Sidley Austin LLP.

Bay Ridge Volvo-American, Inc, Defendant, represented by Natalie
Marie Lefkowitz, Chase Kurshan Herzfeld & Rubin LLC.

Audi USA, Defendant, represented by Laura Kabler Oswell, Sullivan
& Cromwell LLP.


MDL 2804: Opioid Class Action Moves to Discovery Phase
------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Hopper, writing for Daily Reporter, reports that
Assistant Clay County Attorney Barry Sackett updated county
supervisors on the class action lawsuit Clay County is engaged in
regarding the "opioid crisis" following a pretrial conference on
Jan. 9.

Mr. Sackett said that the lawsuit has moved into "discovery"
phase, where parties gather information and both parties to
settle are allowed the opportunity to settle.

". . .  They had the first hearing with the federal judge . . .
the judge says 'What's happening in our country with the opioid
crisis is present and ongoing, I did a little math, we are losing
more than 50,000 of our citizens every year and about 150
Americans are going to die today -- just today while we're
meeting," Mr. Sackett said.  "So my objective is to do something
meaningful to abate this crisis and do it in 2018.

"He goes on to tell the parties that he's not going to rule on
anything initially . . . we're going to open up discovery which
is the expensive part of litigation, and if you guys want to kill
each other you will, and you will have drawn a lot of blood, but
what I'd rather see is real solutions and real settlement to
address the problem that's going on.' He was very clear in his
message which I think is very good for us."

According to documentation from the pretrial conference, an
additional conference for various representatives parties and
relevant third-parties to exchange information will be conducted
at the end of the month "to further pursue settlement
discussions."  Documentation also stated, "the court solicited
and obtained the consensus of counsel to focus everyone's present
efforts on abatement and remediation of the opioid crisis rather
than pointing fingers and litigating legal issues."

Mr. Sackett told supervisors the suit has the potential to save
lives.

"I shared with Burlin (Matthews, supervisor,) conversations I've
had with the federal attorney in Cedar Rapids and he kind of went
through how the opioid crisis has progressed in eastern Iowa over
the last three years, the numbers are pretty startling,"
Mr. Sackett said.  "I don't think we've seen those numbers yet,
so we can get some meaningful action through this prior to that
we can really save some lives.

" . . . I think that's about as good as we can get from the judge
as far as his directions, (telling) everybody to not play
lawyer's games and actually get to work and figure out some
solutions to the issues." [GN]


MIAMI, FL: $12MM Tax Class Action Settlement Pending
----------------------------------------------------
David Smiley, writing for Miami Herald, reports that a tax-
incentive program approved more than 15 years ago by Miami voters
in order to boost business and improve the local economy looks
like it will end up costing taxpayers millions after city
officials failed to properly establish the system and ignored
applications from dozens of companies.

Miami commissioners were poised to vote on Jan. 25 on a pending
$12 million settlement to close a class-action lawsuit filed by
Museo Vault, one of some 67 companies that applied for tax breaks
after opening or expanding their businesses inside a city
enterprise zone.  Museo, a storage and services company for fine
art that opened in Wynwood in late 2008, fought to force the city
to repay excessive tax bills paid by jilted companies.

Had the city established its enterprise zones and granted
applications, qualified businesses would have received tax breaks
worth up to 100 percent of the assessed value of their
improvements.  The exemptions -- available only on the portions
of tax bills paid to the city -- were to remain available on a
diminishing scale for a decade.

But only one application was ever approved -- and that went to a
business that ultimately waived its $109 in annual savings.

"We are excited for those taxpayers who ultimately will receive
tax rebates after waiting several years for a resolution of this
matter," said Pardo, of Pardo Jackson Gainsburg.

Pardo, who initially represented a consultant who'd filed
applications on behalf of 20 businesses, wrote in 2010 to the
city's top administrator that "not a single application for a tax
exemption has been reviewed by the City Commission, much less
approved for an exemption."  The consultant's clients included
some high-profile businesses, including Michy's Restaurant,
Graspa Group, Epic Hotel, Bayside Chili's and Met II.

In 2016, Judge Rosa Rodriguez granted the class summary judgment
on its claim and the city appealed, leading to a decision in
March by the Third District Court of Appeal in favor of Museo
Vault.  At the time, the company's attorneys claimed the city
owed more than $30 million in damages.

Miami Mayor Francis Suarez, a city commissioner back when the
lawsuit was filed, did not immediately respond to a text message
seeking comment.  Nor did City Attorney Victoria Mendez.  A Museo
Vault spokeswoman said a statement would be forthcoming.

Should commissioners approve the settlement, the deal would still
need to be finalized by a judge.  It's not clear how the
settlement, first reported by the South Florida Business Journal,
would be paid out. [GN]


MIDLAND CREDIT: Faces "Clayton" Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Midland Credit
Management Inc.  The case is captioned as GLORIA CLAYTON, ON
BEHALF OF HERSELF AND ALL OTHER SIMILARLY SITUATED CONSUMERS, the
Plaintiff, v. MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT INC., the Defendant, Case
No. 2:18-cv-00111-NIQA (E.D. Pa., Jan. 9, 2018). The case is
assigned to the Hon. Nitza I. Quinones Alejandro.

Midland Credit, a licensed debt collector, assists customers in
resolving past-due financial obligations through various
education and payment plans. The company was founded in 1953 and
is based in San Diego, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nicholas J. Linker, Esq.
          ZEMEL LAW LLC
          78 John Miller Way, Suite 430
          Kearny, NJ 07032
          Telephone: (862) 227 3106
          E-mail: nl@zemellawllc.com


MIDLAND CREDIT: Faces "Knight" Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Midland Credit
Management Inc. The case is captioned as RENEISHA KNIGHT, ON
BEHALF OF HERSELF AND ALL OTHER SIMILARLY SITUATED CUSTOMERS, the
Plaintiff, v. MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT INC., the Defendant, Case
No. 2:18-cv-00112-JHS (E.D. Pa., Jan. 9, 2018). The case is
assigned to the Hon. Judge Joel H. Slomsky.

Midland Credit, a licensed debt collector, assists customers in
resolving past-due financial obligations through various
education and payment plans. The company was founded in 1953 and
is based in San Diego, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nicholas J. Linker, Esq.
          ZEMEL LAW LLC
          78 John Miller Way, Suite 430
          Kearny, NJ 07032
          Telephone: (862) 227 3106
          E-mail: nl@zemellawllc.com


MONSANTO CO: Magistrate Denies Bid to Stay Herbicide Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sam Knef, writing for St. Louis Record, reports that U.S.
Magistrate John Bodenhausen has denied plaintiffs' motion to stay
in a proposed product-liability class action involving the
herbicide dicamba.

Plaintiffs Smokey Alley Farm Partnership and others had sought a
stay on proceedings pending the resolution of a motion to
transfer and consolidate eight other related cases to a possible
multidistrict litigation (MDL), according to the Jan. 3 order
from the Eastern District of Missouri.

Defendants including Monsanto, BASF Corp., E.I. Du Pont De
Nemours and Pioneer Hi-Bred International Inc. opposed the motion
to stay, arguing that transfer to a potential MDL being
considered by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
(JPML) is not appropriate, and regardless of the JPML's decision,
the motions to dismiss would need to be briefed.

Mr. Bodenhausen, who handled pretrial matters in the litigation,
stated he does not view a stay as "necessarily achieving any
efficiency."

"The Court finds that no justifiable reason exists for delaying
the briefing on Defendants' motions to dismiss," he wrote.
"While the Court appreciates Plaintiffs' desire to await a ruling
from the JPML, the timing of the ruling on the MDL motion and the
outcome is uncertain."

According to background information in the ruling, Smokey Alley
Farm Partnership, Kenneth Loretta Qualls Farm Partnership,
McLemore Farms LLC, Qualls Land Co. and Michael Baioni filed a
class action in July, asserting Lanham Act, Sherman Act, products
liability, public nuisance, trespass, negligence, strict
liability, Arkansas' Deceptive Trade Practices Act and civil
conspiracy claims with allegations relating to seed products and
three herbicides.

The plaintiffs claimed crops were destroyed due to the drift of
three dicamba herbicides -- XtendiMax, Engenia and FeXapan --
according to court documents.

The defendants responded with three separate motions to dismiss,
but rather than responding to those motions, the plaintiffs filed
an amended complaint in November expanding their claims and the
number of states involved, dismissing defendant DuPont Pioneer
and adding numerous plaintiffs to the action.

In their amended suit, the plaintiffs' claims include alleged
violations of federal and state antitrust laws, state tort claims
under five different states' laws, and alleged Lanham Act
violations.

On Dec. 12, plaintiffs moved to stay, which was responded to by
defendants once again with three separate motions to dismiss, the
ruling states. [GN]


NEW BOSTON PIE: Class Notice Plan in "Brayak" Suit Approved
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, BADR BRAYAK, AHMED GHARRARI, HAMID KACI, ADIL
ABDELJALIL, KHALID AKOUHAR, MOHAMED ESSAFI, and TAOUFIK BOUCHRIT,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. NEW
BOSTON PIE, INC., and CHARBEL RIZKALLAH, Civil Action No. 16-
12322-RWZ (D. Mass.), Judge Rya W. Zobel of the U.S. District
Court for the District of Massachusetts has approved the Proposed
Plan for Class Notice subject to the modifications.

The Notice encouraged the potential class members to participate
in the class action filed by seven former delivery drivers, all
of whom worked for a Domino's franchisee, New Boston Pie and its
owner, Rizkallah.

The lawsuit makes three main claims under Massachusetts law, and
the Court has certified a class for two as follows:

     a. Under the Massachusetts Tips Law, Mass. Gen. Laws ch.
149, Section 152A, all delivery charges should have been paid to
delivery drivers ("Tips Claim)

     b. Under the Massachusetts Minimum Wage Law, Mass. Gen. Laws
ch. 151, Sections 1 & 7, delivery drivers should have been paid
the full minimum wage, both because there was inadequate notice
about payment of a tipped minimum wage and because non-tipped
work was performed inside the store (such as folding boxes,
preparing pizzas, etc.) ("Minimum Wage Claim")

The Defendants deny that they violated any laws or did anything
wrong.  If the Plaintiffs win the claims, the class members may
be entitled to treble damages, interest, and attorneys' fees,
pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 149, Section 150 and Mass. Gen.
Laws ch. 151, Section 20.

On Nov. 14, 2017, the Court certified the case as a class action
for the Tips Claims and the Minimum Wage Claim.  The "class"
includes all delivery drivers who worked at any time between Nov.
19, 2013, and Nov. 14, 2017, for the Domino's store run by New
Boston Pie, Inc., located at 1144 Saratoga Street, East Boston,
MA.

The Court has appointed Stephen Churchill and Brant Casavant of
Fair Work, P.C. (www.fairworklaw.com) as the Class Counsel, and
the Plaintiffs as the Class Representatives.

The potential class members are encouraged to send an email to
the Class Counsel -- steve@fairworklaw.com -- or --
brant@fairworklaw.com -- with all of their contact information so
they can be kept up to date on any case developments.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 9, 2018 Memorandum of
Decision is available at https://is.gd/p37HKn from Leagle.com.

Badr Brayak, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Ahmed Gharrari, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Hamid Kaci, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Adil Abdeljalil, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Khalid Akouhar, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Mohamed
Essafi, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated
& Taoufik Bouchrit, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Stephen S.
Churchill -- stephen@fairworklaw.com -- Fair Work, P.C.

New Boston Pie, Inc. & Charbel Rizkallah, Defendants, represented
by Eric R. LeBlanc -- eleblanc@bennettandbelfort.com -- Bennett &
Belfort PC, Craig D. Levey -- clevey@bennettandbelfort.com --
Bennett & Belfort PC & Todd J. Bennett --
tbennett@bennettandbelfort.com -- Bennett & Belfort, P.C..


NORTHSTAR ALARM: "Braver" Suit Seeks to Certify Class & Subclass
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled ROBERT H. BRAVER, for himself and all
individuals similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. NORTHSTAR ALARM
SERVICES, LLC, a Utah Limited Liability Company, YODEL
TECHNOLOGIES, and DOES 2-10, UNKNOWN INDIVIDUALS, the Defendants,
Case No. 5:17-cv-00383-F (W.D. Okla.), the Plaintiff asks the
Court to certify class and subclass of similarly situated
individuals:

   Class:

   "all persons in the Red Dot Data marketing list for whom
   Yodel's records reflect a telephone call regarding Northstar's
   home security systems that lasted more than 30 seconds, was
   handled by an agent who applied status code 202 or 50 to the
   call, and resulted in the normal clearing disposition."

   Subclass:

   "all persons in the Red Dot Data marketing list for whom
   Yodel's records reflect a telephone call regarding Northstar's
   home security systems that lasted more than 30 seconds, was
   handled by an agent who applied status code 50 to the call,
   and resulted in the normal clearing disposition."

Excluded from class or subclass definition are any persons whose
contact information is associated with either an IP address or
website URL in the Red Dot Data Marketing list.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Humphreys, Esq.
          Luke Wallace, Esq.
          Paul Catalano, Esq.
          HUMPHREYS WALLACE HUMPHREYS, P.C.
          9202 S. Toledo Avenue
          Tulsa, OK 74137
          Telephone: (918) 747 5300
          Facsimile: (918) 747 5311
          E-mail: david@hwh-law.com
                  luke@hwh-law.com
                  paul@hwh-law.com

               - and -

          Keith J. Keogh, Esq.
          Timothy J. Sostrin, Esq.
          KEOGH LAW LTD
          55 W Monroe St, Ste 3390
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 726 1092
          Facsimile: (312) 726 1093
          E-mail: keith@keoghlaw.com
                  tsostrin@keoghlaw.com


OCALA, FL: Must Face Class Action Over Fire Fees
------------------------------------------------
Dee Thompson, writing for Florida Record, reports that the 5th
District Court of Appeals on Jan. 5 overturned the decision of a
Marion County judge who had denied class certification in a case
against the city of Ocala over fire user fees.

In 2014, Discount Sleep of Ocala LLC, doing business as Mattress
Warehouse, and Dale W. Birch filed the case against the city of
Ocala, claiming Ocala's fire user fees are illegal and
unconstitutional.

The original lawsuit, which asked for $49 million in refunded
fees, sought to have the city stop adding fire user fees to
utility bills, according to background information in the ruling.
The practice started in 2006 when Ocala had a shortfall in
funding for fire-protection services. Customers must pay the fees
to get utilities such as water.

Derek A. Shroth, the attorney for the plaintiffs, argued that the
term "user fee" is a mischaracterization because it's not a
voluntary fee. It's actually a tax, he argues, and it makes up 55
percent of the funding for fire services.

The case was dismissed by Circuit Judge Edward Scott in February
2015 because he said the four-year statute of limitation had
passed. The city began collecting user fees in 2006.

In June 2016, however, that decision was reversed by an appellate
court, which said in October 2009 the city repealed the fees,
then reinstated them in October 2010. The 2010 date was used to
calculate the statute of limitations, and the lawsuit was then
allowed.

The plaintiffs then filed a second amended complaint "seeking a
declaration that the fire service user fee enacted by the City
and collected from them and all other City utility customers as
part of the monthly utility bill is invalid, illegal, and
unconstitutional," the court's decision states. They also asked
the court to order the city to refund the fees collected.

Additionally, they filed a second motion seeking class
certification.

In January 2017, Circuit Court Judge Lisa Herndon denied class
certification. She wrote that the case could be litigated without
it, and the plaintiffs had failed to provide proof of city
residency. She also concluded that the judgment would apply to
all who paid the fire fees and therefore there was no need for a
class action.

In March, the attorneys for the city offered a settlement
proposal to the plaintiffs, but it wasn't accepted.

The 5th District concluded that class certification made more
sense in this instance than individual claims for several
reasons, noting, "There are potentially more than 22,000 class
members. Their individual claims, which are as small as $14.30
per month (amounting to $171.60 a year), would not justify filing
separate actions. Allowing Appellants to proceed with a class
action provides an economically feasible remedy, given the modest
potential individual damage recovery for each class member."

The opinion was authored by Judge Richard B. Orfinger. Judges
Vincent G. Torpy and Eric J. Eisnaugle concurred.

Attorneys for the city of Ocala are George Franjola and Patrick
G. Gilligan of Gilligan, Gooding, Franjola & Batsel P.A. [GN]


OCEAN HARBOR: In-House Algorithm Helps Accomplish Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
Samantha Joseph, writing for Law.com, reports that a Miami law
firm's unique ability to wrangle colossal data sets with billions
of information fields allowed it to do what others couldn't --
win class certification in two cases where Medicare paid when
other insurers should have.

MSP Recovery Law Firm, affiliated with a data engineering
company, developed an in-house algorithm to query massive federal
and state spreadsheets, allowing it to hone in on evidence that
Medicare had covered other insurers' bills.

Under federal law, Medicare, the national health insurance
program, is set up as a secondary rather than primary payer.
This means that when a beneficiary files a claim, any other
insurer should pay first before Medicare is billed for any
balance.

But details that emerged last year suggested federal health
officials lost hundreds of millions of dollars in overpayments to
health plans under Medicare Advantage.  At the time, NPR reported
losses for 2007 alone were about $128 million and went unnoticed
until an initial round of audits.

MSP Recovery Law Firm said a proprietary tool helped it secure
preliminary approval for a $5 million settlement after Miami-Dade
Circuit Judge Samantha Ruiz Cohen granted class certification
against Ocean Harbor Casualty Insurance Co.  After a six-day
trial, the judge found the litigators demonstrated the case could
proceed as a class action because their algorithms could identify
primary and secondary payers.

