CAR_Public/180207.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


            Wednesday, February 7, 2018, Vol. 20, No. 28



                            Headlines


48 WEST: Faces "Guillen" Suit in S.D. New York
272 SMITH: Faces "Caralampio" Suit in Eastern District New York
2293NMA LLC: Navases Sue over Chicago Rental Rules
2855 POWERCELL: "Cabrera" Suit Seeks OT, Spread-of-Hours Pay
7447 SOUTH SHORE: Covington Sues over Chicago Rental Rules

11TH HOUR INVESTMENTS: Plantation Spinal Care Sues over Junk Fax
ADOBE SYSTEMS: "Benhayon" Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing SMS
AETNA INC: Inzlicht-Sprei Seeks to Enjoin Merger with CVS
AHOLD U.S.A.: Belizaire Sues over Illegal Delivery Charge Policy
AIRGAS USA: Fails to Pay Minimum Wage, "Charles" Suit Says

ALLEGHENY, PA: Russo Files Suit in W.D. Penn.
ALLSCRIPTS HEALTHCARE: Surfside Sues over Ransomware Attack
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Wilson Sues over Robocalls
ANGELINI METAL: "Lopez" Action Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay
APPLE INC: Faces "Miller" Class Action in Texas

APPLE INC: "Davidson" Suit Transferred to District of Delaware
ASHLEY BLACK CO: Faces "Dalton" Suit in C.D. of California
ASSET RECOVERY: Vandehey & O'Laire Sue over Debt Collection
ATOMIC WINGS: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, "Anariba" Suit Says
BANK OF AMERICA: Faces "Suarez" Wage-and-Hour Suit

BARCEL USA: Faces "Morrison" Suit in Southern District New York
BEHR PROCESS: Falsely Marketed DeckOver Products, Suit Claims
BLINK HOLDINGS: Faces "Andrews" Suit in Eastern District New York
BITCONNECT INT'L: Mengesha Sues over Cryptocurrency Plunge
BITCONNECT INT'L: Paige Sues over Cryptocurrency Plunge

BONANZA CREEK: "Feinstein" Suit Seeks to Halt Sandridge Merger
BREAD AND SALT: Faces "Walker" Suit in District of Massachusetts
CALIFORNIA: Magistrate Recommends Dismissal of "Acord"
CALL-A-HEAD: Court Certifies Class of PTSTs in "Vargas" FLSA Suit
CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS: "Shoemaker" Suit Dismissed

CBV COLLECTIONS: Faces "Jackson" Suit in Mid. Dist. Ga.
CELESTIAL PARTNERS: JPMorgan Seeks Action Re-assignment
CHEVYS FRESH: Martinez Seeks Penalties Arising from Unpaid Wages
CHICAGO PROPERTY: Faces "Muse" Suit over City Rental Rules
CHOP'T CREATIVE: Accused of Misclassifying Non-Tipped Workers

CIGNA CORP: Court Compels Admissions on TCPA Claims
COEXIST NUTRITION: Faces "Ross" Suit in S.D. New York
COLLECTION LLC: Perlman Alleges Invasion of Privacy, Harassment
COMBE INC: Wins Bid to Dismiss Section 1981 Claim in "Stringer"
COMMONWEALTH FINANCIAL: Faces "Navas" Suit in E.D. New York

CORECIVIC INC: Detainees Forced to Work, Claims Minimum Wages
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Suit Over Underfilled Canned Chicken Dismissed
CREDIT PAYMENT: 9th Cir. Affirms Summary Judgment in "Kristensen"
CUDLEY'S HOME: Ryazantseva Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Law
CVS HEALTH: Transferred "Bewley" Class Suit to Dist. New Jersey

DANELL CUSTOM: Hearing on "Rodriguez" Deal Approval Continued
DENALI WATER: "Verdugo" Suit Moved to C.D. California
DEREK LAM: "Guzman" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages under Labor Code
DIAMOND RESORTS: Fails to Pay All Overtime Wages, Anderson Says
DICK'S SPORTING: Bid to Stay "Greer" Denied

DNC SERVICES: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Compensation, Torres Says
EDDIE BAUER: Court Certifies Store Employees Class in "Heredia"
EPIC LANDSCAPE: "Chevere" Seeks OT Pay, Hits Excessive Deductions
EQUIFAX INC: Faces "Donnelly" Suit in N.D. Georgia
ESURANCE PROPERTY: Faces Central Palm Beach Suit in S.D. Fla.

FEDERAL NATIONAL: D. Best Can File 2nd Amended Complaint
FINANCIAL RECOVERIES: Wakefield Sues over Collection Practices
FLORIDA CARE ASSISTED LIVING: Baptiste Seeks Unpaid OT Wages
FURNITURE HOME: "Taber" Suit Seeks OT Compensation under FLSA
GARCES GROUP: Faces "Godino" Suit in S.D. Pennsylvania

GENERAL NUTRITION: "Chevalier" Suit Brought Before Penn. S.C.
HALSTED FINANCIAL: Tinker Sues over Debt Collection Practices
HAMBLEN COUNTY, TN: "Wolfe" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages under FLSA
HAYNES INVESTMENTS: Faces "Gibbs" Suit in E.D. Virginia
HOST INTERNATIONAL: "Garcia" Suit Moved to S.D. California

HYATT CORPORATION: Website Not Fully Accessible, Gomez Says
ILLINOIS: Court Certifies Class in "Donegan"
IMPERIAL TOWERS: Morris Sues over Use of Biometric Info
INFUSION SOFTWARE: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "Clark" Suit Says
INTEL CORP: Kintz Sues over Defective Core Processor

INTEL CORP: UFCW Local 1500 Sues over Computer Chip Security Flaw
JEFFREY SACHS: "Adwar" Suit Seeks Dissolution of Partnership
JHOS LOGISTICS: Fails to Pay Compensation, "Rivas" Suit Says
JMJ INC: Fails to Pay Unpaid Wages, "Chapman" Suit Says
KEMPER CASUALTY: Bid to Dismiss First Amended "Bhasker" Denied

KINDRED HEALTHCARE: March 1 "Cashon" Settlement Hearing
KIRA SUSHI 2: "Zhao" Suit Seeks Minimum Wages & OT under FLSA
LE BERNARDIN INC: Faces "Avery" Suit in S.D. New York
LELAND ENTERPRISES: Gilbert Seeks Unpaid OT Wages under FLSA
LIFE GENERATIONS: "Laigo" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay

LITTLECITY REALTY: Faces "Tejada" Suit in E.D. New York
MACY'S INC: Court Narrows Claims in "Haley" Suit
MDL 2695: Court Narrows Claims in Products Liability Litigation
MDL 2800: "Tosco" Suit vs. Equifax Transferred to N.D. Georgia
MERCHANTS BUILDING: Hernandez Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code

METRO SECURITY: Smith Seeks Minimum Wage and OT Pay under FLSA
MIDLAND FUNDING: "Battersby" Suit Moved to E.D. New York
MITSIS BAKERY: Faces "Bonilla" Suit in E.D. New York
MONSANTO COMPANY: Hudson Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Tingle et al. Sue over Herbicide Roundup

MONSANTO COMPANY: Williams Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Wolfe Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Whites Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MORTGAGE CAPITAL: Fails to Refund Loan Officers Costs, Leong Says
MOXLEY & ASSOCIATES: Faces "Williams" Suit in S.D. Alabama

MRI INT'L: Feb. 9 Deadline to File Approval Bid in "Takiguchi"
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Court Narrows Claims in "Smith" FDCPA Suit
NAZARI ASSOCIATES: "Rivas" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Work
NORTHSTAR LOCATIONS: Faces "Quinn" Suit in East. Dist. New York
OCEAN STATE: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss "Stewart" Suit

P&B CAPITAL: Thomas Sues over Debt Collections Practices
PABCOR MANAGEMENT: Carey & Hudson Sue over Chicago Rental Rules
PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS: Opposes "Rabin" Class Certification
PROFESSIONAL BUREAU: Vallot Sues over Debt Collections Practices
PROPHET MANASSEH: "Person" Suit Seeks OT Wages under FLSA

PROTECT AMERICA: Wieseler-Myers Sues over Robocalls
PVK INC: Faces "Jocelyn" Suit in Eastern District New York
R. GROSS DAIRY: "Nunez" Suit Seeks Minimum Wage & OT under FLSA
RITE AID: Court Dismisses FCRA Claims in "Moore"
SANOFI AVENTIS: Court Dismisses Amended Lantus Antitrust Suit

SCHREIBERCOHEN LLC: Reyes Sues over Debt Collections Practices
SIDECAR BAR & GRILLE: Faces "Cuenca" Suit in E.D. New York
SNYDER'S-LANCE INC: Shaev Seeks to Enjoin Merger with Campbell
SPECIALTYCARE: Faces "Bosque" Class Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
ST. THOMAS HEALTH: Faces "Ross" Suit in Middle District Tenn.

SURFSIDE COFFEE: "Fernandez" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA
SWAPP LAW: Loses Bid to Dismiss "Wilcox" DPPA Suit
SWATCH LTD: Wohl Sues over Two-Year Warranty on Watch Purchase
SYNEOS HEALTH: Share Prices Inflated, Vaitkuviene Claims
TERMINIX INTERNATIONAL: Fails to Pay Earned Wages, Sharp Says

TEXAS: Taylor Files Suit v. Parole Board Chair, et al.
ULINE INC: Settlement in "Moncada" Suit Has Final Approval
WELK RESORT: Court Allows Ashcraft to Amend FCRA Suit
YURI SUSHI: Faces "Lin" Suit in Southern District of New York
ZANKOU ENTERPRISES: Villalobos Sues over Wage & Hour Violation




                            *********



48 WEST: Faces "Guillen" Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against 48 West 21st Street
Corp. The case is styled Jose Luis Pastrana Guillen, on behalf of
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 48 West 21st Street Corp.
doing business as: Taj Lounge Restaurant, David Casey, Mark
Philip Quilter and Matthew Knott, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-
00642 (S.D N.Y., January 24, 2018).

48 West 21st Street Corp is engaged in the restaurant
industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


272 SMITH: Faces "Caralampio" Suit in Eastern District New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against 272 Smith LLC. The
case is styled Felipe Caralampio, Moises Cruz and Luisa
Rodriguez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. 272 Smith LLC, Sheeky Inc. d/b/a Cubana
Cafe, Jointly and Severally, Danforth Houle, Armando Rueda and
Jean-Luc Lopez, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-00486 (E.D. N.Y.,
January 23, 2018).

Cuban cuisine is served with mojitos at this bare-bones, cash-
only Carroll Gardens cafe.[BN]

The Plaintiffs appear PRO SE.


2293NMA LLC: Navases Sue over Chicago Rental Rules
--------------------------------------------------
JOSE NAVAS & COURTNEY NAVAS, Individually And As Representatives
of a Class of Similarly Situated Persons, the Plaintiffs, v.
2293NMA LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 2018-CH-01081 (Ill. Cir.,
Cook County, Jan. 26, 2018), seeks to recover damages as result
of Defendant's violation of the Chicago Residential Landlord and
Tenant Ordinance.

The Plaintiffs were tenants at 2733 W. Belden Avenue, Unit 404,
Chicago, Illinois 60647 (The Belden Building). The Belden
Building is one of two large residential apartment buildings in
Chicago containing over 216 residential rental dwelling units
managed by Defendant. The Belden Building and its twin counter-
part building each managed by Defendant are referred to as
"MiCA."

2293NMA LLC, was an owner, lessor, authorized management, and
land lord of MiCA during Plaintiffs' tenancy. As part of their
responsibilities with MiCA, Defendant prepared arid offered
rental agreements and renewals to prospective tenants and
tenants. Additionally, Defendant collected rent and fees directly
from tenants and deposited rent received into their business
account(s).  Collecting and depositing monthly rent and deposits,
and preparing, offering, and executing rental agreements and
renewals to Chicago tenants, including required disclosures, is
within the scope of Defendant's duties and responsibilities as
building owner, management, and lessor at MiCA.

On September 26, 2016, Defendant initially offered Plaintiffs a
12-page rental agreement for their dwelling unit at the Belden
Building at MiCA. The Defendant has offered the same rental
agreement with the same defective RLTO Summary and no RLTO
Separate Summary to all of its Chicago tenants, within the last
two years.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          AARON KROLIK LAW OFFICE, P.A.
          225 W. Washington St. Suite 2200
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 924 0278
          Facsimile: (312) 650 8241

               - and -

          MARK SILVERMAN LAW OFFICE LTD.
          225 W. Washington St. Suite 2200
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 775 1015
          Facsimile: (312) 256 2055


2855 POWERCELL: "Cabrera" Suit Seeks OT, Spread-of-Hours Pay
------------------------------------------------------------
Victoria Cabrera, Omayra Colon, and Emely Turbides, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. 2855
Powercell, Inc., 2855 3rd Avenue, Inc., 327 E. 149th Street,
Inc., 508A Willis Avenue, Inc., Mohammed Islam (a.k.a. Mohammed
Batt) and Akiva "Doe," Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-10139, (S.D.
N.Y., December 27, 2017), seeks compensation for wages paid at
less than the statutory minimum wage required by the Fair Labor
Standards Act, overtime premium pay, liquidated damages, unpaid
"spread of hours" pay under New York Labor Law and New York Wage
Theft Prevention Act.

Defendants jointly owned and operated cellphone store in the
Bronx under the names "Powercell," "2855," "327" and "Willis".
Plaintiffs worked for Defendants as cellphone salespeople and
customer service representatives who were responsible for selling
cellphone products, activating the phones and dealing with any
customer service issues.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael Samuel, Esq.
      SAMUEL & STEIN
      38 West 32nd Street, Suite 1110
      New York, NY 10001
      Tel: (212) 563-9884


7447 SOUTH SHORE: Covington Sues over Chicago Rental Rules
----------------------------------------------------------
JIMMIE COVINGTON, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. 7447 SOUTH SHORE, LLC,
the Defendant, Case No. 2018-CH-01286 (Ill. Cir., Cook County,
Jan. 31, 2018), seeks to recover damages against Defendant for
violating the City of Chicago Residential Landlord and Tenant
Ordinance, Municipal Code.

According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to provide
Plaintiff and the class with a copy of the then current RLTO
summaries required by Section 5-12-170 of the RLTO; and pay
Plaintiff and the class interest on their security deposits
in the manner and within the timeframe required by Section
5-12-0SO(c) of the RLTO.

7447 South Shore, LLC was founded in 2003. The company's line of
business includes the operation of apartment buildings.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrev Sobek, Esq.
          JS Law 1 29 E. Madison Street, Suite 1000
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone (312) 756 1330
          E-mail: jeffs@jsslawoffices.com


11TH HOUR INVESTMENTS: Plantation Spinal Care Sues over Junk Fax
----------------------------------------------------------------
PLANTATION SPINAL CARE CENTER, INC., on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. 11TH HOUR
INVESTMENTS, INC. d/b/a PROGRESSIVE BUSINESS FUNDING, a
California corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 0:18-cv-60189-WPD
(S.D. Fla., Jan. 29, 2018), seeks an injunction, requiring
Defendant to cease all junk faxes and an award of statutory
damages to Plaintiff and Class Members, together with costs and
reasonable attorneys' fees under the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant has, from prior to the
date of the filing of the Complaint through the present,
systematically and under a uniform policy and procedure sent
and/or arranged to be sent hundreds, or thousands, of fax
advertisements, advertising the commercial availability or
quality of any property, goods, or services, to fax machines
and/or computers to fax machines throughout the United States,
including those of Plaintiff and Class Members, without prior
express written consent, and which did not contain an opt-out
notice as required by the TCPA.

The fax advertisements that Defendant causes to be sent contain
preprinted, standardized text and format.  The Defendant's
advertising by fax was not sporadic or unorganized, but instead
was part of a well-organized mass advertising tactic and
campaign. Defendant appears to have a business model whereby it
sends unsolicited "leads," via fax, to local businesses. As a
result, the Plaintiff asserts that the fax ads at issue were
"unsolicited advertisements" within the meaning of the TCPA.

All of Defendant's fax ads whether "unsolicited advertisements"
or not (because of prior invitation or permission), must have the
required opt-out notice to be lawful under the TCPA, which
uniformly they did not. Each fax advertisement sent to Plaintiff
and to each Class Member routinely failed to include the opt-out
notice required by the TCPA and its regulations.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the putative class:

          Seth M. Lehrman, Esq.
          EDWARDS POTTINGER LLC
          425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 524-2820
          Facsimile: (954) 524-2822
          E-mail: seth@eplllc.com

               - and -

          Joshua H. Eggnatz, Esq.
          Michael J. Pascucci, Esq.
          EGGNATZ | PASCUCCI
          5400 S. University Drive, Suite 417
          Davie, FL 33328
          Telephone: (954) 889 3359
          Facsimile: (954) 889 5913
          E-mail: JEggnatz@JusticeEarned.com
                  Mpascucci@JusticeEarned.com


ADOBE SYSTEMS: "Benhayon" Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing SMS
-------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Benhayon, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Adobe Systems, Inc., a Foreign
for Profit Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 17-cv- 62566 (S.D.
Fla., December 27, 2017), seeks damages and interest, reasonable
costs, including attorneys' fees and equitable/injunctive or
other relief for violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act.

Defendant is an American multinational computer software company
headquartered in San Jose. In an effort to sell and advertise
their computer software, Defendant regularly engages in
unsolicited telemarketing directed towards prospective consumers.
Adobe sent a telemarketing text message to Plaintiff's cellular
telephone promoting Defendant's Adobe Scan software without prior
consent and using an automatic telephone dialing system.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Scott A. Edelsberg, Esq.
     Jeff Ostrow, Esq.
     Avi R. Kaufman, Esq.
     KOPELOWITZ OSTROW FERGUSON WEISELBERG GILBERT
     1 W. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500
     Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
     Telephone: (954) 525-4100
     Facsimile: (954) 525-4300
     Email: edelsberg@kolawyers.com
            ostrow@kolawyers.com
            kaufman@kolawyers.com

            - and -

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

            - and -

     Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
     SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
     14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 400
     Miami, FL 33132
     Telephone: 305-479-2299
     Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com


AETNA INC: Inzlicht-Sprei Seeks to Enjoin Merger with CVS
---------------------------------------------------------
The case, DR. ELI INZLICHT-SPREI, on Behalf of Himself and All
Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. AETNA, INC., MARK T.
BERTOLINI, FRANK M. CLARK, FERNANDO AGUIRRE, JOSEPH P. NEWHOUSE,
ELLEN M. HANCOCK, EDWARD J. LUDWIG, MOLLY J. COYE, ROGER N.
FARAH, BETSY Z. COHEN, JEFFREY E. GARTEN, RICHARD J. HARRINGTON,
and OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, the Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-00176
(D. Conn., Jan. 31, 2018), is a shareholder class action brought
by Plaintiff on behalf of himself and all other public
shareholders of Aetna, Inc. against Aetna and the members of
Aetna's Board of Directors for their violations of Sections 14(a)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, pursuant to
which Aetna will be acquired by CVS Health Corporation, through
its wholly-owned subsidiary Hudson Merger Sub Corp.

On December 3, 2017, Aetna and CVS issued a joint press release
announcing they had entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger
under which CVS will acquire all outstanding shares of Aetna for
$145.00 in cash and 0.8378 shares of CVS common stock per share,
which would value Aetna at approximately $207.94 per share.
Pursuant to the Merger Agreement, Merger Sub will merge with and
into the Company, with the Company surviving the merger as an
indirect wholly owned subsidiary of CVS.

The Proposed Transaction is valued at approximately $77 billion.
On January 4, 2018, the Board authorized the filing of a
materially misleading and incomplete Registration Statement on
Form S-4 with the SEC. The Registration Statement, which
recommends that Aetna shareholders vote in favor of the Proposed
Transaction, omits or misrepresents material information
concerning, among other things: (i) Aetna's financial
projections, relied upon by Aetna's financial advisor, Lazard
Freres & Co. LLC and Lazard and Allen & Company, in its financial
analyses; (ii) the data and inputs underlying the financial
valuation analyses that support the fairness opinion provided
by Lazard; (iii) the background process leading to the Proposed
Transaction, including the terms and details surrounding any
alternative indications of interest in the Company solicited or
received from any other company; and (iv) the actual value of the
Merger Consideration. The failure to adequately disclose such
material information constitutes a violation of sections of the
Exchange Act, as Aetna shareholders need such information to cast
a fully-informed vote or make an appraisal decision in connection
with the Proposed Transaction.

The Merger Consideration that Aetna stockholders stand to receive
in connection with the Proposed Transaction and the process by
which Defendants propose to consummate the Proposed Transaction
are unfair to Plaintiff and the other common shareholders of the
Company. In violation of the Exchange Act, Defendants are asking
Plaintiff and Aetna's other public shareholders to vote in favor
of the Proposed Transaction based on the materially incomplete
and misleading Registration Statement.

In short, unless remedied, Aetna's public shareholders will be
forced to make a voting decision on the Proposed Transaction
without receiving full disclosure of all material information
concerning the Proposed Transaction.

Aetna Inc. is an American managed health care company, which
sells traditional and consumer directed health care insurance
plans and related services, such as medical, pharmaceutical,
dental, behavioral health, long-term care, and disability
plans.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shannon L. Hopkins, Esq.
          LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
          733 Summer Street, Suite 3004
          Stamford, CT 06901
          Telephone: (203) 992 4523
          Facsimile: (212) 363 7171
          E-mail: shopkins@zlk.com

               - and -

          Melissa A. Fortunato, Esq.
          Todd H. Henderson
          BRAGAR EAGEL & SQUIRE, P.C.
          885 Third Avenue, Suite 3040
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 308 5858
          Facsimile: (212) 214 0506
          Email: fortunato@bespc.com
                 henderson@bespc.com


AHOLD U.S.A.: Belizaire Sues over Illegal Delivery Charge Policy
----------------------------------------------------------------
ANSY BELIZAIRE and ANTHONY McALLISTER, on behalf of themselves
and all other employees similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
AHOLD U.S.A., AHOLD DELIIAIZE USA, INC, PEAPOD, LLC and THE STOP
& SHOP SUPERMARKET COMPANY LLC, INC, the Defendants, Case No.
650411/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Jan. 25, 2018), contends that the
Defendants have a policy of charging their customers a delivery
fee for the delivery performed by Defendants' delivery drivers.
Defendants retain the entire charge for delivery and do not remit
or pass any portion of it to their delivery drivers. When
Defendants' customers place delivery orders using Defendants'
website, the above-mentioned sendee charge is represented as a
charge for delivery. Customers' receipts for the delivery orders
do not include a disclaimer that the deliver fee is not
distributed to delivery drivers. It is not Defendants' policy to
routinely inform customers that the delivery charge is retained
by Defendants and not paid full or in part to Defendants'
delivery drivers. Defendants' customers can reasonably believe
that the sendee charge for delivery is a gratuity paid to
Defendants' delivery drivers and that they therefore do not have
to tip the drivers. As a result of Defendants' illegal delivery
charge policy, Named Plaintiffs and the Class are owed the
gratuities illegally retained by Defendants.

Ansy Belizaire worked as a delivery driver at the South Setauket,
New York and Watertown, Abington, Framingham, and Allston,
Massachusetts locations. Belizaire worked in New York from
approximately February 2015 until 2017, and in Massachusetts from
approximately March 2008 until February 2015.

Anthony McAllister works as a delivery driver at the New Hyde
Park and Farmingdale, New York locations. Named Plaintiff
McAllister began working as a delivery driver in approximately
2012 and last worked in approximately April 2015 due to an injury
while at work. The Plaintiffs and the Class are employees under
applicable state law.

The Defendants own and operate an online grocery delivery company
that serves various markets, including areas in Illinois,
Wisconsin, Indiana, Maryland, Virginia, Massachusetts, and New
York.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          J. Nelson Thomas, Esq.
          Michael J. Lingle, Esq.
          Sarah E. Cressman, Esq.
          Jessica L. Lukasiewicz, Esq.
          THOMAS & SOLOMON LLP
          693 East Avenue
          Rochester, NY 14607
          Telephone: (585) 272 0540
          E-mail: nthomas@theemploymentattorneys.com
                  mlingle@theemploymentattorneys.com
                  scressman@theemploymentatorneys.com
                  jlukasiewicz@theemploymentattorneys.com


AIRGAS USA: Fails to Pay Minimum Wage, "Charles" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------
ANDRE CHARLES, individually, on behalf of all others similarly
situated, and as representatives of other aggrieved employees,
the Plaintiff, v. AIRGAS USA, LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company; and DOES 1 through 19 250, inclusive, the Defendants,
Case No. BC691347 (Cal. Super. Ct., Jan. 25, 2018), seeks to
recover unpaid meal period premiums, unpaid rest period premiums,
and minimum wage under the California Labor Code.

The Plaintiff allege that Defendants were advised by skilled
lawyers and other professionals, employees and advisors
knowledgeable about California labor and wage law, employment and
personnel practices, and about the requirements of California
Labor Code, which provides: "The maximum hours of work and the
standard conditions of labor fixed by the commission shall be the
maximum hours of work and the standard conditions of labor for
employees.  The employment of any employee for longer hours than
those fixed by the order or under conditions of labor prohibited
by the order is unlawful."

In accordance with its power under section 1198, the Industrial
Welfare Commission adopted Wage Orders prescribing the minimum
wages, maximum hours, and standard conditions of employment for
employees in this state.  The Plaintiff and Class members were
repeatedly prevented from taking their meal periods and rest
breaks including, but not limited to, that drivers were required
to remain in their trucks during their entire shift, preventing
them from taking breaks, and were forced to work through meal
periods and rest breaks due to, among other things, Defendant's
demanding schedule. Yet Defendant still deducted for meal periods
that were not taken, depriving Plaintiff and Class members of
wages for hours that they worked. As such, they are also owed
minimum wage for these times that they were working through meal
periods but that time was still deducted from their pay.

Plaintiff and Class members were not authorized or permitted
lawful meal periods and rest breaks, and were not provided with
one hour's wages in lieu thereof in violation of, among others,
Labor Code sections 226.7, 512, and applicable IWC Wage Orders.

Airgas is a company that states it is the nation's leading
single-source supplier of gases, welding equipment and supplies,
and safety products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gary R. Carlin, Esq.
          Brent S. Buchsbaum, Esq.
          Laurel N. Haag, Esq.
          Ian M. Silvers, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF CARLIN & BUCHSBAUM LLP
          555 East Ocean Boulevard, Suite 818
          Long Beach, CA 90802
          Tel: (562) 432-8933
          Fax: (562) 435-1656
          E-mail: gary@carlinbuchsbaum.com
                  brent@carlinbuchsbaum.com
                  laurel@carlinbuchsbaum.com
                  ian@carlinbuchsbaum.com


ALLEGHENY, PA: Russo Files Suit in W.D. Penn.
---------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The County of
Allegheny. The case is styled Leo Russo both individually and on
behalf of a class of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. The
County of Allegheny, Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-00097-MRH (W.D.
Penn., January 22, 2018).

The County of Allegheny is a government agency.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Elmer R. Keach, III, Esq.
   Law Offices of Elmer R. Keach, III
   1 Pine West Plaza, Suite 109
   Albany, NY 12205
   Tel: (518) 434-1718
   Email: bobkeach@keachlawfirm.com


ALLSCRIPTS HEALTHCARE: Surfside Sues over Ransomware Attack
-----------------------------------------------------------
SURFSIDE NON-SURGICAL ORTHOPEDICS, P.A., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
ALLSCRIPTS HEALTHCARE SOLUTIONS, INC., the Defendant, Case No.
1:18-cv-00566 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 25, 2018), seeks to recover
equitable relief compelling Allscripts to utilize appropriate
methods and policies with respect to ransomware protection.

The Plaintiff brings this class action against Allscripts
Healthcare Solutions, Inc. for failing to secure its systems and
data from cyberattacks, including ransomware attacks.

According to the complaint, on January 18, 2018, Allscripts did
suffer a ransomware attack, which prevented Allscripts' clients
from conducting their routine and ordinary business. As a result
of the ransomware attack experienced by Allscripts, Plaintiff
could not access its patients' records or electronically
prescribe medications, forcing Plaintiff to cancel appointments,
thereby causing significant business interruption and disruption,
and lost revenues. Additionally, Plaintiff has expended
significant time and effort resolving these issues resulting from
the breach, including communicating with patients to reschedule
appointments.

Allscripts Healthcare Solutions, Inc. is a publicly traded
American company that provides physician practices, hospitals,
and other healthcare providers with practice management and
electronic health record technology.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and Putative Classes:

          Steven W. Teppler, Esq.
          Brittany Ford, Esq.
          ABBOTT LAW GROUP, P.A.
          2929 Plummer Cove Road
          Jacksonville, FL 32223
          Telephone: (904) 292 1111
          Facsimile: (904) 292 1220
          E-mail: steppler@abbottlawpa.com

               - and -

          John A. Yanchunis, Esq.
          Marisa Glassman, Esq.
          Patrick A. Barthle, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
          201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 223-5505
          Facsimile: (813) 223-5402
          E-mail: jyanchunis@ForThePeople.com
                  mglassman@ForThePeople.com
                  pbarthle@ForThePeople.com

               - and -

          Joel R. Rhine, Esq.
          RHINE LAW FIRM, PC
          1612 Military Cutoff Road, Suite 300
          Wilmington, NC 28403
          Telephone: (910) 772 9960
          Facsimile: (910) 772 9062
          E-mail: jrr@rhinelawfirm.com

               - and -

          Robert A. Clifford, Esq.
          Shannon M. Mcnulty, Esq.
          CLIFFORD LAW OFFICES
          120 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 3100
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 899 9090
          E-mail: rac@cliffordlaw.com
                  smm@cliffordlaw.com


AMERICAN EXPRESS: Wilson Sues over Robocalls
--------------------------------------------
Jacob Wilson, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. American Express Company, the
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-00672 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 25, 2018),
seeks damages resulting from the illegal actions of American
Express Company, in negligently, knowingly, and/or willfully
placed automated and prerecorded calls to Plaintiff's cellular
phone in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

AMEX is credit card company that is the "world's largest card
issuer by purchase volume" and "provides millions of transactions
daily as the premium network for high-spending cardmembers"
http://about.americanexpress.com/oc/whoweare/(last visited Jan.
24, 2018).  As part of its collections operation, AMEX operates
an aggressive contact schedule which bombards unsuspecting
consumers, with whom it has no relationship, with robocalls and
prerecorded messages.

The Plaintiff is such a consumer. He is not an AMEX customer yet
has been bombarded with autodialed and pre-recorded calls made
without his consent and over his explicit objection.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Sergei Lemberg, Esq.
          LEMBERG LAW, L.L.C.
          43 Danbury Road, 3rd Floor
          Wilton, CT 06897
          Telephone: (203) 653 2250
          Facsimile: (203) 653 3424


ANGELINI METAL: "Lopez" Action Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay
--------------------------------------------------------
Cesar Fernando Ordonez Lopez, and all others similarly situated
under 29 U.S.C. 216(b), Plaintiff, vs. Angelini Metal Works
Corp., Roberto Carlos Angelini and Marcela A. Dufau Defendants,
Case No. 17-cv-24694 (S.D. Fla., December 27, 2017), requests
double damages and reasonable attorney fees from Defendants,
jointly and severally, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act,
for all overtime wages still owing from Plaintiff's entire
employment period along with court costs, interest and any other
relief.

Plaintiff worked for Defendants as a welder from on or about
August 1, 2007 through on or about December 27, 2017. Lopez
worked an average of 70 hours per week, all without overtime pay
for those hours above 40 per week. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


APPLE INC: Faces "Miller" Class Action in Texas
-----------------------------------------------
Mark Miller, Chris Spearman and Craig Stanford, individually and
on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Apple Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 17-cv-00889, (E.D. Tex., December 27, 2017),
seeks injunctive relief and damages arising from Defendant's
unlawful failure to inform consumers that updating their iPhone
6, 6S, SE or 7 to iOS 10.2.1 (and/or later to iOS 11.2) would
dramatically and artificially reduce the performance of these
devices.  The Plaintiff seeks restitution of illegally acquired
money, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, as well as
prejudgment and post-judgment interest and such other and further
relief resulting from negligent misrepresentation and/or
fraudulent omission.

Apple also failed to inform consumers that phone performance
would be restored by simply replacing the phone's lithium-ion
battery, a much cheaper solution than buying a new phone, says
the complaint..

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

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Kenneth C. Johnston, Esq.
     Robert W. Gifford, Esq.
     1717 Main Street, Suite 3000
     Dallas, TX 75201
     Telephone: (214) 974-8000
     Facsimile: (972) 474-1750
     Email: kjohnston@johnstonpratt.com
            rgifford@johnstonpratt.com


APPLE INC: "Davidson" Suit Transferred to District of Delaware
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Thomas Davidson, Todd Cleary
Eric Siegal, Michael Pajaro, John Borzymowski, Brooke Corbett
Taylor Brown, Justin Bauer, Heirloom Estate Services, Inc.,
Kathleen Baker, Matt Muilenberg, William Bon, and Jason Petty, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, and Jun
Bai, Non-Party, the Petitioners, v. Apple Inc., the Respondent,
Case No. 5:16-cv-4942-LHK, was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the northern District of California, to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Delaware (Wilmington) on Jan.
25, 2018. The Delaware District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:18-mc-00033-UNA to the proceeding.

Apple Inc. is an American multinational technology company
headquartered in Cupertino, California that designs, develops,
and sells consumer electronics, computer software, and online
services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher Page Simon, Esq.
          CROSS & SIMON, LLC
          1105 North Market Street, Suite 901
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 777 4200
          E-mail: csimon@crosslaw.com


ASHLEY BLACK CO: Faces "Dalton" Suit in C.D. of California
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ashley Black
Company. The case is styled Sharon Dalton, Allyson McCarthy,
Sheila Smith, Mary Dennis, Kelli Frederick and Joey Campbell, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. Ashley Black Company, Ashley Black, ADB
Innovations, LLC, Ashley Black Guru, Ashley Diana Black
International Holdings, LLC, Ashley Black Fasciology LLC, ADB
Interests, LLC and Does 1-100, Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-00582
(C.D. Cal., January 23, 2018).

Ashley Black Company is a Health & Fitness Program
Consultant.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

   Thomas S Alch, Esq.
   Shoop APLC
   350 South Beverly Drive Suite 330
   Beverly Hills, CA 90212
   Tel: (310) 277-1700
   Fax: (310) 277-8500
   Email: thomas.alch@shooplaw.com


ASSET RECOVERY: Vandehey & O'Laire Sue over Debt Collection
-----------------------------------------------------------
JACQUELYN A. VANDEHEY, and MICHELLE L. O'LAIRE, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v.
ASSET RECOVERY SOLUTIONS, LLC, an Illinois limited liability
company; VELOCITY INVESTMENTS LLC, a New Jersey limited liability
company; and, JOHN AND JANE DOES NUMBERS 1 THROUGH 25, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-00144 (E.D. Wisc., Jan. 26, 2018),
seeks to recover statutory damages, attorney fees, costs, and all
other relief, equitable or legal in nature, pursuant to the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act.

According to the complaint, O'Laire received a letter dated
October 3, 2017.  The O'Laire Letter described an alleged
defaulted past-due balance ("O'Laire Debt") regarding a personal
loan originally owed to Prosper Funding LLC.

The O'Laire Debt is alleged by Defendants to be a financial
obligation arising out of one or more transactions the subject(s)
of which were primarily for personal, family, and household
purposes. As inferred from the O'Laire Letter, Velocity purchased
the O'Laire Debt after it was in default and charged-off by the
original creditor. Creditors charge-off defaulted debts in
accordance with federal regulations that require the creditor to
remove the debt from their financial statements as assets. These
charged-off accounts are treated as a loss and the creditor
receives a tax deduction under the Internal Revenue Code.

On advice of counsel, O'Laire alleges that the O'Laire Letter is
a computer-generated from a template or form that Asset Recovery
uses to collect defaulted debts on behalf of Velocity.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Andrew T. Thomasson, Esq.
          Philip D. Stern, Esq.
          STERN THOMASSON LLP
          150 Morris Avenue, 2nd Floor
          Springfield, NJ 07081 1315
          Telephone: (973) 379 7500
          Facsimile: (973) 532 5868
          E-Mail: andrew@sternthomasson.com
                  philip@sternthomasson.com


ATOMIC WINGS: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, "Anariba" Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ivan Vladimir Garcia Anariba, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Atomic Wings Franchisor
Inc., Mirabi Inc., Adam Lippin and Mitchell Banchik, Defendants,
Case No. 17-cv-10104 (S.D. N.Y., December 27, 2017), seeks unpaid
minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
and New York Labor Law and "spread of hours" and overtime wage
orders of the New York Commissioner of Labor, including
applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and
costs.

Defendants own, operate or control "Down the Hatch" and "Atomic
Wings" franchise bar and chicken wing restaurant, located at 179
West Fourth Street, in New York, New York, where Anariba was
employed as a porter and ostensibly as a busboy, regularly
working in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate
overtime compensation. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BANK OF AMERICA: Faces "Suarez" Wage-and-Hour Suit
--------------------------------------------------
Arianna Suarez, on behalf of herself: all others similarly
situated, and the general public, Plaintiffs, v. Bank of America
Corporation, a Delaware Corporation, and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. RG18890674 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
Jan. 25, 2018), seeks to recover compensation for all hours
worked under California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff began her employment
with Defendants in 2003. The Plaintiff was performing her job
duties satisfactorily and received positive performance reviews.

The Plaintiff was consistently denied the opportunity to take her
lunch break or other rest breaks by her immediate supervisor
managing her banking center. She was often reprimanded by her
supervisor when she would attempt to take a break or use the
restroom. She almost never received an uninterrupted meal period
or rest break while working at the Albany banking center. When
Plaintiff would try to indicate on her records that she had not
been able to take a meal period for the day, her supervisor
barred that indication. Subsequently, Plaintiff was never
compensated in the form of a meal premium for missing her meal
periods.

In May 2017, Plaintiff discovered that she was pregnant. In July
2017, Plaintiff discovered that she had developed Gestational
Diabetes in association with her pregnancy. This condition
necessitated that she take breaks to check and regulate her blood
glucose levels, often requiring the use of a glucose monitor as
well as a light snack or meal to control sugar spikes and drops.

Plaintiff was issued a doctor's note explaining that Plaintiff
needed to take her meal periods and eat in order to regulate her
blood sugar levels and passed that note along to Defendant in a
timely manner.

Defendant disregarded the doctor's note and continued its policy
of denying Plaintiff meal periods and rest periods. Because of
this policy, Plaintiff was often forced to interrupt business to
check her blood glucose levels, in spaces with limited-to-no
privacy. Consequently, co-workers and customers often witnessed
Plaintiff drawing blood to check her blood glucose levels. After
reporting her pregnancy, Plaintiff was frequently asked
inappropriate questions about her health and her ability to
continue working in a condescending manner. Plaintiffs supervisor
asked questions about her future with the company, and once
expressed that "this isn't the right banking center for you," to
the Plaintiff.

Multiple times, Plaintiff was forced to work overtime hours for
which she was compensated, though she had no choice as to whether
or not she took the overtime. Plaintiff complained about this
policy because she had a son at home with a genetic illness that
needed regular transfusions, requiring her to take her son to the
doctor's office for treatment. When she requested time off for
these instances, they were denied. In one instance, Plaintiff's
son was rushed to the hospital for a transfusion and Plaintiff
was barred from taking a personal or sick day to visit him. When
Plaintiff complained that she had a right to visit her son and
use her accrued paid time off, her supervisor became cross and
told her she needed to stay to run the banking center.

Unsatisfied, Plaintiff called her supervisor's supervisor to
complain about her supervisor's policies of barring usage of paid
time off Plaintiff was allowed to go visit her son in the
hospital on that day, but no further corrective or disciplinary
action was taken with regard to Plaintiff's direct supervisor's
policy of preventing paid time off usage.

Defendants failed to provide meal and rest periods and failed to
make premium payments to Plaintiff and Class Members for missed
meal and rest breaks. Defendants' failure to record all breaks
and failure to pay applicable premiums, resulted in part from
Defendants' failure to record all hours worked. Defendants'
failure to record all breaks and failure to pay applicable
premiums resulted in payroll records such as wage statements that
were not accurate or legally compliant, in violation of
California Labor Code.[BN]

Bank of America Corporation is a multinational banking and
financial services corporation headquartered in Charlotte, North
Carolina, United States. It is ranked 2nd on the list of largest
banks in the United States by assets.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stephen Noel Ilg, Esq.
          Tracy T. Scanlan, Esq.
          Frank J. Zeccola, Esq.
          ILG LEGAL OFFICE, P.C.
          505 14th Street, Ninth Floor
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (415)580 2574
          Facsimile: (415)735 3454
          E-mail: silg@ilglegal.com
                  tscanlan@ilglegal.com
                  fzeccola@ilglegal.com


BARCEL USA: Faces "Morrison" Suit in Southern District New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Barcel USA, LLC.
The case is styled as Aurora Morrison, on behalf of herself and
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Barcel USA, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 7:18-cv-00531-VB (S.D. N.Y., January 22,
2018).

Barcel USA, LLC manufactures, distributes, and sells candies,
cookies, and snacks.[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


BEHR PROCESS: Falsely Marketed DeckOver Products, Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Joan Edwards, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. BEHR Process Corp.; BEHR Paint Corp.; MASCO Corp.;
The Home Depot, Inc.; and Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., Case No. 3:17-
cv-00683-FDW (W.D.N.C., November 27, 2017), is brought on behalf
of all persons who purchased a Behr Premium DeckOver product in
the United States, that was falsely marked as "durable" and
"long-lasting", when in fact, DeckOver is not capable of reliably
coating wood and concrete surfaces for more than a short period
of time. It routinely peels, bubbles, and degrades within months
of application, says the complaint.

BEHR Process Corp. and BEHR Paint Corp. are suppliers of
architectural paint and exterior wood care products to the United
States.

MASCO Corp. is a manufacturer of products for the home
improvement and new home construction markets.

The Home Depot, Inc. and Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. operates
approximately 2,000 home improvement retail stores under the
brand name "The Home Depot" in the United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Daniel K. Bryson, Esq.
      Scott C. Harris, Esq.
      Patrick M. Wallace, Esq.
      WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON LLP
      900 W. Morgan Street
      Raleigh, NC 27603
      Telephone: (919) 600-5000
      E-mail: dan@wbmllp.com
              scott@wbmllp.com
              pat@wbmllp.com

BLINK HOLDINGS: Faces "Andrews" Suit in Eastern District New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Blink Holdings,
Inc. The case is styled as Victor Andrews, individually and as
the representative of a class of similarly situated persons,
Plaintiff v. Blink Holdings, Inc. doing business as: Blink
Fitness, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-00467 (E.D. N.Y., January
23, 2018).

Blink Holdings, Inc., doing business as Blink Fitness, operates
fitness clubs.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Dan Shaked, Esq.
   Shaked Law Group, P.C.
   44 Court Street, Suite 1217
   Brooklyn, NY 11217
   Tel: (917) 373-9128
   Fax: (718) 504-7555
   Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com


BITCONNECT INT'L: Mengesha Sues over Cryptocurrency Plunge
----------------------------------------------------------
PATRICIA MENGESHA individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Bitconnect International
PLC, Bitconnect LTD, and Bitconnect Trading LTD, the Defendants,
Case No. 0:18-cv-00279 (D. Minn., Jan. 31, 2018), alleges
Bitconnect scammed thousands of Minnesotans and hundreds of
thousands of Americans out of millions and millions of dollars
through a website called bitconnect.co.  Bitconnect took
advantage of the increased attention, interest and success of
cryptocurrencies and legitimate companies and technology to
convince Plaintiff and the class that they would make money on
their investment in Bitconnect's product.

Bitconnect was both a pyramid scheme and a Ponzi scheme, the
lawsuit says.  Bitconnect relied on new money from new users, who
were in turn expected to get more new users to produce more new
money, while not actually engaging in any real activity that
would produce income, profits or benefit to investors.

In its scheme, Bitconnect required Plaintiff and the Class to
provide Bitconnect with Bitcoin, which it would exchange for
Bitconnect Coins. With this transaction, Bitconnect promised to
Plaintiff and the Class fixed returns as well as a guarantee that
the principal investment/loan amount would be paid in full on
date certain.

Instead, Bitconnect shut down its platform, took all of Plaintiff
and the Class's money, and left them with BCC, which is either
entirely worthless or has significantly less value than
Bitconnect promised. The Plaintiff and the Class were damaged and
Bitconnect has profited handsomely at the expense of Plaintiff
and the Class.[BN]

Attorneys For Plaintiff:

          Robert K. Shelquist, Esq.
          Rebecca A. Peterson, Esq.
          LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
          100 South Washington Avenue, Suite 2200
          Minneapolis, MN 55401
          Telephone: (612) 339 6900
          E-mail: rkshelquist@locklaw.com
                  rapeterson@locklaw.com

               - and -

          Genevieve Zimmerman, Esq.
          MESHBESHER & SPENCE LTD.
          1616 Park Avenue South
          Minneapolis, MN 55404
          Telephone: (612) 339 9121
          E-mail: gzimmerman@meshbesher.com


BITCONNECT INT'L: Paige Sues over Cryptocurrency Plunge
-------------------------------------------------------
BRIAN PAIGE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Bitconnect International PLC,
Bitconnect LTD, Bitconnect Trading LTD, and Ryan Maasen, the
Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-00058-JHM-DW (W.D. Ky., Jan. 29,
2018), seeks monetary damages and injunctive relief, in the form
of specific enforcement and/or rescission of the contract between
Bitconnect and Plaintiff and the Class; return of all money
and/or cryptocurrencies given to Bitconnect by Plaintiff and the
Class; disgorgement of all monies earned by Defendants due to
their conduct; and/or immediate order enjoining Bitconnect and
its owners, members and Board of Directors from transferring,
selling, spending or otherwise dissipating any assets so that
Plaintiff and the Class can recover the money owed to them.

According to the complaint, Bitconnect scammed thousands of
Kentuckians and hundreds of thousands of Americans out of
millions and millions of dollars through a website called
bitconnect.co.  Bitconnect took advantage of the increased
attention, interest and success of cryptocurrencies and
legitimate companies and technology to convince Plaintiff and the
class that they would make money on their investment in
Bitconnect's product.

As part of their scam, Bitconnect relied upon, communicated with
and otherwise benefited from people like Maasen.  Maasen created
YouTube videos that marketed Bitconnect and convinced people to
deposit money onto Bitconnect's website. But Bitconnect was both
a pyramid scheme and a Ponzi scheme. That is, it relied on new
money from new users, who were in turn expected to get more new
users to produce more new money, while not actually engaging in
any real activity that would produce income, profits or benefit
to investors.

In its scheme, Bitconnect required Plaintiff and the Class to
provide Bitconnect with Bitcoin, which it would exchange for
Bitconnect Coins ("BCC"). With this transaction, Bitconnect
promised to Plaintiff and the Class fixed returns as well as a
guarantee that the principal investment/loan amount would be paid
in full on date certain.

Instead, Bitconnect shut down its platform, took all of Plaintiff
and the Class's money, and left them with BCC, which is either
entirely worthless or has significantly less value than
Bitconnect promised. The Plaintiff and the Class were damaged and
Bitconnect and Maasen have profited handsomely at the expense of
Plaintiff and the Class.[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiff and the Class:

          Jasper D. Ward IV, Esq.
          Alex C. Davis, Esq.
          JONES WARD PLC
          The Pointe
          1205 E. Washington Street, Suite 111
          Louisville, Kentucky 40206
          Telephone: (502) 882 6000
          E-mail: jasper@jonesward.com
                  alex@jonesward.com

               - and -

          Abigale Rhodes Green, Esq.
          ABIGALE RHODES GREEN INJURY LAW, PLLC
          1800 Kentucky Home Life Building
          239 S. Fifth Street
          Louisville, KY 40202
          Telephone: (502) 736 8159
          E-mail: agreen@arglawfirm.com


BONANZA CREEK: "Feinstein" Suit Seeks to Halt Sandridge Merger
--------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Feinstein, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Bonanza Creek Energy, Inc.,
Jack E. Vaughn, Paul Keglevic, Brian Steck, Thomas B. Tyree, Jr.,
Scott D. Vogel and Jeffrey E. Wojahn, Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-
01864 (D. Del., December 27, 2017), seeks to enjoin defendants
and all persons acting in concert with them from proceeding with,
consummating, or closing the proposed merger between Bonanza
Creek and a subsidiary of SandRidge Energy, Inc., rescinding it
and setting it aside or awarding rescissory damages in the event
defendants consummate the merger.  The Plaintiff also seeks costs
of this action, including reasonable allowance for attorneys' and
experts' fees and such other and further relief under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Bonanza Creek shareholders stand to receive $36.00 in cash and
stock for each share they own, a deal valued at $746 million.

The complaint says the parties' merger statement fails to include
financial forecasts for Bonanza Creek and SandRidge, material
information that is necessary for the company shareholders to
make an informed decision concerning whether to vote in favor of
the merger.

Bonanza Creek Energy is an exploration and production company
focused on the extraction of oil and associated liquids-rich
natural gas in the United States. Bonanza Creek's operations are
focused in the Wattenberg Field in the DJ Basin of Colorado and
the Cotton Valley sands of southern Arkansas. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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

             - and -

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


BREAD AND SALT: Faces "Walker" Suit in District of Massachusetts
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bread and Salt
Hospitality, LLC. The case is styled as Ricardo Walker, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Bread
and Salt Hospitality, LLC doing business as: Juliet, Defendant,
Case No. 1:18-cv-10128 (D. Mass., January 23, 2018).

Bread and Salt Hospitality, LLC is in the food and beverage
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


CALIFORNIA: Magistrate Recommends Dismissal of "Acord"
------------------------------------------------------
In the case, RICHARD ACORD, et al., Petitioners, v. STATE OF
CALIFORNIA, Respondent, Case No. 1:17-cv-01089-MJS (HC) (E.D.
Cal.), Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng of the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of California has entered (i) an
order directing the Clerk's office to assign a district judge to
the matter; and (ii) recommendations to dismiss the petition for
writ of habeas corpus without prejudice.

The petition for writ of habeas corpus was brought, purportedly
as a class action, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 2254 by Acord,
Leandro Angel Gonzales, Anthony J. Ruiz, Thomas Camarillo, Jeff
Brown, and Joseph E. Gambler.  At the time of filing, the
Petitioners all were incarcerated at the Kings County Jail in
Hanford, California pursuant to judgments of the State Court of
California.  Acord since has been released from custody.

The Petitioners claim they are serving AB109 felony class
sentences, which require them to serve 50% of their imposed
sentences, while other "half-time" offenders receive an
additional seventeen percent reduction in the time they are
required to serve.  They contend that this distinction is based
merely on the fact that they are serving their sentences in
county facilities, rather than state prison.  They allege this
discrepancy violates their rights to due process and equal
protection as well as the prohibition against double jeopardy.
They seek to have any future percentage change in sentencing or
required time to be served extended to those subject to AB 109.

On Oct. 19, 2017, the Magistrate Judge conducted an initial
review of the petition and issued an order to show cause why the
petition should not be dismissed.  There, he noted that the
Petitioners, proceeding pro se, could not proceed with a class
action.  Furthermore, there is no authority for permitting
multiple petitioners to file a single habeas petition under 28
U.S.C. Section 2254, and doing so generally is not permitted.

However, because it appeared that the petition was wholly
unexhausted, the Magistrate Judge ordered the Petitioners to show
cause why it should proceed.  He stated that, if any Petitioner
responded with information indicating the claims had been
exhausted, the Court would sever each Petitioner's claims and
require the Petitioners to proceed in individual actions.

The order to show cause was served on each of the Petitioners.
The orders served on Gambler and Camarillo were returned as
undeliverable on Oct. 31, 2017.  The remaining Petitioners did
not respond to the order to show cause.

Magistrate Judge Seg finds that more than 63 days have passed
since mail to Petitioners Gambler and Camarillo was returned, and
they have not notified the Court of their new addresses.  Because
of their failure to provide a current address, it is impossible
for the Court to communicate with the Petitioners or to explore
any alternatives short of dismissal of the case.  Accordingly, he
will recommend that the petition as to Gambler and Camarillo be
dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute based on the
Petitioners' failure to provide a current address.

The Magistrate Judge also finds that there is no allegation that
any of the Petitioners have presented any of the claims to the
highest state court, the California Supreme Court.  They were
ordered to inform the Court if, in fact, their claims had been
presented to the California Supreme Court, and if possible, to
provide the Court with a copy of the petition or petitions filed
in the California Supreme Court along with a copy of any ruling
made by the California Supreme Court.  They did not respond.  The
Court is therefore unable to address the merits of the petition.
Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge will recommend that the
petition be dismissed on exhaustion grounds as to Acord,
Gonzales, Ruiz, and Brown.

Because all parties have not consented to Magistrate Judge
jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 636(c), the Clerk of
Court is directly to randomly assign the matter to a District
Judge.

Based on the foregoing analysis, Magistrate Judge Seng
recommended that the petition as to Gambler and Camarillo be
dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute based on
their failure to provide a current address; and the petition as
to Acord, Gonzales, Ruiz, and Brown be dismissed without
prejudice for failure to exhaust state remedies.

The findings and recommendations are submitted to the assigned
United States District Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of
28 U.S.C. section 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the Local Rules
of Practice for the U.S. States District Court for the Eastern
District of California.

Within 30 days after being served with a copy, the parties may
file written objections with the Court.  Such a document should
be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and
Recommendations."  Any reply to the objections will be served and
filed within 14 days after service of the objections.  The
parties are advised that failure to file objections within the
specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 10, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/eqZ5rF from Leagle.com.

Richard Acord, Petitioner, Pro Se.

Leandro Angel Gonzales, Petitioner, Pro Se.

Anthony J. Ruiz, Petitioner, Pro Se.

Thomas Camarillo, Petitioner, Pro Se.

Jeff Brown, Petitioner, Pro Se.

Joseph E. Gamber, Petitioner, Pro Se.


CALL-A-HEAD: Court Certifies Class of PTSTs in "Vargas" FLSA Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned JUAN VARGAS, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. CHARLES W. HOWARD
and CALL-A-HEAD CORP., Defendants, Case No. 1:15-cv-5101-GHW
(S.D. N.Y.), Judge Gregory H. Woods of the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York granted the Plaintiffs'
motion for class certification.

Call-A-Head is a portable toilet rental and service company.  The
company's portable toilet service technicians ("PTSTs") performed
manual labor cleaning portable toilets at worksites in New York
City, Westchester, and Long Island.  As if their job cleaning
toilets was not challenging enough on its own, the Plaintiffs
allege that the Defendants forced them to work overtime hours for
which they were not paid, in violation of both federal and state
labor laws.

On June 30, 2015, Mr. Vargas brought the lawsuit against
Defendants Call-A-Head and Charles Howard.  He amended his
complaint in August 2015.  The answered the amended complaint and
asserted counterclaims against Mr. Vargas and all other opt-in
Plaintiffs for breach of fiduciary duty and conversion, alleging
that the employees would steal time from the Defendants by not
performing work while driving and by idling on their route,
effectively, in the Defendants' view, stealing their gasoline.
The Defendants also asserted a counterclaim against Mr. Vargas
for defamation because of statements made by him to a newspaper.

The Plaintiffs moved the Court to conditionally certify the
action as a Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") collective action
on behalf of a class of current and former non-exempt employees
who worked for Defendants since June 30, 2009.  On Feb. 1, 2016,
the Court granted the Plaintiffs' motion for conditional
certification, and authorized the mailing of a notice of pendency
to potential class members.  Since then, 96 current and former
PTSTs have opted in to the FLSA collective action.

The Plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification of
their New York Labor Law claims pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23 on March 22, 2017, seeking to certify a class of
PTSTs dating back to 2009.  They also seek to certify a subclass
of all members employed after April 9, 2011, when the Wage Theft
Prevention Act ("WTPA")'s notification requirement came into
effect ("WTPA subclass").  The Defendants filed their opposition
on April 27, 2017 and the Plaintiffs filed their reply on May 12,
2017.

Judge Woods holds that the requirements are easily satisfied for
the Plaintiffs' proposed class of PTSTs and for the WTPA
subclass.  The Defendants have produced a list of all PTSTs
employed after June 30, 2009; membership of both the class and
the WTPA subclass of PTSTs employed after April 9, 2011 can be
ascertained from that list.  Thus, the proposed class therefore
satisfies all of the prerequisites for class certification.

Because the statutory prerequisites for class certification are
readily satisfied, Judge Woods granted the Plaintiffs' motion for
class certification.  He directed the Clerk of Court to terminate
the motion pending at Dkt. No. 201.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 10, 2018 Memorandum Opinion
and Order is available at https://is.gd/3eYf3v from Leagle.com.

Juan Vargas, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher Marlborough --
chris@marlboroughlawfirm.com -- The Marlborugh Law Firm, P.C.,
Adam Paul Slater, Slater Slater Schulman LLP, Christopher L. Van
De Water, Phillips & Associates, PLLC, Jonathan Eric Schulman,
Slater Slater Schulman LLP & Anthony R. Portesy, Slater Slater
Schulman LLP.

Clinton Kwaak, Kengman Friedrich, Peter Fowler, Keith T Houck,
Eddie Hawkins, Joseph Abreu, Christopher Kennedy, Edward
Kubinski, John Lenihan, Matthew Jones, Jesus Flores, Michael
Olfano, Joseph Caslino, Edwin Davila, Frederick Gilbert, Michael
Louiselle, Alexis Nunez, Joseph Schatzle, James Bowers, James
Autlet, Juan Blandon, Raymond Budney, Lawrence Cornerfold,
Michael Keohane, Jeffrey Miranda, Peter Venditto, Milton Rivera,
Rafael Baez, Alvin Quiles, Michael Petikas, Chris Pedretti,
Matthew Ultsh, Vincent Chieffo, Joel Lopez, Heribeto Baretto,
Joseph Mazzeo, Greg Romero, Christopher Samolis, Curtis Stoltz,
Lenny Santiago, Greggory Bittle, Alexander Colon, Jonathan Ruiz,
Joseph Arcese, Shaban Xhema, Johnny Colon, Timothy Bonduvic,
James Curley, Anthony Miola, Holdermar Cruz, Juan Ramos, Frank
Castro, Brian Fedor, Nicholas Lamm, Frank Marrazzo, Christian
Rivera, Angel Soto, John Tyz, David Martinez, Christopher Vera,
Joseph Cerrone, Joseph Zaffuto, Delfin Rosario, Joseph Schneck,
Massimo Colamarino, Jose Castaneda, Robert Tiangco, Roy Torres
Gutierrez, Peter Judice, Francisco Mazzeo, Alexis R. Quezada,
Ricardo Whittaker, Robert mcCleary, Jorge Ramos, Steven Ribisi,
Gerolamo Genova & Joseph Grano, Plaintiffs, represented by
Anthony R. Portesy, Slater Slater Schulman LLP.

Jeury Marte, Plaintiff, represented by Anthony R. Portesy, Slater
Slater Schulman LLP & Jonathan Eric Schulman, Slater Slater
Schulman LLP.

Charles W. Howard & Call-A-Head Corp., Defendants, represented by
Austin Reis Graff, The Scher Law Firm, LLP.

Dennis Regan, Defendant, represented by Anthony R. Portesy,
Slater Slater Schulman LLP.

Cristian Techiu, Gary Pellegrino, Jerry vega, Christian Broker &
Juan E. Mitchell, ADR Providers, represented by Anthony R.
Portesy, Slater Slater Schulman LLP.

Charles W. Howard & Call-A-Head Corp., Counter Claimants,
represented by Austin Reis Graff, The Scher Law Firm, LLP.

Juan Vargas, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated, Counter Defendant, represented by Christopher
Marlborough, The Marlborugh Law Firm, P.C., Adam Paul Slater,
Slater Slater Schulman LLP, Jonathan Eric Schulman, Slater Slater
Schulman LLP, Anthony R. Portesy, Slater Slater Schulman LLP &
Christopher L. Van De Water, Phillips & Associates, PLLC.


CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS: "Shoemaker" Suit Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------
Judge Donovan W. Frank of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Minnesota granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss
the case, Sandra K. Shoemaker, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Cardiovascular Systems,
Inc., and Laurence L. Betterley, Defendants, Civil No. 16-568
(DWF/KMM) (D. Minn.).

Around 88% of CSI's business comes from the sale of devices used
to treat peripheral arterial disease ("PAD").  Medical devices
are heavily regulated, including under the federal Anti-Kickback
Statute ("AKS").  A violation of the AKS requires: (1) a
remuneration to a person or entity in a position either to
purchase goods subject to reimbursement by a federal health care
program or to refer a patient whose care will be reimbursed by a
federal health care program; and (2) that the remuneration could
reasonably induce such referral or such purchase.

Courts and the OIG have concluded that a "remuneration" is
"virtually anything of value."  A person guilty of violating the
AKS faces up to five years in prison and a fine up to $25,000.  A
violation of the AKS may also be a violation of the federal False
Claims Act ("FCA") where a claim submitted to the government
includes items or services resulting from a violation of the AKS.

CSI is a publicly traded company that primarily develops and
manufactures medical devices for the treatment of peripheral
arterial disease and coronary artery disease.  Defendant
Betterley has been CSI's Chief Financial Officer since April
2008.  David L. Martin, recently deceased, was CSI's CEO and one
of its directors during the relevant time period.

The Plaintiffs are shareholders of CSI who allege that the
Defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 by making material misstatements regarding
illegal kickbacks paid to doctors.  They seek to represent a
class of shareholders who "purchased or otherwise acquired" CSI's
common stock between Sept. 12, 2011 and Jan. 21, 2016.

In the Plaintiffs' consolidated complaint, they claimed that in
early 2012, Kevin Kenny (Executive Vice President of Sales and
Marketing) and Jim Breidenstein (Vice President of Sales)
implemented a scheme whereby CSI began violating the AKS and the
FCA by: (1) providing kickbacks to physicians for using PAD
devices, which took the form of either referrals, discounted
products, or assistance in establishing office-based
laboratories; (2) encouraging physicians to use PAD devices when
they were not medically necessary; (3) hiding products so they
would be reordered or channel stuffing;5 and (4) promoting the
product for off-label uses.

The scheme was allegedly in place from when Breidenstein joined
CSI in 2012 until May 9, 2014, when CSI received notice of the
Qui Tam Complaint.  The consolidated complaint included
statements from fourteen confidential witnesses allegedly
corroborating Plaintiffs' complaint.  On Aug. 29, 2016, the
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which the Court granted
with leave to amend.

In the Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint, they adopt an
entirely new theory of misconduct: CSI provided marketing
services for doctors in exchange for referring others who will
purchase CSI devices.  They draw their new theory from an
employee whistleblower case in California ("Babyak Action").  In
the Babyak Action, the employee was allegedly retaliated against
for complaining of illegal and unsafe conduct, including illegal
kickbacks for referrals.

The Plaintiffs allege that CSI made various misstatements and
omissions each premised on the same factual predicate: CSI
engaged in widespread illegal activity.  Broadly, they allege six
categories of misstatements:

     i. Statements about past sales growth that Defendants
falsely attributed to legitimate practices;

     ii. Statements about future sales growth that were falsely
attributed to legitimate practices;

     iii. Statements about CSI's revenues made while omitting the
truth about the Company's illegal referral marketing scheme;

     iv. Statements about CSI's legal and regulatory compliance;

     v. Falsely signed Sarbanes-Oxley Act ("SOX") certifications
guaranteeing the accuracy of the Company's financial statements;
and

     vi. Statements and omissions about losses that CSI suffered
after discontinuing its illegal referral marketing schemes, as
well as costs incurred from sales-force reorganizations
necessitated by ending the illegal activities.  These include
both affirmative falsehoods as to the causes of those losses as
well as omissions as to their true causes.

On July 15, 2013, a former district sales manager, who worked for
CSI from 2012 until February 2013, filed a qui tam action against
CSI, alleging that CSI had illegally promoted its PAD devices for
off-label purposes and had given illegal kickbacks to physicians
for prescribing the PAD devices.  On June 29, 2016, CSI settled
the Qui Tam Complaint in exchange for $8 million and agreeing to
a Corporate Integrity Agreement.  CSI did not admit any
wrongdoing as part of the settlement.

The Defendants move to dismiss.

Judge Frank holds that the Plaintiffs' allegations amount to a
patchwork of alleged misconduct.  There is the Qui Tam Complaint
that alleges trips and speaking fees for referrals; the Babyak
action that alleges the Triangle Offense; and the Arizona DSM
allegations of leaving referral sheets of doctors who used CSI
products.  The competing inferences are either that these were
isolated incidents or part of more widespread misconduct.

The Judge concludes that the more plausible explanation is that
the conduct was isolated.  The Plaintiffs have therefore failed
to state a claim because they cannot show that the Defendants
knew about the AKS violations or were severely reckless in not
discovering them.  Thus, he will dismiss the Plaintiffs' Section
10(b) claim.

The Judge further concludes that a claim under Section 20(a) for
control person liability is derivative of a primary claim, and
therefore the failure to satisfactorily plead a Section
10(b)/Rule 10b-5 claim also precludes a Section 20(a) claim.
Because the he dismisses the Plaintiffs' primary claim, he
likewise will dismiss the Plaintiffs' Section 20(a) claim.

For these reasons, Judge Frank granted the Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss Plaintiffs' First Amended Class Action Complaint, and
dismissed with prejudice the Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 10, 2018 Memorandum Opinion
and Order is available at https://is.gd/VgZiu0 from Leagle.com.

Sandra K. Shoemaker, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Bryan L. Bleichner
-- bbleichner@chestnutcambronne.com -- Chestnut Cambronne PA,
Jeffrey D. Bores -- jbores@chestnutcambronne.com -- Chestnut
Cambronne, PA, Naumon A. Amjed -- namjed@ktmc.com -- Kessler
Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP & Ryan T. Degnan -- rdegnan@ktmc.com --
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP.

City of Miami Fire Fighters' & Police Officers' Retirement Trust,
Co-Lead Plaintiff, Plaintiff, represented by Alfred L. Fatale,
III -- afatale@labaton.com -- Labaton Sucharow LLP, pro hac vice,
Angus Ni -- angus.ni@blbglaw.com -- Bernstein Litowitz Berger &
Grossmann LLP, pro hac vice, David A. Goodwin --
dgoodwin@gustafsongluek.com -- Gustafson Gluek PLLC, Gregg M.
Fishbein -- gmfishbein@locklaw.com -- Lockridge Grindal Nauen
PLLP, Jeremy Robinson -- jeremy@blbglaw.com -- Bernstein Litowitz
Berger & Grossmann LLP, pro hac vice, Kate M. Baxter-Kauf --
kmbaxter-kauf@locklaw.com -- Lockridge Grindal Nauen PLLP,
Richard A. Lockridge -- ralockridge@locklaw.com -- Lockridge
Grindal Nauen PLLP & Ross M. Kamhi -- rkamhi@labaton.com --
Labaton Sucharow LLP, pro hac vice.

Cardiovascular Systems, Inc. & Laurence L. Betterley, Defendants,
represented by Daniel Streim, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP,
David R. Marshall -- dmarshall@fredlaw.com -- Fredrikson & Byron,
PA, Leah C. Janus -- ljanus@fredlaw.com -- Fredrikson & Byron,
PA, Michael C. Tu -- mtu@orrick.com -- Orrick, Herrington &
Sutcliffe LLP, pro hac vice & Robert M. Stern --
rstern@orrick.com -- Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, pro hac
vice.

Norfolk County Retirement System, Movant, represented by Alfred
L. Fatale, III, Labaton Sucharow LLP, pro hac vice, Christopher
Joseph Keller, Labaton Sucharow LLP, pro hac vice, Daniel E.
Gustafson, Gustafson Gluek PLLC, Daniel C. Hedlund, Gustafson
Gluek PLLC, Daniel J. Nordin, Gustafson Gluek PLLC, David J.
Goldsmith, Labaton Sucharow & Rudoff LLP, pro hac vice, David A.
Goodwin, Gustafson Gluek PLLC, Francis Paul McConville, Labaton
Sucharow LLP, pro hac vice, Joel H. Bernstein, Labaton Sucharow
LLP, pro hac vice, Michael W. Stocker, Labaton Sucharow LLP, pro
hac vice, Ross M. Kamhi, Labaton Sucharow LLP, pro hac vice &
Seth M. Jessee, Labaton Sucharow LLP, pro hac vice.

Wayne County Employees' Retirement System, Movant, represented by
Alfred L. Fatale, III, Labaton Sucharow LLP, pro hac vice,
Christopher Joseph Keller, Labaton Sucharow LLP, pro hac vice,
Daniel E. Gustafson, Gustafson Gluek PLLC, Daniel C. Hedlund,
Gustafson Gluek PLLC, Daniel J. Nordin, Gustafson Gluek PLLC,
David J. Goldsmith, Labaton Sucharow & Rudoff LLP, pro hac vice,
David A. Goodwin, Gustafson Gluek PLLC, Francis Paul McConville,
Labaton Sucharow LLP, pro hac vice, Joel H. Bernstein, Labaton
Sucharow LLP, pro hac vice, Michael W. Stocker, Labaton Sucharow
LLP, pro hac vice, Ross M. Kamhi, Labaton Sucharow LLP, pro hac
vice & Seth M. Jessee, Labaton Sucharow LLP, pro hac vice.

Pompano Beach General Employees' Retirement System & Luzerne
County Retirement System, Movants, represented by Bryan L.
Bleichner, Chestnut Cambronne PA.


CBV COLLECTIONS: Faces "Jackson" Suit in Mid. Dist. Ga.
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against CBV Collections,
Inc. The case is styled as Porchea Jackson, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CBV
Collections, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-00019-WLS (M.D.
Ga., January 22, 2018).

CBV Collections, Inc. is a collection agency.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   SHIMSHON ELIOT WEXLER, Esq.
   1411 DALEWOOD DR NE
   ATLANTA, GA 30329
   Tel: (212) 760-2400
   Email: swexleresq@gmail.com


CELESTIAL PARTNERS: JPMorgan Seeks Action Re-assignment
-------------------------------------------------------
JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Claudio Ballard, Keith DeLucia, Gary
Knutsen, Shephard Lane, Peter Lupoli, Ira Leemon, John Kidd,
Celestial Partners, LLC, and DataTreasury Corporation (a nominal
defendant), Defendants, Case No. 2017-0923 (Del. Ch., December
27, 2017), seeks a re-assignment to a Master in Chancery, on
behalf of plaintiff and other similarly situated creditors,
against the individual defendants for the full amount and value
of unlawful dividends under the Delaware Constitution and that
this action should proceed directly before the Chancellor or a
Vice Chancellor of this Court.

Plaintiff seeks to hold the directors of the nominal defendant
liable for a previously entered judgment against the nominal
defendant on the basis that the director defendants willfully or
negligently approved the distribution of dividends while Data
Treasury Corporation lacked sufficient surplus or net profits, or
was otherwise insolvent or rendered insolvent by the payment of
dividends. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Raymond J. DiCamillo, Esq.
      RICHARDS, LAYTON & FINGER, P.A.
      One Rodney Square
      920 North King Street
      Wilmington, DE 19801
      Tel: (302) 651-7700

             - and -

      Zachary G. Newman
      Annie P. Kubic
      Steven R. Aquino
      HAHN & HESSEN LLP
      488 Madison Avenue
      New York, NY 10022
      Tel.: (212) 478-7200


CHEVYS FRESH: Martinez Seeks Penalties Arising from Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
FILIBERTO MARTINEZ, an individual, and on behalf of others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. CHEVYS FRESH MEX, a
business form unknown; RM HQ, LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company; RM CHEVYS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; RM
OPCO, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; RM HOLDCO, LLC,
an Oklahoma limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC691738 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
Jan. 25, 2018), seeks to recover penalties arising from unpaid
wages earned and due, including but not limited to unpaid and
illegally calculated overtime compensation, illegal meal and rest
period policies, failure to pay all wages due to discharged or
quitting employees, failure to maintain required records, failure
to provide accurate itemized wage statements, failure to timely
pay wages during employment, failure to indemnify employees for
necessary expenditures and/or losses incurred in discharging
their duties.

The Plaintiff alleges that each and every one of the acts and
omissions alleged were performed by, and/or attributable to, all
Defendants, each acting as agents and/or employees, and/or under
the direction and control of, each of the other Defendants, and
that acts and failures to act were within the course and scope of
the agency, employment and/or direction and control. As a direct
and proximate result of the unlawful actions of Defendants,
Plaintiff has suffered, and continues to suffer, from loss of
earnings in amounts as yet unascertained, but subject to proof at
trial, and within the jurisdiction of this Court.

Chevys Fresh Mex is an American chain of Mexican-style casual
dining restaurants located in the United States. The chain was
founded in 1986 by Warren Simmons in Alameda, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew J. Matem, Esq.
          Tagore 0. Subramaniam, Esq.
          Daniel J. Bass, Esq.
          MATERN LAW GROUP, PC
          1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 200
          Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
          Telephone: (310) 531 1900
          Facsimile: (310) 531 1901
          E-mail: mmatem@matemlawgroup.com
                  tagore@matemlawgroup.com
                  dbass@matemlawgroup.com


CHICAGO PROPERTY: Faces "Muse" Suit over City Rental Rules
----------------------------------------------------------
ANDRE MUSE, Individually and on behalf all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. CHICAGO PROPERTY MANAGEMENT &
INVESTMENT INC. d/b/a REAL PROPERTY MANAGEMENT CHICAGO GROUP,
MICKELSON BROTHERS II LLC and RA VEN FLOWERS, the Defendants,
Case No. 2018-CH-01029 (Ill. Cir., Cook County, Jan. 25, 2018),
seeks to recover damages as a result of Defendants' violation of
the City of Chicago Residential Landlord and Tenant Ordinance,
Municipal Code Title 5, Chapter 12, et seq. ("RLTO").

According to the complaint, the Defendants failed to (i) provide
Plaintiff and the class with a copy of the then current RLTO
summary required by Section 5-12-170 of the RLTO (the "RLTO
Summary"), (ii) pay Plaintiff and the class interest on their
security deposits in the manner and within the timeframe required
by Section 5-12-080(c) of the RLTO and (iii) return Plaintiff's
and the class' security deposits in the manner and timeframe
required by Section 5-12-080( d) of the RLTO.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey Sobek, Esq.
          JS LAW
          29 E. Madison Street, Suite 1000
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone (312) 756 1330
          E-mail: jeffs@jsslawoffices.com


CHOP'T CREATIVE: Accused of Misclassifying Non-Tipped Workers
-------------------------------------------------------------
Alejandro Grajales Rincon, Andres Fuentes-Tapia, Damian Reyes-
Munoz, Eduardo Velasquez Candia, Esteban Morales, Fausto Mendez-
Camano, Alejandro Garcia, Ismael Matias Valdez, Javier Chanez-
Ruiz, Javier Velasquez, Jose Antonio Catarino Mondragon, Luis
Angel Ramos Ponce, Margarito Basurto de Jesus, Mario Valdez,
Misael Leon Sanchez, Noel Monroy Alonso, Pablo Rivera Lorenzo,
Reginaldo Anibal Rojas, Reynaldo Martinez Aguilar, Rigoberto
Sebastian Rivera, Salvador Dircio Nava (a.k.a. Carlos Nava),
Salvador Rojas, Saul Dircio, Teofilo Barrera Leon, Eulalio
Alecxander Ventura Tuluxan, Freddy Orlando Jacinto, Ricardo
Robles Ramirez, Brigido Mejia Aldana, Guillermo Fernandez
Galindo, Rafael Rojas Ramos, Joaquin Luna-Gomez, Freddy Anzures,
Jacinto Francisco Sapon Ajche, Juan Victor Martinez Mendez, David
Conde and Hugo Cuanalo Chapulin, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Chop't Creative Salad
Company LLC (d/b/a Chop't Creative Salad), Chop't Soho LLC.
(d/b/a Chop't Soho), Chop't 100 Park LLC (d/b/a Chop't 100 Park),
Chop't Creative Salad Co. Union Square LLC (d/b/a Chop't Union
Square), Chop't Astor LLC (d/b/a Chop't Astor), Chop't 42nd
Street LLC (d/b/a Chop't 42 Street), Chop't Creative Salad
Company 52nd Street, LLC (d/b/a Chop't 52nd Street), Chop't 80
Pine LLC (d/b/a Chop't 80 Pine), Chop't 23rd Street LLC (d/b/a
Chop't 23rd Street), Chop't WFC LLC (d/b/a Chop't WFC), Chop't
NYP LLC (d/b/a Chop't NYP), Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-10128
(S.D. N.Y., December 27, 2017), seeks unpaid minimum and overtime
wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards and New York Labor Law
and "spread of hours" and overtime wage orders of the New York
Commissioner of Labor, including applicable liquidated damages,
interest, attorneys' fees and costs.

Defendants own, operate or control "Chop't" salad restaurants in
New York where Plaintiffs are/were) employed as cleaners and food
preparers and ostensibly as delivery workers. Defendants have
allegedly disguised Plaintiffs' actual duties in payroll records
by designating them as a delivery workers instead of non-tipped
employees, thus allowing them to avoid paying the minimum wage
rate and enabled them to pay them at the lower tip-credited rate.
[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CIGNA CORP: Court Compels Admissions on TCPA Claims
---------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Middle District of
Florida, Orlando Division, issued an Order granting in part and
denying in part Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery in the
case captioned CRYSTAL DEJESUS, Plaintiff, v. CIGNA CORPORATION,
Defendant, Case No. 6:17-cv-1208-Orl-41TBS (M.D. Fla.).

This putative class action comes before the Court without a
hearing on Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery.

Plaintiff Crystal DeJesus complains that Defendant Cigna
Corporation used an automated telephone dialing system or an
artificial or prerecorded voice to phone her repeatedly in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). She
alleges that Defendant made these calls without her consent, and
that she was not the person Defendant intended to call. Defendant
reports that after it received Plaintiff's complaint it
discovered apparent systematic data entry errors which resulted
in the incorrect linking of 29 different people to Plaintiff's
telephone number.

Plaintiff served requests for admissions, interrogatories and
requests for production on Defendant and after several agreed
extensions, Defendant responded to this discovery. Plaintiff was
not satisfied with Defendant's responses and counsel met and
conferred. Defendant agreed to supplement its responses but
failed to do so.

Requests for admission ask a party to admit, for purposes of the
pending action only, the truth of any matters within the scope of
Rule 26(b)(1) relating to the facts of the case.

In response to Plaintiff's requests for admissions numbered 1-3
Defendant answered: "Defendant is without sufficient information
to admit or deny this request. Discovery is ongoing."

The Court finds that Defendant's response does not comply with
Rule 36(a)(4), and now it says that it has agreed to supplement
its responses to these requests. Accordingly, the motion to
compel Plaintiff's requests for admissions numbered 1-3 is
granted.

Interrogatories 2 and 3 ask Defendant to identify every person in
the United States who may qualify as a member of the putative
class or subclass. Defendant objects to these interrogatories on
the ground that they are premature because a class has not been
certified.

Interrogatories 4, 6 and 12 ask Defendant to: (1) describe the
purpose of calling Plaintiff's cellular telephone number; (2)
identify all software and equipment by vendor, model/version, and
dates in operation, that were used to make any phone call to"
Plaintiff's phone number; and (3) identify the vendors Defendant
used to phone Plaintiff on its behalf. Defendant's boilerplate
objections that this discovery is overly broad, vague, unduly
burdensome, not relevant, and not proportional to the needs of
the case are overruled. Defendant also objects to interrogatory
number 12 on the ground that it is not limited to calls made to
Plaintiff. The Court disagrees. Interrogatory 12 only concerns
calls made to Plaintiff.

To establish liability under the TCPA, Plaintiff must establish
that an automated telephone dialing system or artificial/pre-
recorded voice was used to facilitate the calls by the defendant
or an entity acting on the defendant's behalf.

Defendant's seventh affirmative defense alleges that if it
violated the TCPA, which it denies, that it has established and
implemented, with due care, reasonable practices and procedures
to effectively prevent violations of the TCPA. Defendant's ninth
interrogatory asks Defendant to identify and explain the
policies, practices and procedures it had in place during the
relevant time period to avoid violating the TCPA.

Interrogatory number 13 asks Defendant to explain how, from whom,
and when it obtained Plaintiff's telephone number. Defendant
answered that it obtained Plaintiff's number from a client
employer for health care insurance related purposes. This is not
a full or complete answer to the interrogatory. Accordingly,
Plaintiff's motion to compel interrogatory 13 is granted.

Plaintiff's complaint was served on Defendant and it has alleged
consent as an affirmative defense. Defendant has had more than
enough time to investigate this defense and determine whether it
received "prior express consent" from Plaintiff. Therefore,
Defendant's objection is overruled and Plaintiff's motion to
compel a full response to interrogatory 14 is granted.

Parties can ask each other to produce information within the
scope of FED. R. CIV. P. 26(b). FED. R. CIV. P. 34(a). A party
objecting to a request for production must: (1) state with
specificity the grounds for objecting to the request, including
the reasons; (2) state whether any responsive materials are being
withheld on the basis of that objection; and (3) an objection to
part of a request must specify the part and permit inspection of
the rest.

Plaintiff asked Defendant to produce the following information
and Defendant objected to all but number 20:

   1. All documents that refer or pertain to Plaintiff or
telephone number (XXX) XXX-9790, including, but not limited to,
all information indexed, filed or retrievable under Plaintiff's
telephone number or any other number, datum, symbol, designation
or code (such as an account number or Social Security number)
assigned to her or telephone number.

   3. All documents that discuss or relate to policies, practices
or procedures associated with calling (XXX) XXX-9790, including
any document explaining the reason or purpose for calling said
number.

   4. All contracts or manuals regarding all telephone and/or
communications systems(s), equipment and/or software used by you
or on your behalf to place calls to Plaintiff at any time from
June 29, 2013 to the present.

   6. Documents sufficient to identify all vendors you used to
place calls on your behalf, or assist you in connection with
placing calls using the system which called (XXX) XXX-9790 or,
using an automated telephone dialing system or an artificial or
pre-recorded voice at any time between June 29, 2013 and the
present, as well as all contracts with the vendors, all
instructions and other communications between you and the vendors
regarding the requirements, policies or procedures for making
such calls, the numbers to be called, skip-tracing or otherwise
obtaining numbers third parties for the persons to be called,
determining whether the calls were made to cellular numbers, and
handling do-not-call requests.

   7. Documents describing any method used by you or on your
behalf to identify whether a telephone number is assigned to a
cellular telephone service, such as a scrubbing procedure.

  10. Copies of any documents filed in connection with any
judicial or administrative proceedings that mention you and the
TCPA.

  20. All insurance policies that could possibly afford coverage
with respect to the matters complained of in this case together
with all correspondence accepting or declining coverage or
reserving rights with respect thereto.

Defendant objects to producing the information described in
requests 3, 4, 6 and 7 on the grounds that it is privileged,
confidential and proprietary. These conclusory objections are not
supported by facts and are therefore, overruled. Plaintiff's
motion to compel requests 3, 4, 6 and 7 are granted.

Discovery requests should focus on the actual claims and defenses
involved in the action. In discovery, requiring relevance to a
claim or defense signals to the court that it has the authority
to confine discovery to the claims and defenses asserted in the
pleadings, and signals to the parties that they have no
entitlement to discovery to develop new claims or defenses that
are not already identified in the pleadings. On this basis,
Plaintiff's motion to compel a better response to request for
production 10 is denied.

Defendant did not object to request number 20 but, when the
motion to compel was filed, the information still had not been
produced Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion to compel request number
20 is granted.

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

Crystal Dejesus, individually, and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Eric Kem --
ekem@kemlawfirm.com -- The Law Offices of Eric W. Kem, P.A.,
Scott David Owens -- scott@ScottDOwens.com -- Scott D. Owens,
P.A., Patrick Christopher Crotty -- Patrick@ScottDOwens.com --
Scott D. Owens, P.A. & Sean Martin Holas, Scott D. Owens, P.A.,
3800 S. Ocean Drive. Suite 235. Hollywood, FL 33019

Cigna Corporation, a Delaware corporation, Defendant, represented
by Barbara Fernandez -- bfernandez@hinshawlaw.com -- Hinshaw &
Culbertson, LLP & West Allan Holden -- wholden@hinshawlaw.com --
Hinshaw & Culbertson, LLP.


COEXIST NUTRITION: Faces "Ross" Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Coexist Nutrition,
LLC.  The case is styled as Courtney Ross, on behalf of herself
and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Coexist Nutrition,
LLC and Co.Exist Nutrition Corp., Defendants, Case No. 7:18-cv-
00587-NSR (S.D. N.Y., January 23, 2018).

Co.Exist Nutrition Corporation, doing business as 22 Days
Nutrition, produces organic protein bars and powders, and
provides vegan food delivery services.[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


COLLECTION LLC: Perlman Alleges Invasion of Privacy, Harassment
---------------------------------------------------------------
ALEX PERLMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. THE COLLECTION, LLC, a Florida
limited liability company, the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-20377-
UU (S.D. Fla., Jan. 31, 2018), seeks to recover injunctive relief
to halt Defendant's illegal conduct which has resulted in the
invasion of privacy, harassment, aggravation, and disruption of
the daily lives of thousands of individuals, and also seeks
statutory damages on behalf of herself and members of the Class,
and any other available legal or equitable remedies.

The case is a putative class action under the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act, arising from Defendant's knowing and willful
violations of the TCPA. The Defendant owns and operates a luxury
vehicle dealership in Coral Gables, Florida. Defendant's luxury
vehicle inventory includes Porsche, Ferrari, Maserati, and
McLaren. This case arises from the transmission of text messages
to the cellular telephones of Plaintiff and members of the class
for the purpose of promoting Defendant's dealership.

The Collection is a factory authorized car dealership
specializing in new and used Audi, Porsche, Ferrari, Maserati,
Alfa Romeo, McLaren, Aston Martin and Jaguar cars serving the
Miami, Florida community including Brickell, Coral Gables, North
Miami, Aventura, and surrounding Florida areas.[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiff:

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


COMBE INC: Wins Bid to Dismiss Section 1981 Claim in "Stringer"
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California issued an order granting Defendant's Motion to Dismiss
the Section 1981 Claim in the case captioned JOHN STRINGER,
Plaintiff, v. COMBE, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-
03192-WHO (N.D. Cal.).

The primary issue addressed in this Order is whether plaintiff
John Stringer is able to state a cause of action for violation of
42 U.S.C. Section 1981, which guarantees that all persons shall
have the same rights to make and enforce contracts as white
citizens.  Stringer, an African American, purchased Just For Men
Mustache and Beard kit in the Jet Black color shade and, after
applying the product, suffered a severe physical reaction that
required emergency medical treatment.

He contends that (i) Just for Men Jet Black color shade products
contain 17 times more of the chemical compound, p-
Phenylenediamine (PPD), than the lighter shade products, (ii) PPD
is a hazardous chemical that is designated as a strong
sensitizer, (iii) African Americans males are five times more
sensitized to PPD than other races and (iv) despite those facts,
the Jet Black color products were marketed to African Americans.

He brings a class action against defendants on behalf of
similarly situated African American males who "purchased, used,
and were injured by Just For Men Jet Black color shade products."

Defendants move to dismiss Stringer's three causes of action for
violation of 42 U.S.C. Section 1981, the California Consumer
Legal Remedies Act, and the California Unfair Competition Law.

Because, Stringer agrees that the CLRA and UCL claims should be
stayed pending resolution of the San Diego Action, the Court will
address only the sufficiency of the Section 1981 claim.

Section 1981 prohibits discrimination in the making and
enforcement of contracts by reason of race, including color or
national origin differences. 42 U.S.C. Section 1981.  To state a
claim under Section 1981: (1) the plaintiff must be a member of a
racial minority; (2) the defendant intended to discriminate on
the basis of race; and (3) the discrimination concerns one of the
activities enumerated in the statute which includes the right to
make and enforce contracts.

Stringer argues that Philip Morris Brown v. Philip Morris, Inc,.
250 F.3d at 798 and Roper, Roper v. Edwards, 815 F.2d 1474 (11th
Cir. 1987), acknowledge that a Section 1981 claim is available if
a customer is sold a defective product because of their race. Jet
Black shade had 17 times greater amount of PPD than the lighter
color shades; overwhelming majority of customers who purchased
and used the Jet Black shade are African American, in spite of
numerous complaints from African American males and liability
releases sought by Combe from injured customers, Combe continued
marketing the Jet Black shade to African American males.

Stringer contends that Combe is aggressively target-marketing the
Jet Black shade to the African American community and that the
levels of PPD in the shade exposes African Americans, who are
more likely to suffer adverse reactions to PPD, to more danger,
which is evidence of disparate treatment and intentional
discrimination.

In fact, as Combe argues, Philip Morris confirms that Stringer
has no Section 1981 claim. Combe points out that given the
allegations that the Jet Black color shade products are
overwhelmingly" but not exclusively or nearly exclusively bought
by African Americans and that the marketing is targeted to, but
not exclusively targeted to African Americans, the only plausible
inference is that Jet Black shade products are purchased by and
marketed to some extent to other ethnicities.

There are also no allegations that the Jet Black shade is sold to
African American consumers at the different prices or on
different terms than other races. Accordingly, this is the exact
situation addressed in Philip Morris. If Stringer is able to
amend to allege that Jet Black was marketed or sold exclusively
to African Americans or that the product was sold to African
Americans on different terms than to other ethnic groups, then he
might state a Section 1981 claim. As currently alleged, he does
not.

The Section 1981 claim is dismissed with leave to amend.

A full-text copy of the District Court's December 21, 2017 Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/y76sd6cf from Leagle.com.

John Stringer, Plaintiff, represented by Elise Rochelle
Sanguinetti -- elise@aswtlawyers.com -- Arias, Sanguinetti, Wang
& Torrijos, LLP, Alfredo Torrijos -- alfredo@aswtlawyers.com --
Arias Sanguinetti Wang & Torrijos LLP & Jay A. Urban --
jurban@wisconsininjury.com -- Urban Taylor s.c., pro hac vice.
Combe, Inc., Combe Products, Inc., Combe Laboratories, Inc. &
Combe International, Ltd., Defendants, represented by Dennis S.
Ellis -- dennisellis@paulhastings.com -- Paul Hastings LLP,
Katherine Frenck Murray -- katherinemurray@paulhastings.com --
Paul Hastings LLP, Kenneth Lee Marshall --
klmarshall@bryancave.com -- Bryan Cave LLP & Courtney Turco
DeThomas -- courtneydethomas@paulhastings.com -- Paul Hastings
LLP.


COMMONWEALTH FINANCIAL: Faces "Navas" Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Commonwealth
Financial System, Inc. The case is styled as Diane Navas,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Commonwealth Financial System, Inc. and Pendrick
Capital Partners II, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-00492
(E.D. N.Y., January 23, 2018).

Commonwealth Financial Systems, doing business as NCC, operates
as a collection agency.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
   Sanders Law, PLLC
   100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
   Garden City, NY 11530
   Tel: (516) 203-7600
   Fax: (516) 281-7601
   Email: csanders@sanderslawpllc.com


CORECIVIC INC: Detainees Forced to Work, Claims Minimum Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Carlos Gonzalez, Juan Jose Merino-Rodas, Maribel Gutierrez-
Canchola, Gladys Carrera-Duarte, and Jennye Pagoada-Lopez,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. Corecivic, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 17-cv- 02573,
(S.D. Cal., December 27, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid wages,
and to remedy the Defendant's unjust enrichment resulting from
unlawful failure to pay its detainee workforce legal wages under
the California Minimum Wage Act and California Unfair Competition
Law.

CoreCivic is a corporation that owns and operates detention
facilities across the United States. It pays detainees $1 or
$1.50 per day -- or nothing at all -- to maintain and operate
their facilities, says the complaint. Plaintiffs are detainees at
Defendant's Otay Mesa Facility where they worked as kitchen
workers and janitors. They claim to receive only $1-1.50/per day.

Plaintiff is represented by:

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

             - and -

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

             - and -

      R. Andrew Free, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF R. ANDREW FREE
      P.O. Box 90568
      Nashville, TN 37209
      Telephone: (844) 321-3221
      Facsimile: (615) 829-8959
      Email: andrew@immigrantcivilrights.com

             - and -

      Nicole Ramos, Esq.
      AL OTRO LADO
      511 E. San Ysidro Blvd., # 333
      San Ysidro, CA 92173
      Telephone: (619) 786-4866
      Email: nicole@alotrolado.org

             - and -

      Robert R. Ahdoot, Esq.
      AHDOOT & WOLFSON, APC
      8424 Santa Monica Blvd., Ste. 575
      West Hollywood, CA 90069
      Telephone: (310) 474-9111
      Facsimile: (310) 474-8585
      Email: rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Suit Over Underfilled Canned Chicken Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MARY LA VIGNE, KRISTEN HESSLER, and KATHLEEN HOGAN
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No.
16-CV-07924 (NSR) (S.D. N.Y.), Judge Nelson S. Roman of the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York granted
Defendant's motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's amended class
action complaint.

Plaintiffs La Vigne, Hessler and Hogan filed the proposed class
action against Costco alleging violations of New York,
Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts statutes that prohibit deceptive
marketing practices in the sale of consumer goods.  The
Plaintiffs contend that the Defendant has engaged in deceptive
acts in connection with the marketing and sale of its Kirkland
Signature Premium Chunk Chicken Breast.

The Defendant is a Washington corporation that, together with its
subsidiaries, operates membership warehouses throughout the
country offering a range of branded and private-label products,
including its house brand, Kirkland Signature.  It sells Kirkland
Canned Chicken in its membership warehouse stores.

The Defendant provides members of its warehouse stores with a
calculation of the unit price for its Kirkland Canned Chicken,
which allegedly allows customers to compare the price of its
product with a competitor's chicken on a per pound basis.  The
unit price provided by it is calculated using the gross weight of
the contents, which includes chicken and water.

An opened can of Kirkland Canned Chicken reveals chicken covered
by a layer of water.  If the consumer drains the 2/3 of a cup of
water that the can contains, she is left with between seven and
eight ounces of meat, meaning that as much as 44% of the weight
of the can's contents is water.  According to the Amended
Complaint, the consumer receives little benefit from the water in
the can and the Defendant does not intend for consumers to use
the water, as evidenced by the recipes it includes with each bulk
package, which direct consumers to drain the chicken before using
it in a dish.

Plaintiffs La Vigne, Hessler, and Hogan purchased Kirkland Canned
Chicken from the Defendant at warehouse locations in New York,
Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts, respectively, for between $10.99
and $11.99 per bulk package.  They allege that they reasonably
believed that they were purchasing a package that contained an
adequate amount of chicken in each can because of the
misrepresentations on the label, the packaging, the price label
on the shelf, the unit pricing, the other materials included with
the package, and the size of the can.  The Plaintiffs support
their claim that Kirkland Canned Chicken, as labeled, contains
too much water and not enough chicken largely through their
invocation of federal standards for the marketing of chicken
products.

Put simply, Plaintiffs allege, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, that Defendant's conduct violates the
PPIA and misleads the consumers into believing that they are
being charged "a reasonable price to pay for chicken" when they
buy cans of Kirkland Canned Chicken, even though almost half of
the contents of each can is water, and that such conduct
constitutes an unconscionable and deceptive commercial practice
in violation of consumer protection laws in New York,
Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts.

The Defendant moves to dismiss the Amended Complaint in its
entirety.  First, it argues that the Plaintiffs' state law claims
are preempted by the PPIA.  Second, it argues that the
Plaintiffs' claims are precluded to the extent they are
predicated on violations of the PPIA, which lacks a private right
of action.  Finally, the Defendant argues that the Plaintiffs'
claims fail as a matter of law because no reasonable consumer
would be misled by Kirkland Canned Chicken's packaging and label.

Judge Roman holds that preemption does not bar the Plaintiffs'
state law claims to the extent that they are not based on
labeling-related allegations.  While the Plaintiffs devote much
of their attention in the pleadings to Kirkland Canned Chicken's
labeling deficiencies, they also incorporate assertions related
to the packaging, the price label on the shelf, the unit pricing
on a separate shelf label showing the price per ounce of the
product], the other materials included with the package, and the
size of the can.  Insofar as their challenges to these aspects of
the Defendant's marketing practices do not implicate the FSIS-
approved labeling, the Plaintiffs are not preempted and survive
at this stage of the Court's analysis.

The Judge then holds that as the Plaintiffs' labeling-related
claims are disposed of on other grounds, he needs not address the
merits of the Defendant's argument that because the Plaintiffs'
claims are predicated on violations of the labeling regulations
promulgated pursuant to the PPIA, those claims thwart Congress's
intent in enacting the PPIA, where it purposefully refused to
provide a private right of action.

Finally, the Judge concludes that the Defendant's alleged conduct
has not risen to the level of being "unfair" under Massachusetts
law because its FSIS-approved labeling and packaging complied
with applicable federal laws and did not misrepresent the
contents of Kirkland Canned Chicken.  He does not find that this
amounts to an immoral, unethical, oppressive, or unscrupulous
trade practice.  Likewise, the Plaintiffs fail to establish that
Kirkland Canned Chicken's packaging and unit pricing label would
deceive a reasonable consumer.  Accordingly, Plaintiff Hogan's
Chapter 93 A claims fail.

For the reasons he stated, Judge Roman granted the Defendant's
motion to dismiss.  He directed the Clerk of the Court to
terminate the motion at ECF No. 18 and to close the case.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 10, 2018 Opinion and Order
is available at https://is.gd/zaH5gh from Leagle.com.

Mary La Vigne, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated & Kristen Hessler, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Matthew
Tucker Insley-Pruit -- MInsley-Pruitt@wolfpopper.com -- Wolf
Popper LLP, Robert Scott Plosky -- rplosky@wolfpopper.com -- Wolf
Popper LLP & Patricia I. Avery -- pavery@wolfpopper.com -- Wolf
Popper LLP.

Kathleen Hogan, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Patricia I. Avery, Wolf
Popper LLP.

Costco Wholesale Corporation, Defendant, represented by Richard
P. O'Leary -- richard.oleary@troutman.com -- Troutman Sanders
LLP, Lindsey B. Mann -- lindsey.mann@troutman.com -- Troutman
Sanders, LLP & William N. Withrow, Jr. --
bill.withrow@troutman.com -- Troutman Sanders, LLP.


CREDIT PAYMENT: 9th Cir. Affirms Summary Judgment in "Kristensen"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LEMMING KRISTENSEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CREDIT
PAYMENT SERVICES INC., FKA mycashnow.com Inc.; ENOVA
INTERNATIONAL, INC.; PIONEER FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC.; LEADPILE,
LLC; CLICK MEDIA, LLC, DBA ClickMedia 1240 Johnson Ferry Place,
Ste. B75 Marietta, GA 30068, DBA Net1Promotions LLC, DBA Net 1
Promotions, LLC, Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 16-15823 (9th
Cir.), Judge Sandra S. Ikuta of the Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary
judgment in favor of ClickMedia.

On Dec. 6, 2011, Flemming Kristensen received an unwanted text
message which was generated as an indirect result of marketing
campaigns undertaken by three payday lenders, Enova, Pioneer, and
Credit Payment.  The lenders entered into separate agreements
with LeadPile, LLC, a company that buys and sells customer leads.
In order to obtain leads, LeadPile in turn contracted with Click
Media, LLC.

Click Media uses leads from thousands of "publishers" who
generate leads.  If these leads lead to loans, the loan providers
pay Click Media and Click Media pays the publishers, like AC
Referral, a portion of that fee.  Click Media and AC Referral
entered into a contract that contemplated using text messages as
one method of generating leads, and stated that AC Referral must
comply with the TCPA.  AC Referral had no contact with LeadPile,
Enova, Pioneer Services, or Credit Payment Services; its
representatives had not even heard of these companies before the
lawsuit was filed.

In performing its contract with Click Media, AC Referral
purchased lists of consumer phone numbers from other lead
generating companies, and uploaded those phone numbers into a
program that sent out advertisements.  This program sent the text
message that Kristensen received.  A consumer who clicked on the
link in the text message would be redirected to a loan
application website controlled by Click Media. If the consumer
filled out an application, the website would redirect the
consumer to the website of an appropriate lender.

Kristensen did not click on the link nor apply for a loan.
Instead, he filed a putative class action complaint against
Credit Payment Services, Pioneer Services, Enova, LeadPile, and
Click Media on behalf of himself and all other persons who
received an unauthorized text message advertisement, alleging
that the Defendants were vicariously liable for sending the text
messages in violation of the TCPA.  The district court certified
a class of all individuals who were sent a text message from
various telephone numbers from Dec. 5, 2011 through Jan. 11,
2012.

The lenders and LeadPile moved for summary judgment, and the
district court granted the motion.  It rejected each of
Kristensen's theories of vicarious liability, including his
theory that the defendants ratified AC Referral's texting
campaign by accepting leads while knowing that AC Referral was
using texts to generate those leads.  The court subsequently held
that ClickMedia was entitled to summary judgment on the same
grounds as the lenders and entered a stipulated summary judgment
in its favor.

On appeal, Kristensen argues only that there was a genuine issue
of material fact as to whether the Defendants ratified AC
Referral's unlawful texting by accepting the benefits of the text
messages sent by AC Referral while unreasonably failing to
investigate its texting methods.

Judge Ikuta holds that the district court did not err in
concluding that Kristensen failed to raise a genuine issue of
material fact as to whether Credit Payment Services, Pioneer
Services, Enova, or LeadPile ratified AC Referral's unlawful text
messaging.  It is undisputed that AC Referral did not enter into
a contract with any of the lenders or with LeadPile.  It is also
undisputed that AC Referral did not communicate with or even know
of the lenders or LeadPile before the lawsuit was filed.  Because
AC Referral was neither an agent nor a purported agent of the
lenders or LeadPile, AC Referral's actions do not qualify as
ratifiable acts.  Accordingly, the lenders and LeadPile cannot be
held vicariously liable for AC Referral's unlawful text messages
under a ratification theory.

Nor did Kristensen raise a genuine issue of material fact as to
whether Click Media ratified AC Referral's unlawful text
messages.  Although AC Referral was an agent of Click Media,
Kristensen presented no evidence that Click Media had actual
knowledge that AC Referral was sending text messages in violation
of TCPA.  Nor is there any basis to infer that Click Media
assumed the risk of lack of knowledge, because Kristensen did not
present evidence that Click Media "had knowledge of facts that
would have led a reasonable person to investigate further," but
ratified AC Referral's acts anyway without investigation.

Because Click Media had no knowledge of facts that would have led
a reasonable person to investigate further, Click Media cannot be
deemed to have ratified AC Referral's actions and therefore is
not vicariously liable.

For these reasons, Judge Ikuta affirmed.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 10, 2018 Opinion is
available at https://is.gd/ntuRWH from Leagle.com.

Alexander G. Tievsky -- atievsky@edelson.com -- (argued), Roger
Perlstadt -- rperlstadt@edelson.com -- and Ryan D. Andrews --
randrews@edelson.com -- Edelson PC, Chicago, Illinois, for
Plaintiff-Appellant.

James M. Lord -- jlord@gvlslaw.com -- (argued) and Asher M.B.
Ritmiller -- aritmiller@gvlslaw.com -- Inman Flynn Biesterfeld &
Brentlinger P.C., Denver, Colorado, for Defendants-Appellees
Credit Payment Services Inc. and Leadpile LLC.

Enova International, Inc., Defendant, represented by Brian
Patrick O'Meara, Forde Law Offices LLP, Dan R Waite, Esq. --
DWaite@LRRLaw.com -- Lewis Roca Rothgerber, LLP, John E.
Bragonje, Esq. -- JBragonje@LRRLaw.com -- Lewis Roca Rothgerber,
LLP & Steven Martin Aaron, Dentons US LLP.

Pioneer Financial Services, Inc., Defendant, represented by Chad
R. Fears, Esq. -- cfears@swlaw.com -- Snell & Wilmer, LLP, James
M. Humphrey, IV, Esq. -- jhumphrey@polsinelli.com -- Polsinelli
PC, Robert V Spake, Esq. -- rspake@polsinelli.com -- Polsinelli,
Russell S. Jones, Jr., Esq. -- rjones@polsinelli.com --
Polsinelli P.C. & Steven Martin Aaron, Dentons US LLP.

John H. Gutke -- jgutke@foxrothschild.com -- and Tara H. Popova,
Fox Rothschild LLP, Las Vegas, Nevada, for Defendant-Appellant
Click Media LLC.


CUDLEY'S HOME: Ryazantseva Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Law
-------------------------------------------------------------
ELENA RYAZANTSEVA, individually and on behalf of all other
persons similarly situated who were employed by CUDLEY'S HOME
CARE SERVICE, INC., the Plaintiffs, v. CUDLEY'S HOME CARE
SERVICE, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 150754/2018 (N.Y. Sup.
Ct., Jan. 25, 2018), seeks to recover wages and benefits which
Plaintiffs were statutorily and contractually entitled to receive
pursuant to New York Labor Law.

According to the complaint, the Defendant has maintained a policy
and practice of requiring Plaintiffs to regularly work in excess
of ten hours per day, without providing the proper hourly
compensation for all hours worked, overtime compensation for all
hours worked in excess of 40 hours in any given week, and "spread
of hours" compensation.

The Defendant offers home health care service in Bronx, New
York.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs and the Putative Class:

          Lloyd R. Ambinder, Esq.
          LaDonna M. Lusher, Esq.
          Milana Dostanitch, Esq.
          VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP
          40 Broad Street, Seventh Floor
          New York, New York 10004
          Telephone: (212) 943 9080
          Facsimile: (212) 943 9082
          E-mail: llusher@vandallp.com

               - and -

          Gennadiy Naydenskiy, Esq.
          NAYDENSKIY LAW GROUP,P.C.
          1517 Voohies Ave, 2nd Fl
          Brooklyn, NY 11235
          Telephone: (212) 808 2224
          Facsimile: (866) 261 5478
          E-mail: naydenskiylaw@gmail.com


CVS HEALTH: Transferred "Bewley" Class Suit to Dist. New Jersey
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit filed on May 24, 2017 styled Michael
Bewley, Julia Boss, and Type 1 Diabetes Defense Foundation,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
CVS Health Corporation, Caremark RX, L.L.C., Caremark RX, Inc.,
Express Scripts Holding Company, Express Scripts, Inc.,
Unitedhealth Group, Inc., Optumrx, Inc., Eli Lilly and Company,
and Novo Nordisk Inc., Case No. 2:17-cv-00802 was transferred on
November 17, 2017, from the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington to the U.S. District Court District of New
Jersey. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:17-cv-12031-
BRM-TJB to the proceeding.

The case seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of inflating the
list prices for their glucagon products.

The Defendants own and operate a pharmaceutical company in the
United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Derek W. Loeser, Esq.
      Gretchen S. Obrist, Esq.
      KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
      1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
      Seattle, WA 98101
      Telephone: (206) 623-1900
      E-mail: dloeser@kellerrohrback.com
              gobrist@kellerrohrback.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      Steven L. Penaro, Esq.
      ALSTON & BIRD LLP
      90 Park Avenue
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 210-9400
      E-mail: steve.penaro@alston.com

         - and -

      Thomas P. Scrivo, Esq.
      O'TOOLE SCRIVO FERNANDEZ WEINER VAN LIEU, LLC
      14 Village Park Road
      Cedar Grove, NJ 07009
      Telephone: (973) 239-5700
      Facsimile: (973) 239-3400
      E-mail: tscrivo@oslaw.com


DANELL CUSTOM: Hearing on "Rodriguez" Deal Approval Continued
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, FRANCISCO RODRIGUEZ, JESUS HERNANDEZ INFANTE, MARCO
GARCIA, JUAN MANUEL BRABO, ESTELA PATIā€¢O, JOSE F. OROZCO, and
ANTONIO ORTIZ, on behalf of themselves and other members of the
general public generally situated, Plaintiffs, v. DANELL CUSTOM
HARVESTING, LLC, a California company, RANCE DANELL, ERIC DANELL,
DAVID DANELL, and JUSTIN DANELL, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-
01848-SAB (E.D. Cal.), Judge of the U.S. District Court, E.D.
California continued the hearing on the Plaintiffs' Motion for
Preliminary Approval from Jan. 17, 2018 to Jan. 24, 2018 at 10:00
a.m., and set the due on the Plaintiffs' supplemental briefing
for Jan. 17, 2018.

The Plaintiffs request a brief continuance for completing the
supplemental briefing regarding preliminary approval ordered by
the Court, and the Defendants have no objection, as long as the
Court has no objection.

The parties request and Magistrate Judge Boone approved that the
hearing on the Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Approval be
continued from Jan. 17, 2018 to Jan. 24, 2018 at 10:00 a.m., and
that the Plaintiffs' supplemental briefing be due on Jan. 17,
2018.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 10, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/z9UieB from Leagle.com.

Francisco Rodriguez, Jesus Hernandez Infante, Marco Garcia, Juan
Manuel Bravo, Estela Patino, Jose F. Orozco & Antonio Ortiz,
Plaintiffs, represented by Enrique Martinez, Law Offices of John
E. Hill.

Danell Custom Harvesting, LLC, a California Company, Rance
Danell, Eric Danell, David Danell & Justin Danell, Defendants,
represented by Howard A. Sagaser -- has@sw2law.com -- Sagaser,
Watkins & Wieland, PC, Ian Blade Wieland -- ian@sw2law.com --
Sagaser, Watkins & Wieland, PC & William M. Woolman --
bill@sw2law.com -- Sagaser, Watkins & Wieland PC.


DENALI WATER: "Verdugo" Suit Moved to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Enrique Verdugo, on behalf of
himself and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Denali
Water Solutions, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, and
Does 1 through 50, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No.
CIVDS1725423, was removed from the San Bernardino County Superior
Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District Of
California (Eastern Division - Riverside) on Jan. 25, 2018. The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:18-cv-00170-CAS-SHK to
the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Christina
A. Snyder.

Denali Water Solutions LLC was founded in 2008. The company's
line of business includes the collection and disposal of refuse
systems.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alvin B Lindsay, Esq.
          David Yeremian, Esq.
          DAVID YEREMIAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
          535 N Brand Blvd, Ste 705
          Glendale, CA 91203-1989
          Telephone: (818) 230 8380
          Facsimile: (818) 230 0308
          E-mail: alvin@yeremianlaw.com
                  david@yeremianlaw.com

Attorneys for Defendant:

          Kimberly Marie Shappley, Esq.
          Alaya B Meyers, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON PC
          2050 Main Street Suite 900
          Irvine, CA 92614
          Telephone: (949) 705 3000
          Facsimile: (949) 724 1201
          E-mail: kshappley@littler.com
                  ameyers@littler.com


DEREK LAM: "Guzman" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages under Labor Code
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Guzman, Individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Derek Lam 115 Mercer LLC, the
Defendant, Case No. 701454/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Jan. 31, 2018),
seeks to recover maximum liquidated damages (for the period
after April 9, 2011) and interest for being paid overtime wages
and non-overtime wages later than weekly; and costs and
attorneys' fees, pursuant to the New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff complains on behalf of himself and a class of other
similarly situated current and former hourly employees who worked
for the Defendant within the State of New York as manual workers.
The Defendant had a policy and practice of deducting from the
wages of Plaintiff, the costs of health insurance. For example,
Defendant deducted the amount of about $400 from the wages of
Plaintiff from health insurance coverage but at all times
relevant herein, Plaintiff did not receive such health insurance
coverage and was never reimbursed for such unlawful wage
deductions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


DIAMOND RESORTS: Fails to Pay All Overtime Wages, Anderson Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
SUSAN ANDERSON as an individual and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. DIAMOND RESORTS
INTERNATIONAL MARKETING, INC., a California Corporation; and DOES
1 through 100, the Defendants, Case No. BC691344 (Cal. Super.
Ct., Jan. 25, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages under
the California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff routinely works in
excess of 8 hours per workday and/or more than 40 hours per
workweek, but does not receive overtime compensation equal to one
and one-half times her regular rate of pay for working overtime
hours. Specifically, Defendants paid Plaintiff non-discretionary
bonuses, commissions, spiffs and other forms of non-discretionary
pay that are not excludable from the regular rate of pay. The
Defendants fail to accurately calculate Plaintiffs regular rate
of pay as a result of receiving Incentive Pay, as Plaintiff is
only paid one-and-a-half times her base rate of pay for overtime
hours, thereby causing Plaintiff to be underpaid for all her
required overtime wages.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Paul K. Haines, Esq.
          Tuvia Korobkin, Esq.
          Stacey M. Shim, Esq.
          HAINES LAW GROUP, APC
          222 N. Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 1550
          El Segundo, CA 90245
          Telephone: (424) 292 2350
          Facsimile: (424) 292 2355
          E-mail: phaines@haineslawgroup.com
                  tkorobkin@haineslawgroup.com
                  sshim@haineslawgroup.com



DICK'S SPORTING: Bid to Stay "Greer" Denied
-------------------------------------------
In the case, JIMMY GREER, individually, and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. DICK'S SPORTING GOODS, INC., a
Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 2:15-cv-01063-KJM-CKD (E.D. Cal.), Judge
Kimberly J. Mueller of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of California denied without prejudice the Defendant's
motion to stay the certified class action, pending the California
Supreme Court's answers to two questions certified by the Ninth
Circuit.

Greer filed a class action complaint on March 19, 2015, in the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of
Sacramento, alleging that the Defendant violated several
provisions of the California Labor Code and California Business
and Professions Code Section 17200.  DSG removed the action to
the Court on May 15, 2015.

On Oct. 1, 2015, the Plaintiff filed the operative first amended
complaint.  On April 13, 2017, the Court granted the Plaintiff's
motion to certify two subclasses: (1) a "Security Check Class"
arising from the Plaintiff's claim that DSG employees were
required to wait, while off the clock, for inspection of their
personal belongings before exiting the store; and (2) a "Business
Reimbursement Class," arising from the Plaintiff's claim that DSG
employees were required to purchase apparel but were not
reimbursed for their purchases.

DSG now seeks to stay the action pending the California Supreme
Court's decisions in two cases.  In the first case, Troester v.
Starbucks Corp., the state Court agreed to decide the following
question certified to it by the Ninth Circuit on whether the
federal Fair Labor Standards Act's de minimis doctrine, as stated
in Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery Co., and Lindow v. United
States, applies to claims for unpaid wages under the California
Labor Code sections 510, 1194, and 1197.

The Court, in its certification order, noted the law is unclear
as to whether the federal de minimis doctrine applies to
California labor cases, and cited the question certified in
Troester.  It found that even if the doctrine applies, there
would be common questions regarding whether the class satisfied
the doctrine's requirements.

In the second case, Frlekin v. Apple, the state Court agreed to
decide the Ninth Circuit's certified question on whether the time
spent on the employer's premises waiting for, and undergoing,
required exit searches of packages or bags voluntarily brought to
work purely for personal convenience by employees is compensable
as hours worked within the meaning of California Industrial
Welfare Commission Wage Order No. 7.

DSG argues the decisions to be rendered in Troester and Frlekin
will be "potentially dispositive" with respect to the Plaintiff's
Security Check Class claims, and thus urges the court to stay
this action until those cases are decided.

Judge Mueller is not persuaded that DSG has shown a clear case of
hardship that outweighs the risk of harm posed by a stay.
Rather, it is well established that being required to defend a
suit, without more, does not constitute a clear case of hardship
or inequity within the meaning of Landis.  Thus, she says, DSG's
anticipated defense expenses do not necessarily tip the Landis
balance in favor of a stay.  Moreover, to the extent unnecessary
discovery and motion practice may pose a hardship to DSG, DSG has
not met its burden in articulating that hardship with sufficient
particularity.

In addition, the Judge finds that DSG provides no indication
whatsoever of the expected magnitude or cost of anticipated
discovery on issues that may be narrowed or mooted by the
California Supreme Court's decisions in Troester and Frlekin.
Instead, DSG simply argues its discovery expenses may be for
naught and notes that moving for summary judgment involves
extensive depositions, expert studies and reports, all at great
cost to the parties.  If DSG plans to file a motion for summary
judgment that turns on the de minimis doctrine or the
voluntariness issue, DSG may renew its motion to stay with more
supporting detail than currently provided.

Finally, the Judge agrees that the California Supreme Court's
decisions may bear on the Security Check Class claims and could
potentially limit the scope of discovery and issues of law to be
adjudicated in the case.  Accordingly, this factor weighs in
favor of a stay but does not outweigh the other factors for which
DSG has failed to meet its burden.

For these reasons, Judge Mueller concludes that DSG has not shown
a stay is warranted.  Accordingly, its motion to stay is denied
without prejudice.  The parties should be prepared to discuss
future scheduling at the conclusion of the motion hearing on Jan.
12, 2018, including whether discovery and dispositive motion
practice might be timed to achieve efficiencies in light of
Troester and Frlekin.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 10, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/gZ9EII from Leagle.com.

Jimmy Greer, Plaintiff, represented by Melissa Grant, Capstone
Law APC, Robert J. Drexler -- Robert.Drexler@Capstonelawyers.com
-- Capstone Law APC, Bevin Elaine Allen Pike --
Bevin.Pike@capstonelawyers.com -- Capstone Law APC & Jonathan
Sing Lee -- Jonathan.Lee@capstonelawyers.com -- Capstone Law APC.

Dick's Sporting Goods, Inc., Defendant, represented by Paul S.
Cowie -- pcowie@sheppardmullin.com -- Sheppard Mullin, Caryn F.
Horner -- chorner@sheppardmullin.com -- Sheppard Mullin Richter &
Hampton LLP, Cassidy Mariko English --
cenglish@sheppardmullin.com -- Sheppard Mullin Richler & Hampton,
Michael Thomas Campbell -- mcampbell@sheppardmullin.com --
Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP & Stephen Luther Taeusch --
staeusch@sheppardmullin.com -- Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton
LLP.


DNC SERVICES: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Compensation, Torres Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTIAN TORRES, on behalf of himself and all those similarly
situated, 1343 E 9th St. Tucson, AZ 85719, the Plaintiff, v. DNC
SERVICES CORPORATION d/b/a DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE 430
South Capitol St. Southeast Washington, DC 20003 and ARIZONA
DEMOCRATIC PARTY 2910 North Central Ave. Phoenix, AZ 85012, the
Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-00321-JAT (D. Ariz., Jan. 31, 2018),
seeks compensation on behalf of all Organizers and/or Field
Organizers who worked for Defendants tirelessly while being
denied minimum wage and overtime compensation guaranteed by
federal and state law.

Specifically, the Plaintiff alleges that he and other Organizers
and/or Field Organizers were employed in non-exempt positions to
assist in nationally coordinated Democratic "ground game" which
sought to increase the Democratic vote. Even while Defendants
campaigned to enhance and expand the ability of low and middle
income people to be paid a fair salary, minimum wage, and
overtime, those same principles were ignored in denying their own
Organizers and/or Field Organizers overtime pay for the extremely
long hours required by campaign work. Organizers and/or Field
Organizers are dedicated people who worked for Defendants because
they were and remain committed to Defendants' platform, program,
and ideals; they bring this lawsuit not to challenge those ideals
but to vindicate them, and in so doing, do their part to ensure
the continued viability of the rights created by and enshrined in
the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

The Organizers' and/or Field Organizers' job duties consisted of
assisting in voter registration, handing out paperwork and forms
to potential voters in person, reminding potential voters of
deadlines, and soliciting volunteers. Organizers and/or Field
Organizers were expected and did work long hours and weekends,
and regularly worked in excess of 80 to 90 hours per workweek.
Rather than hiring additional staff to reduce the extraordinary
workload assigned to Organizers and/or Field Organizers, and
rather than paying overtime and minimum wage as required by the
FLSA and state law, Defendants instead willfully engaged in a
course of conduct in violation of federal law by requiring
Organizers and/or Field Organizers to work long hours without
providing any overtime compensation to Organizers and/or Field
Organizers. Defendants unlawfully and erroneously treated
Organizers and/or Field Organizers as exempt employees under
state and federal law. Named Plaintiff seeks relief on behalf of
all Organizers and/or Field Organizers nationwide who were denied
the benefits guaranteed by law.

Democratic National Committee is the formal governing body for
the United States Democratic Party. The committee coordinates
strategy to support Democratic Party candidates throughout the
country for local, state, and national office.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Justin L. Swidler, Esq.
          Joshua S. Boyette, Esq.
          SWARTZ SWIDLER, LLC
          1101 Kings Highway North, Suite 402
          Cherry Hill, NJ 08034
          Telephone: (856) 685 7420
          Facsimile: (856) 685 7417
          E-mail: jswidler@swartz-legal.com
                  jboyette@swartz-legal.com


EDDIE BAUER: Court Certifies Store Employees Class in "Heredia"
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case styled STEPHANIE HEREDIA, Plaintiff, v. EDDIE BAUER
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 16-cv-06236-BLF (N.D. Cal.), Judge Beth
Labson Freeman of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, San Jose Division, granted Heredia's
motion to certify the class.

The well-known outdoor lifestyle brand Eddie Bauer is one of the
latest retailers facing allegations that the company failed to
compensate its employees for time spent undergoing off-the-clock
"exit inspections" before leaving the store.  Heredia worked as a
sales associate at an Eddie Bauer retail store in Gilroy,
California from November 2013 to March 2016.  During that time,
she alleges that she was required to undergo inspections of her
personal belongings -- otherwise known as "bag checks" or
"security inspections" -- whenever she left the store.  It was
Heredia's understanding from conversations with her managers that
Eddie Bauer's security inspection policies required such bag
checks to occur after she clocked out.

On Sept. 28, 2016, Heredia sued Eddie Bauer in Santa Clara
Superior Court on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated, asserting causes of action for (1) failure to pay
minimum wages in violation of Cal. Labor Code Section 1194, 1197,
and 1197.1; (2) failure to pay overtime wages in violation of
Cal. Labor Code Sections 510, 558; (3) failure to provide proper
meal breaks in violation of Cal. Labor Code Sections 226.7 and
512; (4) failure to provide proper rest breaks in violation of
Cal. Labor Code Sections 226.7; (5) failure to provide accurate
wage statements in violation of Cal. Labor Code Sections 226(a);
(6) violation of Cal. Labor Code Section 2698, Private Attorneys
General Act ("PAGA"); and (7) unfair business practices in
violation of Cal. Bus. Prof. Code Section 17200, et seq.  She
sues her former employer for failing to compensate her for the
time spent waiting for, or undergoing, these security
inspections.

Eddie Bauer removed the action to the Court on Oct. 27, 2016.

Heredia now moves under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3)
for the Court to certify a class of all current and former non-
exempt retail store employees who were employed by the Defendant
in the State of California at any time from Sept. 28, 2012,
through the present.  She only moves to certify the First Cause
of Action (unpaid minimum wages), Second Cause of Action (unpaid
overtime compensation), Fifth Cause of Action (wage statement
violations) and Seventh Cause of Action (UCL violation).

Eddie Bauer opposes the motion for class certification, arguing
that Heredia has not met her burden to establish the requirements
of Rule 23(a) or Rule 23(b)(3).  It argues that its employees are
only subject to security inspections if they carry a bag or
parcel that can be used to steal store merchandise.  Moreover, it
asserts that such bag checks are to be conducted on-the-clock
pursuant to its policies and practices.  Heredia responds that
Eddie Bauer's arguments are either misleading or irrelevant to
the issue of class certification.  The Court held a hearing on
Heredia's motion for class certification on Oct. 12, 2017.

Having considered the arguments presented at oral argument and in
the briefing, as well as the submitted evidence and applicable
law, Judge Freeman finds that despite the parties' disputes
regarding the legality of Eddie Bauer's security inspection
policy, the proposed class meets the requirements of Rule 23(a)
and Rule 23(b)(3).

Accordingly, the Judge granted Heredia's motion for class
certification.  He thus certified the class of all current and
former non-exempt retail store employees who were employed by
Defendant in the State of California at any time from Sept. 28,
2012, through the present.

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

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 10, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/TkVgjF from Leagle.com.

Stephanie Heredia, as an individual and on behalf of all other
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Kristen Michelle
Agnew -- kagnew@diversitylaw.com -- Diversity Law Group, APC,
Larry W. Lee -- lwlee@diversitylaw.com -- Diversity Law Group,
P.C. & William Lucas Marder -- bill@polarislawgroup.com --
Polaris Law Group, LLP.

Eddie Bauer LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Defendant,
represented by Jonathan Douglas Meer -- jmeer@seyfarth.com --
Seyfarth Shaw LLP & Michael Afar -- mafar@seyfarth.com --
Seyfarth Shaw LLP.


EPIC LANDSCAPE: "Chevere" Seeks OT Pay, Hits Excessive Deductions
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Issokarm Rodriguez Chevere on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Epic Landscape Productions,
L.C., Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-02733 (D. Kan., December 27,
2017), seeks damages and other relief for violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the Kansas Wage Payment Act for having
rental payments deducted from their paychecks.  The plaintiff
further seeks overtime premium for all hours worked over forty
during a workweek.

Epic is a company that provides landscape, irrigation and
lighting design and construction for homes and businesses where
Plaintiff worked as landscape laborers, doing irrigation digging
and installation, dirt movement, loading and hauling landscape
materials, building retaining walls, mulching, moving rocks,
building waterfalls, building pools and pool maintenance.

Plaintiff also allege excessive rental deductions for the staff
house that they rented from Epic during the tenure of their work.
[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brendan J. Donelon, Esq.
      DONELON PC
      420 Nichols Road, Suite 200
      Kansas City, MO 64112
      Tel: (816) 221-7100
      Fax: (816) 709-1044
      Email: brendan@donelonpc.com

             - and -

      Ashley Atwell-Soler, Esq.
      HOLMAN SCHIAVONE, LLC
      4600 Madison Ave., Suite 810
      Kansas City, MO 64112
      Tel: (816) 285-1224
      Email: AAtwell@hslawllc.com


EQUIFAX INC: Faces "Donnelly" Suit in N.D. Georgia
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Equifax Inc. The
case is styled John Donnelly, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Equifax Inc. and Equifax
Information Sercices, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-00361-TWT
(N.D. Ga., January 24, 2018).

Equifax Inc. operates a global credit reporting agency that
collects, stores, organizes, analyzes and disseminates data on
millions of consumers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Kevin Hunter Sharp, Esq.
   Sanford Heisler Sharp, LLP
   611 Commerce Street, Suite 3100
   Nashville, TN 37203
   Tel: (615) 434-7001
   Fax: (615) 434-7020
   Email: ksharp@sanfordheisler.com


ESURANCE PROPERTY: Faces Central Palm Beach Suit in S.D. Fla.
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Esurance Property
and Casualty Insurance Company.  The case is styled as Central
Palm Beach Physicians & Urgent Care, Inc. doing business as:
Total MD a Florida corporation, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated other Lanre Mawudzro, Plaintiff v.
Esurance Property and Casualty Insurance Company, Defendant, Case
No. 0:18-cv-60136-KMM (S.D. Fla., January 22, 2018).

Esurance Property and Casualty Insurance Company operates as a
subsidiary of The Allstate Corporation.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Barbara Perez, Esq.
   Aronovitz Law
   2 South Biscayne Blvd., Suite 3700
   Miami, FL 33131
   Tel: (305) 372-2772
   Fax: (305) 397-1886
   Email: bp@aronovitzlaw.com

      - and -

   Theophilos George Poulopoulos, Esq.
   Corredor, Husseini and Snedaker, P.A.
   9130 South Dadeland Blvd
   Datran II Center, Suite 1902
   Miami, FL 33156
   Tel: (978) 621-4636
   Email: theo.poulopoulos@gmail.com

      - and -

   Tod N. Aronovitz, Esq.
   Aronovitz Law
   One Biscayne Tower
   2 South Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 3700
   Miami, FL 33131
   Tel: (305) 372-2772
   Fax: (305) 397-1886
   Email: ta@aronovitzlaw.com


FEDERAL NATIONAL: D. Best Can File 2nd Amended Complaint
--------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Maryland,
Southern Division, issued a Memorandum Opinion granting
Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint in
the case captioned DAWUD J. BEST, Plaintiff, v. FEDERAL NATIONAL
MORTGAGE ASSOCATION, et al., Defendants, Case No. GJH-17-314
(C.D. Md.).

Pro Se Plaintiff Dawud J. Best brings this action against
Defendants Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae),
Capital One, Nat'l Assoc. (Capital One), and Brock & Scott, PLLC
(Defendants) related to Defendants' attempt to collect a debt and
foreclose upon Plaintiffs property in Cheverly, Maryland.

Plaintiff filed his initial Complaint on February 2, 2017,
bringing claims under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
(Count One), Maryland Consumer Debt Collection and Maryland
Consumer Protection Acts (Count Two), and the Truth in Lending
Act (Count Three) on behalf of himself and a class.

Defendants contend that Thomas Alston, a non-attorney, was the
true author of Plaintiff's filings and point to a number of facts
highly suggestive of Alston's involvement in this matter.  For
example, Plaintiff was previously a pro se plaintiff in a lawsuit
filed by Kimberly Alston, Thomas Alston's sister, Bey, et al. v.
Midland Credit Management, Inc., et al.,8:15-cv-1329-GJH (D.
Md.), and his Complaint herein has many of the hallmarks of prior
complaints filed by Alston, including the threat of a class
action brought by a pro se plaintiff, which is impermissible.

Plaintiff maintains that while he did review a number of
publicly-available complaints filed by Thomas Alston before
judges in this District, Plaintiff affirmatively stated to the
Court that Thomas Alston neither advised nor assisted him at any
time. Plaintiff further maintains that the residential sale
contract signed by Thomas Alston was the product of an arms-
length transaction. Based on the facts presented to the Court at
this time, the Court, while concerned, cannot conclude that
Thomas Alston engaged in the unauthorized practice of law, and
Defendants' motion to strike and stay is therefore denied.

Defendants argue that Plaintiff lacks standing to bring this
action because the claims are part of Plaintiffs bankruptcy
estate and can only be raised by the bankruptcy trustee.

Defendants do not suggest that Plaintiffs disclosure of his pre-
petition claims lacked the requisite detail necessary to enable
the bankruptcy trustee to bring the claims on behalf of the
estate if it chose to do so. Nor do Defendants argue that
Plaintiff may not re-open his bankruptcy action to amend his
schedule of property for the express purpose of retaining
standing to bring these pre-petition claims on his own.

Therefore, because the amended schedule included the prepetition
claims, and the bankruptcy case was closed without any objection
or action by the trustee, the claims were both exempt and
properly abandoned, and the Court has subject matter jurisdiction
to hear them now.

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1)(B), a
plaintiff may amend his complaint once as a matter of course
within 21 days after service of a motion under Rule 12(b)/
As an initial matter, because Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint
was timely filed, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is denied as
moot. The Corrected First Amended Complaint did not raise
additional causes of action or legal theories not otherwise
presented in the First Amended Complaint and the fact that it was
filed five days after the First Amended Complaint suggests
Plaintiff's representation regarding an inadvertent filing is
credible.

More importantly, however, concerns regarding the First Amended
Complaint, corrected or not, are mooted by Plaintiff's Motion for
Leave to file a Second Amended Complaint.   Defendants"
Opposition to that motion focuses entirely on claims that the
Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction and that Plaintiff is
operating in bad faith due to Thomas Alston's alleged
involvement. As the Court has already addressed these issues,
Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint
is Granted. The Second Amended Complaint is now the operative
complaint.

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

Dawud J. Best, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

Federal National Mortgage Association, also known as Fannie Mae &
Capital One, Nat'l Assoc., Defendants, represented by Syed Mohsin
Reza -- mohsin.reza@troutman.com -- Troutman Sanders LLP.

Brock & Scott, PLLC, Defendant, represented by Christine Nicole
Johnson Christine.Johnson@brockandscott.com -- Brock & Scott,
PLLC & Syed Mohsin Reza -- mohsin.reza@troutman.com -- Troutman
Sanders LLP.


FINANCIAL RECOVERIES: Wakefield Sues over Collection Practices
--------------------------------------------------------------
GLENN WAKEFIELD and RAVYN WAKEFIELD, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. FINANCIAL
RECOVERIES, INC. d/b/a OSHKOSH COLLECTION & RECOVERY, a Wisconsin
Corporation; and, JOHN AND JANE DOES NUMBERS 1 THROUGH 25, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-00173 (E.D. Wisc., Jan. 31, 2018),
seeks to recover statutory damages, attorney fees, costs, and all
other relief, equitable or legal in nature, as deemed
appropriate, pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Accoridng to the compliant, Financial Recoveries used false,
deceptive, and misleading practices, and other illegal practices,
in connection with its attempts to collect alleged debts from the
Plaintiffs and others.

The Plaintiffs allege Financial Recoveries's collection practices
violate the FDCPA.  The collection practices include, inter alia,
sending consumers written communications to collect debts, which
falsely state the consumers' alleged defaulted medical debts are
accruing interest, late charges, and other charges that vary from
day to day.

Plaintiffs seek trial by jury.

Financial Recoveries offers traditional collection services,
account monitoring and day one collection, pre-collection
services, and skip tracing.[BN]

Attorneys for Glenn Wakefield and Ravyn Wakefield:

          Andrew T. Thomasson, Esq.
          Philip D. Stern, Esq.
          STERN THOMASSON LLP
          150 Morris Avenue, 2nd Floor
          Springfield, NJ 07081-1315
          Telephone: (973) 379 7500
          Facsimile: (973) 532 5868
          E-Mail: philip@sternthomasson.com
                  andrew@sternthomasson.com


FLORIDA CARE ASSISTED LIVING: Baptiste Seeks Unpaid OT Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Marie Marthe Jean Baptiste, on her own behalf and others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Florida Care Assisted Living,
Inc. (d/b/a Victoria Gardens ALF) and Collette Burgess,
individually, Case No. 17-cv-81398, (S.D. Fla., December 27,
2017), seeks overtime compensation and minimum wage compensation
and other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Baptiste was employed as a housekeeper and home health aide at
Victoria Gardens ALF. Plaintiff assisted the residents with
bathing, toileting assistance, dressing, hygiene, and self-
administration of medication, performed housekeeping and laundry
services, provided companionship, and assisted residents with
feeding at the assisted living facility in Riviera Beach,
Florida. She would average between five to ten hours of overtime
per week without being paid overtime premium, notes the
complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Maguene D. Cadet, Esq.
     LAW OFFICE OF DIEUDONNE CADET, P.A.
     2500 Quantum Lakes Drive, Suite 203
     Boynton Beach, FL 33426
     Telephone: (561) 853-2212
     Facsimile: (561) 853-2213
     Email: Maguene@DieudonneLaw.com


FURNITURE HOME: "Taber" Suit Seeks OT Compensation under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case, RAYMOND TABER, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated the Plaintiff, v. FURNITURE HOME STORES OF
ARKANSAS, INC., and ASHLEY FURNITURE INDUSTRIES, INC., each d/b/a
ASHLEY FURNITURE HOMESTORE, the Defendants, Case No. 4:18-cv-
00089-BSM (E.D. Ark., Jan. 31, 2018), is a hybrid class and
collective action brought on behalf of hourly-paid Delivery
Employees employed by Defendants at any time within a three-year
period preceding the filing of this Complaint.  According to the
complaint, for at least three years prior to the filing of this
Complaint, Defendants have willfully and intentionally committed
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, and the Arkansas
Minimum Wage Act.  Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff and other
hourly-paid delivery employees proper overtime compensation for
hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week, the lawsuit claims.

Ashley Furniture is a privately held company in Bryant, Arkansas
and is a single location business. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel Ford, Esq.
          Chris Burks, Esq.
          Josh Sanford, Esq.
          SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
          One Financial Center
          650 South Shackleford, Suite 411
          Little Rock, AR 72211
          Telephone: (501) 221 0088
          Facsimile: (888) 787 2040
          E-mail: daniel@sanfordlawfirm.com
                  chris@sanfordlawfirm.com
                  josh@sanfordlawfirm.com


GARCES GROUP: Faces "Godino" Suit in S.D. Pennsylvania
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Garces Group LLC.
The case is styled as Michael Godino, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Garces Group LLC
doing business as: The Olde Bar, Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-
00273-BMS (S.D. Penn., January 22, 2018).

Garces is a Philadelphia-based hospitality group specializing in
personal dining experiences rooted in the rich cultural
traditions and culinary vision of James Beard Award-winning
Latin-American Chef Jose Garces.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   C. K. LEE, Esq.
   LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
   30 EAST 39TH STREET
   SECOND FLOOR
   NEW YORK, NY 10016
   Tel: (212) 465-1188
   Email: cklee@leelitigation.com


GENERAL NUTRITION: "Chevalier" Suit Brought Before Penn. S.C.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Tawny L. Chevalier and Andrew Hiller, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs/Respondents v. General Nutrition Centers, Inc., and
General Nutrition Corporation, Defendants/Petitioners, Case No.
33-WAL-2018, was brought before the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
on January 22, 2018.

GNC Holdings Inc. (General Nutrition Centers) is a Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania-based American company selling health and nutrition
related products, including vitamins, supplements, minerals,
herbs, sports nutrition, diet, and energy products.[BN]

The Petitioners/Defendants are represented by:

   Simon, Michael, Esq.
   Roe & Simon LLC
   2520 Mosside Blvd
   Monroeville, PA 15146-3539
   Tel: (412) 856-8107, ext. 7628

      - and -

   Pritchard, Robert William, Esq.
   Littler Mendelson, P.C.
   625 Liberty Ave 26th Fl
   Pittsburgh, PA 15222
   Tel: (412) 201-7600, ext. 7628

The Respondents/Plaintiffs are represented by:

   Adrian Nathaniel, Roe, Esq.
   Roe & Simon LLC
   428 Blvd of the Allies 5th Fl
   Pittsburgh, PA 15219
   Tel: (412) 434-8187, ext. 7628


HALSTED FINANCIAL: Tinker Sues over Debt Collection Practices
-------------------------------------------------------------
Deborah Tinker, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Halsted Financial Services,
LLC, an Illinois limited liability company, and Cavalry SPV I,
LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, the Defendants, Case
No. 1:18-cv-00596 (N.D. Ill., Jan. 26, 2018), seeks to recover
damages under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Halsted is an Illinois limited liability company that acts as a
debt collector.  It operates a nationwide debt collection
business and attempts to collect defaulted debts from consumers
in virtually every state, including consumers in the State of
Illinois.

Halsted was acting as a debt collector as to the defaulted
consumer debt it attempted to collect from Plaintiff.

According to the complaint, many years ago, Ms. Tinker fell
behind on paying her bills, including a debt she allegedly owed
for a Capital One account. Sometime after that debt became
defaulted, the debt was allegedly acquired by Cavalry. Cavalry
tried to collect upon the debt by having Halsted send Ms. Tinker
a form collection letter, dated April 13, 2017. This letter urged
her to pay the debt, via a "50% Discount Offer". The letter
belatedly stated, "The law limits how long you can be sued on a
debt. Because of the age of your debt, Halsted Financial
Services, LLC will not sue you for it. If you do not pay the debt
Cavalry SPV I, LLC may report it to the credit reporting agencies
as unpaid for as long as the law permits this reporting."

The Defendants' letter, however, failed to state that Cavalry
could not also sue on the debt; moreover, by stating that Halsted
"will not" sue, rather than it "cannot" sue, the letter implied
that Halsted still had the option to take those actions, and that
it was simply choosing not to do so. Moreover, by stating that
"[I]f you do not pay the debt, Cavalry SPV I, LLC may report it
to the credit reporting agencies as unpaid for as long as the law
permits this reporting", Defendants clearly threatened Ms. Tinker
with negative consequences if she did not pay the debt, which
rendered any message about a decision not to sue ineffective.
Despite Defendant's "50% Discount Offer", there was, in fact, no
discount to be had. Neither Defendant could actually sue to
collect the debt at issue because it was time-barred by the
statute of limitations in the State of Alabama. Thus, their offer
to settle would not save Ms. Tinker any money whatsoever.

The failure of Defendants to disclose effectively that both
Defendants could not sue or credit report is material. This lack
of proper disclosure would leave the consumer without enough
information to make a decision as to what to do about the
collection of the debt at issue and cause them to believe
Defendants that the debt needed to be paid.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David J. Philipps
          Mary E. Philipps
          Carissa K. Rasch
          PHILIPPS & PHILIPPS, LTD.
          9760 S. Roberts Road Suite
          One Palos Hills, IL 60465
          Telephone: (708) 974 2900
          Facsimile: (708) 974 2907
          E-mail: davephilipps@aol.com
                  mephilipps@aol.com

               - and -

          Ronald C. Sykstus, Esq.
          BOND, BOTES, SYKSTUS,
          TANNER & EZZELL, P.C.
          225 Pratt Avenue
          Huntsville, AL 35801
          Telephone: (256) 539 9899
          Facsimile: (256) 713 0237
          E-mail: Rsykstus@bondnbotes.com


HAMBLEN COUNTY, TN: "Wolfe" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
GARY E. WOLFE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. HAMBLEN COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION,
the Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-00013 (E.D. Tenn., Jan. 31,
2018), alleges violations of Plaintiff's rights under the Fair
labor Standards Act of 1938 and seeks to remedy violations of the
wage provisions of the FLSA which have deprived Plaintiff, as
well as others similarly situated, of their lawful wages.

The Plaintiff also seeks to redress the unlawful termination of
his employment for complaining to Defendant and/or their agents
or employees about their failure to pay wages, including overtime
to him and others in violation of Sec. 215(a)(3) of the FLSA as
well as their retaliation for failing to re-hire the Plaintiff
into additional custodial positions for which he was qualified
following his complaint under the FLSA.

As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's actions, the
Plaintiff and others similarly situated have suffered loss of
wages and seek compensatory damages in an amount according to
proof including unpaid overtime wages as well as Social Security
and Medicare contributions.

Hamblen County Department of Education is governed by Hamblen
County Board of Education, the public school district for Hamblen
County, Tennessee, having its Central Office at 210 East Morris
Boulevard, Morristown, Tennessee 37813. HCBOE operates several
schools within the district, including Union Heights Elementary
School, the school where the Plaintiff was employed. Service of
process may be made on the Board with Hamblen County Department
of Education's Director of Schools, Dr. Jeff Perry, at its
Central Office.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Link A. Gibbons, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF LINK A. GIBBONS
          P. O. Box 2428
          Morristown, Tennessee 37816
          Telephone: (423) 839 0990
          Facsimile: (423) 839 1306
          E-mail: link@linkgibbonslaw.com


HAYNES INVESTMENTS: Faces "Gibbs" Suit in E.D. Virginia
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Haynes Investments,
LLC. The case is styled Darlene Gibbs, Stephanie Edwards, Lula
Williams, Patrick Inscho and Lawrence Mwethuku, on behalf of
themselves and all individuals similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
Haynes Investments, LLC, L. Stephen Haynes, Sovereign Business
Solutions, LLC, Victory Park Capital Advisors, LLC, Victory Park
Management, LLC, Scott Zemnick, Jeffrey Schneider and Thomas
Welch, Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-00048-MHL (E.D. Va.,
January 22, 2018).


The Plaintiffs are represented by:

   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

      - and -

   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 -

   Craig Carley Marchiando, Esq.
   Consumer Litigation Associates
   763 J Clyde Morris Boulevard, Suite 1A
   Newport News, VA 23601
   Tel: (757) 930-3660
   Fax: (757) 930-3662
   Email: craig@clalegal.com

      - and -

   Elizabeth W. Hanes, Esq.
   Consumer Litigation Associates
   763 J Clyde Morris Boulevard, Suite 1A
   Newport News, VA 23601
   Tel: (757) 930-3660
   Fax: (757) 930-3662
   Email: elizabeth@clalegal.com

      - and -

   James Wilson Speer, Esq.
   Virginia Proverty Law Center
   919 E Main Street, Suite 610
   Richmond, VA 23219
   Tel: (804) 782-9430
   Fax: (804) 649-0974
   Email: jay@vplc.org

      - and -

   Leonard Anthony Bennett, Esq.
   Consumer Litigation Associates
   763 J Clyde Morris Boulevard, Suite 1A
   Newport News, VA 23601
   Tel: (757) 930-3660
   Fax: (757) 930-3662
   Email: lenbennett@clalegal.com


HOST INTERNATIONAL: "Garcia" Suit Moved to S.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Sera Garcia, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Host
International, Inc., a Delaware Corporation; HMS Host USA, Inc.,
a Delaware Corporation; and Does 1 through 20, inclusive, the
Defendants, Case No. 37-02017-00046403-CU-OE-CTL, was removed
from the Superior Court of the State of California, to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California (San
Diego). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:18-cv-00173-
GPC-BLM to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge
Gonzalo P. Curiel.

Host International, Inc., through its subsidiaries, operates
food, beverage, and merchandise concessions at airports, on toll
roads, and at other travel and entertainment venues in the United
States. The company operates gift and news retail outlets in off-
airport locations.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Simon Kwak, Esq.
          AEGIS LAW FIRM
          9811 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 100
          Irvine, CA 92618
          Telephone: (949) 379 6250
          Facsimile: (949) 379 -6251
          E-mail: skwak@aegislawfirm.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Vartan S. Madoyan, Esq.
          BAKER AND HOSTETLER LLP
          11601 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1400
          Los Angeles, CA 90025
          Telephone: (310) 820 8800
          Facsimile: (310) 820 -8859
          E-mail: vmadoyan@bakerlaw.com


HYATT CORPORATION: Website Not Fully Accessible, Gomez Says
-----------------------------------------------------------
ANDRES GOMEZ, the Plaintiff, v. HYATT CORPORATION and
HYATT HOTELS CORPORATION, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-20403-
JLK (S.D. Fla., Jan. 31, 2018), seeks to require Defendants to
modify their website, to include third party vendors, so that it
is fully accessible to, and independently usable by blind or
visually impaired individuals, under the Americans with
Disabilities Act.

The Plaintiff is a blind individual. He brings this civil rights
class action against Defendants for offering and maintaining an
internet website that is not fully accessible and independently
usable by visually impaired individuals.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff has visited Defendants'
website (www.hyatt.com). The Defendants offer their hotel-related
website to the general public and as such, have subjected
themselves to the ADA. Defendants' website is offered as a tool
to view available hotel rooms, amenities, make reservations,
address customer service issues securities and locating brick and
mortar hotel locations. As a result, the website must interact
with Defendants' services, brick and mortar hotel locations,
etc., and in doing so must comply with the ADA, which means it
must not discriminate against individuals with disabilities and
may not deny full and equal enjoyment of services afforded to the
general public.

Blind and visually impaired consumers use screen reading software
or other assistive technologies in order to access website
content. Defendants' website, however, contains digital barriers,
limiting the ability of blind and visually impaired consumers to
access their content.

Defendants' website does not properly interact with screen reader
software in a manner that will allow the blind and visually
impaired to enjoy the website, nor does the site provide other
means to accommodate the blind and visually impaired. The
Plaintiff has visited Defendants' website in the past in
conjunction with hotel rooms, amenities, making reservations,
addressing customer service issues securities and locating brick
and mortar hotel locations, and intends to visit the website in
conjunction with visit(s) to their brick and mortar hotel
locations in the future. However, unless Defendants are required
to eliminate the access barriers at issue, and required to change
their policies so that access barriers do not reoccur on
Defendants' website, Plaintiff will continue to be denied full
and equal access to the website and related brick and mortar
hotel locations as described, and will be deterred from fully
using Defendants' website in conjunction with its physical
locations.

Hyatt Hotels Corporation is an American multinational owner,
operator, and franchiser of hotels, resorts, and vacation
properties.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Anthony J. Perez, Esq.
          Alfredo Garcia-Menocal, Esq.
          GARCIA-MENOCAL & PEREZ, P.L.
          4937 S.W. 74th Court
          Miami, FL 33155
          Telephone: (305) 553-3464
          Facsimile: (305) 553-3031
          E-Mail: ajperez@lawgmp.com
                  mpomares@lawgmp.com


ILLINOIS: Court Certifies Class in "Donegan"
--------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division, issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order
granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Amended Class Certification in
the case captioned BLAKE DONEGAN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. FELICIA
NORWOOD, as Director of the Illinois Department of Healthcare and
Family Services, Defendant, Case No. 16-cv-11178 (N.D. Ill.).

The Plaintiffs in this case are disabled persons who receive
funding for in-home shift nursing services from the Illinois
Department of Healthcare and Family Services (HFS) through its
non-waiver Medicaid program commonly known as the Nursing and
Personal Care Services (NPCS) program.

The NPCS program restricts enrollment in the program to persons
under the age of 21. Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of
approximately 411 medically fragile disabled individuals who have
been found eligible by Defendant for in-home shift nursing
services through the NPCS program, but who are not entitled to
receive such services through the NPCS program after they reach
the age of 21.  Instead, Plaintiffs and the putative class may
seek services through the Home Services Program (HSP).

Plaintiffs bring claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act
(ADA), the Rehabilitation Act (RA), and 42 U.S.C. Section 1983,
raising two theories. First, Plaintiffs argue that they are at
risk of being institutionalized or suffering serious harm as a
result of Defendant's policy of restricting enrollment in the
NPCS program to individuals under the age of 21. This theory of
discrimination stems from the Supreme Court's decision in
Olmstead v. L.C., which held that developmentally disabled
individuals should be placed in community settings when [1] the
state's treatment professionals have determined that community
placement is appropriate, [2] the transfer from institutional
care to a less restrictive setting is not opposed by the affected
individual, and [3] the placement can be reasonably accommodated,
taking into account the resources available to the State and the
needs of others with mental disabilities.

Second, Plaintiffs argue that Defendant is discriminating between
disabled persons aging out of the NPCS program and disabled
persons aging out of the State of Illinois' Medically Fragile,
Technology Dependent (MFTD) program, as disabled persons in the
MFTD program continue to receive in-home shift nursing services
based on medical necessity after they reach the age of 21 while
disabled persons in the NPCS program do not. This theory of
discrimination stems from language in Amundson ex rel. Amundson
v. Wisconsin Department of Health Services, which indicates that
individuals with disabilities can establish intra-class claims of
discrimination by showing that they are being treated worse than
persons with other disabilities.

Plaintiffs seek to certify a Rule 23(b)(2) class of:

     All Medicaid-enrolled children under the age of 21 in the
State of Illinois who receive in-home shift nursing or had
received in-home shift nursing services, and when they obtain the
age of 21 years are subjected to reduced Medicaid funding which
reduced the medical level of care which they had been receiving
prior to obtaining 21 years. This class definition does not
include those persons who are enrolled in the State of Illinois'
Medically Fragile Technology Dependent (MFTD) Medicaid Waiver
program.

Defendant argues that Plaintiffs' proposed class fails to satisfy
the requirements of Rule 23(b)(2).  Rule 23(b)(2) permits class
certification where the party opposing the class has acted or
refused to act on grounds that apply generally to the class, so
that final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief
is appropriate respecting the class as a whole.

The Court finds that by including individuals who no longer
receive in-home shift nursing services through the NPCS program
in their proposed class definition, Plaintiffs are essentially
asking the Court to issue an injunction requiring Defendant to
reinstate benefits to those who no longer receive these services.
This is not permitted under Rule 23(b)(2).  Chicago Teachers
Union, Local No. 1 v. Bd. of Educ. of City of Chicago, 797 F.3d
426, 441 (7th Cir. 2015), indicated that a 23(b)(2) class would
be inappropriate where plaintiffs sought individual relief such
as reinstatement or individually calculated damages in the form
of back pay and front pay.

Accordingly, the Court finds it necessary to alter the class
definition, which the Court can do in its discretion.   Because
the Court would be required to order individualized relief for
claims brought on behalf of disabled persons not currently
receiving benefits through the NPCS program, the Court will alter
Plaintiffs' proposed class to include only those currently
receiving in-home shift nursing services through the NPCS
program.

Defendant argues that Plaintiffs' proposed class definition does
not satisfy the ascertainability requirement because (1) the
class includes all individuals who were ever enrolled in the NPCS
without any time limitation, and (2) the class includes
individuals that did not receive in-home shift nursing services
after turning 21 yet were not now or ever faced with the risk of
institutionalization.

The Court finds that a more precise class definition is necessary
to identify who will receive notice, who will share in any
recovery, and who will be bound by a judgment.  Accordingly, the
Court concludes that the following class definition best comports
with the nature of Plaintiffs' claims and the requirements of
Rule 23:

     All persons in the state of Illinois who have been approved
by Defendant for in-home shift nursing services when they were
Medicaid-eligible children under the age of 21 through the
nonwaiver Medicaid program, formerly known as the Nursing and
Personal Care Services (NPCS) program, and who are currently
receiving such services. This class definition does not include
those persons who are enrolled in the State of Illinois'
Medically Fragile Technology Dependent (MFTD) Medicaid Waiver
program.

The first requirement under Rule 23(a) is that the putative class
be so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable.
Here, Plaintiffs have submitted evidence indicating that as of
April 1, 2016, there were 411 children receiving services from
the NPCS program. Most if not all of these individuals would fall
within the Court's altered class definition. This is sufficient
to satisfy Rule 23(a)'s numerosity requirement.

For a class to be certified, questions of law or fact must exist
common to the class.  Here, Plaintiffs set forth a list of common
questions that they contend are each sufficient to satisfy Rule
23(a)'s commonality requirement, inter alia:

   a) Whether the Defendant violated the ADA and Rehabilitation
Act by reducing the level of funding for persons receiving in-
home shift nursing services through Defendant's program commonly
referred to as the Nursing and Personal Care Services (NPCS)
program which resulted in a reduction of medical services.

   b) Whether the Defendant discriminates against the Plaintiffs
and putative Class by treating them worse than person with other
disabilities.

Plaintiffs have likewise failed to provide any evidence
indicating that any significant portion of the putative class are
at risk of being institutionalized. Plaintiffs only identified
one putative class member Matthew Kaye who they claim is at risk
of being institutionalized as a result of Defendant's policy.
Plaintiffs offer a doctor's affidavit substantiating this claim.
Defendant contests this conclusion, pointing to the fact that
even though Mr. Kaye may not be entitled to receive the same
number of in-home shift nursing hours after reaching the age of
21, he will be able to receive the assistance of a Home Health
Aide who will be able to provide the services Mr. Kaye needs.
Given that Plaintiffs have only presented evidence indicating
that one putative class member is at risk of
institutionalization, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have failed
to show the kind of systemic failure or illegal policy necessary
to establish commonality under Rule 23(a) with respect to
Plaintiffs' Olmstead theory.

The Court finds that Plaintiffs have satisfied Rule 23(a)'s
typicality requirement with respect to their Amundson theory, but
not with respect to their Olmstead theory. Claims of the class
representatives and class members are typical if they arise from
the same practice or course of conduct and are based on the same
legal theory.

With respect to Plaintiffs' theory of discrimination based on
Olmstead, however, Defendant's argument is well taken. In
determining whether Plaintiffs are at risk of
institutionalization, the factual differences relating to the
type of care needed by each Plaintiff, the amount of care each
Plaintiff is entitled to receive through other programs such as
HSP, and the efforts (or lack thereof) that each Plaintiff has
made to ensure that he or she receives care though other programs
such as HSP all become relevant.

Based on these factual differences, it cannot be said that as go
the claims of named plaintiffs, so go the claims of the class.
Furthermore, it is possible (or even likely based on the evidence
before the Court) that none of the named Plaintiffs are at risk
of institutionalization, yet members of the class are at risk of
institutionalization and can establish an Olmstead claim. It
cannot be said that named Plaintiffs' claims are typical of the
class in that situation. The Court therefore finds that
Plaintiffs fail to satisfy Rule 23(a)'s typicality requirement
with respect to their Olmstead theory.

Finally, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have satisfied Rule
23(a)'s adequacy of representation argument with respect to their
Amundson theory, but not with respect to their Olmstead theory.
Before a class will be certified, Rule 23(a)(4) requires that
named plaintiffs show that "the representative parties will
fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class."

The Court finds that none of the named Plaintiffs will be able to
serve as adequate class representatives for discrimination claims
based on the risk of institutionalization. As discussed above,
there is no evidence before this Court indicating that named
Plaintiffs are at risk of institutionalization. Again, the Court
notes that this determination is closely tied to the merits of
Plaintiffs claims. Nonetheless, it cannot be said that named
Plaintiffs have a sufficient interest in pursuing discrimination
claims under Olmstead when they are not themselves at risk of
institutionalization. The Court therefore finds that named
Plaintiffs cannot adequately represent class members who might be
able to establish discrimination based on the risk of
institutionalization.

The Court also finds it problematic that some named Plaintiffs
failed to complete the paperwork required by HSP. It is not
apparent at this time, however, that this failure presents any
conflict of interest between these named Plaintiffs and the
class. It therefore is premature to deny certification on that
basis.

The Court grants Plaintiffs' motion for class certification in
part. The Court certifies the following class of individuals with
respect to Plaintiffs' Amundson theory of discrimination:

     All persons in the state of Illinois who have been approved
by Defendant for in-home shift nursing services when they were
Medicaid-eligible children under the age of 21 through the non-
waiver Medicaid program, formerly known as the Nursing and
Personal Care Services (NPCS) program, and who are currently
receiving such services. This class definition does not include
those persons who are enrolled in the State of Illinois'
Medically Fragile Technology Dependent (MFTD) Medicaid Waiver
program.

A full-text copy of the District Court's December 21, 2017
Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/y9382z96 from Leagle.com.

Blake Donegan, by and through his mother, Angela Donegan,
Plaintiff, represented by Robert Hugh Farley, Jr. --
farleylaw@aol.com -- Robert H. Farley, Jr., Ltd. & Mary Denise
Cahill -- mdcahill@sbcglobal.net -- Cahill and Associates.
Kina Wines, by and through her mother, Sharon Quinn, individually
and on behalf of a class, Antonio Campbell, by and through his
mother, Shaneatha Rolling, Janelle Eaton, by and through her
mother, Jacqueline Eaton & Derek Tan, by and through his mother,
Audrey Tan, Plaintiffs, represented by Robert Hugh Farley, Jr.,
Robert H. Farley, Jr., Ltd..

Felicia F. Norwood, in her official capacity as Director of the
Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services, Defendant,
represented by Michael D. Arnold, Illinois Attorney General's
Office & Brian Franklin Kolp, Office of the Illinois Attorney
General Law Bureau, Civil Rights Unit.


IMPERIAL TOWERS: Morris Sues over Use of Biometric Info
-------------------------------------------------------
JASON MORRIS, IND1VIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, the Plaintiff, v. IMPERIAL TOWERS CONDOMINIUM ASSN.,
the Defendant, Case No. 2018-CH-00989 (Ill. Cir., Cook County,
Jan. 25, 2018), seeks to recover damages as a result of
Defendant's violation of Biometric Information Privacy Act.

The Plaintiff has worked for Defendant in Illinois, including in
Cook County, Illinois. While most retail establishments use
conventional methods for tracking time worked (such as ID badge
swipes or punch clocks), Defendant mandated and required that its
employees have their hands scanned by a biometric timekeeping
device. Unlike ID badges or time cards - which can be changed or
replaced if stolen or compromised - hand biometrics are unique,
permanent biometric identifiers associated with each employee.
This exposes Defendant's employees to serious and irreversible
privacy risks. For example, if a biometric database is hacked,
breached, or otherwise exposed - such as in the recent Equifax
data breach - employees have no means by which to prevent
identity theft, unauthorized tracking, and other improper or
unlawful use of this information.

As an employee of Defendant, Plaintiff has been required to
"clock in" and "clock out" of work shifts by having his hand
scanned by a biometric time clock which then identified each
employee, including Plaintiff. The Illinois Biometric Information
Privacy Act expressly obligates Defendant to obtain an executed,
written release from an individual, as a , condition of
employment, in order to capture, collect, and store an
individual's biometric identifiers or biometric information,
especially a fingerprint, handprint, or hand geometry scan, and
biometric information derived from it.

According to the complaint, the Defendant captured, collected,
received through trade, and/ or otherwise obtained and biometric
identifiers or biometric information of their Illinois employees,
like Plaintiff, without properly obtaining the above-described
written executed release, and without making the required
disclosures concerning the collection, storage, use, or
destruction of biometric identifiers or information.
Additionally, the Plaintiff and the Class members are aggrieved
because Defendant improperly discloses employees' biometric data
to out-of-state third-party vendors in violation of BIPA.

Imperial Towers stands on a three acre site, nine minutes and 5.5
miles north of downtown along Chicago's storied lakefront. Its
twin towers are located in the heart of Buena Park, one of the
city's premier historic districts with block after block of
unique homes designed by such noted Chicago architects.[BN]

Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Putative Class:

          Brandon M. Wise
          Paul A Lesko
          PEIFFER ROSCA WOLF
          ABDULL, CARR & KANE, APLC
          818 Lafayette Ave., Floor 2 St.
          Louis, MO 63104
          Telephone: 314 833 4825
          E-mail: bwise@prwlega1.com
                  plesko@gmail.com


INFUSION SOFTWARE: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "Clark" Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Elliott E. Clark, and Amit Kumar, and Steven M. Roncal, Jr., and
Ryan R. Parks, and Tyler J. Wright, the foregoing persons
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Infusion Software, Inc., d/b/a Infusionsoft, Clate Mask and
Charisse Mask, Scott Martineau and Andee Martineau, Curtis Smith
and Jane Doe Smith, Hal Halladay and Gina Caldwell Halladay,
Keith Reed and Jane Doe Reed, Case No. 2:17-cv-04314-JZB (D.
Ariz., November 27, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime wages for all time worked in excess of 40
hours in a given workweek.

Infusion Software, Inc. offers an e-mail marketing and sales
platform for small businesses, including products to streamline
the customer lifecycle, customer relationship management,
marketing automation, lead capture, and e-commerce. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Roger A. Wright, Esq.
      WRIGHT LAW FIRM, PLC
      1013 S. Stapley Drive
      Mesa, AR 85204
      Telephone: (480) 558-1700
      E-mail: office@wrightlawaz.com


INTEL CORP: Kintz Sues over Defective Core Processor
----------------------------------------------------
LUCAS KINTZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. INTEL CORPORATION, a Delaware
corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-00211-BR (D. Oreg.,
Jan. 31, 2018), seeks to recover damages as a result of
Defendant's conduct in designing, manufacturing, distributing,
and selling defective CPUs.

The Plaintiffs bring this action against defendant Intel on
behalf of all persons who purchased a defective Intel core
processor. Defendant Intel's x86-64x CPUs suffer from a security
defect that exposes the CPUs to troubling security
vulnerabilities by allowing potential access to extremely
sensitive kernel data and program data. The only way to "patch"
these vulnerabilities requires extensive changes to the root
levels of the Operating System which dramatically reduces
CPU performance, and does not fully address the vulnerabilities.
The Defect renders the Intel x86-64x CPUs unfit for their
intended use and purpose. The Defect exists in all Intel x86-64x
CPUs manufactured since at least 2008. The x86-64x CPU is, and
was, utilized in the majority of all desktop, laptop computers,
and servers in the United States.

To date, Defendant has been unable or unwilling to repair the
Defect or offer Plaintiffs and Class members a non-defective
Intel CPU or reimbursement for the cost of such CPU and the
consequential damages arising from the purchase and use of such
CPUs. Indeed, there does not appear to be a true "fix" for the
Defect. The security "patch," while expected to cure some of the
security vulnerabilities, will dramatically degrade the CPU's
performance. Therefore, the only "fix" would be to exchange the
defective x86-64x processor with a device containing a processor
not subject to this security vulnerability. In essence, Intel
x86-64x CPU owners are left with the unappealing choice of either
purchasing a new computer containing a CPU that does not contain
the Defect, or continuing to use a computer with massive security
vulnerabilities or one with significant performance degradation.

The CPUs Defendant manufactured and sold to Plaintiffs and Class
members were not merchantable and were not fit for the ordinary
and particular purposes for which such goods are used in that the
CPUs suffer from a critical security defect, requiring software
patches that will degrade the performance of the CPU. Intel has
failed to remedy this harm, and has earned and continues to earn
substantial profit from selling defective CPUs.

Intel Corporation is an American multinational corporation and
technology company headquartered in Santa Clara, California, in
the Silicon Valley.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          Daniel P. Mensher, Esq.
          T. David Copley, Esq.
          Gretchen Freeman Cappio, Esq.
          Cari Campen Laufenberg, Esq.
          KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
          1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 623 1900
          Facsimile: (206) 623 3384
          E-mail: dmensher@kellerrohrback.com
                  dcopley@kellerrohrback.com
                  gcappio@kellerrohrback.com
                  claufenberg@kellerrohrback.com


INTEL CORP: UFCW Local 1500 Sues over Computer Chip Security Flaw
-----------------------------------------------------------------
UNITED FOOD AND COMMERCIAL WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION
LOCAL 1500, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. INTEL CORPORATION, the Defendant,
Case No. 1:18-cv-00574 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 26, 2018), alleges that,
to increase the speed and performance of its computer chips,
Intel designed them to rely heavily on a process known as
"speculative execution." Speculative execution improves a
chip's efficiency because the process enables a computer to
perform a number of different tasks out of order and ahead of
time in anticipation that the results of one of those tasks will
be needed in the future.

Although speculative execution increases speed and performance,
it also compromises the security of a computer. Indeed, since as
early as 1995, unbeknownst to the public, Intel has been selling
computer chips that suffer from two significant security flaws,
both of which take advantage of Intel's aggressive reliance on
speculative execution to improve the performance of its chips.

Details of the security vulnerabilities became public on January
2, 2018, when it was revealed that Google researchers identified
two security flaws -- known as Meltdown and Spectre -- that
affect all computers containing Intel chips -- i.e., nearly every
computer in the world. Meltdown and Spectre allow a non-
privileged user (i.e., a hacker) to access information on a
computer that the hacker should not be able to access, such as
secret keys, usernames, passwords, and any other sensitive
information a user enters into a computer. The flaws are so
significant that one of the researchers who discovered them
referred to Meltdown specifically as "probably one of the worst
CPU bugs ever found."

Although the details of Meltdown and Spectre first became public
on January 2, 2018, Intel reportedly first learned about the
defects by as early as June 2017, and yet Intel continued to
manufacture, market, and sell defective chips in the interim.

Only a complete redesign of Intel chips can completely resolve
the Meltdown and Spectre security flaws. Installing a software
"patch" or update can potentially resolve the Meltdown flaw
(Spectre can only be completely fixed by replacing the hardware),
but these software patches dramatically slow down computer
performance. One such patch has been shown to slow down a
computer by up to 30%, and Microsoft has reported that a patch
for Windows operating systems results in significant slowdowns.
Intel itself has acknowledged that computers that are patched
have shown a decrease in performance of between 2% and 25%, and
are rebooting more than usual. The reboot problem became so
significant that on January 22, 2018, Intel announced that the
patches it had released were faulty and advised customers not to
install them until a new patch it is developing becomes
available.

The decrease in performance of Intel's chips is especially
damaging to Plaintiff and Class members because Intel's products
are sold specifically on performance and are priced accordingly.
Intel's chips would have been sold at a much lower price had they
been priced to reflect the speed at which they perform when
patched.

Now, Plaintiff and Class members are forced to either use a chip
that is vulnerable to a dangerous security flaw or install a
patch that significantly reduces performance (and yet still
remains vulnerable to future attacks). Plaintiff and the Class,
who paid a premium for Intel-designed chips, have suffered
ascertainable injuries and loss of money or property as a result
of Defendant's wrongful security patch that would slow
performance, they would not have purchased Intel chips (or
devices containing them) or would have paid substantially less
for them.[BN]

Intel is the world's most prolific and well-known manufacturer of
computer chips. More than 90 percent of all computers in the
world include Intel chips. Intel's success is driven in large
party by its ability to regularly improve the speed and
performance of its computer chips. Intel's co-founder, Gordon
Moore, accurately predicted that Intel would decrease the size of
its computer chips every two years -- a rate now known as Moore's
Law -- and Moore's contemporaries further predicted that overall
performance of a chip would double every 18 months. This dramatic
improvement of performance is reflected in the price of Intel's
computer chips: the faster the speed, the higher the price.

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Michael P. Canty, Esq.
          Ross M. Kamhi, Esq.
          LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
          140 Broadway
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: 212 907 0700
          Facsimile: 212 818 0477
          E-mail: mcanty@labaton.com
                  rkamhi@labaton.com


JEFFREY SACHS: "Adwar" Suit Seeks Dissolution of Partnership
-----------------------------------------------------------
RYAN ADWAR, individually, and derivatively on behalf of MISSION
CAPITAL, LLC, and all members of said company similarly situated
as him, the Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY SACHS, the Defendants, Case No.
650422/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Jan. 26, 2018), seeks a declaration
that the Partnership has been dissolved pursuant to Section 62 of
the Partnership Law.

This action arises from the business activities and transactions
of the plaintiff and defendant regarding the formation and
business operations of the Company, and defendant's illegal
actions in removing plaintiff from the Company.

Plaintiff and defendant were equal co-owners of the Company, an
internet business loan originator. From the Company's inception,
the plaintiff and defendant agreed to share the Company's assets
and liabilities as equal co-owners. In January of 2018, despite
the parties' equal co-ownership of the Company, defendant took
illegal control of the Company, terminating the plaintiff's
access to the Company's assets, accounts, and operations.

According to the complaint, in the unlikely event that a judicial
determination is made that plaintiff is not a member of the
Company, the parties nevertheless agreed in action, deed and
understanding, to be equal partners in an internet loan business
operated under the unincorporated and unregistered trade name,
SBG Funding.

Since the Partnership was not formed by written partnership
agreement, it exists and is governed in accordance with the
Partnership Law of the State of New York (the "Partnership Law").
As alleged, defendant has abused his position and authority in
the Partnership, has diverted and converted Partnership property
and assets, breached his fiduciary duties to his partner, engaged
in self-dealing to the detriment of his partner, and otherwise
acted in a manner disloyal to his partner, all in contravention
of Partnership Law.

The defendant diverted and converted the property and assets
belonging not only to himself but also his co-members of the
Company, breached his fiduciary duties to his co-members, engaged
in self-dealing to the detriment of his comembers, and otherwise
acted in a manner disloyal to same, all in contravention of New
York Law.[BN]

Attorney for Plaintiff:

          Howard J. Stem, Esq.
          STERN & SZPIGIEL LLP
          170 Old Country Road, Suite 308
          Mineola, NY 11501
          Telephone: (516) 873 1683
          E-mail: hstem@sandsesq.com


JHOS LOGISTICS: Fails to Pay Compensation, "Rivas" Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------
CARLOS RIVAS, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly
Situated and On Behalf of the General Public as Private
Attorneys, the Plaintiff, v. JHOS LOGISTICS & TRANSPORTATION,
INC. a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 250, inclusive,
the Defendants, Case No. BC691671 (Cal. Super. Ct., Jan. 31,
2018), seeks declaratory relief, restitution and compensation for
work performed and money due to Plaintiff and the similarly
situated employees/staff.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff seeks to serve as
representatives of the general public to enforce and uphold
California's wage and hour laws as private attorneys' general as
expressly permitted by Labor Code section 2698 et seq., pursuant
to the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004.

The Plaintiff has complied with all notice provisions and is
deemed an aggrieved employee as required by the Act to serve as a
private attorney general in representative on behalf of the
general public, and recover all penalties and damages that
otherwise are reserved for the DLSE, the California DIR, or the
Labor Commissioner of the State of California.

Jhos Logistics is a licensed and bonded freight shipping and
trucking company running freight hauling business from Garden
Grove, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gary R. Carlin, Esq.
          Brent S. Buchsbaum, Esq.
          Laurel N. Haag, Esq.
          Ana L. De La Torre, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF CARLIN & BUCHSBAUM, LLP
          555 East Ocean Blvd., Suite 818
          Long Beach, CA 90802
          Telephone: (562) 432 8933
          Facsimile: (562) 435 1656
          E-mail: gary@carlinbuchsbaum.com
                  brent@carlinbuchsbaum.com
                  laurel@carlinbuchsbaum.com
                  ana@carlinbuchsbaum.com


JMJ INC: Fails to Pay Unpaid Wages, "Chapman" Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------
GEORGIA CHAPMAN and KRYSTAL HUNTER, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. OFF DUTY
OFFICERS, INC., a California Corporation, JMJ INCORPORATED, a
California Corporation; and METROSERVICES, INC. a California
Corporation, and DOES 1 through 25, the Defendants, Case No.
BC691787 (Cal. Super. Ct., Jan. 25, 2018), seeks to recover
unpaid wages under the California Labor Code.

The Plaintiffs allege that during the Class Period, Defendants
employed Plaintiffs and the rest of the Class as hourly non-
exempt employees. The Plaintiffs allege that Defendants adopted
and maintained uniform policies, practices and procedures
governing the working conditions of, and payment of wages to,
Plaintiffs and the rest of the Class. These uniform policies,
practices and procedures violated California's labor laws and
constituted unfair, fraudulent or illegal business practices
under Business & Professions Code.

Off Duty Officers, Inc., excels in tailoring specific security
details for every possible security requirement.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Aaron C. Gundzik, Esq.
          Rebecca G. Gundzik, Esq.
          GARTENBERG GELFAND HAYTON LLP
          15260 Ventura Blvd., Suite 1920
          Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
          Telephone: (213) 542 2100
          Facsimile: (213) 542 2101

               - and -

          Marshall A. Caskey, Esq.
          Daniel M. Holzman, Esq.
          N. Cory Barari, Esq.
          CASKEY & HOLZMAN
          24025 Park Sorrento, Ste. 400
          Calabasas, CA 91302
          Telephone: (818) 657 1070
          Facsimile: (818) 297 1775


KEMPER CASUALTY: Bid to Dismiss First Amended "Bhasker" Denied
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, HELEN BHASKER, Plaintiff, v. KEMPER CASUALTY
INSURANCE COMPANY; UNITRIN SPECIALTY FINANCIAL INDEMNITY COMPANY;
FINANCIAL INDEMNITY COMPANY; ELITE FINANCIAL INSURANCE and NOELIA
LUNA SUCET, Defendant, Case No. CIV 17-0260JB/JHR (D. N.M.),
Judge James O. Browning of the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Mexico denied the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss
First Amended Complaint and Memorandum of Law in Support ("MTD").

Bhasker contends that based on the information provided by the
Defendant, she agreed to pay a six-month premium for the State of
New Mexico mandated minimum automobile bodily injury and
uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage.  According to Bhasker,
her insurance policy features: (i) liability coverage on one
vehicle for $25,000.00 per person and $50,000 per accident, per
vehicle; and (ii) underinsured coverage on one vehicle for
$25,000 per person and $50,000 per occurrence, per vehicle.

Bhasker avers that, on June 24, 2015, she was driving eastbound
on I-40 in Albuquerque, New Mexico, when another driver,
Stephanie Martinez, failed to stop for the traffic in front of
her vehicle and struck Bhasker's car in the rear, causing serious
bodily injuries and other damages.  She asserts that Martinez was
an underinsured motorist at the time of the collision as her
insurance policy and New Mexico law define the term.  Bhasker
contends that she received the full extent of liability coverage
carried by Ms. Martinez, which was $25,000.

Bhasker asserts that after the accident, Financial Indemnity
provided a certified copy of a document summarizing her policy.
She contends that the certified copy of the Policy Application
materially misrepresented the terms of its underinsured motorists
coverage and did not contain clear, unambiguous language
regarding the effects of New Mexico's underinsured coverage
offset laws.  Furthermore, Bhasker contends that the Policy
Application's language is deceptive and clearly ambiguous in that
it states that the applicant may purchase underinsured coverage
in excess of the bodily injury coverage limits, which is the
opposite of the legislative intent of N.M. Stat. Ann. Section 66-
5-301 and New Mexico case law.

Bhasker avers that, when she, through counsel, demanded Defendant
provide her with underinsured benefits that the Defendant
solicited and for which the Plaintiff paid a premium, Financial
Indemnity denied her claim for underinsured benefits.

Bhasker originally brought the case in the Second Judicial
District Court, County of Bernalillo, State of New Mexico.
Financial Indemnity removed the action to federal court on Feb.
24, 2017 pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act because it is
a putative class action with more than 100 putative class members
that seeks to recover more than $5,000,000.  One week later,
Financial Indemnity filed a Motion to Dismiss.

Bhasker asserts that she brings the action on her own behalf, and
on behalf of the many insured around the state who have been
deceived by Financial Indemnity's practices.  She contends that,
before the accident, she had properly paid a premium for
automobile coverage under the Financial Indemnity Company auto
insurance policy, and, therefore, had a reasonable expectation
that she carried underinsured motorist coverage for $25,000 each
person and $50,000 each accident.

Before the Court is the Defendant's MTD filed April 28, 2017.
The Court held a hearing on July 24, 2017.  The primary issues
are: (i) whether New Mexico's filed rate doctrine bars Bhasker's
negligence claims, claims under New Mexico's Unfair Practices Act
("UPA") violations, claims under New Mexico's Unfair Insurance
Practices Act ("UIPA"), and claims of breach of contract alleging
that Financial Indemnity sold her illusory underinsured motorist
insurance ("UIM"); (ii) whether, if New Mexico applies the filed
rate doctrine to consumer-protection claims against insurers,
Bhasker can seek premium-based damages, which depends on whether
Bhasker's UIM coverage was illusory; (iii) whether, if the UIM
coverage is not illusory, Bhasker's claims fail as a matter of
law, because the UIM coverage offers benefits in some situations;
and (iv) whether the voluntary payment doctrine bars Bhasker's
claims

Judge Browning concludes that: (i) the filed rate doctrine does
not bar Bhasker's claims, because the Supreme Court of New Mexico
would not apply the filed rate doctrine to claims against
insurers alleging unfair or deceptive business practices; (ii)
even if New Mexico applied the filed rate doctrine to those
claims, Bhasker and the proposed class could still seek premium-
based damages, because the Supreme Court of New Mexico would
determine that the UIM coverage was illusory in light of little
coverage it provides; (iii) even if the UIM coverage is not
illusory, Bhasker's claims may proceed, because they do not
require that the UIM coverage be illusory; and (iv) the voluntary
payment doctrine does not bar Bhasker's claims, because she
alleges that she did not know all the material facts.
Accordingly, the Judge denied the Defendant's MTD.

A few weeks later, Bhasker filed her Complaint on March 23, 2017.
In her Complaint, Bhasker argues that Financial Indemnity failed
to act honestly and in good faith when it solicited and sold
superfluous and illusory minimal limits underinsured motorist
coverage to their insureds (in whole or in part) in violation of
New Mexico law, and/or they denied claims for the benefits of
that coverage.  She contends that basically, there is no such
thing as minimum limits underinsured motorist coverage.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 10, 2018 Memorandum Opinion
and Order is available at https://is.gd/sEeB6F from Leagle.com.

Helen Bhasker, Plaintiff, represented by Adrian O. Vega, Will
Ferguson & Associates, Kedar Bhasker, Will Ferguson & Associates
& William Ferguson, Will Ferguson & Associates.

Financial Indemnity Company, Defendant, represented by Kerri Lee
Allensworth -- kallensworth@obrienlawoffice.com -- O'Brien &
Padilla, Alicia M. Santos -- asantos@obrienlawoffice.com --
O'Brien & Padilla, PC & Mark L. Hanover --
mark.hanover@dentons.com -- Dentons, pro hac vice.


KINDRED HEALTHCARE: March 1 "Cashon" Settlement Hearing
-------------------------------------------------------
In the case, VALERIE CASHON, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. KINDRED HEALTHCARE OPERATING,
INC., a Delaware Corporation; GENTIVA CERTIFIED HEALTHCARE CORP.,
a Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1 through 15 inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-04889 RS (N.D. Cal.), Judge Richard
Seeborg of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California continued the deadline for the Plaintiff to file her
motion for preliminary approval from Jan. 11, 2018 to Jan. 25,
2018; and set the hearing on the Plaintiff's motion for
preliminary approval for March 1, 2018 at 1:30 p.m.

On Nov. 19, 2017 the parties participated in mediation in the
action.  On Nov. 28, 2017, the Plaintiff filed a Notice of
Proposed Class Settlement and Request for Preliminary Approval
Hearing Date in which she informed the court of a proposed
settlement and sought a motion for preliminary approval of class
action settlement hearing date in late January 2018.

On Nov. 28, 2017, the Court issued an Order Staying Currently Set
Date and Setting Schedule for Preliminary Approval in which it
ordered the parties to file the motion for preliminary approval
by no later than Jan. 11, 2018 and set the hearing regarding
preliminary approval on Feb. 1, 2018 at 1:30 p.m.

The Parties have been and continue to work diligently to prepare
the long-form stipulation regarding class settlement but have not
yet finalized that agreement.  They need additional time to
finalize that agreement after which the motion for preliminary
approval can be filed and heard.  They believe that it would be
most efficient for the parties and the Court to continue by at
least two weeks the deadline and hearing regarding motion for
preliminary approval.

Therefore, the parties stipulated and agreed, and Judge Seeborg
approved, that the deadline for the Plaintiff to file her motion
for preliminary approval currently scheduled for Jan. 11, 2018
will be continued to Jan. 25, 2018; and that the hearing on the
Plaintiff's motion for preliminary approval currently scheduled
for Feb. 1, 2018 will be continued to Feb. 15, 2018 or the
Court's earliest available hearing date thereafter.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 10, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/wIYT4u from Leagle.com.

Valerie Cashon, Plaintiff, represented by Anthony Martin Perez,
Jr. -- aperez@perezlawoffices.com -- Perez Law Offices & Brendan
J. Begley -- bbegley@weintraub.com -- Weintraub Genshlea Chediak
& Charles L. Post -- cpost@weintraub.com -- Weintraub Tobin
Chediak Coleman Grodin.

Kindred Healthcare Operating Inc., et al., Defendants,
represented by Michael E. Brewer -- mbrewer@littler.com --
Littler Mendelson, P.C., Alison Jacquelyn Cubre --
acubre@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, P.C., Angelo Spinola --
aspinola@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, P.C. & Lisa Lin Garcia
-- llgarcia@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson.


KIRA SUSHI 2: "Zhao" Suit Seeks Minimum Wages & OT under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
Yi Xin Zhao, Cheng Bin Shang, Bing Wang, Zhi Qiang Wang, Teng
Zuo, individually and on behalf of all other employees similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Kira Sushi 2, LLC, Hsiang Ya Chiang,
Kira Zheng, Kevin "Hailong" Chen, and Jason Zheng, the
Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-00159 (D. Conn., Jan. 26, 2018),
seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages, overtime pay, liquidated
damages, declaratory relief, costs, interest and attorneys' fees
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs seek to prosecute their FLSA claims as a
collective action on behalf of all persons who are or were
formerly employed by Defendants since January 2015 to the entry
of judgment in this case, who were non-exempt employees within
the meaning of the FLSA and who were not paid wages for all hours
worked, minimum wages, and overtime compensation at rates not
less than one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for
hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          Jian Hang, Esq.
          HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC.
          136-20 38th Ave., Suite 10G
          Flushing, NY 11354
          Telephone: (718) 353 8588
          E-mail: jhang@hanglaw.com


LE BERNARDIN INC: Faces "Avery" Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Le Bernardin, Inc.
The case is styled as Kristin Avery, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Le Bernardin, Inc., Maguy
Le Coze and Eric Ripert, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-00626 (S.D
N.Y., January 24, 2018).

Le Bernardin, Inc. is engaged in the seafood restaurant
business.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


LELAND ENTERPRISES: Gilbert Seeks Unpaid OT Wages under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------
TRACI GILBERT, individually, and on behalf of others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. LELAND ENTERPRISES, INC., the
Defendant, Case No. 5:18-cv-00043-LJA (M.D. Ga., Jan. 31, 2018),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, and
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs as a result of Defendant's
alleged willful violations of the federal Fair Labor Standards
Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant violated the FLSA
overtime requirement, by improperly classifying its Assistant
Property Managers and Leasing Managers as salary-exempt employees
and paying them a fixed weekly salary without overtime
compensation for hours worked over 40 in a workweek. In addition,
Defendant unlawfully provided Assistant Property Managers and
Leasing Managers compensatory time off in lieu of overtime wages.
The substitution of compensatory time for cash wages by private-
sector employers is not expressly authorized by the FLSA.

Leland Enterprises, Inc. is a specialized apartment management
company based in Kissimmee, Florida, with clients throughout
Central Florida. Leland has been in business since 1989. Leland
is owned and operated by two Certified Public Accountants.
Accordingly, Leland's focus is on financial management and
reporting. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Roger W. Orlando, Esq.
          THE ORLANDO FIRM, P.C.
          315 West Ponce de Leon Avenue, Suite 400
          Decatur, GA 30030
          Telephone: (404) 373 1800
          Facsimile: (404) 373 6999
          E-mail: roger@OrlandoFirm.com

               - and -

          Jason T. Brown, Esq.
          Nicholas Conlon, Esq.
          JTB LAW GROUP, LLC
          155 2nd Street, Suite 4
          Jersey City, NJ 07302
          Telephone: (201) 630 0000
          Facsimile: (855) 582-5297
          E-mail: jtb@jtblawgroup.com
                  nicholasconlon@jtblawgroup.com


LIFE GENERATIONS: "Laigo" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
-------------------------------------------------
REUBEN JAMES LAIGO, Individually and on Behalf of all Other
Similarly Situated Employees, the Plaintiff, v. LIFE GENERATIONS
HEALTHCARE LLC, GHC OF PLEASANTON, LLC DBA PLEASANTON NURSING AND
REHABILITATION CENTER; GHC OF LA MESA, LLC DBA ARBOR HILLS
NURSING CENTER; GHC OF CANOGA PARK, LLC DBA CANYON OAKS NURSING
AND REHABILITATION CENTER; GHC OF NATIONAL CITY II, LLC DBA
CASTEL MANOR; GHC OF SUNNYVALE, LLC DBA CEDAR CREST NURSING AND
REHABILITATION CENTER; GHC OF MODESTO, LLC DBA ENGLISH OAKS
NURSING AND REHABILITATION CENTER; GHC OF NATIONAL CITY I, LLC
DBA FRIENDSHIP MANOR; GHC OF SAC-SNF, LLC DBA GRAMERY COURT
NURSING AND REHABILITATION CENTER; GHC OF UPLAND SNF, LLC DBA
HERITAGE PARK NURSING CENTER, GHC KEARNEY MESA, LLC DBA KEARNEY
MESA CONVALESCENT AND NURSING HOME; GHC OF LAKESIDE, LLC DBA
LAKESIDE SPECIAL CARE CENTER; and GHC OF LAKEVIEW TERRACE, LLC
DBA LAKEVIEW TERRACE SPECIAL CARE CENTER, et al., the Defendants,
Case No. RG18890341 (Cal. Super. Ct., Jan. 24, 2018), seeks
actual and compensatory damages, civil penalties, restitution and
equitable relief under California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the Defendants allegedly failed to
pay Plaintiffs overtime pay and failed to provide meal and rest
periods. The Plaintiffs were wrongfully denied wages and overtime
compensation, meal and rest breaks, and accurate wage statements.
The Defendants instructed Nursing Staff to falsely claim that
they had taken meal periods and rest periods or denied meal
periods altogether.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert S. Arns, Esq.
          Jonathan E. Davis, Esq.
          Kevin M. Osborne, Esq.
          Julie C. Erickson, Esq.
          THE ARNS LAW FIRM
          515 Folsom Street, 3rd Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 495 7800
          Facsimile: (415) 495 7888

               - and -

          Kathryn A. Stebner, Esq.
          George Kawamoto, Esq.
          STEBNER AND ASSOCIATES
          870 Market Street, Suite 1212
          San Francisco, CA 94102
          Telephone: (415) 362 9800
          Facsimile: (415) 362 9801


LITTLECITY REALTY: Faces "Tejada" Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Littlecity Realty
LLC. The case is styled as Altagracia Tejada, Eliberto Silva,
Newton Decampos, Ivana Vuksic, Ashley Marimon, Nicholas Lucci and
Susana Lopez, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. Littlecity Realty LLC, Littleboy Realty
LLC, Adel Eskander and Linda Eskander, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-
cv-00483-JBW-RML (E.D. N.Y., January 23, 2018).

Littlecity Realty LLC is engaged in real estate business.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

   Caroline Saucier, Esq.
   Cahill Gordon Reindel LLP
   80 Pine Street
   New York, NY 10005
   Tel: (212) 701-3357
   Email: csaucier@gmail.com

      - and -

   Celia Lee Belmonte, Esq.
   Cahill Goedon & Reindell LLP
   80 Pine Street
   New York, NY 10005
   Tel: (212) 701-3721
   Email: cbelmonte@cahill.com

      - and -

   Jennifer Levy, Esq.
   Legal Aid Society
   111 Livingston Street
   7th Flr.
   New York, NY 11201
   Tel: (718) 422-2891
   Email: jlevy@legal-aid.org

      - and -

   Judith A. Goldiner, Esq.
   Legal Aid Society
   111 Livingston Street
   7th Flr.
   New York, NY 11201
   Tel: (718) 422-2891
   Email: jgoldiner@legal-aid.org

      - and -

   Landis Cox Best, Esq.
   Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP
   80 Pine Street
   New York, NY 10005
   Tel: (212) 701-3694
   Fax: (212) 269-5420
   Email: lbest@cahill.com

      - and -

   Morenike Fajana, Esq.
   The Legal Aid Society
   111 Livingston St
   7th Floor
   Brooklyn, NY 11201
   Tel: (718) 422-2891
   Fax: (646) 304-4342
   Email: mfajana@legal-aid.org

      - and -

   Robert Raymond Desir, Jr., Esq.
   Legal Aid Society
   111 Livingston Street
   New York, NY 11201
   Tel: (718) 422-2891
   Email: rrdesir@legal-aid.org

      - and -

   Samantha Lawson, Esq.
   Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP
   80 Pine Street
   New York, NY 10005
   Tel: (212) 701-3728
   Fax: (212) 378-4474
   Email: slawson@cahill.com

      - and -

   Sunny Noh, Esq.
   The Legal Aid Society
   111 Livingston Street
   7th Flr.
   New York, NY 11201
   Tel: (718) 422-2891
   Email: snoh@nylag.org


MACY'S INC: Court Narrows Claims in "Haley" Suit
------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California issued an Order granting in part and denying in part
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the case captioned KRISTIN HALEY,
et al., Plaintiffs, v. MACY'S, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No.
15-cv-06033-HSG (N.D. Cal.).

This putative class action arises out of an alleged pricing
scheme by Defendant to mislabel its merchandise with false or
inflated original or regular prices to induce customers to
purchase on sale merchandise based on a perceived bargain.  Now
on the basis of these purchases, the plaintiff seeks to represent
a putative class of California consumers against Defendant,
alleging violations of the California Unfair Competition Law,
Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Sections 17200, (UCL); the California
False Advertising Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Sections 17500,
(FAL); and the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Cal. Civ.
Code Section 1750, (CLRA).

Defendant contends that Plaintiffs lack Article III standing and
that, accordingly, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction
over the action.

Defendant argues that none of the five Plaintiffs suffered any
injury-in-fact to support Article III standing.

Defendant first challenges the existence and nature of
Plaintiffs' alleged purchases from Defendant.

Defendant points out that Plaintiff Carder's receipt number
indicates that he returned some items for a full refund. However,
the receipt does not establish that he returned all the items he
purchased that day, and instead confirms that Plaintiff Carder
made purchases from Defendant. That the receipt purchases are not
identical to the allegations in the complaint does not undermine
Plaintiffs' injury-in-fact showing at this stage. Critically,
Plaintiffs' theory in this case is that Defendant's misleading
pricing practices were widespread and consistent, and permeated
every item Plaintiffs purchased.

Defendant attacks the merits of Plaintiffs' case by stating that
at least some of the items Plaintiffs purchased were sold at the
original or regular price before and after Plaintiffs'
transactions. This argument, and Mr. Lavender's affidavit in
support thereof, is at best conclusory, and in any event, too
intertwined or intermeshed with the merits of this case to
support a motion to dismiss at this stage in the litigation.
The key factual dispute in this case is whether Defendant's
original or regular prices were false or misleading, and the
Court declines to determine that ultimate merits question at this
time.

Defendant further argues that several Plaintiffs were not
actually deceived because they had knowledge of Defendant's
pricing practices before they made their purchases.

Defendant's only evidence about Plaintiff Haley's knowledge is
that she purchased an ornament from Macy's four days before
filing this action. Although suggestive, this does not establish
that she had knowledge of Defendant's pricing practices. And
Defendant's argument that Plaintiff Farhang was anticipating
litigation because she documented her purchase is similarly
misplaced. Consumers may research and document their purchases
and compare with other items without anticipating litigation or
having knowledge of the pricing practices at issue in this case.
The Court notes that nothing in this order prohibits Defendant
from raising a standing argument later in the litigation
following discovery and the identification of relevant evidence.

Defendant further contends that Plaintiffs lack standing because
their alleged injuries would not be redressed by a favorable
decision.

Defendant states that Plaintiffs are not at risk of being
deceived in the future. After briefing on this motion was
completed, the Ninth Circuit issued its opinion in Davidson v.
Kimberly-Clark Corp., 873 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2017),
deciding the district court split regarding whether injunctive
relief is available to previously deceived consumers in false
advertising cases.

Davidson involved the advertising and sale of pre-moistened wipes
that the plaintiff alleged were falsely marketed as flushable.
The Ninth Circuit reasoned that some set of circumstances must
exist in which injunctive relief is available to a consumer who
learns that a label is false after purchasing a product.

Accordingly, it reversed the district court's dismissal of the
injunctive relief claims, finding that the plaintiff had properly
alleged that she faces a threat of imminent or actual harm by not
being able to rely on the defendant's labels in the future, and
that this harm is sufficient to confer standing to seek
injunctive relief.

In light of Davidson, the Court finds that Plaintiffs'
allegations that absent an injunction they cannot rely on
Defendant's advertisements in future are sufficient to allege
standing to seek injunctive relief.

Defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction is denied.

Defendant states that, as with Plaintiffs' prior complaint, the
ACC does not identify the products that Plaintiffs Vinci and
Carder purchased from Macy's with sufficient particularity.
With the inclusion of Plaintiff Carder's receipt number, the
Court finds that Plaintiffs have supplied sufficient detail about
his transactions for Defendant to identify and defend against
them. However, as discussed above, Plaintiff Vinci's receipt
number merely states that the register was put in ringer mode.
The receipt does not provide any detail about the sports clothing
item she purchased that day, or any other purchases she may have
made.

Plaintiffs suggest that information can be provided, if in fact,
Macy's does not actually have it. However, this ignores
Plaintiffs' burden at the pleading stage. Moreover, the Court has
already granted Plaintiffs an opportunity to amend their
complaint to add this information, and they have now failed to do
so for a second time.

Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have failed to
allege sufficient facts about Plaintiff Vinci's purchases for her
claims to survive Defendant's Rule 12(b)(6) motion.

Defendant next argues that Plaintiffs do not identify what false
or misleading statements they relied on when making their
purchases. The Court disagrees.

And in making her purchase, Plaintiff Farhang relied on in-store
signs that said merchandise was being offered at 'up to 70% off
the regular price and the price tag that stated the regular price
of the rug was $12,000. Looking at the ACC as a whole, the Court
finds that Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged which false and
misleading statements they relied on in making their purchases.

Accordingly, the Court denies the pending motion to dismiss for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction in its entirety, grants in
part the motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim as to
Plaintiff Vinci, and otherwise denies the motion.

A full-text copy of the District Court's December 21, 2017 Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/y9egy5es from Leagle.com.

Kristin Haley, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Rosemary M. Rivas --
rrivas@zlk.com -- Levi & Korsinsky LLP & Robert S. Green --
gnecf@classcounsel.com -- Green & Noblin, P.C..

Sylvia Thompson, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Erica Vinci, Zohreh Farhang & Mr. Job Carder,
Plaintiffs, represented by Robert S. Green, Green & Noblin, P.C..

Todd Benson, Plaintiff, represented by Rosemary M. Rivas, Levi &
Korsinsky LLP, Gordon M. Fauth, Jr. -- gmf@classlitigation.com --
Litigation Law Group, Quentin Alexandre Roberts --
qroberts@zlk.com -- Levi & Korsinsky LLP, Rosanne L. Mah --
rmah@finkelsteinthompson.com -- Finkelstein Thompson & Robert S.
Green , Green & Noblin, P.C..

Macy's, Inc. & Bloomingdale's, Inc., Defendants, represented by
Brian Michael Parsons, Macy's Law Department, 11 Penn PlazaNew
York, New York 10001(646), Stephanie Anne Sheridan --
ssheridan@steptoe.com -- Esq., Sedgwick LLP & Meegan Bay Brooks -
- mbrooks@steptoe.com -- Sedgwick LLP.


MDL 2695: Court Narrows Claims in Products Liability Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of New Mexico
issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order granting in part and
denying in part Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the case captioned
IN RE: SANTA FE NATURAL TOBACCO COMPANY MARKETING & SALES
PRACTICES AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, No. MD 16-2695
JB/LF. (D.N.M.).

Santa Fe Tobacco is a New Mexico corporation that sells Natural
American Spirit cigarettes and uniformly advertises them as
Natural and 100% Additive Free. Those same descriptors appear on
Natural American cigarettes' packaging. The twelve named
Plaintiffs believed that, based on those terms and others,
Natural American cigarettes were safer and healthier than other
cigarettes. Amended Complaint. Because of that belief, the
Plaintiffs purchased Natural American cigarettes at a premium
over other cigarettes.

Although labeled as additive free, the Defendants add menthol in
certain varieties of Natural American cigarettes. Natural
American cigarettes are also flue-cured, meaning that the
Defendants process the tobacco with heat to secure the sugars,
which synthetically lowers the cigarette smoke's pH6 and makes it
easier to inhale. The tobacco in the Defendants' cigarettes is
artificially blended and modified, much like other cigarettes in
the industry. Despite these alterations to the tobacco product,
the Natural American cigarettes are labeled Natural.

The Defendants move to dismiss all claims under rule 12(b)(6) of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Defendants marshal
these arguments in favor of full or partial dismissal:

   (i) the Consent Order preempts the Plaintiffs' claims;

  (ii) the First Amendment shields the Defendants from liability;

(iii) state statutory safe harbors protect the Defendants from
the Plaintiffs' unfair and deceptive practice claims;

  (iv) the unfair and deceptive practice claims fail, because the
Defendants' statements do not mislead a reasonable consumer;

   (v) the unjust-enrichment claims fail, because the Defendants'
cigarette advertising is not misleading;

  (vi) unjust-enrichment is improperly pled, because the
Plaintiffs either have a legal remedy or state law otherwise bars
the claims; and

(vii) the Defendants did not breach an express warranty.

THE CONSENT ORDER DOES NOT PREEMPT THE PLAINTFFS' CLAIMS PREMISED
ON THE SAFER-CIGARETTE THEORY.

The Defendants move to dismiss the Plaintiffs' claims, asserting
that federal law impliedly pre-empts the state-law claims
premised on the Safer-Cigarette Theory.

THE FCLAA DOES NOT EXPRESSLY PREEMPT THE PLAINTIFFS' CLAIMS,
BECAUSE THE PLAINTIFFS ALLEGE DECEPTION.

In ruling that the FCLAA does not preempt the plaintiffs' claims
arising from a false advertising allegation, the Supreme Court
derived a distinction between state laws premised on smoking and
health and those based upon fraudulent misrepresentations.
Unlike state-law obligations concerning the warning necessary to
render a product reasonably safe, state-law proscriptions on
intentional fraud rely on a single, uniform standard: falsity.
Thus, the FCLAA's express pre-emption clause] based on smoking
and health, fairly but narrowly construed does not encompass the
more general duty not to make fraudulent statements.

Here, the FCLAA does not expressly pre-empt the Plaintiffs'
claims, because their claims are premised on fraudulent
misrepresentations. Indeed, the Defendants, rightfully, do not
argue that the FCLAA expressly pre-empts the Plaintiffs' claims.

THE CONSENT ORDER DOES NOT IMPLIEDLY PREEMPT THE PLAINTIFFS'
CLAIMS.

The Consent Order also cannot pre-empt the Plaintiffs' Safer-
Cigarette Theory claims premised on the word organic. Contrary to
the Defendants' position that the Plaintiffs do not allege an
organic-premised claim the Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint alleges
that this misleading message is further reinforced through the
use of the term 'Organic' on many of the labels and
advertisements and each Count re-alleges and incorporates by
reference each preceding paragraph. The Defendants do not argue
that the Consent Order pre-empts such claims, but, instead
contend that USDA regulations pre-empts those claims.  The
Defendants specifically argue that their use of organic is
consistent with Organic Foods Product Act, (OFPA) regulations.
Consistency and pre-emption, however, are not equivalent
concepts.

The Court concludes that the legislative field implicated in this
analysis is the regulation of organic product marketing.
Construing claims that several companies deceptively labeled
their milk as organic, the United States Court of Appeals for the
Eighth Circuit recently considered whether the OFPA field pre-
empted those state-law claims.  Noting that the OFPA requires
states to seek approval from the USDA only if the State wishes to
operate an organic certification program the Eighth Circuit
determined that OFPA more modestly [than the Occupational Safety
and Health Act of 1970 contemplates a certification program
designed to effect national standards and to eliminate the pre-
existing havoc for the industry' caused by balkanized state
regulations and therefore OFPA's regulatory scheme is not so
pervasive as to suggest field pre-emption.

The Court concludes, accordingly, that that the plaintiffs'
organic-premised claims are not field pre-empted.

DECEPTIONS BASED ON THE PLAINTIFFS' SAFER-CIGARETTE AND MENTHOL
THEORIES MISLEAD A REASONABLE CONSUMER, BUT DECEPTIONS PREMISED
ON THE UNPROCESSED-CIGARETTE THEORY DO NOT.

In this case, a reasonable consumer knows that tobacco undergoes
engineering processes before it is sold in cigarettes. Such
awareness is clear from visually comparing a tobacco leaf to a
cigarette. In order to mislead a reasonable consumer, the
descriptor at issue must, thus, rebut the reasonable consumer's
background knowledge. The natural descriptor found on Natural
American cigarette's advertising and labeling is not enough to
negate a reasonable consumer's understanding that turning tobacco
into cigarettes requires processing, nor is it enough to suggest
that Natural American tobacco undergoes less processing than
other cigarette's tobacco.

Although conceivable that the natural term and the surrounding
American Indian imagery communicates to some consumers that
Natural American cigarette's tobacco is less processed than other
cigarette's tobacco, the Court concludes that a reasonable
consumer would not believe that Natural American tobacco is less
processed from the brand name alone.

THE FIRST AMENDMENT DEFENSE FAILS.

THE STATE ACTION DOCTRINE PRECLUDES THE DEFENDANTS' FIRST
AMENDMENT DEFENSE FOR THE PLAINTIFFS' CONTRACT-RELATED CLAIMS,
BECAUSE CONSENSUAL CONTRACTUAL RELATIONS DO NOT IMPLICATE STATE
ACTION.

Several United States Courts of Appeals have determined that
state action is also not implicated when a court adjudicates a
dispute between two parties that arises from a consensual
contractual relationship. In United Egg, United Egg Producers v.
Standard Brands, Inc., 44 F.3d 940, 943 (11th Cir. 1995), for
example, one private party to a settlement agreement challenged
the settlement agreement on First Amendment grounds.  The
Eleventh Circuit concluded that the state action doctrine barred
the First Amendment defense.

Although noting that Shelly v. Kraemer held that court
enforcement of an agreement between private parties can, in some
circumstances, be considered governmental action, the Eleventh
Circuit cabined that decision to the racial discrimination
context. It explained: That parties be able to enter into
enforceable settlement agreements as a means of ending
controversies is a good thing. And the Court, in the absence of
compelling authority, is slow to interfere with or to undercut
settlements of commercial disputes.

In sum, state action exists if the dispute is tort-related or if
the rights arise from a state statute, but does not exist if the
dispute arises from a contractual relationship or involves
common-law property rights, unless a non-judicial state actor is
involved or if racial discrimination is implicated. One way to
conceive of the state action test is to question whether consent
existed for the underlying private relationship at issue. If yes,
there is no state action. If no, state action exists.

With that test in mind, the state statutory claims implicate
state action. The unjust-enrichment claims also implicate state
action, because unjust enrichment arises from an absence of a
consensual contractual relationship. The express warranty claim,
however, arises from a consensual contractual relationship
consumer contracts so they do not implicate state action.
The First Amendment, therefore, is not a defense for the express
warranty claims.

THE STATE STATUTES' SAFE HARBORS, EXCEPT FOR ILLINOIS' DO NOT BAR
RELIEF.

CALIFORNIA'S SAFE HARBOR DOES NOT BAR RELIEF.

The Consent Order does not expressly authorize conduct; it states
only that the agency will not to bring an enforcement action. An
agreement not to enforce conveys, at best, a minimum level of
approval and, at worst, indifference. Moreover, a consent order
is far more fragile than express legislative authorization.
Agencies might disagree, as the FDA and FTC have in this case, or
the agency may later change its position for some other reason.
Accordingly, an agreement not enforce does not amount to
permission. This conclusion is in accord with other federal and
State Supreme Court cases. The Court concludes, thus, that the
UCL's, the CLRA's, and California's false advertising law's safe
harbors do not bar relief.

Colorado Law Does Not Bar Relief.

The Supreme Court of Colorado has ruled that, given the broad
remedial purpose of the CCPA, the safe harbor exempts only those
actions that are 'in compliance' with other laws and that conduct
amounting to deceptive or unfair trade practices, however, would
notppear to be in 'compliance' with other laws.

Florida Law Does Not Bar Relief.

FDUTPA does not apply to an act or practice required or
specifically permitted by federal or state law. The Supreme Court
of Florida has not interpreted the Safe Harbor's bounds. The
Court concludes that, if confronted with the issue, the Supreme
Court of Florida would rule that an agreement not to enforce does
not amount to specifically permitting conduct.

Massachusetts Law Does Not Bar Relief.

Mass. Gen. Laws. Ch. 93A has a safe harbor, which reads: Nothing
in this Chapter shall apply to transactions or actions otherwise
permitted under laws as administered by any regulatory board or
officer acting under statutory authority of the commonwealth of
the United States. In a factually similar case, the Supreme
Judicial Court of Massachusetts determined that an FTC consent
order only enjoined conduct and, therefore, the defendants point
to nothing approaching a showing that the FTC affirmatively
permitted the use of descriptors.

The Court concludes that the Supreme Judicial Court of
Massachusetts would rule similarly here.

THE PLAINTIFFS' NEW JERSEY AND OHIO UNJUST-ENRICHMENT CLAIMS
FAIL, BECAUSE THE PLAINTIFFS CANNOT PLEAD A REMUNERATION FOR THE
NEW JERSEY CLAIM AND THEY CANNOT PLEAD A DIRECT BENEFIT FOR THE
OHIO CLAIM.

THE PLAINTIFFS UNJUST-ENRICHMENT CLAIMS MAY BE PLED IN THE
ALTERNATIVE EVEN THOUGH AN ADEQUATE LEGAL REMEDY MAY EXIST UNDER
THE STATUTORY SCHEME.

There are two possible interpretations of the rule that an
adequate legal remedy bars equitable relief. First, it could mean
that, as part of providing a statutory, i.e., legal, remedy, the
state legislature displaced judge-made remedies like unjust
enrichment.  Second, it could mean that equitable relief is
unnecessary, because a legal claim exists, which makes pleading
equitable relief redundant. Regarding the first possible
interpretation, if a state legislature displaces all unjust
enrichment claims rooted in consumer deception, then such claims
will never survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a
claim; rule 8 would have no bearing on the analysis. Regarding
the second possible interpretation, however, if state rules
regarding the adequacy of remedies at law serve only to eliminate
duplicative pleading, then such state rules conflict with rule
8(d).

Applying rule 8(d) would grant the Plaintiffs a procedural right
that would be unavailable in state court, i.e., the right to
plead legal and equitable theories in the alternative. Granting
the Plaintiffs a procedural right does not violate the Rules
Enabling Act, which prohibits the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure from abridging, enlarging, or modifying substantive
rights. Allowing the Plaintiffs to plead in the alternative does
not create a new claim or permit double recovery, because, the
legal claim will either prove meritorious and the equitable claim
will be dismissed, or the legal claim will fail and the equitable
claim will proceed.

Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Consolidated Amended Complaint
and Incorporated Memorandum of Law are granted in part and denied
in part.

Accordingly, the Court dismisses with prejudice California Count
I (CLRA), California Count II (CFAL), California Count III (UCL),
Colorado Count I (CCPA), Florida Count I (FDUTPA), Illinois Count
I (ICFA), Illinois Count II (IUDTPA), Massachusetts Count I
(Mass. Gen. Law. 93A), Michigan Count I (MCFA), New Jersey Count
I (NJCFA), New Mexico Count I (NMUPA), New Mexico Count II
(NMFAL), New York Count I (N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law Section 349), New
York Count II (N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law Section 350), North Carolina
Count I (N.C. Gen. Stat. Section 75-1.1), Ohio Count I (OCSPA),
Ohio Count II (ODTPA), Washington Count I (WCPA) to the extent
that those counts are premised on a theory of deception that a
reasonable consumer would believe that the terms natural and
additive-free suggest that Natural American cigarettes are less
processed than other cigarettes.

The Court also dismisses with prejudice Illinois Count I (ICFA)
and Illinois Count II (IDUTPA) to the extent those claims are
premised on the theory that a reasonable consumer would believe
that the terms "additive-free" and "natural" in the Defendants'
advertising suggest that Natural American cigarettes are safer or
healthier; (v) dismisses with prejudice Illinois Count II
(IUDTPA) to the extent that it requests injunctive relief.

The Court further dismisses Ohio Count I (OSCPA) without
prejudice; dismisses with prejudice Ohio Count II (ODTPA), New
Jersey Count III (Unjust Enrichment), Ohio Count III (Unjust
Enrichment); and dismisses with prejudice the Nationwide Count I
(Express Warranty) to the extent that it is premised on Florida,
Illinois, and New York law.

A full-text copy of the District Court's December 21, 2017
Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/ydf9qblo from Leagle.com.

Jacques-Rene Hebert, Sara Benson, Carol Murphy, Francisco Chavez,
Joshua Horne, Albert Lopez & Abigail Emmons, on behalf of
themselves and all other similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
represented by Joel R. Rhine -- jrr@rhinelawfirm.com -- Rhine Law
Firm, P.C.


MDL 2800: "Tosco" Suit vs. Equifax Transferred to N.D. Georgia
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Chris Tosco and Mark Ashley,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, v. Equifax Inc., a Georgia corporation, the
Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-24136, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida, to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia (Atlanta) MDL
2800 on Jan. 25, 2018. The Northern District Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 1:18-cv-00365-TWT to the proceeding.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brett E. Von Borke, Esq.
          GROSSMAN ROTH, PA
          2525 Ponce de Leon, Suite 1150
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 442 8666
          Facsimile: (305) 285 1668
          E-mail: Vonborke@bucknermiles.com

               - and -

          Michael S. Olin, Esq.
          KOZYAK TROPIN & THROCKMORTON
          2525 Ponce de Leon Boulevard, 9th Floor, Suite 900
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 372 1800
          E-mail: molin@olinlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Seth Miles, Esq.
          David Marc Buckner, Esq.
          BUCKNER & MILES
          3350 Mary Street
          Miami, FL 33133
          Telephone: (305) 964 8003
          E-mail: seth@bucknermiles.com
                  David@bucknermiles.com


MERCHANTS BUILDING: Hernandez Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MARIO HERNANDEZ, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. MERCHANTS BUILDING MAINTENANCE, LLC,
a California limited liability company; and DOES 1 to 100,
inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. BC690688 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
Jan. 24, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid wages and interest for
Defendants' failure to provide legally complaint rest breaks
and/or pay rest break premium wages; failure to indemnify
employees for employment-related expenditures; 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 the California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and similarly situated
employees would work on workdays in shifts of more than 3.5 hours
which is long enough to entitle them to one rest break under
California law. Despite that California law requires employers to
provide employees with timely rest breaks, Defendants employed a
policy and procedure which failed to provide Plaintiff and class
members with first rest breaks. Defendants also failed to pay
employees one hour of pay at their regular rate of pay for each
workday Plaintiff and employees did not receive all legally
compliant rest breaks. The Defendants' failure to provide the
employees with rest breaks was in violation of Labor Code Section
226.7. The Defendants owe each of their hourly employees for
these unpaid rest break wages.

Merchants Building Maintenance, LLC provides janitorial and
window cleaning services to businesses and communities in the
United States. It offers day porter, carpet cleaning, hard
surface floor care, parking lot sweeping, and upholstery
cleaning.[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


METRO SECURITY: Smith Seeks Minimum Wage and OT Pay under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL SMITH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. METRO SECURITY, INC. and LLOYD
JARREAU, the Plaintiff, v. Case No. 2:18-cv-00953 (E.D. La., Jan.
31, 2018), seeks to recover minimum wage and overtime pay for
hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week under Fair Labor
Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and members of the
putative collective action class were hired by the defendants to
perform armed and unarmed security guard work for defendant Metro
Security. They were given the title "Post Supervisor," and paid a
salary by the defendants.

The Defendant required its Post Supervisors to work far in excess
of 40 hours per week. Plaintiff Smith at times worked shifts as
long as 18 hours. He was sometimes required to work as many as 7
days in a workweek. At his bi-weekly salary of $910.00, or
$455.00 per week, Plaintiff Smith's pay fell below the federal
minimum wage during any week in which he worked 63 or more hours,
and this occurred regularly. Plaintiff estimates he worked, on
average, 60 hours per week.

Metro Security Force is a Chicago, Illinois full service security
guard company. It provides security guard services and security
guards (armed and unarmed) for almost any need including retail,
industrial, residential and construction.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          James R. Bullman, Esq.
          Randall E. Estes, Esq.
          Daniel B. Davis, Esq.
          James R. Bullman, Esq.
          ESTES DAVIS LAW, LLC
          850 North Boulevard
          Baton Rouge, LA 70802
          Telephone: (225) 336-3394
          Facsimile: (225) 384-5419
          E-mail: james@estesdavislaw.com


MIDLAND FUNDING: "Battersby" Suit Moved to E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Richard A. Battersby, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Midland Credit Management, Inc., Midland Credit Management, Inc.,
and Midland Funding, LLC, Case No. 617044/2017, was removed from
the Suffolk County Supreme Court, to the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of New York (Central Islip). The District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:18-cv-00611 to the proceeding.

Midland Funding is one of the nation's biggest buyers of unpaid
debt. Midland Funding LLC purchases accounts with an unpaid
balance where consumers have gone at least 180 days without
making a payment, or paid less than the minimum monthly
payment.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

Attorneys for Defendants:

          Matthew B Corwin, Esq.
          HINSHAW & CULBERTSON, LLP
          800 Third Avenue, 13th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 471 6200
          Facsimile: (212) 935 1166
          E-mail: mcorwin@hinshawlaw.com


MITSIS BAKERY: Faces "Bonilla" Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mitsis Bakery Corp.
The case is styled Juan Campos Bonilla, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Mitsis Bakery
Corp. doing business as: Hot Tasty Bakery, John Doe Corp.
doing business as: Hot Tasty Bakery, Xiao Yue also known as:
Jennifer Yue, Jay Sessler and Mike Zarmakoupis, Defendants, Case
No. 1:18-cv-00453 (E.D. N.Y., January 22, 2018).

Mitsis Bakery Corp. is engaged in the bakery business.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


MONSANTO COMPANY: Hudson Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
------------------------------------------------------------
THURMAN HUDSON, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the
Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-00168 (E.D. Mo., Jan. 31, 2018),
seeks to recover damages suffered by Plaintiff as a direct and
proximate result of Defendant negligent and wrongful conduct in
connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing,
packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution,
labeling, and/or sale of herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the
active ingredient glyphosate.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff maintains that Roundup
(TM) and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health,
unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and
lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers
associated with its use. The Plaintiff's injuries, like those
striking thousands of similarly situated victims across the
country, were avoidable.

Monsanto Company is a publicly traded American multinational
agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation. It is
headquartered in Creve Coeur, Greater St. Louis, Missouri.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Seth S. Webb, Esq.
          BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C.
          211 North Broadway, Suite 1600
          St. Louis, MO 63102
          Telephone: (314) 222 2222
          Facsimile: (314) 421 0359
          E-mail: sethw@getbc.com


MONSANTO COMPANY: Tingle et al. Sue over Herbicide Roundup
----------------------------------------------------------
JERRY TINGLE, SCOTT BROOMFIELD, REGINA SLUGG, ROBERT GREGG, and
SARAH BARNARD, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the
Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-00154 (E.D. Mo., Jan. 31, 2018),
seeks to recover damages suffered by the Plaintiffs as a direct
and proximate result of Defendant's negligent and wrongful
conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture,
testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising,
distribution, labeling, and/or sale of herbicide Roundup (TM),
containing the active ingredient glyphosate.

The Plaintiffs maintain that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is
defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be
marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and
directions as to the dangers associated with its use. Plaintiffs'
injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly situated
victims across the country, were avoidable.

Monsanto Company is a publicly traded American multinational
agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation. It is
headquartered in Creve Coeur, Greater St. Louis, Missouri.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          D. Todd Mathews, Esq.
          GORI, JULIAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          156 N. Main St.
          Edwardsville, IL 62025
          Telephone: (618) 659 9833
          Facsimile: (618) 659 9834
          E-mail: todd@gorijulianlaw.com

               - and -

          Peter A. Miller, Esq.
          MILLER DELLAFERA PLC
          3420 Pump Rd., PMB 404
          Henrico, VA 23233
          Telephone: (800) 401 6670
          Facsimile: (888) 830 1488
          E-mail: pmiller@millerdellafera.com


MONSANTO COMPANY: Williams Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
--------------------------------------------------------------
CECIL AND ALICE WILLIAMS, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY,
the Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-00136 (E.D. Mo., Jan. 26, 2018),
seeks to recover damages suffered by Plaintiff as a direct and
proximate result of Defendant negligent and wrongful conduct in
connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing,
packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution,
labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing
the active ingredient glyphosate.

The Plaintiff maintains that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is
defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be
marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and
directions as to the dangers associated with its use. The
Plaintiff's injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly
situated victims across the country, were avoidable.

Monsanto Company is a publicly traded American multinational
agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation. It is
headquartered in Creve Coeur, Greater St. Louis, Missouri.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Seth S. Webb, Esq.
          BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C.
          211 North Broadway, Suite 1600
          St. Louis, MO 63102
          Telephone: (314) 222 2222
          Facsimile: (314) 421 0359
          E-mail: sethw@getbc.com


MONSANTO COMPANY: Wolfe Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
-----------------------------------------------------------
RICHARD and PHYLLIS WOLFE, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY,
the Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-00137 (E.D. Mo., Jan. 26, 2018),
seeks to recover damages suffered by Plaintiff as a direct and
proximate result of Defendant negligent and wrongful conduct in
connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing,
packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution,
labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing
the active ingredient glyphosate.

The Plaintiff maintains that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is
defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be
marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and
directions as to the dangers associated with its use. The
Plaintiff's injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly
situated victims across the country, were avoidable.

Monsanto Company is a publicly traded American multinational
agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation. It is
headquartered in Creve Coeur, Greater St. Louis, Missouri.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Seth S. Webb, Esq.
          BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C.
          211 North Broadway, Suite 1600
          St. Louis, MO 63102
          Telephone: (314) 222 2222
          Facsimile: (314) 421 0359
          E-mail: sethw@getbc.com


MONSANTO COMPANY: Whites Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
-----------------------------------------------------------
ANDRE and LISA WHITE, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the
Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-00126 (E.D. Mo., Jan. 25, 2018),
seeks to recover damages suffered by Plaintiff as a direct and
proximate result of Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in
connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing,
packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution,
labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing
the active ingredient glyphosate.

The Plaintiff maintains that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is
defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be
marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and
directions as to the dangers associated with its use. The
Plaintiff's injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly
situated victims across the country, were avoidable.

Monsanto Company is a publicly traded American multinational
agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation. It is
headquartered in Creve Coeur, Greater St. Louis, Missouri.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Seth S. Webb, Esq.
          BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C.
          211 North Broadway, Suite 1600
          St. Louis, MO 63102
          Telephone: (314) 222 2222
          Facsimile: (314) 421 0359
          E-mail: sethw@getbc.com


MORTGAGE CAPITAL: Fails to Refund Loan Officers Costs, Leong Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LELA LEONG, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. MORTGAGE CAPITAL PARTNERS, INC.;
16 and DOES 1-50, the Defendant, Case No. BC691964 (Cal. Super.
Ct., Jan. 26, 2018), seeks reimbursement for business expenses,
interest, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, and restitution
under the California Labor Code.

The Plaintiff and similarly situated outside salespersons
employed by Defendant during the Class Period are salesperson who
paid out-of-pocket business expenses reasonably necessary for the
performance of their jobs as Mortgage Loan Officers employed by
Defendant, for which Plaintiff and Class Members have not
received reimbursement from Defendant.

According to the complaint, the Defendant expects its Mortgage
Loan Officers to spend much of their work time away from MCP's
offices or Class Members' home offices. Plaintiff and similarly
situated Mortgage Loan Officers are expected to pay, and have
personally paid, expenses incurred operating their personal
vehicles and using their personal cell phones. Defendant has
willfully failed and refused to timely and fully reimburse
Plaintiff and other present and former Mortgage Loan Officers for
these business expenses that were incurred in the regular course
of their duties as Defendant's outside sales employees, as
required by Labor Code.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeremy F. Bollinger, Esq.
          Dennis F. Moss, Esq.
          Ari E. Moss, Esq.
          MOSS BOLLINGER LLP
          15300 Ventura Blvd., Ste. 207
          Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
          Telephone: (310) 982 2984
          Facsimile: (818) 963 5954
          E-mail: jeremy@mossbollinger.com
                  dennis@mossbollinger.com
                  ari@mossbollinger.com


MOXLEY & ASSOCIATES: Faces "Williams" Suit in S.D. Alabama
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Moxley &
Associates, LLC. The case is styled as Carita Williams,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Moxley & Associates, LLC and Midland Funding, LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-00028 (S.D Ala., January 24, 2018).

Moxley & Associates, LLC, formerly known as Holloway & Moxley,
LLP has been a staple in the financial services industry since
1997.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   David Schoen, Esq.
   2800 Zelda Road, Suite 100-6
   Montgomery, AL 36106
   Tel: (334) 395-6611
   Fax: (917) 591-7586
   Email: DSchoen593@aol.com


MRI INT'L: Feb. 9 Deadline to File Approval Bid in "Takiguchi"
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SHIGE TAKIGUCHI, FUMI NONAKA, MITSUAKI TAKITA,
TATSURO SAKAI, SHIZUKO ISHIMORI, YUKO NAKAMURA, MASAAKI MORIYA,
HATSUNE HATANO, and HIDENAO TAKAMA, individually and on behalf of
all others similarity situated, Plaintiff, v. MRI INTERNATIONAL,
INC., EDWIN J. FUJINAGA, JUNZO SUZUKI, PAUL MUSASHI SUZUKI, LVT,
INC., dba STERLING ESCROW, and DOES 1-500, Defendants, Case No.
2:13-cv-01183-HDM-NJK (D. Nev.), Judge Howard D. McKibben of the
U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada has entered an
order providing for a 30-day continuance of the deadline to file
a motion for preliminary approval to Feb. 9, 2018.

On Nov.17, 2017 the Court ordered Parties to file a motion for
preliminary approval of class action settlement no later than
Dec. 11, 2017.  The Parties reached a settlement in principle in
September 2017 and have exchanged drafts of the Class Action
Settlement Agreement.

On Nov. 17, 2017 Mr. Fujinaga raised, for the first time, his
concern that, since a receiver has been appointed by the Court in
the parallel U.S Securities and Exchange Commission's action
against MRI and himself (SEC v. MRI International, Inc.), he
believed that he may not be authorized to enter into any
settlement on behalf of MRI or himself.

On Nov. 18, 2017, the Court appointed receiver in the SEC Action,
Robb Evans & Associates, confirmed its belief to the Plaintiff's
counsel that Mr. Fujinaga was not authorized to enter into a
settlement agreement with Plaintiffs and directed that the
Plaintiffs send a copy of the Class Action Settlement Agreement
to the receiver's counsel, Lynch Law Practice.  On Nov. 30, 2017,
the Receiver declined to enter into the Class Action Settlement
Agreement because he did not believe that the settlement would
benefit the receivership estate.

On Nov. 30, 2017, and Dec. 7, 2017, the Plaintiffs' counsel met
and conferred with Receiver's counsel, Michael Lynch, Esq.,
explaining that the order appointing receiver specifically
includes a carve-out provision exempting the present action from
the Receiver's control and that, in any event, the settlement is
in the best interest of all parties, including the receivership
estate.  The Receiver maintains its position that he is unable to
authorize the settlement absent direction from the Court.

On Dec. 15, 2017, the Parties filed a joint motion in the SEC
Action requesting direction from the Court, either that the
Receiver lacks authority to direct the settlement in the action,
or that Judge Mahan order the Receiver to enter into the Class
Action Settlement Agreement.  On Jan. 8, 2018, the Parties filed
a reply conveying the Court's strong belief that it is in the
best interest of all the parties for Judge Mahan to approve the
settlement.

Judge Mahan has not yet ruled on the joint motion and it is the
Parties' second request for a continuance.  Therefore, they
jointly move that the Court enter an order providing for a 30-day
continuance of the deadline to file a motion for preliminary
approval to Feb. 9, 2018.  Judge McKibben approved.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 10, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/yduZcP from Leagle.com.

Shige Takiguchi, Fumi Nonaka, Kaoruko Koizumi, Tatsuro Sakai &
Mitsuaki Takita, Plaintiffs, represented by James Edwin Gibbons -
- jeg@manningllp.com -- Manning & Kass Ellrod, Ramirez, Trester
LLP, James R. Olson, Olson, Cannon, Gormley, Angulo & Stoberski,
Mariko Taenaka, Law Offices of Robert W. Cohen, Robert W. Cohen,
Law Offices of Robert W. Cohen, APC & Steven Jeff Renick --
sjrnull@nullmanningllp.com -- Manning & Kass, Ellrod, Ramirez,
Trester LLP.

Shizuuko Ishimori, Yoko Hatano, Yuko Nakamura, Hidehito Miura,
Yoshiko Tazaki, Masaaki Moriya, Hatsune Hatano, Satoru Moriya,
Hidenao Takama, Shigeru Kurisu, Saka Ono, Kazuhiro Matsumoto,
Kaya Hatanaka, Hiroka Yamajiri, Kiyoharu Yamamoto, Junko
Yamamoto, Koichi Inoue, Akiko Naruse, Toshimasa Nomura & Ritsu
Yurikusa, Plaintiffs, represented by James Edwin Gibbons, Manning
& Kass Ellrod, Ramirez, Trester LLP, James R. Olson, Olson,
Cannon, Gormley, Angulo & Stoberski, Mariko Taenaka, Law Offices
of Robert W. Cohen, Robert W. Cohen, Law Offices of Robert W.
Cohen, APC & Steven Jeff Renick, Manning & Kass, Ellrod, Ramirez,
Trester LLP, pro hac vice.

MRI International, Inc. & Edwin J Fujinaga, Defendants,
represented by Daniel L. Hitzke, Hitzke & Associates & Erick M.
Ferran.

Junzo Suzuki, Defendant, represented by Jeffrey A. Silvestri --
jsilvestri@mcdonaldcarano.com -- McDonald Carano Wilson, Nicolas
Morgan -- nicolasmorgan@paulhastings.com -- Paul Hastings LLP,
pro hac vice & Paul J. Georgeson -- pgeorgeson@mcdonaldcarano.com
-- McDonald Carano Wilson LLP.

ICAG, INC., Defendant, represented by Jacob A. Reynolds --
jreynolds@hutchlegal.com -- Hutchison & Steffen, Mark A.
Hutchison -- mhutchison@hutchlegal.com -- Hutchison & Steffen,
LLC & Robert T. Stewart -- rstewart@hutchlegal.com -- Hutchison &
Steffen, LLC.

First Hawaiian Bank, Defendant, represented by Christopher R.
Ramos -- cramos@vedderprice.com -- Vedder Price (CA), LLP, pro
hac vice, Rex Garner -- rex.garner@akerman.com -- Akerman LLP,
Ariel E. Stern -- ariel.stern@akerman.com -- Akerman LLP, Lisa M.
Simonetti -- lsimonetti@vedderprice.com -- Vedder Price, LLP.

Suzuki Enterprises, Inc. Profit Sharing Plan, Defendant,
represented by Gregg D. Zucker -- gregg@foundationlaw.com --
Foundation Law Group & Robert A. Rabbat --
rrabbat@enensteinlaw.com -- Enenstein Ribakoff LaVina & Pham.

Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert, Interested Party, represented by
Paul D. Alston -- PAlston@ahfi.com -- Alston Hunt Floyd & Ing,
Albert G. Marquis -- amarquis@maclaw.com -- Marquis & Aurbach,
Candice Renka -- crenka@maclaw.com -- Marquis & Aurbach &
Nickolas A. Kacprowski -- NKacprowski@ahfi.com -- Alston Hunt
Floyd & Ing.

Mary Luszczyk, Material Witness, represented by Mark S.
Dzarnoski, Gordan & Silver, Ltd.


NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Court Narrows Claims in "Smith" FDCPA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Ohio, Eastern Division, issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order
granting in part Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the case captioned
PETER L. SMITH, Plaintiffs, v. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 1:17 CV 1483 (N.D. Cal.).

Plaintiff claims that in his case, the amounts he owed were
improperly inflated by the addition of inspection and late fees.
He argues that the fees assessed by the Defendants were improper
and unwarranted, and that their imposition violated several state
and federal laws, as well as Ohio common law principles.

Count One alleges a claim under the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act (FDCPA); Count Three asserts claims under the Fair
Credit Reporting Act (FCRA); and, Count Six request relief under
the Federal RICO statute, 18 U.S.C. Section 1961.

Plaintiff claims that Nationstar violated 15 U.S.C. Section 1692e
by falsely representing the character, amount, or legal status of
debt, among other things, including, without limitation, attempt
to and/or collecting upon an unlawful debt. He also claims, among
other things, that Defendants violated the FDCPA by continuing to
collect a debt or any disputed portion thereof after failure to
properly respond to Plaintiff's verification request.

To the extent that the general allegations in the Complaint could
be read to suggest that the underlying default amount was also in
error, any such claim is not pled with sufficient particularity
to withstand a dismissal on the pleadings. Although the Complaint
lists payments requested and payments made, there is no
allegation that the requested payments were incorrect based on
the amount of principal, interest, and escrow owed. Escrow
amounts can vary year to year and month to month and are based on
projections of future amounts owed.

Therefore, even if they did result in an over or under payment on
occasion, this does not mean that the amounts charged were not
legal or proper, and the Court will read no such inference into
the Complaint. Plaintiff has not specifically alleged any
misleading or improper charges other than the inspection fees
already addressed above. For all of these reasons, Plaintiff has
failed to sufficiently allege any violation of the FDCPA
occurring within the statute of limitations period.

Plaintiff's Fair Credit Reporting claim is based on his
allegation that Nationstar reported failed to follow reasonable
procedures to ensure the accuracy of information it reported, and
consequently gave derogatory and inaccurate statements and
information relating to him and his finances to third party
credit reporting bureaus, all in violation of 15 U.S.C. Section
1681e(b). Section 1681(e) states that whenever a consumer
reporting agency prepares a consumer report it shall follow
reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of the
information concerning the individual about whom the report
relates.

Although not specifically cited in the Complaint, the factual
allegations in the Complaint would qualify Nationstar as a
furnisher of information under the FCRA, making them liable under
15 U.S.C. Section 1681s-2(a). This Section of the FCRA, however,
is not enforceable by a private cause of action. There is a
private cause of action for failing to conduct an investigation
to identify errors in a credit report once notified by a consumer
reporting agency of a dispute, however Plaintiff's Complaint
makes no allegation that Nationstar was notified of a dispute, or
that they failed to investigate one. Consequently, Plaintiff's
Complaint fails to sufficiently state a claim against Nationstar
under the FCRA.

The Court finds that Plaintiff's Complaint also fails to
sufficiently allege that either Nationstar or Solutionstar were
part of a RICO enterprise with the third-party vendors who
conducted the inspections at issue. There is no allegation that
the third-party vendors had anything other than a routine
business relationship with these Defendants. There is no hint of
a special relationship between any of the vendors and the
Defendants, nor that the Defendants needed to use specific
vendors in order to accomplish their alleged scheme.

The Complaint does not assert that the vendor's connection to the
Defendants, or to the Plaintiff's alleged harms are anything
other than fortuitous. There is no allegation that the vendors
committed fraud or engaged in other improper behavior, nor that
they were aware of or participated in any of the allegedly
improper decisions and activities complained of by Plaintiff.
Therefore, the Complaint fails to state a claim for RICO
violations because it does not adequately allege an enterprise
under the RICO statute.

Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is granted in part. Counts One,
Three, and Six are dismissed with prejudice.

A full-text copy of the District Court's December 21, 2017
Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/y88vttgu from Leagle.com.

Peter L. Smith, Plaintiff, represented by Thomas J. Connick --
tconnick@connicklawllc.com -- Connick Law.

Nationstar Mortgage, Defendant, represented by D. Kyle Deak --
kyle.deak@troutman.com -- Troutman Sanders & Stephen A. Weigand,
Faruki Ireland Cox Rhinehart & Dusing, 201 E. Fifth Street, Suite
1420, Cincinnati, OH 45202

Nationstar Mortgage LLC, Defendant, represented by D. Kyle Deak,
Troutman Sanders & Stephen A. Weigand, Faruki Ireland Cox
Rhinehart & Dusing.

Solutionstar, Defendant, represented by D. Kyle Deak, Troutman
Sanders & Stephen A. Weigand, Faruki Ireland Cox Rhinehart &
Dusing.


NAZARI ASSOCIATES: "Rivas" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Work
----------------------------------------------------------
ROMULO RIVAS, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. NAZARI ASSOCIATES VI LLC, a Florida Limited
Liability Company, GAS DORAL MANAGEMENT LLC, a Florida Limited
Liability Company, and EFRAIM SARAGOVIA, individually, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-20356-KMW (S.D. Fla., Jan. 29,
2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated
damages, costs and reasonable attorneys' fees under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants failed to pay time and one-
half wages for all of the hours he worked in excess of 40 hours
per week for Defendants between approximately in numerous work
weeks during the three-year statute of limitations period January
2015 and October 2016 as required by the Fair Labor Standards
Act.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


NORTHSTAR LOCATIONS: Faces "Quinn" Suit in East. Dist. New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Northstar Locations
Services, LLC. The case is styled as Chana R. Quinn, on behalf of
herself and all other similarly situated consumers, Plaintiff v.
Northstar Locations Services, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-
00487 (E.D. N.Y., January 23, 2018).

Northstar Location Services, LLC, doing business as The Northstar
Companies, provides receivables debt collection services to
customers in the United States, Canada, and internationally.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


OCEAN STATE: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss "Stewart" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Judge Janet C. Hall of the U.S. District Court for the District
of Connecticut granted Ocean State's motion to dismiss the case,
KEVIN STEWART on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. OCEAN STATE JOBBERS, INC., ET AL.,
Defendants, Civil Action No. 3:17-CV-1266 (JCH) (D. Conn.).

The case comes before the Court pursuant to a putative class
action Complaint filed by Stewart on July 28, 2017.  Stewart
alleges that the Ocean State sold Duracell batteries that were
intended for the Asian market in its stores in the northeastern
United States.  On the basis of these allegations, Stewart
alleges violations of consumer protection statutes in New York,
Rhode Island, Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts,
Connecticut, and New Jersey.

On Sept. 11, 2017, Ocean State filed a Motion to Dismiss pursuant
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), arguing that, with
respect to the New York consumer protection claims, Stewart has
failed to adequately allege that the packaging in question was
materially misleading, or that he was materially misled by it.
It further argues that Stewart lacks standing to bring claims
pursuant to the consumer protection statutes of Rhode Island,
Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and
New Jersey.  In the alternative, Ocean State moved for a more
definite statement pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(e).

Stewart also argues that the batteries were so inexpensive that
they must have been inferior.  Judge Hall finds that this
argument is hard to reconcile with Stewart's allegations in both
his Complaint and his Response to the Motion to Dismiss that he
"paid a premium" to Ocean State for the Duracell batteries.  Even
assuming the inexpensive nature of the batteries supports the
argument that they are inferior, however, the Complaint is devoid
of any assertions about the price of the batteries except that
Stewart paid a "premium price" for them, which hardly indicates
that the batteries were so cheap that they must have been
inferior.

Because Stewart failed to allege that the batteries were "steeply
discounted" in his Complaint, the Judge cannot rely on that
argument for the purposes of ruling on the Motion to Dismiss.
Therefore, the Judge will grant Ocean State's Motion to Dismiss
with respect to Stewart's New York law claims.  Stewart may
replead these claims within 30 days.

With respect to Stewart's claims pursuant to the laws of Rhode
Island, Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts,
Connecticut, or New Jersey, Judge Hall finds that Stewart has not
alleged that he suffered an injury-in-fact in Rhode Island,
Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, or New
Jersey, because he did not purchase Duracell batteries intended
for the Asian market in those states.  Thus, he has failed to
plead that he has standing to bring claims under the consumer
protection statutes of those states.

In addition, the Judge finds that that Stewart intends to seek
class certification at some point during the lawsuit does not
relieve him of the burden of pleading facts that show he has
standing with respect to all claims in his Complaint.  Because
Stewart fails to meet that burden at this time, the claims under
Rhode Island, Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts,
Connecticut, and New Jersey law must be dismissed.

For the reasons described, Judge Hall granted Ocean State's
Motion to Dismiss in its entirety.  In light of this ruling, the
Judge denied Ocean State's alternative Motion for a More Definite
Statement.  Stewart may replead within 21 days of the date of the
ruling.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 10, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/Bt10IX from Leagle.com.

Kevin Stewart, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Jeffrey I. Carton --
jcarton@denleacarton.com -- Denlea & Carton LLP & Robert J. Berg
-- rberg@denleacarton.com -- Denlea & Carton LLP, pro hac vice.

Ocean State Jobbers, Inc., doing business as Ocean State Job Lot,
Defendant, represented by Howard P. Goldberg --
hgoldberg@mgmlaw.com -- Manion Gaynor & Manning, LLP, pro hac
vice, Shauna R. Twohig -- stwohig@mgmlaw.com -- Manion Gaynor &
Manning, LLP, pro hac vice & Kenneth R. Costa --
kcosta@mgmlaw.com -- Manion Gaynor & Manning LLP.


P&B CAPITAL: Thomas Sues over Debt Collections Practices
--------------------------------------------------------
Mary Thomas, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. P&B Capital Group, LLC, Crown Asset
Management, LLC, John Does 1-25, the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-
00165 (W.D.N.Y., Jan. 31, 2018), seeks to recover damages and
declaratory and injunctive relief under the Fair Debt Collections
Practices Act.

According to the complaint, some time prior to February 2, 2017,
an obligation was allegedly incurred to Synchrony Bank. The
Synchrony Bank obligation arose out of transactions in which
money, property, insurance or services, which are the subject of
the transaction, are primarily for personal, family or household
purposes, specifically a personal credit card. The alleged
obligation is a "debt" as defined by 15 U.S.C. section 1692a(5).
Due to her financial constraints, Plaintiff could not pay the
alleged debt, and it went into default. Sometime thereafter, the
debt was acquired by Defendant Crown Asset. Defendant Crown Asset
is a "debt collector" as defined in 15 U.S.C. section 1692a(6) of
the FDCPA.

The Defendant Crown Asset, a subsequent owner of the Synchrony
Bank debt, contracted the Defendant P & B to collect the alleged
debt. Defendant P & B collects and attempts to collect debts
incurred or alleged to have been incurred for personal, family or
household purposes on behalf of creditors using the United States
Postal Services, telephone and internet. The Defendant P & B is a
"debt collector" as defined in 15 U.S.C. section 1692a(6) of the
FDCPA.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel Kohn, Esq.
          RC Law Group, PLLC
          285 Passaic Street
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Telephone: (201) 282 6500
          Facsimile: (201) 282 6501


PABCOR MANAGEMENT: Carey & Hudson Sue over Chicago Rental Rules
---------------------------------------------------------------
DUANE CAREY and BOBBIE HUDSON, Individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. PABCOR MANAGEMENT,
LLC, PABCOR EQUITIES INC., 6633 N. SHERIDAN ROAD, LLC and CHICAGO
TITLE LAND TRUST COMPANY, as Trustee under Trust Agreement dated
April 17, 1980 and known as Trust Number 2417, the Defendants,
Case No. 2018-CH-01380 (Ill. Cir., Cook County, Jan. 31, 2018),
seeks to recover damages from Defendants for violating the City
of Chicago Residential Landlord and Tenant Ordinance.

The Defendants allegedly failed to (i) disclose the name and
address of the financial institution into which Plaintiffs' and
the class' security deposits were deposited in the manner
required by 5-l 2-080(a)(3) of the RLTO, (ii) give the Plaintiffs
and the class a security deposit receipt in the manner provided
by Section 5-12-0SO(b) of the RLTO at the time of receiving a
security deposit payment, and (iii) failed to attach to
Plaintiffs' and the class' written rental agreements the RLTO
summaries required by Section 5-12-170 of the RLTO.

Pabcor Management, LLC is in the management services
business.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrev Sobek, Esq.
          JS LAW
          29 E. Madison Street, Suite 1000
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone (312) 756-1330
          E-mail: jeffs@jsslawoffices.com


PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS: Opposes "Rabin" Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------
PricewaterhouseCoopers tells the Honorable Jon S. Tigar he should
decline to conditionally certify a class of job applicants aged
40 and over who allegedly were denied employment based on their
age.  Emily Nicklin, Esq., at Kirkland & Ellis LLP, representing
the global auditing and consulting firm in Rabin v. PwC, Case No.
3:16-cv-02276-JST (N.D. Cal.), tells Judge Tigar he should deny
the certification request for three reasons:

     (A) Plaintiffs fail to show there exists any "decision,
policy, or plan" to discriminate that similarly affects members
of the proposed collective.  Many of the activities they cite are
plainly lawful.  As for the other alleged activities, Plaintiffs
lack any supporting evidence, and no amount of lawyer argument
can substitute for the required facts.

     (B) The proposed collective fails because it includes
facially unqualified applicants, whom PwC rejected in its
screening process before meeting them or otherwise receiving
information about their age, which PwC does not collect as part
of the application process.

     (C) The proposed collective fails because it includes non-
applicants.  In this regard, Plaintiffs fail to show that PwC
deterred anyone, let alone anyone qualified who was age 40 or
over, from applying; that the named Plaintiffs, both of whom were
serial applicants to PwC, are similarly situated to non-
applicants; that any company-wide "decision, policy, or plan"
exists that had a similar effect across the non-applicants; or
that it was "futile" for candidates age 40 and over to apply to
Covered Positions.

A copy PwC's response is available at no charge at:

   http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=vXAG1okp

PwC is represented by:

     Emily Nicklin, Esq.
     Gabor Balassa, Esq.
     Christina Briesacher, Esq.
     Mark Premo-Hopkins, Esq.
     KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
     300 North LaSalle
     Chicago, IL 60654
     Telephone: (312) 862-2000
     E-mail: emily.nicklin@kirkland.com
             gabor.balassa@kirkland.com
             christina.briesacher@kirkland.com
             mark.premohopkins@kirkland.com


PROFESSIONAL BUREAU: Vallot Sues over Debt Collections Practices
----------------------------------------------------------------
LEE VALLOT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. PROFESSIONAL BUREAU OF COLLECTIONS OF
MARYLAND, INC., CASCADE RECEIVABLES MANAGEMENT, LLC and John Does
1-25, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-00236 (D. Colo., Jan. 31,
2018), seeks to recover damages, declaratory and injunctive
relief under the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act.

According to the complaint, some time prior to February 1, 2017,
an obligation was allegedly incurred to Schumacher Medical. The
obligation arose out of a transaction involving a medical debt
incurred by Plaintiff with Schumacher Medical in which money,
property, insurance or services, which are the subject of the
transaction, are primarily for personal, family or household
purposes. Sometime thereafter, the Schumacher Medical debt was
assigned or sold to Defendant Cascade Receivables Management.

The alleged Cascade Receivables Management obligation is a "debt"
as defined by 15 U.S.C. section 1692a(5).  Defendant Cascade
Receivables Management contracted the Defendant to collect the
alleged debt.  PBCM collects and attempts to collect debts
incurred or alleged to have been incurred for personal, family or
household purposes on behalf of creditors using the United States
Postal Services, telephone and internet.

PBCM provides account recovery and collections services for first
party and third party collections, and servicing of performing
portfolios.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yaakov Saks, Esq.
          RC LAW GROUP, PLLC
          285 Passaic Street
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Telephone: (201) 282 6500
          Facsimile: (201) 282 6501
          E-mail: ysaks@rclawgroup.com


PROPHET MANASSEH: "Person" Suit Seeks OT Wages under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------
ALYSE PERSON and other similarly situated individuals, the
Plaintiff(s), v. PROPHET MANASSEH JORDAN MINISTRIES and PROPHET
YAKIM MANASSEH JORDAN, individually, the Defendants, Case No.
1:18-cv-20352-FAM (S.D. Fla., Jan. 29, 2018), seeks to recover
money damages for unpaid overtime wages pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff regularly worked
overtime hours without being paid proper compensation. Defendants
failed to pay Plaintiff at the rate of one half her regular rate
of time. The Plaintiff maintained a regular work schedule. During
the period of March 10, 2015 to September 15, 2017 Plaintiff
worked from 9:30 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. (9 hours daily) or 45 hours
per week. The Plaintiff received no bona fide lunch break. The
Defendants did not keep any time keeping method and did not keep
track of the hours worked by Plaintiff. The Plaintiff worked in
excess of 40 hours per week period however did not receive any
additional compensation for overtime hours.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Oscar Andres Gomez, Esq.
          EPGD ATTORNEYS AT LAW, P.A.
          2701 Ponce de Leon Blvd., Ste. 202
          Coral Gables, Florida 33134
          Telephone: (786) 837 6787
          Facsimile: (305) 718 0687
          E-mail: oscar@epgdlaw.com


PROTECT AMERICA: Wieseler-Myers Sues over Robocalls
---------------------------------------------------
CATHERINE WIESELER-MYERS, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. PROTECT AMERICA, INC., a
Texas corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-00255-MJW (D.
Colo., Jan. 31, 2018), seeks to recover damages for Defendant's
unlawful practice of sending Plaintiff and putative Class Members
text (SMS) messages and pre-recorded phone calls without her
consent, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant, routinely and as a
matter of practice, sends unconsented text messages and places
pre-recorded phone calls to mobile phone numbers across the
country to solicit customers for its home security business.
Defendant does not obtain consent to place these calls and send
these messages via an Automated Telephone Dialer System ("ATDS")
and fails to make the required disclosures under the TCPA.

Protect America is a home security company based in Austin,
Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Aschenbrener, Esq.
          KAMBERLAW, LLC
          201 Milwaukee Street, Suite 200
          Denver, CO 80206
          Telephone: (212) 920 3072
          E-mail: masch@kamberlaw.com


PVK INC: Faces "Jocelyn" Suit in Eastern District New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against PVK, Inc. The case
is styled as Cindy Jocelyn, on behalf of herself and others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PVK, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:18-cv-00427 (E.D. N.Y., January 22, 2018).

PVK, Inc. develops, markets, and sells food products under the
"Scarpetta" brand name throughout the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


R. GROSS DAIRY: "Nunez" Suit Seeks Minimum Wage & OT under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case, NESTOR GONZALEZ NUNEZ, NESTOR SANCHEZ, DANIEL VENTURA,
and JOSE MANUEL JIMENEZ MENDIOLA, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. R. GROSS DAIRY
KOSHER RESTAURANT INC. (D/B/A MR. BROADWAY), YUVAL ZARAI, and
MOTI ZILBER, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-00861 (S.D.N.Y.,
Jan. 31, 2018), seeks to recover minimum wage and overtime
compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York
Labor Law.

The Plaintiffs are former employees of Defendants.  The
Defendants own, operate, or control a kosher restaurant, located
at 1372 Broadway, New York, New York 10018 under the name "Mr.
Broadway". The Plaintiffs were employed as delivery workers. They
were required to spend a considerable part of their work day
performing non-tipped duties, including but not limited to
preparing food, dishwashing, stocking the refrigerator with
drinks, cutting meat, vegetables and fruits, preparing salads,
preparing ground beef, cooking, filling bags with pickles and
garnishes, bringing up food for the cooks, helping in the
kitchen, and serving food.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs worked for Defendants
in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage,
overtime, and spread of hours compensation for the hours that
they worked. Rather, Defendants failed to maintain accurate
recordkeeping of the hours worked, failed to pay Plaintiffs
appropriately for any hours worked, either at the straight rate
of pay or for any additional overtime premium. Further,
Defendants failed to pay Plaintiffs the required "spread of
hours" pay for any day in which they had to work over 10 hours a
day.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
          New York, New York 10165
          Telephone: (212) 317 1200
          Facsimile: (212) 317 1620


RITE AID: Court Dismisses FCRA Claims in "Moore"
------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania issued a Memorandum granting Defendant's Motion to
Dismiss the case captioned KYRA MOORE, on behalf of herself and
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. RITE AID HDQTRS CORP.,
doing business as "RITE AID CORPORATION," Defendant, Civil Action
No. 13-1515 (E.D. Pa.).  Alternative Motion for Summary Judgment
and Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification is both denied as
moot.

Following her conversation with Rite Aid, plaintiff received an
Adverse Action Notice exactly five business days after the date
of the Pre-Adverse Action Notice stating that she had not been
hired for the position.  Plaintiff contends she was rejected for
employment solely as a result of her being classified 'Non-
Competitive' by Rite Aid's agent LexisNexis. After receiving the
Adverse Action Notice, plaintiff also initiated a dispute with
LexisNexis, which eventually removed her adverse record from the
Esteem database.

The Class Action Complaint set forth one count against Rite Aid
on behalf of a putative class for violation of 15 U.S.C. Section
1681b(b)(3) of the FCRA, which requires that any person using a
consumer report for employment purposes who intends to take any
adverse action based in whole or in part on the report against an
applicant for employment must provide the applicant with a copy
of the report and a description in writing of the consumers
rights, as prescribed in 15 U.S.C. Section 1681g(c)(3), before
taking such adverse action.

Rite Aid styles its Motion as a Motion to Dismiss Under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) or, in the Alternative, for
Summary Judgment. Two types of challenges to a court's
jurisdiction may be made under Rule 12(b)(1). A facial attack
under Rule 12(b)(1) challenges subject matter jurisdiction
without disputing the facts alleged in the complaint, and it
requires the court to 'consider the allegations of the complaint
as true.

Rite Aid argues that despite its failure to wait the full five
days as set forth in the Pre-Adverse Action Notice, plaintiff
contacted Rite Aid within the five-day period, provided
additional information to support her application, and was able
to take advantage of her full procedural rights under the FCRA.

In order for a federal court to have jurisdiction over a claim,
the plaintiff must have standing under Article III of the United
States Constitution. Standing under Article III requires that (1)
the plaintiff have suffered an 'injury in fact' an invasion of a
legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and
particularized, and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or
hypothetical; (2) there must be a causal connection between the
injury and the conduct complained of, i.e. the injury must be
fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant; and
(3) it must be likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that the
injury will be redressed by a favorable decision.

In this case, however, Rite Aid challenges the standing of the
named plaintiff, not the class; the issue of class certification
is consequently not logically antecedent to the question of
standing. Thus, this Court considers standing under Article III
before addressing class certification issues under Rule 23.

Plaintiff alleges that Rite Aid has violated her rights under the
Fair Credit Reporting Act by willfully violating 15 U.S.C.
Section 1681b(b)(3)(A) of the FCRA.  In this case, plaintiff
argues that her harm is closely related to long-established
causes of action for failure to provide statutorily mandated
information. Plaintiff contends that Rite Aid's mailing of the
Adverse Action Notice before the expiration of the five days
referenced in the Pre-Adverse Action Notice constituted a well-
founded informational injury. According to plaintiff, this
informational injury deprived her of the traditional right to be
confronted with the charges against [her] and tell [her] side of
the story.

Plaintiff's argument is misplaced. The harm suffered by plaintiff
in this case does not have a "close relationship" to traditional
causes of action for deprivation of statutorily mandated
information. Unlike in Horizon Healthcare Services and Stokes,
plaintiff in this case received the information required by
Section  1681b(b)(3) and was not deprived of access to her
background report. She not only received the Pre-Adverse Action
Notice but was able to use it to contact Rite Aid and present her
version of events. The alleged harm in this case consequently was
nothing more than a "bare procedural violation." Spokeo, 136
S.Ct. at 1550. As the Supreme Court pointed out in Spokeo, not
all "informational" injuries are concrete, and simply labeling
the injury "informational" does not suffice. Id. at 1550.

The harms suffered in both of those cases prevented the
plaintiffs from exercising their statutory rights. In the case,
however, plaintiff received the Pre-Adverse Action Notice and was
able to contact Rite Aid to discuss her termination at CVS and
seek reconsideration of her application. Plaintiff's rights
guaranteed by the FCRA were not harmed by Rite Aid's conduct,
and, consequently, her harm was not the type elevated by Congress
to the status of a concrete injury through the FCRA.

The Court now turns to plaintiff's second theory of liability
that Rite Aid may be held liable under Section 1681b(b)(3)(A) for
the conduct of its agent, LexisNexis, in its adjudication of
applications prior to mailing the Pre-Adverse Action Notices.
This Court concludes that Pennsylvania state law is controlling,
plaintiff has released Rite Aid through the release of its agent,
LexisNexis, and thus, plaintiff has not suffered a concrete harm
caused by LexisNexis for which Rite Aid is responsible.

This Court rejects plaintiff's argument. Only rarely will federal
common law displace state law in a suit between private parties.
The guiding principle in displacing state law is that there must
be some significant conflict between some federal policy or
interest and the use of state law, which must be specifically
shown. Conflict with federal policies cannot be shown by the mere
presence of a federal statute. Plaintiff in this case has not
shown a significant conflict between the federal policies
embodied in the FCRA and the application of state contract law.

The settlement agreement with LexisNexis provides for the
application of Pennsylvania law. Thus, this Court will enforce
the choice of law provision in the settlement agreement with
LexisNexis and look to Pennsylvania law in construing the
agreement.

Plaintiff also argues that Mamalis is inapplicable to a situation
where a principal and an agent have independently harmed the
plaintiff. Plaintiff disputes that this case is about
adjudications by LexisNexis, to the exclusion of adjudications
made by Rite Aid. She contends that Rite Aid retained control
over the content and timing of the mailing" of the Pre-Adverse
and Adverse Action Notices and may be held liable for that
conduct, regardless of its agency relationship with LexisNexis.
Mamalis itself recognizes that a principal may be held directly
liable for its own conduct.

However, this Court has already concluded that plaintiff did not
suffer a concrete injury a result of Rite Aid's direct conduct,
and consequently, plaintiff does not have standing to pursue
those claims. Thus, plaintiff's contentions regarding Rite Aid's
direct liability are not relevant to this issue.  Plaintiff's
remaining claims rest on the fact that Rite Aid acted through its
agent, and under Pennsylvania law, where plaintiff has released
the agent, she has also released the principal for that same
conduct.

In this case, named plaintiff Kyra Moore has developed the
factual record over the four years of this litigation. She has
likewise had multiple opportunities to refine her argument,
including through the filing of the Amended Complaint, the Motion
for Class Certification, and in her Response to the Motion to
Dismiss, or in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment. Most
importantly, it is difficult to see what further development
named plaintiff might offer regarding her individual standing to
bring the claims in Count I of the Amended Complaint. She cannot
now plead that she was unable to contact Rite Aid to present her
side of the story or that she did not settle with Rite Aid's
agent, LexisNexis. Amendment would be futile with respect to
named plaintiff's individual claims. Consequently, named
plaintiff's individual claims under 15 U.S.C. Section 1681b(b)(3)
are dismissed with prejudice.

The members of the putative class, however, may not have been
able to exercise their rights under the FCRA because of Rite
Aid's alleged failure to adhere to the five-day notice provision
in the Pre-Adverse Action Notice. Likewise, the members of the
putative class may not have settled their claims against
LexisNexis and thereby released Rite Aid as LexisNexis's
principal. Thus, amendment of the Amended Complaint would not be
futile with respect to the claims of the putative class, and
those claims are dismissed without prejudice.

Rite Aid's Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, for Summary
Judgment is granted to the extent it seeks dismissal of the
claims under 15 U.S.C. Section 1681b(b)(3) in Count I of the
First Amended Class Action Complaint.

A full-text copy of the District Court's December 21, 2017
Memorandum is available at https://tinyurl.com/y9c463to from
Leagle.com.

KYRA MOORE, ON BEHALF OF HERSELF AND OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
Plaintiff, represented by DAVID A. SEARLES --
dsearles@consumerlawfirm.com -- FRANCIS & MAILMAN, P.C., LEONARD
A. BENNETT -- lenbennett@clalegal.com -- CONSUMER LITIGATION
ASSOCIATES PC, IRV ACKELSBERG -- iackelsberg@langergrogan.com --
LANGER GROGAN & DIVER PC,JOHN SOUMILAS --
jsoumilas@consumerlawfirm.com -- FRANCIS & MAILMAN,P.C., NADIA
HEWKA , COMMUNITY LEGAL SERVICES, 1424 Chestnut St. Philadelphia,
PA 19102, SHARON M. DIETRICH -- sdietrich&clSphila.or --
COMMUNITY LEGAL SERVICES, INC. & JAMES A. FRANCIS --
jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com -- FRANCIS & MAILMAN, PC.
RITE AID HDQTRS CORP., doing business as RITE AID CORPORATION,
Defendant, represented by JONATHAN D. WETCHLER --
jwetchler@duanemorris.com -- DUANE MORRIS LLP, ALISON C. MORRIS -
- ACMorris@duanemorris.com -- DUANE MORRIS LLP,CAROLINE AUSTIN --
caustin@duanemorris.com -- DUANE MORRIS LLP, CHARLOTTE E. THOMAS
-- cthomas@duanemorris.com -- DUANE MORRIS LLP, DANA B. KLINGES -
- dklinges@duanemorris.com -- DUANE MORRIS LLP, ODERAH C. NWAEZE
-- ONwaeze@duanemorris.com -- DUANE MORRIS LLP & SEAN ZABANEH --
SSZabaneh@duanemorris.com -- DUANE MORRIS LLP.


SANOFI AVENTIS: Court Dismisses Amended Lantus Antitrust Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned In re LANTUS DIRECT PURCHASER ANTITRUST
LITIGATION, Civil Action No. 16-12652-JGD (D. Mass.), Magistrate
Judge Judith Gail Dein of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts granted the Defendant's Motion to
Dismiss and dismissed the Plaintiffs' Amended Class Action
Complaint without prejudice.

Plaintiffs, FWK Holdings, LLC and Cesar Castillo, Inc., are
purchasers of the insulin glargine products Lantus and Lantus
SoloSTAR, which are used in the treatment of Type I and Type II
diabetes.  They have brought a purported class action on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated against Sanofi,
the manufacturer of both products, alleging that Sanofi
improperly delayed the entry into the market of a competitive
product manufactured by Eli Lilly and Co.

In their Amended Class Action Complaint, the Plaintiffs assert
two claims under Section 2 of the Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. Section
2) -- one for monopolization and one for attempted
monopolization.  It is the Plaintiffs' contention that Sanofi
prolonged its monopoly for insulin glargine by (1) improperly
listing six patents in the U.S. Federal Drug Administration's
Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations
("Orange Book"); and (2) pursuing sham litigation against Lilly
in which Sanofi asserted claims of patent infringement, allegedly
without any basis.  The litigation was settled by Sanofi and
Lilly shortly before trial.

The matter is before the Court on the Defendant's Motion to
Dismiss Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).  Sanofi argues that
the Court should dismiss both counts of the Amended Complaint
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure
to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

Magistrate Judge Dein finds that Sanofi's interpretation of the
listing requirements was reasonable.  The Plaintiffs have pled no
other facts that lead to the conclusion that Sanofi knew or
should have known that its listing of the '864 patent was
incorrect.  Therefore, the Sherman Act claims, insofar as they
rely on the improper Orange Book listing of the '864 patent, are
dismissed.

In addition, the fact that the underlying litigation was heavily
contested, while not conclusive, also weighs against a finding
that the litigation was a sham.  The settlement in Sanofi I,
while not dispositive, further shows that the underlying suit did
not lack any merit. In light of the Plaintiffs' failure to
establish that the litigation was objectively baseless, the
Magistrate Judge needs not address the second prong of the sham
litigation test.  Accordingly, the Plaintiffs' antitrust claims
based on a contention of sham litigation are dismissed.

Finally, in light of her conclusion that the litigation
concerning the '864 patent was not a sham litigation, the
Magistrate Judge holds that the remainder of the claims of the
Amended Complaint relating to the other Sanofi patents must be
dismissed.  Since Sanofi was entitled to bring its patent
litigation against Lilly due to the '864 patent, Sanofi was
entitled to the 30-month delay in Lilly's entry into the market.
She therefore dismisses those claims as there is no plausible
argument for causation.

For these reasons, Magistrate Judge Dein concludes that the
Plaintiffs have failed to allege sufficient facts to support a
finding of antitrust liability against Sanofi for listing patents
in the Orange Book unreasonably, or for engaging in sham
litigation with Lilly.  Accordingly, she granted the Defendant's
Motion and dismissed without prejudice the Amended Complaint.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 10, 2018 Memorandum is
available at https://is.gd/cPoTkB from Leagle.com.

Cesar Castillo, Inc., on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Consolidated Plaintiff, represented by
Bradley J. Demuth -- bdemuth@nussbaumpc.com -- Nussbaum Law
Group, P.C., pro hac vice, Kristie A. LaSalle --
kristiel@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Linda P.
Nussbaum -- lnussbaum@nussbaumpc.com -- Nussbaum Law Group, P.C.,
pro hac vice & Thomas M. Sobol -- tom@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP.

FWK Holdings LLC, on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by David P. Germaine --
dgermaine@vaneklaw.com -- Vanek Vickers & Masini PC, pro hac
vice, John P. Bjork -- jbjork@vaneklaw.com -- Vanek Vickers &
Masini PC, pro hac vice, Joseph M. Vanek -- jvanek@vaneklaw.com -
- VANEK, VICKERS & MASINI, P.C., pro hac vice, Thomas M. Sobol,
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP & Kristie A. LaSalle, Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP.

Sanofi-Aventis U.S., LLC, Defendant, represented by Alisha M.
Crovetto -- acrovetto@jonesday.com -- Jones Day, pro hac vice,
Julia E. McEvoy -- jmcevoy@jonesday.com -- Jones Day, pro hac
vice, Laura Diss Gradel -- lgradel@jonesday.com -- Jones Day &
Rosanna K. McCalips -- rkmccalips@jonesday.com -- Jones Day, pro
hac vice.


SCHREIBERCOHEN LLC: Reyes Sues over Debt Collections Practices
--------------------------------------------------------------
Icela Reyes, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Schreiber/Cohen, LLC, Midland
Funding, LLC, and John Does 1-25, the Defendants, Case No. 3:18-
cv-00152 (D. Conn., Jan. 25, 2018), seeks damages and declaratory
and injunctive relief under the Fair Debt Collections Practices
Act.

According to the complaint, some time prior to July 3, 2017, an
obligation was allegedly incurred to Synchrony Bank. The
Synchrony Bank obligation arose out of transactions in which
money, property, insurance or services, which are the subject of
the transaction, are primarily for personal, family or household
purposes.

The alleged Synchrony Bank obligation is a "debt" as defined by
15 U.S.C. section 1692a(5). Due to her financial constraints,
Plaintiff could not pay the alleged debt, and it went into
default. Sometime thereafter, as per the collection letter the
debt was "assigned" to Defendant Midland Funding. Defendant
Midland Funding is a "debt collector" as defined in 15 U.S.C.
section 1692a(6) of the FDCPA. Defendant Midland Funding, a
subsequent owner of the Synchrony Bank debt, contracted the
Defendant Schreiber/Cohen to collect the alleged debt.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Yaakov Saks, Esq.
          RC LAW GROUP, PLLC
          285 Passaic Street
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Telephone: (201) 282 6500
          Facsimile: (201) 282 6501


SIDECAR BAR & GRILLE: Faces "Cuenca" Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sidecar Bar &
Grille Inc. d/b/a Sidecar Bar & Grill. The case is styled as
Carlos Moina Cuenca, on behalf of himself and other similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Sidecar Bar & Grille Inc. d/b/a Sidecar
Bar & Grill and James B Decoursy, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-
00506 (E.D N.Y., January 24, 2018).

Sidecar Bar & Grille Inc. operates in the restaurant
industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


SNYDER'S-LANCE INC: Shaev Seeks to Enjoin Merger with Campbell
--------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID B. SHAEV PROFIT SHARING ACCOUNT, Individually and on Behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. SNYDER'S-
LANCE, INC., JEFFREY A. ATKINS, PETER P. BRUBAKER, C. PETER
CARLUCCI, JR., JOHN E. DENTON, BRIAN J. DRISCOLL, LAWRENCE V.
JACKSON, JAMES W. JOHNSTON, DAVID C. MORAN, DAN C. SWANDER,
ISAIAH TIDWELL, AND PATRICIA A. WAREHIME, the Defendants, Case
No. 3:18-cv-00039 (W.D.N.C., Jan. 25, 2018), seeks to enjoin
Defendants from holding a stockholder vote on a Proposed
Transaction and taking any steps to consummate the Proposed
Transaction unless and until material information is disclosed to
Snyder's-Lance's stockholders sufficiently in advance of the vote
on the Proposed Transaction or, in the event the Proposed
Transaction is consummated, to recover damages resulting from the
Defendants' violations of the Exchange.

The case is a class action brought by Plaintiff on behalf of
itself and the other ordinary shareholders of Snyder's-Lance,
Inc., except Defendants and their affiliates, against Snyder's-
Lance and the members Snyder's-Lance's board of directors for
their violations of Section 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and SEC Rule 14a-9, 17 C.F.R. 240.Proxy-9,
in connection with the proposed merger between Snyder's-Lance and
Campbell Soup Company through a merger transaction.

On December 18, 2017, Snyder's-Lance and Campbell issued a joint
press release announcing that they had entered into an Agreement
and Plan of Merger by and among the Snyder's-Lance, Campbell, and
Twist Merger Sub, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Campbell
("Merger Sub"). Pursuant to the Merger Agreement, Campbell will
acquire Snyder's-Lance through the merger of Merger Sub with and
into Snyder's-Lance, with Snyder's-Lance surviving the merger and
becoming a wholly owned subsidiary of Campbell.

Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, Snyder's-Lance
stockholders will receive $50.00 per share in cash in exchange
for each share of Snyder's-Lance common stock that they own. The
Merger Consideration and the process by which Defendants agreed
to consummate the Proposed Transaction are fundamentally unfair
to Snyder's-Lance's public stockholders. In fact, the financial
analyses conducted by Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC, the Company's
financial advisor, illustrates that the value of the Company's
shares exceeds the Merger Consideration. For example, Goldman
Sachs' Illustrative Present Value of Future Share Price Analyses
- EPS indicates a per share value range as high as $59.20, which
illustrates that each share of Snyder's-Lance common stock has an
inherent premium of approximately 18% over the $50.00 Merger
Consideration.

On January 17, 2018, in order to convince Snyder's-Lance's
stockholders to vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction,
Defendants authorized the filing of a materially incomplete and
misleading Preliminary Proxy Statement on a Schedule 14A with the
SEC, in violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange
Act.

In particular, the Proxy contains materially incomplete and
misleading information concerning: (i) financial projections for
the Company; and (ii) the valuation analyses conducted by the
Goldman Sachs. The special meeting of Snyder's-Lance stockholders
to vote on the Proposed Transaction is forthcoming. It is
imperative that the material information that has been omitted
from the Proxy is disclosed to the Company's stockholders prior
to the forthcoming stockholder vote so that they can properly
exercise their corporate suffrage rights.

Snyder's-Lance, Inc. is the second largest salty snack maker in
the United States. It was formed by the 2010 merger of Lance and
Snyder's of Hanover.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel K. Bryson, Esq.
          Patrick M. Wallace
          WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON LLP
          900 W. Morgan Street
          Raleigh, NC 27603
          Telephone: (919) 600 5000
          E-mail: Dan@wbmllp.com
                  Pat@wbmllp.com

               - and -

          Gregory M. Nespole, Esq.
          Benjamin Kaufman, Esq.
          Gloria Kui Melwani, Esq.
          WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
          270 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 545 4600
          Facsimile: (212) 686 0114
          E-mail: gmn@whafh.com
                  Kaufman@whafh.com
                  Melwani@whafh.com

               - and -

          Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
          Miles D. Schreiner, Esq.
          MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
          The Empire State Building
          350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4405
          New York, NY 10118
          Telephone: (212) 971 1341
          Facsimile: (212) 202 7880
          E-mail: jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com
                  mschreiner@monteverdelaw.com


SPECIALTYCARE: Faces "Bosque" Class Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jorge Bosque, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. Specialtycare, Inc., Case No. 1:17-cv-24271-RNS (S.D. Fla.,
November 27, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for failure
to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Specialtycare, Inc. operates Hialeah Hospital located at 651 E.
25th Street, Hialeah, Florida 33013 in Miami-Dade County,
Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ST. THOMAS HEALTH: Faces "Ross" Suit in Middle District Tenn.
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against St. Thomas Health.
The case is styled as Maggie Ross, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. St. Thomas Health,
Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-00077 (M.D. Tenn., January 22, 2018).

Saint Thomas Health is an integrated health delivery system based
in Nashville, Tennessee.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Caraline E. Rickard, Esq.
   Jonathan L. Bobbitt, Esq.
   Gilbert McWherter Scott & Bobbitt PLC
   341 Cool Springs Boulevard, Suite 230
   Franklin, TN 37067
   Tel: (615) 354-1144
   Fax: (731) 664-1540
   Email: crickard@gilbertfirm.com

      - and -

   Justin S. Gilbert, Esq.
   Gilbert McWherter Scott Bobbitt PLC
   200 W Martin Luther King Boulevard, Suite 1067
   Chattanooga, TN 37402
   Tel: (423) 499-3044
   Fax: (731) 664-1540
   Email: jgilbert@gilbertfirm.com


SURFSIDE COFFEE: "Fernandez" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
KATIA VERA FERNANDEZ, For Herself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff(s), v. SURFSIDE COFFEE COMPANY LLC and
CHRISTOPHER MELLGREN, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-20305-KMW
(S.D. Fla., Jan. 25, 2018), seeks to recover overtime pay under
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants operate over 65 separate Dunkin Donuts retail
locations, making Defendants one of the largest Dunkin Donuts
franchisees in Florida. Defendants' retail coffee franchise deals
in the sale of coffee, food, and other goods and products, using
cooking machinery and appliances, food, produce, paper goods,
spices, oils, seasonings, computers, tablets, telephones,
telephone systems, internet routers, computer cabling, and credit
card processing machinery and services to engage in interstate
commerce.

The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of herself and other
similarly situated persons who work and who worked for Defendants
in Florida during the three years immediately preceding the
filing of the initial Complaint in this Cause through the date of
the rendition of a final judgment in this action as "Assistant
Managers".

According to the complaint, there are many similarly situated
current and former employees of Defendants who worked with the
title of "Assistant Manager" and were paid a salary with a
nondiscretionary bonus who also were underpaid in violation of
the FLSA, deprived of the overtime pay they earned, and would
benefit from the issuance of notice of their rights, the present
lawsuit, and their ability to join this lawsuit (without fear of
retaliation for affected current employees of Defendants).

The Defendants paid Plaintiff according to the same pay practice
that it applied to its other employees who, like Plaintiff, were
not paid for all of the time they worked for Defendants and who
were not paid overtime wages calculated at time and one-half
times their regular rate(s) of pay for all of the time worked as
a result of Defendants' paying them a salary and nondiscretionary
bonus without regard to the hours and/or overtime hours actually
worked.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian H. Pollock, Esq.
          Max L. Horowitz, Esq.
          FAIRLAW FIRM
          7300 North Kendall Drive, Suite 450
          Miami, FL 33156
          Telephone: (305) 230 4884
          Facsimile: (305) 230 4844
          E-mail: brian@fairlawattorney.com
                  max@fairlawattorney.com


SWAPP LAW: Loses Bid to Dismiss "Wilcox" DPPA Suit
--------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Washington issued an Order denying Motion to Dismiss in the case
captioned JADE WILCOX on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situation, Plaintiff, v. JAMES CRAIG SWAPP,
individually; and SWAPP LAW, PLLC, doing business as Craig Swapp
and Associates, Defendants, No. 2:17-CV-275-RMP (E.D. Wash.).

Plaintiff Jade Wilcox brought this putative class action lawsuit
against Defendants alleging that Defendants violated the Driver's
Privacy Protection Act (DPPA) by purchasing accident reports from
the Washington State Patrol (WSP) and using the information in
the accident reports to solicit legal business.

Ms. Wilcox alleges that Defendants violated the DPPA when they
purchased collision report information from the WSP for the
purpose of sending marketing materials.  Ms. Wilcox alleges that
Defendants purchased DPPA-protected collision report information
and that they did so knowingly.  Ms. Wilcox alleges that
Defendants possessed the knowledge required for establishing
liability under the DPPA.

She alleges four reasons to support her claim that Defendants
knew that they were obtaining personal information in violation
the DPPA when they purchased WSP collision reports.

Taking Ms. Wilcox's factual allegations that Defendants knowingly
purchased DPPA-protected information as true and the allegation
that the collision reports are populated, in part, or in whole,
with data collected by the DOL, the Court finds that Ms. Wilcox's
Complaint alleges sufficient factual content for the court to
draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for
the misconduct alleged.

Therefore, the Court denies Defendants' motion to dismiss for
failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.


A full-text copy of the District Court's December 21, 2017 Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/ybe4tone from Leagle.com.

Jade Wilcox, on behalf of herself, and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by James Richard Sweetser,
Sweetser Law Office, 1020 N Washington St Ste 1. Spokane, WA
99201-2237, Jason M. Leviton jason@blockesq.com -- Block &
Leviton LLP, pro hac vice, Robert Joseph Barton joe@blockesq.com
-- Block & Leviton LLP, pro hac vice, Thomas G. Jarrard , Law
Office of Thomas G Jarrard, 1020 N Washington St, Spokane, WA
99201, USA & Thomas W. Kirchofer -- tom@blockesq.com. -- Block &
Leviton LLP, pro hac vice.

James Craig Swapp, individually & Swapp Law PLLC, doing business
as Craig Swapp and Associates, Defendants, represented by Barbara
J. Duffy -- duffyb@lanepowell.com -- Lane Powell PC & Ryan P.
McBride -- mcbrider@lanepowell.com -- Lane Powell PC.


SWATCH LTD: Wohl Sues over Two-Year Warranty on Watch Purchase
--------------------------------------------------------------
BARRY WOHL, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. SWATCH LTD. and THE SWATCH GROUP
(U.S.) INC., the Defendants, Case No. 650424/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.,
Jan. 26, 2018), seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, as well
as actual and punitive damages.

The Plaintiff brings this action individually and as a class
action on behalf of all persons who purchased a Swatch watch
within the State of New York and whose warranty was not honored
and those persons who purchased a Swatch watch within the past 24
months, alleging breach of contract and violations of New York
General Business Law ("NY GBL") section 349.

This action challenges defendants' failure to honor the terms of
the warranty that accompanies the watch and the terms of the
warranty posted on the company's website as well as defendants'
deceptive business practices in failing to disclose that the two-
year warranty would only be honored if the watch was purchased
directly from a Swatch corporate retail or on-line store.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Robert I. Harwood, Esq.
          Daniella Quitt, Esq.
          HARWOOD FEFFER LLP
          488 Madison Avenue, 8th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 935 7400


SYNEOS HEALTH: Share Prices Inflated, Vaitkuviene Claims
--------------------------------------------------------
EGLE VAITKUVIENE, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. SYNEOS HEALTH, INC.,
ALISTAIR MACDONALD and GREGORY S. RUSH, the Defendants, Case No.
5:18-cv-00029-H (E.D.N.C., Jan. 25, 2018), seeks to recover
damages as a result of Defendants' violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

The Defendants' scheme and course of business operated as a fraud
on purchasers of INC common stock by: (i) deceiving the investing
public about INC's prospects and business; (ii) artificially
inflating the price of INC common stock; (iii) allowing INC to
use $2.75 billion of its common stock as acquisition currency;
(iv) allowing certain INC executives and insiders to sell
millions of dollars of their personally held shares of INC common
stock at artificially inflated prices; and (v) causing Plaintiff
and other members of the Class to purchase INC common stock at
inflated prices.

INC is a CRO that provides various clinical development services
for the biopharmaceutical and medical device industries in North
America, Europe, the Middle East and Africa, the Asia-Pacific,
and Latin America. The Company's services include clinical trial
management services comprising patient recruitment and retention,
project management, clinical monitoring, drug safety/
pharmacovigilance, medical affairs, quality assurance, and
regulatory and medical writing; and data services consisting of
clinical data management, electronic data capture, and
biostatistics.

The Class Period starts on May 10, 2017. On that day, before the
market opened, INC announced that it had agreed to acquire
inVentiv Health, Inc., a privately held, global CRO and CCO, in a
stock-for-stock acquisition. According to the Company's press
release issued that morning, "[b]ased upon the closing price of
INC Research common stock on Tuesday, May 9, 2017, the
transaction value[d] inVentiv at an enterprise value of
approximately $4.6 billion, and the combined company at an
enterprise value of approximately $7.4 billion," and "[u]pon
closing of the transaction, INC Research shareholders [were]
expected to own approximately 53 percent and inVentiv
shareholders [were] expected to own approximately 47 percent of
the combined company." Advent International and Thomas H. Lee
Partners, two private equity firms who were then equal equity
owners of inVentiv, would remain investors in the combined
company.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff

          McDANIEL & ANDERSON, L.L.P.
          Lafayette Square 4942
          Windy Hill Drive
          Raleigh, NC 27609
          Telephone: (919) 872 3000
          Facsimile: (919) 790 9273

               - and -

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


TERMINIX INTERNATIONAL: Fails to Pay Earned Wages, Sharp Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN LOGAN SHARP, 216 Kennedy Drive Severna Park, MD 21146
Ann Arundel County, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Terminix International, Inc.
860 Ridge Lake Blvd. Memphis, TN 38120, and The Terminix
International Company Limited Partnership 855 Ridge Lake Blvd.
Memphis, TN 38120 and Service Master Global Holdings, Inc.
860 Ridge Lake Blvd. Memphis, TN 38120 and DOES 1-55, the
Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-02072 (W.D. Tenn., Jan. 31, 2018),
seeks redress for Defendants' breach of contract, unjust
enrichment, and violations of the Maryland Wage Payment and
Collection Law, and seeks timely payment of all wages and
commissions earned.

Every year, thousands of Americans engage Terminix branded
companies to provide pest extermination and prevention services
at their homes and businesses. Terminix is a division and brand
of ServiceMaster Global Holdings, Inc.

According to the complaint, the Defendants rely upon their
outside salespersons to market and sell Terminix products and
services, and promise to pay their outside salespersons
commission on products and services sold. Defendants have engaged
in a pattern and practice of failing to pay Plaintiff and other
outside salespersons agreed-upon commissions in a timely
manner.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Caroline Ramsey Taylor, Esq.
          WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON LLP
          518 Monroe Street
          Nashville, TN 37208
          Telephone: (615) 921 6500
          Facsimile: (615) 921 6501
          E-mail: caroline@wbmllp.com

               - and -

          Gary E. Mason, Esq.
          Danielle L. Perry, Esq.
          WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON LLP
          5101 Wisconsin Ave NW, Ste. 305
          Washington, D.C. 20016
          Telephone: (202) 429 2290
          Facsimile: (202) 429 2294
          E-mail: gmason@wbmllp.com
                  dperry@wbmllp.com


TEXAS: Taylor Files Suit v. Parole Board Chair, et al.
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against David Gutierrez,
Chair of the Texas Criminal Justice Board of Pardons and Paroles.
The case is styled Lentiona Taylor, individually, and on behalf
of all present and future inmates similarly situated, Plaintiff
v. David Gutierrez, Chair of the Texas Criminal Justice Board of
Pardons and Paroles, Leanne Massingill, Parole Commissioner,
Texas Board of Pardons and Parole and Roel Tejano, Parole
Commissioner, Texas Board of Pardon and Parole, Defendants, Case
No. 6:18-cv-00021-RP (W.D. Tex., January 23, 2018).

The Board of Pardons and Paroles decides which eligible offenders
to release on parole or discretionary mandatory supervision, and
under what conditions.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


ULINE INC: Settlement in "Moncada" Suit Has Final Approval
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JUAN MONCADA, individually, and on behalf of other
members of the general public similarly situated, etc.,
Plaintiffs, v. ULINE, INC., an unknown business entity; and DOES
1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. CV 16-664 DSF
(KKx) (C.D. Cal.), Judge Dale S. Fischer of the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California granted the
Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement.

On July 13, 2017, the Court entered an order granting the
Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action
Settlement, preliminarily approving the settlement of this action
in accordance with the First Amended Joint Stipulation of Class
Action and PAGA Settlement and Release, which, together with the
attached exhibits, set forth the terms and conditions for
settlement.  The Court also approved the allocation toward
penalties under the California Private Attorneys General Act of
2004, California Labor Code section 2698, et seq. ("PAGA
Settlement Amount") and the separate payment toward PAGA
penalties ("Separate PAGA Amount") for Putative Class Members who
submitted timely and valid Requests for Exclusion from the
Settlement ("Excluded Individuals").

On Dec. 11, 2017, the Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval of
Class Action Settlement came on for hearing.  Having duly
considered the parties' papers and oral argument, and good cause
appearing, Judge Fischer granted the Motion.

The Court confirmed Lawyers for Justice, PC and Girardi & Keese
as the counsel for the Class, and Plaintiffs Juan Moncada and
Yaima Montes de Oca as the representatives of the Class.

The Settlement Class, with respect to the Released Claims that do
not arise under the Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA") only,
is defined as all individuals who have been employed by Defendant
in the State of California as non-exempt employees at any time
during the period from March 3, 2012 to Jan. 3, 2017.

The Judge ordered that the Defendant will pay the Separate PAGA
Amount of $382.59, and will distribute the Separate PAGA Payment
as follows: the amount of $286.94 to the California Labor and
Workforce Development Agency, and the amount of $95.65 to the
Excluded Individuals on a pro rata basis according the terms of
the Settlement Agreement.  He also ordered that the Settlement
Administrator, CPT Group, Inc., issue payment to itself in the
amount of $18,000 for the Settlement Administration Costs, in
accordance with the Settlement Agreement.  He further ordered
that CPT issue the Settlement Payment Checks to Class Members
according to the methodology and terms set forth in the
Settlement Agreement.

The Judge directed that the Settlement Payment Checks and checks
issued to Excluded Individuals (Kristopher Ordonez, Anaid
Calixto, Amanda Reynosa, and Stuart Holmes) for the pro rata
share of Excluded Individuals' PAGA Portion will be negotiable
for 120 calendar days after issuance.  After the expiration of
the 120-day period, the funds associated with any such checks
that are returned as undeliverable or that remain uncashed will
be forwarded to the State of California's Unclaimed Property
Division.

The Settlement Administrator will distribute the PAGA Settlement
Amount as follows: the amount of $75,000 will be distributed to
the LWDA, and the amount of $25,000 will remain in the Net
Settlement Amount, to be paid to the Class Members on a pro rata
basis, according to the terms of the Settlement Agreement.  The
Gross Settlement Amount will be disbursed in accordance with the
terms of the Settlement Agreement and the Court's Orders.

The Notice of entry of the Order will be given to Putative Class
Members by posting a copy of the Order on CPT's website for a
period of at least 60 calendar days after the date of entry of
the Order.  The time for appeal will run from the Court's entry
of the Order.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 10, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/e9NzP3 from Leagle.com.

Juan Moncada, individually, and on behalf of other members of the
general public similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by
Andre Sherman -- asherman@girardikeese.com -- Girardi Keese,
Edwin Aiwazian -- edwin@lfjpc.com -- Lawyers for Justice PC, Jill
Jessica Parker -- jill@lfjpc.com -- Lawyers for Justice PC,
Joanna Ghosh -- joanna@lfjpc.com -- Lawyers for Justice, PC &
Romina Keshishyan -- Romina@rklegalpc.com -- Lawyers for Justice
PC.

Yaima Montes de Oca, Plaintiff, represented by Joanna Ghosh,
Lawyers for Justice, PC & Edwin Aiwazian, Lawyers for Justice PC.

Uline Inc., an unknown business entity, Defendant, represented by
Carlos Jimenez -- cajimenez@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson PC,
Debra Urteaga -- durteaga@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson PC &
Steven Andrew Groode -- sgroode@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson
PC.


WELK RESORT: Court Allows Ashcraft to Amend FCRA Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe of the U.S. District Court for
the District of Nevada granted the Plaintiff's motion for leave
to amend the case, JOHN E. ASHCRAFT, Plaintiff(s), v. WELK RESORT
GROUP, CORP, et al, Defendant(s), Case No. 2:16-cv-02978-JAD-NJK
(D. Nev.).

The case involves claims under the Fair Credit Report Act arising
out of the Defendants' handling of a credit dispute arising after
the Plaintiff obtained a Chapter 7 bankruptcy.  The Plaintiff
initiated the case on Dec. 22, 2016, and Experian filed an answer
on Feb. 7, 2017.  The Court issued a scheduling order setting a
deadline to amend the pleadings for May 9, 2017.

On May 3, 2017, the Plaintiff conducted his Rule 30(b)(6)
deposition of Experian.  On May 9, 2017, he moved to amend his
complaint to, inter alia, add class action claims.  Due to a
dispute over Experian's errata to its deponent's testimony, the
Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend was denied without
prejudice.

he parties then engaged in motion practice on the disputed
errata, and that dispute was resolved on Nov. 8, 2017.  The
Plaintiff then refiled his motion for leave to amend by the new
deadline set by the Court.

Experian filed a response in opposition.  It raises several
arguments in opposition to the motion for leave to amend,
asserting that there has been undue delay in seeking amendment,
that it will be prejudiced by amendment, and that amendment is
futile.

Magistrate Judge Koppe finds that at the time the Plaintiff
sought leave to amend, the case was in its early stages, with
Experian having only appeared a few months earlier and the
discovery cutoff several months in the distance.  Such
circumstances militate strongly against a finding of undue delay,
and Experian's conclusory assertions that parts of the proposed
amended complaint could have been brought sooner are insufficient
to establish otherwise.  Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge finds
there was no undue delay.

The Magistrate Judge also finds that the Plaintiff sought to add
class allegations early on in the litigation, and is not
persuaded that the added burden of defending against class claims
is sufficient prejudice to justify denying leave to amend.

Finally, she finds that finds Experian's arguments as to the
futility of the class allegations and of the claim for
declaratory relief are premature and insufficient to deny leave
to amend.

For these reasons, Magistrate Judge Koppe granted the Plaintiff's
motion for leave to amend.  The Plaintiff will promptly file and
serve the amended complaint.  The parties appear to agree to an
extension of deadlines in the scheduling order, and the parties
will file a joint stipulation with proposed deadlines by Jan. 17,
2018.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 10, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/3O6maZ from Leagle.com.

John E. Ashcraft, Plaintiff, represented by Matthew I. Knepper --
matt.knepper@huschblackwell.com -- Knepper & Clark, LLC, Miles N.
Clark -- miles.clark@knepperclark.com -- Knepper & Clark LLC,
Sean N. Payne, PAYNE LAW FIRM LLC & David H. Krieger --
info@hainesandkrieger.com -- Haines & Krieger, LLC.

Experian Information Solutions, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Andrew Michael Cummings -- acummings@jonesday.com -- Jones Day,
Jeremy S. Close -- jsclose@jonesday.com -- Jones Day, pro hac
vice & Jennifer L. Braster -- jbraster@naylorandbrasterlaw.com --
Naylor & Braster.


YURI SUSHI: Faces "Lin" Suit in Southern District of New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Yuri Sushi Inc. The
case is styled as Ting Yao Lin, on behalf of himself and
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Yuri Sushi Inc, Defendant, Case
No. 1:18-cv-00528 (S.D. N.Y., January 22, 2018).

Yuri Sushi Inc is a Japanese Restaurant.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


ZANKOU ENTERPRISES: Villalobos Sues over Wage & Hour Violation
--------------------------------------------------------------
MARLON VILLALOBOS on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. ZANKOU ENTERPRISES, INC., a
California corporation; ZANKOU CHICKEN, a business entity
unknown; INFINITI HR WEST, LLC, a limited ZANKOU, INC., a
California corporation; BURBANK ZANKOU, INC., a California
corporation; GLENDALE ZANKOU, INC., a California corporation;
PASADENA ZANKOU, INC., a California corporation; TOLUCA LAKE
ZANKOU, INC., a California corporation; VAN NUYS ZANKOU, INC., a
California corporation; WEST L.A. ZANKOU, INC., a California
corporation; ZANKOU WEST HOLLYWOOD, INC., a California
corporation; and DOES 1 to 100, Inclusive, the Defendants, Case
No. BC692281 (Cal. Super. Ct., Jan. 31, 2018), seeks to recover
all earned and unpaid wages, injunctive relief, and other
equitable relief pursuant to the California Labor Code.

The case is a wage-and-hour class action lawsuit on behalf of
Plaintiff and other current and former non-exempt employees
working as hourly employees for Defendants in California.
The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants failed to provide legally
compliant and legally required meal periods; failed to provide
legally compliant and legally required rest periods; failed to
provide accurate and complete wage statements; and failed to
timely pay former employees all earned and unpaid wages.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph Lavi, Esq.
          Jordan D. Bello, Esq.
          LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP
          8889 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 200
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Telephone: (310) 432 0000
          Facsimile: (310) 432 0001
          E-mail: jlavi@lelawfirm.com
                  jbello@lelawfirm.com






                            *********


S U B S C R I P T I O N  I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills,
Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.
Marion Alcestis A. Castillon, Jessenius Pulido, Noemi Irene A.
Adala, Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche
Maricon Castillon-Lopez, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G.
Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2018.  All rights reserved.  ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail.  Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each.  For subscription information, contact Peter A.
Chapman at 215-945-7000.



                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *