CAR_Public/180206.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


             Tuesday, February 6, 2018, Vol. 20, No. 27



                            Headlines


ADTALEM GLOBAL: Motion to Dismiss Amended Suit Still Ongoing
ADTALEM GLOBAL: Bid to Drop Amended Robinson-Brown Suit Underway
ADTALEM GLOBAL: Bid to Drop Amended Petrizzo-Jara Suit Underway
AETNA INC: Faces $1.15MM Civil Fine Over Privacy Practices
ALLEGHENY COUNTY, PA: Sued Over Inmate Privacy Violations

AMERICAN FINANCE: Maryland Class Action Suit Ongoing
AMERICAN MULTI-CINEMA: "Jones" Claims Overtime Pay, Reimbursement
ANN TAYLOR: Settles Class Action Over Deceptive Pricing Scheme
ANTHEM INC: Lawyers Defend $38MM Data Breach Case Fee Bid
APPLE INC: Davidson Moves to Certify Class of iPhone 6 Purchasers

AU PAIR: "Alonso" Suit Seeks Minimum & OT Pay under Labor Code
BARCLAYS PLC: Judge Sees No Issues on Merits of LIBOR Settlement
BITCONNECT: Faces Investors Class Action in Florida
BITCONNECT INT'L: Wildes Sues over Cryptocurrency Plunge
BOFI HOLDING: Motion to Dismiss 3rd Amended Suit Filed

BOFI HOLDING: "Mandalevy" Class Suit Underway
CAPITAL BANK: Court Okays Stipulation Dismissing Case
CBE GROUP: Portela Seeks to Certify New Jersey Consumers Class
CEDARS-SINAI: Denied "Brown" Overtime Pay, Rest Periods, Last Pay
CENTRAL OHIO GAMING: Class of Workers Certified in "Betts" Suit

CENTURY INTL: "Melton" Suit Seeks to Certify Nationwide Class
CENTURYLINK INC: Faces ERISA Class Action in Colorado
CHARLES SCHWAB: Loses Motion to Force Arbitration in ERISA Suit
CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: AG Against Natural Gas Royal Case Settlement
CHICKIE'S AND PETE'S: Faces "Slivak" Suit in E.D. Penn.

CHINA AGRITECH: High Court to Decide on Statutory Tolling Issue
CLEVELAND PUBLIC: Faces Class Action Over Unexplained Charges
COOK COUNTY, IL: Few African Americans Hired as Jail Officers
CREDIT PROS: "Eisenband" Suit Alleges TCPA Violation
CREDIT SUISSE: Feb. 20 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Faces "Schultz" Suit in D.C.
DUKE UNIVERSITY: Court Certified Faculty Class in "Seaman" Suit
DYNEGY INC: Rigrodsky & Long Files Securities Class Action
EDGE OF THE DELLS: Asks Court to Decertify Class in "Jones" Suit
EKSO BIONICS: "Cheehy" Suit Alleges Exchange Act Violations

ENHANCED RECOVERY: Placeholder Class Cert. Bid Filed in Gajewski
EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Judge Tosses Shareholder Derivative Class Action
FABRIKANT FINE: "Camacho" Suit Alleges ADA Violation
FACEBOOK INC: Austrian Privacy Activist Can't Bring Class Action
FAY DA BAKERY: Cashiers, Bakers Sue Over Illegal Deductions

FCA US: "DeShetler" Suit Alleges LMRA Violations
FERGUSON ENTERPRISES: Faces "Conner" Suit in C.D. California
FIELDTURF USA: Montgomery County Joins Synthetic Turf Class Suit
GENESEE COUNTY, MA: Lawyers Seek Approval of $200K Settlement
GOPRO INC: Arora Files Securities Class Action in Calif.

HARRIS COUNTY, TX: Judges Face Query in Cash Bail System Suit
HYATT CORPORATION: Associates Class Certified in "Matthews" Suit
HYUNDAI MOTORS: Class Certification in Fuel Economy Case Reversed
IDAHO: Class Action Over Public Defender System Can Proceed
ILLINOIS: Kolton et al. Seek to Certify Class of Property Owners

INTEL CORP: Class Actions Pile Up Over Processor Vulnerabilities
INTER-CON SECURITY: Blumenthal Nordrehaug Files Class Action
IRISH ROVER STATION: Faces "Slivak" Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
JAMES HARDIE: Leak Building Homeowners Face Financial Burden
JENNINGS GATE: Faces "Bueso" Suit in Eastern District New York

KENTUCKY: Medicaid Beneficiaries File Class Action
KOHL'S CORPORATION: "Collins" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
LEXISNEXIS: Faces "Morris" Suit in S.D. of Cal.
LEXISNEXIS RISK: Faces "Winchell" Suit in E.D. of Virginia
LOS ANGELES, CA: Court to Approve Bugging Settlement on Jan. 30

LOS ANGELES, CA: Court Certifies Class in Youth Justice Suit
LUKES LOBSTER: Faces "Godino" Suit in Eastern District New York
MARIPOSA LANDSCAPES: Fails to Pay Wages, "Chavarria" Suit Says
MDL 2619: Suit over Sale of Herbal Supplements Underway
MDL 2804: Tuscaloosa County Joins Opioid Crisis Class Action

MIDLAND CREDIT: Faces "Sharon" Suit in Central District Calif.
MOTEL 6: Sued for Sharing Guest Information with ICE
MRS BPO: Olson Files Placeholder Bid for Class Certification
NATIONAL FOOTBALL: March 26 Oral Argument Set in Ticket-Gate Case
NBTY: Non-Illinois Claimants Can't Participate in Class Action

NBTY INC: Seyfarth Shaw Attorneys Discuss Class Action Ruling
NEW MIAMI: Not Entitled to Immunity in Speed Camera Case
NEW WAVE: In Breach of Lease with State Government
NIPPON YUSEN: Plaintiff's Class Certification Bid Rejected
NORTON HEALTHCARE: Faces Class Action Over Retirement Plan

OLYMPIC FLAME: Blake Seeks to Certifying FLSA Collective
PARKWAY INC: "Scarantino" Securities Class Action Dismissed
PEL-STATE BULK: Court Refuses to Certify Class in "Harris" Suit
PLANNERNET INC: Class Certification Sought in "Champagne" Suit
POAG SHOPPING: Faces "Slivak" Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania

POSTMATES: Settles Couriers' Class Action for $8.75 Million
PPG INDUSTRIES: Court Grants Amos' Bid to Certify Retirees Class
PREFERRED FAMILY: Court Refuses to Certify Class in "Smith" Suit
REAL MONARCA: Lopez Seeks to Certify Servers & Bartenders Class
SANTANDER HOLDINGS: "Deka" Class Action Suit Remains Stayed

SANTANDER HOLDINGS: Asks Court to Reconsider "Parmelee" Ruling
SANTANDER HOLDINGS: "Gonzalez" Plaintiff Challenges Remand Order
SINGING RIVER: Judge to Rule on Pension Class Action Settlement
SOCAL EDISON: Frost et al. Sue over Forest Fire, Mudslides
STARBUCKS CORP: Wins Summary Judgment in "Strumlauf" Class Suit

STEINHOFF INT'L: PSA to Pursue Class Suit Over Accounting Scandal
SUBARU OF AMERICA: Faces "Sauer" Suit in C.D. of California
TALISMAN ENERGY: Royalty Owners Seek Class Action Status
THYSSENKRUPP ELEVATOR: Construction Workers Sue Over Unpaid Wages
TRAF GROUP: "McMillin" Suit Alleges FDCPA Violations

TWILIO INC: Flowers Files Suit for Invasion of Privacy
UFC: Expects to Settle Mayweather-McGregor PPV Class Actions
UNITED STATES: Stewart et al. Sue over Medicaid Work-Requirement
VENTURA GREENS: Esmailzadegan et al. Seek to Certify Class
VOLKSWAGEN AG: Quebec Court Authorizes "Dieselgate" Class-Action

WAL-MART STORES: "Mathews" Class Action Suit Ongoing
WENDY'S: Winston & Straw Attorneys Discuss Class Action Ruling
WEST WIND: Fond-du-Lac Plane Crash Passengers File Class Action
XUNLEI LIMITED: March 20 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
YUME INC: Bright Files Securities Class Action in Calif.

* #MeToo Movement May Have Implications on Workplace Class Suits
* Defendants Seek Transparency of Litigation Funding Agreements
* ERISA Litigation Remains Strong, Bloomberg Analysis Shows
* Recent Wave of Securities Class Actions May Impact D&O Insurers
* Securities Class Action Filings Hit Record High in 2017

* Seyfarth Shaw Outlines Key Trends in Workplace Class Actions
* Uptick Seen in Class Actions Launched v. Cryptocurrency Cos.








                            *********



ADTALEM GLOBAL: Motion to Dismiss Amended Suit Still Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------
Adtalem Global Education Inc. said in its Form 10-Q report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2017, that the defendants'
motion to dismiss a second amended complaint remains pending.

On May 13, 2016, a putative class action lawsuit was filed by the
Pension Trust Fund for Operating Engineers, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated, against Adtalem, Daniel
Hamburger, Richard M. Gunst, and Timothy J. Wiggins in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The
complaint was filed on behalf of a putative class of persons who
purchased Adtalem common stock between February 4, 2011 and
January 27, 2016. The complaint cites a civil complaint (the "FTC
lawsuit") filed by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission on January
27, 2016 against Adtalem, DeVry University, Inc., and DeVry/New
York Inc. (collectively, the "Adtalem Parties"), which was
resolved with the FTC in 2017, that alleged that certain of DeVry
University's advertising claims were false or misleading or
unsubstantiated at the time they were made in violation of
Section 5(a) of the Federal Trade Commission Act and the ED
January 2016 Notice, as the basis for claims that defendants made
false or misleading statements regarding DeVry University's
graduate employment rate and the earnings of DeVry University
graduates relative to the graduates of other universities and
colleges. As a result of these false or misleading statements
about DeVry University graduate outcomes, plaintiff alleges,
defendants overstated Adtalem's growth, revenue and earnings
potential and made false or misleading statements about Adtalem's
business, operations and prospects.

The plaintiff alleges direct liability against all defendants for
violations of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of the Exchange Act
and asserted liability against the individual defendants pursuant
to Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The plaintiff seeks
monetary damages, interest, attorneys' fees, costs and other
unspecified relief. On July 13, 2016, the Utah Retirement System
("URS") moved for appointment as lead plaintiff and approval of
its selection of counsel, which was not opposed by the Pension
Trust Fund for Operating Engineers and URS was appointed as lead
plaintiff on August 24, 2016. URS filed a second amended
complaint ("SAC") on December 23, 2016. The SAC seeks to
represent a putative class of persons who purchased Adtalem
common stock between August 26, 2011 and January 27, 2016 and
names an additional individual defendant, Patrick J. Unzicker.

Like the original complaint, the SAC asserts claims against all
defendants for alleged violations of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5
of the Exchange Act and asserted liability against the individual
defendants pursuant to Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act for
alleged material misstatements or omissions regarding DeVry
University graduate outcomes. On January 27, 2017, defendants
moved to dismiss the SAC.

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.

Adtalem Global Education Inc. is formerly known as DeVry
Education Group, is a United States corporation based in Downers
Grove, Illinois, that operates several for-profit higher
education institutions, including Advanced Academics, Becker
Professional Education, Carrington College, Chamberlain College
of Nursing, DeVry Brasil, DeVry University, American University
of the Caribbean, and Ross University Schools of Medicine and
Veterinary Medicine.


ADTALEM GLOBAL: Bid to Drop Amended Robinson-Brown Suit Underway
----------------------------------------------------------------
Adtalem Global Education Inc. said in its Form 10-Q report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2017, that the defendants'
motion to dismiss the amended complaint in the case by Robinson
and Brown still pending.

On or about June 21, 2016, T'Lani Robinson and Robby Brown filed
an arbitration demand with the American Arbitration Association
in Chicago, seeking to represent a putative class of students who
received a DeVry University education from January 1, 2008 until
April 8, 2016 (the "Putative Class Period"). Following Adtalem's
filing of a declaratory judgment action in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois seeking,
among other things, an order declaring that federal court is the
appropriate venue for this putative class action, on September
12, 2016, Robinson and Brown voluntarily withdrew their demand
for arbitration. On September 20, 2016, Robinson and Brown
answered the declaratory judgement action and filed a putative
class action counterclaim, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, against Adtalem Inc., DeVry University, Inc.,
and DeVry/New York, Inc. in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois. The counterclaim asserted
causes of action for breach of contract, misrepresentation,
concealment, negligence, violations of the Illinois Uniform
Deceptive Trade Practices Act, the Illinois Consumer Fraud and
Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and the Illinois Private Business
and Vocational Schools Act, conversion, unjust enrichment, and
declaratory relief. The plaintiffs sought monetary, declaratory,
injunctive, and other unspecified relief. On November 4, 2016,
following a stipulated dismissal of the declaratory action, the
Adtalem Parties moved to dismiss the counterclaim after which
plaintiffs voluntarily withdrew it.

On December 2, 2016, Robinson and Brown filed an amended
complaint adding two additional named plaintiffs. The amended
complaint purports to assert nationwide class claims under the
above-referenced Illinois statutes and common law theories on
behalf of those who, during the Putative Class Period, (i)
enrolled in DeVry University; (ii) financed their education with
DeVry University with direct loans administered by ED; or (iii)
entered into an enrollment agreement with DeVry University and
otherwise paid for a DeVry University education. The amended
complaint also seeks to represent a fourth class of individuals
residing in, or enrolled in a DeVry University campus located in,
California during the Putative Class Period bringing claims under
the California Business and Profession Code. In addition to the
claims previously asserted as described above, the amended
complaint adds a claim for breach of fiduciary duty owed students
in administering Title IV funds. The DeVry Parties moved to
dismiss the amended complaint on January 13, 2017.

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.

Adtalem Global Education Inc. is formerly known as DeVry
Education Group, is a United States corporation based in Downers
Grove, Illinois, that operates several for-profit higher
education institutions, including Advanced Academics, Becker
Professional Education, Carrington College, Chamberlain College
of Nursing, DeVry Brasil, DeVry University, American University
of the Caribbean, and Ross University Schools of Medicine and
Veterinary Medicine.


ADTALEM GLOBAL: Bid to Drop Amended Petrizzo-Jara Suit Underway
---------------------------------------------------------------
Adtalem Global Education Inc. said in its Form 10-Q report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2017, that the defendants'
motion to dismiss the amended complaint in the consolidated
lawsuit by Petrizzo and Jara plaintiffs remains pending.

On October 14, 2016, a putative class action lawsuit was filed by
Debbie Petrizzo and five other former DeVry University students,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, against
the DeVry Parties in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois (the "Petrizzo Case"). The
complaint was filed on behalf of a putative class of persons
consisting of those who enrolled in and/or attended classes at
DeVry University from at least 2002 through the present and who
were unable to find employment within their chosen field of study
within six months of graduation. Plaintiffs claimed that
defendants made false or misleading statements regarding DeVry
University's graduate employment rate and asserted claims for
unjust enrichment and violations of six different states'
consumer fraud, unlawful trade practices, and consumer protection
laws. The plaintiffs sought monetary, declaratory, injunctive,
and other unspecified relief.

On October 28, 2016, a putative class action lawsuit was filed by
Jairo Jara and eleven others, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, against the DeVry Parties in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois (the "Jara Case"). The individual plaintiffs claim to
have graduated from DeVry University in 2001 or later and sought
to proceed on behalf of a putative class of persons consisting of
those who obtained a degree from DeVry University and who were
unable to find employment within their chosen field of study
within six months of graduation. Plaintiffs claimed that
defendants made false or misleading statements regarding DeVry
University's graduate employment rate and asserted claims for
unjust enrichment and violations of ten different states'
consumer fraud, unlawful trade practices, and consumer protection
laws. The plaintiffs sought monetary, declaratory, injunctive,
and other unspecified relief.

By Order dated November 28, 2016, the district court ordered the
Petrizzo and Jara Cases be consolidated under the Petrizzo
caption for all further purposes. On December 5, 2016, plaintiffs
filed an amended consolidated complaint on behalf of 38
individual plaintiffs and others similarly situated. The amended
consolidated complaint seeks to bring claims on behalf of the
named individuals and a putative nationwide class of individuals
for unjust enrichment and alleged violations of the Illinois
Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Practices Act and the Illinois
Private Businesses and Vocational Schools Act of 2012. In
addition, it purports to assert causes of action on behalf of
certain of the named individuals and 15 individual state-specific
putative classes for alleged violations of 15 different states'
consumer fraud, unlawful trade practices, and consumer protection
laws. Finally, it seeks to bring individual claims under Georgia
state law on behalf of certain named plaintiffs. The plaintiffs
seek monetary, declaratory, injunctive, and other unspecified
relief. The DeVry Parties moved to dismiss the complaint on
February 3, 2017.

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.

Adtalem Global Education Inc. is formerly known as DeVry
Education Group, is a United States corporation based in Downers
Grove, Illinois, that operates several for-profit higher
education institutions, including Advanced Academics, Becker
Professional Education, Carrington College, Chamberlain College
of Nursing, DeVry Brasil, DeVry University, American University
of the Caribbean, and Ross University Schools of Medicine and
Veterinary Medicine.


AETNA INC: Faces $1.15MM Civil Fine Over Privacy Practices
----------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Stempel, writing for Reuters, reports that Aetna Inc
will pay a $1.15 million civil fine and improve its privacy
practices to settle charges that it leaked the HIV-positive
status of 2,460 New York members in a mailing where it used
envelopes with large transparent windows.

New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman on Jan. 23 said
names, addresses, claim numbers and HIV medication instructions
in the July 28, 2017 mailing were "clearly visible" to outsiders
because of how Aetna folded letters and inserted them into the
envelopes.

The mailing was intended to notify members of a class action
settlement permitting them to buy HIV medication at brick-and-
mortar pharmacies rather than by mail, where their privacy might
be compromised if neighbors or family saw the drug packages.

While about 1 million Americans live with HIV or AIDS, the
associated stigma can lead to a denial of proper healthcare,
discrimination and other negative consequences, according to
settlement papers signed by Aetna and Mr. Schneiderman's office.

"Through its own carelessness, Aetna blatantly violated its
promise to safeguard members' private health information," the
attorney general said in a statement.

Mr. Schneiderman said his office uncovered similar issues with a
Sept. 25, 2017 mailing by Aetna to 163 New York members with
atrial fibrillation, an irregular heartbeat condition.

The Hartford, Connecticut-based company did not admit or deny
wrongdoing, and agreed to retain an independent consultant for
two years to monitor its efforts to improve member privacy.

It agreed to a $17.2 million settlement in the federal court in
Philadelphia of private litigation over similar claims by more
than 11,000 members in New York and other states.

"We have worked to address the potential impact to members
following this unfortunate incident," Aetna said in a statement.
"We are implementing measures designed to ensure something like
this does not happen again as part of our commitment to best
practices in protecting sensitive health information."

Aetna agreed in December to be bought by CVS Health Corp in a $69
billion transaction.

HIV is short for human immunodeficiency virus, and AIDS for
Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome. [GN]


ALLEGHENY COUNTY, PA: Sued Over Inmate Privacy Violations
---------------------------------------------------------
Torsten Ove, writing for Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, reports that a
Greene County man says in a federal lawsuit that the Allegheny
County Jail routinely violates inmate privacy by questioning
inmates about their medical history in a common room where other
inmates can hear.

Lee Russo was jailed in December 2016 and said he was forced to
reveal his mental illness in a room with four other inmates. He
said he refused to answer because the others could hear, but he
was ordered to by a sergeant and suffered "extreme embarrassment
and distress."

Mr. Russo and his lawyer, D. Aaron Rihn, say they don't question
the need for the jail to know about medical issues, because the
jail has to house inmates appropriately and get them the
treatment they need.

But they say the questioning should be done in private with a
jail nurse so no other inmates can overhear.

The suit is seeking class action status for all inmates who have
been questioned in public and an injunction against the practice,
as well as compensatory damages.

The county declined comment. [GN]


AMERICAN FINANCE: Maryland Class Action Suit Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------
America Finance Trust, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2017, that the company continues to
defend itself in a class action lawsuit filed in the District
Court for the District of Maryland.

On January 13, 2017, four affiliated stockholders of Retail
Centers of America, Inc. filed in the United States District
Court for the District of Maryland a putative class action
lawsuit against the Company, Edward M. Weil, Jr., Leslie D.
Michelson, Edward G. Rendell (Weil, Michelson and Rendell, the
"Director Defendants"), AR Global, and the Company, alleging
violations of Sections 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the "Exchange Act") by RCA and the Director Defendants,
violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act by AR Global and
the Director Defendants, breaches of fiduciary duty by the
Director Defendants, and aiding and abetting breaches of
fiduciary duty by AR Global and the Company in connection with
the negotiation of and proxy solicitation for a shareholder vote
on the proposed merger of the Company and RCA and an amendment to
RCA's Articles of Incorporation.  The complaint sought on behalf
of the putative class rescission of the merger transaction, which
was voted on and approved by stockholders on February 13, 2017,
and closed on February 16, 2017, together with unspecified
rescissory damages, unspecified actual damages, and costs and
disbursements of the action.

On April 26, 2017, the Court appointed a lead plaintiff. Lead
plaintiff, along with other stockholders of RCA, filed an amended
complaint on June 19, 2017.  The Amended Complaint named
additional individuals and entities as defendants (David Gong,
Stanley Perla, Lisa Kabnick ("Additional Director Defendants"),
Nicholas Radesca and American Realty Capital Retail Advisor,
LLC), added counts under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 in connection with the Registration
Statement for the proposed merger, under Section 13(e) of the
Exchange Act, and counts for breach of contract and unjust
enrichment, and dropped the demand for rescission (while
maintaining the demand for rescissory damages).

America Finance Trust said "The Company, the Director Defendants,
the Additional Director Defendants and Nicholas Radesca deny
wrongdoing and liability and intend to vigorously defend the
action. Due to the early stage of the litigation, no estimate of
a probable loss or any reasonable possible losses are
determinable at this time. No provisions for such losses have
been recorded in the accompanying consolidated financial
statements for the three and nine months ended September 30,
2017."

America Finance Trust is a diversified REIT with a retail focus.
The company owns a diversified portfolio of commercial properties
comprised primarily of freestanding single-tenant properties that
are net leased to investment grade and other creditworthy tenants
and a portfolio of stabilized core retail properties.
Incorporated on January 22, 2013, the company is a Maryland
corporation that elected and qualified to be taxed as a real
estate investment trust for U.S. federal income tax purposes
("REIT") beginning with the taxable year ended December 31, 2013.


AMERICAN MULTI-CINEMA: "Jones" Claims Overtime Pay, Reimbursement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lateshia Jones, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. American Multi-Cinema, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 150348/2018, (N.Y. Sup., January 12, 2018),
seeks unpaid back wages and overtime due with corresponding
liquidated damages, reimbursement of laundering of required
uniforms, taxable costs and allowable expenses of this action,
attorneys' fees, prejudgment and post-judgment interest,
declaratory and injunctive relief and such other and further
relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, New York Labor
Law and New York Codes, Rules and Regulations.

American Multi-Cinema is a national chain of movie theaters with
its principal place of business at One AMC Way, 11500 Ash Street,
Leawood, KS 66211. Jones worked for Defendant at its movie
theater located at 2310 Broadway and on 86th Street NY. Jones
worked more than 10 hours in a day, and was not provided an
additional hour's pay at the minimum wage rate. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lloyd R. Ambinder, Esq.
      Jack L. Newhouse, Esq.
      Caroline Turner, Esq.
      VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP
      40 Broad Street, 7th Floor
      New York, NY 10004
      Telephone: (212) 943-9080
      Facsimile: (212) 943-9082
      Email: jnewhouse@vandallp.com


ANN TAYLOR: Settles Class Action Over Deceptive Pricing Scheme
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ashley Reynolds, writing for KY3, reports that attention Ann
Taylor Factory and LOFT Outlet store shoppers, you might be able
to cash-in on a class action lawsuit.

The lawsuit is about an alleged deceptive pricing scheme.
Plaintiffs claim the store advertised fake original prices to
convince shoppers items were once sold in retail stores, when it
was actually manufactured for outlets.  You can file a claim for
five dollars in cash or a twelve dollar voucher.

The settlement isn't final.  There could be appeals.  It could
take awhile before you get your payout.

Settlement details are available at:

                http://annpricingsettlement.com/


ANTHEM INC: Lawyers Defend $38MM Data Breach Case Fee Bid
---------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for Law.com, reports that plaintiffs
lawyers are fighting accusations by an objector that their $38
million fee request in the Anthem data breach settlement was
"outrageous on its face" and required a special master to
investigate potential over-billing. [GN]


APPLE INC: Davidson Moves to Certify Class of iPhone 6 Purchasers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit styled THOMAS DAVIDSON, TODD
CLEARY, ERIC SIEGAL, MICHAEL PAJARO, JOHN BORZYMOWSKI, BROOKE
CORBETT, TAYLOR BROWN, JUSTIN BAUER, HEIRLOOM ESTATE SERVICES,
INC., KATHLEEN BAKER, MATT MUILENBURG, WILLIAM BON, and JASON
PETTY on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated
v. APPLE INC., Case No. 5:16-cv-04942-LHK (N.D. Cal.), move the
Court for an order certifying this class:

     Any person residing in Colorado, Florida, Illinois,
     Washington, or Texas who purchased an Apple iPhone 6 or
     iPhone 6 Plus from Apple or an Apple Authorized Service
     Provider (listed on https://locate.apple.com/) that was
     manufactured without underfill under the U2402 integrated
     circuit chip.  Excluded from the Class are governmental
     entities, Apple and its affiliates, subsidiaries, employees,
     current and former officers, director, agents,
     representatives, and members of this Court and its staff.

In the alternative, the Plaintiffs move for certification of
enumerated issues pursuant to Rule 23(c)(4) of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure.

The Plaintiffs seek class certification of these claims:
violation of the Colorado Consumer Protection Act; violation of
the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act; violation
of the Illinois Deceptive Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive
Trade Practices Act; violation of the Texas Deceptive Trade
Practices Act; and violation of the Washington Consumer
Protection Act.

The Plaintiffs all seek to serve as Class Representatives of
their respective states: Justin Bauer for Colorado; Eric Siegal
for Illinois; Taylor Brown for Texas; John Borzymowski for
Florida, and William Bon and Matt Muilenburg for Washington.  The
also move for the appointment of McCune Wright Arevalo LLP as
Class Counsel for all certified classes.

The Court will commence a hearing on March 29, 2018, at 1:30
p.m., to consider the Motion.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Joseph G. Sauder, Esq.
          Matthew D. Schelkopf, Esq.
          Joseph B. Kenney, Esq.
          MCCUNE WRIGHT AREVALO, LLP
          555 Lancaster Avenue
          Berwyn, PA 19312
          Telephone: (610) 200-0580
          E-mail: jgs@mccunewright.com
                  mds@mccunewright.com
                  jbk@mccunewright.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Stephen G. Larson, Esq.
          Robert C. O'Brien, Esq.
          LARSON O'BRIEN LLP
          555 S Flower St #4400
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 436-4888
          Facsimile: (213) 623-2000
          E-mail: slarson@larsonobrienlaw.com
                  robrien@larsonobrienlaw.com

               - and -

          Mitchell M. Breit, Esq.
          SIMMONS HANLY CONROY
          112 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 784-6400
          Facsimile: (212) 213-5949
          E-mail: mbreit@simmonsfirm.com

               - and -

          Greg Coleman, Esq.
          GREG COLEMAN LAW
          First Tennessee Plaza
          800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100
          Knoxville, TN 37929
          Telephone: (865) 247-0080
          Facsimile: (865) 522-0049)
          E-mail: greg@gregcolemanlaw.com

               - and -

          Bruce D. Greenberg, Esq.
          Susana Cruz Hodge, Esq.
          LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG LLC
          570 Broad Street, Suite 1201
          Newark, NJ 07102
          Telephone: (973) 623-3000
          E-mail: bgreenberg@litedepalma.com
                  scruzhodge@litedepalma.com


AU PAIR: "Alonso" Suit Seeks Minimum & OT Pay under Labor Code
--------------------------------------------------------------
BEATRIZ ALONSO and NATALIA DEN BOER on their own behalf and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. AU PAIR CARE INC.;
CULTURAL HOMESTAY INTERNATIONAL and DOES 1-60 inclusive, the
Defendants, Case No. CGC-18-563821 (Cal. Super. Ct., Jan. 24,
2018), seeks to recover minimum wage and overtime pay under the
California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the Defendants employed Plaintiffs as
home care professionals at the homes of families in the State of
California acting as their sponsors.

Au pair provides live-in childcare services and placements.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Carlos Jato, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF CARLOS JATO
          819 Eddy Street
          San Francisco, CA 94109
          Telephone: (415) 771 6174
          Facsimile: (415) 474 3748
          E-mail: cgjato@icam.com


BARCLAYS PLC: Judge Sees No Issues on Merits of LIBOR Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Colby Hamilton, writing for Law.com, reports that an eleventh-
hour push to block proposed settlements with two defendant banks
over their role in the manipulation of the benchmark London
Intrabank Offering Rate hit a dead end on Jan. 23.

U.S. District Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald of the Southern District
of New York told co-lead counsel for the plaintiffs she had "no
issue on the merits" of the proposed settlements between Barclays
and Citibank with the over-the-counter group of plaintiffs for
$120 million and $130 million, respectively.

"I don't have an issue with the reasonableness of the
settlement," the judge informed Susman Godfrey partner Seth Ard
-- sard@susmangodfrey.com -- who presented on behalf of the
plaintiffs during the fairness hearing.

Judge Buchwald's comments signaled the end of the road for Arent
Fox's Les Jacobowitz -- les.jacobowitz@arentfox.com -- and his
clients, the Virgin Islands Public Finance Authority.  Mr.
Jacobowitz hoped to use the hearing and his client's objection to
the proposed settlement to continue to press his concerns over
the lack of calculated damages in the suit.

Before the substance of Mr. Jacobowitz's arguments could be
heard, the judge demanded he answer objections by the plaintiffs'
counsel over the U.S. Virgin Islands' standing.

In a reply to Mr. Jacobowitz's Jan. 2 objection to the proposed
Citibank settlement, in which he presented calculations that
placed the bank's liability for manipulating the crucial interest
rate benchmark at nearly $24 billion, co-lead counsel said that
the claimant lacked standing.

This issue, attorneys from Susman Godfrey and Hausfeld said, was
that the swap deal the U.S. Virgin Islands put forward was not
ultimately affected directly by potential LIBOR manipulation.

At the hearing on Jan. 23, Judge Buchwald noted that nowhere in
the swap details the U.S. Virgin Islands was offering as proof of
its status was the term "LIBOR" mentioned and Jacobowitz conceded
as much.  However, he said, conversations with experts and
research that he had recently conducted, including information
provided by the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, showed that
part of the rate in the swap agreement his clients entered into
was underpinned by the three-month LIBOR during the class period.

Buchwald noted that a number of actions with claims about
interest rates comparable to the LIBOR one attempted to enter the
multidistrict litigation before the court -- but those were not
the same. Similarly, she said, the transaction involving the U.S.
Virgin Islands was not an actual LIBOR one.  While it may
actually fall into associated suits, Mr. Jacobowitz's clients had
no standing in the current one, the judge said.

"I think that's the end of it," she said.

The Barclays settlement was announced in 2015 and a fairness
hearing was held in October of last year, where Mr. Jacobowitz
first raised concerns about the lack of publicly available
information about damages.  The Citibank settlement was announced
in August of last year.

While the $250 million in class settlements appear all but
certain to be approved, after the hearing Mr.  Jacobowitz noted
that a number of major institutions, including two Federal
Deposit Insurance Corp. class members and both Fannie Mae and
Freddie Mac, have requested exclusion from the class to pursue
their own suits against the LIBOR panel banks. [GN]


BITCONNECT: Faces Investors Class Action in Florida
---------------------------------------------------
Wolfie Zhao, writing for coindesk, reports that just a week after
the abrupt closure of BitConnect's lending and exchange platform,
investors are seeking legal action to claim back their funds,
according to public document.

The class action case, filed with the Southern District Court of
Florida on Jan. 24, alleges that BitConnect issued cryptocurrency
tokens that were effectively unregistered securities and gathered
additional funds as a "wide-ranging Ponzi scheme."  The lawsuit
was filed by David Silver from the Florida-based law firm Silver
Miller, which has filed suits on behalf of cryptocurrency
consumers including those seeking damages against mining company
Giga Watt.

In light of the recent closure of BitConnect after receiving two
cease-and-desist orders by U.S. state regulators, the plaintiffs
are seeking to claim back the investments they put into the
company.

The document states that BitConnect launched several projects,
such as a lending program that required investors to send in
cryptocurrencies to purchase BitConnect Coin, a token generated
by the company's platform.

BitConnect then allegedly promised investors that its proprietary
trading platform would use the funds to generate a monthly return
of 40 percent or a daily compound rate at 1 percent, which could
amount to 3,000 percent annually.

As such, the plaintiffs argue that BitConnect violated the
Securities Act by issuing unregistered securities.  The document
further points to a statement claimed to be taken from
BitConnect's website:

"This investment option involves profiting from BitConnect
trading bot and volatility software.  You will receive daily
profit based on your investment options.  Upon investment term
completion, you will receive your capital back to take out from
the BitConnect lending platform or optionally reinvest back in
lending platform to continue receiving daily profits."


BITCONNECT INT'L: Wildes Sues over Cryptocurrency Plunge
--------------------------------------------------------
CHARLES WILDES, individually; FRANCISCO DORIA, individually;
ARIC HAROLD, individually; AKIVA KATZ, individually; JAMES GURRY,
individually; RONALD NELSON, individually; and on behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. BITCONNECT
INTERNATIONAL PLC, a foreign corporation; BITCONNECT LTD., a
foreign corporation; BITCONNECT TRADING LTD., a foreign
corporation; GLENN ARCARO, an individual; TREVON BROWN a/k/a
TREVON JAMES, an individual; RYAN HILDRETH, an individual;
CRAIG GRANT, an individual; JOHN DOE NO. 1 a/k/a CRYPTONICK, an
individual; and JOHN DOE NOS. 2-10, individuals, the Defendants,
Case No. 9:18-cv-80086-DMM (S.D. Fla., Jan. 24, 2018), seeks
compensatory and equitable relief rescinding Plaintiffs'
investments in BITCONNECT and restoring to them the assets and
funds they were fraudulently induced into investing.

This nationwide class action is brought by Plaintiffs and on
behalf of a class of similarly situated investors who contributed
millions of dollars' worth of cryptocurrency to a trading
platform and lending program fraudulently promoted and operated
by Defendants.

In mid-January 2018, BITCONNECT boasted a market cap of over $2.5
billion. However, that purported fortune appears to have been
built through the use of fraudulent means and a wide-reaching
Ponzi scheme that defrauded investors, made a mockery of state
and federal securities laws, and employed an army of social media
mercenaries who were paid to bring more unsuspecting victims into
the fraud. BITCONNECT guaranteed investors up to a 40% total
return per month on their investments, following a four-tier
investment system based on the sum of the initial deposit. The
more money an investor put down, the greater the return that
investor could purportedly receive each month over a scheduled
period of time -- regardless of market performance or the
fluctuating price of cryptocurrency.

Moreover, regardless of the amount of the initial investment,
each investor was promised a 1% return on investment on a daily
basis, which BITCONNECT purported would be generated by its own
proprietary trading bot and volatility software -- a promise that
would turn a $1,000 investment into a $50 million return within
three years of daily compounded interest. Even more aggressive
than its promises, though, was BITCONNECT's enlisted army of
multi-level affiliate marketers who were paid by BITCONNECT to
use BITCONNECT-supplied materials to recruit new investors
through eye-catching and interest-piquing social media channels,
such as YouTube and Facebook. Defendants Glenn Arcaro, Trevon
Brown a/k/a Trevon James, Ryan Hildreth, Craig Grant, and
CRYPTONICK were among the more prominent BITCONNECT recruiters,
but were certainly not the only ones to preach the false gospel
of BITCONNECT to unsuspecting investors in the United States and
abroad.

On January 17, 2018, as the unsustainable growth of BITCONNECT's
scheme grew larger, and the sound of government regulators coming
to take a closer look into BITCONNECT's operations grew louder,
BITCONNECT suddenly shut down its trading platform and lending
program, a maneuver that precipitated an almost immediate 90%
plummet in the value of BITCONNECT's investors' $2.5+ billion
holdings.

Although BITCONNECT contended, in the wake of terminating its
trading and lending functions, that it would continue to support
the proprietary cryptocurrency token it had created and required
its investors to purchase (the BitConnect Coin [BCC]), that
promise was hollow; as the only true value the token held was on
BITCONNECT's own platform. The damage was already done, and
investors holding BCC suffered 90+% losses on their investments
at BITCONNECT.

BitConnect coin is an open source, peer-to-peer, community driven
decentralized cryptocurrency that allow people to store and
invest their wealth in a non-government controlled currency, and
even earn a substantial interest on investment.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          David C. Silver, Esq.
          Jason S. Miller, Esq.
          SILVER MILLER
          11780 W. Sample Road
          Coral Springs, FL 33065
          Telephone: (954) 516 6000
          E-mail: DSilver@SilverMillerLaw.com
                  JMiller@SilverMillerLaw.com


BOFI HOLDING: Motion to Dismiss 3rd Amended Suit Filed
------------------------------------------------------
BofI Holding, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended December 31, 2017, that the Company and other defendants
have filed a motion to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint.

On October 15, 2015, the company, its Chief Executive Officer and
its Chief Financial Officer were named defendants in a putative
class action lawsuit styled Golden v. BofI Holding, Inc., et al,
and brought in United States District Court for the Southern
District of California (the "Golden Case"). On November 3, 2015,
the Company, its Chief Executive Officer and its Chief Financial
Officer were named defendants in a second putative class action
lawsuit styled Hazan v. BofI Holding, Inc., et al, and also
brought in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of California (the "Hazan Case").

On February 1, 2016, the Golden Case and the Hazan Case were
consolidated as In re BofI Holding, Inc. Securities Litigation,
Case No.: 3:15-cv-02324-GPC-KSC (the "First Class Action"), and
the Houston Municipal Employees Pension System was appointed lead
plaintiff.

The First Class Action complaint was amended by a certain
Consolidated Amended Class Complaint filed on April 11, 2016. On
September 27, 2016, the Court dismissed the First Class Action,
with leave to amend, as to defendants Andrew Micheletti, Paul
Grinberg, Nicholas Mosich and James Argalas. The Court denied the
Motion to Dismiss with respect to the Company and Gregory
Garrabrants.

On November 25, 2016, the putative class action plaintiff filed a
Second Amended Class Action Complaint (the "Second Amended
Complaint"), which includes the previously dismissed defendants.
On December 23, 2016, the Company and other defendants filed a
motion to dismiss such Second Amended Complaint.

On May 23, 2017, the Court granted in part and denied in part the
defendants' motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint.

On September 28, 2017, the Company and other defendants filed a
motion for judgment on the pleadings, which is currently pending.
On December 1, 2017, the Court granted the motion to dismiss with
leave. On December 22, 2017, the putative class action plaintiff
filed a Third Amended Class Action Complaint.

On January 19, 2018, the Company and other defendants filed a
motion to dismiss such Third Amended Complaint.

The First Class Action seeks monetary damages and other relief on
behalf of a putative class that has not been certified by the
Court. The Second and Third Amended Complaints allege that the
Company and other named defendants violated Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, by failing to disclose wrongful conduct
that was alleged in a complaint filed in connection with a
wrongful termination of employment lawsuit filed on October 13,
2015, and that as a result the Company's statements regarding its
internal controls, as well as portions of its financial
statements, were false and misleading.

The Company and the other defendants named in the Employment
Matter dispute the allegations of wrongdoing advanced by the
plaintiff in that case, including plaintiff's statement of the
underlying factual circumstances, and are vigorously defending
against the complaint filed in connection therewith. Moreover,
the Company and the other named defendants dispute the
allegations advanced by the plaintiffs in the First Class Action
and are vigorously defending against the Third Amended Complaint.

BofI Holding is the holding company for BofI Federal Bank, a
diversified financial services company with approximately $8.5
billion in assets that provides innovative banking and lending
products and services to customers nationwide through scalable
low cost distribution channels and affinity partners. The company
is based in San Diego, California.


BOFI HOLDING: "Mandalevy" Class Suit Underway
---------------------------------------------
BofI Holding, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended December 31, 2017, that the company continues to defend in
the case styled Mandalevy v. BofI Holding, Inc., et al.

On April 3, 2017, the Company, its Chief Executive Officer and
its Chief Financial Officer were named defendants in a putative
class action lawsuit styled Mandalevy v. BofI Holding, Inc., et
al, and brought in United States District Court for the Southern
District of California (the "Mandalevy Case"). The Mandalevy Case
seeks monetary damages and other relief on behalf of a putative
class that has not been certified by the Court. The complaint in
the Mandalevy Case (the "Mandalevy Complaint") alleges a class
period that differs from that alleged in the First Class Action,
and that the Company and other named defendants violated Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by failing to disclose wrongful
conduct that was alleged in a March 2017 media article.

The Mandalevy Case has not been consolidated into the First Class
Action. On June 2, 2017, lead plaintiff motions were filed on
behalf of three members of the putative class and on July 17,
2017, the Company and other defendants filed an opposition to
such motions.

The Company and the other named defendants dispute the
allegations advanced by the plaintiffs in the Mandalevy Case, and
are vigorously defending against the Mandalevy Complaint.

The Company and the other named defendants dispute the
allegations of wrongdoing advanced by the plaintiffs in the Class
Action, the Mandalevy Case, and in the Employment Matter, as well
as those plaintiffs' statement of the underlying factual
circumstances, and are vigorously defending each case.

BofI Holding is the holding company for BofI Federal Bank, a
diversified financial services company with approximately $8.5
billion in assets that provides innovative banking and lending
products and services to customers nationwide through scalable
low cost distribution channels and affinity partners. The company
is based in San Diego, California.


CAPITAL BANK: Court Okays Stipulation Dismissing Case
-----------------------------------------------------
Capital Bank Financial Corp. said in its Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2017, the Court has ordered that the
Stipulation of Dismissal and Proposed Order was deemed to be a
Rule 41(a)(2) Motion to Dismiss and granted such motion.

Capital Bank Financial Corp. said in its Form 8-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filed on August 24, 2017,
that the court ordered the consolidation of the three lawsuits
into the lead action captioned In Re: Capital Bank Financial
Corp. Stockholder Litigation, No. 3:17-cv-00422.

In the Joint Proxy Statement/Prospectus, Capital Bank Financial
and the individual members of the Capital Bank Financial board of
directors have been named as defendants in three substantially
similar putative class action lawsuits filed by alleged
shareholders of Capital Bank Financial.
These actions are captioned: (1) Bushansky v. Capital Bank
Financial Corp., et al., No. 3:17-cv-00422 (W.D. North Carolina
filed July 17, 2017); (2) Parshall v. Capital Bank Financial
Corp., et al., No. 3:17-cv-00428 (W.D. North Carolina filed July
19, 2017); and (3) Catherine McNamara v. Capital Bank Financial
Corp., et al., No. 3:17-cv-00439 (W.D. North Carolina filed July
25, 2017). The Parshall complaint also names First Horizon and
Firestone Sub, Inc. as defendants.

The three complaints allege, among other things, that the
defendants violated Section 14(a) and Section 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder by
not disclosing certain allegedly material facts in the
registration statement on Form S-4 filed on June 29, 2017, which
renders it false and misleading.  On August 11, 2017, the court
ordered the consolidation of the three lawsuits into the lead
action captioned In Re: Capital Bank Financial Corp. Stockholder
Litigation, No. 3:17-cv-00422. Capital Bank Financial believes
that no further supplemental disclosure is required under
applicable law.

On August 23, 2017, Capital Bank Financial Corp. made certain
supplemental disclosures to the Joint Proxy Statement/Prospectus
filed on July 28, 2017. On August 28, 2017, the Court ordered
that the Stipulation of Dismissal and Proposed Order was deemed
to be a Rule 41(a)(2) Motion to Dismiss and granted such motion.

Capital Bank is a bank holding company incorporated in late 2009
with the goal of creating a regional banking franchise in the
Southeastern region of the United States through organic growth
and acquisitions of other banks, including failed,
underperforming and undercapitalized banks.


CBE GROUP: Portela Seeks to Certify New Jersey Consumers Class
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned DIEGO PORTELA, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated v. THE CBE GROUP,
INC., and JOHN DOES 1-25, Case No. 2:16-cv-00333-CCC-SCM
(D.N.J.), moves for an order certifying a class defined as:

     All New Jersey consumers who were sent a letter and/or
     notice from THE CBE GROUP, INC., between January 19, 2015
     and January 19, 2016, concerning an obligation owed to
     Verizon Wireless, which included a dollar amount in a
     category titled "Other Charges Due" and did not include a
     category titled "Collection Fees", and did not itemize such
     "Other Charges Due"

     and/or

     All New Jersey consumers who were sent a letter and/or
     notice from THE CBE GROUP, INC., between January 19, 2015
     and January 19, 2016, concerning an obligation owed to
     Verizon Wireless, which included a category titled "Other
     Charges Due" and a category titled "Service Amount" and such
     letter and/or notice was sent less than thirty (30) days
     after the initial letter and/or notice was sent to such
     consumer, and contained a least one of the following
     statements:

        We wrote to you more than 30 days ago.  Since then,
        neither you nor Verizon has notified us of any changes
        in the status of your past due account.  Therefore, we
        assume the amount of $XXX.XX continues to be past due.

Mr. Portela also asks the Court to appoint him as Class
Representative, and to appoint Joseph K. Jones, Esq., and
Benjamin J. Wolf, Esq. of Jones, Wolf & Kapasi, LLC, as Class
Counsel.

The Court was scheduled to commence a hearing on February 5,
2018, at 9:30 a.m., to consider the Motion.

A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=ucmJyST6

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph K. Jones, Esq.
          Benjamin J. Wolf, Esq.
          JONES, WOLF & KAPASI, LLC
          375 Passaic Avenue, Suite 100
          Fairfield, NJ 07004
          Telephone: (973) 227-5900
          Facsimile: (973) 244-0019
          E-mail: jkj@legaljones.com
                  bwolf@legaljones.com


CEDARS-SINAI: Denied "Brown" Overtime Pay, Rest Periods, Last Pay
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Erik Brown, an individual, and on behalf of others similarly
aggrieved, Plaintiff, v. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center and Does 1
through 50, inclusive, Case No. BC689955 (Cal. Super., January
12, 2018), seek redress for failure to provide rest periods,
payment of minimum and overtime wages, failure to properly
maintain time-keeping records, failure to provide accurate
itemized statements  and failure to pay all wages due to
discharged and quitting employees in violation of the California
Labor Code and applicable Industrial Welfare Commission Wage
Orders.

Cedars-Sinai is a non-profit hospital in Los Angeles.[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Matthew J. Matern, Esq.
      Joshua D. Boxer, Esq.
      MATERN LAW GROUP, PC
      1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 200
      Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
      Tel: (310) 531-1900
      Facsimile: (310)531-1901
      Email: mmatern@matemlawgroup.com


CENTRAL OHIO GAMING: Class of Workers Certified in "Betts" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Michael H. Watson grants the Plaintiffs' motion to
conditionally certify a class in the lawsuit entitled Heather
Betts, et al. v. Central Ohio Gaming Ventures, LLC, Case No.
2:16-cv-00373-MHW-KAJ (S.D. Ohio).

The Court also orders that, within 14 days of the Order, the
parties confer and submit a joint proposed definition, notice,
and distribution plan consistent with the Order.  The Court
further orders the Defendant to provide the Plaintiffs, within 14
days of the Order, with a list in electronic and importable
format of the names, addresses, and e-mail addresses of each
employee and former employee fitting the agreed upon class
definition.

Heather Betts, Katheline Day, John Wysincavage, and David Rodrigo
filed the putative collective action under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.  The Plaintiffs define the class as:

     All current and former employees of Defendant who during the
     previous three years worked over forty hours in any workweek
     but were not properly compensated for all of their overtime
     hours worked under the FLSA because of Defendant's automatic
     meal deduction policy, in the following departments: (1)
     back of the house food service, including cooks and
     stewards; (2) valet, including cashiers and valets; and (3)
     table games department.

A copy of the Court's Opinion and Order is available at no charge
at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=3Sy87wYa


CENTURY INTL: "Melton" Suit Seeks to Certify Nationwide Class
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled JEFFREY MELTON, EZEKIEL MORRIS,
TOMMY JOHNSON, JUAN VALDES, and MANVILLE SMITH, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v.
CENTURY INTERNATIONAL ARMS CORP., CENTURY ARMS, INC.,
CENTURY ARMS OF VERMONT, INC., and CENTURY INTERNATIONAL ARMS
OF VERMONT, INC., the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-21008-FAM
(S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order:

   1. certifying a nationwide class:

      "all individuals in the United States who, on or before
      March 18, 2016, purchased a Century AK-47 model pattern
      firearm, including the following model platforms: WASR;
      M70AB2; RPK; DRAGUNOV; AMD65; M70Bl; M72; GP 1972; 1975
      AKBullpup; Golani; 2007 Champion Pistol; Galil; Draco
      Pistol; PLS54C; M70B1; M70B2; M76; AK74; Tantal; C39v2;
      AES10B; 1960AK; AKMS; GP 1975; Saiga; PAPM85; PAPM92; M70;
      M74; N-PAP; GPAK 74; MAK-22; PAPM90; MAADI; MAK-90;
      and AK63D.5; and

   2. appointing Hagens Berman and Angelo Marino, Jr. as class
      counsel.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=DIOAL7pr

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          Angelo "Tony" Marino, Jr., Esq.
          ANGELO MARINO, JR, P.A.
          645 SE 5th Terrace
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 765-0537
          Facsimile: (954) 765 0545
          E-mail: amjrpamail@aol.com
                  amjrpal@hotmail.com

               - and -

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

Attorneys for Defendants:

          Ryan L. Erdreich, Esq.
          Anthony M. Pisciotti, Esq.
          Danny C. Lallis, Esq.
          Jeffrey M. Malsch, Esq.
          PISCIOTTI MALSCH
          30 Columbia Turnpike, Suite 205
          Florham Park, NJ 07932
          Telephone: (973) 245 8100
          Facsimile: (973) 245 8101
          E-mail: rerdreich@pmlegalfirm.com
                  apisciotti@pmlegalfirm.com
                  dlallis@pmlegaLfirm.com
                  jmalsch@pmlegalfirrn.com


CENTURYLINK INC: Faces ERISA Class Action in Colorado
-----------------------------------------------------
Gordon Gibb, writing for Lawyers and Settlements, reports that an
ERISA lawsuit was filed at the end of November in Colorado
alleging mismanagement of a stock fund that resulted in losses
for the defined contribution plan participants.

According to Court documents, the benefit plan lawsuit was filed
November 30 in US District Court for the District of Colorado.
The defendant in the class action is CenturyLink Inc., among
others.

CenturyLink, according to Court documents, appointed a subsidiary
as its retirement plan investment fiduciary in 2011. That
subsidiary is identified as CenturyLink Investment Management
(CIM).  The next year, in 2012 CIM undertook the formation of
CenturyLink, Inc. Defined Contribution Plan Master Trust. In
order to populate the new entity, assets of CenturyLink's two
401(k) retirement plans were merged into the Master Trust.

Plaintiffs claim that CenturyLink then re-established the
investment options for the plan, which is reported to have
included a number of custom funds designed by CIM.

Plaintiffs allege underperforming retirement plan was mismanaged

PlanSponsor (12/06/17), a newsletter serving the investment
industry, noted in its reporting of the class action pension plan
lawsuit that the entity at issue is the CenturyLink Dollars &
Sense 401(k) Plan and the Active Large Cap US Stock Fund.

The complaint notes that CenturyLink hired no fewer than six
different investment firms to manage the large cap fund.
However, in spite of their efforts the fund is reported to have
underperformed the Russell 1000 Stock Index -- identified as the
benchmark -- on a consistent basis.  That underperformance,
plaintiffs allege, exceeded two percentage points or more below
the benchmark in every year since the investment option was
created in 2012.

This, in deference to the stated objective of the large cap fund
-- which was, to "exceed the return of a broad market index of
the largest 1,000 companies using an actively managed, multi-
manager approach."

Plaintiffs also allege the existence of a flaw that heightened
risk for loss

However, it appears the strategy was not effective in meeting its
stated objectives.  Not only did the large cap fund underperform,
say plaintiffs -- but that a design flaw inherent with the fund
"virtually guaranteed" that the fund would underperform.

"This design flaw was built-in by [CenturyLink], by using six
different fund managers with the same mandate (five active and
one passive)," the complaint states.  "The odds of the five
active managers outperforming the market in aggregate were highly
remote due to the efficiency of the large cap domestic equity
market and the difficulty of even one manager outperforming for
more than a year.

"Because of the highly efficient nature of the large cap domestic
equity market, companies are generally fairly valued and excess
returns are hard to produce over time. Furthermore, the five
active managers would inevitably take competing positions and
cancel out each other's strategy," the lawsuit states.
"Effectively, the fund managers will be trading stocks among
themselves as one manager overweights a stock that another
manager chooses to underweight."

Retirement benefits Plan alleged to have floundered for five
years

To wit, plaintiffs suggest that within the confines of such a
market it was not a reasonable expectation that five active
managers engaged in managing the funds would have any opportunity
to over perform, in aggregate.

Plaintiffs in the class action employee stock lawsuit opine that
CIM knew, or at least should have been aware that the inherent
design of the large-cap fund was flawed and that the fund was
underperforming, thereby limiting the returns for Plan
participants.  Alleged to be aware of the chronic
underperformance and the design flaw, CIM is accused of breaching
its fiduciary duties under ERISA by failing to take action to
right the ship, as it were.  Instead, CIM allowed the fund to
flounder for five years without taking action, or so it is
alleged.

"Even in an optimistic scenario, it would have only been
reasonable to assume the strategy would effectively turn the
actively managed large cap fund into an expensive large-cap
domestic index fund," plaintiffs suggest.  "This also would have
been unreasonable given the existence of the 'US Stock Index
Fund,' a fund heavily weighted to large cap equities, as a plan
option."

Further, the large-cap fund "was one of only three stock funds
offered by the Plan and the only large-cap stock investment
option," plaintiffs allege.  "Moreover, the large-cap fund
comprised up to 16 percent of the underlying investments in each
of the target-date funds offered by the Plan, which reduced the
performance of those funds as well."

The Employee Retirement Income Security Act (as amended 1974)
provides strict guidance to those tasked with managing
investments within 401(k) plans.  Managers are required to always
put the investor first in the equation.  It is the Plan manager's
fiduciary duty under ERISA, therefore, to undertake investments
that are prudent and are made in the best interest of Plan
participants. ERISA also assumes that when faced with a Plan that
is chronically underperforming, it is the fiduciary duty of Plan
managers to understand what is wrong and -- once found --
undertake steps to improve the situation on behalf of investors.

Lead plaintiff in the class action is Bonnie Birse.  The lawsuit
is Birse et al v. CenturyLink, Inc. et al, Civil Action No. 1:17-
cv-2872 in the US District Court for the District of Colorado.
[GN]


CHARLES SCHWAB: Loses Motion to Force Arbitration in ERISA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
John Manganaro, writing for planadviser, reports that a district
court judge has denied a motion by Charles Schwab that sought to
mandate an employee's lawsuit alleging self-dealing under the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) to instead
proceed via individual arbitration, rather than as a class action
in federal court.

By way of background, the initial lawsuit was filed in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California
almost exactly one year ago on Jan. 24, labeled as Severson vs.
Charles Schwab.  This new ruling, rejecting arbitration as an
acceptable outcome in the self-dealing affair, is technically
labeled separately as Dorman vs. Charles Schwab -- but Dorman is
a plaintiff in that original case, and so the matters are
interrelated in important ways.

After the filing of the initial Severson lawsuit and these
related claims, Charles Schwab moved to compel individual
arbitration and, on that basis, dismiss the lawsuits, or stay the
litigation pending the outcome of individual arbitration. In
their motion, the attorneys noted that the arbitration provisions
in Schwab's retirement plan document and severance agreement
clearly fall within the scope of the Federal Arbitration Act
(FAA).  The plan document's arbitration provision broadly
encompasses "any claim, dispute, or breach arising out of or in
any way related to the Plan," and extends to the ERISA claims
asserted, they said. The Schwab attorneys further contended the
arbitration provision of the plaintiff's severance of employment
agreement likewise embraces the ERISA claims, insofar as it
requires arbitration of "any dispute or breach arising out of or
in any way related to employment."

The new ruling in Dorman vs. Charles Schwab forcefully denies the
financial services company's motion to force arbitration and/or
dismiss the lawsuit.

Stepping through the logic of the decision, the judge points out
that the Federal Arbitration Act provides that any agreement
within its scope "shall be valid, irrevocable, and enforceable,
save upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the
revocation of any contract."  The judge notes the FAA represents
"a liberal federal policy favoring arbitration agreement,
notwithstanding any state substantive or procedural policies to
the contrary."  But even with such a liberal standard in place,
the judge found Charles Schwab's motion to mandate arbitration to
be unconvincing.  Important to this decision is that, in
considering a motion to compel arbitration, a court considers two
distinct items -- whether a valid arbitration agreement exists
and whether the agreement encompasses the dispute at issue.

On the first matter, the court finds Schwab has fallen short:
"Defendants argue that the Plan Document binds Dorman.  But the
Plan Document provided by Defendants was dated January 1, 2016,
and executed on June 13, 2016, over a year after Dorman
terminated his participation in the Plan on December 18, 2015. .
. . The Plan Document issued a year after Dorman ceased
participation in the Plan cannot apply to his claims.  To hold
otherwise would be inequitable because it would allow a plan
defendant to amend the plan documents unilaterally at any time,
even after a participant has brought suit against the defendant,
and put the participant at a disadvantage.  Defendants provide no
authority supporting their contention that a plan document
executed after the participant has ceased participation in the
plan can bind the participant to arbitration."

The decision continues, rejecting the second of Schwab's
approaches: "Defendants argue that Form U-4's arbitration
provision encompasses Dorman's claims because the provision
covers 'any dispute, claim or controversy' between Dorman and
Schwab.  Defendants read this provision out of context.  The
provision actually states, 'I agree to arbitrate any dispute,
claim or controversy that may arise between me and my firm, or a
customer, or any other person, that is required to be arbitrated
under the rules, constitutions, or by-laws of the SROs indicated
in Section 4.'  The arbitration provision does not apply to any
dispute between Dorman and Schwab, but only those that are
required to be arbitrated under the rules, constitutions, or
by-laws of the SROS indicated in Section 4.  This section lists a
number of SROs, or self-regulatory organizations such as FINRA,
but mentions nothing whatsoever about the Plan. Defendants fail
to explain adequately why the language of this provision
encompasses Dorman's claims."

The judge goes on to note that, while Schwab contends that
Dorman's breach of fiduciary duty claims are ones "arising out of
or relating to his employment or termination of employment," it
is not clear that defendants are correct.

"Defendants themselves contend elsewhere that ERISA claims are
not ordinarily viewed as work-related legal claims," the decision
states.  "Moreover, the arbitration provision contains an
exception for 'claims for benefits under any ERISA-governed
employee benefit plan(s),' which are to be resolved according to
the 'claims procedures under such benefit plans.' Dorman's
claims, which arise not under the Compensation Plan but under the
Schwab Plan, are therefore governed by the claims procedures of
the Schwab Plan.  Because the arbitration provisions cited by
Defendants do not encompass Dorman's claims, they do not require
him to submit his claims to arbitration."

Among some additional matters discussed in the decision, the
judge points out that, even if the arbitration provisions cited
by Schwab encompassed Dorman's claims, the provisions could not
be enforced.  This is because Dorman brings his claims pursuant
to ERISA Sections 502(a)(2) and 502(a)(3) "on behalf of the
plan." He cannot waive rights that belong to the plan, such as
the right to file this action in court.

"The Court recently resolved this question in a similar case,
Cryer v. Franklin Templeton," the decision observes.  "There, a
release and class action waiver signed by the plaintiff could not
be enforced against the plaintiff's Sec 502(a)(2) claims brought
on behalf of the plan.  Relying on Bowles v. Reade (9th Circuit
1999), the Court explained that a plan participant cannot settle,
without the plan's consent, a Sec 502(a)(2) breach of fiduciary
duty claim seeking 'a return to [the plan] and all participants
of all losses incurred and any profits gained from the alleged
breach of fiduciary duty.' . . . The vast majority of courts have
concluded that an individual release has no effect on an
individual's ability to bring a claim on behalf of an ERISA plan
under Sec 502(a)(2).  By the same token, a participant bringing a
Sec 502(a)(2) claim also cannot release the right to file in court
or the right to file a class action on behalf of a plan, which
also belong to the plan.  The Court therefore concluded that the
release and class action waiver could not be enforced against the
plaintiff's claims brought in a representative capacity on behalf
of the plan. . . . Here, too, enforcement of the arbitration and
class action provisions would violate the principles set forth in
Bowles v. Reade."

Important to note, defendants sought to seal redacted portions of
the Compensation Plan Acknowledgment filed in support of their
motion to compel arbitration or stay the case.  This motion was
approved.


CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: AG Against Natural Gas Royal Case Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Laura Legere, writing for Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, reports that
Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro is pushing back
against pressure to resolve the state's case alleging unfair
treatment of thousands of landowners by natural gas drilling
companies.

Chesapeake Energy Corp. recently reached a $30 million settlement
agreement with Pennsylvania landowners in separate, private
class-action cases based on allegations of improper or inflated
deductions from gas royalty payments.

But attorneys for the Oklahoma-based company told a federal judge
in late December that the company reserves the right to pull out
of those proposed settlements -- covering all 14,000 of its
Pennsylvania gas-producing leases -- if it can't resolve the
attorney general's case as well.

In an editorial and a letter to the judge, Mr. Shapiro and a
senior attorney in the office have called the company's position
a pressure tactic.

"I have no intention of allowing these companies to force our
hand or shut us up," Mr. Shapiro wrote in a guest editorial on
New Year's Eve in the Scranton Times-Tribune.

In a statement on Jan. 19, he reiterated his position, saying the
state "sued to put an end" to the misconduct of "energy companies
ripping off landowners."

"There is nothing stopping these companies from settling in a
totally separate case," he said.  "We'll continue to pursue our
case on behalf of every impacted landowner in Pennsylvania."

Splitting the cases

Mr. Shapiro's firm stance has reassured landowner advocates who
complain that the class action settlements' payments are paltry
and its protections are meager.  But it threatens to annoy other
landowners who are impatient to be paid and judges who are eager
to see all sides reach an agreement.

The attorney general's office alleges Chesapeake violated the
state's unfair trade practices law by inflating prices for
shipping gas from wells to pipelines and then passing the costs
on to Marcellus Shale royalty owners, whose monthly checks
sometimes diminished to zero.

In the case filed in 2015, it also accuses the company of
engaging in deceptive leasing practices and colluding with Texas-
based Anadarko Petroleum Corp. to keep bonuses and royalty rates
low in some counties.

The attorney general's office views its case in state court as
independent and has urged the company to sign off on the class-
action settlements negotiated.  At the same time, the office is
asking the federal court to ensure that it does not limit the
state's right to pursue its own claims under Pennsylvania'a
unfair trade practices law -- an objection that Chesapeake
attorneys say is delaying resolution of the private cases.

"Chesapeake, not the Commonwealth, owns any delay in whether it
follows through on its commitment to compensate the class,"
Senior Deputy Attorney General Joseph Betsko wrote in a Jan. 5
letter to U.S. District Judge Malachy Mannion.

The state's attorneys have declined to participate in voluntary
court mediation for now, but said they will continue settlement
discussions with Chesapeake while they also pursue their case in
state court.

The attorney general's office has assured Chesapeake that any
settlement in the class actions would be used to offset any
future monetary judgment in its own case.  Chesapeake's attorneys
have rejected the offset idea, saying it would leave the company
in the untenable position of fighting a parallel lawsuit about
the same issues it is trying to resolve with the class-action
settlements.

"That's cold comfort for an entity that really wants not only to
settle it, Judge, but have new and better relationships" with
landowners, Chesapeake attorney Daniel Donovan said during the
Dec. 20 status conference in Scranton with Judge Mannion,
according to a transcript of the meeting.

Anadarko has not yet reached a settlement with landowners in its
own Pennsylvania royalty cases, but it is considering a structure
similar to the Chesapeake settlements only if it can get a
"global resolution" involving the attorney general's case, its
attorney Guy Lipe said at the December conference.

Landowners waiting for money

Landowner advocates are split about the attorney general's
approach.  Some are encouraging him to push for a better deal,
while attorneys representing the landowners in federal court
would prefer him to step out of the way.

Commissioners in Bradford County, in the heart of Chesapeake's
northeastern Pennsylvania leasehold, are unhappy with the
outlines of the proposed settlement they've heard.  Commissioner
Daryl Miller called it "peanuts."

"There have been hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars
that have left our area" in questionable deductions, he said.
"With a $30 million settlement? Are you kidding me?"

He said the attorney general's stance is a productive one, and
local landowners he's spoken with are glad the state case is
moving forward.  "But there is also a skepticism," he said.
"They just feel that all of this is being dragged out and it's
taking way too long."

Jackie Root, president of the state chapter of the National
Association of Royalty Owners, said landowners deserve better
than the terms of the proposed settlements, under which, "most
people are going to gain very little" but will likely give up a
lot "for many decades to come."

Landowners' attorneys in the class-action cases, meanwhile, are
discouraged by the attorney general's position, even if they
respect his intentions.

"They may win, but they also may lose," Larry Moffett, an
attorney for one group of class-action plaintiffs.  "What we do
know is the outcome of the AG's case is uncertain, and it will
probably take years to resolve.

"We, on the other hand, have money -- a lot of it -- in hand that
should be distributed now, and could be if the Pennsylvania
attorney general would step aside and allow it to be done."

A payment for each landowner

The proposed class-action settlements involve two pieces: a
payment for each landowner that will refund a portion of the past
deductions, and a reset of lease language that will give
landowners the choice of how they would like to be paid going
forward.

The settlement payment will be distributed proportionally based
on how much was deducted from each landowner, Mr. Moffett said,
so people with small properties will generally receive less than
those with large farms.

"There is a wide range of amounts," he said, but he added, "This
is not a coupon settlement.  It is real money. For some people,
the checks, I suspect, will be substantial."

Going forward, landowners will be able to decide whether they
want to receive royalties based on a regional index price for the
value of gas, without any deductions, or the usually higher price
Chesapeake receives when it sells its gas in other markets, minus
the costs of processing and transportation to get it there.

The second option is similar to the way royalties are calculated
now, but protections will be written into the agreement to ensure
future deductions are based on actual, reasonable costs,
Mr. Moffett said, although the precise terms are still being
worked out.

The landowners' and companies' attorneys are joined by the judges
in both the state and federal cases in pushing the attorney
general's office to participate in mediation to resolve all of
the matters together.

At the December conference, Judge Mannion called it "bureaucratic
and not practical" for the state to decline to participate in
mediated negotiations.

Senior Judge Kenneth Brown, who is presiding over the state's
case in Bradford County Court, wrote to the attorneys on Jan. 12
to schedule a settlement conference "in the interest of achieving
a global resolution of both cases."

A recent decision by Judge Brown largely in the commonwealth's
favor could buttress the attorney general's position in
negotiations with the companies.

But the county judge's move to allow two crucial questions of law
to be immediately appealed to the state Commonwealth Court has
given Chesapeake's attorneys confidence in their own position.

"Chesapeake remains committed to achieving a global resolution of
the claims pending in this court, as well as Bradford County,"
Daniel Brier, one of the company's attorneys, wrote to Judge
Mannion on Jan. 19.  But if the attorney general's office commits
itself to lengthy and expensive litigation, he added, "Chesapeake
is confident" that the company "will be fully successful in its
defense."

Another status conference is expected to be held in federal court
in February.  Judge Mannion has asked a high ranking
representative of the attorney general's office to attend. [GN]


CHICKIE'S AND PETE'S: Faces "Slivak" Suit in E.D. Penn.
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Chickie's and
Pete's, Inc. The case is styled as Jessica Slivak, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Chickie's and Pete's, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-00241-PD
(E.D. Penn., January 19, 2018).

Chickie's & Pete's is an American bar and restaurant business
privately owned and headquartered in Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   ARKADY ERIC RAYZ, Esq.
   KALIKHMAN & RAYZ LLC
   1051 COUNTY LINE ROAD, SUITE A
   HUNTINGDON VALLEY, PA 19006
   Tel: (215) 364-5030
   Fax: (215) 364-5029
   Email: erayz@kalraylaw.com


CHINA AGRITECH: High Court to Decide on Statutory Tolling Issue
---------------------------------------------------------------
Erica Rutner, Esq. -- erutner@lashgoldberg.com -- of Lash &
Goldberg, in an article for Law.com, reports that On Dec. 8,
2017, the U.S. Supreme Court granted China Agritech's certiorari
petition in Resh v. China Agritech, 857 F. 3d 994 (9th. Cir.
2017).  In accepting certiorari, the Supreme Court will decide
whether a class action filing tolls the limitations period for
putative class members who wish to file additional class actions
-- an issue that fundamentally impacts the often-criticized
practice of filing successive class action litigations.

Under existing U.S. Supreme Court precedent in American Pipe &
Construction v. Utah, 414 U.S. 539 (1974) and Crown, Cork & Seal
v. Parker, 462 U.S. 345 (1983), the commencement of a class
action tolls the statute of limitations for individual claims
later brought by putative class members.  However, the Supreme
Court did not specify in either of these cases that the filing of
a putative class action tolls the statutory period for claims
later brought as another class action. As a result of this
ambiguity, a sharp circuit split has developed among the U.S.
Courts of Appeals.  The Eleventh Circuit has long held, and has
recently affirmed, that the pendency of a class action does not
toll the statute of limitations for putative class members who
wish to file additional class actions, as in Griffin v.
Singletary, 17 F. 3d 356, 359 (11th Cir. 1994); Ewing Industries
v. Bob Wines Nursery, 795 F. 3d 1324, 1328 (11th Cir. 2015). The
Eleventh Circuit reasoned that plaintiffs may not "piggyback one
class action onto another and therefore engage in endless rounds
of litigation . . .  over the adequacy of successive named
plaintiffs to serve as class representatives." Appellate courts
in the First, Second, Third, Fifth and Eighth Circuits have all
reached the same or similar conclusions.   As each of these
courts have acknowledged, adopting this conclusion is critical in
preventing abuse of the class action device. Under current
Supreme Court precedent, the denial of class certification is not
binding on unnamed members of the putative class.  Thus, putative
class members can -- and frequently do -- file successive class
actions even after the denial of class certification.  Imposing a
statute of limitations on putative class members who wish to
bring additional class actions is one of the only available ways
to prevent the indefinite filing of successive class actions.

In contrast with the decisions reached in these Circuits, the
Ninth Circuit concluded in Resh v. China Agritech that a putative
class action does toll the statute of limitations for additional
class claims.  In so concluding, the Ninth Circuit reasoned that
"the current legal system" adequately responds to concerns
regarding the abusive filing of repeated class actions since
potential future plaintiffs will have little to gain from
repeatedly filing new suits and would be unwilling to assume the
financial risk in doing so.  It further articulated that
"ordinary principles of preclusion and comity will further reduce
incentives to relitigate frivolous or already dismissed class
claims."  The Sixth and Seventh circuits have reached conclusions
similar to that in Resh.

Following the Ninth Circuit's decision in Resh, the defendant
China Agritech filed a certiorari petition with the U.S. Supreme
Court.  In its petition, China Agritech outlines the clear
circuit split on this issue and the various reasons why it
believes the Ninth Circuit's reasoning is flawed.  Among the
arguments it makes, China Agritech spends significant time
criticizing the efficacy of the comity principles relied upon by
the Ninth Circuit -- which are the same principles the Supreme
Court has previously relied upon in finding that a denial of
certification is not binding on unnamed putative class members.
Now that the Supreme Court granted certiorari over this divisive
issue, there is little doubt that the law in at least some
circuits across the country will change, and it possible that
long-standing law in the Eleventh Circuit will be impacted.
Indeed, given that the Supreme Court is so selective in the types
of class action cases it reviews -- and that those cases which it
does review often effectuate a significant shift in class action
jurisprudence -- it is likely that the decision will have lasting
impact for years to come.   Importantly, as made clear by China
Agritech's brief and the numerous appellate courts that have
agreed with China Agritech, the issue of statutory tolling has
far reaching implications on the abusive filing of successive
class actions. Thus, the Supreme Court's decision may shed light
not only on the narrow issue of statutory tolling but also on
whether -- and how -- courts should deal with litigants who
engage in repeated rounds of class action litigation.  For class
action litigants across a variety of industries, the Supreme
Court's decision will be an important one to watch. [GN]


CLEVELAND PUBLIC: Faces Class Action Over Unexplained Charges
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jasmine Monroe, writing for WKYC, reports that customers of
Cleveland Public Power say strange, unexplained charges keep
showing up on their bills.  Charges that are adding up.

86-year-old Elizabeth Hirko has been living in Old Brooklyn for
several years now.

She always pays her bills on time.  She even keeps those bills
after she pays them, just in case she needed to revisit one.

Recently she noticed a recurring "energy adjustment charge."

"When you call, they give you the run around," Elizabeth says.
"They don't give you any answer, they just say it's through the
government."

Elizabeth is on a fixed income.  She noticed the charge in
December and looked back to find she's been paying these charges
for the last year.

She recently received a notice in the mail about a class action
lawsuit against Cleveland Public Power for not notifying
customers about the fees. Elizabeth found out she's one of 70,000
people being charged for an "environmental and ecological
adjustment."

It's not clear why some customers have to pay the fee and others
don't.

Attorney Jack Landskroner tells us the lawsuit simply states that
CPP was in breach of contract and they will seek damages for all
customers who were charged.

Meanwhile, people like Elizabeth Hirko just hope their bills will
go back to being affordable.

The good news is if you have this charge on your bill, you don't
have to do anything to be a part of the class action lawsuit. If
you don't, you can opt out by writing a letter. [GN]


COOK COUNTY, IL: Few African Americans Hired as Jail Officers
-------------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH D.G. SIMPSON, FREDERICK MERKERSON, MAURICE RICHARDSON, and
JONATHAN HARRIS, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. COOK COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE, COOK
COUNTY SHERIFF'S MERIT BOARD, and COUNTY OF COOK, the Plaintiff,
the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-00553 (N.D. Ill., Jan. 24,
2018), seeks to remedy race discrimination in employment against
African Americans applying to be Correctional Officers at the
Cook County Department of Corrections -- in violation of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Illinois Civil Rights Act, and the
Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution.

According to the complaint, for decades, a substantial proportion
of the sworn sheriff deputies employed as Correctional Officers
at the Cook County Department of Corrections have been African
American. Public sector employment has historically been an
important source of employment for African Americans.  See
https://is.gd/MY5udr  These employment patterns have held true in
Cook County, where African Americans make up approximately 25% of
the workforce but hold a higher percentage of public sector jobs,
including as Cook County Correctional Officers.

Despite the historic availability of these positions to qualified
African Americans, since at least 2013, there has been a
substantial drop off in the number and percentage of African
Americans hired as Correctional Officers in Cook County.
According to the CCSO's own EEO-1 data for fiscal year 2015, the
CCSO hired 251 protective service officers -- but only 42 of
those new officers were African American. And according to
additional data provided to the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission in its investigation of the charges of racial
discrimination filed by the Plaintiffs in this case: (a) the
CCSO's November 16, 2015
Correctional Officer class had only four African Americans in a
class of 47 new hires (8.5%); (b) the January 25, 2016 class had
only seven African Americans in a class of 52 new hires (13.5%);
and (c) the April 18, 2016 class had only five African
Americans in a class of 39 new hires (12.8%).

Since 2013 at least, the disproportionate rejection of African
American applicants in the hiring process has been so well-
settled and pervasive as to constitute the de facto equivalent of
a formal policy of excluding African Americans because of their
race. Unless enjoined by this Court, the Defendants will continue
to discriminate against African Americans applying to be
Correctional Officers for the CCSO and Cook County.

The Cook County Sheriff's Office is the principal law enforcement
agency that serves Cook County, Illinois. It is the second
largest sheriff's department in the United States, with over
6,900 members when at full operational strength.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Marni Willenson, Esq.
          Samantha Kronk, Esq.
          WILLENSON LAW, LLC
          542 S. Dearborn St., Suite 610
          Chicago, IL 60605
          Telephone: (312) 508 5380
          E-mail: marni@willensonlaw.com
                  skronk@willensonlaw.com


CREDIT PROS: "Eisenband" Suit Alleges TCPA Violation
----------------------------------------------------
Jerry Eisenband, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. The Credit Pros International Corporation,
Case No. 0:18-cv-60053 (S.D. Fla., January 10, 2018), is brought
against the Defendant for violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant, a nationwide credit
repair company, engaged in a wide-scaling telemarketing campaign
consisting of automated calls to the cellular telephones of
Plaintiff and others, without consumers' prior express written
consent.

Plaintiff is a natural person who, at all times relevant to this
action, was a resident of Broward County, Florida.

Defendant is a foreign profit corporation with its principal
place of business located at 60 Park Place, Suite 306, Newark,
New Jersey 07102.  Defendant directs, markets, and provides its
business activities throughout the State of Florida.   [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq.
      HIRALDO P.A.
      401 E. Las Olas Boulevard
      Suite 1400
      Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
      Tel: (954) 400-4713
      E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com


CREDIT SUISSE: Feb. 20 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
---------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") on Jan. 24 disclosed that a
class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors that
purchased Credit Suisse Group AG ("Credit Suisse" or the
"Company") (NYSE: CS) securities between March 20, 2015 and
February 3, 2016, inclusive (the "Class Period").  Credit Suisse
investors have until February 20, 2018 to file a lead plaintiff
motion.  To obtain information or actively participate in the
class action, please visit the Credit Suisse page on our website
at www.glancylaw.com/case/credit-suisse-group-ag-0

Investors suffering losses on their Credit Suisse investments are
encouraged to contact Lesley Portnoy of GPM to discuss their
legal rights in this class action at 310-201-9150 or by email to
shareholders@glancylaw.com.

The Complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading
statements regarding the Company's business, operational and
compliance policies.  Specifically, Defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Credit
Suisse's risk protocols and control systems were routinely
disregarded; (ii) Credit Suisse was amassing billions of dollars
of risky, highly illiquid securities, in violation of those risk
protocols; and (iii) as a result, Credit Suisse's statements
about Credit Suisse's business, operations, and risk controls
were false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

If you purchased shares of Credit Suisse during the Class Period
you may move the Court no later than February 20, 2018 to ask the
Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff if you meet certain legal
requirements. To be a member of the Class you need not take any
action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or
take no action and remain an absent member of the Class. If you
wish to learn more about this action, or if you have any
questions concerning this announcement or your rights or
interests with respect to these matters, please contact Lesley
Portnoy, Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los
Angeles California 90067 at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-
9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our
website at www.glancylaw.com.  If you inquire by email please
include your mailing address, telephone number and number of
shares purchased.


DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Faces "Schultz" Suit in D.C.
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against District of
Columbia. The case is styled as Jesse P Schultz, III, John G.
Baker and Alexander Stokes Contompasis, on behalf of himself and
those similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. District of Columbia,
Peter Newsham, Lamar Greene, Robert Alder, Jeffery Carroll, Keith
Deville, Paul Niepling, Michael Howden, Melvin Washington,
Gregory Rock, Daniel Thau and Anthony Alioto, Defendants, Case
No. 1:18-cv-00120 (D. D.C., January 19, 2018).

The Defendants are government agency and representatives.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

   Jeffrey Louis Light, Esq.
   LAW OFFICES OF JEFFREY LIGHT
   1712 Eye Street, NW, Suite 915
   Washington, DC 20006
   Tel: (202) 277-6213
   Fax: (202) 223-5316
   Email: jeffrey@lawofficeofjeffreylight.com


DUKE UNIVERSITY: Court Certified Faculty Class in "Seaman" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled DANIELLE SEAMAN, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. DUKE
UNIVERSITY, DUKE UNIVERSITY HEALTH SYSTEM, WILLIAM L. ROPER, and
DOES 1-20, the Defendants, Case No. 1:15-cv-00462-CCE-JLW
(M.D.N.C.), the Court entered an order:

   1. granting in part Plaintiff's motion for certification of a
      litigation class, and denying otherwise;

   2. certifying a faculty class of:

      "all natural persons employed by Defendants and their co-
      conspirators in the United States during the period from
      January 1, 2012 through the present (the "Class Period") as
      a faculty member with an academic appointment at the Duke
      or UNC Schools of Medicine. Excluded from the Class are:
      members of the boards of directors and boards of trustees,
      boards of governors, and senior executives of Defendants
      and their co-conspirators who entered into the illicit
      agreements alleged herein; and any and all judges and
      justices, and chambers' staff, assigned to hear or
      adjudicate any aspect of this litigation.";

   2. appointing Dr. Danielle Seaman as class representative; and

   3. appointing Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, and
      Elliot Morgan Parsonage, P.A., as class counsel.

The Court said, "Dr. Seaman has met the Rule 23 requirements for
certification of a class composed of faculty members. She has met
the Rule 23(b)(3) requirements by demonstrating that questions
and proof common to the faculty will predominate over any
individual questions and proof and that class adjudication is the
superior method of adjudication for faculty. All of her asserted
theories and proposed proof are common to a class composed of
faculty. Inclusion of the proposed non-faculty class members
would involve differences in proof and would raise significant
manageability and fairness issues so that certification of a
class including non-faculty is not appropriate. Dr. Seaman also
has met the Rule 23(a) requirements. She established that she is
a member of the faculty class and that the other faculty class
members are ascertainable. She has established that a class
composed of faculty members satisfies the numerosity,
commonality, and adequacy of representation requirements of Rule
23(a)(1), (2), and (4). Dr. Seaman is a member of the proposed
class and therefore satisfies the typicality requirement of Rule
23(a)(3)."

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=CBHwRg7l


DYNEGY INC: Rigrodsky & Long Files Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., on Jan. 24 disclosed that it has filed a
class action complaint in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Texas on behalf of holders of Dynegy
Inc. ("Dynegy") (NYSE:DYN) common stock in connection with the
proposed acquisition of Dynegy by Vistra Energy Corp. ("Vistra
Energy") announced on October 30, 2017 (the "Complaint").  The
Complaint, which alleges violations of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 against Dynegy, its Board of Directors (the "Board"),
and Vistra Energy, is captioned Paskowitz v. Dynegy Inc., Case
No. 4:18-cv-00027 (S.D. Tex.).

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 October 29, 2017, Dynegy entered into an agreement and plan of
merger (the "Merger Agreement") with Vistra Energy.  Pursuant to
the terms of the Merger Agreement, shareholders of Dynegy will
receive 0.652 shares of Vistra Energy common stock for each share
Dynegy 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, Dynegy's and
Vistra Energy's financial projections, the analyses performed by
Dynegy's financial advisors, and potential conflicts of interest.
The Complaint seeks injunctive and equitable relief and damages
on behalf of holders of Dynegy common stock.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court
no later than March 26, 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.


EDGE OF THE DELLS: Asks Court to Decertify Class in "Jones" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Defendants ask the Court to decertify the Fair Labor
Standards Act class that was conditionally certified in the
matter styled Teriana Jones, et al. v. Edge of the Dells, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-00125-jdp (W.D. Wisc.).

The Defendants are Edge of the Dells, Inc., P.T.B., Inc. d/b/a
Cruisin' Chubbys Gentlemen's Club, Kenny's Future, LLC, Living on
the Edge Campground & Go-Karts, Inc., Timothy Enterprises, LLC,
Southern Heights, LLC, Timothy D. Roberts, Kenneth C. Roberts and
Lantz Ray Roberts.

The Plaintiffs cannot satisfy the requirements for maintenance of
a collective action under the FLSA, the Defendants argue.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=4RpUeGS2

The Defendants are represented by:

          Laurie E Meyer, Esq.
          Anthony J. Steffek, Esq.
          DAVIS & KUELTHAU, S.C.
          318 S. Washington Street, Suite 300
          Green Bay, WI 54301
          Telephone: (920) 435-9378
          Facsimile: (920) 431-2277
          E-mail: Laurie.Meyer@dkattorneys.com
                  asteffek@dkattorneys.com


EKSO BIONICS: "Cheehy" Suit Alleges Exchange Act Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------
Steven G. Cheehy, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Ekso Bionics Holdings, Inc., Thomas Looby
and Maximilian Scheder-Bieschin, Case No. 3:18-cv-00212 (N.D.
Calif., January 10, 2018), seeks to recover compensable damages
caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws
and to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

This is a federal securities class action on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons other than Defendants who purchased or
otherwise acquired common shares of Ekso between March 15, 2017
and December 27, 2017, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period").

Plaintiff Steven G. Cheehy purchased Ekso securities at
artificially inflated prices during the Class Period and was
damaged upon the Defendant's revelation of corrective disclosure.

Defendant Ekso Bionics Holdings, Inc. designs, develops, and
sells exoskeletons for use in the healthcare, industrial,
military, and consumer markets in North America, Europe, the
Middle East, and Africa. The Company operates through Medical
Devices, Industrial Sales, and Engineering Services segments. It
primarily offers Ekso GT, a bionic suit that provides the ability
to stand and walk over ground to individuals with spinal cord
injuries, hemiplegia, and lower limb paralysis or weakness.
Defendant Ekso is incorporated in Nevada, and the Company's
principal executive offices are located at 1414 Harbour Way
South, Suite 1201, Richmond, California 94804.  Ekso's common
stock trades on the NASDAQ under the ticker symbol "EKSO."

Individual Defendant Thomas Looby is the Chief Executive Officer
of Ekso.

Individual Defendant Maximilian Scheder-Bieschin is the Chief
Financial Officer of Ekso. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

          - and -

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


ENHANCED RECOVERY: Placeholder Class Cert. Bid Filed in Gajewski
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled JENNIFER GAJEWSKI and LUISA AVILES,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the
Plaintiffs, v. ENHANCED RECOVERY COMPANY, LLC, the Defendant,
Case No. 2:18-cv-00180-WED (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiffs ask the
Court to enter an order certifying proposed classes in this case,
appointing the Plaintiffs as class representatives, and
appointing Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as Class Counsel, and for such
other and further relief as the Court may deem appropriate.

The Plaintiffs further ask that the Court stay this class
certification motion until an amended motion for class
certification is filed, and that the Court grant the parties
relief from the local rules' automatic briefing schedule and
requirement that Plaintiffs 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=nnIU1D8B

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Judge Tosses Shareholder Derivative Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dunstan Prial, writing for Law360, reports that a federal judge
in New York on Jan. 23 dismissed a shareholder suit against
Express Scripts claiming company officials misled investors about
the pharmacy benefit managers' rocky partnership with Anthem
Inc., saying the shareholders, led by trustees of the Carpenters
Pension Fund of West Virginia, failed to meet federal
requirements for a derivative action.


FABRIKANT FINE: "Camacho" Suit Alleges ADA Violation
----------------------------------------------------
Jason Camacho, all others similarly situated v. Fabrikant Fine
Diamonds, Inc., Case No. 1:18-cv-00169 (E.D. N.Y., January 10,
2018), is brought against the Defendant for violation of the
American with Disabilities Act because the Defendant's website is
not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers.

Plaintiff Jason Camacho, at all relevant times, is a resident of
Brooklyn, New York. Plaintiff is a blind, visually-impaired
handicapped person.

Defendant operates Fabrikant stores as well as the Fabrikant
website and advertises, markets, distributes, and/or sells
Diamonds and related jewelry in the State of New York and
throughout the United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Daniel C. Cohen, Esq.
      DANIEL COHEN, PLLC
      300 Cadman Plaza W., 12th Fl.
      Brooklyn, NY 11201
      Tel: (646) 645-8482
      Fax: (347) 665-1545
      E-mail: dan@dccohen.com

          - and -

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


FACEBOOK INC: Austrian Privacy Activist Can't Bring Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Julia Fioretti, writing for Reuters, reports that an Austrian
privacy activist cannot bring a class action lawsuit against
Facebook for alleged privacy violations but can sue the company
himself in his home country, the European Union's highest court
ruled on Jan. 25.

The Court of Justice of the European Union (ECJ) said Max Schrems
could bring a case against the U.S. company under consumer law as
an individual, but could not bring claims on behalf of the more
than 25,000 signatories to his lawsuit.

Mr. Schrems alleges Facebook has illegally violated the privacy
rights of European users, including by helping a U.S. spy agency.
Facebook rejects his assertions, which date back to 2014, and
says it has always complied with European data protection laws.

"Mr Schrems may bring an individual action in Austria against
Facebook Ireland," the court said in a statement, referring to
Facebook's European headquarters.

"By contrast, as the assignee of other consumers' claims, he
cannot benefit from the consumer forum (consumer law) for the
purposes of a collective action."

Mr. Schrems had sought to claim 500 euros ($620) in damages for
each of the signatories to his lawsuit, but Facebook argued the
Austrian courts had no jurisdiction and that Schrems could not
benefit from consumer protection laws.

Facebook said Mr. Schrems stopped being a consumer when he used a
page for professional purposes.  Under EU law, consumers are
allowed to sue companies in their home country, as opposed to the
one where the company is established.

"The decision by the European Court of Justice supports the
previous decisions of two courts that Mr. Schrems's claims cannot
proceed in Austrian courts as "class action" on behalf of other
consumers," said a spokeswoman for Facebook.

Mr. Schrems said the ruling was a "huge blow" for Facebook as his
individual lawsuit against the company could go ahead in a Vienna
court and Facebook would have to explain whether "its business
model is in line with stringent European privacy laws."

Facebook's Chief Operating Officer Sheryl Sandberg traveled to
Europe to meet with policymakers and said the social network
would make it easier for users to manage their privacy settings
ahead of the entry into force of a tough new data privacy law.

Mr. Schrems recently set up a non-profit organization, noyb, that
will seek to enforce citizens' rights under the new law and said
privacy class actions would be possible under it.

MISSING PIECE OF CONSUMER PROTECTION
While Austria recognizes some forms of class action law suits,
Ireland does not.

The ECJ said only the person who concluded the original contract
with the business could sue under consumer law in his or her home
country.  The same applies to a consumer to whom the claims of
other consumers have been assigned, the court said.

"Since only the original consumer can sue, there is no
possibility to bring a class action in Austria," Mr. Schrems said
in a video on Twitter after the ruling.

The European Consumer Organization (BEUC) said the ruling exposed
"a missing and vital piece of the consumer protection jigsaw."

"It is another stark illustration that there are legal and
procedural barriers which prevent people from seeking collective
access to justice. Due to the high costs, it is often not
realistic for consumers to go to court alone, especially when the
harm they have suffered is rather small in monetary terms," said
Monique Goyens, director general of BEUC.


FAY DA BAKERY: Cashiers, Bakers Sue Over Illegal Deductions
-----------------------------------------------------------
Bing Zhen Zheng, Sha Lin, Ji Zhou and Weijie Wen, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
Panarium Kissena Inc., Panarium Kissena Inc., Panarium Inc.,
Boulangerie De Fay Da Inc., Patisserie De Fay Da, LLC, Le Petit
Pain Inc., Bravura Sky View Corp., La Pan Miette Inc., Fay Da
(Queens) Corp., Fay Da Mott St., Inc., Fei Dar, Inc., Le Pain Sur
Le Monde Inc., Bravura LLC, Chi Wai Corp., Phadarian Corp., Fay
Da Main Street Corp., Torta Di Fay Da Inc., Bravura Patisserie
(Bell Blvd.) Corp, Nicpat Cafe Inc., Fay Da On Broadway LLC, Fay
Da Roosevelt Gen 2 Corp, Fay Da Manufacturing Corp. Fay Da
Holding Corp., Fay Da Holding Gen 2 Corp., Han Chieh Chou, Kellen
Chow, Chi Chi Chou, James C. Chou, Katie Peterson Chou, Lin Ge Ma
Chou, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-00253 (E.D. N.Y., January 14,
2018), seeks to recover illegal meal deductions and unpaid
minimum wages, liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment
interest and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act, Connecticut General Statutes, New Jersey State
Wage and Hour Laws and Regulations, New Jersey Administrative
Code and the New York Labor Law.

Defendants operate as Fay Da Bakery where Bing, Sha and Ji worked
as cashiers while Weijie worked as baker. Defendants are accused
of illegal meal deductions without informing Plaintiffs, illegal
tip credits, non-reimbursement of laundry of uniforms and paying
below mandated minimum wage rates. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      John Troy, Esq.
      TROY LAW, PLLC
      41-25 Kissena Boulevard Suite 119
      Flushing, NY 11355
      Tel: (718) 762-1324
      Fax: (718) 762-1342
      Email: johntroy@pllc.com


FCA US: "DeShetler" Suit Alleges LMRA Violations
------------------------------------------------
Robert L. DeShetler, Jr., et al., individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated v. FCA US LLC, International Union,
United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers
of America, and United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural
Implement Workers of America, Region 2B, Case No. 3:18-cv-00078
(N.D. Ohio, January 11, 2018), is brought against the Defendants
for breach of a collective bargaining agreement pursuant to the
Labor Management Relations Act.

This action arises from Plaintiffs' employment at, and subsequent
termination from, a substantial automobile assembly plant in
Toledo, Ohio operated by Defendant FCA US LLC. Although
employment numbers varied over time, FCA US LLC employs, and the
UAW Defendants represent, thousands of workers at the Jeep
Complex.

Plaintiffs are individuals who were induced to "retire" from
Chrysler to work at nominally independent suppliers and fired
when Chrysler unilaterally abandoned the arrangement.

Defendant FCA US LLC is a foreign limited liability company
organized under the laws of the State of Delaware.

Defendant International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and
Agricultural Implement Workers of America is one of the largest
and most diverse labor organizations in the United States,
representing over 400,000 active workers and 580,000 retirees.

Defendant United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement
Workers of America, Region 2B is a labor organization and is a
constituent part of the UAW International Union responsible for
overseeing and supporting UAW locals in Ohio and Indiana. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Leslie O. Murray, Esq.
      Michael J. Stewart, Esq.
      MURRAY & MURRAY CO., LPA
      111 East Shoreline Drive
      Sandusky, OH 44870
      Tel: (419) 624-3125
      Fax: (419) 624-0707
      E-mail: lom@murrayandmurray.com
              stewart@murrayandmurray.com


FERGUSON ENTERPRISES: Faces "Conner" Suit in C.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ferguson
Enterprises, Inc. The case is styled as Raymond Conner, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, and as an
"aggrieved employee" on behalf of other "aggrieved employees"
under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004,
Plaintiff v. Ferguson Enterprises, Inc., a Virginia corporation,
Wolseley Investments, Inc., a Virginia corporation and Does 1
through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-00504 (C.D.
Cal., January 19, 2018).

Ferguson Enterprises, Inc., headquartered in Newport News,
Virginia, United States, is the largest plumbing wholesaler in
North America and a major distributor of HVAC&R equipment,
waterworks and fire protection products, and industrial pipes,
valves and fittings.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


FIELDTURF USA: Montgomery County Joins Synthetic Turf Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Neal Augenstein, writing for WTOP, reports that after years of
assuring the safety and cost-effectiveness of the synthetic turf
field at Montgomery Blair High School, Montgomery County,
Maryland's Parks Department has joined a nationwide class-action
suit against the field's manufacturer.

The suit questions the quality of the field, which is made of
shredded rubber, and the concussion standards associated with it.

Six fields at Montgomery County Public Schools are made by
FieldTurf, although only five are made of rubber.

The field at Blair is owned and maintained by the Maryland-
National Capital Parks and Planning Commission.

"The Parks Department just has one of these fields, but the
school system has many," said Dan Sheveiko, of the Civic
Federation's Environment Committee.

The class-action suit, which includes Virginia and the District
of Columbia, alleges that "FieldTurf misrepresented the
reliability, performance, and cost-effectiveness of its turf
fields."

"The fibers -- how they're attached to the matrix -- have failed,
so the tire crumb rubber that the fields are made of, shredded
tires, are no longer held in place," said Mr. Sheveiko.

The class-action suit focuses on the manufacturing and durability
of the turf, and says it doesn't meet concussion standards.

"Just the concussion aspect of the problem turns out to be a
deadly hazard, in and of itself," he told WTOP. "All these years
these two agencies have maintained that these fields are safe and
cost-effective."

The website for Montgomery County Public Schools says the school
system maintains five synthetic turf fields at high schools:
Richard Montgomery; Walter Johnson; Gaithersburg; Paint Branch;
Thomas S. Wootton; and Somerset Elementary.

The field at Somerset Elementary, installed in 2016, uses organic
cork infill, rather than crumb rubber.

Testing conducted at the Somerset field showed no problem with
any of the heavy metals or carcinogens alleged to be present in
the rubber field.

According to the school system's website, each rubber field
requires $10,000 of annual maintenance.

Elaine Akst, president of the Somerset Elementary School
Foundation, said the Somerset field's maintenance is considerably
less expensive, and paid for by the Somerset community through an
educational foundation.

"These fields are more expensive than natural grass," said
Mr.  Sheveiko.  "Someone needs to ask why we can't grow natural,
good-smelling, fresh and safe natural grass."

Mr. Sheveiko and his group also are concerned that the shredded
tires used to make the fields contains 12 known carcinogens.

"We closely review the conditions of our fields on an ongoing
basis," said Montgomery County Public Schools spokesman Derek
Turner, when asked if the system would join the class action
suit.  "We will continue to evaluate all options with regards to
our fields."

FieldTurf has disputed claims made against the company in several
states. [GN]


GENESEE COUNTY, MA: Lawyers Seek Approval of $200K Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Oona Goodin-Smith, writing for MLive, reports that lawyers are
asking a federal judge to approve a $200,000 settlement that
would bring an end to a lawsuit alleging the Genesee County
sheriff awarded business favors to the county's process serving
company in exchange for political favors.

In a motion filed in Detroit U.S. District Court on Jan. 23,
attorney Scott Batey requested U.S. District Judge George Caram
Steeh approve a $200,000 payout from the county, sheriff, and the
Allen & Hope Processing company in exchange for ending a year-
long court battle over an alleged pay-to-play process serving
employment system.

All parties have signed off on the proposed settlement, according
to court records.

A hearing on the proposed settlement was scheduled for Jan. 29.

According to the proposed settlement, Genesee County Sheriff
Robert Pickell and the county would pick up $150,000 of the tab,
while Scott Hope -- Genesee County's executive director of
process servers -- and his company, Allen & Hope Processing would
pay the remaining $50,000.

If approved by a judge, the settlement would then be divided
among each of the case's 12 named plaintiffs, nine unnamed class-
action participants and Mr. Batey, as follows:

  -- $9,774.22 to each of the 12 plaintiffs,
  -- $730 to each of the nine class-action participants,
  -- $66,666.60 in attorney fees to the Batey Law Firm, PLLC,
  -- $9,472.60 reimbursed to the Batey Law Firm, PLLC in costs.

The $730 payouts would cover the costs the plaintiffs paid to be
deputized, according to the motion.  However, there were concerns
how much other financial damage could be established if the case
were to proceed to trial, according to the motion.

During an extensive discovery period in the case -- involving 120
subpoenas, over 3,000 pages of documents and depositions of
Sheriff Pickell and nine of the former process servers --
information was disclosed that "creates some risk for all parties
in moving forward," Michael Edmunds, Sheriff Pickell's attorney,
wrote in response.

"Defendants have entered into this agreement to avoid further
expense and to bring an end to the political attacks that this
litigation has fueled," Mr. Edmunds' response said.

"There is always some pressure to settle because there is always
some risk -- especially in a class-action case like this,"
Edmunds said.

In early January, racketeering claims alleging Sheriff Pickell,
Hope and his company "unlawfully steered business" to process
serving organization for personal political donations and favors
were voluntarily dropped and then dismissed by a judge. The move
was part of settlement negotiations, Mr. Batey's motion said.

During deposition, process servers in the case testified that
they were political supporters of Sheriff Pickell and that they
hadn't participated in political activities against the sheriff,
Edmunds wrote.

Filed in January 2017 by Mr. Batey on behalf of several former
county process servers, the lawsuit claimed an alleged pay-to-
play deputizing system allowed process servers -- individuals who
perform numerous court-related tasks, including serving legal
documents -- to receive work as deputies and agents of the
Genesee County Sheriff's Office.

The suit also alleged that Sheriff Pickell, Hope and Hope's
company worked as a "loosely knit business enterprise" designed
to "financially enrich" the three by collecting checks from
process servers wanting to work in the county and to keep Sheriff
Pickell in office and attack his opponents.

Court filings claimed that the money collected from process
servers went to Sheriff Pickell personally, the Committee to
Retain Sheriff Pickell or a charity of Sheriff Pickell's choice.

In November 2017, the lawsuit against the sheriff and Hope became
a class action case, adding unnamed former process servers to the
case.

Up until December 2016, the requirements to receive process
serving work in Genesee County included being deputized in a
mandatory class hosted by Hope and optional payment, which
Sheriff Pickell previously called a "training fee."

In January 2017, the system of deputizing process servers in
Genesee County moved into the courts, where, at zero cost, judges
authorize servers with similar authority as officers of the
court, Sheriff Pickell previously said.

Process servers were appointed as court officers no later than
Jan. 20, 2017, Edmunds' response said.

A Freedom of Information Act request from MLive-The Flint Journal
showed that the county has no record of receiving eight checks
totaling $1,375 from plaintiff John Harrington, which were
attached to the lawsuit as evidence.  The lawsuit claims the
checks were intended to cover a required fee to deputize process
servers.

Instead, the checks -- all written between 2007 and 2013 -- were
deposited into a trust account at ELGA Credit Union, Hope
previously told MLive-The Flint Journal.

The checks were made out to "Genesee County Sheriff Robert
Sheriff Pickell," "Genesee County Sheriff" and "Genesee County
Sheriff's Department."

Some of the checks were endorsed with a signature reading "Scott
L. Hope."

None of the checks, despite being made out to county entities,
were deposited in county bank accounts.

Mr. Hope told MLive-The Flint Journal that he received checks for
$140 per person for a yearly training to deputize the process
servers who worked for attorneys in the county and deposited the
checks into a trust fund at the ELGA Credit Union in Burton.

While Mr. Hope said the fund wasn't a personal account, he
declined to comment further on the account or the checks.  He
also declined to comment on why he was able to deposit checks
made out to other named parties into the account.

Genesee County, in its FOIA response, claimed it "does not
maintain any accounts with Elga [sic] Credit Union, the financial
institution which most of the provided checks were deposited
into."

Sheriff Pickell previously called the claims against him
"frivolous," adding that "anyone with $150 can file a lawsuit and
say anything they want about a person."


GOPRO INC: Arora Files Securities Class Action in Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------
Vikas Arora, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. GoPro, Inc., Nicholas Woodman, and Brian McGee, Case
No. 3:18-cv-00265 (N.D. Calif., January 11, 2018), seeks to
recover compensable damages caused by Defendants' violations of
the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

This is a federal securities class action on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants who
purchased or otherwise acquired common shares of GoPro between
August 4, 2017 and January 5, 2018, both dates inclusive.

Plaintiff, as set forth in the accompanying Certification,
purchased GoPro securities at artificially inflated prices during
the Class Period and was damaged upon the revelation of
corrective disclosure.

Defendant GoPro develops and sells mountable and wearable
cameras, and accessories in the United States and
internationally. The Company is incorporated in Delaware and its
principal executive offices are located at 3000 Clearview Way,
San Mateo, California 94402.

The Individual Defendants are officers of GoPro. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

          - and -

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


HARRIS COUNTY, TX: Judges Face Query in Cash Bail System Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Cameron Langford, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports
that the federal judge who forced Texas' biggest county to
overhaul its bail system ordered Harris County criminal judges on
Jan. 23 to prove they did not withhold evidence of policies
against releasing poor misdemeanor defendants from jail.

U.S. District Judge Lee Rosenthal issued a preliminary injunction
in April 2017 that added momentum to a national trend of states
and cities, including New Jersey, Alaska, Chicago and
New Orleans, turning away from cash bail systems that put poor
misdemeanants at risk of losing their jobs and custody of their
children as they sit in jail.  A similar class action was
recently filed against Dallas County.

Judge Rosenthal found Harris County's practice of having
magistrates set bail at probable cause hearings with a fee
schedule based on the charges unconstitutionally favors those who
can afford cash bail.

Harris County, home to Houston, has more than 4.5 million
residents and is the third-most populous county in the nation.

Starting in early June 2017, Judge Rosenthal ordered Harris
County to release on personal recognizance bonds within 24 hours
poor misdemeanor defendants who sign affidavits stating they
cannot afford bail.  Personal bonds do not require a cash
payment.

Represented by the Washington, D.C.-based Civil Rights Corps,
which has filed lawsuits seeking bail reforms in several states,
lead plaintiff Maranda ODonnell brought a class action against
Harris County in May 2016.

Ms. ODonnell, 24, was arrested on a misdemeanor charge of driving
with an invalid license and a magistrate set her bail at $2,500.
She said her detention kept her from a new restaurant job she
needed to care for her young daughter.  She also sued the Harris
County sheriff, its 16 criminal court judges and five
magistrates.

Harris County has since hired eight more magistrates, some of
whom work part time.  The new hires are not defendants in the
class action.

County criminal judges testified before Judge Rosenthal last
spring that in August 2016 they discontinued an informal practice
of advising magistrates not to grant personal bonds.

But that testimony was called into question after state Senator
John Whitmire, D-Houston, complained to a state judicial ethics
board in December 2016 that videos of probable cause hearings
showed three defendant magistrates were not considering
misdemeanor arrestees' ability to pay bail.

The Texas Commission on Judicial Conduct publicly reprimanded the
magistrates, Eric Hagstette, Joseph Licata III and Jill Wallace
on Jan. 10 this year.

In its three similarly worded rebukes, the commission ordered the
magistrates to take four hours of instruction from a mentor about
magistration and setting bonds.

Mr. Hagstette appeared before the commission with his attorney on
Dec. 7, 2017 and provided emails from a state criminal judge and
a county criminal judge advising him not to grant personal
recognizance bonds.  Mr. Hagstette indicated he had to follow the
judges' bond policies or risk being fired by them.

In Texas, felony court judges preside over courts with state
jurisdiction. County criminal judges preside over misdemeanor
courts.

"Hagstette testified that the hearing officers 'didn't write the
policies, but we had to follow them.' Regarding the hearing
officers making bond determinations on cases, he stated: 'Could I
do something? Probably by law, I could have. I don't know if it
would have been good for my career,'" according to his reprimand.

The commission found that Mr. Hagstette, Mr. Licata and Ms.
Wallace "failed to maintain competence in the law, by strictly
following directives not to issue personal bonds to defendants
per the instructions of the judges in whose court the underlying
cases were assigned."

The commission published the reprimands on Jan. 10.
Ms. ODonnell's attorneys sent Rosenthal a letter a week later,
asking for a hearing on whether county criminal judges, including
Judge Diane Bull, lied under oath in the bail case.

"The commission quotes an email from Judge Diane Bull that
states: 'Please instruct the probable cause hearing officers to
withhold their rulings on all pre-trial release applications for
defendants,'" the letter from Neal Manne with Susman Godfrey in
Houston states.

It continues: "This quote, if accurate, appears to be
inconsistent with Judge Diane Bull's testimony in her sworn
declaration: 'The Criminal Law Hearing Officers are independent
magistrates for the purpose of setting bail amounts and deciding
whether to grant personal bonds in misdemeanor cases.  I do not
supervise them.'"

Judge Rosenthal ordered all the county criminal court judges and
magistrates who are defendants in the lawsuit to attend the
Jan. 23 hearing.  They sat among the more than 60 people packed
into the gallery.

Michael Kirk -- mkirk@cooperkirk.com -- partner in the
Washington, D.C. firm Cooper Kirk, is defending 14 of the
county's 16 criminal court judges.

Mr. Manne asked Judge Rosenthal to order the county to produce
all documents the three censured magistrates gave to the state
judicial commission.

County attorneys agreed to produce those records once they get
them from the commission.

Mr. Manne said the felony court judges' instructions to the
magistrates on setting bail are relevant because they show a
system in which magistrates abided by all judges' rules.

"It defies logic that (Hagstette) would defer to the known
preferences of district [felony] judges, but ignore the known
preferences of county criminal judges," Mr. Manne said.

He said the county criminal judges did not comply with his
discovery request for all communications about their bail
policies for two years starting in November 2014.

Siding with Mr. Manne, Judge Rosenthal ordered the county to
provide the class with correspondence about "anything effecting
bail" by Feb. 23. She also agreed that judges and magistrates
should answer questions about unwritten "oral constraints"
against personal recognizance bonds.

Judge Rosenthal ended the hearing with a message to the judges
she had summoned.

"I asked you all to be present individually to make clear how
very serious this issue is," she said.  "It wasn't any kind of
implied rebuke or criticism, or any indication of how I will come
down on the merits."

She said she wants to make clear she is taking seriously the
issues raised by the judicial commission because the county's
bail system affects so many people's lives.

Though Harris County started phasing in reforms in July 2017
geared toward granting more misdemeanor defendants personal
bonds, it has asked the Fifth Circuit to dismiss Judge
Rosenthal's injunction.  A ruling from the New Orleans-based
appellate court is imminent.  It heard arguments last October.

The bail bond industry has filed amicus briefs supporting Harris
County.


HYATT CORPORATION: Associates Class Certified in "Matthews" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Robert J. Conrad, Jr., grants the Plaintiff's Pre-
Discovery Motion for Conditional Class Certification and Court-
Approved Notice to Potential Opt-In Plaintiffs in the lawsuit
titled CARLA MATTHEWS, and all similarly situated individuals v.
HYATT CORPORATION, Case No. 3:17-cv-00413-RJC-DCK (W.D.N.C.).

The case is conditionally certified as a collective action under
29 U.S.C. Section 216(b) consisting of all current and former
hourly Remote Associates who worked for Hyatt Corporation in the
United States at any time during the period between [3 years plus
21 days before date notice is sent] to the present.

The Parties have agreed as to the form and language of the Notice
and Consent Forms attached to their stipulation, as well as the
method of the Notices' dissemination, and the period of time
allotted to potential collective action members to timely opt in,
according to the Order.  The Plaintiffs' counsel is authorized to
disseminate Notice to the putative collective members.

The Defendant is ordered to, within 14 days of the Order, provide
to the Plaintiffs' counsel a list, in Excel format, containing
the name, last known address, telephone number, e-mail, and dates
of employment of all persons, who were employed by the Defendant
as hourly Remote Associates in the United States at any time
during the period between [3 years plus 21 days before date
notice is sent] to the present.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=z2Te49V8


HYUNDAI MOTORS: Class Certification in Fuel Economy Case Reversed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tina Bellon and Jonathan Stempel, writing for Reuters, report
that a U.S. appeals court on Jan. 23 overturned a lower court's
decision to grant class certification to car owners who settled
with Hyundai Motors (005380.KS) and its Kia (000270.KS) affiliate
over the fuel efficiency of its vehicles.

In their 2-1 order, the judges of the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the 9th Circuit said the lower judge had erred in concluding that
common questions existed to justify a class action status.

The companies in 2013 agreed to pay $395 million to resolve
claims from vehicle owners who had sued the company over
misrepresenting its vehicles' average mileage claims.

The lawsuits were filed after an investigation by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, which found that the companies
used improper test procedures to develop their fuel efficiency
data.

A 2012 restatement by Hyundai and Kia reduced the automakers'
fleetwide average fuel economy from 27 miles to 26 miles per
gallon for the 2012 model year.

Vehicles included the Hyundai Accent, Elantra, Veloster and Santa
Fe and the Kia Rio and Soul.

Hyundai in a statement said it continued to support the
nationwide settlement.  "We look forward to resolving the
remanded matter as expeditiously as possible," the company said.

Rob Carey, a Phoenix, Arizona-based lawyer who represents the car
owners, in a statement said he will seek further review in the
9th Circuit to resolve the issue.

"Our settlement puts real dollars in the pockets of consumers,"
Carey said.  "The Ninth Circuit's ruling sets up meaningless new
hurdles to settling a class case."

A U.S. District Court judge in 2015 gave the final approval of
the class settlement.  But the car owners brought five
consolidated appeals, challenging class certification, the
approval of the settlement and attorney fees, which they called
unreasonable in proportion to the payout the class members would
receive.

Lawyers representing the car owners had been awarded roughly $9
million in attorneys fees and costs, according to the Jan. 23
decision.

The majority of the appeals court judges on Jan. 23 agreed with
those arguments, finding that the lower court had failed to
define a relevant class by also including owners of used cars who
were not exposed to misleading advertising.

The judges said the court had failed to calculate the
settlement's value to ensure attorney fees were not excessive.

But they added that the lower court, on reconsideration, could
decide to certify a class again if it first determined the
agreement's value. [GN]


IDAHO: Class Action Over Public Defender System Can Proceed
-----------------------------------------------------------
Sara E. Teller, writing for Legal Reader, reports that an Idaho
court has ruled that a lawsuit filed by the state's American
Civil Liberties Union over public defender funding can move to
class action status.  "This decision is about ensuring even the
most vulnerable among us have adequate legal representation and
that public defenders have the time and resources they need to
defend their clients against the colossal resources government
can use to lock up Idahoans, break up their families, and take
away their liberty," ACLU of Idaho Executive Director Leo Morales
said of the proposed class action.

The order indicated, "This case will examine the State and the
Public Defense Commission's policies and practices concerning
public defender services in the state of Idaho," and decide
"whether, by abdicating its responsibility to adequately fund,
supervise, and administer indigent defense services to the
counties, the State has failed to ensure that indigent defendants
are provided with effective legal representation, all in
violation of the United States and Idaho constitutions."

The lawsuit against the state began in 2015 on behalf of four
plaintiffs who had claimed their public defender representation
was inadequate.  The initial lawsuit named Idaho's Public Defense
Commission and Governor Butch Otter as defendants, but this was
ultimately dismissed the following year.  The lawsuit was
reinstated in 2017, removing Otter from defendant list.  Now that
the proposed class action has been approved more plaintiffs who
say they've received insufficient public defender representation
can be included.

The order reads that the eligible class includes "all indigent
persons who are now or who will be under formal charge before a
state court in Idaho of having committed any offense, the penalty
for which includes the possibility of confinement, incarceration,
imprisonment, or detention in a correction facility (regardless
of whether actually imposed) and who are unable to provide for
the full payment of an attorney and all other necessary expenses
of representation in defending against the charge."

The ACLU is claiming that the system is unable to handle the
amount of work that hits the desks of public defenders because
funding has been managed by individual counties instead of at the
state level.  Idaho argued against the class action, stating
there was no commonality between defendants who use public
defenders because of variations which exist between the counties.
However, the court ruled these differences were irrelevant to the
decision.

Of the current bandwidth issues and lack of proper structure,
ACLU spokesperson, Jeremy Woodson, said, "Some of that stuff is
really nonexistent -- not because the public defenders are
deficient in some way, but because really, the system and
everything that's been put in place to help them, there's just
not much there."  He explained that results in public defenders
simply not having the time to adequately work for all of their
clients, and innocent people, therefore, having to plead guilty,
later getting out of jail and rebuilding their lives.  The ACLU
has long proposed changes be made to provide proper funding.

Other concerns detailed in the order include, "the widespread use
of fixed-fee contracts; extraordinarily high attorney caseloads
and workloads; lack of consistent, effective, and confidential
communication with indigent clients; inadequate, and often
nonexistent, investigation of cases; lack of structural
safeguards to protect the independence of defenders; lack of
adequate representation of children in juvenile and criminal
court; lack of sufficient supervision; lack of performance-based
standards; lack of ongoing training and professional development;
and lack of any meaningful funding from the State."


ILLINOIS: Kolton et al. Seek to Certify Class of Property Owners
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled ANTHONY D. KOLTON et al., individually and
on behalf of a class of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, v. MICHAEL W. FRERICHS, Treasurer of the State of
Illinois, the Defendant, Case No. 16-cv-03792 (N.D. Ill.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying a class of:

   "all persons who are owners of property in the Illinois
   unclaimed property program that is in the form of money."

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=rsHR5XSf

Counsel for Plaintiffs Anthony D. Kolton, S. David Goldberg and
Jeffrey S. Sculley and the Proposed Class:

          Terry Rose Saunders
          THE SAUNDERS LAW FIRM
          120 North LaSalle Street, Suite 2000
          Chicago, Illinois 60602
          Tel: 312-444-9656
          E-mail: tsaunders@saunders-lawfirm.com

               - and -

          Thomas A. Doyle, Esq.
          WEXLERWALLACE LLP
          55 West Monroe Street, Suite 3300
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 346 2222
          E-mail: tad@wexlerwallace.com

               - and -

          Arthur Susman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF ARTHUR SUSMAN
          55 WestWacker Drive, Suite 1400
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 800 2351
          E-mail: arthur@susman-law.com


INTEL CORP: Class Actions Pile Up Over Processor Vulnerabilities
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jacob Maslow, writing for Legalscoops.com, reports that chipmaker
Intel is facing at least three class-action lawsuits over major
processor vulnerabilities.

Known as Spectre and Meltdown, the flaws exist in nearly every
modern processor and give hackers the ability to steal sensitive
information.  While the vulnerabilities have been detected, no
data breaches have been reported as of yet.

The Meltdown flaw primarily affects Intel processors that have
been made since 1995.  The Spectre flaw affects processors made
by a wide range of manufacturers.

Three class-action lawsuits have been filed by plaintiffs in
Oregon, California and Indiana.  More lawsuits are expected in
the near future.  All of the lawsuits cite the processor's
security flaw and the company's delay in disclosing the
vulnerabilities to the public. Researchers first alerted Intel to
the issue in June.

Intel in a statement said that it would be "inappropriate to
comment" while the proceedings are ongoing.

In an earlier statement, Intel said, "Contrary to some reports,
any performance impacts are workload-dependent, and, for the
average computer user, should not be significant and will be
mitigated over time."

Legal experts warn that consumers must be able to prove that the
flaws have caused damages to proceed with claims.

Cloud service providers, like Amazon, Microsoft and Google, will
likely seek compensation from Intel for the hardware and software
changes they will be forced to make.

Microsoft, Amazon and Google have all stated that they do not
expect significant performance problems while addressing the
issue.

The Financial Services Information Sharing and Analysis Center
said banks are still trying to determine how much it will cost to
respond to the security issue.

"In addition to the security considerations raised by this design
flaw, performance degradation is expected, which could require
more processing power for affected systems to compensate and
maintain current baseline performance," the group said in a
statement. [GN]


INTER-CON SECURITY: Blumenthal Nordrehaug Files Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
The Riverside labor law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug
Bhowmik De Blouw LLP filed a class action lawsuit against Inter-
Con Security Systems, alleging that the company failed to
properly calculate overtime compensation for their hourly
employees.  Furthermore, the complaint alleges that Inter-Con
Security Systems failed to provide mandatory meal and rest breaks
to its security guard employees.  The Inter-Con Security Systems
lawsuit, Case No. RIC1801134, is currently pending in the
Riverside County Superior Court for the State of California.

The class action complaint claims that the company paid their
security guard employees a non-discretionary incentive wage based
upon their performance for the company.  The complaint further
claims that the company also allegedly failed to provide
Plaintiff and the other members of the California Class with
complete and accurate wage statements which failed to show, among
other things, the correct overtime rate for overtime worked,
including, work performed in excess of eight (8) hours in a
workday and/or forty (40) hours in any workweek, and the correct
penalty payments or missed meal and rest periods. Cal. Lab. Code
Sec. 226 provides that every employer shall furnish each of his
or her employees with an accurate itemized wage statement in
writing showing, among other things, gross wages earned and all
applicable hourly rates in effect during the pay period and the
corresponding amount of time worked at each hourly rate.

According to the class action complaint, the company's security
guard employees were also allegedly unable to take off duty meal
breaks due to their rigorous work schedules.  California labor
laws require an employer to provide an employee required to
perform work for more than five (5) hours during a shift with, a
thirty (30) minute uninterrupted meal break prior to the end of
the employee's fifth (5th) hour of work and a second
uninterrupted meal break when employees are required to work ten
(10) hours.  The complaint alleges that the company did not
provide their security guard employees who forfeited meal breaks
additional compensation under the law.

If you think your company is violating the California Labor Code
and would like to know if you qualify to make a claim, please
contact attorney Nicholas J. De Blouw by calling (858) 952-0354.

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


IRISH ROVER STATION: Faces "Slivak" Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Irish Rover
Station House. The case is styled Jessica Slivak, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. The
Irish Rover Station House, Bru House, Inc. doing business as: the
Irish Rover Station House, Raymond Crouse doing business as: the
Irish Rover Station House and Tracey Crouse doing business as:
The Irish Rover Station House, Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-
00240-TJS (E.D. Penn., January 19, 2018).

The Irish Rover Station House is an Irish Restaurant.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   ARKADY ERIC RAYZ, Esq.
   KALIKHMAN & RAYZ LLC
   1051 COUNTY LINE ROAD, SUITE A
   HUNTINGDON VALLEY, PA 19006
   Tel: (215) 364-5030
   Fax: (215) 364-5029
   Email: erayz@kalraylaw.com


JAMES HARDIE: Leak Building Homeowners Face Financial Burden
------------------------------------------------------------
Rob Stock, writing for Stuff.co.nz, reports that West Auckland
artist Gary Stewart is one of the latest leaky building owners to
join a class action against cladding maker James Hardie.

He turns 65 this year, so the idea of raising a mortgage to
reclad his unit, one of several dozen in a block in a semi-
industrial area of the suburb of Henderson, doesn't appeal.

"I'm mortgage free," Mr. Stewart says.  "But because of this
leaky building I'm going to have to a mortgage of $180,000, which
is not what I want for my golden years."

But he admits, "I'd be lucky to get a 10-year mortgage at my age.
The only income I would be able to declare is the pension".

After reading about the class action being taken against
James Hardie by Wellington law firm Dan Parker and Associates,
Mr. Stewart hopes he won't have to borrow anything like that
amount, or at least be able to repay a large chunk of it quickly.

Mr. Stewart is on the body corporate of 2 Hulme Place, and now he
and other owners have signed up to Parker's class action, which
James Hardie is defending.

He is speaking publicly about his decision to join the lawsuit in
the hope of encouraging others to join, unimpressed that with
unknown thousands of leaky buildings out there, the Supreme Court
only gave until the end of January for people to sign up to
Parker's case, notice of around six weeks.

He also wants the public to know about the brutal economics of
being caught with a leaker 15 years after the leaky building
scandal first started making headlines.

Mr. Stewart faces a $2300 fee to join the class action, and then
a $10,000 contribution to the cost of taking the suit for this
year.  The case may not get to court until next year, meaning
more money is likely to be needed.

"If you can't come up with the money for a lawyer, you can't get
justice," Mr. Stewart says.

"They may not be big sums of money to Alan Gibbs, but they are
big sums of money for me."

In any leaky building complex block are owners with money, and
those without.

When the body corporate at Mr. Stewart's place called a special
vote to get the units reclad, it knew that some unit owners might
be forced to sell, or at the very best, borrow until the reclad
was done, before having to sell their home.

"They may still be out on the street, but at least they won't be
out there with no money," Mr. Stewart says.

Owners who can't raise finance after a body corporate votes for a
reclad may end up losing their homes.

Mortgage adviser Karen Tatterson from Loan Market says bridging
finance in such circumstances is hard to find, though if people
have plenty of equity and sufficient income, banks may give
people interest-only loans to complete recladding.

Critically, many have extra costs, such as having to rent a place
during the reclad.

Selling an unfixed leaker is hard.

Ms. Tatterson gave the example of clients of hers with a leaky
apartment in Howick.

In its current state, it is practically unsaleable, except to a
cashed up investor, as banks are not keen to lend on risky,
unfixed leakers, Ms.  Tatterson says.

But for those like her clients who can manage to get finance, it
is possible to undo some of the losses their leaker has caused
them.

"It's probably worth $500,000 now.  They spend $300,000 fixing
it, and it will probably be worth $1 million when it is
finished."

Doing nothing isn't an option.

Mr. Stewart's home was built just 15 years ago, but if nothing is
done, one day conditions will get so bad council inspectors may
condemn it.

Nobody knows how many unfixed leakers there are in Auckland, and
other urban centres.

Stewart says he and other owners were living in denial until
testing last year revealed the truth.

There was black, toxic mold, and, it turned out, no insulation,
he says.

With the government assistance package for homeowners having
closed, Parker says the class action is the last option left to
many leaky building owners.

"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."

The class action already contains building owners from Auckland,
Wellington, Christchurch and some from small towns, indicating
just how widespread the problem is, and how many leaky buildings
remain unfixed.

And even after all this time, there are building owners in
denial, or who have feared to get their places checked out.

"A number of owners have approached us unaware of any weather-
tightness issues with their properties," Parker says.

"After experts have investigated and found problems, those owners
have joined the claim.

But so far only around 85 people have joined.

It's not the only class action leaky building case heading to
court.

While Parker's focuses on Harditex and Titan Board, lawyer Adina
Thorn has begun a case against Carter Holt Harvey alleging its
Shadowclad cladding product was defective.

Thorn is also building a book of clients to take a case against
Auckland Council, and another against James Hardie.

Work on sites like the leaky townhouse complex at Kahui Place is
generating evidence for use in Thorn's James Hardie lawsuit.

Just before Christmas a video crew and forensic building expert
were on site gathering information.

Stewart is pretty black about the failures, including by
governments and local councils, that have left people with him
with liabilities of hundreds of thousands of dollars, and he
thinks, have now turned their backs on the problem.

"The market will deal with it in the long term, but it doesn't
care about the little people," he says. [GN]


JENNINGS GATE: Faces "Bueso" Suit in Eastern District New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Jennings Gate
Restaurant Inc. The case is styled as Dania Bueso and Freddy
Bueso, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. Jennings Gate Restaurant Inc. doing business as:
Storyville American Table, Sandra Finley and Shannon Finley, in
their individual capacity, Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-00380-
JFB-SIL (E.D. N.Y., January 19, 2018).

Jennings Gate Restaurant Inc. operates Storyville American Table,
a New Orleans-themed bar/eatery with Cajun & Creole dishes,
Sunday brunch & outdoor seating. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

   Delvis Melendez, Esq.
   90 Bradley Street
   Brentwood, NY 11717
   Tel: (631) 434-1443
   Fax: (631) 434-1443
   Email: delvisprlaw@aol.com


KENTUCKY: Medicaid Beneficiaries File Class Action
--------------------------------------------------
Britain Eakin, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that
Medicaid beneficiaries at risk of losing their health insurance
in Kentucky filed a federal class action on Jan. 24 challenging
experimental programs that require low-income people to work.

Attorneys with the National Health Law Program, the Kentucky
Equal Justice Center and the Southern Poverty Law Center filed
the complaint on behalf of 16 Kentuckians in response to sweeping
changes in how Kentucky will administer Medicaid under a waiver
program.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services on Jan. 11 rolled
out new guidelines allowing states to sever Medicaid benefits for
the unemployed, those not in school, and those not participating
in varying forms of "community engagement," such as job training,
care-giving and volunteer work.

"We think it's an abuse of discretion, and certainly doesn't
comply with the statutory and constitutional limitations on what
the executive branch can do," Anne Marie Regan, a senior attorney
for the Kentucky Equal Justice Center, said in a phone interview.

President Obama's federal health care law prohibits work
requirements for Medicaid eligibility, but the new CMS policy
allows states to circumvent the restriction by applying for a
waiver under Section 115 of the Social Security Act.

Kentucky was the first state to receive such a waiver to
implement the "Kentucky HEALTH" project, which CMS approved the
day after rolling out its new policy.

According to the complaint, Kentucky Governor Matt Bevin was
explicit about the project's goal: "It aimed 'to comprehensively
transform Medicaid.'"

This transformation includes a work requirement and imposition of
higher premiums and other coverage restrictions, according to the
79-page complaint.

The lawsuit claims roughly 95,000 Kentuckians will lose health
coverage over five years, saving the state $2.4 billion.

"This change will harm Kentuckians across the state --
housekeepers and custodians, ministers and morticians, car
repairmen, retired workers, students, church administrators, bank
tellers, caregivers, and musicians -- who need a range of health
services, including check-ups, diabetes treatment, mental health
services, blood pressure monitoring and treatment, and vision and
dental care," the complaint states.

The 16 plaintiffs, led by Ronnie Maurice Stewart, accuse CMS of
exceeding its authority in issuing the policy because only
Congress has the power to change Medicaid law.

Ms. Regan said the CMS violated the notice and comment
requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act.  She also sees
the change as an attempt to administratively kill the Medicaid
expansion program in Kentucky.

"They can't legislate changes in the Medicaid law, and that's
what they're trying to do," Ms. Regan said.  "They're trying to
eliminate the expansion administratively since they couldn't do
it in Congress."

The Social Security Act allows experimental programs, but only in
narrow circumstances and only if the programs promote Medicaid
objectives. Regan said work requirements "absolutely do not" fit
that objective.

Named as defendants are the Department of Health and Human
Services and its acting secretary Eric Hargin, the Centers for
Medicare and Medicaid Services, CMS administrator Seema Verma,
CMS deputy administrator Demetrios Kouzoukas, and Brian Neale,
the director of the Center for Medicaid and Chip Services.

Citing agency policy, CMS declined to comment on the lawsuit, and
Health and Human Services did not respond to an email seeking
comment.

During a press call with reporters on Jan. 11, CMS administrator
Verma said a growing body of evidence supports the new policy,
which suggests that productive work and community engagement may
improve health.  One study cited by the agency tied unemployment
to higher mortality rates and a decline in overall general and
mental health.

But Ms. Regan said Kentucky has seen vast improvements in health
outcomes since the state decided to expand Medicaid, which
insured about 450,000 people.

"A lot of them never had health insurance before.  We've seen a
lot of progress with folks getting preventive care, less
emergency room care, all those kinds of things, good indicators,"
Ms. Regan said.  "But this waiver, it's very clearly an attempt
to dismantle the Medicaid expansion. That's how we see it."

According to the lawsuit, the new Kentucky program will punish
the 16 plaintiffs in the case, who may be unable to meet its
requirements.

Lead plaintiff Stewart, 62, is retired and lives alone in
Lexington.  His monthly income is $841, though his monthly
expenses exceed that by about $200.  He makes just over $10,000
per year and has been enrolled in Medicaid since March 2014. He
cannot afford health insurance on his own, but needs treatment
for diabetes, high blood pressure and arthritis.

Under the new program, Mr. Stewart will be subject to work
requirements.

"Because of his age and health, he is no longer able to do heavy
work that would require standing on his feet all day," the
complaint states.  "He is concerned that he will lose his health
coverage if he is unable to work because of his health or if he
takes a job with varying hours."

According to the lawsuit, Mr. Stewart will be required to file
reports within 10 days concerning any changes in his income that
would affect his eligibility.  He will also be required to pay up
to 4 percent of his income for his Medicaid coverage.

This might mean he will not be able to afford other expenses,
such as food and rent, the complaint states.

Ms. Regan described Kentucky's new program as "punitive."

"There's all these penalties that we think are really designed to
entrap people and get them terminated because they just can't
comply with all this bureaucratic paperwork and red tape," she
said.

The plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief.


KOHL'S CORPORATION: "Collins" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------
Stacy Collins, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated individuals v. Kohl's Department Stores, Inc. and Kohl's
Corporation, Case No. 3:18-cv-00065 (D. Conn., January 11, 2018),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages,
attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the Connecticut Wage Act.

Plaintiff is an individual residing within this judicial
district. She worked as a Children, Footwear and Home Assistant
Store Manager or Assistant Store Manager of Human Resources and
Operations for Defendant from approximately June 2008 to October
19, 2017, at Defendant's Enfield, Connecticut and Manchester,
Connecticut stores.

Defendants own and operate retail department stores throughout
the United States, including Connecticut. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Richard E. Hayber
      HAYBER LAW FIRM, LLC
      221 Main Street, Suite 502
      Hartford, CT 06106
      Tel: (860) 522-8888
      Fax: (860) 218-9555
      E-mail: rhayber@hayberlawfirm.com

          - and -

      Gary Phelan, Esq.
      MITCHELL & SHEAHAN, P.C.
      80 Ferry Boulevard
      Stratford, CT 06615
      Tel: (203) 873-0240
      Fax: (203) 873-0235
      E-mail: gphelan@mitchellandsheahan.com


LEXISNEXIS: Faces "Morris" Suit in S.D. of Cal.
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against LexisNexis Risk
Solutions FL, Inc. The case is styled as Florence Morris,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. LexisNexis Risk Solutions FL, Inc., Defendant, Case
No. 3:18-cv-00128-AJB-WVG (S.D. Cal., January 19, 2018).

LexisNexis Risk Solutions Inc. provides data, analytics, and
technology solutions to help customers across industry and
government to assess, predict, and manage risk.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Matthew M. Loker, Esq.
   Kazerouni Law Group, APC
   1303 East Grand Avenue, Suite 101
   Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
   Tel: (800) 400-6808
   Fax: (800) 520-5523
   Email: ml@kazlg.com


LEXISNEXIS RISK: Faces "Winchell" Suit in E.D. of Virginia
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against LexisNexis Risk
Solutions FL, Inc. The case is styled Brad Winchell, Patrick
Inscho, George Hengle, Mark Montgomery and Elizabeth Jensen, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. LexisNexis Risk Solutions FL, Inc., Defendant, Case
No. 3:18-cv-00047-HEH (E.D. Va., January 19, 2018).

LexisNexis Risk Solutions Inc. provides data, analytics, and
technology solutions to help customers across industry and
government to assess, predict, and manage risk.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

   Andrew Joseph Guzzo, Esq.
   Kelly & Crandall PLC
   3925 Chain Bridge Rd, Suite 202
   Fairfax, VA 22030
   Tel: (703) 424-7576
   Fax: (703) 591-0167
   Email: aguzzo@kellyandcrandall.com

      - and -

   Casey Shannon Nash, Esq.
   Kelly & Crandall PLC
   3925 Chain Bridge Rd, Suite 202
   Fairfax, VA 22030
   Tel: (703) 640-3334
   Fax: (703) 591-0167
   Email: casey@kellyandcrandall.com

      - and -

   Kristi Cahoon Kelly, Esq.
   Kelly & Crandall PLC
   3925 Chain Bridge Rd, Suite 202
   Fairfax, VA 22030
   Tel: (703) 424-7570
   Fax: (703) 591-9285
   Email: kkelly@kellyandcrandall.com


LOS ANGELES, CA: Court to Approve Bugging Settlement on Jan. 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Johnson, writing for Page Six, reports that Evi and Randy
Quaid might be justified in some of their paranoia.  They say
they were among the victims of wiretapping private eye Anthony
Pellicano and his inside man at the Los Angeles Police
Department, Sgt. Mark Arneson.

Randy, 67, who was nominated for an Oscar and other awards for
his serious dramatic roles, was best known for his Cousin Eddie
character in the "National Lampoon's Vacation" movies before his
career derailed about eight years ago.

The Quaids claimed to be victims of "Star Whackers," a secret
cabal that they say are responsible for the deaths of David
Carradine and Heath Ledger.  The couple said Britney Spears and
Lindsay Lohan were also targets.

Now, they say they've learned they were part of a recently
settled class action suit against the LAPD and Sgt. Arneson, who
was paid by Mr. Pellicano to provide confidential law enforcement
records on hundreds of people.  Both Mr. Pellicano and Sgt.
Arneson are in prison. The suit was first filed in 2006.

"Everything we have said about being bugged, hacked and tracked
has been proven true," Evi told me, from an undisclosed location.

Undisclosed, because I asked her where she was and she wouldn't
tell me.

The Quaids' names were misspelled on the list of class victims,
Evi said, and no one informed them that they were on the list
until the lawsuit was settled.

The court is expected to approve a deal over the case on Jan. 30
that will pay a total of $285,600 to be divided among the 345
victims of Arneson's record checks.

But the Quaids don't stand to get paid because they've opted out
of the class.  "I want to know exactly what happened before I
settle," Evi said.

Randy -- whose last movie was in 2009, the home video release
"Balls Out: Gary the Tennis Coach" -- has a role in the comedy
"Weight," slated for release this year. [GN]


LOS ANGELES, CA: Court Certifies Class in Youth Justice Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Virginia A. Phillips grants a joint stipulation re:
class certification and amended class definition and the
unopposed motion to certify class and for appointment of counsel
in the lawsuit captioned Youth Justice Coalition, et al. v. City
of Los Angeles, Case No. 2:16-cv-07932-VAP-RAO (C.D. Cal.).

For 30 years, prosecutors in Southern California have used public
nuisance law to obtain civil injunctions prohibiting suspected
gang members from participating in a variety of activities.  At
issue in this case are the approximately 46 gang injunctions
issued by the City.  These injunctions restrict a variety of
activities, including criminal gang activities and otherwise
lawful activities that purportedly constitute a gang nuisance,
within a defined geographical area.

The Plaintiffs allege that the City's issuance and enforcement of
these gang injunctions violate the procedural due process
protections in the United States Constitution and the California
Constitution.  The City contends that the gang injunctions are an
effective means of reducing gang-related crime, and disputes
Plaintiffs' allegations that its policies and procedures are
unlawful.

The Parties' Stipulation, filed on November 6, 2017, included
this amended definition of the proposed class ("Class"):

    "All persons, past and future, whom an authorized agent of
     the City of Los Angeles has notified, whether by personal
     service or otherwise, that they are subject to a Los Angeles
     Gang Injunction and who (a) were not named as individual
     civil defendants, or who were not substituted in as Doe
     defendants, in the civil nuisance abatement action to obtain
     that injunction, and (b) who do not have contempt
     proceedings for violation of such an injunction currently
     pending against them."

The Parties also defined the term "Los Angeles Gang Injunction"
for the purposes of class certification as follows:

    "An injunction obtained by the People of the State of
     California represented by the Los Angeles City Attorney's
     Office, against a criminal street gang and its members as
     defined in Section 186.22 of the California Penal Code,
     pursuant to a nuisance abatement action, including, but not
     limited to, a common law nuisance abatement action or those
     brought pursuant to Section 3479 of the California Civil
     Code."

The Court appoints the ACLU Foundation of Southern California,
The Connie Rice Institute for Urban Peace, and Munger, Tolles &
Olson LLP as class counsel.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=21LF83Jh


LUKES LOBSTER: Faces "Godino" Suit in Eastern District New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lukes Lobster
Holding LLC. The case is styled as Michael Godino, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Lukes
Lobster Holding LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-00384 (E.D.
N.Y., January 19, 2018).

Lukes Lobster Holding LLC is in the Seafood Restaurants
business.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   C.K. Lee, Esq.
   Lee Litigation Group, PLLC
   30 East 39th Street
   2nd floor
   New York, NY 10016
   Tel: (212) 465-1188
   Fax: (212) 465-1181
   Email: cklee@leelitigation.com


MARIPOSA LANDSCAPES: Fails to Pay Wages, "Chavarria" Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
MARCO CHAVARRIA, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, the PLAINTIFF, v. MARIPOSA LANDSCAPES, INC., a
California corporation; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, the
Defendants, Case No. BC690689 (Cal. Super. Ct., Jan. 24, 2018),
seeks to recover unpaid wages and interest for Defendants'
failure to provide legally complaint meal periods and/or pay meal
period premium wages; failure to provide legally complaint rest
breaks and/or pay rest break premium wages; statutory penalties
for failure to provide accurate wage statements; waiting time
penalties in the form of continuation wages for failure to timely
pay employee all earned and unpaid wages due upon separation of
employment; applicable civil penalties; injunctive relief and
other equitable relief; and reasonable attorney's fees pursuant
to California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the Defendants employed Plaintiff as
an hourly non-exempt employee from in or around November 2012
until on or around August 20, 2017. The Plaintiff and similarly
situated employees would work on workdays in shifts of 10 hours
or more entitling them to two meal periods under California law.
Defendants maintained a policy, practice, and/or procedure,
however, that failed to provide for a second meal period when
non-exempt, hourly employees worked between 5 and 10 or more
hours in a day, throughout the class period. The Defendants also
failed to provide the employees with premium wages for these
missed second meal periods.

Mariposa Landscapes provides full-spectrum of landscape services
to commercial and municipal clients, residential estates, and
homeowner associations.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph Lavi, Esq.
          Andrea Rosenkranz, Esq.
          LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP
          8889 W. Olympic Blvd. Suite 200
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Telephone: (310) 432 0000
          Facsimile: (310) 432 0001
          E-mail: ilavi@lelawfirm.com
                  arosenkranz@lelawfirm.com


MDL 2619: Suit over Sale of Herbal Supplements Underway
-------------------------------------------------------
Twinlab Consolidated Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2017, that the case
entitled, In re: Herbal Supplements Marketing and Sales Practice
Litigation, MDL No. 2619, Case No. 1:15-cv-5070 is still ongoing.

Twinlab Consolidated is not a party to the multidistrict
litigation captioned In re: Herbal Supplements Marketing and
Sales Practice Litigation, MDL No. 2619, Case No. 1:15-cv-5070,
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The
case, which joined in a multidistrict litigation a number of
purported class actions arising from allegations raised by a
state attorney general claiming that DNA barcoding testing
conducted on behalf of the attorney general indicated that
certain herbal supplement products did not contain the herbal
ingredients stated on the label.

Twinlab Consolidated said "We do, however, pursuant to
contractual obligations, provide indemnity and defense with
respect to certain of the claims in this litigation. The
defendants in this litigation intend to take all necessary steps
to vigorously defend this matter."

Twinlab Consolidated together with its subsidiaries,
manufactures, markets, distributes, and retails nutritional
supplements and other natural products worldwide. The company
offers vitamins, minerals, specialty supplements, and sports
nutrition products under the Twinlab brand and the company is
based on Boca Raton, Florida.


MDL 2804: Tuscaloosa County Joins Opioid Crisis Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Kelvin Reynolds, writing for WBRC, reports that Tuscaloosa County
now joins a growing list of municipalities joining class action
lawsuits to sue drug manufacturers for the opioid crisis hurting
those communities.

On Jan. 24, the Tuscaloosa County Commission agreed to hire the
Prince Glover and Hayes law firm to represent the county in a
class action lawsuit against drug manufacturers.

"I think as far as the infrastructure and the things and the
different things we've had to do with the sheriff's office and
the local hospital, there have been damages the county has
suffered," according to commissioner Mark Nelson.

Josh Hayes, a partner in the firm, says they will join a class
action lawsuit targeting drug companies they claim improperly
distributing end of life drugs that have fueled a nationwide
addiction problem.

"We are part of an Alabama group and a national group of lawyers
that have been working on this for more than a year now.  We feel
like we have a good position to represent the county adequately,"
Hayes explained.

Any money they get for the county could go into an abatement fund
that will help the county for years to come.

"It's a good opportunity for the county to recoup both lost
revenues and expenses on this opioid crisis that is gripping
America and this community in particular," Mr. Hayes went on to
say.

Mr. Hayes will appear in a federal court in Cleveland
representing Tuscaloosa County in the suit.

Their representation won't cost the county any upfront money.
The firm will only be paid if their group wins the case or gets a
settlement.


MIDLAND CREDIT: Faces "Sharon" Suit in Central District Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Midland Credit
Management, Inc. The case is styled as Ella Sharon, on behalf of
herself and all other similarly situated consumers, Plaintiff v.
Midland Credit Management, Inc., Midland Funding, LLC and Encore
Capital Group, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-00385 (E.D.
N.Y., January 19, 2018).

Midland Credit Management, Inc., a licensed debt collector,
assists customers in resolving past-due financial obligations
through various education and payment plans.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq.
   Adam J. Fishbein, P.C.
   735 Central Avenue
   Woodmere, NY 11598
   Tel: (516) 668-6945
   Email: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com


MOTEL 6: Sued for Sharing Guest Information with ICE
----------------------------------------------------
Matthew Casey, writing for Fronteras, reports that a Latino civil
rights group has filed a federal lawsuit accusing Motel 6 of
breaking multiple laws when two Phoenix locations shared guest
information with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

The Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund filed the
case.  MALDEF alleges Motel 6 broke federal laws against
discrimination and conspiracy.  It also alleges the company broke
Arizona laws that protect privacy and consumers.

Winning justice and compensation for the plaintiffs are not the
only goals of the lawsuit, said Thomas Saenz, president and
general counsel for MALDEF.  "But also to deter Motel 6 and any
other motel or hotel company from continuing to participate in
this kind of behavior."

Motel 6 issued a statement saying it takes guest privacy
seriously.  And the company has forbidden giving guest lists to
ICE.

An ICE spokesperson said the federal agency works with private
businesses that reach out to ICE. [GN]



MRS BPO: Olson Files Placeholder Bid for Class Certification
------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled JACQUELINE OLSON, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. MRS
BPO, LLC and NCB MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC., the Defendants, Case
No. 2:18-cv-00176-DEJ (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiff asks the Court
to enter an order certifying proposed classes in this case,
appointing the Plaintiff as class representative, and appointing
Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as Class Counsel, and for such other and
further relief as the Court may deem appropriate.

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

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

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

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Drbo9YQ9

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


NATIONAL FOOTBALL: March 26 Oral Argument Set in Ticket-Gate Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Scott P. Jang, Esq. -- Scott.Jang@jacksonlewis.com -- of Jackson
Lewis P.C, in an article for The National Law Review, wrote that
first, Deflategate.  Now, "Ticket-gate?" Stirring in the United
States District Court, Northern District of Ohio, a putative
class action takes aim at an unsafe football field, a cancelled
preseason game, and over a million dollars in alleged consumer
class damages.  The case is Herrick v. National Football League,
et al. (N.D. Ohio, Case No. 5:17-cv-00472-CAB).

The Allegations
The 2016 Pro Football Hall of Fame preseason game between the
Green Bay Packers and Indianapolis Colts was scheduled to take
place on August 7, 2016.  But due to compromised painting of
logos and other markings on the turf, the field was deemed unsafe
and unplayable.  That call, and the related call to scrap the
game entirely, was made, according to filings in the case, at
5:00 p.m. on the day of the game.  Fans attending the game,
however, were allegedly intentionally kept in the dark and were
not informed of the game's cancellation until three hours later.
In the meantime, fans purportedly were ushered into the stadium
and encouraged to buy food, drinks, and merchandise.  Plaintiff,
on behalf of himself and "thousands" of putative class members,
now seeks to recover not only the cost of the tickets, but also
related out-of-pocket incidentals, such as travel and lodging
expenses.

Class Certification
On January 15, 2018, Plaintiff moved for class certification.  As
framed in the motion, the question of liability on the sole claim
for breach of contract might not be the main hurdle; rather, the
central issue will be whether the class can proceed as a damages
class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3).  Under the
U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, 569
U.S. 27 (2013), to proceed as a damages class under Rule
23(b)(3), while a plaintiff's class damages model may be an
approximation, it still must be firmly tethered to the theory of
injury. Id. at 35.

So how does Plaintiff's damages model purport to do so? According
to Plaintiff's expert, Dr. Justine Hastings, it's all in
available records.  Ticket damages?  According to Dr. Hastings,
Defendant's revenue data and secondary market statistics can
approximate ticket costs.  Traveling expenses?  According to Dr.
Hastings, ticket holders' zip codes can predict the likely mode
of travel and associated travel costs for individuals.  And
lodging expenses?  According to Dr. Hastings, ticket holders' zip
codes and the average hotel rate in the area ($289/night) can be
used to quantify lodging expenses.

Will this suffice to secure certification of a damages class
under Rule 23(b)(3)? Stay tuned.  Opposition papers are due
February 16, and oral argument is set for March 26.  In the
meantime, here's to hoping for a class action-free Super Bowl
LII.


NBTY: Non-Illinois Claimants Can't Participate in Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Churney, writing for Cook County Record, reports that a
Chicago federal judge has relied on a recent U.S. Supreme Court
decision to gut a suit against the makers of a dietary
supplement, who allegedly made bogus claims about its
effectiveness, saying non-Illinois claimants can't participate in
a suit in Illinois.

The Jan. 18 decision was laid down by Judge Harry Leinenweber of
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The
ruling went against Joshua DeBernardis, of Grayslake, in his
putative class-action suit against NBTY and United States
Nutrition, makers of the supplement Body Fortress 100 percent
Glutamine Powder. NBTY is based in Ronkonkoma, N.Y., and United
States Nutrition is in Bohemia, N.Y.

In rendering his decision, Judge Leinenweber drew from the June
19, 2017, U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Bristol-Myers Squibb Co.
v. Superior Court of California.

On Aug. 23, Mr. DeBernardis filed his suit against the companies,
saying they made "false and misleading" claims about their
dietary supplement, which they market as helping the body recover
from heavy exercise.

Mr. DeBernardis cited studies to allege the supplement is
worthless. He wants defendants to pay unspecified damages and his
legal costs, as well to be prohibited from continuing to make the
alleged false claims.

The suit has four counts, three of which involve claims by class
members nationwide, with the other count involving only Illinois
members.

The companies asked Judge Leinenweber to dismiss the nationwide
counts, primarily on the ground the court has no jurisdiction to
address those counts.  In pressing their argument, the companies
pointed to the Bristol-Myers Squibb ruling.

Judge Leinenweber agreed with the companies' take on Bristol-
Myers.

The Bristol-Myers case involved eight suits against New York-
based Bristol-Myers, brought in California state court by 86
California residents and 592 residents of other states, alleging
the company's drug Plavix injured their health. Bristol-Myers
sold Plavix in California, but none of the out-of-state
plaintiffs claimed they suffered harm in that state and no
alleged conduct by the drug maker took place in California.

The California Supreme Court concluded that, although California
lacked general jurisdiction, the state held specific
jurisdiction, because Bristol-Myers had "extensive contacts" in
California that warranted jurisdiction over the non-Californians'
claims.

The matter went to the U.S. Supreme Court, with that body ruling
8-1 the out-of-state residents could not stake a claim in
California, because there was little to link the case to
California.

Judge Leinenweber noted he believes "courts will apply Bristol-
Myers Squibb to outlaw nationwide class actions in a form, such
as in this case, where there is no general jurisdiction over the
Defendants."

As a consequence of Bristol-Myers, Judge Leinenweber threw out
the three counts filed by Mr. DeBernardis, in so far as they
pertain to non-Illinois residents.

Judge Leinenweber also dismissed Mr. DeBernardis' request to bar
NBTY and United States Nutrition from continuing to make alleged
false claims about their product.

"The Plaintiff makes no allegations of any potential future
injury.  Plaintiff would be hard pressed to argue that he is in
danger of being fooled again by Defendants' products claim,"
Judge Leinenweber said.

Mr. DeBernardis is represented by Barbat, Mansour & Suciu, of
Bloomfield Hills, Mich., and the Chicago firms of Siprut PC and
Wexler Wallace LLP.

NBTY and United States Nutrition are defended by Willenken,
Wilson, Loh & Delgado, of San Francisco, and A & G Law, of
Chicago. [GN]


NBTY INC: Seyfarth Shaw Attorneys Discuss Class Action Ruling
-------------------------------------------------------------
Laura J. Maechtlen, Esq., and Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Esq., of
Seyfarth Shaw LLP, in an article for Lexology, wrote that
Seyfarth Synopsis: In a nationwide consumer fraud class action
involving false labeling claims under various state laws, a
federal district court in Illinois granted the company's motion
to dismiss claims relative to a putative national class of
plaintiffs, holding it did not have jurisdiction over the claims
of the non-resident class of plaintiffs based on the recent U.S.
Supreme Court opinion in Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior
Court of California, 137 S.Ct. 1773 (2017).  For businesses and
employers facing nationwide class action lawsuits, this ruling is
instructive in regards to strategies to fracture and minimize the
class size, and limit potential liability.

In DeBernardis v. NBTY, Inc., Case No. 17-CV-6125, 2018 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 7947 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 18, 2018), Plaintiff alleged
that Defendants made false and misleading claims concerning the
beneficial effects of a dietary supplement.  The four-count
complaint alleged violations of state consumer fraud acts on
behalf of a multi-state class, as well as a class of Illinois-
based purchasers.  Defendants moved to dismiss on a variety of
grounds, including their assertion that the Court did not have
jurisdiction to hear the case involving the non-resident class of
plaintiffs based on the recent U.S. Supreme Court opinion in
Bristol-Myers Squibb.  Judge Harry D. Leinenweber of the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted
Defendants' motion to dismiss Counts I, III, and IV as to the
putative national class of Plaintiffs.

Businesses and employers can use this ruling to attack and limit
nationwide class actions involving the state law claims of non-
resident plaintiffs, following the Bristol-Myers Squibb decision.

Case Background

Plaintiff brought a nationwide class action seeking monetary
damages and injunctive relief against the distributor of a
dietary supplements.  The four-count complaint alleged that
Defendants made false and misleading claims concerning the
beneficial effects of the product. Id. at *1. Count I alleged
violations of state consumer fraud acts on behalf of a multi-
state class; Count II alleged violation of the Illinois Consumer
Fraud Act on behalf of Illinois purchasers; Count III alleged
violations of express warranty on behalf of the nationwide class,
and Count IV alleged unjust enrichment on behalf of the
nationwide class.

Defendants moved to dismiss, arguing: (i) that as to Counts I,
III, and IV, the Court did not have jurisdiction to hear the case
involving non-resident classes of plaintiffs based on Bristol-
Myers Squibb; (ii) that as to Count III, Plaintiff lacked Article
III standing to claim injunctive relief; (iii) Plaintiff failed
to allege that he gave pre-suit notice to Defendants of his
breach of warranty claim; and (iv) Plaintiff's claim for unjust
enrichment failed for the national class for the same reason as
his nationwide consumer fraud claim as alleged in Count I failed.
Id. at *2.

The District Court's Decision

The Court granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss Counts I,
III, and IV relative to the allegations concerning the putative
national class of Plaintiffs.  The Court explained that the main
issue to be decided was the applicability of Bristol-Myers Squibb
to the putative nationwide class action.  In analyzing Bristol-
Myers Squibb, the Court explained how the U.S. Supreme Court
pointed out that a variety of interests must be considered in
determining whether personal jurisdiction is present, including
those of the forum state, the defendant, and the plaintiff. Id.
at *3-4.  However, the primary concern is the burden on the
defendant. Id. at *4. Further, the Court opined that in addition
to the practical problems of litigating in the out-of-state
forum, it must consider "the more abstract matter of submitting
to the coercive power of a State that may have little legitimate
interest in the claims in question." Id. (internal quotation
marks and citation omitted).

In response to Defendants' citation of Bristol-Myers Squibb,
Plaintiff argued that his case was distinguishable since Bristol-
Myers Squibb involved mass tort actions and not putative class
actions, a point that was raised by U.S. Supreme Court Justice
Sonia Sotomayor in her dissenting opinion in Bristol-Myers
Squibb. Id.  Acknowledging that the applicability of Bristol-
Myers Squibb to this case was a "close question," the Court
rejected Plaintiff's argument and held that "it is more likely
than not based on the Supreme Court's comments about federalism
that the courts will apply Bristol-Myers Squibb to outlaw
nationwide class actions in a form, such as in this case, where
there is no general jurisdiction over the Defendants." Id. at *5.
Further, the Court cautioned that the issue of forum shopping is
just as present in multi-state class actions as it is in mass
torts actions. Id.  Accordingly, to the extent that Counts I, III
and IV sought to recover on behalf of out-of-state Plaintiff
classes, the Court granted Defendants' motion to dismiss.

Implications For Employers

Although this case is outside of the workplace class action
arena, its implications are highly relevant for employers facing
nationwide workplace class action lawsuits that include state law
claims.  As one of the early cases to interpret the U.S. Supreme
Court's Bristol-Myers Squibb decision from June 2017, the opinion
in DeBernardis is instructive for businesses in terms of how they
can argue that courts do not have jurisdiction to hear class
actions involving state law claims of non-resident classes of
plaintiffs.  The fracturing of nationwide class actions minimizes
the impact of these bet-the-company cases for employers, and
allows them to attack and defend against such claims in a more
manageable fashion.


NEW MIAMI: Not Entitled to Immunity in Speed Camera Case
--------------------------------------------------------
Denise Callahan, writing for Journal-News, reports that the 12th
District Court of Appeals has ruled that New Miami is not
entitled immunity in a lawsuit that seeks more than $3 million
from the village for collecting fines from a speeding camera
operation that was later declared unconstitutional.

James Englert, the attorney handling the village's speed camera
lawsuit, said it has not determined yet whether it will take the
12th District's decision on sovereign immunity to the Ohio
Supreme Court.  However, he said eventually it wants to appeal
what's at the heart of the case, whether former Judge Michael
Sage's decision that the old speed camera case was
unconstitutional is correct.

"I'm not talking about going forward on the sovereign immunity
issue where we just lost," Mr. Englert said.  "I'm talking about
the finding by Judge Sage that it was a due process violation."

Up until now, the two sides have been fighting over pieces of the
case, namely whether the case could be certified as a class
action -- meaning thousands of other motorists who have been
cited could join on and seek a legal remedy -- and whether the
village as a governmental entity is immune from litigation.


NEW WAVE: In Breach of Lease with State Government
--------------------------------------------------
Renato Castello, writing for The Advertiser, reports that THE
operator of a embattled South Australian marina -- who is at the
centre of a class action -- has failed to maintain the property
in breach of its lease with the State Government.

The Transport Department's general manager property Steve
McQuillan has written to berth holders at Wirrina Cove marina
advising them that marina operator New Wave Aerospace has failed
to meet "specific obligations" of the lease, in particular
dredging of the marina and entrance channel to a required depth.

"The department has completed a further hydrographic survey in
2017 to ascertain the current state of the marina and entrance
channel, which has further shown that the subject areas of the
channel are not of an acceptable depth," the December 20 letter
said.

"The department has determined that the inaction of NWA cannot be
allowed to continue further to which the department is taking its
own action to undertake the dredgin."

A department spokesman, in response to questions from The
Advertiser, said the dredging work could take in excess of a year
to complete subject to necessary approvals.

"A number of approvals will be required prior to undertaking any
dredging of the marina," he said.

"DPTI is currently in the process of engaging a consultant to
undertake the preliminary environmental works."

"Dredging of the marina is a maintenance obligation issue under
the lease to assist navigation throughout the marina.

"For legal reasons, DPTI cannot comment further regarding
obgliations between the two parties."

He would not answer whether the department would be charging the
dredging cost to NWA or whether it was considering terminating
the lease.

NWA's lease with the Government is due to expire in 2048 with a
30-year right of renewal

NWA and its director Stephen Marks are being sued by berth
holders in the District Court over alleged failings of the
company to account for more than $1 million in spending.

Their claim catalogues disputed expenditure, including $280,000
on marina dredging, $240,000 for "major works", $91,500 for
landscaping, and $225,000 in management fees.

The matter is listed for a five-day trial in January.

Mr Marks has also drawn the ire of Yankalilla Council and its
residents over the construction of a three-storey beachfront
house at Carrickalinga higher than approved.

Consumer and Business Services are also investigating whether Mr
Marks breached his builder's licence during construction of the
property.

Under the conditions of his licence Mr Marks, as director of New
Wave Construction, is restricted to alterations and renovation
additions to residential buildings not exceeding one storey. [GN]


NIPPON YUSEN: Plaintiff's Class Certification Bid Rejected
----------------------------------------------------------
Robin Reinertson, Esq. -- robin.reinertson@blakes.com -- and
Joshua Hutchinson, Esq. -- joshua.hutchinson@blakes.com -- of
Blake Cassels & Graydon LLP, in an article for Lexology, wrote
that the British Columbia Supreme Court (Court) recently
dismissed the plaintiff's application for class certification in
Ewert v. Nippon Yusen Kabushiki Kaisha (Ewert), holding that
certification is not simply a "file, smile and certify" exercise
in which defendants can be forced into onerous and complex class
action litigation on a "wing and a prayer", without meeting the
low threshold required.  The plaintiff in Ewert alleged that the
defendant shipping companies engaged in anti-competitive pricing
practices that harmed the purchasers of vehicles and heavy
equipment.  Justice Myers refused to grant certification, finding
that the plaintiff had failed to establish that harm could be
shown on a class-wide basis in accordance with the requirements
of section 4(1)(c) of the Class Proceedings Act.

BACKGROUND

The plaintiff alleged that the defendants overcharged vehicle and
heavy equipment manufacturers to ship their vehicles to Canadian
distributors on the defendants' "roll-on/roll-off" maritime
vessels.  These distributors sold the vehicles to dealers and
large fleet owners such as car rental companies. In turn, the
dealers sold the vehicles to consumers.  The plaintiff asserted
that the defendants' overcharges had been passed down the
distribution chain to consumers and asserted claims based on
alleged breaches of the Competition Act, civil conspiracy, and
unjust enrichment. He proposed a class consisting of the dealers
and the ultimate purchasers of the vehicles.

CERTIFICATION DECISION

The main issue on the certification application in Ewert was
whether the plaintiff had established a credible and plausible
economic methodology to establish loss or harm on a class-wide
basis.  The plaintiff's expert's proposed methodology relied in
part on data that the expert said "should be possible" to obtain
or which "might" exist in public or other sources.  Neither the
plaintiff nor his expert fully identified those sources.  The
defendants' expert opined that the plaintiff's expert had not
presented a valid methodology to determine class-wide loss, and
that such a methodology cannot be developed.

Justice Myers did not reject the plaintiff's methodology itself,
noting that to dismiss the plaintiff's expert's methodology would
be to engage in a battle of the experts at certification.
However, Justice Myers found that the plaintiff had failed to
provide evidence that some of the necessary data exists.  The
court needs to have some confidence that there is a realistic
prospect that there is a credible and plausible model to
determine harm commonly.  There is a difference between data
expected to come from the defendants and data from other sources,
including public ones.  The court should be given some
identification of the other sources and the expert should have at
least a cursory look at the data to ensure its potential
applicability.  In the absence of some evidence that the data
exists, the plaintiff's expert's proposed methodology is
ultimately purely theoretical.

Justice Myers emphasized that he was not subjecting the
plaintiff's expert's opinion to "rigorous scrutiny", merely some
scrutiny.  The certification process is meant to involve more
than symbolic scrutiny.  As Justice Myers put it, it is not
merely a "file, smile and certify" exercise. Defendants should
not be required to engage in the onerous discovery process of a
complex class action on the basis of a "wing and a prayer" that
harm might ultimately be shown on a class-wide basis when the
proper steps have not been taken to meet the low threshold
required.

Furthermore, Justice Myers declined to certify claims made by
"umbrella purchasers" (who purchased vehicles carried on roll-
on/roll-off vehicle carriers other than those of the defendants)
and for purchasers of "high and heavy" equipment (such as buses,
trucks, agricultural and construction vehicles).  The plaintiff's
expert did not provide a basis to assume that the proposed
econometric models could be applied to umbrella purchasers.
Similarly, Justice Myers found that the high and heavy equipment
business is different, and it was incumbent upon the plaintiff to
show that the same methodology is workable.

CONCLUSION

The Court's decision in Ewert confirms that where a plaintiff
seeks to certify class-wide harm as a common issue using an
econometric model, there must be some basis in fact not only that
the methodology is credible and plausible in theory, but also
that the necessary data exists to put it into practice.  This
evidence will be scrutinized by the court, as the certification
process is not a mere formality. [GN]


NORTON HEALTHCARE: Faces Class Action Over Retirement Plan
----------------------------------------------------------
Carmen Castro-Pagan, writing for Bloomberg BNA, reports that
Norton Healthcare Inc. and its directors are accused of allowing
participants in the Kentucky-based hospital's retirement plan to
buy more expensive share classes of mutual funds when less
expensive share classes of those mutual funds were available.

Norton allegedly wasted plan assets by failing to monitor the
available share classes and select lower-cost share classes of
mutual funds as investment options for the plan, according to a
lawsuit filed Jan. 22 in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Kentucky.  This failure allegedly caused participants
to pay approximately $2 million in excessive fees, the lawsuit
said.

Norton disagrees with the allegations in the lawsuit and will
defend it vigorously, Norton's assistant general counsel and
associate vice president Tom Powell told Bloomberg Law Jan. 23.
The hospital "takes the welfare of its employees seriously and
strives to provide a solid and successful retirement plan,"
Powell said.

The lawsuit is the latest to target a 403(b) retirement plan,
which is a 401(k)-type plan for nonprofits. Since 2016, more than
a dozen prominent universities and hospitals with such plans have
been sued, including Yale University, New York University, Duke,
Vanderbilt, Minnesota-based Essentia Health, and Washington-based
Providence Health & Services.

The lawsuit, filed by two former participants in the hospital's
$714 million retirement plan, also seeks class treatment for more
than 13,000 individuals.

The participants point to certain mutual funds in the plan,
including the Principal Income Equity R-5 Fund, the American
Funds Europacific Growth Fund A, the Franklin Growth Advisor
Class Fund, and the JP Morgan Mid Capital Value Select Fund.

New Class Counsels?
The participants are represented by law firms Bishop Korus Friend
PSC, Tomlinson Law LLC, James White Firm LLC, and Johnston Law
Firm PC.

Bishop Korus Friend is a Kentucky-based general practice law firm
that, according to its website, represents clients in employment,
consumer and personal injury disputes.  The lawsuit is the first
class action under ERISA filed by the three-attorney law firm,
according to Bloomberg Law dockets.  Bishop Korus Friend didn't
immediately respond to Bloomberg Law's request for comments.

The other three law firms, Tomlinson Law, James White Firm, and
Johnston Law Firm, are based in Birmingham, Ala.  The lawsuit
against Norton is also the first class action under ERISA filed
by each of the three law firms, according to Bloomberg Law
dockets.

Tomlinson Law represents clients involved in numerous types of
business litigation, according to its website. James White Firm
also represents clients in business litigation, including
bankruptcy and commercial and construction disputes, according to
its website.  Johnston Law Firm's practice focuses on litigation,
administrative law, and corporate law, according to its website

The three Alabama law firms declined to comment.

The case is Disselkamp v. Norton Healthcare, Inc., W.D. Ky., No.
3:18-cv-00048, complaint filed 1/22/18. [GN]


OLYMPIC FLAME: Blake Seeks to Certifying FLSA Collective
--------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled Katelynn Blake, as the Collective
Representative under Fair Labor Standards Act in a Collective
Action, and as Class representative for Plaintiff's State Law
Claims, the Plaintiff, v. The Olympic Flame Inc., doing business
as "Anastasia's" and ANG Restaurant Inc., Doing business as
Anastasia's Restaurant & Sports Lounge And "Manny" Gianakakis as
an individual under FLSA and Illinois Wage Laws and Nick (Niko)
Gianakakis, Pete Gianakakis, "Billy" Gianakakis and Gina
Gianakakis as individuals under FLSA and Illinois Wage Laws, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-09145 (N.D. Ill.), the Plaintiff
asks the Court for an order:

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

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

   c) directing that Plaintiffs claims and the Collective be
      tolled;

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

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

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=NBc7k6y8

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PARKWAY INC: "Scarantino" Securities Class Action Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case titled, Scarantino v. Parkway, Inc., et al., has been
dismissed as to all case parties.

The order of dismissal was entered November 24, 2017.

Parkway, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2017, that on August 2, 2017, a purported federal
securities class action related to the Merger Agreement, Price v.
Parkway, Inc., et al., was filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Texas, Civil Action No. 4:17-
cv-2367, against the Company and the members of the Company's
board of directors.

On August 9, 2017, another purported federal securities class
action related to the Merger Agreement, Scarantino v. Parkway,
Inc., et al., was filed in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Texas, Civil Action No. 4:17-cv-02441,
against the Company, Parkway LP, CPPIB, certain affiliates of
CPPIB and the members of the Company's board of directors.

Each lawsuit, which purports to have been brought on behalf of
all holders of the Company's common stock, generally alleges that
the preliminary proxy statement filed by the Company with the SEC
on July 27, 2017 failed to disclose material information about
the pending merger transaction with CPPIB. Each complaint seeks
to enjoin the defendants from proceeding with the stockholder
vote on the Company-level merger at the special meeting or
consummating the merger transaction unless and until the Company
discloses the allegedly omitted information. Each complaint also
seeks damages allegedly suffered by the plaintiffs as a result of
the asserted omission, as well as related attorneys' fees and
expenses.

Parkway, Inc. said "The defendants believe that all of the
allegations against them lack merit and intend to defend against
the lawsuits vigorously."

Parkway, Inc. is an independent, publicly traded, self-managed
real estate investment trust ("REIT") that owns and operates
high-quality office properties located in attractive submarkets
in Houston, Texas.


PEL-STATE BULK: Court Refuses to Certify Class in "Harris" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Robert Junell denied the Plaintiff's motion for
conditional certification and motion for approval and
distribution of notice and disclosure of contact information in
the lawsuit styled TERRY HARRIS, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. PEL-STATE BULK PLANT, LLC, and
WILLIAM H. BROYLES II, Case No. 7:17-cv-00096-RAJ-DC (W.D. Tex.).

Mr. Harris filed his lawsuit on May 15, 2017, asserting
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.  He contends that the
Defendants failed to pay him for overtime wages earned.

Despite his short employment period, says the Court's order, the
Plaintiff seeks to conditionally certify this class:

     All current and former employees of Defendants who were
     employed as hourly Frac Fuel Drivers at any time since
     May 15, 2014.

Judge Junell notes that although half a year has passed, no other
Frac Fuel Driver has indicated his or her interest in joining
this lawsuit.  Junell adds that the Plaintiff provides only his
affidavit stating he believes others would join the lawsuit upon
certification of the class.  As a result, there is not enough
indication that other individuals want to opt into the lawsuit,
Judge Junell opines.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=ZlbnH59g


PLANNERNET INC: Class Certification Sought in "Champagne" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled LINDA CHAMPAGNE, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. PLANNERNET, INC., a
North Carolina Corporation, Case No. 3:17-cv-02128-SK (N.D.
Cal.), moves for class certification.

The Court will commence a hearing on February 12, 2018, at 9:30
a.m., to consider the Motion.

A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=wa3AWJGS

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John E. Hill, Esq.
          Enrique Martinez, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JOHN E. HILL
          333 Hegenberger Road, Suite 500
          Oakland, CA 94621
          Telephone: (510) 588-1000
          Facsimile: (510) 632-1445
          E-mail: enriquemartinez@hill-law-offices.com
                  johnhill@hill-law-offices.com

               - and -

          Ramsey Hanafi, Esq.
          QUINTANA HANAFI, LLP
          870 Market Street, Suite 1115
          San Francisco, CA 94102
          Telephone: (415) 504-3121
          Facsimile: (415) 233-8770
          E-mail: ramsey@qhplaw.com


POAG SHOPPING: Faces "Slivak" Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Poag Shopping
Centers, LLC. The case is styled as Jessica Slivak, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Poag
Shopping Centers, LLC doing business as: The Shops at Valley
Square, Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-00242-GJP (E.D. Penn.,
January 19, 2018).

Poag Shopping Centers, LLC develops, manages, and leases retail
centers across the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   ARKADY ERIC RAYZ, Esq.
   KALIKHMAN & RAYZ LLC
   1051 COUNTY LINE ROAD, SUITE A
   HUNTINGDON VALLEY, PA 19006
   Tel: (215) 364-5030
   Fax: (215) 364-5029
   Email: erayz@kalraylaw.com


POSTMATES: Settles Couriers' Class Action for $8.75 Million
-----------------------------------------------------------
Prachi Bhardwaj, writing for Business Insider, reports that
Postmates and its couriers reached a settlement last year over an
allegation that the food-delivery service incorrectly classified
drivers as independent contractors rather than employees.  But a
letter to the couriers shows that each of their pieces of the pie
depend largely on the location of their deliveries.

Postmates agreed to the $8.75 million settlement against
thousands of current and former drivers across the U.S after
denying the allegation that the classification of its drivers
broke laws or regulations.  About $2.8 million of the total fund
will account for fees, and the rest will be allocated to those
who submit claims in response to the letter.

In the terms of the settlement, a breakdown of the compensation
shows that four states in particular would make the most per
mile, with Massachusetts leading the pack, due to the nuances of
each jurisdiction's labor laws:

The Settlement Fund will be allocated to Class Members
proportionally to their delivery miles while on delivery on the
Postmates mobile application, with multipliers for miles driven
in the following states, which are calibrated to account for the
applicable laws and legal standards for similar claims in those
states: California (2.0); Massachusetts (3.0); New York (1.5);
D.C. (1.5).

The settlement is pending court approval, and the final dollar
amount paid to each courier will depend on the number of claims
submitted.  Still, the letter estimates that drivers in
California would receive approximately $0.14 per mile, those in
Massachusetts would receive approximately $0.20 per mile,
New York and D.C. drivers would get about $0.10, while everyone
else would receive about $0.07 per mile.

Some have already taken to Twitter to express excitement for
reaping the benefits.

That said, couriers outside of those four states are getting a
little less on the mile.

In a statement from the company, a representative provided an
explanation for the settlement decision (emphasis ours):

"Postmates is committed to providing those who perform deliveries
on the platform with flexible terms of service and an opportunity
for fair and reasonable dispute resolution. We believe this
proposed class action settlement does both.  We also believe that
by preserving the autonomy of our fleet -- to control when,
where, and how they access the Postmates platform -- we enable
efficient on-demand deliveries that boost local merchant sales
and powers commerce across the country. Our platform has enabled
members of our fleet to supplement their incomes by more than
$400M to date.  Moreover, Postmates stimulates growth for local
economies by linking our network of customers and couriers to the
brick and mortar merchants in their own communities."

The final settlement approval hearing will be on April 20, 2018.


PPG INDUSTRIES: Court Grants Amos' Bid to Certify Retirees Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Michael H. Watson entered an opinion and order in the
lawsuit captioned Patricia L. Amos, et al. v. PPG Industries,
Inc., et al., Case No. 2:05-cv-00070-MHW-CMV (S.D. Ohio):

   -- granting the Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion for Class
      Certification;

   -- granting the Delaware Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify a
      Subclass of Delaware Retirees, subject to the Court's
      slightly modified definition;

   -- noting that the case has been languishing for over 12 years
      and its expeditious resolution is in the best interest of
      all involved;

   -- advising the parties that the Court will not tolerate
      further undue delay of the case.  Accordingly, the Court
      will not entertain any motions for reconsideration or for
      stay of proceedings (unless the parties are engaged in good
      faith settlement negotiations); and

   -- ordering the parties to engage in mediation.  To that end,
      the parties are directed to notify the Court within 10 days
      whether they wish to proceed with mediation with a mediator
      chosen and paid for by the parties or with a Magistrate
      Judge at the Court.

The Plaintiffs commenced the lawsuit against the Defendants for
alleged violations of the Labor Management Relations Act and the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.  The Plaintiffs
bring this action on behalf of themselves and a class of
similarly-situated PPG retirees and their spouses, surviving
spouses, and dependents, alleging that the Defendants violated
the LMRA and ERISA by unilaterally modifying Putative Class
Members' retiree medical benefits provided pursuant to collective
bargaining agreements negotiated by various labor unions on the
Putative Class Members' behalf after the retiree medical benefits
had already vested.

A copy of the Opinion and Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=vKmObw5m


PREFERRED FAMILY: Court Refuses to Certify Class in "Smith" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. J. Leon Holmes denied the Plaintiff's motion for
conditional class certification and court-authorized notice in
the lawsuit titled FRANCES SMITH, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated v. PREFERRED FAMILY HEALTHCARE, INC.,
d/b/a HEALTHCARE RESOURCES OF ARKANSAS, DECISION POINT, DAYSPRING
BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SERVICES, and WILBUR D. MILLS TREATMENT CENTER,
Case No. 1:17-cv-00082-JLH (E.D. Ark.).

Frances Smith brings the action against her former employer,
Preferred Family Healthcare, Inc., alleging that Preferred Family
Healthcare failed to pay her and other similarly situated
employees for overtime in violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act.  Ms. Smith's proposed
class includes:

     [A]ll persons similarly situated as Mental Health
     Professionals who were or are employed by Defendant and who
     are entitled to payment for all of their overtime wages that
     Defendant failed to pay them from three years prior to the
     date of the filing of this lawsuit, through the time of the
     trial of this case.

Ms. Smith complains that even though the mental health
professionals performed work in excess of 40 hours per week,
Preferred Family Healthcare only paid mental health professionals
for the hours in which they billed patients and did not properly
compensate them for overtime.

In his opinion and order, Judge Holmes opines that because Ms.
Smith has failed to meet her burden to show that other similarly
situated employees exist, the Motion is denied.  Judge Holmes
adds that a vague affidavit from the sole Named Plaintiff, who
has no experience outside of her facility will not suffice to
make a modest factual showing that other employees in a multi-
state region working at more than 145 different facilities are
similarly situated for FLSA purposes.

A copy of the Opinion and Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=7rY7M9Lu


REAL MONARCA: Lopez Seeks to Certify Servers & Bartenders Class
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled EDUARDO LOPEZ, for himself and on behalf of
those similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. REAL MONARCA INC, a
Florida Profit Corporation, d/b/a MONARCA'S AUTHENTIC MEXICAN
CUISINE BAR & GRILL, and GUILLERMO CUEVAS, Individually, the
Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-00442-SPC-CM (M.D. Fla.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an Order:

   1. conditionally certifying a collective of:

      "current and former Servers and Bartenders who worked for
      Defendant within the three years preceding the filing of
      the Complaint, and worked over forty hours in one or more
      workweeks";

   2. directing Defendant to produce to undersigned counsel
      within 14 days of the Order, a list containing names, last
      known addresses, telephone numbers, social security
      numbers, and emails addresses of putative collective
      members;

   3. authorizing undersigned counsel to send a notice and
      reminder notice, to all individuals in the putative
      collective;

   4. requiring Defendant to post a copy of the notice, along
      with the consent to become a party plaintiff at its
      restaurant location; and

   5. providing all individuals who receive notice 90 days from
      the date of mailing to return a consent to join this
      action, to undersigned counsel.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=OP0hywLy

Trial Counsel for Plaintiff:

          Angeli Murthy, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
          600 North Pine Island Road, Suite 400
          Plantation, Florida 33324
          Telephone: (954) 318 0268
          Facsimile: (954) 327 3016
          E-mail: Amurthy@forthepeople.com


SANTANDER HOLDINGS: "Deka" Class Action Suit Remains Stayed
-----------------------------------------------------------
Santander Holdings USA. Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2017, that the Deka Lawsuit remains
stayed pending the resolution of the appeal of a class
certification order in In re Cobalt Int'l Energy, Inc. Sec.
Litig., No. H-14-3428

On August 26, 2014, a purported securities class action lawsuit
was filed in the United States District Court, Southern District
of New York, captioned Steck v. Santander Consumer USA Holdings
Inc. et al., No. 1:14-cv-06942 (the "Deka Lawsuit"). The Deka
Lawsuit was brought against SC, certain of its current and former
directors and executive officers and certain institutions that
served as underwriters in SC's IPO on behalf of a class
consisting of those who purchased or otherwise acquired SC's
securities between January 23, 2014 and June 12, 2014. In June
2015, the venue of the Deka Lawsuit was transferred to the United
States District Court, Northern District of Texas. In September
2015, the court granted a motion to appoint lead plaintiffs and
lead counsel, and the Deka Lawsuit is now captioned Deka
Investment GmbH et al. v.Santander Consumer USA Holdings, Inc. et
al., No. 3:15-cv-2129-K.

The amended class action complaint in the Deka Lawsuit alleges
that that SC's registration statement and prospectus and certain
subsequent public disclosures contained misleading statements
concerning SC's ability to pay dividends and the adequacy of SC's
compliance systems and oversight. The amended complaint asserts
claims under Sections 11, 12(a) and 15 of the Securities Act of
1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and seeks damages and other relief.

On December 18, 2015, SC and the individual defendants moved to
dismiss the amended class action complaint and on June 13, 2016,
the motion to dismiss was denied.

On December 2, 2016, the plaintiffs moved to certify the proposed
classes, on February 17, 2017, SC filed an opposition to the
plaintiffs' motion to certify the proposed classes, and on March
31, 2017, the plaintiffs filed their reply brief.

On July 11, 2017, the court granted an order staying the Deka
Lawsuit pending the resolution of the appeal of a class
certification order in In re Cobalt Int'l Energy, Inc. Sec.
Litig., No. H-14-3428, 2017 U.S. Dist. Lexis 91938 (S.D. Tex.
June 15, 2017).

Santander Holdings USA, Inc. is the parent holding company of
Santander Bank, National Association, a national banking
association, and owns approximately 59% of Santander Consumer USA
Holdings Inc. (together with its subsidiaries, "SC"), a
specialized consumer finance company focused on vehicle finance
and third-party servicing. The company is headquartered in
Boston, Massachusetts and the Bank's main office is in
Wilmington, Delaware.


SANTANDER HOLDINGS: Asks Court to Reconsider "Parmelee" Ruling
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Hill, writing for Law360, reported that Santander Consumer
USA Holdings Inc. and several of its current and former
executives must face a proposed class action accusing them of
inflating the consumer finance lender's stock price by
fraudulently overstating its net income, a Texas federal judge
ruled on Jan. 3, 2018.

According to the report, U.S. District Judge Ed Kinkeade mostly
denied a dismissal bid filed by Texas-based Santander Consumer, a
vehicle financing-focused subsidiary of the Santander Group, and
the other executives named in the suit, trimming only the claims
against the lender's Chief Financial Officer Ismail Dawood.

Judge Kinkeade entered a Memorandum Opinion and Order granting in
part, denying in part Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a
Claim.  The Court granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss only
as to Dawood and dismissed all claims against Dawood.  Because
Parmelee has adequately pleaded her claims against Santander,
Dundon, Kulas, and Davis, the Court denied Santander's motion to
dismiss as to those defendants.

On Jan. 31, 2018, Defendants filed a Motion for Reconsideration
of the Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order.

On Jan. 17, 2018, Defendants filed their Answer to Amended
Complaint.

Santander Holdings USA Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2017, that on March 18, 2016, a
purported securities class action lawsuit was filed in the United
States District Court, Northern District of Texas, captioned
Parmelee v. Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc. et al., No.
3:16-cv-783 (the Parmelee Lawsuit). On April 4, 2016, another
purported securities class action lawsuit was filed in the United
States District Court, Northern District of Texas, captioned
Benson v. Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc. et al., No. 3:16-
cv-919 (the Benson Lawsuit). Both the Parmelee Lawsuit and the
Benson Lawsuit were filed against SC and certain of its current
and former directors and executive officers on behalf of a class
consisting of all those who purchased or otherwise acquired SC's
securities between February 3, 2015 and March 15, 2016. On May
25, 2016, the Benson Lawsuit was consolidated into the Parmelee
Lawsuit, with the consolidated case captioned as Parmelee v.
Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc. et al., No. 3:16-cv-783.

On December 20, 2016, the plaintiffs filed an amended class
action complaint. The amended class action complaint in the
Parmelee Lawsuit alleges that SC made false or misleading
statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts,
in prior Annual and Quarterly Reports filed under the Exchange
Act and certain other public disclosures, in connection with,
among other things, SC's change in its methodology for estimating
its ACL and correction of such allowance for prior periods in,
among other public disclosures, SC's Annual Report on Form 10-K
for the year ended December 31, 2015, SC's Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2016, and SC's amended
filings for prior reporting periods. The amended class action
complaint asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and seeks
damages and other relief. On March 14, 2017, SC filed a motion to
dismiss the Parmelee Lawsuit. On April 25, 2017, the plaintiffs
filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss, and on June 9,
2017, SC filed a reply to the plaintiffs' opposition.

Santander Holdings USA, Inc. is the parent holding company of
Santander Bank, National Association, a national banking
association, and owns approximately 59% of Santander Consumer USA
Holdings Inc. (together with its subsidiaries, "SC"), a
specialized consumer finance company focused on vehicle finance
and third-party servicing. The company is headquartered in
Boston, Massachusetts and the Bank's main office is in
Wilmington, Delaware.


SANTANDER HOLDINGS: "Gonzalez" Plaintiff Challenges Remand Order
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Dionisio Trigo Gonzalez et al. v. Banco Santander,
S.A. et al., defendants Banco Santander Puerto Rico, Banco
Santander, S.A., Fredy Molfino, Luis Roig, Santander Asset
Management LLC, Santander Bancorp, Santander Securities LLC on
December 26, 2017, filed a Memorandum in Opposition to
Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's December 1,
2017 Order Denying Motion to Remand and Memorandum of Law in
Support Thereof.

Santander Holdings USA. Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2017, that on September 12, 2016,
customers of certain Puerto Rico closed-end funds ("CEFs") filed
a shareholder derivative and class action in the Court of First
Instance of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Superior Court of
San Juan, captioned Dionisio Trigo Gonzalez et al. v. Banco
Santander, S.A. et al., Civil No. 2016-0857. Customers filed this
action against Santander, Santander BanCorp, Banco Santander
Puerto Rico, SSLLC, Santander Asset Management, LLC, and several
directors and senior management of those entities. The complaint
alleges misconduct including that the entities and individuals
created, controlled, managed, and advised certain CEFs within the
First Puerto Rico Family of Funds (the "Funds") from March 1,
2012 through the present to the detriment of the Funds and their
shareholders. Brought on behalf of the Funds and Puerto-Rico
based investors, the complaint contains numerous allegations and
seeks unspecified damages but alleges damages to be at least tens
of millions of dollars. The case was removed to U.S. District
Court, District of Puerto Rico. Plaintiffs moved to remand the
action back to state court, Plaintiffs' motion is pending.

Santander Holdings USA, Inc. is the parent holding company of
Santander Bank, National Association, a national banking
association, and owns approximately 59% of Santander Consumer USA
Holdings Inc. (together with its subsidiaries, "SC"), a
specialized consumer finance company focused on vehicle finance
and third-party servicing. The company is headquartered in
Boston, Massachusetts and the Bank's main office is in
Wilmington, Delaware.


SINGING RIVER: Judge to Rule on Pension Class Action Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Karen Nelson, writing for Sun Herald, reports that eleven hours
in the courtroom on Jan. 22 with U.S. District Court Judge Louis
Guirola and Singing River Health System attorneys said they feel
they made their case that SRHS is financially able to pay into
the failed pension.

SRHS attorney Kelly Sessoms also said he believes Judge Guirola
understands that time is running short for the pension plan and
will make his decision as soon as possible.

He used the term expedite, Mr. Sessoms said.

In addition, Judge Guirola indicated he would rule on the federal
class action settlement and then issue a separate opinion on the
$6.4 million in attorneys fees that were built into the
settlement to be paid in the first four years.

Retirees and current employees with Singing River Health System
heard on Jan. 22 in Judge Guirola's courtroom that SRHS would be
able to pay $156 million to the pension over the next 35 years.

The problem is, attorneys for a group of 200 retirees who have
fought the federal class action settlement believe the money
won't last nearly that long, even with the SRHS infusion.

The new pension plan manager, special feduciary Traci Christian
has reported that with 725 retirees to pay and hundreds set to
come onto the pension, the $123 million in the plan now won't
last past 2025 without the settlement, and with it, the payout
could be 59 percent.

Whether SRHS could pay and what retirees could expect to receive
were two of four questions the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals
wanted answered when it questioned the fairness of the settlement
Judge Guirola approved it in 2016 and returned it to him for
reconsideration.

SRHS officials said Judge Guirola told the courtroom on Jan. 22
the Appeals Court questions didn't mean the settlement couldn't
be approved.

After listening for more than five hours on Jan. 22, Kim Monson,
40, who still works at SRHS said she believes that if the
hospital system pays its part and certain adjustments are made --
early retirement and the 13th check eliminated and the retirement
age increased to 67 -- she could see some money in 27 years,
whether she still works there or not.

Attorneys disagree on SRHS pension resolution
Attorney Billy Guice, representing Jackson County in the SRHS
pension issue, reminds those at the supervisors' meeting on
October 19, 2015, that the mediation is ongoing and confidential.

John FitzhughSun Herald
"With some changes to the plan, there is a possibility for me to
receive benefits at 75 to 81 percent," she said about one option
that was discussed in court. Still, she wasn't able to determine
how much money that would mean for her.

With no settlement, she said, the plan would be broke by 2025.

"No settlement would hurt those of us that are still working,"
she said.

The settlement applies to almost 3,200 people, some who paid in
and left and hundreds who are still planning to retire.

It's in Judge Guirola's hands now, but attorney Harvey Barton,
who with attorney Earl Denham represent the 200 who have fought
the settlement, said, "They'll just gain a few years with the
settlement."

"If it's such a great deal, let Jackson County guarantee it," he
said.  As it's set up now, the pension has $123 million and is
making payments of $1.2 million to $1.4 million a month to 725
retirees, with no money coming in.  There are 900 who paid in 3
percent for years and left and are entitled to get their money
back, he said.  Hundreds are set to retire in 2024.

Mr. Barton said he believed even Transamerica, the SRHS
retirement plan administrator, showed none of the payout models
would work based on the money available.

Even with the settlement, "at some point, it will go broke," he
said.

Lead attorney for the settlement, Jim Reeves, said in a
statement: "As a practical matter, there is no way to make the
hospital pay more and the hospital is not in a financial position
to pay more even if ordered to do so.  For these reasons, we hope
that the plan will be approved, so that funding can begin as
quickly as possible as additional delays continue to reduce
available benefits to all."

Mr. Barton said he expects Judge Guirola to approve the
settlement.

"And we will appeal again to the 5th Circuit Court," he said.

"The fairness hearing was to make the record (for that appeal),"
he said.  "The evidence presented flies in the face of what the
5th Circuit wanted."

And he said that if that fails, they still have their appeal to
the U.S. Supreme Court, made last year.

As a matter of background, the hospital system announced four
years ago financial problems that included claiming tens of
millions in revenue it wasn't receiving, failing to keep up with
bond requirements and having little cash on hand.

One solution was to end the generous employee pension plan and
return the assets as payout.

Retirees sued and formed a class action, with a team of attorneys
led by Reeves.  About 200 retirees, looking for answers to what
happened, hired attorneys Barton and Denham to fight the hospital
and the settlement in hopes of also getting 100 percent of the
pension promised them when they worked for the hospital system.

The pension was frozen and during the four years, retirees have
collected 100 percent of their pension in their checks each
month.

If the settlement passes, it appears that amount would decrease
significantly.


SOCAL EDISON: Frost et al. Sue over Forest Fire, Mudslides
----------------------------------------------------------
VICTORIA FROST d/b/a FROST FIT and ROBERT BLANCHARD; MARTHA
SMILGIS; DIANE MEEHAN d/b/a DADIANA, INC.; PETER PARK and
KELLY PARK; PLATINUM PERFORMANCE FITNESS, INC.; HONHAI, INC.;
THOMAS E. CARROLL; and CHRISTOPHER T. BURKE on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY, a California corporation;
EDISON INTERNATIONAL, a California corporation, and DOES 1
through 20, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. BC691146 (Cal.
Super. Ct., Jan. 24, 2018), seeks to recover damages and loss of
use of real and personal property; loss of income; loss of
business; consequential and incidental damages; emotional
distress; and other harm caused by Defendants' wrongful conduct
in connection with a massive wildfire that began on December 4,
2017, and the ensuring mudslides in January 2018.

The lawsuit claims that the so-called Thomas Fire and the
Mudslides have a common underlying cause: they were sparked by
unsafe electrical infrastructure owned, operated, and improperly
maintained by Southern California Edison Company and Edison
International. SCE had a duty to maintain its electrical
infrastructure properly and to ensure surrounding trees and
vegetation were trimmed and kept at a safe distance. SCE violated
that duty by knowingly operating aging, overloaded, and/or
improperly maintained infrastructure. In fact, SCE's violations
had caused fires before, and SCE had been sanctioned numerous
times for this before the Thomas Fire began. All the while, it
knowingly and habitually underestimated the potential the risk,
including fire risk, its systems posed.

Had SCE acted responsibly, the Thomas Fire and Mudslides could
have been prevented. Plaintiffs have suffered property damage,
economic losses, and disruption to their homes, businesses,
lives, and livelihoods, and they seek fair compensation for
themselves in this case. They also bring this case as a class
action, because they believe all those who suffered such damages
and losses should be fairly treated and included as beneficiaries
of a comprehensive and consistent adjudication or resolution of
liability and damages.

Southern California Edison, the largest subsidiary of Edison
International, is the primary electricity supply company for much
of Southern California, USA.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Elizabeth J. Cabraser, Esq.
          Robert L. Lieff, Esq.
          Robert J. Nelson, Esq.
          Lexi J. Hazam, Esq.
          Abby R. Wolf, Esq.
          LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
          275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
          Telephone: (415) 956 1000
          Facsimile: (415) 956 1008

               - and -

          A. Barry Cappello, Esq.
          Leila J. Noel, Esq.
          Lawrence J. Conlan, Esq.
          Wendy Welkom, Esq.
          CAPPELLO & NOEL LLP
          831 State Street
          Santa Barbara, CA 93101
          Telephone: (805) 564 2444
          Facsimile: (805) 965 5950

               - and -

          Juli Farris, Esq.
          Alison Chase, Esq.
          KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
          801 Garden Street, Suite 301
          Santa Barbara, CA 93101
          Telephone: (805) 456 1496
          Facsimile: (805) 456 1497


STARBUCKS CORP: Wins Summary Judgment in "Strumlauf" Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers denies the Plaintiffs' motion to
strike, and grants the Defendant's motion for summary judgment as
to all claims in the lawsuit entitled SIERA STRUMLAUF, ET AL. v.
STARBUCKS CORPORATION, Case No. 4:16-cv-01306-YGR (N.D. Cal.).

The Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is denied as moot.

Plaintiffs Siera Strumlauf, Benjamin Robles, and Brittany
Crittenden bring this putative class action against Starbucks
alleging that it uniformly underfills its lattes and mochas.
They allege eight causes of action, including breach of express
warranty; violations of California's Consumers Legal Remedies
Act, Unfair Competition Law and False Advertising Law; violations
of New York's General Business Law; violations of Florida's
Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act; and common law fraud.

The Defendant moves for summary judgment on the grounds that the
Plaintiff cannot prove a false statement or representation based
on the undisputed facts, Judge Rogers states.  Specifically,
Judge Rogers states explains, the evidence shows that (i) the
capacity of Hot Cups is greater than the Promised Beverage
Volume; (ii) milk foam is a component of a Latte and, thus,
counts toward volume; and (iii) Fill-To lines serve as a guide
for baristas when pouring cold milk, which expands in volume as
the milk is aerated and heated to serving temperature.

Judge Rogers notes that each of the Plaintiffs' causes of action
requires, at minimum, a false statement or misrepresentation.
Judge Rogers opines that the Plaintiffs' failure to establish
such a statement or representation is fatal to each of their
eight claims.

The Court, thus, finds that the Plaintiffs have failed to raise a
triable issue of fact as to whether the Defendant made a false
statement or misrepresentation pursuant to any of the Plaintiffs'
three theories, namely that (i) the capacity of Hot Cups is
exactly the Promised Beverage Volume, (ii) milk foam does not
count toward the volume of a Latte, and (iii) Starbucks' steaming
pitchers and Beverage Recipe Cards specify quantities of
ingredients, which result in Lattes, which contain less than the
Promised Beverage Volume.  Accordingly, the Court says, the
Plaintiffs fail to show that Lattes contain less than the
Promised Beverage Volume represented on Starbucks' menu boards.

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


STEINHOFF INT'L: PSA to Pursue Class Suit Over Accounting Scandal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Wendell Roelf, writing for Reuters, reports that the South
African civil servants union PSA said on Jan. 25 it had teamed up
with PIC, the second-largest shareholder in troubled Steinhoff ,
to pursue a lawsuit to recoup around $1.4 billion of pensioners'
money lost in an accounting scandal.

Steinhoff, owner of more than 40 retail brands including
Poundland in Britain, admitted "accounting irregularities" in
December, triggering an 85% share-price slide that wiped more
than $10 billion off its market capitalisation.

Creditor groups of Steinhoff have been joining forces to position
themselves for a potential debt restructuring at the company,
people close to the matter said.

The Public Investment Corporation (PIC), which has around R2
trillion of government employees' pensions under its custody, is
among the hardest hit by the stock price collapse as it owns
about 8% of the company.

"We want to recoup as much as possible and that is why we have an
agreement with PIC to have a joint class action to make sure that
happens . . . to try and recoup the losses of those investments
which is standing now at R17 billion ($1.43 billion)," Tahir
Maepa, deputy general manager at the Public Servants Association,
or PSA, told a news conference.

PSA also said documents obtained from Steinhoff painted a picture
of a company with a "complete collapse" of corporate governance
and "real maladministration" of its tax system.

Steinhoff did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Shares in the company were down 8% and 6% in Johannesburg and
Frankfurt.


SUBARU OF AMERICA: Faces "Sauer" Suit in C.D. of California
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Subaru of America,
Inc. The case is styled as Cheryl Sauer, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Subaru of America,
Inc., Defendant, Case No. 5:18-cv-00118 (C.D. Cal., January 19,
2018).

Subaru of America, Inc., based in Cherry Hill, New Jersey, is the
United States-based distributor of Subaru's brand vehicles, a
subsidiary of Subaru Corporation of Japan.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


TALISMAN ENERGY: Royalty Owners Seek Class Action Status
--------------------------------------------------------
Provost Umphrey Law Firm on Jan. 24 disclosed that royalty owners
are seeking class-action status in a lawsuit against Talisman
Energy USA, Inc. over claims the company manipulated production
volumes for wells operated in the Eagle Ford shale basin in South
Texas.

Attorneys for plaintiffs Rayanne Regmund Chesser, Gloria Janssen,
and Michael and Carol Newberry filed a motion Jan. 22, 2018,
seeking class certification in U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Texas and named lawyers Bryan O. Blevins Jr.
and Mike Hamilton of Provost Umphrey Law Firm, L.L.P., to
represent the class.  The lawyers estimate approximately 4,000
royalty owners could be involved.

"It's clear that Talisman knew what they were doing when the
company voluntarily commingled production from different wells
and then allocated net sales in violation of best oilfield
practices and Texas law," said Mr. Blevins.  "We intend to prove
that the amounts paid to the royalty owners were based on
manipulated production volumes."

The lawsuit charges that from Jan. 1, 2013, to June 1, 2016,
Talisman failed to report, account for and make royalty payments
based on its lease agreements.  In addition, the company is
accused of altering wellhead production volumes by as much as 20
percent and paying royalties based on estimated sales volumes
instead of the actual amount of oil or gas sold or saved.

In 2010, Talisman entered the Texas oil and gas market in a joint
venture with Statoil. In July 2013, the agreement was revised,
with Statoil assuming half the well operations and Talisman
operating the other half.  Shortly after that, royalty owners
noticed a difference in reported production volumes from Talisman
compared to Statoil.

Talisman Energy USA is an indirect subsidiary of Calgary,
Alberta-based Talisman Energy Inc., which was acquired by Repsol
S.A. in 2015.

The case isRayanne Regmund Chesser, Gloria Janssen, Michael
Newberry and Carol Newberry v. Talisman Energy USA, Inc. No.
4:16-cv-02960 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Texas, Houston Division.


THYSSENKRUPP ELEVATOR: Construction Workers Sue Over Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
James Nerney, Kenneth McCracken, Thomas Murray, Alvin Thomas and
William John Trampas, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Thyssenkrupp Elevator
Corporation, Defendants, Case No. 500724/2018, (N.Y. Sup.,
January 12, 2018), seeks compensatory damages and punitive
damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest and such other
injunctive and equitable relief under the Fair Labor Standards
Act and New York Labor Law.

Plaintiffs are elevator construction workers on the World Trade
Center Towers Complex in lower Manhattan who worked from between
January 1, 2010 and December 31, 2016. Thyssenkrupp failed to pay
them all overtime wages, all prevailing wages and retain and make
available the records of the dates and times of their employment
with Defendant. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Annie E. Causey, Esq.
      James F. Woods, Esq.
      WOODS LONERGAN PLLC
      280 Madison Avenue, Suite 300
      New York, NY 10016
      Tel: (212) 684-2500
      Email: jwoods@woodslaw.com
             acausey@woodslaw.com


TRAF GROUP: "McMillin" Suit Alleges FDCPA Violations
----------------------------------------------------
David McMillin, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated
v. The Traf Group, Inc. dba Credit America and John Does 1-10,
Case No. MER-L-000092-18 (N.J. Super., January 11, 2018), seeks
damages and other relief for Defendants' violations of the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act.

Plaintiff David McMillin is a natural person currently residing
in West Windsor, Mercer County, New Jersey.

Defendant The Traf Group, Inc. dba Credit America is a collection
agency with an office located at 2297 Highway 33, Suite 906,
Hamilton Square, NJ 08690. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Bharati Sharma Patel, Esq.
      THE WOLF LAW FIRM, LLC
      1520 U.S. Highway 130, Suite 101
      North Brunswick, NJ 08902
      Tel: (732) 545-7900
      Fax: (732) 545-1030


TWILIO INC: Flowers Files Suit for Invasion of Privacy
------------------------------------------------------
Angela Flowers, individually, and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Twilio, Inc., a corporation, and Does 1-
20, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. RG16804363, (Cal. Super.,
January 12, 2018), seeks actual damages and attorney's fees and
costs under the California Invasion of Privacy Act, California
Penal Code and California's Unfair Competition Law.

Angela Flowers worked as a cleaner for Twilio Client Homejoy.
Twilio allegedly intercepted, recorded, stored and disclosed her
communications with clients without her consent. Clients provide
these phone numbers to the workers and customers who may wish to
contact each other, rather than providing the actual individual
phone numbers of the workers and customers. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


UFC: Expects to Settle Mayweather-McGregor PPV Class Actions
------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Gift, writing for Forbes, reports that court papers show
that the class-action legal saga following pay-per-view (PPV)
outages during last August's Floyd Mayweather vs. Conor McGregor
boxing match is likely coming to an end soon for the UFC and its
streaming partner NeuLion.

The matchup of the undefeated boxing legend Mayweather against
the UFC's brash lightweight champion and knockout artist McGregor
landed second on the all-time list of boxing North American PPV
buys at 4.3 million, just 300,000 behind Mayweather-Pacquiao's
2015 record-setting mark of 4.6 million.

The event was not only a traditional Showtime PPV, but also was
available for streaming via ShowtimePPV.com, UFC.tv, Sling TV and
PlayStation 4.  Throughout the night, reports of crashes, login
problems and disconnections would permeate the news and social
media, with basketball legend Dick Vitale even getting in on the
action on Twitter to complain about "awful" service from Frontier
Communications.

What Showtime described as "scattered" outages eventually caused
the Mayweather-McGregor main event to be delayed by roughly 20
minutes. But for some MMA fans who decided to tune in through the
UFC's Fight Pass stream, delays were the least of their problems.

Certain customers appeared to have missed all or part of the main
event after NeuLion reportedly experienced what UFC president
Dana White called "technical issues" in a statement a few days
later.  In the same statement, White said the UFC had started
processing refunds, but that wouldn't stop class-action lawsuits
from being filed by frustrated customers, with one complaint
explaining, "The value in watching a sporting event live is
greater than the value of watching it on a replay, as the outcome
of the sporting event is then known and the excitement is gone."

While not nearly as many MayMac lawsuits ended up being filed as
were after the Mayweather-Pacquiao post-fight revelation of a
pre-existing Pacquiao shoulder injury, five would ultimately be
filed against the UFC, three against NeuLion and at least five
against Showtime.

Showtime's lawsuits have either moved to arbitration or been
dismissed, and two of the UFC suits were also dismissed, leaving
three class-action cases against the UFC and NeuLion in Las Vegas
Federal Court.

According to a recent status report, the UFC, NeuLion and
plaintiffs have made "substantial progress" towards resolving
their disputes and expect to file for preliminary approval of a
class-action settlement by February 5th.

While the UFC Fight Pass system has taken its share of past
criticism over design and user-friendliness, it has been a
remarkably stable platform whose user experience has slowly but
surely improved since its December 2013 introduction.

The upcoming settlements should for the time being put to bed
news of Fight Pass' stability . . . that is until
Mayweather-McGregor 2 is announced.


UNITED STATES: Stewart et al. Sue over Medicaid Work-Requirement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case, RONNIE MAURICE STEWART, 1700 Jennifer Road, Apartment
25 Lexington, KY 40505; GLASSIE MAE KASEY, 5414 Robinwood Road
Louisville, KY 40218; LAKIN BRANHAM, 29 Tie Yard Drive
Dwale, KY 41621; SHANNA BALLINGER, 1451 West Lincoln Trail
Boulevard Apartment 127 Radcliff, KY 40160; DAVE KOBERSMITH
105 Leslie Drive Berea, KY 40403; WILLIAM BENNETT 425 Race Street
Lexington, KY 40508; SHAWNA NICOLE McCOMAS 1053 Winburn Drive,
Apartment 23 Lexington, KY 40511; ALEXA HATCHER 1875 Bill Dedmon
Road Bowling Green, KY 42101; MICHAEL WOODS and SARA WOODS, 11692
Main Street, Apartment 2 Martin, KY 41649; KIMBERLY WITHERS
2220 Devonport Drive, Apartment I38 Lexington, KY 40504; KATELYN
ALLEN 12 West Adams Lane, Lot 26 Salyersville, KY 41465; AMANDA
SPEARS 1070 Jackson Road Park Hill, KY 41011; DAVID ROODE
331 Montclair Avenue Ludlow, KY 41016; SHEILA MARLENE PENNEY
5410 West Catherine Street Apartment A Louisville, KY 40203;
QUENTON RADFORD 2501 Montgomery Avenue Ashland, KY 41101, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, v. ERIC HARGAN, ACTING SECRETARY UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES in his official capacity
200 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, DC 20201; SEEMA VERMA,
ADMINISTRATOR CENTERS FOR MEDICARE AND MEDI-CAID SERVICES, in her
official capacity 7500 Security Boulevard Baltimore, MD 21244;
DEMETRIOS L. KOUZOUKAS, PRINCIPAL DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR
THE CENTERS FOR MEDICARE AND MEDICAID SERVICES in his official
capacity 7500 Security Boulevard Baltimore, MD 21244; BRIAN NEALE
DIRECTOR CENTER FOR MEDICAID AND CHIP SERVICES in his official
capacity, 7500 Security Boulevard Baltimore, MD 21244; UNITED
STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES 200 Independence
Avenue, S.W., Washington, DC 20201; THE CENTERS FOR MEDICARE AND
MEDICAID SERVICES 7500 Security Boulevard Baltimore, MD 21244,
the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-00152 (D. D.C., Jan. 24, 2018),
challenges the efforts of the Executive Branch to bypass the
legislative process and act unilaterally to "comprehensively
transform" Medicaid, the cornerstone of the social safety net.

Purporting to invoke a narrow statutory waiver authority that
allows experimental projects "likely to assist in promoting the
objectives" of Medicaid, the Executive Branch has instead
effectively rewritten the statute, bypassing congressional
restrictions, overturning a half century of administrative
practice, and threatening irreparable harm to the health and
welfare of the poorest and most vulnerable in the country.

The Medicaid program provides health insurance to more than 75
million low-income people in the United States. Medicaid enables
states to provide a range of federally-specified preventive,
acute, and long-term health care services to individuals "whose
income and resources are insufficient to meet the costs of
necessary medical services."

The Social Security Act, of which Medicaid is a part, does permit
experimental or pilot programs, but only in narrow circumstances,
pursuant to a waiver by the Secretary of Health and Human
Services, and only if such program is likely to promote the
objectives of the Medicaid Act.

On August 24, 2016, Kentucky Governor Matt Bevin submitted an
application to the Secretary requesting a waiver of various
Medicaid Act requirements to implement the "Kentucky HEALTH"
project. Kentucky was candid about its goal: it aimed "to
comprehensively transform Medicaid."

According to the lawsuit, the Kentucky HEALTH program sought to
radically alter Medicaid in Kentucky, including by requiring
Medicaid enrollees to work to receive health insurance and by
imposing new and substantial premiums and restrictions. By the
State's own estimate, Kentucky HEALTH would reduce Medicaid
enrollment over a five-year period by over 95,000 adults and
reduce payments for health care for low income Kentuckians by
approximately $2.4 billion. The Kentucky HEALTH application was
subject to state and federal public comment in 2016 and 2017, and
the Center for Medicaid Services ("CMS") received over 3,000
comments.

On January 11, 2018, after the comment period closed on the
Kentucky HEALTH application, the Director of CMS announced a new
approach to Medicaid waivers. Reversing decades of agency
guidance, and consistent with the Director's own expressed view
of the need to "fundamentally transform Medicaid," Defendants
issued a letter to State Medicaid Directors announcing CMS's
intention to, for the first time, approve waiver applications
containing work requirements and outlining "guidelines" for
states to consider in submitting such applications. The very next
day -- January 12, 2018 -- without seeking or permitting comments
on the radical expansion of the Medicaid waiver authority, the
Defendants granted the Kentucky HEALTH application, asserting
that this grant and Kentucky's imposition of work requirements
are consistent with CMS's newly-minted approach set out in its
letter to State Medicaid Directors.

The Secretary's issuance of the letter to State Medicaid
Directors and approval of Kentucky's request sharply deviate from
the congressionally-established requirements of the Medicaid
program and vastly exceed any lawful exercise of the Secretary's
limited waiver authority. This change will harm Kentuckians
across the state -- housekeepers and custodians, ministers and
morticians, car repairmen, retired workers, students, church
administrators, bank tellers, caregivers, and musicians -- who
need a range of health services, including check-ups, diabetes
treatment, mental health services, blood pressure monitoring and
treatment, and vision and dental care. The letter and approval of
Kentucky's application are unauthorized attempts to re-write the
Medicaid Act, and the use of the statute's waiver authority to
"transform" Medicaid is an abuse of that authority. The
Defendants' actions here thus violate both the Administrative
Procedure Act and the Constitution, and they cannot survive.[BN]

Counsel to National Health Law Program:

          Thomas J. Perrelli, Esq.
          Ian Heath Gershengorn, Esq.
          Devi M. Rao, Esq.
          Samuel F. Jacobson, Esq.
          Natacha Y. Lam, Esq.
          Lauren J. Hartz, Esq.
          JENNER & BLOCK LLP
          1099 New York Avenue, N.W.
          Suite 900, Washington, DC 20001
          Telephone: (202) 639 6004
          E-mail: TPerrelli@jenner.com
                  IGershengorn@jenner.com
                  DRao@jenner.com
                  SJacobson@jenner.com
                  NLam@jenner.com
                  LHartz@jenner.com

Counsel for Plaintiffs:

          Jane Perkins, Esq.
          Catherine McKee, Esq.
          Sarah Somers, Esq.
          NATIONAL HEALTH LAW PROGRAM
          200 N. Greensboro Street, Suite D-13
          Carrboro, NC 27510
          Telephone: (919) 968 6308 (x101)
          E-mail: perkins@healthlaw.org
                  mckee@healhtlaw.org

               - and -

          Anne Marie Regan, Esq.
          CARA STEWART KENTUCKY EQUAL JUSTICE CENTER
          222 South First Street, Suite 305
          Louisville, KY 40202
          Telephone: (502) 468 9403
          Facsimile: (859) 582 2285
          E-mail: amregan@kyequaljustice.org
                  carastewart@kyequaljustice.org

               - and -

          Samuel Brooke, Esq.
          Emily C.R. Early, Esq.
          Neil K. Sawhney, Esq.
          SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER
          400 Washington Avenue
          Montgomery, AL 36104
          Telephone: (334) 956 8200
          E-mail: samuel.brooke@splcenter.org
                  emily.early@splcenter.org
                  neil.sawhney@splcenter.org


VENTURA GREENS: Esmailzadegan et al. Seek to Certify Class
----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled ARASH ESMAILZADEGAN, an individual, DAVID
SILVA, an individual, TRACEY MONAHAN, an individual, NAZAIRE
FONTIA, an individual and JUDITH LaFOUNTAIN, an individual, the
Plaintiffs, VENTURA GREENS AT EMERALD DUNES CONDOMININIUM
ASSOCITION, INC., a Florida non-profit corporation, CORY KRAVIT,
an individual and KRAVIT LAW, P.A., a Florida corporation, the
Defendants, Case No. 9:17-cv-81040-RLR (S.D. Fla.), the Parties
ask the Court to grant the motion for class certification and
enter any further relief, including reasonable attorneys' fees,
costs and expenses pursuant to Florida Statute Section 559.77(2)
and 15 USCA section 1692k, that the court deems fair, just and
equitable.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=G3ixZrYz

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Geoffrey D. Ittleman, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF GEOFFREY D. ITTLEMAN, P.A.
          110 SE 6th Street, Suite 2300
          Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
          Telephone: (954) 462 8340
          Facsimile: (954) 462 8342
          E-mail: geoffrey@ittlemanlaw.com

Counsel for Ventura Greens

          Edward McNamara, Esq.
          EMERALD DUNES, KAUFMAN,
          DOLOWICH, VOLUCK
          401 East Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1400,
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          E-mail: emcnamara@kdvlaw.com

Counsel for CORY KRAVIT, an individual and KRAVIT LAW, P.A:

          Jaclyn Behar, Esq.
          BEHAR AND BEHAR, P.A,
          490 Sawgrass Corporate Parkway, Suite 300,
          Sunrise, FL 33325
          E-mail: jb@beharbehar.com


VOLKSWAGEN AG: Quebec Court Authorizes "Dieselgate" Class-Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Presse Canadienne reports that Quebec Superior Court on Jan. 24
authorized a class-action lawsuit against Volkswagen over the
"dieselgate" scandal.

The lawsuit is different from other class actions related to the
emissions-cheating scandal in that this one is in the name all
Quebecers, not only people who owned or leased Volkswagen
vehicles. It seeks $35 in punitive damages for every Quebecer.

The class action targets several entities, including Volkswagen
Group Canada Inc. and Audi Canada Inc.

It was brought forward by the Association quebecoise de lutte
contre la pollution atmospherique (AQLPA), an environmental
group.

The lawsuit targets several models including the Jetta, the Golf
and the Beetle, sold between 2009 and 2015.

The case will focus on whether the vehicles met Canadian
environmental standards, if they were equipped with software that
distorted the results of pollutant emissions, if they emitted
pollution beyond what is allowed by Canadian standards, and if
the builders intentionally falsified the devices.

AQLPA president Andre Belisle said he was pleased with this first
win.

"It basically confirms our rights to a healthy environment and
also the obligation to respect environmental law," he said.

"We are reviewing the court's decision on this first procedural
step and are in the process of determining what to do," a
Volkswagen spokesperson said.

Other applications for class-action suits have been filed in
Montreal for the benefit of people who bought or leased the
vehicles in question.


WAL-MART STORES: "Mathews" Class Action Suit Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------
Twinlab Consolidated Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2017, that the case Amy
Mathews v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. and Wal-Mart Stores Arkansas
LLC, Case No. CV-2015-0294 is still ongoing.

A purported class action entitled Amy Mathews v. Wal-Mart Stores,
Inc. and Wal-Mart Stores Arkansas LLC, Case No. CV-2015-0294, in
the Circuit Court of Independence County, Arkansas, Civil
Division, alleges a violation of the Arkansas Deceptive Trade
Practices Act based on the same allegations of the state attorney
general that serve as the basis for the claims in the Herbal
Supplements multidistrict litigation, and seeks certification of
a class of Arkansas residents purportedly impacted by the
allegations.

Twinlab Consolidated said "We are not a party to this litigation
but provide indemnity and defense with respect to certain of the
claims in this litigation."

Twinlab Consolidated together with its subsidiaries,
manufactures, markets, distributes, and retails nutritional
supplements and other natural products worldwide. The company
offers vitamins, minerals, specialty supplements, and sports
nutrition products under the Twinlab brand and the company is
based on Boca Raton, Florida.


WENDY'S: Winston & Straw Attorneys Discuss Class Action Ruling
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rex A. Mann, Esq., and Steven Grimes, Esq. of Winston & Strawn
LLP, in an article for Lexology, wrote that in late 2015, Wendy's
was subject to two different malware attacks at its various
franchise restaurants.  Wendy's was then hit with a class action
in February 2016 in the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Florida.  Wendy's recent opposition to the
plaintiffs' motion for class certification raises an issue that
defendants in such class actions should be mindful of --
overbreadth of the proposed class definition.

Wendy's opposes the class because it is not adequately defined
and is overbroad.  Based on the complex data breach at issue,
Wendy's argues that the class definition would include millions
of members who have no cause of action. To better understand
Wendy's position, we must understand the timing and reach of the
two malware attacks at issue.

The first malware (labeled "Variant A") only impacted restaurants
that used one brand of point-of-sale system (of several used by
Wendy's restaurants), and Variant A's infection lasted from
October 25, 2015 to no later than March 10, 2016, when it was
disabled.  The second malware (labeled "Variant B"), which
affected different point-of-sale systems than Variant A, began
its infection on November 30, 2015 and was completely disabled at
all impacted franchise restaurants by June 9, 2016.  If Variant A
and Variant B were considered collectively, the malware attack at
Wendy's spanned from October 25, 2015 to June 9, 2016; but of
course, not all franchise restaurants were infected for this
entire timeframe.  Nevertheless, plaintiffs' proposed class
includes all customers who made a credit or debit card purchase
at any of the affected restaurants from October 1, 2015 to
June 9, 2016.

Wendy's argues in its opposition to class certification that the
proposed class would sweep in numerous individuals, potentially
millions, who have no claim.  For example, although Variant A was
disabled by March 10, 2016 at all restaurants using the Variant A
point-of-sale system, the proposed class would include customers
that dined at those restaurants after the malware was disabled on
March 10, 2016.  Wendy's therefore asks the court to deny
plaintiffs' motion for class certification on the grounds that
the class would be incredibly overbroad and include millions of
individuals who had no claim and could not conceivably have been
injured by the data breach.

TIP: Wendy's position is a fresh reminder that a technical
understanding of the specific aspects of a breach can help
defense lawyers beat back data breach lawsuits. [GN]


WEST WIND: Fond-du-Lac Plane Crash Passengers File Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Guy Quenneville, writing for CBC News, reports that six of the 22
people who were aboard a plane that crashed shortly after takeoff
in Fond-du-Lac, Sask., in December and their families are suing
the airline, according to the passengers' lawyer.

Tony Merchant of Regina's Merchant Law Group says West Wind
Aviation should not have flown on Dec. 13 for several reasons,
including because the plane had weight issues.

"There was talk even among the staff of the plane being
overweight," said Mr. Merchant.  "There were issues of the
placement of the people on the plane and the way the weight was
distributed."

Mr. Merchant also said no directions were given to passengers as
the plane went down -- "not a word."

According to the statement of claim -- which Mr. Merchant filed
in the Regina Court of Queen's Bench -- "there was no warning or
indication from the pilot or flight staff that there were
problems during the crash.

"The passengers were left to fend for themselves in the chaos of
the accident."

"No appropriate steps" were taken to de-ice the runway or the
plane at the Fond-du-Lac airport, the statement of claim also
says.

None of the allegations has been proven in court. To proceed, the
proposed class action has to be approved by a judge.

Merchant said the statement of claim is based on the experiences
of his clients, and from other sources.

The statement of claim also names Athabasca Basin Development --
a group of seven northern Saskatchewan communities that owns 65
per cent of West Wind Aviation.

The CEO of Athabasca Basin Development said statements regarding
the lawsuit would come from West Wind Aviation.

Airline issues statement
West Wind Aviation's flights are currently grounded.

The company issued a statement through Dennis Baranieski, vice
president of business development and corporate services.

"We are hearing that legal proceedings may be initiated. If this
does come to pass, we certainly will respect the legal process
and its due diligence processes," Mr. Baranieski said.

The company has 20 days to file a statement of defence.

The Transportation Safety Board of Canada is investigating the
cause of the crash and is not expected to release its results for
several months.

Transport Canada suspended West Wind Aviation's air operator
certificate after the crash due to "deficiencies in the company's
operational control system."

Operational control systems track a number of things, including:

  -- A plane's maintenance history.
  -- The weight of a plane's luggage and cargo and how that
weight is distributed throughout the plane.
   -- Communication between pilots, dispatchers and other on-the-
ground airline employees.
   -- The field experience of the pilots and how many hours they
worked before a flight that crashed.
Parents of passenger who died among claimants
Merchant said that group includes the parents of Arson Fern Jr.,
the 19-year-old passenger who died in hospital two weeks after
the crash.

Several other people were seriously injured.

"Broken ribs, serious head injuries, internal bleeding," said
Mr. Merchant.  "A number of members are still in hospital, which
is indicative of the seriousness of their injuries."

"There's also the issue of compensation for shock, PTSD,
emotional distress," added Mr. Merchant.  "In some instances they
watched horrific things happen to people they knew and friends."

$5K given to each survivor: court documents
According to the statement of claim, about one week after the
crash, West Wind gave each survivor $5,000 plus a note extending
"thoughts and prayers."

"In an effort to provide some help over the Christmas break
during this difficult time, please accept this $5,000," read the
note, according to the statement of claim.

"In no way does this money constitute a waiver for any future
legal claims you may wish to make."

The company has also provided survivors third-party grief
counselling following the crash, according to its Facebook page.
[GN]


XUNLEI LIMITED: March 20 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
-----------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on Jan. 24 disclosed that a class action lawsuit
has been filed against Xunlei Limited ("Xunlei" or the "Company")
(NASDAQ:XNET) and certain of its officers.  The class action,
filed in United States District Court, for the Southern District
of New York, and docketed under 18-cv-00646, is on behalf of a
class consisting of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired
Xunlei securities, seeking to recover compensable damages caused
by defendants' violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Xunlei securities between
October 10, 2017, and January 11, 2018, both dates inclusive, you
have until March 20, 2018, to ask the Court to appoint you as
Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the Complaint can be
obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com.   To discuss this action,
contact Robert S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or
888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 9980. Those who
inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing
address, telephone number, and the number of shares purchased.

Xunlei is a cloud-based acceleration technology company operating
an internet platform in China based on cloud technology to enable
users to access, manage, and consume digital media content.  The
Company's main product is OneCloud, a network linked storage
device allowing multiple users to share online storage remotely
and a "mining machine" for users to share their idle bandwidth
with Xunlei's content delivery networks.

On October 10, 2017, Xunlei issued a press release announcing the
introduction of "OneCoin", a blockchain-based product with no
central bank endorsed value.  OneCoin was subsequently renamed
"Lianke".

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period,
Defendants made materially false and misleading statements
regarding the Company's business, operational and compliance
policies.  Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Xunlei had engaged
in an unlawful financial activity; (ii) OneCoin was a form of
disguised initial coin offering ("ICO"); (iii) Xunlei was engaged
in the promotion of an Initial Miner Offering ("IMO"); and (iv)
as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' statements about
Xunlei's business, operations, and prospects, were false and
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

On or about November 24, 2017, various news outlets in China
reported that Xunlei's business partner Shenzhen Xunlei Big Data
Information Services Company Ltd. ("Big Data") was accusing
Xunlei of conducting an unlawful ICO through the Company's
OneCoin project.

On this news and over the course of two trading days, the
Company's ADS price declined $6.33 from a close on November 24,
2017, at $24.91 per ADS, to a close at $18.58 per ADS on November
28, 2017, a drop of approximately 25.41%.

On November 29, 2017, Xunlei issued a press release entitled
"Xunlei Provides Clarification on Recent Market Development,"
announcing an update on its business relationship with Big Data.
The press release stated, in part, that Xunlei has requested Big
Data to stop using the "Xunlei" brand name immediately and also
terminated its right to use the "Xunlei" brand.

On this news, the Company's ADS price declined $5.78 from a close
on November 28, 2017, at $18.58 per ADS, to a close at $12.80 per
ADS on November 29, 2017, a drop of approximately 31.1%.

On January 12, 2018, the National Internet Finance Association of
China issued a "Risk Alert" notice regarding "Disguised ICO
[Initial Coin Offering] Activities" (the "Risk Alert Notice").
The Risk Alert Notice referenced a September 2017 notice issued
jointly by seven government ministries, which stated, in part,
that "ICO activities are suspected of involving illegal criminal
activities including illegal fund-raising, illegal issuance of
securities, and illegal sale of notes and bonds" and "all
institutions and individuals should immediately stop engaging in
ICO activities."  The Risk Alert Notice further stated that "[i]n
the case of Lianke issued by Xunlei . . . the issuing company in
effect substitutes Lianke for the duty to pay back project
contributors with legal tender, making it essentially a financing
activity and a form of disguised ICO."

On this news, the Company's ADS price declined $6.27 from a close
on January 11, 2018, at $22.90 per ADS, to a close at $16.63 per
ADS on January 12, 2018, a drop of approximately 27.38%.

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


YUME INC: Bright Files Securities Class Action in Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Bright, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. YuMe, Inc., Mitchell Habib, Adriel Lares, Elias
Nader, Christopher Paisley, Eric Singer, John Mutch, Brian
Kelley, and Stephen Domenik, Case No. 3:18-cv-00237 (N.D. Calif.,
January 10, 2018), is brought against the Defendants for
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Plaintiff Gordon Bright is, and has been continuously through all
times relevant hereto, the owner of YuMe common stock.

Defendant YuMe is a Delaware corporation with its principal
executive offices located at 1204 Middlefield Road, Redwood City,
CA. YuMe's common stock is listed and traded on The New York
Stock Exchange under the symbol "YUME." YuMe is a data management
company that provides insights and analysis for advertisers about
consumers across a range of connected digital devices, including
smartphones, tablets, laptops, and televisions.

The Individual Defendants are directors of YuMe. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
      Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq.
      GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
      1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
      Los Angeles, CA 90067
      Tel: (310) 201-9150
      Fax: (310) 201-9160
      E-mail: lglancy@glancylaw.com
              info@glancylaw.com

          - and -

      Carl L. Stine, Esq.
      Joshua W. Ruthizer, Esq.
      Robert S. Plosky, Esq.
      WOLF POPPER LLP
      845 Third Avenue, 12th Floor
      New York, NY 10022
      Tel: (212) 759-4600
      Fax: (212) 486-2093


* #MeToo Movement May Have Implications on Workplace Class Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Erin Mulvaney, writing for Law.com, reports that the outcome of
the major U.S. Supreme Court case over whether companies can ban
class actions in employment agreements holds new importance as
women join together to speak out against sexual misconduct in the
workplace, former National Labor Relations Board general counsel
Richard Griffin -- rgriffin@bredhoff.com -- said on Jan. 24.

Mr. Griffin, who argued the case before the high court in
October, said the #MeToo movement that sprung from accusations
against high-profile men in power illustrates the importance of
"strength in numbers."

The trio of consolidated cases at the high court confront whether
workplace arbitration agreements that ban class actions violate
the National Labor Relations Act because they restrict employees'
rights to engage in concerted activities.  Employers and workers'
rights advocates are watching this case closely.  Dozens of
companies have cases on hold pending the outcome of the dispute
at the Supreme Court.

"It is a very important case," Mr. Griffin said on Jan. 24 on a
panel hosted by Bloomberg Law.  "It is particularly important in
all the discussion we are seeing now in the #MeToo context with
sexual harassment, where that is demonstrated. Once people
realize they have been subjected to the same conduct, others are
allowed to come forward."

The Supreme Court case was argued just before The New York Times
and The New Yorker investigations into abuses by Hollywood
producer Harvey Weinstein led to a wave of accusations against
powerful men. In the last few months, the movement has caused
companies to reconsider internal policies and prompted
legislative action.

"The importance of being able for employees to join together and
proceed jointly or collectively is crucial," said Mr. Griffin,
now of counsel to Bredhoff & Kaiser in Washington.

Griffin and fellow experts on labor and employment, former NLRB
member Sharon Block, Epstein, Becker & Green member Paul DeCamp
and Seyfarth Shaw partner Alexander Passantino, spoke on the
Jan. 24 panel.

Mr. Griffin said the key question isn't whether class action
waivers limit workers ability to come together, but rather
whether the Federal Arbitration Agreement, which says agreements
should be enforced as written, holds more power.

Mr. Passantino said that the pending Supreme Court case is
extremely important to employers, particularly as an effort for
"certainty into the process."

Ms. Block, executive director of Harvard Law School's Labor and
Worklife Program, said forcing workers to bring claims as
individuals could have the effect of taking away the rights
outlined in Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act, which
protects concerted speech.

"It can eliminate protections for workers who need that
protection the most," Ms. Block said.  "I think this is a
tremendously important case.  The consequences of it, if it comes
out the wrong way, could be significant."

Mr. DeCamp said he thinks Congress should settle the question
about whether Section 7 can prohibit class actions.  The current
makeup of the Republican-led National Labor Relations Board, he
said, would not likely have come to the same conclusion as the
Obama-era board did.

Mr. Griffin, representing the NLRB, argued before the Supreme
Court in the consolidated cases.  The U.S. Justice Department had
earlier supported the board's position under the Obama
administration but, under U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions,
switched positions to back the companies.  The Justice Department
at the high court argued that class action bans in employment
agreements are lawful.

"What happens here if you require people to sue individually is
that they don't do it at all," Mr. Griffin said on Jan. 24.
"They won't seek to do it if they can't do it together."


* Defendants Seek Transparency of Litigation Funding Agreements
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alison Frankel, writing for Reuters, reports that for just about
as long as the litigation funding industry has existed in a
meaningful way in the U.S. -- about a decade, give or take --
defendants have been pushing to require plaintiffs to disclose
details of their arrangements with outside financiers.  They've
tried in Congress, most recently in House Judiciary Committee
Chairman Bob Goodlatte's Fairness in Class Action Litigation Act,
which has stalled in the Senate.  They've also tried before the
U.S. Courts' Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure.  Last
June, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce petitioned the Rules Committee
to amend the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to mandate
disclosure of outside funding agreements.  The committee
entertained a presentation from the Chamber -- and from opponents
of mandatory disclosure -- in November.

In a much less sweeping way, defendants have pressed for
disclosure of funding arrangements in particular cases.  Once in
a while, they hit pay dirt.  In 2016, U.S. District Judge Susan
Illston of San Francisco granted Chevron's motion  to compel
disclosure of a litigation funding contract in a class action by
Nigerian fishermen claiming damages from an oil rig explosion off
the coast of Nigeria.  Judge Illston's decision dovetailed with
the Northern District of California's consideration of a rule
change to require plaintiffs to disclose outside funding. In
January 2017, the district changed its courtwide standing order
to mandate disclosure only in class actions.

The Chevron class action, however, is an outlier.  Far more
often, as Georgetown law professor Maria Glover detailed in
"Alternative Litigation Finance and the Limits of the Work-
Product Doctrine," a 2016 paper for the NYU Journal of Law and
Business, judges have sided with plaintiffs arguing that their
arrangements with litigation funders are protected work product.
(Notably, the lead plaintiff in the Chevron case in which Judge
Illston ordered disclosure did not claim work-product privilege.)

In the most recent example, U.S. District Judge Cathy Bissoon of
Pittsburgh issued the redacted version of her decision denying a
motion to compel by Seagate and Western Digital Corporation,
which wanted to find out the details of how Lambeth Magnetic
Structures is financing its patent infringement case against
them.

In separate motions, Seagate and Western Digital -- represented,
respectively, by Faegre Baker Daniels and Latham & Watkins --
argued that Dr. David Lambeth, LMS's principal, must reveal his
pre-suit discussions with litigation funders, as well as turning
over an unredacted version of his final funding agreement,
because the documents are commercial, not litigation work
product. During part of the time LMS was talking to funders, it
didn't even own the IP at issue in the case, the motions said.

LMS's lawyers from Radulescu countered that all of Lambeth's
discussions were conducted in anticipation of litigation so
they're protected by the work-product privilege.  Judge Bissoon
agreed, holding simply that "these communications were primarily,
perhaps exclusively, for the purpose of preparing for litigation
(and) fall within work product immunity."

Judge Bissoon did not provide citations for her ruling, but the
most thorough examination of work-product privilege and
litigation funding is probably a 2014 opinion by U.S. Magistrate
Jeffrey Cole of Chicago in Miller U.K. v. Caterpillar, which
concluded that most (but not all) of the documents the plaintiff
shared with litigation funders were protected by the work-product
privilege because they anticipated litigation.

Professor Glover said the trend line is quite distinct: "Thus
far, courts have generally held that materials containing
communications between attorneys and third-party funders are
protected by the work-product privilege, as they have been
prepared 'because of' the prospect of litigation, even though
they are also prepared for a business purpose," she wrote in her
2016 NYU paper.  "Even courts that characterize the funding
arrangements as constituting a business transaction have held
that they are still covered by the work-product privilege because
they would not be prepared but for an impending litigation."

Since that paper's publication, Glover said, she has not seen any
published decisions holding that communications with litigation
funders fall outside of the work-product privilege.  My Westlaw
check found two reported opinions from 2017 concluding the
privilege does apply to litigation funding materials -- ViaMedia
v. Comcast from U.S. District Judge Amy St. Eve of Chicago and In
re International Oil Trading Company from U.S. Bankruptcy Judge
Erik Kimball of West Palm Beach -- and no decisions reaching the
contrary determination that the work-product privilege does not
shield discussions and contracts with litigation funders.

"The 'in anticipation of litigation' protection fits squarely on
top of litigation funding," Professor Glover said.

She told me (and wrote in her 2016 paper) that she sees in the
"categorical protection" judges have granted to plaintiffs
seeking to ward off disclosure of their funding agreements an
implicit rejection of the business lobby's anti-funding campaign.
"Judges perceive an attempt to disable people from being able to
bring claims," she said.  The near-consensus among judges that
work-product privilege applies "doesn't happen without strong
policy leanings," Professor Glover said.

The Chamber and its fellow litigation funding skeptics may still
wrest disclosure requirements from Congress or concessions from
the Rules Committee.  But individual defendants trying to get
hold of funding agreements are fighting an expanding body of
precedent that says those deals are protected. [GN]


* ERISA Litigation Remains Strong, Bloomberg Analysis Shows
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jacklyn Wille, writing for Bloomberg BNA, reports that workers
who sued their employers under the federal law that governs
employee benefits raked in $529 million in 2017 through class
settlements in more than 30 cases.

None of the deals agreed to in 2017 was quite as splashy as the
$352 million settlement Providence Health workers submitted for
court approval in 2016, but the year's biggest settlements were
hefty nonetheless.  Hospital workers who challenged Franciscan
Missionaries of Our Lady Health's pension plan scored 2017's
largest ERISA settlement (nearly $126 million), and Bon Secours
and JPMorgan agreed to $98.3 million and $75 million deals,
respectively.

Bloomberg Law analyzed more than 30 class action settlements
under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act that were
submitted for preliminary court approval during 2017.  Not every
deal included a cash payment, but those that did carried an
average value of about $21 million.

ERISA Litigation Remains Strong
These numbers show that the world of ERISA litigation remains
strong, even if predictions of a litigation explosion weren't
fully realized, Carl F. Engstrom, a plaintiff-side employee
benefits litigator with Nichols Kaster in Minneapolis, told
Bloomberg Law.

"While the types of cases with big settlements have shifted
somewhat, I would say it shows not an explosion of litigation by
any means, but it shows that the area remains strong.  There's
still some very good results being achieved by plaintiffs,"
Mr. Engstrom said.

The frequency of "big-ticket" ERISA deals -- with 12 cases
resolving for more than $10 million each -- may suggest that
once-novel theories of liability have matured and become more
predictable, Stephen D. Rosenberg --
SRosenberg@wagnerlawgroup.com -- a partner with Wagner Law Group
and chair of its ERISA litigation practice, told Bloomberg Law.

"What struck me in 2017 was how frequently you saw $25 million
here, $75 million there -- and against very big-name defendants,"
Mr. Rosenberg said.  "It suggested to me the maturation of these
theories of liability in the sense that both sides now agree on
the parameters of what they're talking about.  They're speaking
the same language in discussing the claims, and the theories of
liability aren't so novel and untested that you would just fight
them because you don't yet have some idea of what a court might
do with the theory."

Despite these big settlements, 2017 also saw many ERISA class
actions ending with quick dismissals.

"2017 also indicated that it's not going to be a bonanza or free-
for-all for plaintiffs' lawyers," Mr. Engstrom said.  "The courts
are taking a close look at each case at pretty early stages and
are willing to dismiss claims.  Some of the doom-saying that you
heard from the defense bar in the past two years about waves of
litigation and massive settlements hasn't been borne out."

Church Plans Led the Pack
Six settlements reached in 2017 involved hospitals accused of
running their pension plans as ERISA-exempt church plans.  This
issue, which began simmering in the lower courts in 2013, came to
a head with the U.S. Supreme Court's June 2017 decision in
Advocate Health Care Network v. Stapleton, which allowed
religiously affiliated hospitals to run church plans exempt from
ERISA's funding, disclosure, and insurance requirements.  Workers
had challenged this practice, in part because they say it caused
plans to become underfunded by tens or hundreds of millions of
dollars.

"Generally speaking, last year saw some large church plan
settlements along with a number of deals involving the
administration of 401(k) and individual account plans,"
Brian T. Ortelere -- brian.ortelere@morganlewis.com -- a defense-
side ERISA litigator and partner in Morgan Lewis & Bockius' New
York and Philadelphia offices, told Bloomberg Law in an email.

"The church plan settlements were seemingly brokered without the
benefit of the Supreme Court's ruling in Advocate Health and,
that said, it remains to be seen how the ruling will impact the
pending litigations (although certainly the opinion has
significantly tipped the balance in favor of defendants),"
Mr. Ortelere added.

Three of the year's four biggest ERISA settlements involved
church plans: Franciscan Missionaries ($126 million), Bon Secours
($98.3 million), and St. Joseph's Hospital ($42.5 million).  Holy
Cross Hospital reached a $4 million deal in March.  Two other
hospital systems - Wheaton Franciscan and Methodist Le Bonheur --
struck deals that involved benefit guarantees, rather than cash
payments or pension contributions.

The four church plan settlements that included a monetary
component had an average value of more than $66 million.

Pensions and Health Care
Other frequently settled ERISA cases involved alleged pension
miscalculations (five cases) and challenges to health plan
coverage restrictions (five cases).

These cases tended to lead to smaller settlements.  The largest
deal involving health plan coverage was a $5.25 million
settlement with Health Care Service Corp. in a case over
residential mental health treatments.  Cigna signed a $2.75
million deal over mental health coverage in March.

Cases involving pension calculations led to similarly sized
settlements. UCB Holdings and Com Dev USA LLC settled disputes
with pensioners for $5.5 million and $4.1 million, respectively.

Although these cases tended to see more modest cash payments,
they also frequently included other types of relief not reflected
in the size of the settlement.  For example, several pension
settlements included a requirement that workers' benefits be
recalculated using more favorable criteria. And several disputes
over health plan coverage led to settlements that required
insurers to lift coverage restrictions or sometimes reprocess
claims that were previously denied.

Proprietary Funds
The recent flurry of litigation against financial companies that
put affiliated investment products in their 401(k) plans led to
four class settlements in 2017.  More than two dozen financial
companies -- including JPMorgan Chase Bank, Charles Schwab Corp.,
and Morgan Stanley -- have been sued by workers who say the
proprietary funds in their 401(k) plans allow their employers to
unfairly profit at the expense of their retirement savings.

The average proprietary fund settlement was about $10.5 million
in 2017.  American Airlines reached the largest deal ($22
million) in a case challenging the American Beacon funds in its
401(k) plan. Allianz, TIAA, and New York Life reached class
settlements ranging between $3 million and $12 million.

More proprietary fund settlements may be coming down the pike in
2018.  This litigation effort began in earnest in 2015, and about
20 cases remain pending at the district court level.  The first
appellate decision in this line of cases could be coming in 2018,
as well, with a case against Wells Fargo pending in the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.

Attorneys' Fees
The attorneys' fees awards received by class counsel in 2017
weren't quite as high as some of the settlement figures would
suggest.

Rodriguez Tramont & Nunez PA, a Florida-based firm with a broad
array of practice areas, scored 2017's largest fee award to be
approved by a judge: $8.75 million for obtaining a $25 million
settlement in a case against Merrill Lynch (35 percent).
St. Louis-based Schlichter Bogard & Denton won $5.025 million in
fees in its $16.8 million deal with Northrop Grumman (30
percent).

Other firms have negotiated significant fee awards that are still
awaiting court approval.  The legal team of Schneider Wallace
Cottrell Konecky Wotkyns LLP and Law Offices of Michael M. Mulder
stand to receive up to $25 million in fees if a federal judge
approves the $75 million deal they negotiated with JPMorgan over
the company's stable value fund (33 percent).  Nichols Kaster
PLLP and Kendall Law Group PLLP will receive $6.6 million in fees
for their $22 million deal with American Airlines, if a federal
judge approves their fee request (30 percent).

Interestingly, the largest settlements of the year didn't lead to
especially large fee requests or awards.  2017's biggest class
action settlement -- the $126 million deal signed by Franciscan
Missionaries -- resulted in a fee request of only $1 million (1
percent).  This pattern of large settlements and modest fee
awards could be seen in other church plan cases, too: The biggest
attorneys' fee request in a church plan case was $2.5 million,
which came in the $42.5 million deal with St. Joseph's (6
percent).

And one of the year's biggest settlements -- a $23 million deal
between Century Aluminum and retirees who challenged cuts in
their health benefits -- came with no fee award at all.  In their
motion for settlement approval, the retirees' lawyers said they
wouldn't seek an award of attorneys' fees or expenses.

Law Firm Action
Morgan Lewis had the biggest footprint in ERISA class action
settlements, representing defendants in seven cases out of about
30.  The firm's clients included JPMorgan, Merrill Lynch, Wawa,
and Cigna.  The firm's ERISA activities spanned a wide variety of
case types, with settlements reached in disputes over church plan
status, proprietary funds, pension crediting, and health
coverage.

Proskauer Rose LLP also had a busy year, representing four
hospitals that agreed to class action settlements in 2017.
Another Proskauer client, Presence Health Network, settled a
church plan dispute in early 2018.

On the plaintiffs' side, the legal team of Cohen Milstein Sellers
& Toll PLLC and Keller Rohrback LLP secured four settlements in
church plan cases, including three of the year's four biggest
deals. Cohen also was part of the legal team that negotiated a
$25 million deal with Wawa over the company stock in workers'
retirement plan.

Nichols Kaster secured four settlements in cases involving
proprietary funds and 401(k) fees. The average deal negotiated by
Nichols Kaster in 2017 was nearly $13 million.

2018 and Beyond
A series of lawsuits challenging prominent universities and their
retirement plans -- often called 403(b) plans -- could see some
resolution in 2018, whether through settlements or otherwise.
The cases -- which target more than a dozen schools, including
Cornell, Columbia, Duke, Emory, and New York University -- were
first filed in 2016. So far, none of the cases has settled, and
only one has been dismissed outright by a federal judge.

"Given the skyrocketing number of lawsuits challenging the
administration of 401(k) and 403(b) plans, the sheer volume of
complaints suggests that there will no doubt be some settlements
in the year to come," Morgan Lewis' Ortelere said.  He added that
the dollar amount of the deals can't be predicted, "given the
somewhat uncertain state of the case law, the varying size of the
plans involved, and the disparity in the facts presented."

Just don't expect much class action litigation over the Labor
Department's controversial fiduciary rule in 2018, said
Mr. Engstrom, the plaintiff-side litigator with Nichols Kaster.
The fiduciary rule, an Obama-era regulation aimed at preventing
retirement savers from getting conflicted investment advice,
likely won't factor into class litigation for another three to
five years, Mr. Engstrom said.

"It's too early to say what will happen there," Mr. Engstrom
said. "We don't even know what its final version will look like
or whether it will even exist."

Many of the rule's key provisions were scheduled to become
applicable in January 2018, but that deadline was recently pushed
back to July 2019 so that the agency can reevaluate the rule, as
ordered by President Donald Trump.

Rosenberg had a somewhat different take. He said class litigation
over annuities and rollovers under the fiduciary rule "may be
coming down the pike sooner rather than later."

Another potential target for ERISA litigation in 2018 may be
retirement plans that allow service providers to dictate their
investment lineups.  According to Mr. Engstrom, recent studies
have shown that underperforming funds affiliated with a plan's
service provider are less likely to be removed from a plan's
lineup.

Though a number of recent cases have involved allegations of
self-dealing against the financial service company employers that
offer their own funds in the company 401(k), that litigation has
hardly touched plans that primarily or exclusively offer
investments affiliated with their service providers, Mr. Engstrom
said. [GN]


* Recent Wave of Securities Class Actions May Impact D&O Insurers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ivan J. Dolowich, Michael K. Rappaport and Carla Caliendo,
writing for PropertyCasualty360, report that securities class
action (SCA) lawsuits are being filed at a heated pace that
hasn't been seen in more than two decades.

According to Cornerstone Research, there were a record 325 SCAs
filed in the first three quarters of 2017.

Filings in the first half of 2017 were up 49% over the second
half of 2016, and represented the highest number of SCA filings
over a six-month period since Cornerstone Research began tracking
the data in 1996.

What makes these numbers remarkable is that the stock market has
been strong with indices trading at record levels, having
rebounded in the almost 10 years since the financial crisis in
2008.  In addition, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act has had a positive
impact on companies' internal controls over financial reporting,
which according to research firm Audit Analytics has led to a
drop in financial restatements.

PricewaterhouseCoopers noted in its 2016 study on securities
litigation that there was no apparent relationship between the
performance of the S&P 500 index in 2016 and the number of new
SCAs filed, although in prior years there had been an inverse
relationship.

Factors accounting for the rise

A variety of factors appear to be driving the rise in SCA
filings, from changes in the law governing mergers and
acquisitions to a disproportionate number of filings by smaller-
tier plaintiff's firms.  We could be witnessing the lawsuit
equivalent of a stock-picker's market: second -- or third-tier
plaintiffs' firms that are identifying target companies for early
settlements, as we often witnessed before the enactment of the
Private Securities Litigation Reform Act.

As a natural result, this wave of SCA filings may have
significant implications for Directors and Officers (D&O)
liability insurers, who find themselves increasingly exposed to
D&O claims involving SCA lawsuits. D&O insurers should therefore
be aware of these trends, and should take certain steps to ensure
they can effectively handle such claims and underwrite these
risks.

Related: 10 emerging developments in liability insurance

A significant factor contributing to the increase in SCA actions
is the growth in federal merger-objection lawsuits, which
challenge M&A deals on grounds that the company's board of
directors breached their fiduciary duties by failing to maximize
shareholder value or failed to make adequate disclosures.  The
majority of these lawsuits are resolved through settlements in
which the target company agrees to make additional disclosures in
its proxy statement and improvements in corporate governance
(corporate therapeutics).

Shift to federal court

There also has been a shift in the filing of SCAs from state
court to federal court as a direct result of the Delaware Court
of Chancery's decision in In re Trulia, Inc., which noted
disclosure-only settlements would be viewed with greater
scrutiny.  This heightened scrutiny is unappealing to plaintiffs'
class action attorneys, which is the reason the plaintiffs' bar
is filing an increasing number of Section 14(a) proxy lawsuits
under the 1934 Exchange Act.  These federal securities-fraud
lawsuits allege disclosure violations and pose potential
liability and damages against the target company and its
directors and officers, as well as the purchaser in certain
cases.

In contrast to Section 14(a) proxy litigation, shareholder
plaintiffs are filing Delaware Section 262 appraisal actions with
increasing frequency.  These actions differ from the Section
14(a) proxy suits because under Delaware Section 262, the target
has no liability, as the purchaser pays the difference in value
between the price offered in the M&A transaction and the court's
appraisal.

Yet another factor contributing to the rise of SCA lawsuits is
the number of cases brought against companies that are
headquartered outside the United States but whose shares trade on
U.S. exchanges.  According to Cornerstone Research's 2017 mid-
year report, the number of SCA filings against non-U.S. companies
is on pace to be at its highest level since 1997.

Certain industries being targeted

In addition, certain industries are being targeted at a higher
rate.  As reported by Cornerstone Research, a total of 69
securities class action lawsuits were filed in the first half of
2017 against life sciences companies (companies in the fields of
biotechnology, pharmaceuticals, and healthcare), which exceeds
the number of SCA filings against life sciences companies in all
of 2016.

Another plausible explanation for the significant uptick in SCA
lawsuits is the number of cases brought by second- and third-tier
plaintiffs' firms.  These law firms often target small-cap or
mid-cap companies, and they became more active in the years since
the global financial crisis in 2008.

Today, SCA lawsuits filed by these firms make up a sizeable
portion of the total SCAs filed.  These firms also often pursue a
strategy of filing lawsuits in the wake of bad news about a
company or a decline in the company's stock price.  Second- and
third-tier plaintiffs' firms are increasingly bringing SCAs on
behalf of retail investors, while the first-tier firms appear to
be focusing on bringing larger cases on behalf of institutional
clients.

How SCA lawsuits are resolved

Of the 226 SCA lawsuits brought in the first half of 2017, 95
were merger objection lawsuits, which represents more than one-
third of the total number of cases. Moreover, there are an
increasing number of SCA lawsuits arising out of regulatory
violations (although this number fell slightly in 2015 and 2016
according to NERA Economic Consulting), with fewer suits alleging
that a company issued misleading earnings figures or insider
trading violations.

The outcomes of SCAs are of no small importance to D&O insurers,
who may fund defense costs above the retention, as well as any
covered settlement or judgment. According to NERA, motions to
dismiss were filed in an overwhelming majority (94%) of SCAs
between 2000 and 2016.

The court granted the motion with or without prejudice 44% of the
time, granted in part and denied in part 30% of the time, and
denied the motion 25% of the time.  In addition, a substantial
number of SCAs are settled. In 2016, approximately 113 SCAs were
settled, which represents approximately 43% of all filings from
that year.

What does this mean for D&O insurers?

The impact of the rise in SCAs on D&O Insurers is difficult to
predict, but certain actions are worth taking given these trends.

1. Given the significant costs to defend SCAs, D&O underwriters
should evaluate pricing levels and ensure their policies contain
sufficient self-insured retentions. SCAs have become increasingly
costly to defend, and these costs quickly erode retention levels,
even through the motion-to-dismiss phase.

2. Insurance claim departments must be pro-active in handling SCA
claims tendered under their policies, and ensure that they have
sufficient resources to effectively monitor these actions.

3. It might be necessary for D&O insurers to re-evaluate claim
strategies, including closer coordination with defense counsel
and pursuit of early resolution strategies to avoid unnecessary
defense costs which can erode a significant portion of the
retention and/or policy limits.

As SCA lawsuits continue at a record pace, companies that are the
targets of these lawsuits will likely seek coverage under their
D&O policies, making it important for insurers to be aware of
these ongoing trends, carefully review their policies, and
consult with counsel. [GN]


* Securities Class Action Filings Hit Record High in 2017
---------------------------------------------------------
Jay B. Kasner, Esq. -- jay.kasner@skadden.com -- Scott D. Musoff,
Esq. -- scott.musoff@skadden.com -- and Susan L. Saltzstein, Esq.
-- susan.saltzstein@skadden.com -- of Skadden Arps Slate Meagher
& Flom LLP, in an article for Lexology, wrote that as expected,
securities class action filings reached a high-water mark in
2017.  In fact, last year's total of 400-plus filings was the
second-highest on record, topped only by 2001, when the number
was skewed by more than 300 cases brought in connection with the
allocation of shares in high-tech initial public offerings
(IPOs).  In the last 18 months, more securities suits have been
filed in federal court than in any comparable period since the
Private Securities Litigation Reform Act was enacted in 1995.
About 8 percent of U.S. exchange-listed companies were hit with a
securities suit in 2017, up for the third consecutive year.

In the last 18 months, more securities suits have been filed in
federal court than in any comparable period since the PSLRA was
enacted in 1995.

Rise in Securities Class Actions

Various factors likely account for the continued trend of
increased filings.  A high number of merger objection lawsuits
continues to be filed in federal court, as opposed to state
court, following the Delaware Court of Chancery's Trulia decision
(and its progeny, including in states other than Delaware)
limiting the use of disclosure-only settlements.  But securities
filings are at a record high even without such lawsuits, in large
part because plaintiffs' firms have recalibrated their business
strategies to pursue cases with more remote payoffs, often filing
actions on any significant stock price decline.  In addition, a
greater number of securities class action lawsuits are being
filed against non-U.S. companies (61 in 2017, compared to 47 in
all of 2016).  The health care sector has been hit with a high
number of class action lawsuits (100 in 2017, compared to 84 in
2016), perhaps due to some of the uncertainty surrounding health
care regulations.

A greater number of securities class action lawsuits are being
filed against non-U.S. companies.

And event-driven securities fraud suits following the disclosure
of any corporate crisis -- including data breaches and
environmental, antitrust, Foreign Corrupt Practices Act or other
regulatory issues -- continue to rise. Finally, life sciences,
technology and other companies that may have highly volatile
results depending on the success of certain products remain
particularly susceptible to securities actions and continued to
be targeted frequently in 2017.  We anticipate all of these
trends will persist in 2018.

Significant Decisions

A number of important decisions in securities litigation are
expected this year.  The delineation of statutes of repose and
tolling will continue to percolate through the courts, including
the U.S. Supreme Court.  In 2017, the Court held in CalPERS v.
ANZ that statutes of repose, unlike statutes of limitations, are
not subject to equitable tolling.  Thus, American Pipe tolling --
the tolling of the statute of limitations for unnamed class
members pending class certification in a putative securities
class action -- does not apply to the three-year statute of
repose applicable to claims brought under Sections 11 and 12 of
the Securities Act.  While Justice Anthony Kennedy authored the
majority opinion, it perhaps more significantly marked Justice
Neil Gorsuch's first securities opinion, in which he joined the
majority in the 5-4 outcome.

The delineation of statutes of repose and tolling will continue
to percolate through the courts, including the U.S. Supreme
Court.

In the upcoming term, the Court will have another opportunity to
opine on the contours of the tolling of statutes of limitations
and possibly repose in the securities context, having granted
certiorari in China Agritech, Inc. v. Resh.  The Court will
decide a split in the circuit courts as to whether American Pipe
tolling can apply to successive class actions as opposed to
individual actions.  The case also marks the continuation of the
Court's trend under Chief Justice John Roberts of taking up an
average of two securities cases per term, more than previous
courts.  Further interpretation of the bounds of statutes of
limitations and repose -- including whether the statute of repose
can bar class certification after the three-year period expires -
- is expected in 2018.

The case also marks the continuation of the Court's trend under
Chief Justice John Roberts of taking up an average of two
securities cases per term, more than previous courts.

Given the reality of globally connected financial systems, the
extraterritorial application of U.S. securities laws to
nonexchange-traded securities will continue to be a closely
watched development in 2018.  Last year, for example, the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit found in In re Petrobras
Securities that the need to determine if a transaction was
"domestic" raised individual issues that had to be addressed
before a class was certified.  This area of securities litigation
will continue to develop in 2018.  Similarly, we will continue to
see issues surrounding market efficiency as a battleground on the
class certification front.

While 2017 resulted in several defense-oriented decisions, there
is no reason to expect the pace of filings to abate.  Indeed, as
the stock market indices rise, similar percentages of declines in
stock prices could result in larger so-called investor losses
that attract the plaintiffs' bar.  Further, plaintiffs may have
the opportunity to bring more actions under the Securities Act if
there is an increase in the number of IPOs.  In addition, the
trend of event-driven or corporate crisis follow-on securities
litigation is expected to continue.  As a result, 2018 should be
robust in both filings and developments in the law.

This memorandum is provided by Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher &
Flom LLP and its affiliates for educational and informational
purposes only and is not intended and should not be construed as
legal advice.  This memorandum is considered advertising under
applicable state laws.


* Seyfarth Shaw Outlines Key Trends in Workplace Class Actions
--------------------------------------------------------------
Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Esq., of Seyfarth Shaw LLP, in an article
for Lexology, reports that the fourth and final key trend from
Seyfarth Shaw LLP's  14th Annual Workplace Class Action
Litigation Report involves rulings by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Over the past few years, the country's highest court has issued a
number of rulings that impacted the prosecution and defense of
class actions in significant ways.  Seyfarth Shaw LLP provides
readers with an outline of the most important workplace rulings
issued by the Supreme Court in 2017, as well as which upcoming
decisions employers should watch for in 2018.

Over the past decade, the U.S. Supreme Court -- led by Chief
Justice John Roberts -- increasingly has shaped the contours of
complex litigation exposures through its rulings on class action
and governmental enforcement litigation issues.  Many of these
decisions have elucidated the requirements for pursuing
employment-related class actions.

The 2011 decision in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes and the 2013
decision in Comcast Corp. v. Behrend are the two most significant
examples.  Those rulings are at the core of class certification
issues under Rule 23. To that end, federal and state courts cited
Wal-Mart in 586 rulings in 2017; they cited Comcast in 238 cases
in 2017.

The past year also saw a change in the composition of the Supreme
Court in April of 2017, with Justice Neil Gorsuch assuming the
seat of Antonin Scalia after his passing in 2016.  Given the age
of some of the other sitting Justices, President Trump may have
the opportunity to fill additional seats on the Supreme Court in
2018 and beyond, and thereby influence a shift in the ideology of
the Supreme Court toward a more conservative and strict
constructionist jurisprudence.  In turn, this is apt to change
legal precedents that shape and define the playing field for
workplace class action litigation.

Rulings In 2017

In terms of direct decisions by the Supreme Court impacting
workplace class actions, this past year was no exception.  In
2017, the Supreme Court decided seven cases -- three employment-
related cases and four class action cases -- that will influence
complex employment-related litigation in the coming years.  The
three "game-changers" in 2017 can be seen in the following
graphic:

The employment-related rulings included one case brought under
the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act, one ERISA
case, and one EEOC case.  A rough scorecard of the decisions
reflects two distinct plaintiff/worker-side victories, and
defense-oriented rulings in five cases.

EEOC v. McLane Co., 137 S. Ct. 1159 (2017) -- Decided on February
21, 2017, the case involved the applicable standard of appellate
review of district court decisions to quash or enforce EEOC
subpoenas.  The Supreme Court held that the standard must be
based on an abuse of discretion, and contrary lower court
decisions -- which called for de novo review -- were rejected.
The EEOC has broad statutory authority to issue subpoenas in the
course of investigating charges of employment discrimination, and
it may seek enforcement of its subpoenas in federal court when
employers refuse to comply with them.  In that event, the
applicable test favors enforcement of the subpoena.  The Supreme
Court determined that if the charge is proper and the material
requested is relevant, the subpoena should be enforced unless the
employer can establish that the subpoena is too indefinite, has
been issued for an illegitimate purpose, or is unduly burdensome.
In sum, the Supreme Court underscored the breadth of the agency's
authority to subpoena information from employers in the course of
investigating discrimination charges.

Expressions Hair Design, et al. v. Schneiderman, 137 S. Ct. 1144
(2017) -- Decided on March 29, 2017, this case involved a class
action by a group of New York merchants, arguing that a New York
statute that prohibits merchants from charging a surcharge to
customers who use credit cards violated the First Amendment
because it regulates what they say about their prices.  The lower
courts had dismissed the suit out of hand, concluding that price
regulations regulated conduct alone and thus are immune from
scrutiny under the First Amendment. The Supreme Court held that
because the statute goes beyond the pure regulation of price
sufficiently into the realm of regulating speech, it is subject
to scrutiny under the First Amendment. As a result, the case was
remanded for further consideration of the validity of the statute
under the First Amendment. The ruling is a narrow one, but
ensures the continuation of class action litigation over the New
York statute.

Advocate Health Care Network, et al. v. Stapleton, 137 S. Ct.
1652 (2017) -- Decided on June 5, 2017, this ruling determined
that pension plans that otherwise meet the definition of a church
plan definition under the ERISA can qualify for the exemption
without being established by a church.  The decision is the
culmination of a wave of ERISA class actions brought by employees
of religiously affiliated non-profit hospitals who asserted that
the employers improperly claimed that their pension plans were
ERISA-exempt "church plans."

Microsoft Corp. v. Baker, et al., 137 S. Ct. 1702 (2017) --
Decided on June 12, 2017, this ruling determined that the
voluntary dismissal of individual claims by class representatives
after denial of class certification deprives appellate courts of
jurisdiction over review of the underlying class certification
decision.  The case involved consideration of a strategy for
appealing denials of class certification whereby plaintiffs
responded to a denial of class certification with a voluntary
agreement to dismiss their claims.  With that dismissal in hand,
they would claim they have a final order that they can appeal,
planning to revive their claims if the appeal reversed the
certification order.  The Supreme Court unanimously rejected this
practice.  It held that plaintiffs in putative class actions
cannot transform a tentative interlocutory order into a final
judgment simply by dismissing their claims with prejudice --
subject, no less, to the right to revive those claims if the
denial of class certification was reversed on appeal.  The ruling
should help corporate defendants in defeating piece-meal attacks
on favorable class certification orders.

Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., et al. v. Superior Court Of California,
137 S. Ct. 1773 (2017) -- Decided on June 19, 2017, this opinion
established limitations on personal jurisdiction over non-
resident plaintiffs in "mass actions," a litigation strategy
often utilized by plaintiffs' class action lawyers to sue
corporations in plaintiff-friendly jurisdictions that have little
to no connection with the dispute.  The Supreme Court determined
that the requisite connection between the corporate defendant and
the litigation forum must be based on more than a combination of
the company's connections with the state and the similarity of
the claims of the resident plaintiffs and the non-resident
claimants.  The ruling reversed a lower court decision that
hundreds of plaintiffs who sued a corporation in California state
court over alleged injuries associated with a corporation's
product could not sue in that state because they were not
residents.  In effect, it reversed a decision of the California
Supreme Court and directed the dismissal of 592 non-California
claims from 33 other states.  The ruling has significant
implications for the location and scope of class action
litigation.  As a result, the ruling supports the view that
plaintiffs cannot simply "forum shop" in large class actions, and
instead must sue where the corporate defendant has significant
contacts for purposes of general jurisdiction or limit the class
definition to residents of the state where the lawsuit is filed.
It should provide some measure of protection to corporations that
often are hauled into plaintiff-friendly jurisdictions across the
country to which they have nor the plaintiffs suing them had any
connection.

CalPERS, et al. v. ANZ Securities, Inc., 137 S. Ct. 2042 (2017) -
- Decided on June 26, 2017, this decision involved a relatively
technical question regarding the right to opt-out of a class
action -- when plaintiffs file a class action, are members of the
class entitled to opt-out and represent themselves, and how
statutes of limitations work in that situation.  Federal
securities laws include two different kinds of filing deadlines
for claims about misrepresentations in connection with the
issuance of securities, including a one-year deadline running
from the discovery of the untrue statement and an outside three-
year deadline running from the date on which the statement was
made.  The Supreme Court held that tolling under American Pipe
applies only to the one-year deadline, not the three-year
deadline.  Applying that rule, it barred the action brought in
this case by CalPERS, which had opted-out of a large class action
brought against Lehman Brothers; the original action was brought
in a timely manner, but CalPERS did not opt-out of that action
until more than three years after the challenged statements. The
ruling closes off a tactic of successive class claims by barring
the traditional power of lower federal courts to modify statutory
time limits in the name of equity despite any practical obstacles
this creates in class actions.

Czyzewski, et al. v. Jevic Holding Co., 137 S. Ct. 973 (2017) --
Decided on March 22, 2017, this case involved the Worker
Adjustment and Retraining Notification ("WARN") Act and the
interplay between worker rights under that statute and the rights
of creditors in bankruptcy proceedings after a company allegedly
violates the WARN Act. In considering whether priority in
distributing assets in bankruptcy may proceed in a manner that
allegedly violates the priority scheme in the Bankruptcy Code,
the Supreme Court held that such a distribution is improper and
priority rules may not be evaded in Chapter 11 structured
dismissals. The Supreme Court's ruling protects workers with WARN
claims and bars priority deviations in bankruptcies implemented
through non-consensual structured dismissals.

The decisions in Advocate Health Care Network, Baker, Bristol-
Myers, CalPERS, Expressions Hair Designs, Jevic, and McLane Co.
are sure to shape and influence workplace class action litigation
and government enforcement litigation in a profound manner.
Theses rulings will impact standing concepts and jurisdictional
challenges, liability under the WARN and the ERISA, appeals of
class certification decisions, challenges to EEOC administrative
subpoenas, and rules on American Pipe tolling and application of
statute of limitations in class actions.  To the extent that
extrinsic restrictions on class actions -- i.e., limits on the
ability of representative plaintiffs to appeal certification
orders (as in Baker), and jurisdictional restrictions on bringing
cases in "plaintiff-friendly" jurisdictions (as in Bristol-Myers)
-- were tightened, class actions will become harder to maintain
and litigate. On the other hand, McLane Co. is certainly a
setback for employers and strengthens the EEOC's ability to
conduct wide-ranging administrative investigations through its
subpoena power.

Rulings Expected In 2018

Equally important for the coming year, the Supreme Court accepted
five additional cases for review in 2017 -- that will be decided
in 2018 -- that also will impact and shape class action
litigation and government enforcement lawsuits faced by
employers.

Those cases include three employment lawsuits and two class
action cases.  The Supreme Court undertook oral arguments on two
of these cases in 2017; the other three will have oral arguments
in 2018.

The corporate defendants in each case have sought rulings seeking
to limit the use of class actions or raise substantive defenses
to class actions or employment-related claims.  Further
complicating several of these cases, government agencies have
either taken opposing stances with each other or reversed
positions they held in pervious Supreme Court terms or in the
lower court proceedings in these cases.

Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, NLRB v. Murphy Oil USA & Ernst &
Young LLP v. Morris, 16-285, 16-300 & 16-307 -- Argued on October
2, 2017, these three consolidated appeals in employment cases
deal with the interpretation of workplace arbitration agreements
between employers and employees and whether class action waivers
within such agreements -- which require workers to arbitrate any
claims on an individual basis (and waive the ability to bring or
participate in a class action or collective action) -- violate
employees' rights under the National Labor Relations Act to
engage in "concerted activities" in pursuit.  The Supreme Court's
ultimate decision is likely to have far-reaching implications for
litigation of class actions and collective actions.  The issue
started when the NLRB under the Obama Administration began
challenging employers' use of arbitration agreements with class
action waivers.  During briefing of the issue before the Supreme
Court, The Department of Justice under President Trump opposed
the NLRB's position, and has sided with employers and argued that
the Federal Arbitration Act favors the validity and enforcement
of arbitration agreements that include class waivers.

Cyan, Inc., et al. v. Beaver County Employees Retirement Fund,
15-1439 -- Argued on November 28, 2017, this class action case
poses the issue of whether federal law bars state courts from
hearing certain securities class actions.  The case turns on
interpretation of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of
1995 -- which imposes tougher standards on securities class
actions brought in federal courts -- and if it mandates that
state courts can no longer hear class actions based on the
Securities Act of 1933. The ultimate ruling by the Supreme Court
will impact what many view as a "cottage industry" of state
court-based class action filings in states such as California
where class action lawyers target public companies with
securities claims over drops in stock process.

Encino Motors, LLC v. Navarro, et al., 16-1362 -- In this case,
the Supreme Court will examine whether service advisors at car
dealerships are exempt under 29 U.S.C. Sec 213(b)(10)(A) from the
overtime pay provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The
future ruling in the case may have far-reaching implications on
the legal tests for interpretation of statutory exemptions under
the FLSA. A broader reading of the exemption potentially could
reduce the number of workers allowed to assert wage & hour claims
against their employers. The case is set for argument on January
17, 2018.

Janus, et al. v. AFSCME, 16-1466 -- In this employment case, the
Supreme Court will consider whether Abood v. Detroit Board of
Education, 431 U.S. 209 (1977), should be overruled and public-
sector "agency shop" arrangements invalidated under the First
Amendment so as to prevent public-sector unions from collecting
mandatory fees from non-members.  In deciding the
constitutionality of "fair share fees" being imposed on public-
sector employees as a condition of employment, the Supreme
Court's future ruling likely will impact millions of workers in
22 states that do not have right-to-work laws. Since many workers
are apt to cease paying union dues if the fair share fee payments
requirement is abolished, the future ruling will have a
significant impact on the ability of public-sector unions to
conduct their business. The case is set for oral argument on
February 26, 2018.

Resh, et al. v. China Agritech, Inc., 17-432 -- In this class
action case, the Supreme Court will examine whether the tolling
rule for class actions established in American Pipe &
Construction Co. v. Utah, 414 U.S. 538 (1974), tolls the statute
of limitations to permit a previously absent class member to
bring a subsequent class action outside the applicable
limitations period.  In American Pipe, the Supreme Court held
that the filing of a class action tolls the running of the
statute of limitations for all putative members of the class who
make timely motions to intervene after the lawsuit is deemed
inappropriate for class action status.  In essence, a future
ruling in this case will limit or expand the tolling rule in
American Pipe to apply only to subsequent individual claims or if
it is expanded broadly to successive class actions where
plaintiffs were unnamed class members in failed class actions.
The case has yet to be set for oral argument.

The Supreme Court is expected to issue decisions in these five
cases in 2018.

Implications For Employers

Each decision outlined above may have significant implications
for employers and for the defense of high-stakes class action
litigation.  Further, the decision in Epic Systems / E & Y /
Murphy Oil may well end up being one of the most significant
rulings for employers since Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes in
2011.  Employers have to keep a close eye on this case, since the
decision may shift the class action landscape in terms of the
ability of employees to bring suit against a company.  As always,
we will closely monitor all Supreme Court case developments and
report them to our readers.  Stay tuned!


* Uptick Seen in Class Actions Launched v. Cryptocurrency Cos.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Linda Fuerst, Esq. -- linda.fuerst@nortonrosefulbright.com -- and
Danny Urquhart, Esq. -- danny.urquhart@nortonrosefulbright.com --
of Norton Rose Fulbright Canada LLP, in an article for Mondaq,
wrote that in the U.S. there has been an notable uptick in class
action lawsuits launched against companies in the cryptocurrency
market in late 2017.  As public attention turned to the roller-
coaster ride of cryptocurrency markets over the past year, it is
not surprising that ambitious class counsel have jumped on the
ride by issuing their first putative class actions against
companies funded through initial coin/token offerings (ICO) and
companies that are otherwise active in the cryptocurrency space.
With over $3 billion dollars raised through ICOs in 2017, and few
signs of the market dynamics changing any time soon, we expect
that this trend will continue in 2018.

The Emergence of a Trend in the U.S.
The trend began in October of 2017 in the fallout of Tezos's $232
million ICO when the company was named as a defendant to a
putative class action lawsuit after the company faced issues
getting off the ground with the release of its digital coins,
called "Tezzies".  In November and December three more putative
class actions were filed naming the company, along with its
founders and certain other related entities, as defendants.  In
each case, the claims center around allegations that Tezos sold
unregistered securities and deceptively marketed the sale of the
company's Tezzies.

On December 13, 2017, the same day that a fourth class action
lawsuit was issued against Tezos, Centra was hit with a putative
class action alleging that its investors were victims of
deceptive statements and sold an unregistered security.  The
company had offered investors an opportunity to trade their
various cryptocurrencies for Centra's own cryptocurrency which it
publicly stated could be traded through existing credit card
networks.  The company raised $30 million in its ICO, but faced
delays developing and launching its digital currency.

A third company, Monkey Capital, was hit with a putative class
action in late December after it had launched a pre-sale of
cryptocurrency options that were to be later used to purchase
"Monkey Coins" which never became available.  Once again, the
claim alleges that investors were victims of deceptive statements
and that the pre-sale amounted to an unregistered securities
offering.

Finally, The Crypto Company, which advertises itself as a
cryptocurrency consultant and technology developer, had trading
in its shares suspended by the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC) on December 19, 2017 due to "concerns regarding
the accuracy and adequacy of information in the marketplace"
about promotion, compensation and share sells planned by the
company as well as potentially manipulative trading.  On
January 5, 2018, a putative class action was filed against the
company and certain of its officers and directors alleging that
investors were victims of deceptive statements, and that the
company engaged in a scheme to promote and manipulate the
company's stock.

Potential Applicability in Canada
Canadian companies have not escaped the trend as class counsel
based in the U.S. have announced that they are investigating the
possibility of a class action against Vancouver-based First
Bitcoin Capital Corp.  First Bitcoin Capital is a public company
with its securities trading over the counter on OTC markets.
While not required to file information with the SEC as an over
the counter security, OTC Markets' quotation system "OTC Link" is
registered with U.S. regulators as a broker-dealer and is a
member of the U.S. Financial Industry Regulatory Authority.  On
August 24, 2017, trading in First Bitcoin Capital's securities
was suspended by the SEC after major volatility in the value of
the company's securities through August, including a 7000%
increase.  Shortly after the suspension, three different class
action law firms made public statements that they were
investigating potential class actions against the company for
possible allegations of misleading or deceptive statements.

As we have previously commented, the regulatory reach over of
ICOs is complex and largely untested waters in Canada.  It
remains unclear whether, and in what circumstances, coins or
tokens offered in ICOs qualify as securities.  If they do, that
opens the floodgates for regulatory proceedings and civil
securities class actions.

i) the approach of the regulators

In a Staff Notice published in August 2017, the Canadian
Securities Administrators (CSA) took the position that "in many
cases, when the totality of the offering or arrangement is
considered, the coins/tokens should properly be considered
securities".  The CSA has stated that if an individual purchases
coins/tokens whose value is tied to the future profits or success
of a business, these will likely be considered securities.  The
definition of a "security" under Canadian securities laws is
broad and, in Ontario, includes "any investment contract".
According to the CSA, an investment contract may exist if an ICO
includes: (a) an investment of money; (b) in a common enterprise;
(c) with the expectation of profit; and, (d) to come
significantly from the efforts of others.  A test similar to this
was applied by the SEC when it determined in one case this past
July that a cryptocurrency was a security.

If a company's coin/token is found to be a security, we can
expect Canadian securities regulators to take the position that
an ICO must be accompanied by a prospectus or otherwise qualify
for one of the prospectus exemptions, such as the accredited
investor or offering memorandum exemptions.  While ICOs are often
accompanied by a white paper, the existence of a white paper
likely will not excuse a company from complying with any
applicable obligation to file a prospectus or offering
memorandum.  We are not aware of any business that has used a
prospectus to conduct an ICO in Canada, but we are aware of at
least two companies, Impak Finance Inc. and Token Funder Inc.,
that were approved for ICOs under the offering memorandum
exemption.

ii) potential for civil actions
There is also a serious question about whether Canadian companies
issuing coins/tokens may find themselves exposed to civil
liability for potential misrepresentations in their public
statements, whether in a prospectus, offering memorandum, white
paper or other publicly available document.  As we have seen in
the U.S. cases above, class counsel are not shy from alleging
civil liability for false or deceptive statements made before or
during an ICO.  Such civil claims could include allegations of:

   -- primary market liability under s. 130 or s. 130.1 of the
Ontario Securities Act, and its equivalents, by purchasers in an
ICO qualified by a prospectus or offering memorandum for alleged
misrepresentations in those documents that would reasonably be
expected to have a significant effect on the market price or
value of the coin/token;

   -- secondary market liability under Part XXIII.1 of the
Ontario Securities Act, and its equivalents, by peer-to-peer
purchasers of a company's coins/tokens in the market after an
ICO, where such purchasers allege that public statements made by
the "issuer" of the coin/token contained misrepresentations that
would reasonably be expected to have a significant effect on the
market price or value of the coin/token; and

   -- negligent misrepresentation under the common law where
statements made by the company issuing the coin/token are: untrue
or misleading, made in a circumstance where the company owed a
duty of care to purchasers, negligently made, and detrimentally
relied on by the purchasers.

Lastly, Canadian companies should be wary of the "long-arm"
jurisdiction provided by Canadian securities laws extending
secondary market liability to "responsible issuers" which have "a
real and substantial connection" to a province, the securities of
which are publicly traded outside the province.  In other words,
cryptocurrency companies may find themselves vulnerable to
secondary market liability even where their securities do not
trade over the facilities of any Canadian exchange.  The fact
that a coin/token trades on a cryptocurrency exchange or even
over the counter may not mean that it is immune from being found
to be "publicly traded" under Canadian securities laws.






                            *********


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  * * *