In another case, the firm is gearing up to send class notices to
health care agencies that paid Medicare Advantage claims that
another payer, IDS Property Casualty Insurance Co., allegedly
should have covered.

Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Antonio Arzola gave co-lead counsel John
H. Ruiz and Frank C. Quesada the green light to proceed with the
class action against IDS, requiring the attorneys to mail class
notices by Jan. 25.

The cases represent the first-time courts have certified class
actions under the federal Medicare secondary payer provisions,
making the multimillion-dollar settlement in the Ocean Harbor
case unique.

Mr. Quesada, who is MSP Recovery Law Firm's general counsel,
described the feat as a "highly challenging achievement that
other lawyers have attempted for decades."  Even Erin Brockovich
-- the famed legal clerk portrayed by Julia Roberts in the 2000
biographical film -- failed in her attempt to bring dozens of qui
tam or whistleblower suits.  Ms. Brockovich filed suit on the
government's behalf, seeking to hold primary payers liable for
double damages under federal law.

A key difference between MSP Recovery and predecessors is the
Miami law firm's ability to mine giant spreadsheets combining
information from crash reports, medical files and government
databases.

"The government is picking up the bill that is due by other
payers," said Ruiz, who's litigated class actions and other
complex commercial cases for more than 25 years. "Our system is
able to detect it in nanoseconds."

The firm's sister company, MSP Recovery, uses medical and
scientific teams to work with data engineers.

"A lot of people don't understand the data because it's so much,"
Mr. Quesada said. "You have all these great sources, but putting
it all together is where a lot of people get tripped up.  We
realize attorneys alone couldn't do it. . . . One specialty alone
couldn't do it. It requires a lot of specialties in a room to put
it all together. This is where we've been successful. We've
brought the right people together who've never been brought
together."

The firm carved out a niche market based on these resources. In
August 2016, for instance, it prevailed against Allstate
Insurance Co. when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh
Circuit held a plaintiff could sue an automobile insurer under
the Medicare secondary payer provisions when Medicare's payment
of a medical claim stemmed from an automobile accident in a no-
fault state.

"The setup of the system was 10 years in the making," Ruiz said.
"Now it is the only system of its kind in the entire United
States of America."

MSP Recovery Law Firm is pursuing claims in New Jersey,
California, Texas, Ohio, Illinois, Louisiana and Florida.

So far, its lawyers say opposing counsel have worked with the
firm to investigate and attempt to correct wrongful billing and
payments.

MSPA Claims 1 v. Ocean Harbor Casualty Insurance

Case No.: 2015-1946-CA 01

Description: Class action

Filing date: Jan. 26, 2015

Settlement preliminary approval: Nov. 16, 2017

Judge: Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Samantha Ruiz Cohen

Plaintiffs attorneys: John H. Ruiz and Frank C. Quesada, MSP
Recovery Law Firm, Miami; and Gonzalo Dorta, Dorta Law, Coral
Gables

Defense attorneys before class certification: Albert Moon, Albert
E. Moon P.A., Miami; (During class certification hearing):
Shannon P. Mckenna, Michael K. Wilensky and Dale Friedman, Conroy
Simberg, Hollywood

Settlement amount: $5 million

MSPA Claims 1 v. IDS Property Casualty Insurance

Case No.: 2015-27940-CA 01

Description: Class action

Filing date: Dec. 2, 2015

Class Certification: April 20, 2017

Judge: Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Antonio Arzola

Plaintiffs attorneys: John H. Ruiz and Frank C. Quesada, MSP
Recovery Law Firm, Miami; and Gonzalo Dorta, Dorta Law, Coral
Gables

Defense attorneys before class certification: Niels Murphy and
Nicole Melvani, Murphy & Anderson, Jacksonville; Rachel M.
LaMontagne, Shutts & Bowen, Miami; (During class certification
hearing): Robin Taylor Symons and Eric Thompson, Gordon & Rees
Scully Mansukhani, Miami; (Post-class certification hearing):
Irene S. Motles, Maynard Cooper & Gale, Birmingham, Alabama;
Ramon Abadin, Ramon A. Abadin P.A., Coral Gables. [GN]


PALM BEACH, FL: PBT Real Estate Suit Seeks Class Certification
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled PBT REAL ESTATE, LLC, a Florida limited
liability company on behalf of itself and all other parties
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. TOWN OF PALM BEACH, a
Florida municipal corporation, et al., the Defendants, Case No.
9:17-cv-81254-DMM (S.D., Fla.), the Plaintiff moves the Court to
certify a class of:

   "all people holding title to a condominium unit in the Palm
   Beach Towers Condominium whose property interest is subject
   to the Special Assessments and liens imposed by Resolution
   100-2017, for the period from July 12, 2017 through the date
   of entry of judgment."

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

Attorneys for PBT Real Estate, LLC:

          Gary C. Rosen, Esq.
          Jon Polenberg, Esq.
          Yasin Daneshfar, Esq.
          BECKER & POLIAKOFF, P.A.
          1 East Broward Blvd., Suite 1800
          Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 987 7550
          Facsimile: (954) 985 4176
          E-mail: grosen@bplegal.com
                  jpolenberg@bplegal.com
                  cgellman@bplegal.com
                  tfritz@bplegal.com

Counsel for Anne M. Gannon Constitutional Tax Collector, Serving
Palm Beach County:

          Orfelia M. Mayor, Esq.
          OFFICE OF THE TAX COLLECTOR
          P.O. Box 3715
          West Palm Beach, FL 33402-3715
          E-mail: omayor@pbctax.com

Counsel for Dorothy Jacks:

          Neil B. Jagolinzer, Esq.
          Jay R. Jacknin, Esq.
          C/O PROPERTY APPRAISER'S OFFICE
          Governmental Center - Fifth Floor
          301 North Olive Avenue
          West Palm Beach, FL 33401
          E-mail: neil@njnlaw.net
                  tllewis@pbcgov.org

Counsel for Town of Palm Beach:

          Edward A. Dion, Esq.
          Gregory T. Stewart, Esq.
          Lynn M. Hoshihara, Esq.
          LAW FIRM OF NABORS, GIBLIN & NICKERSON, P.A.
          110 East Broward Blvd., Suite 1700
          Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
          E-mail: edion@ngnlaw.com
                  gstewart@ngnlaw.com
                  lhoshihara@ngnlaw.com
                  legal-admin@ngnlaw.com


PENNSYLVANIA: DRPA Files Foster Care Class Action Against DHS
-------------------------------------------------------------
OpenMinds reports that on December 22, 2017, Disability Rights
Pennsylvania (DRPA) filed a federal class-action lawsuit against
the Pennsylvania Department of Human Services (DHS) that alleged
that the state child welfare system fails to provide adequate
child welfare services to children with mental health conditions.
DRPA seeks seek broad reform of Pennsylvania's dependency system,
which it alleges violates federal Medicaid law, the Americans
with Disabilities Act (ADA), and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973
(Rehabilitation Act).  No hearing or trial date has been set.

The case is styled S.R., et al., v. Pennsylvania Department of
Human Services. [GN]


PHILIP MORRIS: Fla. App. Reverses Final Judgment in "McCall"
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, PHILIP MORRIS USA INC., Appellant, v. BERNICE
McCALL, individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate
of MARTIN McCALL, Appellee, Case No. 4D16-2016 (Fla. Dist. App.),
Judge Dorian K. Damoorgian of the District Court of Appeal of
Florida for the Fourth District reversed the final judgment
entered in favor of the Plaintiff and remanded the case for new
trial.

The Plaintiff sued PM pursuant to Engle v. Liggett Grp., Inc.,
alleging that her deceased, Martin McCall, died from lung cancer
caused by an addiction to smoking cigarettes manufactured and
marketed by PM.  She alleged causes of action for strict
liability, fraud by concealment, conspiracy to commit fraud by
concealment, and negligence.

The Plaintiff sought relief for her negligence claims under the
Florida Wrongful Death Act and, in the alternative, asserted a
survival claim for damages based on the injuries suffered by
Decedent prior to his death.  In conjunction with her alternative
survival claim, she also asserted a loss of consortium claim.  In
response, PM asserted several affirmative defenses, including bar
by the statute of limitations.

In its verdict, the jury found that the Decedent was a member of
the Engle class by virtue of its finding that he was addicted to
cigarettes containing nicotine and that such addiction was the
legal cause of his lung cancer.  It also found that smoking
cigarettes manufactured by PM was a legal cause of the Decedent's
lung cancer.  However, the jury found that lung cancer was not a
legal cause of the Decedent's death.  Accordingly, the jury did
not award any wrongful death damages.  It did, however, find in
favor of the Plaintiff on her alternative survival and loss of
consortium claims and awarded her $175,000 for the Decedent's
pain and suffering and $175,000 for the Plaintiff's loss of
consortium.

The jury found in favor of PM on both of the Plaintiff's
intentional tort claims, finding that the Decedent did not
reasonably rely to his detriment on any statement made by PM
which concealed or omitted material information not already known
or available to him and that, likewise, the Decedent did not
reasonably rely to his detriment on any statement made in
furtherance of PM's agreement with other tobacco companies to
conceal or omit material information.  Based on the jury's
intentional tort findings, the matter did not proceed to the
punitive phase.

PM appeals a final judgment entered in favor of the Plaintiff,
individually and as the personal representative of the estate of
Martin McCall ("Decedent"), on her survival and loss of
consortium claims.  PM argues that the loss of consortium award
must be vacated because the claim was barred by the applicable
statute of limitations.  It also argues, as it does in every
Engle appeal, that the court's application of the Engle common
core findings violated its due process rights.

The Plaintiff cross-appeals, asserting that the court erred in
instructing the jury on the elements necessary to establish
fraudulent concealment and conspiracy to commit fraudulent
concealment as well as the legal effect of cigarette warning
labels.  Additionally, the Plaintiff argues that the court erred
in reducing the jury's award by its allocation of the Decedent's
comparative fault.

Judge Damoorgian concludes that the Plaintiff's loss of
consortium claim was a separate and free-standing claim belonging
to her individually and that the Plaintiff cannot be considered
an Engle class member for purposes of her individual claims.
Therefore, the filing of Engle had no tolling effect on the
applicable statute of limitations.  Because the Plaintiff did not
file her lawsuit until 15 years after the statute of limitations
began to run and her claim does not relate back to the timely
filed survival claim, the Plaintiff's loss of consortium claim
was time barred.  Accordingly, she concludes that the court erred
in denying PM's motion for directed verdict on the issue.

The Judge concludes that the warning label instruction was
improperly given in the case.  Accordingly, she is compelled to
reverse and remand for a new trial.  As outlined in the direct
appeal analysis section, on remand, the court should enter
judgment in favor of PM on the Plaintiff's individual loss of
consortium claim.

In sum, Judge Damoorgian continues to reject PM's due process
argument based on Philip Morris USA, Inc. v. Douglas, and
likewise rejects the Plaintiff's comparative fault argument based
on R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Schoeff.  She also finds no error
in the court's instructions on the Plaintiff's fraudulent
concealment and conspiracy to commit fraudulent concealment
claims.  However, she finds merit in both the parties' remaining
positions.  Accordingly, the Judge reversed and remanded the
matter for a new trial.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 13, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/8MMYd8 from Leagle.com.

David F. Northrip -- dnorthrip@shb.com -- and William P. Geraghty
-- wgeraghty@shb.com -- of Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP, Kansas City,
Missouri, and Miami, and Frances Daphne O'Connor --
daphne.o'connor@apks.com -- and Geoffrey J. Michael --
geoffrey.michael@apks.com -- of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP,
Washington, DC, for appellant.

Shea T. Moxon, Celene H. Humphries, Maegen Peek Luka and Thomas
J. Seider of Brannock & Humphries, Tampa, and Alex Alvarez --
Alex@integrityforjustice.com -- of The Alvarez Law Firm, Coral
Gables, and Jordan L. Chaikin of Chaikin Law Firm PLLC, Fort
Myers, for appellee.


PRATT & WHITNEY: Class Status Sought for Acreage Residents
----------------------------------------------------------
Austen Erblat, writing for South Florida Sun-Sentinel, reports
that United States district judge was asked to declare all 50,000
residents of The Acreage as potential beneficiaries in a lawsuit
that alleges aerospace manufacturer Pratt & Whitney released
toxins into the soil that resulted in a cancer-cluster and
reduced property values in the community.

The company denied the claims in court and in a statement after
the hearings ended.

"Pratt & Whitney strongly believes that the evidence offered in
court established that there is no credible scientific basis to
support any allegation that contaminants from the West Palm Beach
operation have reached the Acreage community (by groundwater,
truck or otherwise) or caused any reduction in property values,"
Matthew C. Bates, associate director of media relations at Pratt
& Whitney, wrote in an email. "Further, it is clear from the
evidence the Court has seen that there is no contamination in the
Acreage capable of causing the brain cancers studied by the
[Department of Health] or alleged by the Plaintiffs, and
certainly none that came from Pratt & Whitney."

U.S. District Judge Kenneth Marra heard from similarly-qualified
experts in all areas of the lawsuit who offered conflicting and
sometimes contradictory testimonies. The judge will not initially
decide on the case or cases, only whether there are grounds to
give them "class action" status, which would group multiple
lawsuits together.

Pratt & Whitney is an American aerospace manufacturer and
military contractor founded in 1925 that makes rockets and
engines for military and commercial vehicles. It is headquartered
in Connecticut and the Palm Beach County plant has been active
for almost 60 years.  The company is a subsidiary of United
Technologies with a revenue of $15.1 billion in 2016.

In 2010, the Florida Department of Health designated the
community a pediatric brain cancer cluster after finding 13 cases
of children developing brain or central nervous system cancers
between 1993 and 2008. Three children developed similar cancers
from 2005 to 2007, four additional children were diagnosed with
brain cancer in 2008 and one was diagnosed in 2009.

"All of the materials the Plaintiffs claim Pratt & Whitney used
in its historic operations were the subject of licenses with
state regulators that detail both the quantity of material on
site and the specific use to which they would be put," Mr. Bates
said. "Pratt & Whitney properly stored, maintained, catalogued,
accounted for, and disposed of such materials in accordance with
these licenses.  As we have argued in court, we believe that no
class action should be certified."

West Palm Beach attorney Mara Hatfield, who represents the
residents, said that truckers who transported toxic materials
from the plant improperly dumped them in The Acreage, which mixed
with groundwater and was used as fill for home construction.

Expert testimony offered conflicting and sometimes contradictory
claims.  Marco Kaltofen, president of the Civil and Environmental
Engineering department of Boston Chemical Data Corp., told the
judge he found "shockingly high levels of radioactive isotopes"
in nearby homes and in tissue samples of two people who died of
cancer in The Acreage.

John Frazier, health physics consultant at the National Council
on Radiation Protection and Measurements, refuted the claims as
having any connection to the company.

"I have seen no evidence of any sources of environmental
radioactivity from current or past operations at the Pratt &
Whitney facility that could cause radioactive contamination in
The Acreage," he said.

At the nearest, northernmost point, The Acreage is 6 miles away
from the company's plant on Beeline Highway, and at the furthest,
southernmost point, the community is 20 miles away.

The lawsuit also alleges the release of chemicals from the plant
hurt real estate values. One real estate agent testified that the
allegations of a cancer cluster caused property values to drop
between 25 and 40 percent.

Real estate appraiser Thomas Jackson called that claim
misleading.

"There's too much diversity," he said.  "You just can't lump all
these properties together. It would be misleading and improper to
do that."

Daniel Stephens, a hydrologist who received a Lifetime
Achievement Award from the Groundwater Resources Association of
California, said soil tests showed groundwater carried the toxins
to the affected communities from the plant.

"These chemicals that were found in The Acreage more than likely
were derived from the Pratt & Whitney facility," he testified. "I
would be concerned if I was a resident."

The judge said he would probably not rule on the issue for
several months. [GN]


PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP: Settlement in "Kress" Has Prelim OK
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SAMUEL BRANDON KRESS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. PRICE
WATERHOUSE COOPERS LLP, Defendant, Case No. 2:08-cv-00965-TLN-AC.
(E.D. Cal.), Judge Troy L. Nunley of the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of California granted the Plaintiffs'
Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of the Proposed
Settlement.

Plaintiff Lac Anh Le originally filed her complaint in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California on Oct.
26, 2007, and Plaintiff Kress originally filed his complaint,
captioned Kress v. PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, in California
Superior Court, Los Angeles County on Jan. 18, 2008.  The Kress
case was removed by PwC to the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California, and both the Le and Kress cases
were subsequently transferred to the Court.  On Aug. 14, 2008,
the separate Le and Kress cases were consolidated to form Kress
v. PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of California, Case No. 2:08-cv-00965-TLN-AC.

By Order dated Jan. 10, 2013, the Court certified a class action
under the California Labor Code and the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, Rule 23, which is defined as all persons employed by
PwC in California who, at any time during the period of Oct. 27,
2003 to Jan. 10, 2013: (a) worked as Senior Associates in the
Attest Division of PwC's Assurance Line of Service, (b) were not
licensed as certified public accountants ("CPAs") for some or all
of the period they worked in this position, and (c) were
classified as overtime exempt employees while working in the
position.

The Parties desire to compromise and fully settle their claims
with finality and agree to the Settlement of the Consolidated
Action, and entered into the Settlement Agreement and Release
effective Nov. 3, 2017, setting forth the terms of the Settlement
of the Consolidated Action.  They have engaged in private
mediation before Mark S. Rudy on April 17, 2017.

Judge Nunley granted Preliminary Approval of the parties'
Settlement Agreement and Release in the Consolidated Action.  He
appointed Peter Muhic from the firm Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check
LLP, William Baird from the firm Marlin & Saltzman LLP, Steven
Elster from the Law Office of Steven Elster, and Edward Wynne
from the firm Wynne Law Firm are hereby appointed as the Class
Counsel for the Settlements.  He authorized the retention of ILYM
Group, Inc. as the Settlement Administrator for the purpose of
implementing certain provisions of the Settlement Agreement and
Release.

The Class Representatives, Other Named Plaintiffs (David Beadles
and Willow Markham), and the Class Counsel believe that the case
is meritorious and that the certification of a class of Attest
Senior Associates was and continues to be appropriate.

The Attest Senior Associate Class is defined as all former and
current persons employed by PwC (a) who worked as Senior
Associates in the Attest Division of PwC's Assurance line of
service in California at any time during the period of Oct. 27,
2003 to Jan. 10, 2013, (b) who were not licensed as certified
public accountants for some or all of the time they worked in
this position during that period, (c) who were classified as
overtime exempt employees while working in this position during
that period, (d) who were sent the class notice on or about Aug.
22, 2014 notifying them that they are members of the Attest
Senior Associate class in Kress, et al. v. PricewaterhouseCoopers
LLP that was certified on Jan. 10, 2013, and (e) who did not opt
out of the certified class following dissemination of the class
notice.

The Judge appointed Plaintiffs Kress and Jesse Kenny as the Class
Representatives of the Attest Senior Associate Class.

The Judge approved the Notice to Class Members of Proposed
Settlement of the Consolidated Action.  Under the terms of the
Settlement Agreement and Release, the Class Notice of Proposed
Settlement will be mailed via first class mail to the last known
address of each Class Member within the timeframe specified in
the Settlement Agreement and Release.  He also approved the
proposed procedure for Class Member exclusion from the
Settlement, which is to submit an Exclusion Letter to the
Settlement Administrator no later than the Objection/Exclusion
Deadline identified in the Class Notice of Proposed Settlement,
no less than 30 days from the postmark date of the Notice (or for
a re-mailed Class Notice of Proposed Settlement, no later than 14
days from the postmark of the re-mailed Notice).

He ordered that that each Class Member who does not properly and
timely submit an Exclusion Letter will be given a full
opportunity to object to the proposed Settlement and to
participate in the Final Approval hearing, which the Court sets
to commence on April 19, 2018, at 2 p.m.  Any Class Member
seeking to object to the proposed Settlement will file such
objection no later than 14 days from the postmark of the re-
mailed Notices.

Judge Nunley further ordered that the Class Counsel must file
motions for approval of the Fee Award, Expense Award, the Class
Representative Service Awards, the Other Named Plaintiffs
Settlement Awards, with the appropriate declarations and
supporting evidence, properly filed and noticed in accordance
with the Local Rules to be heard at the same time as the motion
for Final Approval of the Settlement.  The Class Counsel will
file a motion for Final Approval of the Settlement, with the
appropriate declarations and supporting evidence, including a
declaration setting forth the identity of any Class Members who
request exclusion from the Settlement, properly filed and noticed
in accordance with the Local Rules to be heard by April 19, 2018.

Upon entry of the Order, the Parties will proceed toward a
hearing on final approval, consistent with the deadlines set
forth in the Settlement Agreement and Release.  The Court, on its
own initiative or pursuant to stipulation or motion practice, may
extend any of the deadlines set forth in the Order or adjourn or
continue the final approval hearing without further notice to the
Class.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 9, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/VADJEX from Leagle.com.

Samuel Brandon Kress, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Jeffrey LaBerge, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated & Willow Markham, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
represented by Monique Myatt Galloway -- mgalloway@ktmc.com --
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, Llp, pro hac vice, Steven S.
Elster, Law Office Of Steven Elster, Alan R. Plutzik, Bramson
Plutzik Mahl & Birkhaeuser, LLP, Daria D. Carlson, Markun Zusman
& Compton LLP, Edward Joseph Wynne -- EWynne@wynnelawfirm.com --
Wynne Law Firm, James Maro, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP,
pro hac vice, Jeffrey K. Compton, Markun Zusman & Compton LLP,
Kiley Lynn Grombacher, Bradley Grombacher, LLP, Marcus J.
Bradley, Bradley Grombacher, LLP, Peter A. Muhic --
muhic@ktmc.com -- Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, pro hac
vice, Stanley D. Saltzman, Marlin & Saltzman, LLP & William
Anthony Baird, Marlin & Saltzman, LLP.

Lac Anh Le, Jason Patterson, Lauren Barry, Dana Blindbury, Jesse
Kenne, Kelly C. Jones & Ricardo Ochoa, Plaintiffs, represented by
Monique Myatt Galloway, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, Llp, pro
hac vice, Alan R. Plutzik, Bramson Plutzik Mahl & Birkhaeuser,
LLP, Daria D. Carlson, Markun Zusman & Compton LLP, Edward Joseph
Wynne, Wynne Law Firm, James Maro, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check
LLP, pro hac vice, Jeffrey K. Compton, Markun Zusman & Compton
LLP, Kiley Lynn Grombacher, Bradley Grombacher, LLP, Marcus J.
Bradley, Bradley Grombacher, LLP, Peter A. Muhic, Kessler Topaz
Meltzer & Check, LLP, pro hac vice, Stanley D. Saltzman, Marlin &
Saltzman, LLP & William Anthony Baird, Marlin & Saltzman, LLP.

Samuel Brandon, Plaintiff, represented by Monique Myatt Galloway,
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, Llp, pro hac vice, Alan R.
Plutzik, Bramson Plutzik Mahl & Birkhaeuser, LLP, Daria D.
Carlson, Markun Zusman & Compton LLP, Edward Joseph Wynne, Wynne
Law Firm, James Maro, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP, pro hac
vice, Jeffrey K. Compton, Markun Zusman & Compton LLP, Kiley Lynn
Grombacher, Bradley Grombacher, LLP, Marcus J. Bradley, Bradley
Grombacher, LLP, Peter A. Muhic, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check,
LLP, pro hac vice, Stanley D. Saltzman, Marlin & Saltzman, LLP &
William Anthony Baird, Marlin & Saltzman, LLP.

PriceWaterhouseCoopers, LLP, a limited liability partnership,
Defendant, represented by Alexander Kosta Mircheff --
amircheff@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Joseph
C. Liburt, Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe, LLP, Julian Wing-Kai
Poon -- jpoon@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP,
Julie A. Totten -- jatotten@orrick.com -- Orrick, Herrington &
Sutcliffe LLP, Lynne C. Hermle, Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe,
LLP, Michele Leigh Maryott -- mmaryott@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson,
Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Norman C. Hile -- nhile@orrick.com -- Orrick
Herrington and Sutcliffe LLP, Andrea Lee Brown, Orrick Herrington
and Sutcliffe LLP, Daniel J. Thomasch -- dthomasch@gibsondunn.com
-- Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, pro hac vice, David A. Prahl,
Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, LLP & Lauren J. Elliot --
lelliot@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, pro hac
vice.

Yury Adamov, ThirdParty Plaintiff, represented by William A.
Kershaw, Kershaw, Cook & Talley PC.


RANDSTAD US: "Vasquez" Labor Suit Moved to State Court
------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ALFREDO VASQUEZ, Plaintiff, v. RANDSTAD US, L.P., et
al., Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-04342-EMC (N.D. Cal.), Judge
Edward M. Chen of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California granted the Plaintiff's motion to remand
to the Superior Court of Alameda and denied as moot the
Defendants' motion to transfer venue.

Vasquez filed a class action complaint against the Defendants
Randstad, and XPO Logistics Freight, Inc. and XPO Logistics
Worldwide, LLC in the Superior Court of Alameda on June 15, 2017.
On July 31, 2017, after the Plaintiff had filed a First Amended
Complaint and all the Defendants had answered, Randstad filed a
notice of removal under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005
("CAFA") on July 31, 2017.

The Plaintiff seeks to represent a class of employees apparently
placed by staffing agency Randstad at XPO to perform jobs related
to loading and unloading containers.  He alleges that he and
other employees were consistently required to work through their
meal periods due to the Defendants' policy and practice of
requiring them to finish loading and unloading containers on a
strict schedule before allowing them to take a meal break, which
was not provided at all times.

The allegation appears to be the factual basis for most of the
Plaintiff's legal claims, including failure to pay minimum wage,
failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess of 8 hours a day
or 40 hours a week,  failure to provide full and adequate meal
breaks for work in excess of 5 hours, failure to provide accurate
wage statements, failure to pay all wages due upon termination,
and derivative claims under California's Unfair Competition Law.
The Plaintiff also alleges failure to provide rest breaks for
work in excess of 4 hours.

The Defendants' opposition to the Plaintiff's motion to remand is
supported by a declaration by a Randstad paralegal based on
searches performed on Randstad's payroll systems and databases.
The declaration sets forth estimates for various categories of
damages based on information about the number of class members
employed during the class period, the number of class members
terminated during that time, and their average hourly wage.  The
declaration does not provide any estimate of the total hours
worked or whether employees were part- or full-time.

The Defendants calculate the amount-in-controversy as follows:

   (i) Meal and Rest Break Violations - $1,677,500;

  (ii) Waiting Time Penalties - $1,883,520;

(iii) Inaccurate Wage Statements - $251,250;

  (iv) Minimum Wage Violations - $603,900; and

   (v) Overtime Violations - $629,062.50.

The total is $5,045,232.50.  The Attorneys' Fees is equal to
$1,261,308.13 (25% benchmark).  Total w/Attorneys' Fees is equal
to $6,306,540.63.

The central dispute is whether the Defendants' assumption of a
100% violation rate to calculate the amount-in-controversy is
reasonable.  The Defendants argue that it is because the
Plaintiff alleges "consistent" failure to provide rest-and-meal
breaks and failure to pay overtime.  The Plaintiff argues that a
100% rate is unreasonable and that Defendants must present
evidence of the actual violation rate; the Plaintiff does not
propose an alternative violation rate.

Judge Chen finds that although the term "consistent" may describe
a uniform practice of failing to pay when time is worked or a
break is missed, it does not tell it how often an employee misses
a meal break or rest break.  Nor, by analogy, does it explain how
often an employee works time without being paid.  Thus, alleging
"consistent" failure to pay does not say how often work without
pay was actually performed, only that when it was, it was
consistently not compensated.

The Judge also finds that even if every employee is assumed to
have worked through the full duration of their meal breaks (2.5
hours a week), it would not follow that that such uncompensated
time automatically constitutes overtime rather than minimum wage
pay because there is no baseline to determine whether the extra
2.5 hours would push an employee over 8 hours a day or 40 hours a
week.  In the absence of such evidence, the unpaid time can be
counted only as minimum wage damages, not overtime.  Accordingly,
he says, the Defendant's calculation for overtime damages in the
amount of $629,062.50 is unsupported and is disallowed.  He will
therefore discount the overtime damages as duplicative.

The Judge will fully credit the Defendants' assumption that all
class members were required to "consistently" work through their
rest breaks.  Based on that assumption, they calculate the
minimum wage damages by multiplying the average minimum wage over
the class period ($9) by 2.5 hours a week (5 meal breaks worked
for 30 minutes per week) by the number of work weeks (13,420),
and then doubling it to capture liquidated damages, for a total
of $603,900 in unpaid wages and liquidated damages for meal
breaks through which employees had to work.

Judge Chen finds that the Defendants' calculations for meal and
rest-break statutory penalties based on a 100% violation rate
over a 4-year period are reasonable based on the allegations of
the complaint.  This category of damages reasonably totals
$1,677,500 (meal periods: ($12.50/hour * 5 violations per week *
13,420 workweeks) and rest periods: ($12.50/hour * 5
violations/week * 13,420 workweeks)).

The Judge holds that the Defendants' calculation of $1,883,520 in
waiting time penalties must be adjusted.  The appropriate
calculation is the product of the average hourly wage for the
terminated employees ($12.00), 5 hours a day for 30 days.  The
number of terminated class members (654).  The adjusted sum for
this category of damages is $1,177,200.

He also holds that the penalties are correctly calculated at (1
workweek * $50) + (12 workweeks *$100) * (201 employees) for a
total of $251,250.  The Defendants' calculation is therefore
reasonable.  However, he holds that without attorneys' fees, the
Defendants' total damages are below the $5 million threshold.
And, even if 25% of $3,709,850 were a reasonable benchmark, that
would only bring the total amount-in-controversy to $4,637,312.50
-- still below the jurisdictional threshold.  Accordingly, even
using a 25% benchmark to estimate attorneys' fees, the Defendants
cannot satisfy the jurisdictional requirements of CAFA.

For these reasons, Judge Chen granted the Plaintiff's motion to
remand to the Superior Court of Alamed and denied as moot the
Defendant's motion to transfer venue.  The Clerk of the Court is
instructed to close and remand the case to the Superior Court of
Alameda.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 9, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/496dtg from Leagle.com.

Alfredo Vasquez, Plaintiff, represented by David Harmik Yeremian
-- david@yeremianlaw.com -- David Yeremian & Associates, Inc.,
Enoch J. Kim -- enoch.kim@securitasinc.com -- David Yeremian and
Associates Inc. & Roman Shkodnik -- roman@yeremianlaw.com --
David Yeremian and Associates, Inc.

Randstad US, L.P., Defendant, represented by Andrew More McNaught
-- amcnaught@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Michael Anderson
Wahlander -- mwahlander@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw LLP &
Elizabeth Jarvis MacGregor -- emacgregor@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth
Shaw LLP.

XPO Logistics Freight, Inc. & XPO Logistics Worldwide, LLC,
Defendants, represented by Barrett Kenneth Green --
bgreen@littler.comv -- Littler Mendelson P.C.


RCN TELECOM: "Lane" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph O. Lane, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. RCN TELECOM SERVICES LLC d/b/a RCN
BUSINESS and BRUCE ABBOTT in his personal capacity, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-00351 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 15, 2018),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor
Standards and New York labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants provide businesses
with facilities-based communication products and services over
Defendants' wholly-owned communication networks. On March 9,
2015, the Plaintiff began employment with RCN in its New York
City Branch. The Plaintiff' title was changed to "Senior Account
Executive" and was paid with a base salary commission. On January
10, 2016 Plaintiff title was changed to "Senior Sales Operation
Specialist". His compensation stayed the same. Despite regularly
working in excess of 40 hours per week, the Plaintiff was paid
his regular hourly for all hours worked; overtime pay (i.e., one
and one-half times the regular hourly rate was never paid to
Plaintiff).

RCN Telecom provides Internet, digital cable TV, and home phone
service plans for residents. The company also provides
communications products and services, including Internet, voice,
video, and network solutions to businesses of various sizes.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nathaniel K. Charny, Esq.
          CHARNY & WHEELER
          9 West Market Street
          Rhinebeck, NY 12572
          Telephone: (845) 876 7500


REGRESO FINANCIAL: "Karcauskas" Class Certification Bid Nixed
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled Povilas Karcauskas, the Plaintiffs, v.
Regreso Financial Services LLC, et al., the Defendants, Case No.
2:15-cv-09225-FMO-RAO (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Fernando M.
Olguin entered an order denying without prejudice motion for
class certification and preliminary approval of settlement
agreement.

The Court said, "No later than January 25, 2018, defense counsel
shall file a brief regarding any potential conflicts with their
representation as discussed on the record. No later than February
1, 2018, a motion to dismiss class claims as to defendant Regreso
Financial Services, LLC may be filed. No later than February 15,
2018, plaintiff shall file their renewed motion for preliminary
approval."

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Robert Stempler, Esq.
          CONSUMER LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT STEMPLER, APC
          8200 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 200
          Beverly Hills, CA, 90211-2331
          Telephone: (323) 486 0102
          Website: http://rstempler.com/

The Defendants are represented by:

          Michael I. Goldsmith, Esq.
          Larissa G. Nefulda, Esq.
          Stephen H. Turner, Esq.
          LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP
          Los Angeles, CA
          633 West 5th Street, Suite 4000
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 580 7933
          Facsimile: (213) 250 7900
          E-mail Larissa.Nefulda@lewisbrisbois.com
                 Turner@lewisbrisbois.com


ROBERTS TOOL: Denial of Arbitration Bid in "Ortiz" Suit Affirmed
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JOSE ORTIZ, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ROBERTS
TOOL CO., INC., Defendant and Appellant, Case No. B280442 (Cal.
App.), Judge Sandy Kriegler of the Court of Appeals of California
for the Second District, Division Five, affirmed the trial
court's denial of Roberts' motion to compel arbitration.

Plaintiff and Respondent Ortiz began working for CMI, the
predecessor to Roberts, in 2003.  On June 19, 2006, Ortiz signed
a two-paragraph arbitration agreement with CMI.  Ortiz filed the
operative first amended complaint alleging various wage and hour
causes of action against his former employer, Appellant and
Respondent Roberts.

In response to Ortiz's complaint, Roberts filed a motion to
compel arbitration based on the 2006 agreement.

The arbitration agreement provides that in the event an employee
has any dispute with or claim against the company or its
employees related to (a) termination of his or her employment,
(b) unlawful harassment, (c) unpaid wages, or (d) unlawful
discrimination, binding arbitration will be the sole and
exclusive means by which to resolve such a dispute or claim.  If
the employee wishes to pursue such dispute or claim, it must be
submitted for binding resolution in accordance with the rules of
the American Arbitration Association ("AAA").  Employees
understand he or she is giving up any right to a jury trial.
Each party will pay his own costs for legal representation at any
arbitration proceeding.  CMI agrees to pay for all costs of the
arbitrator and arbitration administrative fees.

Ortiz opposed the petition to compel arbitration, arguing that
the arbitration agreement was both procedurally and substantively
unconscionable.  Roberts filed a reply.  The trial court heard
argument and denied Roberts' motion to compel arbitration after
finding that the arbitration agreement was unenforceable on
unconscionability grounds.

Roberts argues the trial court erred in finding the arbitration
agreement unenforceable under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA).
It takes issue with the trial court's finding that the agreement
was both procedurally and substantively unconscionable.

Judge Kriegler disagrees.  She finds that the trial court's
finding that the arbitration agreement is a contract of adhesion
is supported by conflicting, but substantial evidence, and she
therefore accepts that findings for purposes of appeal.  Roberts
was in a superior position to Ortiz.  Ortiz stated in his
declaration that a human resources person told him he had to sign
the agreement, which supports a finding that he had no
opportunity to negotiate and that an element of surprise was
present.  The agreement therefore contains a modest degree of
procedural unconscionability.

The Judge also agree with the trial court's analysis, and rejects
Roberts' contention that the trial court's interpretation is
inconsistent with the reasoning in Baltazar v. Forever 21, Inc.
She finds no similarity between the agreement in Baltazar and the
agreement in the case.  Ortiz agreed to arbitrate his employment-
related claims, but unlike the Baltazar agreement, there is not a
hint of language indicating Roberts was required to arbitrate any
claim against its employee.  There is no inclusive language in
Ortiz's arbitration agreement suggesting that the scope of the
agreement was not limited to only those claims brought by Ortiz.
Accepting as correct Roberts' argument that California law does
not require strict mutuality, the fact remains in the case that
the agreement lacks any indicia of mutuality.  Substantive
unconscionability was established on this issue.

Finally, the Judge finds no basis for finding an abuse of
discretion in the trial court's refusal to sever offending
portions of the arbitration agreement.  The two primary
components of the agreement -- Ortiz's agreement to arbitrate his
employment-related disputes and the allocation of attorney fees -
- are both substantively unconscionable and permeate the
agreement.  Severance of those two subjects would provide for an
arbitration bearing no similarity to the terms of the agreement.

For these reasons, Judge Kriegler affirmed the order denying the
motion to compel arbitration.  Ortiz is awarded costs on appeal.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 9, 2018 Opinion is available
at https://is.gd/a56WPv from Leagle.com.

Honigman Miller Schwartz and Cohn, Matthew S. Disbrow --
mdisbrow@honigman.com -- for Defendant and Appellant.

Gartenberg Gelfand Hayton, Aaron C. Gundzik --
agundzik@gghslaw.com -- Rebecca G. Gundzik --
rgundzik@gghslaw.com -- for Plaintiff and Respondent.


ROCKWELL COLLINS: Six of Seven Class Actions Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Patane, writing for The Gazette, reports that seven
lawsuits filed against the planned acquisition of Rockwell
Collins all have been dismissed.

Six of the suits, filed in federal District Court, voluntarily
were dismissed by plaintiffs on Jan. 18 and Jan. 19, court
filings show.  A seventh suit, filed in Iowa District Court, was
dismissed at the end of December.

The suits had all contained similar complaints from plaintiffs
who said they were shareholders in Rockwell Collins.  The
complaints had claimed Rockwell, its executives and board members
submitted misleading statements or had failed to provide relevant
information to shareholders in federal filings about the
acquisition.

Without that information, the suits said, shareholders could not
appropriately vote on whether to approve Rockwell's acquisition
by United Technologies Corp.

The suits had sought class-action status and had asked a judge to
stop the acquisition from moving forward.  Reasons for the
dismissals were not provided.

In response to the suits, Rockwell filed additional information
about the deal on Dec. 29.  The company said it didn't believe
the additional disclosures were necessary, but did so "to moot
plaintiffs' purported disclosure claims and minimize the burden
and expense of defending" against the suits.

A Rockwell spokesman said on Jan. 22 the company did not have a
comment on the lawsuit dismissals.  An attorney for five of the
federal suits did not immediately respond to an email on Jan. 22.
[GN]


RWI TRANSPORTATION: "Craft" Suit Seeks to Certify Drivers Class
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled LARRY CRAFT, an individual; on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. RWI
TRANSPORTATION, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; and
DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-
05289-SVW-E (C.D. Cal.), Mr. Larry Craft will move the Court on
February 26, 2018, for an order:

   1. certifying a plaintiff class defined as follows:

      "all former and current drivers employed by RWI
      Transportation, LLC who resided in the state of California
      at any time beginning four years prior to the filing of the
      complaint for all time spent driving within and outside
      California";

   2. certifying Plaintiff Larry Craft as the representative of
      the Class; and

   3. appointing the law firm Kabateck Brown Kellner LLP as class
      counsel pursuant to Rule 23(g) of the Federal Rules of
      Civil Procedure.

A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=KFxFJ5LL

Counsel for Plaintiff Larry Craft and all others similarly
situated:

          Brian S. Kabateck, Esq.
          Shant A. Karnikian, Esq.
          Cheryl A. Kenner, Esq.
          KABATECK BROWN KELLNER LLP
          644 S. Figueroa Street
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 217 5000
          Facsimile: (213) 217 5010
          E-mail: bsk@kbklawyers.com
                  sk@kbklawyers.com
                  ck@kbklawyers.com


SCOTTRADE INC: 8th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of "Lewis" Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge James B. Loken of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth
Circuit affirmed the  district court's dismissal of the case,
Nicholas Lewis, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Scottrade, Inc., Defendant-
Appellee, Case No. 16-3808 (8th Cir.).

Scottrade, a securities brokerage firm, provides its customers
online trading services, investment services, and market research
tools.  Its customers place orders to buy and sell individual
securities.  It executes the orders itself or through trading
venues that include major stock exchanges, hedge funds, banks,
electronic communication networks, and third-party market makers.

Lewis, a Scottrade customer since 2012, has placed non-directed
standing limit orders through Scottrade.  In a "non-directed"
order, the customer directs Scottrade to execute the order but
does not specify the trading venue Scottrade should select.  A
"limit" order is an order to buy or sell a specific number of
shares of a security at a specific or better price.

Lewis filed the putative class action against Scottrade alleging
violations of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act, breach of
a common law fiduciary duty, and unjust enrichment.  After Lewis
filed the action in the Southern District of California, it was
transferred to the Eastern District of Missouri, where
Scottrade's principal executive offices are located.

The complaint alleges that the duty of best execution requires
Scottrade to diligently choose the best trading venue for its
clients, considering factors such as likelihood and speed of
trade execution, and opportunities for price improvement.  While
Scottrade need not make "trade by trade determinations," it must
adhere to this duty in the aggregate and may not put its
interests ahead of its customers.  Lewis alleges that Scottrade
violated the duty of best execution in 2013 and 2014 by directing
nearly all customer non-directed standing limit orders to trading
venues that offered the largest rebates to Scottrade, and by not
passing these payments on to its customers.  The complaint cites
academic research allegedly demonstrating that limit order
routing decisions based primarily on rebates/fees appear to be
inconsistent with best execution.

The district court dismissed the complaint, concluding that
Lewis' claims are precluded by the Securities Litigation Uniform
Standards Act ("SLUSA").  Lewis appeals.  The issues on appeal
are whether Lewis' complaint alleged (1) a misrepresentation or
omission or a manipulative or deceptive device or contrivance
that was (2) in connection with the purchase or sale of a covered
security.

Judge Loken finds it obvious that the misconduct alleged by Lewis
was "in connection with" the purchase and sale of covered
securities.  He concludes that fraud or deception in trading that
violates a broker's duty of best execution is misconduct "in
connection with" the purchase and sale of covered securities to
which SLUSA applies.

The Judge further concludes that the allegations in Lewis' state
law class action complaint, fairly read, allege material
misrepresentations or omissions, or the use of a manipulative or
deceptive device or contrivance, in connection with the purchase
and sale of covered securities.  Accordingly, Lewis' claims are
precluded by SLUSA.

For these reasons, Judge Loken affirmed the judgment of the
district court.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 9, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/9qz7X9 from Leagle.com.

Thomas Edward Douglass -- tdouglass@thompsoncoburn.com -- for
Defendant-Appellee.

Christopher Martin Hohn -- chohn@thompsoncoburn.com -- for
Defendant-Appellee.

Timothy G. Blood -- tblood@bholaw.com -- for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Leslie E. Hurst -- lhurst@bholaw.com -- for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Thomas Joseph O'Reardon, II -- toreardon@bholaw.com -- for
Plaintiff-Appellant.

Paula R. Brown -- proach@bholaw.com -- for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Brian J. Robbins -- brobbins@robbinsarroyo.com -- for Plaintiff-
Appellant.

David Michael Mangian, for Defendant-Appellee.

Brandi L. Burke -- bburke@thompsoncoburn.com -- for Defendant-
Appellee.

Ashley R. Rifkin -- arifkin@robbinsarroyo.com -- for Plaintiff-
Appellant.

Kevin A. Seely -- kseely@robbinsarroyo.com -- for Plaintiff-
Appellant.

Leonid Kandinov -- lkandinov@robbinsarroyo.com -- for Plaintiff-
Appellant.

Helen Byungsun Kim -- hkim@thompsoncoburn.com -- for Defendant-
Appellee.


SEATTLE, WA: Truckers Mull Class Action Over New Regulation
-----------------------------------------------------------
Steve Wilcox, writing for LiveTrucking, Seattle port truckers are
threatening to take legal action against the state, should new
environmental regulations be enforced.

The program, called the "The Northwest Seaport Alliance Clean
Truck Program," requires all port drivers to upgrade to 2007 or
newer model trucks/engines, or they will be disallowed from
entering port terminals from April 1st, 2018.

Should the Clean Truck program be enforced, it will inevitably
lead to a shortage in port truck drivers, as only 53% of port
drivers are currently in compliance with the program.

In addition, many owner-operators who have upgraded to newer
trucks say the financial impact has put a strain on their
businesses.

A group of Seattle port drivers recently penned this letter to
the port agency:

Open letter to NWSA. Seattle WA. January of 2018.

The following is to address the concerns and welfare of the
trucking industry in the NW, mainly truck driver owner operators.

"As we all have seen, since you tried to implement a fully
unlawful mandate on the truckers about replacing their trucks for
a newer models, nothing but discontent, frustration and plain
anger against you is growing, we, the truckers, know first hand
how useless and expensive is to try to run these newer models,
you have heard from a lot of us how upsetting is to work even
harder just to pay for repairs, it clearly shows that you don't
own a business, you don't create jobs and certainly you don't
have the slightest idea what it takes to make even a small profit
on your own , your idea of having a purpose on life is battling
imaginary monsters, play saviors and put the burden on someone
else to carry, in this case, truckers."

"Per federal and state law, as long as a truck passes the
emissions test, and the DOT inspection, that vehicle is fully and
lawfully able to operate and conduct business, without the burden
or saying of someone else, your claim about reducing the harmful
micro particles of the dangerous truck fumes has no base nor any
credible documentations besides the so called 'studies' you have
conducted, this is not rocket science, we have truckers and
longshoremen that have been breathing these fumes for 10, 20, 30
or even more years without a single case reported that they
acquired cancer or any other lethal illness from being around
truck fumes all of these years, not mentioning that when the
truck industry fully started, trucks didn't have that much smog
filtration except for a device that was installed mainly to
reduce the noise and not the emissions.

"We all have seen the real pollution that the train produces, not
mentioning the cargo vessels and the cranes, are you going to
force the ports to replace their equipment too and the shipping
companies to do something about their vessels? Because, they
produce in 10 minutes what we produce in weeks or months, it
seems that you have seen in truckers an excuse to keep getting a
paycheck behind a desk without actually doing anything productive
and a lot of damage.  If we have to, we may have to write a
letter to the president to send someone to investigate this whole
thing to its roots and let the chips fall where they may, because
is somehow suspicious that NWSA is helping the truck
manufacturers get rid off the junk they produced when they
started using this new emissions system, some truckers, to their
regret, have wasted thousands of dollars to replace their older
much better and reliable trucks, thousands of truckers are
hesitating to get a newer truck that will force them to get out
of trucking business and as you can see, you have created a lot
of anger around, if we are forced to get newer equipment, you may
be facing a huge class action lawsuit very soon from any side of
the lane."

The agency posted the following fliers, notifying drivers of the
plan to deny non-compliant trucks access to port terminals on
April 1st. [GN]


SERVICE OF PROCESS: Swinter Can Add Allegations vs. DS Kaiser
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SWINTER GROUP, INC., Plaintiff, v. SERVICE OF
PROCESS AGENTS, INC., DOUGLAS SCOTT KAISER, and JOHN DOES 1-10,
Defendants (E.D. Mo.), Judge Ronnie L. White of the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division,
granted the Plaintiff leave to amend its complaint to add
allegations against Kaiser.

Swinter filed the putative class action seeking relief under the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), for an allegedly
unsolicited fax it received.  Named in the caption of the
complaint are twelve Defendants: SPA; Kaiser; and John Does 1-10.
The address for service on Kaiser listed on the Application for
Order Appointing Special Process Server is the same as for
service on SPA.  According to the Affidavit of Service, Kaiser
was personally served at the address listed in the Application.

After SPA and Kaiser were served, they removed the action from
the state court in which it was filed to the Court.  Kaiser now
moves to be dismissed, correctly noting that (a) the only
reference to him in the complaint is his name in the caption and
(b) there are no allegations of any action taken or not taken by
him that led to any violation of the TCPA.  Indeed, the only
Defendants named in the body of the complaint are SPA and the
John Does.

Kaiser additionally argues that he does not have the minimum
contacts with Missouri required for personal jurisdiction, and
supports his position with an affidavit detailing his lack of
contacts with any state other than Virginia and describing his
lack of involvement with the fax at issue.

The Plaintiff counters with a motion requesting that the briefing
on the motion to dismiss be stayed and it be allowed to engage in
discovery relative to the allegations in Kaiser's affidavit.  In
its supporting memorandum, the Plaintiff describes the facts
alleged in the complaint "as to Defendant Doug Kaiser."  First is
that the junk fax attached to the complaint "suggests that
recipients call 'Doug.'"  Second is that "Defendant Doug Kaiser,
together with other defendants, sent a junk fax to Plaintiff into
Missouri," also sent other junk faxes, and engaged in six
additional activities in violation of the TCPA.

Judge White granted the Plaintiff leave to amend its complaint to
add allegations against Kaiser, and to attach the exhibits
referred to in its complaint.  Accordingly, he ordered that the
Plaintiff is to file an amended complaint within 21 days of the
date of the Order.  Failure to comply will result in the
dismissal without prejudice of Kaiser without further notice.
The motion to dismiss, and the motion for jurisdictional
discovery and for stay, will be held in abeyance pending the
filing of the amended complaint.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 9, 2018 Memorandum and Order
is available at https://is.gd/U0Bvrp from Leagle.com.

Swinter Group, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Mary B. Schultz --
mschultz@sl-lawyers.com -- SCHULTZ AND ASSOCIATES, L.L.P. &
Ronald J. Eisenberg -- reisenberg@sl-lawyers.com -- SCHULTZ AND
ASSOCIATES, L.L.P.

Service of Process Agents, Inc. & Douglas Scott Kaiser,
Defendants, represented by Don V. Kelly-- dkelly@evans-dixon.com
-- EVANS AND DIXON & Brian R. Shank -- bshank@evans-dixon.com --
EVANS AND DIXON.


SHUTTERFLY INC: "Taylor" Case Removed to N.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned as MEGAN TAYLOR, an individual on behalf
of herself, and on behalf of all those similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. SHUTTERFLY, INC.; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive,
the Defendants, the Defendants removed the case from the Superior
Court of the State of California, County of Santa Clara, to the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California. The Northern District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
5:18-cv-00266-BLF to the proceeding.

Shutterfly is an American Internet-based image publishing service
based in Redwood City, California. Shutterfly's flagship product
is its photo book line. The company was founded in 1999 and is
currently led by Christopher North.[BN]

Attorneys for Defendant:

          Gregory C. Cheng, Esq.
          Brian D. Berry, Esq.
          Lauren M. Cooper, Esq.
          OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
          Steuart Tower, Suite 1300
          One Market Plaza
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 442 4810
          Facsimile: (415) 442 4870
          E-mail: gregory.cheng@ogletree.com
                  Brian.Berry@ogletree.com
                  lauren.cooper@ogletree.com


SOS SECURITY: "Musa" Suit Seeks to Certify Settlement Class
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled MUSTAFA MUSA AND TREY HARDY, on behalf of
themselves and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, v. SOS SECURITY LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-
05681-MCA-SCM (D.N.J.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order
granting preliminary approval of a proposed settlement of this
class action that provides monetary relief to a settlement class
consisting of approximately 23,000 employees and job applicants.

The Plaintiffs further ask the Court for an order appointing
Plaintiffs' counsel as class counsel for the settlement class;
approving proposed notice plans for the settlement class;
appointing settlement administrator; and scheduling of a hearing
to consider final approval of the proposed settlement.

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

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Class:

          Andrew R. Frisch, Esq.
          Marc R. Edelman, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
          600 North Pine Island Road, Suite 400
          Plantation, FL 33324
          Telephone (954) WORKERS
          Facsimile: (954) 327 3013
          E-mail: afrisch@forthepeople.com
                  MEdelman@forthepeople.com

Counsel for the Defendant:

          Keith J, Murphy, Esq.
          Robin Taylor Symons, Esq.
          Eric R. Thompson, Esq.
          GORDON & REES SCULLY MANSUKAHANI
          18 Columbia Turnpike, Suite 220
          Florham Park, NJ 07932
          E-mail: kmurphy@grsm.com
                  rsymons@gordonrees.com
                  ethompson@gordonrees.com

               - and -

          Jay H. Solowsky, Esq.
          Mason A. Pertnoy, Esq.
          SOLOWSKY & ALLEN, P.L.
          201 South Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 915
          Miami, FL 33131
          E-mail: jsolowsky@salawmiami.com
                  mpertnoy@salawmiami.com


SOUTH AFRICA: Coronation Park Residents Mull Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Northern KZN Courier reports that residents near Coronation Park,
opposite the hospital, have grown weary of the wild parties,
littering and noise that has for years disrupted their
neighbourhood.

The littering in the park took a new turn with reams of cash
register rolls and till slips strewn around the park.

The usual used condoms and human excrement was also in the mix.

Residents who contacted the Courier said the first steps of
taking a class action against the Municipality for failing to
implement the by-laws to control the activities in the park. [GN]


SOUTH KOREA: Banpo Homeowner Plans to Join Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Kim Yoo-chul, writing for The Korea Times, reports that the
latest government anti-speculation step to cool the booming
property market especially in Seoul's most-affluent southern
districts of Gangnam, Seocho and Songpa is drawing skepticism
over its effectiveness.

The government announced owners of apartments in the Gangnam area
that are subject to reconstruction will have to return to the
government a hefty amount of gains in the value of their
apartments accruing from their reconstruction.

According to a simulation by the land ministry, a homeowner in
that area where the value of an apartment will rise steeply
following reconstruction may have to pay the government as much
as 840 million won ($784,314) from the gains in the value of
their apartment.

It is commonly believed the primary driving force behind the
soaring apartment prices is speculation. In principle, anti-
speculation measures should stabilize housing prices.

However, a series of anti-speculation measures have had little
impact in southern Seoul, which the government believes is the
main area for speculators.

As widely expected, homeowners were up in arms.

"If the plan gets implemented, we may consider delaying the
reconstruction. But the latest plan is too radical.  I thought I
would be paying only 70 million won for the rebuilding of the
apartment complex," said a homeowner living in Banpo-dong,
Seocho-gu.

Real estate agencies expect this may halt reconstruction of many
apartment complexes in the Gangnam area, which may stabilize the
surging property market in the short term.

Apartments older than 30 years are eligible for reconstruction,
which would see them demolished and replaced with luxurious new
apartments.

The common belief is that homeowners of these aging apartments
could earn large amounts of money if their apartments are
reconstructed.

Real estate experts expect housing prices to rise steeply in
Gangnam area, which generally refers to Gangnam-gu, Seocho-gu and
Songpa-gu.  That is what the current administration doesn't want
to see. Its top priority is to cool down housing prices.

The latest move is the fourth round of the administration's anti-
speculation measures, following tighter mortgage rules, heavier
capital gains taxes on owners of multiple homes and limiting
loans exceeding 40 percent of the property value.

The homeowner in Banpo said he plans to join a class-action suit
against the land ministry as the plan hurts the best interests of
homeowners.  "Each resident bought their apartment at different
times, so the gains from rising apartment prices differ among
each of them.  However, the government is asking all residents to
pay the same amount, which doesn't make any sense," he said.

The difference between the price of new apartments following
reconstruction and the price of old apartment will be the basis
for calculating how much the homeowners should pay the
government.

"Reconstruction projects in the relatively less affluent Gangbuk
area, north of Han River, are expected to get fresh momentum as
the government measures are aiming to cool down apartment prices
in the Gangnam area," said an official at Real Estate 114, a
housing market information provider. [GN]


SPOKEO INC: ERISA Class Action Nixed Over Lack of Concrete Harm
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hazel Bradford, writing for Pensions & Investments, reports that
the Supreme Court declined on Jan. 22 to rehear a case
challenging whether laws passed by Congress allow for lawsuits
over violations of statutes such as the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act if there is not "real and material" harm.

On May 16, 2016, the Supreme Court by a 6-2 decision in Spokeo
Inc. vs. Robins et al. vacated a 9th U.S. Circuit Court of
Appeals decision overturning a lower court ruling dismissing the
class-action case on the grounds that the plaintiff failed to
show concrete harm.

The Supreme Court remanded the case back to the 9th Circuit in
San Francisco to determine whether the alleged harms met the
concreteness standard of Article III of the Constitution.

On Aug. 15, a three-judge 9th Circuit panel again reversed the
lower court dismissal, saying that plaintiff Thomas Robins had
standing to pursue his claims against Spokeo for inaccurate
information.  In cases where there is an alleged intangible harm,
the court said, there are two questions for determining standing:
if the allegedly violated provisions were established to protect
concrete interests, not just procedural rights, and, if the
procedural violations have a material risk of harm to such
interests.

In one of 14 amicus briefs filed to the Supreme Court in the
Spokeo case in 2016, the Pension Rights Center argued that losing
constitutional standing could also cost pension plan
participants' rights to sue under ERISA. [GN]


STARION ENERGY: "Eisenband" Suit Seeks to Certify Class
-------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled DZIYANA LAZAREVICH EISENBAND, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
STARION ENERGY, INC., a foreign corporation, the Defendant, Case
No. 9:17-cv-80195-KAM (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court
to enter an order:

   1. granting class certification of:

      "all individuals within the United States who, from , (i)
      were sent a "ringless" voicemail (ii) on his or her
      cellular telephone (iii) from on behalf of Starion (iv)
      using the platform. Excluded from the Class is Starion,
      Starion's directors and officers, immediate families of
      Starion's directors and officers, or the legal
      representatives, agents, affiliates, heirs, successors-in-
      interests or assignees of any such excluded person."

   2. appointing Plaintiff as representative of the Classes; and

   3. appointing Hiraldo PA and the Gibson Law Firm, P.A. as
      class counsel.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq.
          HIRALDO P.A.
          401 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400
          Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 400 4713
          E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com

               - and -

          Albert D. Gibson, Esq.
          Monika E. Siwiec, Esq.
          THE GIBSON LAW FIRM, P.A.
          858 Clint Moore Rd., C111, #293
          Boca Raton, FL 33496
          E-mail: adg@gibsonlawfirmpa.com
                  mes@gibsonlawfirmpa.com


STATE FARM: Court Dismisses Suit Over Medicare Advantage Plans
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Joe Billy McDade of the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of Illinois, Peoria Division, granted the Defendant's
motion to dismiss the case, MAO-MSO RECOVERY II, LLC, MSP
RECOVERY LLC, and MSPA CLAIMS 1, LLC, Plaintiffs, v. STATE FARM
MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondent, Case No. 1:17-
cv-01541-JBM-JEH (C.D. Ill.).

The lawsuit arises under the Medicare Secondary Payer ("MSP")
provisions of the Medicare Act.  The MSP is actually a collection
of statutory provisions codified during the 1980s with the
intention of reducing federal health care costs.  Part C of the
Medicare Act allows Medicare enrollees to obtain their Medicare
benefits through private insurers, called Medicare Advantage
Organizations ("MAOs"), instead of receiving direct benefits from
the government under Parts A and B. 42 U.S.C. Section 1395w-
21(a).

The MSP provides a private cause of action for damages in an
amount double the amount otherwise provided in the case of a
primary plan which fails to provide for primary payment or
appropriate reimbursement.  The Plaintiffs in the case, who have
been assigned the rights of recovery by numerous MAOs, purport to
bring a private cause of action under subsection (3)(A) against
State Farm for failure to provide reimbursement for the assignor-
MAOs' secondary payments.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant failed to pay or
reimburse the MAOs, whose rights were assigned to the Plaintiffs,
as required by Section 1395y(b)(2)(B)(i)-(ii).  They contend that
the MAOs, Full Risk Payers and/or their assignee(s) (Plaintiffs)
suffered a monetary injury because of the Defendant's failures to
pay or otherwise reimburse the MAOs, Full Risk Payers and/or
their assignee(s).

The Plaintiffs purport to bring a class action on behalf of
entities that contracted directly with CMS and/or their assignees
including but not limited to MAOs and other similar entities that
have made payment(s) for Medicare Services, whereby, the MAO or
its assignee, as a secondary payer, has the right and
responsibility to obtain reimbursement for such Medicare
Services, and where the Defendant as primary payer failed to
properly reimburse the MAOs or their assignees, after the
Defendant entered into settlements with Medicare beneficiaries
who received Medicare benefits through enrollment in a Medicare
Advantage plan.  The Plaintiffs redacted the name of the class
representative MAO and pleaded that the name of the class
representative Medicare beneficiary is "R.F."

On June 16, 2017, State Farm filed a motion to dismiss the
Plaintiffs' amended complaint.  It argues that the Plaintiffs
lack Article-III standing to sue because they have not shown
injury-in-fact and that they've failed to state a claim for which
relief may be granted because the amended complaint is too
generic.  The Plaintiffs filed a response.

Judge McDade agrees that the Plaintiffs have failed to
sufficiently allege injury in fact because they do not allege
particular and concrete injuries on behalf of R.F. or the
representative MAO.  He says the Plaintiffs do not specifically
allege that R.F. and the representative MAO suffered harm.  The
only mention of the class representatives is in paragraph 50 of
the amended complaint which states: "The representative MAO is
[REDACTED/].  The representative Medicare Beneficiary is R.F.
The representative Medicare Beneficiary's policy number is
[REDACTED/]."  The Judge says these allegations are insufficient
to establish standing, and the Court therefore lacks subject
matter jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs' claims.

For these reasons, Judge McDade denied as moot State Farm's
original Motion to Dismiss and granted State Farm's Motion to
Dismiss the Amended Complaint for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction.  He granted the Plaintiffs 21 days from the date of
the Order to amend the deficiencies as noted.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 9, 2018 Order and Opinion is
available at https://is.gd/tl6uL2 from Leagle.com.

MSP Recovery, LLC, a Florida entity, MAO-MSO Recovery II, LLC, a
Delaware entity & MSPA Claims 1, LLC, a Florida entity,
Plaintiffs, represented by Christopher L. Coffin --
ccoffin@pbclawfirm.com -- PENDLEY BAUDIN & COFFIN LLP, pro hac
vice, Adam M. Foster, Baum, Hedlund, Aristei & Goldman, PC,
Courtney L. Stidham -- cstidham@pbclawfirm.com -- Pendley, Baudin
& Coffin, L.L.P., pro hac vice, Pedram Esfandiary --
pesfandiary@baumhedlundlaw.com -- Baum, Hedlund, Aristei &
Goldman, PC, R. Brent Wisner -- rbwisner@baumhedlundlaw.com --
Baum, Hedlund, Aristei & Goldman, PC & David M. Hundley --
dhundley@pbclawfirm.com -- HUNDLEY LAW GROUP, P.C.

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, an Illinois
Company, Defendant, represented by Benjamine Reid --
breid@carltonfields.com -- Carlton Fields Jordan Burt PA, James
P. Gaughan -- jgaughan@rshc-law.com -- RILEY SAFER HOLMES &
CANCILA LLP, Joseph Anthony Cancila, Jr. -- jcancila@rshc-law.com
-- RILEY SAFER HOLMES & CANCILA LLP, Patrick D. Cloud --
pcloud@heylroyster.com -- HEYL ROYSTER VOELKER & ALLEN & D.
Matthew Allen -- mallen@carltonfields.com -- Carlton Fields
Jorden.


STATE FARM: Suit Over Auto Accident Coverage Can Proceed
--------------------------------------------------------
Judge Joe Billy McDade of the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of Illinois, Peoria Division, granted the Defendant's
motion to dismiss the case, MAO-MSO RECOVERY II, LLC, MSP
RECOVERY LLC, and MSPA CLAIMS 1, LLC, Plaintiffs, v. STATE FARM
MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondent, Case No. 1:17-
cv-01537-JBM-JEH (C.D. Ill.).

The lawsuit arises under the Medicare Secondary Payer ("MSP")
provisions of the Medicare Act.  The MSP is actually a collection
of statutory provisions codified during the 1980s with the
intention of reducing federal health care costs.  Part C of the
Medicare Act allows Medicare enrollees to obtain their Medicare
benefits through private insurers, called Medicare Advantage
Organizations ("MAOs"), instead of receiving direct benefits from
the government under Parts A and B. 42 U.S.C. Section 1395w-
21(a).

The MSP provides a private cause of action for damages in an
amount double the amount otherwise provided in the case of a
primary plan which fails to provide for primary payment or
appropriate reimbursement.  The Plaintiffs in the case, who have
been assigned the rights of recovery by numerous MAOs, purport to
bring a private cause of action under subsection (3)(A) against
State Farm for failure to provide reimbursement for the assignor-
MAOs' secondary payments.

The Plaintiffs contend that the Medicare Beneficiaries were
involved in automobile accidents in the United States that
required medical services and/or supplies.  They allege that the
Defendant, as the primary payer, failed to pay or reimburse the
Medicare Beneficiaries' MAOs for the payments made by the MAOs
that were required to be paid by the Defendant as a result of
said automobile accidents.

The Plaintiffs purport to bring a class action on behalf of
entities that contracted directly with CMS and/or their
assignees, including but not limited to MAOs and other similar
entities that have made payments for Medicare Services, whereby,
the MAO or its assignee, as a secondary payer, has the right and
responsibility to obtain reimbursement for such Medicare
Services, and where the Defendant as primary payer failed to
properly pay the medical bills on behalf of their insureds and
have otherwise failed to reimburse, including but not limited to,
the MAOs or their assignees.  The Plaintiffs redacted the name of
the class representative MAO and pleaded that the name of the
class representative Medicare beneficiary is "C.L."

On May 31, 2017, State Farm filed a motion to dismiss the
Plaintiffs' amended complaint.  It argues that the Plaintiffs
lack Article-III standing to sue because they have not shown
injury-in-fact and that they've failed to state a claim for which
relief may be granted because the amended complaint is too
generic.  The Plaintiffs filed a response.

Judge McDade agrees that the Plaintiffs have failed to
sufficiently allege injury in fact because they do not allege
particular and concrete injuries on behalf of C.L. or the
representative MAO.  He says the Plaintiffs do not specifically
allege that C.L. and the representative MAO suffered harm.  The
only mention of the class representatives is in paragraph 58 of
the amended complaint which states: "The representative MAO is
[REDACTED/]. The representative Medicare Beneficiary is C.L."
The Judge says these allegations are insufficient to establish
standing, and the Court therefore lacks subject matter
jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs' claims.

For these reasons, Judge McDade denied as moot State Farm's
original Motion to Dismiss and granted State Farm's Motion to
Dismiss the Amended Complaint for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction.  He granted the Plaintiffs 21 days from the date of
the Order to amend the deficiencies as noted.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 9, 2018 Order and Opinion is
available at https://is.gd/9Ixatl from Leagle.com.

MSP Recovery, LLC, a Florida entity, MAO-MSO Recovery II, LLC, a
Delaware entity & MSPA Claims 1, LLC, a Florida entity,
Plaintiffs, represented by Christopher L. Coffin --
ccoffin@pbclawfirm.com -- PENDLEY BAUDIN & COFFIN LLP, pro hac
vice, Adam M. Foster, Baum, Hedlund, Aristei & Goldman, PC,
Courtney L. Stidham -- cstidham@pbclawfirm.com -- Pendley, Baudin
& Coffin, L.L.P., pro hac vice, Pedram Esfandiary --
pesfandiary@baumhedlundlaw.com -- Baum, Hedlund, Aristei &
Goldman, PC, R. Brent Wisner -- rbwisner@baumhedlundlaw.com --
Baum, Hedlund, Aristei & Goldman, PC & David M. Hundley --
dhundley@pbclawfirm.com -- HUNDLEY LAW GROUP, P.C.

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, an Illinois
Company, Defendant, represented by Benjamine Reid --
breid@carltonfields.com -- Carlton Fields Jordan Burt PA, James
P. Gaughan -- jgaughan@rshc-law.com -- RILEY SAFER HOLMES &
CANCILA LLP, Joseph Anthony Cancila, Jr. -- jcancila@rshc-law.com
-- RILEY SAFER HOLMES & CANCILA LLP, Patrick D. Cloud --
pcloud@heylroyster.com -- HEYL ROYSTER VOELKER & ALLEN & D.
Matthew Allen -- mallen@carltonfields.com -- Carlton Fields
Jorden.


SUNRISE BANKS: Inmate Files Class Action Over Frozen JPay Card
--------------------------------------------------------------
Susan Du, writing for CityPages, reports that when inmates are
released from a California prison, they leave with a box of their
possessions, the balance of their commissary money, and $200 in
"gate money" to get themselves home.

That $200 doesn't come in cash, though.  It comes in the form of
a prepaid card loaded with hidden fees.

So discovered Joe Rudy Reyes, who walked out of High Desert
Prison in northern California with $424 on a JPay card issued by
Sunrise Banks of St. Paul.  Home was Los Angeles, a multi-day
journey by piecemeal transportation.

After busing to Sacremento, Mr. Reyes attempted to withdraw the
card's balance in cash.  He was declined twice.  So he bought a
train ticket to Hanford, where he had family.  After purchasing a
bus ticket to Los Angeles, he estimated he had about $100 left on
the card.

But he was unable to withdraw any more money, Mr. Reyes alleges
in a proposed class action lawsuit.

The card was declined several times as he attempted to buy food,
so Mr. Reyes called the customer hotline on the back of the card.
Praxell, a Delaware customer service company, told him his
account had been frozen for undefined "suspicious activity."  He
would need to send photocopies of the card and his driver's
license to gain access.

It took him several weeks to get a driver's license.  Praxell
then asked for a copy of a utility bill in his name, which Reyes
did not have as he was living in transitional housing.  Praxell
suggested he provide a notorized letter from his landlord
instead, which Reyes obtained.  Although he questioned how any of
these documents would prove ownership of a card that did not have
his name on it, Praxell would not explain, according to the suit.

Praxell ultimately told him he would need to contact High Desert
Prison to gain access to his account.  The prison couldn't help,
saying it had nothing to do with inmates' private bank accounts.

A year since his release, Reyes still wasn't able to access the
remaining balance on his card.  When he called Praxell again in
early January, an automated system told him his account had been
closed.

According to the lawsuit, JPay card fees include a $1 point-of-
sale or ATM decline fee, a $5 card replacement fee, a $3 monthly
"maintenance fee," and a $9.95 cancellation fee, none of which is
told to inmates upon their release.  In other states, these cards
can charge cardholders $2 weekly maintenance fees, $0.70
transaction fees, and $3 fines for inactivity after 90 days. The
clock starts ticking on maintenence fees as soon as the card is
activated, which could be weeks before the inmate is actually
released from custody.

Inmates deported after their arrest report they're not able to
use their cards abroad at all, yet they may still face a $1
decline fee each time they try.

"Defendants have engaged in a pattern and practice of freezing
accounts for supposed 'fradulent activity," the lawsuit states,
even though they don't explain their basis for these suspicions.

"Defendants deliberately place additional conditions on access to
frozen accounts as each condition is met in a conscious attempt
to delay a cardholder's access to his or her funds. The longer
the delay, the more maintenance and decline fees Defendants can
extract from the account."

Sunrise Banks, JPay, and Praxell can only get away with these
fees because government contracts shield them from market
competition, and their customers are recently released prisoners
with little financial literacy and no choice in becoming their
customers in the first place, the lawsuit alleges. [GN]


TASCH L.L.C.: Court Certifies Class of Independent Contractors
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled ANTONIO SANTOS LEMONS, ET AL., the
Plaintiffs, v. TASCH, L.L.C., ET AL., the Defendants, Case No.
2:17-cv-07212-MVL-KWR (E.D. La.), the Hon. Judge Mary Ann Vial
Lemmon entered an order:

   1. conditionally certifying a class of:

      "all individuals who worked for defendants at any time
      since July 28, 2014, and were classified as independent
      contractors";

   2. within 14 days of the date of this order, directing
      defendants to provide plaintiffs' counsel the names,
      addresses, email addresses, and telephone numbers of the
      putative class members in a usable electronic format;

   3. directing parties to meet, confer and thereafter submit to
      the court joint proposed Notice and Consent Forms no later
      than 21 days from the date of this Order. If the parties
      are unable to agree on the proposed Notice and Consent
      Forms, the parties shall file the appropriate motions with
      their objections no later than 21 days from the date of
      this Order;

   4. directing Counsel for plaintiffs to transmit the Notice and
      Consent Forms to the potential class members via United
      States mail in 30 days from date the proposed Notice and
      Consent Forms are approved by the court;

   5. granting Opt-in plaintiffs a period of 90 days from the
      date that the Notice and Consent Forms are mailed to return
      their signed Consent Forms to plaintiffs' counsel via mail,
      email, fax or electronic signature service.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=IpVVVos0


TBS: African-American Employees Mull Discrimination Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
TMZ reports that TBS and CNN make their African-American
employees work way harder to get a promotion . . . according to
an ex-employee who's now suing both networks, and their parent
company.

Wanda Byrd, who is black, says she's worked for TBS for 13 years,
and describes her job as a mid-level manager in quality
assurance. She says she was passed over for a promotion to a
senior level position, and claims a less-skilled and qualified
white man got it.

In the suit, Ms. Byrd says that's par for the course.

According to docs, obtained by TMZ, black employees at TBS have a
significantly lower promotion rate than Caucasians -- and zero
people of color ever obtain the title of senior VP or higher.  Ms
Byrd goes further, saying the company segregates . .. keeping
most black employees in certain divisions that she calls "less
powerful and non-revenue generating."

Ms Byrd says in her suit there is a dramatic difference in pay
between blacks and whites -- and African-Americans have to work 3
times as long as Caucasians to receive any type of promotion.

She's not only suing for herself . . . Ms Byrd wants to make this
a class action suit against TBS, CNN and Time Warner.  To be
clear, she never worked at CNN, but seems to be gunning for all
Turner properties. [GN]


TEZOS FOUNDATION: Class Action Over Initial Coin Offering Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Brenna Hughes Neghaiwi, writing for Reuters, reports that one of
the top lawyers in the booming cryptocurrency industry says the
legal structure he helped set up to raise funds for new virtual
currencies is "old, inflexible and stupid" and may no longer be
fit for purpose.

The Swiss lawyer's comments come as regulators around the world
increase their scrutiny of initial coin offerings (ICOs), the
digital fundraisers that precede a currency's launch.

There is also growing scrutiny from investors.  The Zug-based
Tezos Foundation is facing U.S. class-action lawsuits from those
who say they were misled and defrauded in its ICO.

Luka Mueller's MME law firm helped set up foundations in
Switzerland for Tezos and some of the world's biggest ICOs,
including those of Bancor and Ethereum.  Many foundations applied
for non-profit tax status.  The money raised in the ICO is
treated as a donation that may not be returned.

Regulators in the United States, the UK, and elsewhere are
looking at whether an ICO should have similar investor protection
to an initial public offering (IPO) for a company.

Mr. Mueller told Reuters cryptocurrency groups involving U.S.
participants or gaining backing from investors should set up
companies instead of the Swiss foundations he helped popularize.

"If you structure your token sale in a way that it would look
like an initial public offering, then even if you launch a
(blockchain) protocol, the foundation is maybe not suitable," he
said.

"If . . . the background is more an investor environment rather
than a technical environment, yes, do all the registrations.  If
you want to sell it, if you want to be active and actively
promoting it in the US, apply U.S. law."

He said a foundation could still work for ICOs if a project is of
interest mainly to technical experts rather than investors.

"CRYPTO VALLEY"

Bitcoin, the best-known cryptocurrency, exploded in value since
it was launched in 2009.  Its price increased from less than a
cent in early 2010 to a record shy of $20,000 in December 2017.

The coins use encryption and a blockchain transaction database
enabling fast and anonymous transfer of funds without centralized
payment systems.

ICOs skyrocketed in 2017, reaching nearly $3 billion through
September.  Switzerland attracted around a quarter of the world's
ICOs with nearly $650 million raised there in the first nine
months of 2017, according to data compiled by cryptocurrency
research firm Smith + Crown.

Blockchain groups have set up foundations in the Swiss "Crypto
Valley," but the model has also loosely been exported elsewhere
including to the Seychelles, Mauritius and Singapore.

Tezos aims to be a blockchain that's more reliable than the ones
behind bitcoin and ether.  Its foundation raised $232 million
last July.

It is now facing at least half a dozen class-action lawsuits in
the United States.  The plaintiffs are seeking a refund as well
as damages.

They made non-refundable donations and expected to receive tokens
called Tezzies when the network launched.  But a former board
member said the project is in a state of paralysis because of the
lawsuits and a dispute between the developers and the
foundation's president.  The network has not yet launched.

Tezos Foundation officials have declined to comment on the
lawsuits. An attorney for the founders, Kathleen and Arthur
Breitman, said of the first lawsuit that is was without merit and
that the couple would aggressively defend themselves.

Under MME's guidelines, tokens become property with an
enforceable right once the blockchain launches and the token
receives a spot on the first block. Before the launch
contributors have no such rights.

Mueller said the foundation structure his team helped bring to
cryptocurrency groups was initially conceived as a means to
ensure funds were used for a set purpose and to protect
developers from any liability over the project's success.

"It's a concept of a donation, from which it is clear you
donate," Mr. Mueller said.  "You donate into a structure and you
donate to a team and to their idea."

By MME's definition, the developers behind the tokens are not
liable for the projects and there is no counterparty to sue.

BURNT FINGERS
Other experts on Swiss foundation law say it would be nearly
impossible for contributors to see money refunded from the
foundation.

Alexandre Swoboda, an economist who sat on the Swiss National
Bank's council from 1997 to 2009 said: "ICOs are basically about
financing yourself by giving these people these new coins, and
holding those new coins doesn't give you a claim on anything
except to be part of the club that holds those coins."

But regulators are looking into this.

Investors in the United States may have been encouraged to file
lawsuits after the U.S. regulator, the Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC), in July stated that some of the coins, also
called tokens, may be considered securities subject to federal
rules and regulation.

This has opened the door for courts to follow suit in enforcing
the interpretation of ICOs as security sales.

Mueller conceded that while a foundation was a useful model for
launching a new blockchain project that expected to see interest
exclusively from a small technically-geared community, other
projects would "need to have an operational company, like a GmbH
or an AG, and not a foundation."

"The Swiss foundation actually is a very old, inflexible, stupid
model," he said. "The foundation is not designed for operations."

Nevertheless, he said the vast majority of cryptocurrency
fundraiser participants understood the terms and were therefore
accountable for the risky decision to contribute.

"You as a user must be absolutely clear -- and if you don't
understand it keep your fingers away -- that if you have an ether
or a bitcoin, and it does not work, you have nobody to claim
against," he said. [GN]


TJ MAXX: Settles Class Action Over False "Compare At" Prices
------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Finney, writing for ABC7News, reports that if you
purchased items from TJ Maxx, Marshall's or HomeGoods, you may
have some money coming. A class action lawsuit has been settled,
alleging the stores used false "Compare At" prices.

If you bought an item with the "Compare At" price attached from
July 17, 2011 to Dec. 6, 2017, you have a refund coming.  The
stores deny the allegations.

Consumers have until April 9, 2018 to file a claim form.

Midwest storms causing travel problems

Storms in the Midwest are causing air traffic delays around the
country.  Among the hardest hit are Minneapolis and Chicago,
where hundreds of flights were cancelled.

Airlines are waiving change fees for many flights, some of which
take off or land in the Bay Area.

Check with your airline's change/cancellation policy, and keep
track of the weather at your destination.

Vacation add-on fees pile up

Be careful when making hotel reservations, add-on fees can really
take a bite of your vacation dollars.

A New York University study expects hotels to bill customers 2.7
billion dollars for add-on fees just during 2017.

Resort fees, early departure fees, and reservation cancellation
fees are three of the big ones.

A new one making the rounds, especially in Las Vegas, is the
early check-in fee. Put it all together and you need to ask very
specifically about details before booking a room. [GN]


TOYOTA MOTOR: Denial of Class Cert in "Reynante" Affirmed
---------------------------------------------------------
Judge Michael J. Raphael of the Court of Appeals of California
for the Second District, Division Five, affirmed the trial
court's denial of the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification
in the case, GREG REYNANTE et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v.
TOYOTA MOTOR SALES USA, INC. et al., Defendants and Respondents,
Case No. B275937 (Cal. App.).

The operative second amended complaint alleges that the
Plaintiffs are members of a putative class of California
residents who, after March 12, 2004, purchased or leased a new
2004, 2005, 2006, or 2007 model year Toyota Prius.  The
Plaintiffs challenge certification of only a putative subclass
composed of all class members who "accessed Toyota's fuel
calculator before they purchased or leased" a new Prius of those
model years.  The fuel calculator was located on Toyota's Web
site and is alleged to be part of Toyota's misleading
advertising.

The Plaintiffs alleged the fuel calculator's misleading fuel
estimates were unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent under the UCL.
Namely, they alleged the Defendants misled consumers as to the
fuel efficiency of the Prius under "normal driving conditions."
Under the CLRA, the Plaintiffs alleged the Defendants:
represented the Prius as having characteristics it does not have
in violation of Civil Code section 1770, subdivision (a)(5);
represented the Prius to be of a particular standard, quality or
grade, when it was of another, in violation of Civil Code section
1770, subdivision (a)(7); and advertised the Prius with the
intent of not selling a Prius as advertised in violation of Civil
Code section 1770, subdivision (a)(9).2

The Plaintiffs moved for class certification of both the class
and subclass.  They asserted common questions predominate because
for the subclass, putative members accessed the fuel calculator
and were likely to be deceived by it in violation of the UCL and
CLRA.  Specifically, the Plaintiffs argued as to the UCL that the
Defendants engaged in fraudulent business acts or practices by
engaging in conduct by which members of the public are likely to
be deceived.  A deceptive business practice under the UCL also
violates the CLRA.  If the trier of fact determined the fuel
calculator was likely to deceive a reasonable customer, the
Plaintiffs argued, liability to the subclass could be determined
class-wide.  The Plaintiffs contended that there would not be
individual issues for calculating restitution or damages.

As to the ascertainability of the class, the Plaintiffs argued a
subclass member need only identify himself or herself as having
viewed the fuel calculator prior to purchasing the Prius from the
relevant model year.  As to the superiority of a class action to
individual lawsuits, they contended that class members have no
incentive to pursue individual claims, there is no other
litigation involving the same controversy known to them, and
consolidation of all claims in a single action is desirable.

On May 2, 2016, the trial court denied class certification for
both the class and subclass.  The trial court found, and it is
not disputed, that subclass representatives and subclass counsel
were adequate, subclass representatives' claims were typical, and
the subclass was sufficiently numerous.  However, the trial court
determined individual issues predominated over common ones, the
subclass was not ascertainable, and class action was not
superior.  The Plaintiffs appeal from the denial of their motion
for class certification.

Judge Raphael affirmed the trial court's denial of class
certification because individual questions of law or fact
predominated over common questions, as well as because the class
was not ascertainable and a class action was not superior to
individual adjudication.

The Judge holds that there is evidence that the Plaintiffs
themselves had sufficient knowledge of the Prius' fuel efficiency
to avoid being deceived by the fuel estimates.  Reynante saw
reviews of the Prius online.  Julie Reynolds had access to
Consumer Reports.  Paul Garber performed online research that
included using Consumer Reports.  Reynolds also could not
remember what the fuel calculator showed as the expected miles
per gallon.

He also holds there is enough of a gap between a customer merely
accessing the fuel calculator to the customer being misled by it
that it is reasonable to deny class certification on the ground
that many who accessed the calculator may not have been misled by
the information it provided, for example if they understood the
calculation as a rough estimate.  Furthermore, even if a customer
was misled by the fuel calculator, this does not necessarily mean
that the calculation caused the customer to purchase the vehicle.

Judge Raphael does not find the trial court applied an improper
criterion in addressing the class certification issue as to
predominance.  Accordingly, he declines to reverse the order, and
he needs not discuss the parties' arguments concerning
ascertainability and superiority.

The Defendants are to recover their costs on appeal.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 9, 2018 Opinion is available
at https://is.gd/wi1gIV from Leagle.com.

Capstone Law, Glenn A. Danas -- Glenn.Danas@CapstoneLawyers.com -
- Jordan L. Lurie -- Jordan.Lurie@CapstoneLawyers.com -- Robert
K. Friedl -- Robert.Friedl@CapstoneLawyers.com -- and Katherine
W. Kehr for Plaintiffs and Appellants.

Sidley Austin, Michael L. Mallow -- MMALLOW@SIDLEY.COM -- David
R. Carpenter -- DRCARPENTER@SIDLEY.COM -- and Darlene M. Cho --
DCHO@SIDLEY.COM -- for Defendants and Respondents.


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Judge Rejects $3MM Settlement with NY Drivers
----------------------------------------------------------------
Reuters reports that a federal judge refused to grant preliminary
approval for Uber Technologies' proposed $3 million class-action
settlement with 2,421 New York drivers who accused the ride-
sharing company of retaining excessive fees from their fares.

In a decision on Jan. 19, US District Judge Nicholas Garaufis in
Brooklyn objected to a provision allowing the revival of breach-
of-contract claims he had dismissed, so long as the settlement
won final approval.

Judge Garaufis said such a "conditional stipulation" appeared to
leave "in limbo" whether the settling drivers' claims had enough
in common for him to approve the proposed settlement.

The judge also objected to a $2,500 payment to a driver whose
claims had been deemed subject to arbitration.  Judge Garaufis
said the drivers could submit a revised settlement for approval.

"We anticipate refiling our motion," Jonathan Greenbaum, a lawyer
for the drivers, said on Jan. 22.

Uber did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Drivers had accused Uber of accounting improperly for sales taxes
and a "Black Car Fund" fee, which relates to workers'
compensation, in fares when calculating service fees, thereby
increasing the amounts owed.

They also accused the San Francisco-based company Uber of falsely
advertising guaranteed compensation for drivers without
disclosing the conditions.

Uber has denied all allegations.

The settlement covered drivers who used the Uber app to arrange
rides in New York since Dec. 29, 2009, and whose claims were not
subject to arbitration.

It was reached after Uber paid more than $80 million to roughly
96,000 drivers in New York, following its admission that it had
inadvertently underpaid drivers for two and a half years, court
papers show. [GN]


UNIFUND CCR: Class Certification Bid in "Livermore" Stayed
----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled CHARLES LIVERMORE, the Plaintiff, v.
UNIFUND CCR LLC, PILOT RECEIVABLES MANAGEMENT LLC, DISTRESSED
ASSET PORTFOLIO III LLC, and NORTHLAND GROUP, INC., the
Defendants, Case No. 17-CV-1051-JPS (E.D. Wisc.), the Hon. Judge
J.P. Stadtmueller entered an order:

   1. granting Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend his
      complaint be and the same;

   2. directing Plaintiff's second amended complaint shall be his
      operative pleading;

   3. dismissing Defendants Pilot Receivables Management LLC and
      Northland Group, Inc. be and the same from this action; and

   4. granting Plaintiffs motion to stay class certification
      briefing be and the same.

The Court appreciates the parties' efforts to address the
alternative basis for futility: whether the Second Amended
Complaint would survive a new motion to dismiss. However, the
Court believes it is more prudent to address any particular
concerns Defendants may have with the Second Amended Complaint in
further dispositive motion practice. Indeed, certain issues
Defendants raised previously, such as standing, could not be
addressed in the context of the instant motion. The Parties'
briefing on the motion for leave to amend is also relatively
short, suggesting that it may not fully explore the relevant
issues. It will be more efficient, and hopefully allow the Court
to reach a sounder conclusion, if Defendants' arguments are
evaluated upon summary judgment or, if necessary, another motion
to dismiss.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=fWXW62Ph


UNITED STATES: DOJ Seeks Dismissal of Dental Equipment Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Hubbuch, writing for La Crosse Tribune, reports that the
U.S. Department of Justice is asking a judge to dismiss a lawsuit
brought by a group of veterans who said they suffered emotional
distress after learning their dentist at the Tomah VA Medical
Center might have exposed them to HIV and hepatitis by using
unsterilized instruments.

In November 2016, VA officials learned that Thomas Schiller had
been re-using drill bits, in violation of VA policy, and not
properly sterilizing them for more than a year.  The VA notified
592 patients of the possible exposure and urged them to get
tested for the blood-borne diseases.

According to the class-action suit filed in November, some
patients were forced to wait another six months for testing to
make sure they weren't infected.

No veterans were found to be infected, but the suit seeks
compensation for pain and suffering claiming they "were forced to
consider that they may have been infected with deadly viruses,
may die as a result of having been infected, and/or may have
unknowingly infected their loved ones with deadly viruses."

In a brief filed on Jan. 19, Assistant U.S. Attorney David Conway
argues that under Wisconsin law, plaintiffs must prove they were
exposed to a contaminated source -- as opposed to a potentially
contaminated one -- in order to prevail.

"Because plaintiffs have not alleged that the dental drill bits
at issue were contaminated, the Court must dismiss their claims
as a matter of law," the brief states.

The government goes on to argue the case lacks class-action
status because the law requires plaintiffs to exhaust all other
remedies before filing a lawsuit.  The complaint indicates that
only the six plaintiffs filed administrative claims against the
VA.

According to the lawsuit, in December 2015 Mr. Schiller's dental
assistant reported his re-use of unsterile drill bits to the lead
hygienist who told the assistant to instead report the
infractions to the chief of dental services.  The assistant, who
had previously reported Schiller for poor hygiene and appearing
to sleep at his desk, did not report the unsterilized drill bits
for fear of retaliation.

Meanwhile, managers signed off on Mr. Schiller's evaluation,
citing "no concerns regarding competency," according to the
complaint.

Mr. Schiller wasn't caught until mid-October when a substitute
hygienist witnessed him use a personal bur and reported it to
another dentist.

According to an investigation by the VA's Office of Inspector
General, Mr. Schiller used unsterilized burs on approximately 112
of the 592 patients he treated during his year with the VA and
used other personal supplies on about 243 of them.

Mr. Schiller's clinical privileges were revoked, and he was
reported to regulators in Texas, where he was licensed in 1996.
The OIG report recommended unannounced inspections of the dental
clinic and training for staff on when and how to report issues
relating to patient safety.

The government also is asking the court to put proceedings on
hold until the judge rules on the request to dismiss the case.
Conway argues that looking at test results of the other unnamed
veterans would constitute an invasion of their privacy which
would be unnecessary if the case doesn't move forward.

William Rieder, the attorney representing the plaintiffs,
declined to comment.

Last year, the government agreed to a $2.3 million settlement
with the family of Jason Simcakoski, a former Marine who died in
2014 at the medical center in Tomah from a drug overdose that
included opioid painkillers, which critics have said were
overprescribed at the medical center. [GN]


UNITED STATES: de Suze, et al. Sue over Rental Increase Orders
--------------------------------------------------------------
MARY de SUZE, LOUISE GRANT PETRA MONTGOMERY, CARLOT A BROWN
LEONARD ANDRE, RENEE AVENT, ARLENE HIPP DEBORAH PRIESTER, ANGELA
JONES,ELVIA SCHARSCHMIDT AND PAMELA LOCKLEY, and for other
similarly situated current or former tenants of Linden Plaza, THE
Plaintiffs, v. BEN CARSON, SECRETARY OF THE UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, THE UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT; LINDEN PLAZA
PRESERVATION L.P.; LINDEN PLAZA ASSOCIATES, L.P.; and NEW YORK
CITY DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING PRESERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT, the
Defendants, Case No.cv-15-180 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 11, 2018), seeks to
recover a permanent injunction and other equitable relief
nullifying rental increase orders and actual and punitive damages
for Defendants' conduct.

According to the complaint, through this action under the
Administrative Procedures Act, the Enforcement Act of 1871, and
New York state common Jaw, longstanding and former tenants of
Linden Plaza seek to demonstrate that their interest in
affordable housing converges with the public interest in avoiding
waste.  Over the past decade, hundreds of households who have
called Linden Plaza, a 1,527-unit state and federally subsidized
rental project, home for decades have perversely and ironically
struggled after their rents doubled or tripled because of a
"preservation transaction" approved by HUD. Simply to pay the
inflated rents, low-and-moderate income families have gone
hungry, dispensed with childcare, taken out high interest loans,
put off live-saving medical treatment, or prematurely invaded
retirement plans lest they end up homeless. Some, like
Petra Montgomery, became permanently homeless where, after having
exhausted all desperate alternatives, they were inevitably
evicted. Others have succumbed to illnesses or even taken their
lives due to the stress of the omnipresent specter of eviction.

Over the decades Plaintiffs intrepidly commenced eight pro se
lawsuits -- six in federal court and two in state court --
because responding to desperate urgency of eviction and this
gross injustice cannot wait for finding affordable lawyers
willing to take this matter on.  These lawsuits have proven to be
fruitful as they have provoked HUD and HPD to provide documents
forming the factual basis for this lawsuit; document that were
not disclosed to Plaintiffs and other residents in Linden Plaza-
in violation of both state and federal law.

Simply put, the documents disclosed by United States attorneys in
2014 and then by IIPD in March 2016, substantiate what Plaintiffs
and many had intuited when, somehow, a "preservation transaction"
left them infinitely worse off than they would be in a market
development: that the entire process for increasing tenant's rent
was Hawed because it is based on impermissible data.

Rents at Linden Plaza doubled and tripled because Owners'
applications to llUD for rental increases were approved based on
(i) $50 million of additional financing that Owner never in fact
received according to public records, and (ii) items that simply
cannot be included in the rents that will be charged under state
laws. As the documents Plaintiffs obtained demonstrate, and in
contravention of Congress' purpose in authorizing preservation
transactions, Linden Plaza tenants have been saddled with the
entire cost of Owner's speculative purpose.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Gregory E. Louis, Esq.
          Brooklyn Legal Services Corporation
          260 Broadway, 2nd Floor
          Brooklyn, New York 11211
          Telephone: (718) 487 2339


UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA: Provost Quits After Female Deans' Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Andy Thomason, writing for The Chronicle of Higher Education,
reports that the University of Arizona's provost stepped down on
Jan. 22 shortly after a lawsuit alleged gender discrimination
against female deans at the hands of the university's leadership,
and specifically that the provost, Andrew C. Comrie, had "a
history of making sexist and demeaning comments towards female
deans," among other things.

In an email to the campus dated Jan. 22, the university's
president, Robert C. Robbins, said Mr. Comrie had decided "just
after the new year" to step down to return to the faculty, in the
School of Geography and Development.  The university's vice
president for communications, Chris W. Sigurdson, wrote in an
email to The Chronicle that Mr. Comrie's resignation and the
lawsuit were "totally unrelated."  Mr. Sigurdson added that the
university had not yet seen the text of the lawsuit, which was
filed on Jan. 22.

A professor of gender and women's studies and former dean of the
university's Honors College, Patricia MacCorquodale, filed the
suit, which alleges that she and others in similar positions were
underpaid compared with their male counterparts, and that female
administrators are "subjected to humiliating and demeaning
treatment by the university's male leadership to which their male
peers are not subjected."  Ms. MacCorquodale alleges that the
treatment was in violation of the Equal Pay Act of 1963.

The suit alleges that Mr. Comrie told a female dean she should
wear skirts more often, and that he said another female dean had
a "Hillary Clinton complex."  The suit also asserts that "at
least one female dean" had left her post "at least in part to
escape discriminatory misconduct" by the provost.

Mr. Comrie did not immediately respond to an email sent to his
university email address on Jan. 22.

Ms. MacCorquodale is seeking $2 million, among other measures,
according to the suit, which seeks class-action status. [GN]


US BANCORP: PAGA Claims in "Barker" Dismissed Without Prejudice
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ELIZABETH BARKER and YADIRA ESQUEDA, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
U.S. BANCORP, Defendants, Case No. 3:15-cv-1641-CAB-WVG (S.D.
Cal.), Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo of the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of California

USB operates bank branches located within grocery stores in
California.  Plaintiffs Barker and Esqueda are former In-Store
Branch Managers ("IBMs") at these in-store banking locations.
USB classified the Plaintiffs and other IBMs as exempt employees,
meaning that were not paid overtime.  The Plaintiffs allege that
their exempt classification was improper because they spent more
than half of their time performing non-managerial duties similar
to those of a "Universal Banker," which is a non-exempt position.

In the operative first amended complaint ("FAC"), the Plaintiffs
asserted two claims as a putative collective action under the
federal Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and four claims on
behalf of a putative Rule 23 class for California labor code
violations attributable to USB's alleged misclassification of
IBMs as exempt employees.  In addition, in the seventh claim for
relief in the FAC, Esqueda (but not Barker) alleged that she is
an "aggrieved employee" pursuant to PAGA and brought a PAGA
representative action for the same California labor code
violations alleged elsewhere in the FAC.

The Court has since denied the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification and decertified a collective action under the FLSA.
Thus, all that remains of the lawsuit are the Plaintiffs'
individual claims for FLSA and California labor code violations,
and Esqueda's PAGA representative claims.

The Defendant now moves to dismiss the PAGA representative
claims.  It argues for dismissal of the PAGA action because it
does not satisfy the class action requirements of Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23 and because it would be unmanageable.

Judge Bencivengo holds that it is indisputable that these PAGA
representative claims substantially predominate over the named
Plaintiffs' individual claims.  Indeed, he says, the Plaintiffs
even concede that the underlying theory for recovery with respect
to the PAGA representative claims is identical to the underlying
claims for the putative Rule 23 class and FLSA collective.  Thus,
just as the individualized inquiries as to USB's liability to the
employees Esqueda seeks to represent in the PAGA action would
predominate over questions common to the putative class and
collective, such inquiries would also predominate over the
Plaintiffs' individual California labor code and FLSA claims,
which are all that remain in the case.

In light of the foregoing, the Judge declines to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction over the PAGA representative claims in
the FAC.  Accordingly, he dismissed those claims without
prejudice to re-filing in state court.  USB's motion is therefore
denied as moot.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 9, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/W0j1mq from Leagle.com.

Elizabeth Barker, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Alisa A. Martin --
ALISA@AMARTINLAW.COM -- Amartin Law, PC & Lindsay Christine David
-- lcdavid@brennandavid.com -- Brennan & David Law Group.

U.S. Bancorp, a corporation, Defendant, represented by Joan B.
Tucker Fife -- jfife@winston.com -- Winston & Strawn & Emilie C.
Woodhead -- ewoodhead@winston.com -- Winston & Strawn LLP.


VOCUS GROUP: Won't Rule Out Dividends Despite Class Action Threat
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Duke, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald, reports
that telecommunications company Vocus Group chief executive Geoff
Horth has not ruled out a return to paying dividends in the next
financial year after a sale of the New Zealand arm of the
business.

This is a critical year for the embattled telco to regain
shareholder trust after apologising to shareholders in October
for a $1.46 billion full-year loss, which saw it put its
dividends on hold.

Law firm Slater and Gordon is considering a class action against
it on behalf of investors who acquired securities from the end of
November 2016 to the beginning of last May.

In November, Vocus provided guidance that the company's profit
after tax would be $205 to $215 million.

This was then cut to $160 to $165 million in May.  The price of
its shares dropped more than 27 per cent soon after.

Since then, the company has embarked on a significant
"transformation" process that will mean its results for the first
half of the year will be under significant scrutiny.

"We've had a pretty tough period, with hard work over the last
six months," Mr Horth told Fairfax Media.

"We've done a lot of hard work to rebuild capability in the
business foundation . . . including organisational changes," he
said.

These changes included a recently announced significant
restructuring of the business, that will separate out its
wholesale and enterprise divisions into separate operating
segments.

This transformation process is likely to refocus its operations,
reduce costs, and help it optimise its platforms to increase
sales.

A recent Macquarie Wealth Management research note said it was
early days in this transformation process, but it would be "a
critical driver of future value creation" including reducing the
costs of the business.

It mentioned there would be a "keen focus" on the quality of the
results given the events of the past.

Another crucial move for Vocus is selling its New Zealand arm, a
decision it announced in December, and its Australian data
centres.

This process is under way, with plans for it to be completed by
the end of this financial year.

The Macquarie note said a successful sale would underpin a return
to paying dividends from the second half of fiscal 2018 and to
have flexibility to grow the Australian business.

When asked whether this would be a possibility, Mr Horth was not
ruling it out, saying the sale "presents an opportunity to look
at our options".

Until then, he said he'd be focusing on presenting value to
investors, with the first-half results due out on February 20.

"At the end of the day it doesn't matter what I say or think,
it's about what I deliver," he said. [GN]


WAL-MART ASSOCIATES: Court Certifies 3 Classes in "Magadia" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, RODERICK MAGADIA, Plaintiff, v. WAL-MART ASSOCIATES,
INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 17-CV-00062-LHK (N.D. Cal.),
Judge Lucy H. Koh of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, San Jose Division, granted the
Plaintiff's motion for class certification.

The Plaintiff filed the putative class action in the Superior
Court for the County of Santa Clara on Dec. 2, 2016, alleging
causes of action for (1) violation of California Labor Code
Sections 226.7 and 512; (2) violation of California Labor Code
Section 226(a); (3) violation of the Private Attorney Generals
Act, Cal. Lab. Code Section 2698, et seq.; and (4) violation of
California's Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code
Section 17200, et seq.

On Jan. 5, 2017, Wal-Mart removed the action to the Court
alleging jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act.  Then,
on Feb. 2, 2017, Wal-Mart filed an answer to the Plaintiff's
complaint.

On May 31, 2017, the Court ordered the parties to prepare a
neutral notice for putative class members to opt-out of having
their names and contact information provided to the Plaintiff's
counsel. A third party administrator will distribute the notice
and accept opt-outs from the putative class at the Plaintiff's
expense.

Then, on June 5, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an Administrative
Motion Regarding Belaire-West Opt-Out Notice Procedure requesting
the Court to (1) order that the putative class members be given
30 days to opt-out of having their contact information provided
to the Plaintiff's counsel; and (2) order Wal-Mart to provide all
known email addresses and cell phones to the administrator in
connection with the opt-out process and upon the expiration of
the opt-out period, that this information be provided to the
Plaintiff's counsel.

On June 21, 2017, the Court granted the Plaintiff's first request
and denied the Plaintiff's second request.  Accordingly, the
Court ordered Wal-Mart to provide the third-party administrator
the known mailing addresses and last known home telephone numbers
of all putative class members as defined by the Plaintiff.  It
also ordered the notices to be mailed out within 10 days of the
third-party administrator's receipt of the putative class
members' mailing addresses and last known home phone numbers, and
noted that putative class members will have 30 calendar days from
the date of mailing of the notices to opt-out.

On Oct. 9, 2017, the Plaintiff filed a motion for class
certification, in addition to a sealing motion.  He seeks to
certify the following proposed classes:

     a. Meal Period Regular Rate Class: All current and former
California non-exempt retail store employees of Wal-Mart who
received non-discretionary remuneration, including MYSHARE INCT,
and was paid any meal period premium payments in the same period
that the non-discretionary remuneration was earned, at any time
between Dec. 2, 2012, through the present.

     b. OVERTIME/INCT Wage Statement Class: All current and
former California non-exempt employees of Wal-Mart who received
OVERTIME/INCT, at any time between Dec. 2, 2015, through the
present.

     c. Final Wage Statement Class: All former non-exempt
employees who worked for Wal-Mart in the State of California and
whose employment terminated (whether voluntarily or
involuntarily) at any time from Dec. 2, 2015 to the present.

These three classes correspond to the three class-wide policies
and practices engaged in by Wal-Mart that the Plaintiff seeks to
challenge.

On Oct. 26, 2017, the Court denied Plaintiff's sealing motion.
On Nov. 20, 2017, Wal-Mart filed an opposition to the Plaintiff's
motion for class certification.  On Dec. 18, 2017, the Plaintiff
filed a reply.

Judge Koh granted the Plaintiff's motion for class certification.
He held that the Plaintiff has satisfied the requirements of
Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(3), and certified the three proposed Rule
23(b)(3) classes: (i) Meal Period Regular Rate Class, (ii)
OVERTIME/INCT Wage Statement Class, and (iii) Final Wage
Statement Class.  She appointed Magadia as the representative of
the class.  As the Defendants do not challenge the adequacy of
proposed class counsel, the Judge also appointed Larry Lee of
Diversity Law Group, P.C., Dennis Hyun of Hyun Legal, APC, and
William L. Marder of Polaris Law Group LLP as the class counsel
to represent the class.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 9, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/YMYFEF from Leagle.com.

Roderick Magadia, individually and on behalf of all those
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Dennis Sangwon Hyun
-- dhyun@hyunlegal.com -- Hyun Legal APC, Larry W. Lee --
lwlee@diversitylaw.com -- Diversity Law Group, P.C., Nicholas
Rosenthal -- nrosenthal@diversitylaw.com -- Diversity Law Group &
William Lucas Marder -- bill@polarislawgroup.com -- Polaris Law
Group, LLP.

Wal-Mart Associates, Inc., a Delaware corporation & Wal-Mart
Stores, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Defendants, represented by
Patrick Michael Madden -- patrick.madden@klgates.com -- KL Gates
LLP, pro hac vice, Roman David Hernandez --
roman.hernandez@klgates.com -- K and L Gates LLP, pro hac vice &
Matthew Gordon Ball -- matthew.ball@klgates.com -- K&L Gates LLP.

Lerna Mays, Miscellaneous, represented by Alan Dale Harris --
HarrisA@harrisandruble.com -- Harris & Ruble.


WAL-MART STORE: May Depose 8 Absent "Brown" Class Members
---------------------------------------------------------
In the case, NISHA BROWN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. WAL-MART STORE,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 09-cv-03339-EJD (SVK) (N.D. Cal.),
Magistrate Judge Susan van Kuelen of the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California granted the Defendant's
request to take the deposition of the newly identified eight
absent class members.

The Plaintiffs filed the class action on July 21, 2009 alleging,
inter alia, the Defendant violated Wage Order 7-2001 Section 14
by failing to provide seats to its cashiers.  The Court certified
the class on Aug. 24, 2012.  The Fact discovery closed Dec. 29,
2017.

On Dec. 13, 2017, the Plaintiff served an amended Rule 26
disclosure that specifically identified for the first time eight
individuals that were Wal-Mart cashiers who were granted the use
of seats as accommodations in compliance with the Americans with
Disabilities Act.  On Dec. 15, 2017, the Defendant served a
deposition notice for the newly identified witnesses.  The
Plaintiffs' counsel refused to produce the witnesses and instead
offered to have the absent class members respond to written
questions.

On Dec. 28, 2017, the parties filed the joint statement presently
before the Court wherein the Defendant requests to take the
deposition of the newly identified eight absent class members.
The Plaintiff objects on the basis that the Defendant has not met
its burden in justifying depositions of absent class members.

Magistrate Judge van Kuelen granted the Defendant's request.  She
finds that at issue in the case is whether the Defendants failed
to provide seats to its cashiers while checking out customers, in
violation of Wage Order 7-2001 Section 14.  The eight proposed
deponents are identified as persons for which the Defendant did
in fact provide seats.  Thus, given the Plaintiffs' indication
that they may rely on their testimony, it is pertinent to the
Defendant's case to explore how the seats were used by the
proposed deponents and the nature of their job functions.  Such
information is not available from the representative parties or
other sources, and the request, which limits the length of the
depositions, is neither unduly burdensome nor made in bad faith.

The Magistrate Judge says nothing indicates this is an attempt to
take undue advantage of or to harass absent class members.  It is
the Plaintiffs' selection of these individuals as persons with
relevant information who may appear at trial that renders them
immediately eligible for deposition.  The Defendant has therefore
met its burden to obtain the discovery it seeks.

The Defendant has met its burden to take the depositions of the
eight absent class members identified for the first time in the
Plaintiffs' Dec. 13, 2017 Rule 26 disclosures.  The parties will
meet and confer to determine a schedule and location for the
depositions, to be completed by Jan. 31, 2018.  Each deposition
will last no more than two hours.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 9, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/G003pr from Leagle.com.

Nisha Brown & Kathy Williamson, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Charles
Aubrey Jones -- cosmo-89511@yahoo.com -- Jones Law Firm, James F.
Clapp -- jclapp@clapplegal.com -- Clapp Legal APC, Kevin J.
McInerney  -- kevin@mcinerneylaw.net -- McInerney & Jones,
Matthew Righetti -- matt@righettilaw.com -- Righetti Glugoski,
P.C. & Zachariah Paul Dostart -- Paul.Dostart@SDLaw.com --
Dostart Hannink & Coveney LLP.

Wal-Mart Store, Inc., Defendant, represented by Alexander
Humphrey Hu -- alex.hu@ltlattorneys.com -- LTL ATTORNEYS LLP,
Anthony David Sbardellati -- anthony.sbardellati@ltlattorneys.com
-- LTL Attorneys LLP, Jesse A. Cripps, Jr. --
jcripps@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Lisa Yumi
Mitchell, LTL ATTORNEYS LLP, Patricia Anne Kinaga --
patricia.kinaga@ltlattorneys.com -- LTL Attorneys LLP, Steven
Christoper Gonzalez -- steven.gonzalez@ltlattorneys.com -- LTL
Attorneys LLP, Amber Jene Sayle, GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP, Brian Lee
Duffy, Greenberg Traurig, LLP, pro hac vice, James Milton Nelson
-- nelsonj@gtlaw.com -- Greenberg Traurig LLP & Naomi Beer --
beern@gtlaw.com -- Greenberg Traurig, LLP, pro hac vice.


WELLS FARGO: Feb. 3 Settlement Claims Filing Deadline Set
---------------------------------------------------------
With the deadline to file approaching, Wells Fargo & Company
(NYSE: WFC) on Jan. 22 issued a reminder that in order to
participate in the class-action settlement agreement concerning
improper retail sales practices (Jabbari v. Wells Fargo & Co., et
al.) eligible current and former customers must submit claims
online or by mail by Feb. 3, 2018. Claim forms are available
online at www.WFSettlement.com, or by calling 866-431-8549.

The broad and far-reaching $142 million settlement agreement sets
aside funds for customer remediation.  The settlement class will
consist of all persons who claim that Wells Fargo opened, without
their consent, a consumer or small business checking or savings
account or an unsecured credit card or line of credit or enrolled
them, under certain circumstances, in Identity Theft Protection
services, in each case between May 1, 2002, and April 20, 2017.

The settlement agreement is among the significant steps Wells
Fargo is taking to make things right for customers who may have
been affected by unacceptable retail sales practices.  The
company also is conducting broad outreach and working directly
with customers to resolve issues through a complaints process and
free mediation services.  In addition, last year Wells Fargo
completed an expanded third-party review of retail banking
accounts dating to January 2009 to determine potentially
unauthorized accounts and is providing refunds and credits to
those that incurred fees and charges.

For customers who believe they had an unauthorized account or
service opened in their name, regardless of when the issue
occurred, Wells Fargo has a dedicated hotline: 877-924-8697.
Wells Fargo also has established an online resource center at
wellsfargo.com/commitment providing the latest information on
this issue.

The settlement agreement is subject to final court approval,
which will be required before payments are made to class members.
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
is scheduled to hold a hearing on March 22, 2018, to consider
whether to grant final approval of the settlement.

                      About Wells Fargo

Wells Fargo & Company (NYSE: WFC) is a diversified, community-
based financial services company with $1.9 trillion in assets.
Founded in 1852 and headquartered in San Francisco, Wells Fargo
provides banking, investments, mortgage, and consumer and
commercial finance through more than 8,300 locations, 13,000
ATMs, the internet (wellsfargo.com) and mobile banking, and has
offices in 42 countries and territories to support customers who
conduct business in the global economy.  With approximately
263,000 team members, Wells Fargo serves one in three households
in the United States.  Wells Fargo & Company was ranked No. 25 on
Fortune's 2017 rankings of America's largest corporations. [GN]


XSERVE SOLUTIONS: Faces "Torres" Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against XServe Solutions,
LLC. The case is captioned as Valory Torres, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. XServe
Solutions, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-00263-MKB-PK
(E.D.N.Y., Jan. 15, 2018). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge
Margo K. Brodie.

XServe Solutions, LLC is an Illinois based certified
minority/woman owned business dedicated to providing collection,
administrative support and consulting services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Salim Katach, Esq.
          SIROTKIN, VARACALLI & HAMRA, LLP
          110 East 59th Street, Suite 3200
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (646) 590 0571
          Facsimile: (646) 619 4012
          E-mail: skatach@svhllp.com



* Litigation Funding Reinvigorates Australian Class Action System
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lachlan Colquhoun, writing for In the Black, reports that when
4000 investors joined a class action against failed plantation
investment scheme Great Southern, a court-approved settlement in
2014 awarded them around A$23.5 million.  After A$20 million in
legal and other costs sucked up most of the award, Investors
shared the remaining A$3.5 million.

The case is frequently quoted as an example of why class actions,
often drawn out and stressful, can deliver little to the
claimants.

What is often overlooked in this case, however, is that it was
resolved before the court delivered its judgment and that Justice
Croft of the Victorian Supreme Court, who had to approve the
settlement, said the plaintiffs' argument had "completely and
comprehensively failed".

Without the settlement, they would have received nothing.

Who benefits from class actions?
Class actions have been a part of the Australian legal system
since 1992, when a regime was introduced into the Federal Court.

The Supreme Courts in NSW and Victoria followed and in the past
24 years the three courts have heard 467 such actions, filed over
303 legal disputes. Nearly 50 per cent have been settled.

At first glance this would seem to indicate success, but the
settlements have led to criticisms around remuneration, with a
perception that claimants are paying too much to the legal
profession and litigation funders.

Professor Vince Morabito, from the Monash Business School
Department of Business Law and Taxation says that any evaluation
of the success of class actions must look beyond the Great
Southern example, and understand the ongoing evolution of
Australia's regime.

Class actions may be expensive but the regime means claimants
pursue many cases that would otherwise never get started.

Mr. Morabito has evaluated Australia's class action regimes in an
August 2016 report funded by the Australian Research Council.

Accountants drawn into class actions
Accountants are not immune from claims, as shown by the
announcement of potential action against private equity and
accounting groups associated with failed music start-up Guvera.

Lawyers claim poor advice from accountants prompted clients to
invest A$185.3 million in Guvera, which collapsed in 2017.
Bannister Law is looking for investors to join a potential class
action.

Litigation funders back class actions
Mr. Morabito says litigation funding has reinvigorated a class
action system which was a "dying patient" 10 years ago, and
ensured that more cases are filed.

Litigation funders, who bear the cost of legal proceedings, began
to appear in Australia in 2000, and have since supported about 50
per cent of the cases filed in the Federal Court.

Of these, 92 per cent have been settled, compared with a 42 per
cent settlement rate for unfunded actions.

"Even though litigation funders are very controversial, I think
they add an extra level of safeguard because they have to be so
careful in choosing which claims they pursue," says Mr. Morabito.

"It makes sense that if you are careful in choosing which actions
you fund, then it's normal to expect you would have a fairly high
settlement rate."

Professional Development: CPA Q&A. Access a handpicked selection
of resources each month and complete a short monthly assessment
to earn CPD hours. Exclusively available to CPA Australia
members.

Legal firms and class actions
Mr. Morabito contrasts this with cases taken on a "no win no fee"
basis by inexperienced law firms, which he says are attracted by
media headlines and look at class actions as an "ATM machine".

"Thankfully in many cases they fail once and you never see them
again," he says.

The track records of these firms is very different from the well-
established class action firms such as Maurice Blackburn and
Slater & Gordon, whose experience and expertise have delivered
significant success, says Mr. Morabito.

His research finds that the combined settlement rate of these two
firms before the Federal Court, as at late 2016, was 78 per cent,
acting on a no-fee basis. The firms also work on cases supported
by litigation funders.

Brooke Dellavedova, class actions principal at Maurice Blackburn,
says the firm has obtained more than A$2.5 billion in
compensation since 1998, compensation which claimants would
"almost certainly" not have received without a class action
regime.

"We acknowledge there are legitimate concerns regarding the
proportion of compensation which goes to costs and funding
commission," says Ms. Dellavedova.

"However, in matters conducted by Maurice Blackburn, whilst our
costs are not calculated by reference to how much is recovered
for claimants, our costs have on average been approximately 13
per cent of those amounts."

She says litigation funders are entitled to be paid for the risks
they take.

The future of class actions
Mr. Morabito says controversy around litigation funding comes not
only from the fee structure but because it treats an area of the
law as an investment.

As investors, the litigation funders expect a return. They charge
up to about 40 per cent of any settlement amount, their costs and
in many cases also a "project management fee" which can be about
20 per cent of the costs.

The other issue, says Mr. Morabito, is that litigation funders
can act on a contingency fee basis while Australian lawyers,
unlike those in the US or UK, cannot.

Lawyers can work on a no-fee or low-fee basis when cases are
lost, but charge an uplift on normal rates, rather than a share
of damages, if they win.

This may change after a 2016 Federal Court judgment in an action
against insurance company QBE, which created a precedent for the
creation of a so-called "common fund".

The implications of this are wide reaching. Funders would no
longer need to sign up a sufficient number of members before they
can commence proceedings, reducing their costs and eliminating
some risk.

The court would specify at the outset the proportion of
compensation paid to funders in the event of a success.

Mr. Morabito says the changes are a positive development because
they would result in more "open" class actions, brought by all
victims, instead of on behalf of only those with funding
agreements.

The cumulative changes would make class actions less expensive
and more accessible, and create a regime closer to the ethos of
the original legislation passed more than two decades ago, of
enabling vulnerable people to band together to seek justice
through the court system. [GN]


* Maurice Blackburn Calls for Insurance of Law Firms' Directors
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alice Uribe, writing for Australian Financial Review, reports
that plaintiff law firm Maurice Blackburn says listed companies
should be forced to take out a minimum level of insurance for
their directors, in a move it says would prop up the loss-making
directors and officers insurance sector.

The head of the firm's class action practice, Andrew Watson, said
mandating minimum insurance levels would prevent a repeat of the
fall out from $36.5 million Slater & Gordon class action, which
saw its directors and senior officer liability insurance cleaned
out after shareholder action after a share price drop.

"Often the levels of insurance that companies have are woefully
inadequate. I think the ASX should be seriously considering
mandating levels of insurance for companies of a particular
size," he said.

"All companies who are listed should be required to have a
minimum of $50 million directors and officers insurance with
companies in the ASX200 required to have a minimum of $100
million and companies in the ASX100 a minimum of $150 million."

Companies in the S&&P/ASX100 index have a market capitalisation
exceeding $1.7 billion.  All but one company in the S&P/ASX200
index has a market capitalisation greater than $500 million.

Mr Watson said given these figures "insurance at these levels
seem appropriate and modest in light of the potential losses
which poor corporate governance can inflict on shareholders".

But the ASX, in response to questions from The Australian
Financial Review, said it was a "consideration for companies;
individually".

"[It] would already be part of directors' duties [under the
Corporations Act] to exercise due care and skill, including
managing risk via insurance, for example," a spokesman said.

More efficient market
However, enforcing "appropriate levels of D&O [directors &
officers] insurance would assist in creating a better-functioning
D&O market", said Mr Watson.

"Mandating levels of D&O cover would be one way to ensure listed
entities are in a position to [at least partially] meet those
obligations when they breach continuous disclosure provisions or
otherwise fail to implement good corporate governance," he said.

Scott Curley, a director at GSA Insurance Brokers, said there was
"no doubt" all companies in the S&/ASX 100 index would have $100
million in directors and officers insurance, with the figure
cascading down in the top 200 and 300 indices.

"It [mandating D&O cover] would solve the issue of premiums being
cheaper and claims being high, but it also meant that any
litigation funds would know that every ASX-listed company had a
minimum level of D&O," he said.

"It's almost like putting a target on your back. It's a bigger
pot for them [litigation firms] to sue."

Insurers will often not allow companies to disclose if they have
directors and officers insurance cover and are driving tougher
policy arrangements as the raft of class actions hits their
profits.

Insurance premiums for directors and officers have surged by as
much as 300 per cent in the past six months following a sharp
rise in the number of class actions launched against Australian
companies.

Litigation costs
Westpac chairman Lindsay Maxsted has questioned whether investors
were really benefiting from the increased class actions.

Mr Watson rejected the notion there has been an uptick in class
actions, despite research from insurer XL Catlin finding
securities' class actions doubled between 2015 and 2016.

He also renewed calls for the government to allow firms to charge
contingency fees, which allow lawyers to take a slice of a
settlement or damages win for clients.

"Litigation funders are charging amounts of 25-30 per cent in
commission and on top of that you are paying the lawyers' fees,
which typically range between 10 and 15 per cent," he said.

"So the combination of lawyers' fees and litigation funding
commissions is more expensive than a contingency fee."

The Productivity Commission in 2014 recommended lifting the ban
on damage-based fees, with the issue again being examined in the
federal inquiry into litigation funding announced at the end of
last year.

In one of his last moves as attorney-general before taking up the
post of Australia's High Commission to the United Kingdom, George
Brandis said the Australian Law Reform Commission would look at
the increased number of class actions and the role of litigation
funders.

Insurers face insurers face an average bill of $40 million for
each securities class action settled.  Since a landmark class
action against GIO was settled for $97 million in 2003, more than
30 actions have been finalised, with the largest being a case
against Centro, settled for $200 million in 2012. [GN]






                            *********


S U B S C R I P T I O N  I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills,
Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.
Marion Alcestis A. Castillon, Jessenius Pulido, Noemi Irene A.
Adala, Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche
Maricon Castillon-Lopez, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G.
Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2018.  All rights reserved.  ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail.  Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each.  For subscription information, contact Peter A.
Chapman at 215-945-7000.



                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *