CAR_Public/180208.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


            Thursday, February 8, 2018, Vol. 20, No. 29



                            Headlines


3M CO: Bid to Transfer "Green" to State Court Denied
ABC FINANCIAL: "Knobloch" Suit Moved to N.D. Illinois
ADVOCATES FOR JUVENILE: Class Certification Sought in "York" Suit
AEROHIVE NETWORKS: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Securities Class Suit
ALTERYX INC: "Ruderman" Suit Alleges Violation of FCRA

AMERICAN FINANCIAL: Made Unsolicited Calls, "Rooter" Suit Claims
AMIGO INSURANCE: Fails to Pay for Overtime Work, Cornejo Alleges
APPLE INC: Faces "Santino" Suit over Old Phones' Performance
APPLE INC: Faces "White" Suit over Decline in Phone's Performance
APPLE INC: 9th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Wiretapping Class Action

APPLIED UNDERWRITERS: Court Partly Grants Protective Order Bid
ARBITRATION FORUMS: Missouri Insureds' Suit Remains in Dist. Ct.
ARKESIA INC: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages, "Cramer" Suit Claims
BITCONNECT: Investors File Lawsuit Following Shutdown
BUCKHEAD LIFE: Faces "Samayoa" Suit over Failure to Pay OT

BUFFALO WILD: Vegetarians Lose Case Over Fries Cooked in Beef Fat
BW-PC LLC: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss 2nd Amended "Calmes" Suit
CALIFORNIA: Padilla Can't Be Primary Litigant in "Herrera"
CAVIUM INC: Shareholders Claim Firm Sold for Less Than Its Worth
CHICAGO, IL: Failed to Provide Special-Ed Services to Kids

COACH INC: Vaughn Moves for Certification of Store Managers Class
COLD SPRING: $500K Settlement in "Avila" Suit Has Final Approval
COMERICA BANK: Accused of Aiding, Abetting $1.2B Ponzi Scheme
COMMERCE INSURANCE: Sued Over Post-Arbitration Award Interest
CONTEXTMEDIA INC: Griffith's Cert. Bid OK'd; Feb. 12 Hearing Set

CORETELLIGENT LLC: Fails to Pay for Overtime, "Michaud" Suit Says
COX AUTOMOTIVE: NextGear Objects to MPO Order in Red Barn Suit
CREDIT MANAGEMENT: Class Certification Sought in "Bassett" Suit
CREIG NORTHROP: Summary Judgment in "Larocca" Affirmed
CUSTOM DRYWALL: Caceres Seeks Certification of Class Under FLSA

DALLAS COUNTY, TX: Sued for Jailing People Who Can't Pay Bail
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Inauguration Day Protesters Sue Police
EDISON COMPANY: Lieff Cabraser File Lawsuit Over Thomas Fire
ELEGANCE GALLERY: Faces "Gold" Suit over Sale of Antique Replica
ERELEVANCE CORPORATION: Made Unsolicited Calls, Jaffe Suit Claims

EQUIFAX INC: Faces "Turner" Suit in N.D. Georgia
EXPRESS COURIER: Faces "Ryte" Suit over Failure to Pay Overtime
FACEBOOK INC: EU Court Rejects Class Suit by Privacy Activist
FORD MOTOR: Johnson Moves to Certify 15 Statewide Owners Classes
FORD MOTOR: Removes "Schneider" Suit to C.D. California

FORD MOTOR: Ohanians Sue over Defective Automobiles
FOWLER PACKING: Judge Approves Expansion of Class Action
GATEWAY ENERGY: Hitchner Sues over Deceptive Trade Practices
GC SERVICES: Webb Alleges Wrongful Conduct Over Debt Collection
GENERAL MOTORS: Faces "Davis" Fraud Suit in Texas

GOLDMAN SACHS: 2d Cir. Vacates Certification of Investor Class
GOOGLE LLC: Court Dismisses Disparate Impact Claim in "Heath"
GOPRO INC: Stull Stull Files Securities Class Action Suit
HARRIS & HARRIS: Accused of Wrongful Conduct over Debt Collection
ILLINOIS: Alden Management Sues over Delay in Medicaid Benefits

INC RESEARCH: Holzer & Holzer Files Class Action Suit
INDIAN RIVER: Cooley Seeks to Certify Classes of Resident Drivers
INTEL CORPORATION: Robbins Sues over Sale of Defective CPUs
INTEL CORPORATION: Sued by West Over Defective Core Processors
INTERCONTINENTAL CAPITAL: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Suit Claims

INVENTION SUBMISSION: Sued for Defrauding Inventors
JD BEVERAGE: "Peralta" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages
JP MORGAN CHASE: Faces "Gomes" Suit over TILA Violations
KOHLS DEPARTMENT: "Waters" Suit Removed to C.D. California
LIBERTY TAX: Glancy Prongay & Murray Files Class Action

LOUISIANA: Sanctioned for Nondisclosure of Evidence in "Lewis"
MARYLAND PLAZA: Seeks Prelim. Okay of "Merriweather" Class Accord
MDL 2420: Court Moves Antitrust Suit Claims Deadline to July 19
MENARD INC: Astarita Moves for Certification of Class Under FLSA
MIAMI COUNTY, OH: Court Refuses to Appoint Counsel for Marcum

MICHIGAN: Baraga Inmate Can't Proceed in Forma Pauperis
MT. GOX: Suit Says Karpeles, Mizuho Bank Cause Loss of $400MM
OFF LEASE ONLY: Class Notice Plan in "Mohamed" Partly Granted
OGLETREE DEAKINS: Knepper Sues over Gender Discrimination
OLD PRO INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, "Stollman" Claims

OREGON: Judge Refuses to Dismiss $1 Billion Timber Class Action
PARTNERS HEALTHCARE: Denial of Leave to Amend "Hamilton" Upheld
PENBAR INC: Court Dismisses "Ridley" Unpaid Wages Suit
PENNSYLVANIA: Harold Moves for Class Certification
PIER 1 IMPORTS: $70K Settlement Admin Costs in "Mathein" Approved

PURDUE PHARMA: Drew Memorial Suit Moved to E.D. Arkansas
RITE AID: Insured Consumers Sue Over Generic Prescription Drugs
SACRAMENTO, CA: Medical Services Authority Faces "Warren" Suit
SAFEGUARD PROPERTIES: Court Certifies Class in "Bund" Suit
SAFEGUARD PROPERTIES: Hanouseks Claims in "Bund" Suit Dismissed

SAN FRANCISCO, CA: Sheriff Faces "Dupree" Class Suit
SAN FRANCISCO, CA: Judge Advances Money Bail Fight
SARBANAND FARMS: Class-action Lawsuit Filed
SERENITY TRANSPORTATION: Johnson Moves to Certify Drivers Class
SIMM ASSOCIATES: Court Certifies Class in "Smith" FDCPA Suit

STAFFMARK INVESTMET: Fails to Pay Wages, "Salvador" Suit Claims
STEINHOFF: PSA Wants to Join Class Action Case
SUCAMPO PHARMACEUTICALS: Shareholders Challenge Sale
SUCAMPO PHARMACEUTICALS: Monteverde & Associates Files Class Suit
TACOMANIA INC: Ct. Vacates Mar. 8 Hearing on Sanchez's Cert. Bid

TAMPA BAY: Lawsuit Filed for Revoking Fans' Season Tickets
TRIANGLE CAPITAL: "Holden" Suit Moved to E.D. North Carolina
UNITED STATES: Class Certification Sought in "Mosquera" Suit
UNITED STATES: Summary Ruling in Truck Drivers' Suit Partly OK'd
VENTURE EXPRESS: Ratliff's Bid to Certify Class Entered & Cont'd

VOLKSWAGEN AG: Quebec Class Action Approved
WAL-MART ASSOCIATES: Three Classes Certified in "Magadia" Suit
WAL-MART STORES: Mislabeled Store-Brand Eggs, Gibson Claims
WATER TRANSFER: Fails to Pay Overtime, "Sander" Suit Claims
WATERLOO, ON: Cambridge Councillors Named in Class Action Suit

WELLS FARGO: McPhee Seeks to Certify Sales Reps Class Under FLSA
WELLS FARGO: "Peters" Transferred to S.D. Texas
WEST WIND: Passengers in Fond du Lac Crash File Class-Action
XUNLEI LIMITED: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action





                            *********


3M CO: Bid to Transfer "Green" to State Court Denied
----------------------------------------------------
In the case, ISAAC GREEN and ARNEAL GREEN; ELIZABETH LIGGON and
JEROME LIGGON; CATHY GREEN and AL GREEN; JASON ROBINSON; YVONNE
GREEN and AARON GREEN; MARK GREEN; STACY GREEN and ANTHONY GREEN;
THEODORA LIGGON and GREGORY LIGGON; and MICHELLE BLOXON,
Plaintiffs, v. THE 3M COMPANY, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Co., TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS L.P., successor-in-interest
to The Ansul Company, ANGUS FIRE, NATIONAL FOAM, BUCKEYE FIRE
PROTECTION CO., CHEMGUARD, and COUNTY OF SUFFOLK, Defendant, Case
No. 17-CV-2566(JS) (AYS) (E.D. N.Y.), Judge Joanna Seybert of the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York adopted
Magistrate Judge Anne Y. Shields' Report and Recommendation
("R&R") recommending that the Court denies without prejudice to
renewal the Plaintiffs' motion to remand the action to state
court.

The action was commenced on March 27, 2017 in the Supreme Court
of the State of New York, County of Suffolk, and was removed to
the Court on April 28, 2017 pursuant to the class action
provisions of the diversity of citizenship statute, 28 U.S.C.
Section 1332(d) ("Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA)").

On May 18, 2017, the Plaintiffs, who commenced the matter as a
class action on behalf of themselves and those similarly
situated, filed a motion to remand the action to state court.  On
Oct. 13, 2017, the Court referred the Plaintiffs' motion to Judge
Shields for a R&R on whether it should be granted.

Magistrate Judge Shields issued her R&R on Nov. 20, 2017,
recommending that the Court denies the Plaintiffs' motion to
remand without prejudice to renewal after the completion of
certain discovery.  The Magistrate Judge analyzed the relevant
provisions of CAFA, under which the matter was removed and also
under which the Plaintiffs move for remand.  She noted that a
decision as to whether mandatory or discretionary CAFA remand is
proper depends, at least in part, on the issue of the citizenship
of all members of the Plaintiff class.

The Magistrate Judge found that the Plaintiffs have not shown, by
a preponderance of the evidence, that the requisite number of
members of the Plaintiff classes are citizens of the State of New
York such that remand is warranted under CAFA.  Therefore, she
recommended that the motion to remand be denied without prejudice
to renewal after the parties engage in an initial tier of
discovery targeted to identification of the citizenship of the
members of the Plaintiff classes and that such discovery begin
promptly after entry of the District Court's final decision as to
the R&R, and be complete within 90 days thereafter.

Upon careful review and consideration, Judge Seybert finds
Magistrate Judge Shields' R&R to be comprehensive, well-reasoned,
and free of clear error.  For the foregoing reasons, the Judge
adopted Magistrate Judge Shields' R&R in its entirety.  The
Plaintiffs' motion to remand is denied without prejudice to
renewal after the parties conduct limited discovery.  To that
end, the parties are directed to engage in discovery targeted
towards identification of the citizenship of the members of the
Plaintiff classes, and to complete that discovery within 90 days
of the date of the Order.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 12, 2018 Memorandum and
Order is available at https://is.gd/QDQvuD from Leagle.com.

Isaac Green, Arneal Green, Elizabeth Liggon, Jerome Liggon, Cathy
Green, Al Green, Jason Robinson, Yvonne Green, Aaron Green, Mark
Green, Stacy Green, Anthony Green, Theodora Liggon, Gregory
Liggon & Michelle Bloxon, Plaintiffs, represented by Frederick
Eisenbud, Campolo -- feisenbud@cmmllp.com -- Middleton &
McCormick, LLP, Hunter Jay Shkolnik -- hunter@napolilaw.com --
Napoli Shkolnik PLLC, Paul J. Napoli -- PNapoli@napolilaw.com --
Napoli Shkolnik PLLC, Scott D. Middleton -- smiddleton@cmmllp.com
-- Campolo, Middleton & McCormick, LLP & Tate J. Kunkle --
TKunkle@napolilaw.com -- Napoli Shkolnik PLLC.

The 3M Company, formerly known as Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Co., Defendant, represented by Gase L. Stephanie --
szg@brewerattorneys.com -- Brewer Attorneys Counselors & Maxwell
Dane Herman -- mwh@brewerattorneys.com -- Brewer, Attorneys &
Counselors, pro hac vice.

Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company & Chemguard, Defendants, represented by Douglas E.
Fleming -- douglasfleming@quinnemanuel.com -- Quinn Emanuel
Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, Katherine A. Armstrong --
katherinearmstrong@quinnemanuel.com -- Quinn Emanuel Urquhart &
Sullivan, LLP, Mark Steven Cheffo -- markcheffo@quinnemanuel.com
-- Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP & Sheila Birnbaum --
sheilabirnbaum@quinnemanuel.com -- Quinn Emanuel Urquhart &
Sullivan, LLP.

National Foam, Defendant, represented by Keith Edward Smith,
Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott LLC.

Buckeye Fire Protection Co., Defendant, represented by Philip M.
Colicchio, Taylor Colicchio LLP, pro hac vice, Ellen N. Corbo,
Taylor Colicchio LLP, pro hac vice & Michael Luther Carpenter,
Gray, Layton, Kersh, Solomon, Furr & Smith, P.A., pro hac vice.

County of Suffolk, Defendant, represented by Susan A. Flynn,
Suffolk County Attorney's Office.


ABC FINANCIAL: "Knobloch" Suit Moved to N.D. Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Jennifer Knobloch, individually,
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
ABC Financial Services, Inc., the Defendant, was removed from the
Circuit Court of Cook County (case no. 17 CH 16187), to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Case No.
1:18-cv-00263, on Jan. 12, 2018. The Case is assigned to the Hon.
Judge Edmond E. Chang.

ABC Financial Services, Inc. provides health club software and
billing services to the fitness industry primarily in the United
States. It offers DataTrak, which streamlines clients' club's
daily operations and gives them access to detailed custom reports
through the Internet; The company also processes member credit
cards, debit cards, and check transactions; and offers marketing,
member retention, and accounts receivable collection and
management services. ABC Financial Services, Inc. was founded in
1981 and is based in Sherwood, Arkansas. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Myles P. McGuire, Esq.
          David Louis Gerbie, Esq.
          Evan M Meyers, Esq.
          MCGUIRE LAW, P.C.
          55 West Wacker Drive 9th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 893-7002
          E-mail: mmcguire@mcgpc.com
                  dgerbie@mcgpc.com
                  emeyers@mcgpc.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Andrew Douglas LeMar, Esq.
          BURKE WARREN MACKAY & SERRITELLA, P.C.
          330 N. Wabash Ave. 21st Floor
          Chicago, IL 60611
          Telephone: (312) 840-7108
          E-mail: alemar@burkelaw.com


ADVOCATES FOR JUVENILE: Class Certification Sought in "York" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit styled BEVERLY YORK AND LINDA
WILSON, on behalf of themselves and other persons similarly
situated v. ADVOCATES FOR JUVENILE & ADULT RIGHTS, INC., Case No.
2:16-cv-12487-EEF-DEK (E.D. La.), ask the Court to certify the
case as a class action.

The lawsuit is brought for alleged unpaid wages under the
Louisiana Wage Payment Act.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=S25ZOBAq

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Derek M. Mercer, Esq.
          MERCER LAW FIRM, LLC
          318 South Rendon Street
          New Orleans, LA 70119
          Telephone: (504) 372-3000
          Facsimile: (504) 272-2974
          E-mail: derek@mercerlawfirm.net


AEROHIVE NETWORKS: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Securities Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been
filed against Aerohive Networks, Inc. (NYSE:HIVE) and certain of
its officers.   The class action, filed in United States District
Court, for the Northern District of California, and docketed
under 18-cv-00544, is on behalf of a class consisting of
investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Aerohive
securities, seeking to recover compensable damages caused by
defendants' violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Aerohive securities
between November 1, 2017, and January 16, 2018, both dates
inclusive, you have until March 20, 2018, to ask the Court to
appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com.   To discuss
this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-
free, Ext. 9980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to
include their mailing address, telephone number, and the number
of shares purchased.

Aerohive supplies wireless infrastructure equipment. The Company
designs cooperative control wireless architecture, cloud-enabled
network management, routing, and virtual private network
solutions. Aerohive serves the healthcare, education,
manufacturing, distribution, and retail industries throughout the
United States.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period,
Defendants made materially false and misleading statements
regarding the Company's business, operational and compliance
policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Aerohive had
uncovered sales execution issues at the Company at the end of the
third quarter of 2017; (ii) consequently, Aerohive's revenue
guidance for the fourth quarter of 2017 was overstated; and (iii)
as a result, Aerohive's public statements were materially false
and misleading at all relevant times.

On January 16, 2018, post-market, Aerohive issued a press release
entitled "Aerohive Networks Announces Preliminary Fourth Quarter
2017 Financial Results," revealing that it "expects net revenue
for the fourth quarter to be approximately $37 million, which is
below the Company's previously stated guidance of $40 million to
$42 million." Aerohive attributed the reduced guidance to
"underlying sales execution issues" uncovered at the end of the
third quarter.

On this news, Aerohive's share price fell $1.63, or 28.6%, to
close at $4.07 on January 17, 2018, damaging investors.

The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los
Angeles, and Paris, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms
in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class
litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as
the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered
the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 80 years
later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he
established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities
fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The
Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on
behalf of class members. See www.pomerantzlaw.com

         Robert S. Willoughby, Esq.
         Pomerantz LLP
         Email: rswilloughby@pomlaw.com [GN]


ALTERYX INC: "Ruderman" Suit Alleges Violation of FCRA
------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey C. Ruderman, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Alteryx, Inc., Case No. 8:18-cv-00022-JLS-
KES (C.D. Cal., January 8, 2018), alleges violations of the Fair
Credit Reporting Act.  The case is assigned to Judge Josephine L.
Staton, and referred to Magistrate Judge Karen E. Scott.

In a Jan. 16, 2018 Order, the Court said the case is related to
Case No. 17-cv-02222.

Alteryx, Inc. provides self-service data analytics software
platform that enables organizations to enhance business outcomes
and the productivity of their business analysts. It offers
Alteryx Designer for data preparation, blending, and analytics
that could be deployable in the cloud and on premise; Alteryx
Server, a secure and scalable product for sharing and running
analytic applications in a Web-based environment; and Alteryx
Analytics Gallery, a cloud-based collaboration offering that
allows users to share workflows in a centralized repository. The
company serves clients in business and financial services,
consumer goods, healthcare, retail, technology, and travel and
hospitality industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Patrice L Bishop, Esq.
          STULL STULL AND BRODY
          9430 West Olympic Boulevard Suite 400
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone: (310) 209-2468
          Facsimile: (310) 209-2087
          E-mail: service@ssbla.com


AMERICAN FINANCIAL: Made Unsolicited Calls, "Rooter" Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Abante Rooter and Plumbing, Inc., individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. American Financial Freedom, LLC
dba Globelend Capital, and DOES 1 through 10, Inclusive, Case no.
3:18-cv-00291-JCS (N.D. Cal., January 12, 2018), alleges that
beginning in or around July 2016 and continuing through
September 2016, Defendant contacted Plaintiff on its cellular
telephone number ending in -0106, -1080, -5154 in an attempt to
solicit Plaintiff to purchase Defendant's services.  Defendant
used an "automatic telephone dialing system" as defined by 47
U.S.C. Sec. 227(a)(1) to place its calls to Plaintiff seeking to
solicit its services.

American Financial Freedom, LLC dba Globelend Capital, is an
entity engaged in the business finance industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


AMIGO INSURANCE: Fails to Pay for Overtime Work, Cornejo Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
MARIA CORNEJO, on behalf of himself, and all other similarly
situated, known and unknown v. AMIGO INSURANCE AGENCY, INC. and
CARLOS SANTIAGO, individually, Case no 1:18-cv-00297 (N.D. Ill.,
January 16, 2018), is brought by Plaintiff to recover unpaid
compensation for all hours worked and compensation at a rate not
less than one and one-half times the regular rate of pay for all
hours worked in excess of 40 hours, in any week during the two
years preceding the filing of this action.  The lawsuit claims
the Defendant failed and refused to pay compensation to their
employees, including the above named Plaintiff.

Mr. Cornejo is a former employee who performed a variety of
duties as a marketing coordinator for the Defendant.

Amigo Insurance provides auto, motorcycle, home and commercial
insurance products from 23 different locations in the Chicagoland
area.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John W. Billhorn, Esq.
          BILLHORN LAW FIRM
          53 West Jackson Blvd., Suite 840
          Chicago, IL 60604
          Tel: (312) 853-1450


APPLE INC: Faces "Santino" Suit over Old Phones' Performance
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Apple, Inc.  The
case is captioned as Nikita Santino and Aaron Rabbanian, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Apple,
Inc., Case No. BC690396 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Jan. 16,
2018).

Plaintiff alleged in the complaint that the iOS updates included
software that "throttled" or slowed down the processing speed of
the iPhone(s) and caused a dramatic decline in performance.

Apple Inc. designs, manufactures, and markets mobile
communication and media devices, and personal computers to
consumers, and small and mid-sized businesses; and education,
enterprise, and government customers worldwide. The company also
sells related software, services, accessories, networking
solutions, and third-party digital content and applications.
Apple Inc. was founded in 1977 and is headquartered in Cupertino,
California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Benjamin Heikali, Esq.
          Joshua Nassir, Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI LLP
          10866 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1470
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Telephone: (424) 256-2884
          Facsimile: (424) 256-2885
          E-mail: bheikali@faruqilaw.com
                  jnassier@faruqilaw.com


APPLE INC: Faces "White" Suit over Decline in Phone's Performance
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Apple, Inc. The
case is captioned as Chad White, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Apple, Inc., the
Defendant, Case No. 5:18-cv-00305-SVK (N.D. Cal., Jan. 12, 2018).

Plaintiff alleged that the iOS software updates included software
that "throttled" or slowed down the processing speed of the
iPhone(s) and caused a dramatic decline in the phone's
performance.

Apple Inc. designs, manufactures, and markets mobile
communication and media devices, and personal computers to
consumers, and small and mid-sized businesses; and education,
enterprise, and government customers worldwide. The company also
sells related software, services, accessories, networking
solutions, and third-party digital content and applications.
Apple Inc. was founded in 1977 and is headquartered in Cupertino,
California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Derek G. Howard, Esq.
          DEREK G. HOWARD LAW FIRM, INC.
          42 Miller Avenue
          Mill Valley, CA 94941
          Telephone: (415) 432-7192
          Facsimile: (415) 524-2419
          E-mail: derek@derekhowardlaw.com

               - and -

          Daniel J. Mulligan, Esq.
          JENKINS MULLIGAN & GABRIEL LLP
          10085 Carroll Canyon Rd., Ste 210.
          San Diego, CA 92131-1100
          Telephone: (858) 527-1792
          Facsimile: (858)-527-1793
          E-mail: dan@jmglawoffices.com


APPLE INC: 9th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Wiretapping Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that
the Ninth Circuit affirmed dismissal of a class action accusing
Apple of wiretapping, by failing to deliver text messages to
people who had switched to other brands of smartphones.


APPLIED UNDERWRITERS: Court Partly Grants Protective Order Bid
--------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Allison Claire of the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of California granted in part and denied in
part the Defendants' motion for a protective order in the cases,
SHASTA LINEN SUPPLY, INC., Plaintiff, v. APPLIED UNDERWRITERS
INC., et al., Defendants; and PET FOOD EXPRESS LTD., et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. APPLIED UNDERWRITERS, INC., et al., Defendants,
Case Nos. 2:16-cv-00158 WBS AC, 2:16-cv-01211 WBS AC (E.D. Cal.).

On Jan. 26, 2016, the Shasta Linen case was filed as a putative
class action seeking restitution/disgorgement for the Plaintiff
and the putative class as a result of the Defendants' unlawful
business practices, including the use of an unfiled, void and
illegal 'collateral agreement' in the collection of excessive
fees and expenses for the workers' compensation insurance
arrangements between the Defendants and the Plaintiffs.  The Pet
Food case, also filed as a putative class action and making
similar allegations, was removed to this court from Alameda
Superior Court on March 29, 2016.

On Nov. 7, 2016, the parties submitted a joint status report in
which the Defendants argued that the Court should bifurcate class
and merits discovery.  The matter was fully briefed by both
sides.  On Nov. 14, 2016, Judge William B. Shubb issued a
scheduling order in which he declined to bifurcate class and
merits discovery.  Judge Shubb ordered that the Defendants may
seek a protective order before the assigned magistrate judge if
they believe the Plaintiff is propounding discovery not
reasonably tied to class issues.  On July 6, 2017, pursuant to
the parties' stipulation, the related actions were consolidated
for pre-trial purposes.

The Defendants ask for a protective order regarding a number of
requests for production ("RFPs") and Interrogatories to which
they have common objections.  The Defendants seek protection from
discovery as follows:

     a. Interrogatory No. 1, RFP Nos. 6, 8, 19, 25: Disputing the
degree to which the Plaintiffs may seek discovery into the
programs of absent class members.

     b. As to all pending discovery requests: Whether the
Plaintiffs' may demand that discovery responses include
SolutionOne program related responses or if production/responses
must be limited to the EquityComp Program.

     c. RFP Nos. 30, 31, 33, 34: Whether the Plaintiffs are
entitled to documents regarding regulatory filings in states
other than California.

     d. RFP No. 34: Whether, in response to Request No. 34, the
Defendants must produce documents concerning the submission of
the RPA in 2016 to the California Department of Insurance, even
though the form RPA was not the same form at issue in the case
and the documents were submitted after Defendants and the
California Department of Insurance already were in a dispute
about the RPA's legality.

     e. RFP No. 8: Whether the Plaintiffs are entitled to
segregated cell account information.

     f. RFP No. 10: Whether the Plaintiffs are entitled to
documents reflecting the Defendants' total revenues.

Magistrate Judge Claire granted the Defendants' motion for a
protective order with regard to discovery into non-California
regulatory filings and communications (RFP Nos. 30, 31, 33, 34),
and otherwise denied.  She finds, among other things, that the
Defendants are entitled to a protective order regarding non-
California regulatory filings.  She finds the Plaintiffs'
argument that because the Defendants are characterizing the exact
same program to different state regulators, that they're entitled
to discovery on the non-California communications unpersuasive.

The Magistrate Judge says to the extent the hypothetical
information might have any relevance, discovery is merely a
fishing expedition.  The Plaintiffs have not made a persuasive
argument that such discovery would be of consequence in
determining the outcome of this action or make any pertinent fact
more or less probable.  Allowing discovery on a subject of such
speculative and tenuous relevance would be disproportionate to
the needs of the case and would palace an undue burden on
defendants.  The protective order is granted with respect to this
issue.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 12, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/3ZjSF3 from Leagle.com.

Shasta Linen Supply, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Craig E.
Farmer -- cfarmer@farmersmithlaw.com -- Farmer Smith & Lane LLP &
John L. Hall -- jhall@farmersmithlaw.com -- Farmer Smith & Lane
LLP.

Applied Underwriters, Inc., a Nebraska Corporation, Applied
Underwriters Captive Risk Assurance Company, Inc., a British
Virgin Islands Company, California Insurance Company, a
Registered California Insurance Company & Applied Risk Services,
Inc., a Nebraska Corporation, Defendants, represented by Spencer
Y. Kook -- skook@mail.hinshawlaw.com -- Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP,
Shand Scott Stephens -- shand.stephens@dlapiper.com -- Dla Piper
Llp & Travis R. Wall -- twall@mail.hinshawlaw.com -- Hinshaw &
Culbertson LLP.

Applied Underwriters, Inc., a Nebraska Corporation, Counter
Claimant, represented by Shand Scott Stephens, Dla Piper Llp &
Travis R. Wall, Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP.

Shasta Linen Supply, Inc., Counter Defendant, represented by
Craig E. Farme, Farmer Smith & Lane Llp, John Douglas Moore --
john@johndmoorepa.com. -- Law Office of John Douglas Moore & John
L. Hall, Farmer Smith & Lane Llp.


ARBITRATION FORUMS: Missouri Insureds' Suit Remains in Dist. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge John A. Ross of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri, Eastern Division, denied the Plaintiff's
Motion to Remand the case, WHITE KNIGHT DINER, LLC, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. ARBITRATION FORUMS, INC., et al., Defendants, Case
No. 4:17-CV-02406 JAR (E.D. Mo.).

The putative class action is brought on behalf of various
Missouri insureds, for damages incurred as a result of the
alleged misconduct of their respective insurance companies, and
the insurance companies for unnamed third-party tortfeasors, in
connection with an arbitration services company.  The Plaintiffs
seek relief in the form of declaratory judgment, permanent
injunctive relief, and unjust enrichment, as well as compensatory
and punitive damages.

The action was originally filed on July 27, 2017 in the Circuit
Court of St. Louis County, Missouri.  The Plaintiffs named as
Defendants Arbitration Forums, State Farm Mutual Automobile
Insurance Co. and State Farm Fire and Casualty Co. ("State
Farm"), Owners Insurance Co., Safeco Insurance Co., Zurich
Insurance Co., Acuity Insurance Co., and AAA Insurance Co.  On
Sept. 5, 2017, the Plaintiffs amended their petition by
interlineation to change the name Safeco Insurance Co. to Safeco
Insurance Co. of Illinois, and the name AAA Insurance Co. to
Automobile Club Inter-Insurance Exchange.

State Farm timely removed the action to the Court on Sept. 14,
2017 under the Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA").  On Sept. 15,
2017, Acuity and Owners removed the identical state court case on
the basis of complete diversity and CAFA, resulting in a separate
case being opened, Case No. 4:17-CV-02416 RLW.  The Court
subsequently consolidated the cases and directed that all future
filings be made in Case No. 4:17-CV-02406 JAR.

Acuity moved to dismiss the case on Sept. 15, 2017, as did State
Farm on Sept. 19, 2017, Owners on Sept. 21, 2017, and Arbitration
Forums on Oct. 6, 2017.  The Plaintiffs did not respond to the
Defendants' motions to dismiss, or request additional time to
respond pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1).  Instead, on Oct.
11, 2017, well after the deadlines for responding had passed, the
Plaintiffs moved to remand on the grounds that their action comes
under the "local controversy" exception to CAFA, thus defeating
federal jurisdiction.  They then moved to stay the Court's ruling
on the pending motions to dismiss (as well as any later filed
motions to dismiss) until such time as a decision is rendered on
their motion for remand.

The Defendants oppose the Plaintiffs' motion to remand on the
grounds that the Plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden to
establish the applicability of any exception to CAFA removal.

On Oct. 18, 2017, the Court ordered the Plaintiffs to respond to
the Defendants' opposition to their request for a stay by Oct.
23, 2017.  On Oct. 23, 2017, the Plaintiffs responded that
judicial economy would best be served by granting the stay so
that the Court can first consider the jurisdictional issues
raised by the removal and remand pleadings.  Also on Oct. 23,
2017, the Plaintiffs moved for leave to amend their complaint to
set forth the nature of their claim with more particularity
pursuant to the pleading requirements of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure.  No proposed amended pleading was submitted with
the motion for leave to amend.

Judge Ross finds that nothing in the petition distinguishes AAA's
conduct from the conduct of the other out-of-state Defendants.
He says the Plaintiffs could have satisfied their burden, for
example, by including in their petition the number of Missouri
residents AAA insures compared to the other insurance company
Defendants, and an estimate of the alleged subrogation payments
received by AAA in comparison to those made by the non-Missouri
Defendants.  However, the only AAA specific allegation in the
petition is that AAA is a Missouri insurance company duly
authorized and existing in accordance with Missouri Statute and,
as such, writes, sells, and processes casualty and liability
insurance claims in the State of Missouri.

Without more, the Judge says he has no means of determining
whether AAA's activity forms a significant basis for the claims
asserted.  Accordingly, the Plaintiffs have not demonstrated that
AAA, a local Defendant, is a significant Defendant. This also
precludes a finding that the local controversy exception applies.

Because he holds that the local controversy exception does not
apply to the case, the Court has subject matter jurisdiction
under CAFA, and the Defendants' argument that AAA was
improperly/fraudulently joined to defeat federal jurisdiction is
moot.

Considering only the allegations of the Plaintiffs' petition,
Judge Ross concludes that the Plaintiffs have failed to meet
their burden of proving that CAFA's local controversy exception
applies in the case.  The Court, therefore, has jurisdiction over
the action.  Accordingly, the Judge denied the Plaintiff's Motion
to Remand.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 12, 2018 Memorandum and
Order is available at https://is.gd/yHOq8J from Leagle.com.

White Knight Diner, LLC, Interventional Pain Institute, LLC,
Larry Lee Hinds, Karen Freiner, William Wendling, Dr. Robert
Thomure, DDS, Kathleen Thomure, Jay Kiewewetter, Barbara Myers &
Victoria Martin, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Anthony G. Simon  THE SIMON
LAW FIRM, P.C., Gonzalo A. Fernandez -- Gonz@stltriallawyers.com
-- DEVEREAUX AND STOKES, James P. Leonard  DEVEREAUX AND STOKES,
John G. Simon, THE SIMON LAW FIRM, P.C., Michael D. Stokes
DEVEREAUX STOKES NOLAN FERNANDEZ & LEONARD, Anthony R. Friedman,
THE SIMON LAW FIRM, P.C. & Benjamin R. Askew, THE SIMON LAW FIRM,
P.C.

Arbitration Forums, Inc., Defendant, represented by Clark H. Cole
-- ccole@armstrongteasdale.com -- ARMSTRONG TEASDALE LLP, Daniel
Walter Gerber -- dgerber@gerberciano.com -- GERBER AND CIANO LLP,
Paul L. Knobbe -- pknobbe@goldbergsegalla.com -- GOLDBERG
SEGALLA, Clayton Don Waterman -- cwaterman@gerberciano.com --
GERBER AND CIANO LLP & Wilbur L. Tomlinson --
wtomlinson@armstrongteasdale.com -- ARMSTRONG TEASDALE LLP.

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company & State Farm Fire
and Casualty Company, Defendants, represented by James F. Bennett
-- jbennett@dowdbennett.com -- DOWD BENNETT, LLP, Robert F.
Epperson, Jr. -- repperson@dowdbennett.com -- DOWD BENNETT, LLP &
Michael J. Kuhn -- mkuhn@dowdbennett.com -- DOWD BENNETT, LLP.

Owners Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Timothy J.
Wolf -- twolf@bjpc.com -- BROWN AND JAMES, P.C. & David Russell
McCourt -- dmccourt@bjpc.com -- BROWN AND JAMES, P.C.

Safeco Insurance Company of Illinois, Defendant, represented by
Bruce A. Moothart -- bruce@sbhlaw.com -- SEYFERTH AND BLUMENTHAL.

Acuity Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Caroline M.
Tinsley -- tinsley@bscr-law.com -- BAKER AND STERCHI, LLC, James
R. Jarrow -- jarrow@bscr-law.com -- BAKER STERCHI COWDEN & RICE,
LLC & Martha Charepoo -- mcharepoo@bscr-law.com -- BAKER AND
STERCHI, LLC.

Automobile Club Inter-Insurance Exchange, Defendant, represented
by Charles N. Insler -- cinsler@heplerbroom.com -- HEPLER BROOM,
Gerard T. Noce -- gnoce@heplerbroom.com -- HEPLER BROOM & W.
Jason Rankin -- jrankin@heplerbroom.com -- HEPLER BROOM.


ARKESIA INC: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages, "Cramer" Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
HANNAH CRAMER, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. ARKESIA, INC. d/b/a CLUB ROUGE;
CIRCLE 2, INC. d/b/a DADDY RABBITS; CIRCLE 2, INC. d/b/a CANDY
BAR; IMAGINARY IMAGES, INC. d/b/a PAPER MOON; M.G.B., INC. d/b/a
PURE PLEASURE; DADDY RABBITS; CANDY BAR; PAPER MOON; or PURE
PLEASURE; and WILLIAM ANDREAS PYLIARIS, the Defendants, Case No.
13-CV-00039-HEHE (E.D. Va., Jan. 16, 2018), seeks to recover
proper minimum wages, proper overtime compensation, and earned
customer gratuities.  She also seeks the right to work without
paying "house fees" and other fees.

Arkesia Inc. d/b/a Club Rouge is a business corporation under the
laws of the State of Virginia, with its principal place of
business at 1501 East Main St, Richmond, Virginia 23219, and
engaged in the adult entertainment business.

Circle 2, Inc. d/b/a Daddy Rabbits is a business corporation
incorporated under the laws of the State of Virginia, with its
principal place of business 3206 Broad Rock Boulevard, Richmond,
Virginia 23224, and engaged in the adult entertainment business.

Circle 2, Inc. d/b/a Candy Bar is a business corporation
incorporated under the laws of the State of Virginia, with its
principal place of business 218 East Main Street 2nd Floor,
Richmond, Virginia, 23219, and engaged in the adult entertainment
business.

Imaginary Images, Inc. d/b/a Paper Moon is a business corporation
incorporated under the laws of the State of Virginia, with its
principal places of business 3300 Norfolk Street, Richmond,
Virginia 23230 and 6710 Midlothian Turnpike, Richmond, Virginia
23225, and engaged in the adult entertainment business.

M.G.B., Inc. d/b/a/ Pure Pleasure is a business corporation
incorporated under the laws of the State of Virginia, with its
principal place of business 68 Labrook Concourse A, Richmond,
Virginia 23224, and engaged in the adult entertainment business.

Ms. Cramer works as an entertainer at the Defendants' Club.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Justin P. Keating, Esq.
          BEINS AXELROD, P.C.
          1030 15th St., NW, Suite 700 East
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 328-7222
          Facsimile: (202) 328-7030
          E-mail: jkeating@beinsaxelrod.com

               - and -

          Lloyd R. Ambinder, Esq.
          LaDonna Lusher, Esq.
          VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP
          40 Broad Street, 7 th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 943-9080
          Facsimile: (212) 943-9082
          E-mail: lambinder@vandallp.com
                  llusher@vandallp.com


BITCONNECT: Investors File Lawsuit Following Shutdown
-----------------------------------------------------
Helen Partz, writing for CoinTelegraph, reports that former
BitConnect investors have filed a class action lawsuit on Jan. 24
seeking compensation from the company that was found out to be a
Ponzi scheme and has shut down on Jan. 17.

The class action complaint states that BitConnect issued
cryptocurrency tokens that were actually unregistered securities
and collected additional funds via a "wide-ranging Ponzi scheme."

The complaint has been filed by six individuals on their own
behalf, as well as that of all other persons who have lost their
money by investing into BitConnect. The six plaintiffs stated
that their personal losses amounted to $771,000.

It is alleged that BitConnect guaranteed a 40 percent monthly
return that it promised to generate by trading the investors'
funds on the cryptocurrency market.

Ultimately, the plaintiffs claim that instead of genuinely
generating revenue via cryptocurrency trading, the platform
actually used the funds from new investors to meet the
expectations of the existing ones.

Launched in February 2016, BitConnect was a cryptocurrency
community platform which introduced its own cryptocurrency
Bitconnect coin (BCC) in November 2016.

According to data from Coinmarketcap, the BCC has reached the
peak of its popularity in Dec. 2017, when its market
capitalization hit about $2.7 bln.

Just days later, on Jan. 4, the state of Texas issued a cease and
desist order against BitConnect for the selling of unlicensed
securities which has led to the crash of the BCC token and the
platform's closure.

Meanwhile, BitConnect has managed to attract a different kind of
attention by releasing a bizarre video from its annual ceremony
in New York.

In it, the company's eccentric representative Carlos Matos claims
that his own investment in BitConnect has paid off several times
over. "My wife still doesn't believe me," said Matos, describing
how rich he has become. [GN]


BUCKHEAD LIFE: Faces "Samayoa" Suit over Failure to Pay OT
----------------------------------------------------------
Andrea Samayoa and Marlo Harris, on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated v. Buckhead Life Restaurant Group,
Inc., et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-00237-CAP (N.D. Ga., Jan. 16,
2018) is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay the
minimum wage rate for all hours worked and the required overtime
premium rate for all hours worked over 40 per week, in violation
of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Buckhead Life Restaurant Group Inc. operates restaurants in
Atlanta. It offers steaks, pastries, bread, cookies, desserts,
coffee, salads, soups, sandwiches, and Greek seafood. The company
was founded in 1979 and is based in Atlanta, Georgia. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dustin L. Crawford, Esq.
          Poole Huffman LLC
          315 W. Ponce de Leon Ave, Suite 344
          Decatur, GA 30030
          Telephone: (404) 373-4008
          E-mail: dustin@poolehuffman.com
                  john@poolehuffman.com


BUFFALO WILD: Vegetarians Lose Case Over Fries Cooked in Beef Fat
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lorraine Bailey, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports
that vegetarians cannot sue Buffalo Wild Wings for failing to
disclose that its french fries, mozzarella sticks and other fried
non-meat items are cooked in beef tallow, a federal judge ruled.

Alexa Borenkoff, a vegetarian, says she visited Buffalo Wild
Wings on multiple occasions and ordered non-meat items off the
menu but was never informed that the restaurant fries its food
using rendered beef fat.

In a class-action complaint filed in Manhattan federal court, she
claimed that it is industry standard to fry non-meat items in
vegetarian-friendly cooking oil, and "a reasonable consumer would
not expect non-meat items to be fried in beef tallow."

But on January 19, U.S. District Judge Katherine Forrest said
Borenkoff could not show she was injured by Buffalo Wild Wings'
non-disclosure of its cooking methods.

"Borenkoff does not allege how the use of beef tallow affects the
objective economic value of the food items she received," Forrest
said in her 12-page opinion. (Emphasis in original.)

The complaint does not allege that Borenkoff's fries were
defective in any way, that she was harmed by eating them, or that
the menu prices for fried foods were inflated because the
restaurant used beef tallow.

"Borenkoff paid for french fries and mozzarella sticks, and that
is ultimately what she received," Forrest said.

This same issue made headlines over 15 years ago when McDonald's
was sued by Hindu customers who ordered french fries and hash
browns from the fast-food chain but were unaware McDonald's fried
its food using beef tallow. Hindus consider cows sacred and do
not eat beef.

McDonald's settled that suit by agreeing to donate $10 million to
Hindu organizations. It now only uses pure vegetable oil, but
still adds natural beef flavor, a flavoring made of milk
derivatives.

Burger King's fries, on the other hand, are 100 percent vegan.


BW-PC LLC: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss 2nd Amended "Calmes" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, FRANK CALMES, Plaintiff, v. BW-PC, LLC, a Florida
limited liability Company, et al., Defendants, Case No. 9:17-CV-
80574-ROSENBERG/HOPKINS (S.D. Fla.), Judge Robin L. Rosenberg of
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida
granted the Defendants' motions to dismiss the Plaintiff's Second
Amended Complaint.

The Defendants in the case are alleged to have exercised control
over a country club: Boca West.  The Plaintiff, a Boca West
property owner, brought the case alleging, inter alia, that the
Defendants mismanaged Boca West.  The Defendants are alleged to
have mismanaged the Boca West community by raising fees and dues
in contravention of the community by-laws, by improperly selling
certain vacant land, and by improperly collecting locker rental
fees.

The Plaintiff has brought the case on behalf of a proposed class
of Boca West property owners.  He filed the case on May 5, 2017.
After the Court entered an order setting trial, the Plaintiff
soon thereafter amended his complaint as a matter of right on May
25, 2017.  The Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on June 22,
2017.

On Oct. 16, 2017, the Court granted the Defendants' motion to
dismiss, placed the Plaintiff on notice of the Court's concerns
about whether the Court had subject matter jurisdiction over his
claims, and permitted the Plaintiff to file another amended
complaint.

The Plaintiff then filed his third complaint, a second amended
complaint, on Nov. 2, 2017.  In response, the Defendants filed
two motions to dismiss.

Judge Rosenberg finds that the Plaintiff has had three
opportunities to file a complaint in the case that properly
alleges the Court has subject matter jurisdiction.  The Plaintiff
has also had eight months to marshal evidence in support of his
contention that this Court possesses subject matter jurisdiction
over his case under CAFA.  Upon review of the Plaintiff's Second
Amended Complaint and the evidence he has placed into the court
file, the Judge concludes that it lacks subject matter
jurisdiction for several different reasons.

The Judge says he cannot plausibly infer the Plaintiff's damages
from his Second Amended Complaint.  In essence, the Plaintiff has
alleged in a conclusory fashion that his damages are a specific
amount.  In connection therewith, the Plaintiff has provided a
simplistic, conclusory mathematical computation, but the Judge
must view the Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint in its
entirety.  He concludes that it cannot plausibly infer or
facially ascertain that the Plaintiff's class damages exceed $5
million from the Second Amended Complaint.

In addition, although the Plaintiff has attached some documents
to his response to the Defendants' motions to dismiss, the Judge
finds those documents contain no information relevant to the
Court's damages analysis under CAFA.  As a result, the Plaintiff
has failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that
his claims may be litigated in the Court under CAFA.

Finally, because of the Plaintiff's failure to provide any
evidence on his citizenship, and because of the scope of the
Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint, the local controversy
exception applies in the case and the Plaintiff, in the
alternative, cannot invoke the subject matter jurisdiction of the
Court under CAFA due to the local controversy exception.

For all of these reasons, Judge Rosenberg holds there is no basis
for the Court to exercise subject matter jurisdiction over the
case.  He ordered and adjudged that the Plaintiff's remaining
state law claims are dismissed without prejudice.  The Court
exercised its discretion to deny all pending motions for
sanctions.  The Clerk of the Court is directed to close the case
and deny all other pending motions as moot.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 12, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/yYb6o4 from Leagle.com.

Frank Calmes, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Michael J. Braunstein --
MBraunstein@BraunsteinFirm.com -- The Braunstein Law Firm, PLLC &
Ronald Scott Kaniuk, Kaniuk Law Office.

BOCA WEST COUNTRY CLUB, INC., a Florida Not For Profit
Corporation, Jerold Glassman, PHILIP KUPPERMAN & BW-PC LLC,
Defendants, represented by S. Jonathan Vine --
jonathan.vine@csklegal.com -- Cole Scott & Kissane, Barry Adam
Postman -- barry.postman@csklegal.com -- Cole Scott & Kissane,
Joshua Alexander Goldstein -- joshua.goldstein@csklegal.com --
Cole Scott & Kissane, P.A. & Nina Christine Schmidt --
nina.schmidt@csklegal.com -- Cole, Scott, Kissane P.A.

Larry Corman, Defendant, represented by Richard Wayne Epstein --
richard.epstein@gmlaw.com -- Greenspoon Marder, P.A., Roy Taub --
roy.taub@gmlaw.com -- Greenspoon Marder, P.A. & S. Jonathan Vine,
Cole Scott & Kissane.


CALIFORNIA: Padilla Can't Be Primary Litigant in "Herrera"
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DANIEL HERRERA, Plaintiffs, v. CALIFORNIA STATE
SUPERIOR COURTS, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-386-AWI-BAM
(E.D. Cal.), Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe of the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of California (i) denied
Eddie Padilla's Motion/Request by a Named Plaintiff to Become
Primary Litigant.

Herrera filed his complaint on March 16, 2017.  He names himself,
as well as six other prisoners: Gabriel Olivarez, Padilla, Roland
Hernandez, Juan Amesquita, and Cesar Madera, as the Plaintiffs.

On April 5, 2017, the Court granted the Plaintiff's application
to proceed in forma pauperis.  On May 16, 2017, the Court's order
granting the Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis
was returned as undeliverable.  Accordingly, on Aug. 2, 2017, the
Court issued Findings and Recommendations, recommending that the
Plaintiff's case be dismissed for failure to prosecute.

On Aug. 14, 2107, Padilla, an individual named in the Plaintiff's
complaint, filed his Motion/Request by a Named Plaintiff to
Become Primary Litigant.  On that same day, Herrera filed
objections to the Findings and Recommendations stating his
intention to prosecute the case.  On Oct. 18, 2017, the Court
vacated the Findings and Recommendations and advised Herrera that
his complaint would be screened in due course.

The Plaintiff is currently housed at California Substance Abuse
Treatment Facility in Corcoran, CA.  He brings suit against (1)
California State Superior Courts, (2) Department of Corrections-
State Prisons, (3) Parole Hearing Board, and (4) California State
Attorney General, alleging he filed applications under
Proposition 57, Sentence Reform Act, to be given effect to him,
and it authorizes a court action as remedy should the government
refuse to give Proposition 57 effect.

The Defendants have failed to give effect to Proposition 57.  The
Plaintiff alleges he is eligible under Proposition 57 for a
sentence reduction, as he is no longer considered a three-
striker.  In Claim I, the Plaintiff alleges a denial of access to
the Court.  In Claim II, he alleges false imprisonment.  He
applied for the remedy and benefit of Proposition 57 and has been
denied.  In Claim III, he alleges a Due Process violation based
upon the same facts.

The Plaintiff asks for an injunction or mandate to compel the
Defendants to act consistent with Proposition 57 and also asks
for an award of damages for each day the Plaintiff has spent in
custody beyond his release date.  He seeks to bring a class
action.

Magistrate Judge McAuliffe holds that Herrera's complaint fails
state a claim upon which relief may be granted under section
1983.  As he is proceeding pro se, she will grant him an
opportunity to amend his complaint to cure the identified
deficiencies to the extent he is able to do so in good faith.

The Magistrate Judge directed that the Plaintiff's amended
complaint should be brief, but must state what each named
Defendant did that led to the deprivation of his constitutional
or other federal rights.  The Plaintiff also must set forth
sufficient factual matter to state a claim that is plausible on
its face.  Additionally, the Plaintiff may not change the nature
of the suit by adding new, unrelated claims in his second amended
complaint.  Finally, the Judge advised the Plaintiff that an
amended complaint supersedes the original complaint.  His second
amended complaint must be complete in itself without reference to
the prior or superseded pleading.

Based on the foregoing, the Magistrate Judge denied Padilla to
become the primary litigant in the matter.  She directed the
Clerk's Office to send Herrera a complaint form.  Within 30 days
from the date of service of the Order, Herrera will file a first
amended complaint curing the deficiencies identified by the Court
in the Order.  If he fails to file an amended complaint in
compliance with this order, the Court will recommend dismissal of
the action, with prejudice, for failure to obey a court order and
for failure to state a claim.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 12, 2018 Screening Order is
available at https://is.gd/GYxIZD from Leagle.com.

Daniel Herrera, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

Gabriel Olivarez, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

Eddi Padilla, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

Roland Hernandez, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

Juan Amesquita, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

Cesar Madera, Plaintiff, Pro Se.


CAVIUM INC: Shareholders Claim Firm Sold for Less Than Its Worth
----------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that
Cavium shareholders claim self-seeking directors sold the
semiconductor company to (nonparty) Marvell Technology Group for
$1.8 billion less than it's worth, in Monterey County Court.

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

     Evan J. Smith, Esq.
     BRODSKY & SMITH, LLC
     9595 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 900
     Beverly Hills, CA 90212
     Telephone: 877.534.2590
     Facsimile: 310.247.0160


CHICAGO, IL: Failed to Provide Special-Ed Services to Kids
----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that in a federal class-action
lawsuit, non-English speaking parents of disabled Chicago Public
Schools students claim the school system has not translated vital
documents or provided interpretation in the process to determine
what special-education services their kids need.

Specifically, the complaint alleged that Chicago Public Schools
("CPS") and the Illinois State Board of Education ("ISBE")
systemically fail to provide a large and distinct subset of
children with disabilities the free appropriate public education
("FAPE") they are entitled to under Federal law.  The children
harmed by Defendants' conduct live in families whose native
language is not English and have parents with limited English
proficiency.  Defendants fail to meet their legal obligation to
these limited English proficient parents and their children with
disabilities by failing, on a systemic basis, to translate vital
documents and provide competent interpretation in the process
used to determine what special education services these children
require.

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

     Donna Welch, Esq.
     Alec Solotorovsky, Esq.
     Jennifer Pinsof, Esq.
     KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
     300 North LaSalle
     Chicago, IL 60654
     Tel: (312) 862-2421
     Fax: (312) 862-2200
     Email: donna.welch@kirkland.com
            alec.solotorovsky@kirkland.com
            jennifer.pinsof@kirkland.com

        -- and --

     Olga Pribyl, Esq.
     Barry Taylor, Esq.
     Margo Weinstein, Esq.
     Margaret Wakelin, Esq.
     EQUIP FOR EQUALITY, INC.
     20 N Michigan, Suite 300
     Chicago, IL 60602
     Tel: (312) 341-0022


COACH INC: Vaughn Moves for Certification of Store Managers Class
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled MARTHA VAUGHN, on behalf of
herself, all others similarly situated v. COACH, INC., DBA COACH
LEATHERWARE CALIFORNIA INC., a Maryland corporation; and DOES 1-
50 inclusive, Case No. 3:16-cv-04633-VC (N.D. Cal.), moves the
Court for an order certifying this Store Manager Class:

     All individuals employed by Coach in the position of Store
     Manager in California at any time since June 29, 2012.
     Excluded from the Store Manager Class are those periods of
     time where an individual was employed as a Store Manager in
     a Coach store overseen by a General Manager.

Ms. Vaughn also seeks certification of such sub-classes as are
necessary to manage the proposed class, including penalty sub-
classes limited in time by the applicable statutes of limitation.
She notes that her first amended complaint expressly advised the
Defendant as follows: "Plaintiff reserves the right to amend or
modify the class definitions with greater specificity, by further
division into subclasses, and/or by limitation to particular
issues."

The case is a proposed wage and hour class action lawsuit
involving just over 100 current and former Store Managers working
for Coach, Inc., in California.  As the singular issue underlying
this matter, the Plaintiff alleges that Coach misclassified Store
Managers as exempt from California's overtime law.  Store
Managers, as a result of restrictive labor budgets and carefully
monitored sales targets, routinely spent more than half their
time performing non-exempt tasks, such as helping customers,
operating Point of Sale systems, counting out cash receipts for
the day, and similar tasks, she asserts.

Ms. Vaughn further asks the Court to appoint her as
representative of the class proposed herein or later proposed and
approved by the Court and any other sub-class the Court may
devise; to appoint Shaun Setareh, Esq., and H. Scott Leviant,
Esq., of Setareh Law Group as Class Counsel; and to issue such
other Orders as necessary to effectuate the Court's certification
Order.

The Court will commence a hearing today, March 8, 2018, at 10:00
a.m., to consider the Motion.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=w7Q5iFQy

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shaun Setareh, Esq.
          H. Scott Leviant, Esq.
          SETAREH LAW GROUP
          9454 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 907
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone: (310) 888-7771
          Facsimile: (310) 888-0109
          E-mail: shaun@setarehlaw.com
                  scott@setarehlaw.com


COLD SPRING: $500K Settlement in "Avila" Suit Has Final Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JOSEPH AVILA, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. COLD SPRING GRANITE COMPANY, a
Minnesota Corporation, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-001533-AWI-
SKO (E.D. Cal.), Judge Anthony W. Ishii of the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of California granted the
Plaintiff's motion for final approval and granted in part the
Plaintiff's motion for fees and costs.

The Defendant is a natural stone manufacturer that operates
quarries in the United States and Canada.  The Plaintiff and the
891 absent class members are or were the Defendant's employees
working at quarries in Raymond, California and Clovis,
California.  The Plaintiff and the absent class members are or
were all employed as non-exempt hourly employees.  The Defendant
instituted an Alternative Workweek Schedule, whereby it scheduled
class members to work "four 10-hour shifts per week," from 6:00
a.m. to 4:30 p.m.  The Plaintiffs were not paid at an overtime
rate when they worked more than eight hours per day.  The
Defendant also failed to provide the class members with off-duty
meal periods prior to the end of their fifth hour of work.

The preliminary approved class definition is all non-exempt
positions at Cold Spring facilities in Raymond, California and
Clovis, California from Oct. 11, 2012 through Aug. 16, 2017.  The
settlement class includes 89 employees.  No class member has
opted-out.

The parties have agreed to a total maximum settlement amount of
$500,000 to be paid by the Defendant.  That settlement amount
includes class counsel's attorney fees, costs, and any expenses
related to the suit.  The settlement provides that attorney fees
will not exceed $166,666.66 (i.e., 33.33% of the gross fund).  Of
the remaining $333,333.34, up to $15,000 is allocated to
reimburse for costs, up to $5,000 is allocated to pay a
representative service award to the Named Plaintiff, $7,500 is
allocated as a PAGA payment to the LWDA, and $8,500 is allocated
to pay the settlement administrator's fees and costs.

The remaining balance, assuming the maximum of each allocated
amount is paid, will be $297,333.34.  That net settlement amount
will be distributed to class members in proportion to the weeks
each worked during the class period.  More precisely, each of the
class member's settlement payment will be calculated by dividing
the class member's weeks worked during the class period by the
total weeks worked by all class members during the class period
then multiplied by the net settlement amount.  In that way, all
of the net settlement amount will be paid to class members.  The
average payment is $3,340.82 per class member.

Any settlement checks not cashed or deposited within 120 days of
issuance will be transmitted to the State of California's
Department of Industrial Relations Unclaimed Wages Fund.

The Court held a final fairness hearing on Dec. 11, 2017 at 1:30
p.m.  No class member was present.  No objections were raised to
the settlement.  Judge Ishii granted the Plaintiff's Motion for
Final Approval of the Settlement Agreement and the Plaintiff's
request for certification of the Settlement Class.  The
Settlement Class is defined as all non-exempt positions at Cold
Spring facilities in Raymond, California and Clovis, California
from Oct. 11, 2012 through Aug. 16, 2017.

The Judge granted in part the Plaintiff's motion for attorneys'
fees, costs, and representative service award.  He appointed
Plaintiff Joseph Avila as a suitable class representative for the
settlement class and awarded $5,000 as a representative service
payment.  He also appointed Hoyer & Hicks and United Employees
Law Group, PC as the class counsel for the settlement class, and
are awarded $140,000 in attorneys' fees and $6,124.05 in costs.
The Judge awarded the settlement administrator, CPT Group, Inc.,
to up to $8,500 for settlement administration costs.

Judge Ishii directed the parties to effectuate the settlement
terms as set forth in the Settlement Agreement, integrating into
the class member payment the additional 5% of the gross fund
amount sought but not awarded to the class counsel, and the
settlement administrator to calculate and pay the claims of the
class members in accordance with the terms set forth in the
Settlement Agreement and the following schedule:

     a. Effective Date - Feb. 15, 2018

     b. The Defendant to wire the Gross Settlement Fund to CPT
Group - No later than March 1, 2018

     c. Fees and costs, Class Representative awards, Call awards
- No later than  March 15, 2018 to be paid by CPT Group

     d. CPT to stop payment on checks for Class Members who 120
days after receive a payment but do not cash the settlement check

     e. CPT to transmit the funds designated for class members
and awards but not paid, to the State of California's Unclaimed
Property Fund

By means of the Final Approval Order, Judge Ishii entered final
judgment in the action.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 12, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/wSNLkU from Leagle.com.

JJoseph Avila, Plaintiff, represented by Jennifer Elizabeth
McGuire -- jennifer@mlfprobate.com -- Hoyer & Hicks, Ryan Lee
Hicks -- rhicks@hoyerlaw.com -- Hoyer & Hicks, Richard Anderson
Hoyer -- rhoyer@hoyerlaw.com -- Hoyer & Hicks & Walter L. Haines
-- walter@whaines.com -- United Employees Law Group, PC.

Cold Spring Granite Corporation, Defendant, represented by
Stephen L. Berry -- stephenberry@paulhastings.com -- Paul
Hastings LLP.


COMERICA BANK: Accused of Aiding, Abetting $1.2B Ponzi Scheme
-------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that
investors accuse Comerica Bank in a federal class action of
negligently aiding and abetting a $1.2 billion Ponzi scheme
allegedly run by Robert Shapiro and his Woodbridge Group.

Attorneys for Plaintiffs Lloyd and Nancy Landman:

     Betsy C. Manifold, Esq.
     Rachele R. Rickert, Esq.
     Marisa C. Livesay, Esq.
     Brittany N. Dejong, Esq.
     WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
     750 B Street, Suite 2770
     San Diego, CA 92101
     Telephone: 619/239-4599
     Facsimile: 619/234-4599
     Email: manifold@whafh.com
            rickert@whafh.com
            livesay@whafh.com
            dejong@whafh.com


COMMERCE INSURANCE: Sued Over Post-Arbitration Award Interest
-------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Grabau, individually and on behalf of those similarly
situated v. Commerce Insurance Company, Case No. 18-cv-0111
(Mass. Cmmw., Jan. 12, 2018), alleges that Defendant's unlawful
practice and policy of not paying post-award interest on
arbitration awards violates Massachusetts Common-law, and breach
the express terms of a class-action settlement agreement.

An action for damages and to enjoin Commerce from continuing the
practice of failing to tender post award interest was previously
brought in Suffolk County Superior Court, titled Seredkin et al.
v. Commerce Insurance Company, et al. Suffolk County Superior
Court, Ca. No. SUCV07-1294-BLS2.  Commerce entered into a binding
and court approved class-wide settlement agreement wherein it
agreed to "institute a policy whereby it would pay post-
arbitration award interest on all Arbitration Awards at the
statutory amount of 12% from the date of the award to the date of
payment plus a period of three days."

Commerce has failed to pay post-arbitration award interest on
Arbitration Awards at the statutory amount from the date of the
award to the date of payment plus a period of three days since it
entered into the Settlement Agreement.

Grabau seeks to represent a Class consisting of "All individuals
who obtained either a first-party or third-party arbitration
award against either Commerce or a Commerce insured, and who have
not received payment of post award interest and interest
thereon."

The Commerce Insurance Company provides property and casualty
insurance. It offers auto, property, life, travel, business,
umbrella, motorcycle, watercraft/boat/yacht, and recreational
vehicles insurance. The company provides its products through
agents and brokers in California, Connecticut, Maine,
Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Ohio, Rhode Island, and Vermont.
The company was incorporated in 1971 and is based in Webster,
Massachusetts. The Commerce Insurance Company operates as a
subsidiary of MAPFRE U.S.A. Corp.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John R. Yasi, Esq.
          FORREST LAMOTHE MAZOW
          MCCULLOUGH YASI & YASI, P.C.
          2 Salem Green, Suite 2
          Salem, MA 01970
          Telephone: (617) 231-7829


CONTEXTMEDIA INC: Griffith's Cert. Bid OK'd; Feb. 12 Hearing Set
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois made a docket entry on January 11, 2018, in the case
entitled Christy Griffith v. ContextMedia, Inc., et al., Case No.
1:16-cv-02900 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing held before the
Honorable Elaine E. Bucklo.

The minute entry states that:

   -- Plaintiff's motion for class certification pursuant to
      Rule 23(b)(3) [60] of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
      is granted;

   -- Plaintiff's motion for leave to file third amended
      complaint is granted;

   -- Defendant's motion to strike the Declaration of Lisa
      Mullins in support of Plaintiff's motion for class
      certification is denied; and

   -- Status hearing is set for February 12, 2018, at 9:30 a.m.

A copy of the Notification of Docket Entry is available at no
charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=eCpZbHi7


CORETELLIGENT LLC: Fails to Pay for Overtime, "Michaud" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kenneth Michaud, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Coretelligent, LLC, and
Christine McMurray, the Defendants, Case No. 18-0112 (Mass.
Cmmw., Jan. 12, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages,
maximum liquidated damages and attorneys' fees, pursuant to the
Massachusetts Wage Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was paid 1.5 hours of
billable hours at the rate of $33 per hour for every billable
hour that he worked on the weekend. For example, if Plaintiff
worked 6 hours on a Saturday, and 5 of those were billable hours,
the Defendants would pay the Plaintiff for 7.5 hours of work (5
hours x 1.5 = 7.5), but the Defendants would pay him nothing for
the one hour of non-billable time that he worked.

Coretelligent, LLC provides managed information technology (IT)
and private cloud services. It offers 360 Support, a critical
infrastructure monitoring, onsite and remote support, project
management, and maintenance solution; CoreCloud, a network
architecture, data center, virtualized hardware platform, real-
time alerting and escalation, remediation protocol, and managed
hosted application; and CoreBDR, a data protection, recovery,
compression, and deduplication solution. Coretelligent, LLC was
founded in 2006 and is headquartered in Westwood, Massachusetts
with additional offices in New York, New York; Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania; and San Carlos, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John W. Davis, Esq.
          DAVIS & DAVIS, P.C.
          350 Park Street
          Park Place South, Suite 105
          North Reading, MA 01864
          Telephone: (987) 276-0777
          E-mail: jdavis@davisanddavispc.com


COX AUTOMOTIVE: NextGear Objects to MPO Order in Red Barn Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, RED BARN MOTORS, INC., PLATINUM MOTORS, INC., and
MATTINGLY AUTO SALES, INC., individually and on behalf of other
members of the general public similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
COX AUTOMOTIVE, INC., NEXTGEAR CAPITAL, INC. F/K/A DEALER
SERVICES CORPORATION, successor by merger with Manheim Automotive
Financial Services, Inc., and JOHN WICK, Defendants, Case No.
1:14-cv-01589-TWP-DML (S.D. Ind.), NextGear filed with the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis
Division, its objection to the Order on Motion for Protective
Order entered by Magistrate Judge McVicker Lynch ("MPO Order") on
Oct. 5, 2017 pursuant to Rule 72(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedures.

Currently pending before the Court are the Defendants' Motion to
Modify Class Certification Order to Narrow Class, and their
Objections to Magistrate Judge's Orders on Motions to Stay and
Request to Stay Discovery Regarding Subset of Class ("First
Objections").  In these filings, the Defendants have asked the
Court to (1) exclude from the class certified by the Court
dealers who have entered into written arbitration agreements and
class action waivers that preclude participation in the class
under clear federal law, and (2) relieve NextGear of any
requirement to produce information regarding such dealers.

The MPO Order denied NextGear's request for a protective order as
to additional discovery requests relating to these dealers and,
thus, effectively requires NextGear to proceed with discovery as
if the Court has already denied the Motion to Narrow and
overruled the First Objections.  NextGear's motion for a
protective order was merely intended to maintain a pause on
discovery as to the dealers subject to arbitration and class
action waiver provisions until the Court had an opportunity to
rule on the Motion to Narrow.

For the reasons stated in the Defendants' Motion to Narrow and
First Objections, NextGear respectfully requests that the Court
overrules the Magistrate Judge's MPO Order to the extent the MPO
Order requires NextGear to produce information regarding dealers
who signed a promissory note containing arbitration and class
action waiver provisions.  They say these are critical
substantive rights for which NextGear has bargained in its
contracts with dealers, and the Court cannot and should not
disregard these contractual provisions.  The Defendants also
request that the Court directs that compliance with the MPO Order
be stayed until the Court has ruled on the Defendants' Motion to
Narrow and the parties have exhausted any related appeal rights.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 12, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/Y8QRzF from Leagle.com.

RED BARN MOTORS, INC., Plaintiff, represented by Cassie E.
Felder, THE CASSIE FELDER LAW FIRM, Catherine E. Lasky, JONES
SWANSON HUDDELL & GARRISON, LLC, pro hac vice, Gladstone N. Jones
-- gjones@jonesswanson.com, JONES SWANSON HUDDELL & GARRISON,
LLC, pro hac vice, Jacob A. Airey, SHER GARNER CAHILL RICHTER
KLEIN & HILBERT, LLC., pro hac vice, James M. Garner, SHER GARNER
CAHILL RICHTER KLEIN & HILBERT, LLC, pro hac vice, Kathleen Ann
DeLaney -- kathleen@delaneylaw.net -- DELANEY & DELANEY LLC,
Kerry A. Murphy, JONES, SWANSON, HUDDELL & GARRISON, LLC, pro hac
vice, Lynn E. Swanson -- wanson@jonesswanson.com, JONES, SWANSON,
HUDDELL& GARRISON, LLC, pro hac vice, Matthew M. Coman, SHER
GARNER CAHILL RICHTER KLEIN & HILBERT LLC, pro hac vice & Ryan D.
Adams, SHER GARNER CAHILL RICHTER KLEIN & HILBERT LLC, pro hac
vice.

PLATINUM MOTORS, INC. & MATTINGLY AUTO SALES, INC., Plaintiffs,
represented by Cassie E. Felder, THE CASSIE FELDER LAW FIRM,
Catherine E. Lasky, JONES SWANSON HUDDELL & GARRISON, LLC, Jacob
A. Airey, SHER GARNER CAHILL RICHTER KLEIN & HILBERT, LLC., pro
hac vice, Kathleen Ann DeLaney, DELANEY & DELANEY LLC, Kerry A.
Murphy, JONES, SWANSON, HUDDELL & GARRISON, LLC, pro hac vice,
Matthew M. Coman, SHER GARNER CAHILL RICHTER KLEIN & HILBERT LLC
& James M. Garner, SHER GARNER CAHILL RICHTER KLEIN & HILBERT,
LLC.

COX ENTERPRISES, INC., Defendant, represented by David J.
Jurkiewicz -- djurkiewicz@boselaw.com -- BOSE MCKINNEY & EVANS,
LLP, Jason S. McCarter -- jasonmccarter@eversheds-sutherland.com
-- EVERSHEDS SUTHERLAND (US) LLP, pro hac vice, Paul D. Vink --
pvink@boselaw.com -- BOSE MCKINNEY & EVANS, LLP & Tracey K.
Ledbetter -- traceyledbetter@eversheds-sutherland.com --
EVERSHEDS SUTHERLAND (US) LLP, pro hac vice.

NEXTGEAR CAPITAL, INC., f/k/a DEALER SERVICES CORPORATION,
successor by merger with Manheim Automotive Financial Services,
Inc., Defendant, represented by David J. Jurkiewicz, BOSE
MCKINNEY & EVANS, LLP, Jason S. McCarter, EVERSHEDS SUTHERLAND
(US) LLP, pro hac vice, Paul D. Vink, BOSE MCKINNEY & EVANS, LLP,
Steven D. Groth, BOSE MCKINNEY & EVANS, LLP & Tracey K.
Ledbetter, EVERSHEDS SUTHERLAND (US) LLP, pro hac vice.


CREDIT MANAGEMENT: Class Certification Sought in "Bassett" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kelly M. Bassett moves the Court to enter an order certifying the
case titled KELLY M. BASSETT, individually and as heir and
Personal Representative of the Estate of James M. Bassett, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. CREDIT
MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC. and JASON MORLEDGE, Case No. 8:17-cv-
00069-JFB-MDN (D. Neb.), to proceed as a class action on behalf
of a class defined as:

     (i) all persons with addresses in Nebraska (ii) to whom
     Defendants sent or served, or caused to be sent or served, a
     county court collection complaint in the form of Exhibit A
     (iii) in an attempt to collect an alleged unpaid medical
     account (iv) which requested an award of statutory
     attorneys' fees and/or prejudgment interest pursuant to
     Neb. Rev. Stat. Section 25-1801.

The time period for violations of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act is one year prior to the filing of this litigation,
i.e. March 4, 2016, through the date of certification.  The time
period for violations of the Nebraska Consumer Protection Act is
four years prior to the filing of this litigation, i.e. March 4,
2013, through the date of certification.

Ms. Bassett also asks that she be named class representative, and
that O. Randolph Bragg, Esq., Pamela A. Car, Esq., and William L.
Reinbrecht, Esq., be appointed as class counsel.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Pamela A. Car, Esq.
          William L. Reinbrecht, Esq.
          CAR & REINBRECHT, P.C., LLO
          8720 Frederick Street, Suite 105
          Omaha, NE 68124
          Telephone: (402) 391-8484
          Facsimile: (402) 391-1103
          E-mail: pacar@cox.net
                  billr205@gmail.com

               - and -

          O. Randolph Bragg, Esq.
          HORWITZ, HORWITZ & ASSOC.
          25 East Washington St., Suite 900
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 372-8822
          Facsimile: (312) 372-1673
          E-mail: rand@horwitzlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Christopher R. Morris, Esq.
          BASSFORD REMELE
          100 South Fifth Street, Suite 1500
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 333-3000
          E-mail: cmorris@bassford.com


CREIG NORTHROP: Summary Judgment in "Larocca" Affirmed
------------------------------------------------------
Judge Shaw Geter of the U.S. Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
affirmed the circuit court's order granting the remaining six
Defendants' renewed motion for summary judgment in the case,
FRANK LAROCCA, ET AL., v. THE CREIG NORTHROP TEAM, P.C., ET AL,
Case No. 644 (Md. Spec. App.).

On Dec. 9, 2011, the Plaintiffs filed a class action lawsuit in
connection with alleged fraudulent mortgage transactions against
eight parties: Long and Foster Real Estate, Inc.; The Creig
Northrop Team, P.C.; Creighton Edward Northrop, III; Prosperity
Mortgage Corporation; Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.; Michelle Mathews;
PNC Mortgage, a division of PNC Bank, N.A., formerly National
City Mortgage; and Suzanne Scales Windesheim.  The Defendants
filed a motion for summary judgment and, following a hearing, the
circuit court granted the motion finding that the Plaintiffs'
complaint was barred by the statute of limitations.

The Plaintiffs appealed and the Court reversed, finding there
existed disputed issues of material fact.  It found that the
determination of whether the false rental income should have
placed the Plaintiffs on notice involved the credibility of their
testimony, and the question of credibility is to be decided by
the finder of fact.  It held that the circuit court erred in
granting summary judgment.

The eight Defendants appealed this decision, but certiorari was
granted only as to two -- PNC Mortgage and Suzanne Scales
Windesheim.  The two Defendants have been dismissed from the
case.  The Court reversed in part, and the case was remanded to
the circuit court for further proceedings.

On remand, following a hearing, the circuit court granted the
remaining six Defendants' renewed motion for summary judgment
because the Court of Appeals held as a matter of law that the
contents of the applications were sufficient to place the
Plaintiffs on notice of a potential fraud, and there was no
evidence that the Remaining Defendants engaged in some form of
conduct designed to conceal the fraud.

The Plaintiffs timely appealed and present the following issues
that the Court has consolidated and reworded: (i) whether the
circuit court violated the law of the case doctrine by
reinstating its original order granting summary judgment; and
(ii) whether the circuit court erred in holding that the
Plaintiffs' claims are not tolled by the statute of limitations.

Judge Geter agrees with the circuit court that the same facts
that placed the Plaintiffs on inquiry notice as to Former
Defendants are equally applicable to the Remaining Defendants and
sufficient to place the Plaintiffs on inquiry notice as to the
Remaining Defendants.  The Judge says Windesheim v. Larocca
("Larocca II") identified multiple reasons why the Plaintiffs
were on inquiry notice that something was amiss.

First, the home equity line of credit ("HELOC") Applications
suggested that a bank other than Prosperity and a loan officer
other than Mathews were providing the HELOCs; second, the Primary
Mortgage Applications suggested that Prosperity was approving the
Plaintiffs' new mortgages based on false rental income that the
Plaintiffs never provided to Mathews.  And third, while the
Plaintiffs contended they were deceived when Prosperity approved
their primary residential mortgages based on false rental income,
the Primary Mortgage Applications expressly identified gross
rental income.

According to the Judge, the only other basis to toll the statute
of limitations requires evidence of concealment.  However,
Larocca II held there was no evidence that the "Defendants"
concealed the contents of the mortgage applications, and no new
evidence was introduced at the hearing on remand.  As such, there
is no basis to toll the statute of limitations, and the
Plaintiffs' remaining claims are barred by the three-year statute
of limitations.

For these reasons, Judge Geter affirmed the judgment of the
Circuit Court for Howard County.  Costs to be paid by the
Appellants.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 12, 2018 Opinion is
available at https://is.gd/vziuKT from Leagle.com.


CUSTOM DRYWALL: Caceres Seeks Certification of Class Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit styled JORGE GOMEZ CACERES and
OSCAR ANINO, on behalf of themselves and other persons similarly
situated v. CUSTOM DRYWALL & PAINTING LLC, and ANTHONY MARTINEZ,
Case No. 2:17-cv-06949-CJB-JVM (E.D. La.), move for conditional
class certification, judicial notice, and for disclosure of the
names and addresses of potential "opt-in" plaintiffs.

The action arises from an alleged "generally applicable rule,
policy, or practice" pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b) of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=sqh5I80m

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


DALLAS COUNTY, TX: Sued for Jailing People Who Can't Pay Bail
-------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that
Dallas County, its sheriffs and judges are the latest to face a
federal class action accusing them of unconstitutionally jailing
poor people before trial because they cannot afford to pay bail
for misdemeanors.

The case is about Dallas County jailing some of its poorest
people because they cannot afford to make a monetary payment.

Named Plaintiff Shannon Daves is currently unemployed and
homeless.  She was arrested for a misdemeanor offense on January
17, and Dallas County has detained her since then solely because
she cannot afford to pay a $500 money bail.  Because Ms. Daves is
transgender and cannot afford to purchase her release, she is
being kept in solitary confinement.  The other Named Plaintiffs -
- Shakena Walston, Erriyah Banks, Destinee Tovar, Petroba
Michieka, and James Thompson -- are also impoverished individuals
who were arrested for misdemeanor or felony offenses in Dallas
County.  They are all being kept in jail cells at the Dallas
County Jail because they cannot afford to pay the money bail
amount required for release.

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

     Elizabeth Rossi, Esq.
     Alec Karakatsanis, Esq.
     Premal Dharia, Esq.
     Civil Rights Corps
     910 17th Street NW, Suite 200
     Washington, DC 20006
     Tel: 202-599-0953
     Fax: 202-609-8030
     Email: elizabeth@civilrightscorps.org
            alec@civilrightscorps.org
            premal@civilrightscorps.org

        -- and --

     Trisha Trigilio, Esq.
     Andre Segura, Esq.
     American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Texas
     1500 McGowen Street, Suite 250
     Houston, Texas 77004
     Tel: 713.942.8146
     Fax: 713.942.8966
     Email: ttrigilio@aclutx.org

        -- and --

     Kali Cohn, Esq.
     American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Texas
     6440 N. Central Expressway
     Dallas, TX 75206
     Tel: 214-346-6577
     Fax: 713-942-8966
     Email: kcohn@aclutx.org

        -- and --

     Brandon J. Buskey, Esq.
     American Civil Liberties Union
     Foundation Criminal Law Reform Project
     125 Broad Street, 18th Floor
     New York, NY 10004
     Tel: (212) 284-7364
     Fax: (212) 549-2654
     Email: bbuskey@aclu.org

        -- and --

     Susanne Pringle, Esq.
     Emily Gerrick, Esq.
     Texas Fair Defense Project
     314 E. Highland Mall Blvd., Suite 180
     Austin, Texas 78752
     Telephone: (512) 637-5220
     Facsimile: (512) 637-5224
     Email: springle@fairdefense.org


DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Inauguration Day Protesters Sue Police
------------------------------------------------------------
Britain Eakin, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that
individuals arrested during inauguration-day protests last year
filed a federal class action complaint January 19 against
Metropolitan Police Department officials for failure to
distinguish actual rioters from peaceful participants during a
mass arrest.

According to the lawsuit, a police official in charge of handling
civil disturbances during the protests declined to identify or
apprehend the individuals smashing windows and vandalizing
property, opting instead to declare a three-block march a riot.

Without discretion, officers used pepper spray, flash band and
concussion grenades to sweep up hundreds of individuals who were
marching down 13th St. NW in Washington into a cordoned-off area,
the 31-page lawsuit says.

Some of the protesters were held for up to nine hours without
access to a bathroom, food or water, according to the complaint.

Filing attorney Jeffrey Light, Esq. -- jeffl@rgrdlaw.com -- says
a pattern has emerged in Washington of mass arrests without
individualized probable cause, which has prompted a number of
class action lawsuits.

"It seems like they still haven't learned their lesson about what
the law requires them to do in these situations," Light said in a
phone interview. "The lawsuit is in part to ensure that in future
cases the government adheres to the constitutional limitations of
what they can do when they're faced with a situation like this."

Light added that he couldn't see a legitimate reason for
confining the protesters for so long, especially since transport
vans were available.

"Their own standard operating procedures call for people to be
released within four hours in situations involving mass arrests,"
Light said. "Maybe it's not always possible, but at least here it
seems that there was an intentional delay to maximize the
discomfort of those in the kettle."

Commander Keith Deville "knew that not all of the individuals who
were marching were committing acts of vandalism when he declared
the march a 'riot,'" the complaint says. "He was also aware that
some of the individuals walking down 13th St., NW were
journalists photographing the march or otherwise documenting the
march."

According to the lawsuit, the individuals committing acts of
vandalism were dressed in all black with masks covering their
faces.

"Far from cheering the acts of vandalism, some individuals in the
crowd shouted that the protest should remain peaceful," the
complaint says.

The lawsuit came the day after federal prosecutors dropped
rioting charges against 129 protesters. Prosecutors are pressing
ahead with cases against 59 other defendants.

Light said the timing of January 19's lawsuit was purely
coincidental.

Light filed the complaint on behalf of lead plaintiffs Jesse
Schultz III, John G. Baker and Alexander Contompasis. All three
were arrested during the protests, but the charges against them
were dropped several weeks later.

The lawsuit names as defendants the District of Columbia, Chief
of Police Peter Newsham, Assistant Chiefs of Police Lamar Green
and Robert Alder, Commanders Jeffery Carroll and Keith Deville,
Lieutenant Paul Niepling, Sergeant Anthony Alioto, and Officers
Michael Howden, Melvin Washington, Gregory Rock and Daniel Thau.

The lawsuit alleges false arrest, a First Amendment violation for
targeting individuals for arrest without probable cause, and
Fourth and Fifth Amendment violations for the conditions of
confinement. The complaint also contains two counts of
negligence.

The Metropolitan Police Department did not respond to an email
sent after business hours seeking comment.

Schultz, Baker and Contompasis are asking the court to declare
the conduct unlawful and to expunge the false arrest from the
records of the class members. They are also seeking compensatory
and punitive damages.


EDISON COMPANY: Lieff Cabraser File Lawsuit Over Thomas Fire
------------------------------------------------------------
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP, Cappello & Noel LLP, and
Keller Rohrback LLP announce that Victoria Frost d/b/a Frost Fit
and seven other plaintiffs have filed a class action lawsuit in
Los Angeles Superior Court against Southern California Edison
Company and Edison International for personal and business losses
from the 2017-2018 Thomas Fire and Mudslides that occurred as a
result of SCE's alleged failure to properly and safely maintain
its electrical infrastructure in Santa Barbara and Ventura
Counties.

The Thomas Fire, Large-Scale Evacuations, and Lives Lost

Starting on or about December 4, 2017, a fire began raging in the
mountains and steep slopes surrounding Lake Casitas and the City
of Ojai in Santa Barbara and Ventura Counties. Driven by the
Santa Ana winds, the fire consumed over 280,000 acres, including
large portions of the Los Padres National Forest. Ash from the
fire covered the land like a gray snow, and smoke filled the air
and brought a dark pall over the sky. Over 100,000 residents were
required to evacuate and two lives were lost.

The Thomas fire burned an area larger than New York City,
Washington D.C., and San Francisco combined. At the height of its
strength, the Thomas Fire qualified as a "firestorm," meaning it
was strong enough to create its own weather. At times, the fire
advanced at a rate of an acre per second.

Fighting the Thomas Fire required the largest mobilization of
firefighters for combating any wildfire in California history.
More than 8,500 came from all over the United States and other
parts of the world to combat the flames. The areas affected by
the Thomas Fire were declared a national disaster by the
President in January. The Thomas Fire burned more than 281,000
acres, destroyed 1,063 structures, including 775 homes, and
damaged another 280 before it was finally contained on January
12, 2018. The California Department of Forestry and Fire
Protection ("Cal Fire") determined the Thomas Fire was both the
largest fire in California's modern history, as well as the
seventh most destructive.

Massive Mudslides, at Least 21 Residents Killed

The Thomas Fire denuded the landscape of the dense thickets of
chaparral, brush, and tall grass that normally cover the region.
When rain arrived, the destruction from the Thomas Fire triggered
mudslides by turning hundreds miles of the Santa Ynez Mountains
into precarious, unstable ground capable of being swept away at
any moment. Additionally, because the Fire burned so intensely,
the soil was transformed into a dense, water-repellant surface.
The U.S. Geological Survey warned of the high risk for disastrous
landslides if heavy rain fell on mountainsides around Santa
Barbara that had been scorched by the Thomas wildfire.

On January 9, 2018 massive flows of mud tumbled down mountain
slopes laid bare by the massive fire. Car-sized boulders and
trees rushed through the area on a devastating rampage. Massive
flows of debris, comprised of mud as thick as concrete and moving
at speeds of up to 20 miles per hour, slammed into the
neighborhoods below. Some homes were ripped from their
foundations while others were swallowed by waist-high mud and
rubble. Over 20 million pounds of debris have been removed thus
far, and trucks continue to haul thousands of pounds each day. At
least twenty-one people, including children, were killed, and
more than 400 homes were destroyed or damaged. Rescue crews
continue to search for two missing people, a 2 year old and a 17
year old.

"It's hard to describe the damage these fires and mudslides
caused without sounding apocalyptic," said Lieff Cabraser's
Robert Nelson, one of the attorneys who filed the complaint.
"Walls of mud crashing through neighborhoods and homes at the
speed of cars, fire devastation and deaths that never should have
happened had Southern California Edison honored its duties to
properly build, inspect, and maintain its power lines and
electrical equipment."

Santa Barbara, Montecito, Carpinteria Most Directly Affected

The area hardest hit by the mudslides was Montecito, a small
community nestled between the Santa Ynez Mountains and the
Pacific Ocean that was just below the Thomas Fire but had been
spared by its flames. The small oceanside city of Carpinteria was
also affected. U.S. Highway 101, the main artery from Santa
Barbara to points east, was covered by the mudslides, and
remained closed for over ten days, severely restricting access to
and from the area and causing businesses to close or go without
customers and employees.

The class action complaint alleges that the Thomas Fire and
related mudslides disasters have a common underlying cause, that
they were sparked by unsafe electrical infrastructure owned,
operated, and improperly maintained by Southern California Edison
Company and Edison International (hereinafter "SCE"). The
complaint notes that SCE had a duty to maintain its electrical
infrastructure properly and to ensure surrounding trees and
vegetation were trimmed and kept at a safe distance, and that SCE
violated that duty by knowingly operating aging, overloaded,
and/or improperly maintained infrastructure.

In fact, SCE's violations have caused fires before, and SCE has
been sanctioned numerous times for such violations previous to
the Thomas Fire. As the complaint further alleges, SCE has
throughout the time before and leading up to the Thomas Fire
knowingly and habitually underestimated the potential risk,
including fire risk, that its systems posed. Had SCE acted
responsibly, the devastating Thomas Fire and subsequent lethal
and destructive mudslides could have been prevented.

"It is heartbreaking to consider that the losses and deaths
suffered by the victims of the Thomas Fire and mudslides could
have been prevented had SCE upheld its duties to its customers
and adequately and safely maintained its electrical
infrastructure as mandated by law," notes Lexi Hazam, another
Lieff Cabraser partner filing the case. "We hope our lawsuit will
provide justice to those devastated by the fires and mudslides,
and help raise awareness of the serious fire dangers and related
other dangers still present in thousands of similar Southern
California Edison works and systems throughout Southern
California."

The Complaint notes that plaintiffs have suffered property
damage, economic losses, and disruption to their homes,
businesses, lives, and livelihoods, and they seek fair
compensation for themselves in this case. They also bring this
case as a class action, because they believe all those who
suffered such damages and losses should be fairly treated and
included as beneficiaries of a comprehensive and consistent
adjudication or resolution of liability and damages. Plaintiffs
bring claims on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated for damages for, inter alia, damage to and loss of use
of real and personal property; loss of income; loss of business;
consequential and incidental damages; emotional distress; and
other harm caused by the defendants' wrongful conduct.

The Plaintiffs and Their Losses

Robert Blanchard and Victoria Frost are husband and wife
residents of Santa Barbara County. Ms. Frost d/b/a Frost Fit is
an independent contractor who works as a nutritionist and fitness
consultant primarily out of the Coral Casino Beach and Cabana
Club ("Coral Casino") in Montecito. Because of the Thomas Fire,
the Coral Casino was evacuated and Ms. Frost was unable to work.
Just as the orders had been lifted, the Coral Casino was affected
by the Mudslides, and yet again, she was not able to work with
her clients. The Coral Casino remains closed at the time of this
filing and does not expect to reopen until April 1, 2018. Mr.
Blanchard is a contractor who works for himself. The Thomas Fire
burned down the project he was building.

Martha Smilgis is a resident of Santa Barbara County who owns a
residence in Montecito that was damaged by the mudslides,
including by mud breaking through a window and a tree crashing
through her front door. The mudslides also filled the home with
the contents of homes higher up the hill. It now contains the
books, clothing, and pieces of plumbing of her neighbors.

Diane Meehan d/b/a Dadiana Inc. is a resident of Santa Barbara
County and the sole proprietor of Diadana Inc., a salon in
Montecito she has owned and worked in for the past 20 years. The
Thomas Fire forced the closure of her business for two weeks, and
just as she was to return to work the mudslides hit, forcing
further closures. She has yet to be able to return to her salon
and has been forced to rent space from another salon in order to
do any work. Her home in Carpinteria has also been damaged by
smoke and ash from the Thomas Fire.

Platinum Performance Fitness, Inc., d/b/a Platinum Fitness
Summerland, is a California corporation. It operates a gym
located in Summerland, Santa Barbara County, owned by Peter Park
and Kelly Park, husband and wife and residents of Santa Barbara
County. Peter Park is a nationally recognized personal trainer
with clients in Santa Barbara and Los Angeles. When the Thomas
Fire hit, Platinum Fitness Summerland was closed down under an
evacuation order. Approximately 80% of the gym's clients are from
Montecito, which was hit hard by the fire and was also under
mandatory evacuation orders. In addition, the air quality was so
poor that no clients wanted to train. Following the fire, the gym
was again placed under mandatory shut down after the flood,
mudslides, and Highway 101 closure. In addition, the Parks were
under a mandatory evacuation order from their Santa Barbara home
during the Thomas Fire, and suffered damages in having to
evacuate, and their home suffered ash and smoke damage.

Honhai, Inc., is a California corporation doing business as the
China Pavilion at Chapala, a restaurant in Santa Barbara City. It
is owned by Santa Barbara County residents and husband and wife,
Lisa Lee and Peter Chen. The Thomas Fire hit as holiday parties
and catered events were just starting, and caused the
cancellation of many events as well as a severe drop in business
due to the conditions surrounding the fire as well as recurrent
power outages and subsequent evacuations and road closures due to
the mudslides.

Thomas E. Carroll is a resident of Santa Barbara County, and the
sole proprietor of his personal business driving residents of
Montecito and Santa Barbara, frequently including trips
throughout Southern California. When the Thomas Fire hit, most of
his clients evacuated, and deteriorated visibility conditions led
most others to avoid traveling, leading to a drastic drop in
business. Since the mudslide-caused highway closures, Mr.
Carroll's business has been virtually nonexistent.

Christopher T. Burke is a personal trainer and a Santa Barbara
County resident. Operating primarily out of Platinum Fitness Gym
in Summerland, he also travels to corporations and client homes.
The Thomas Fire reduced air quality so severely that no clients
wanted to train, many leaving town entirely. Mr. Burke's work was
reduced drastically before Platinum Fitness was shut entirely
under a mandatory evacuation order. When the air quality improved
available work began to return, only to disappear when the
mudslides hit Montecito and evacuation was reimposed, cutting Mr.
Burke off from 70% of his income.

The Class Action Claims

The lawsuit is brought by the named plaintiffs alleging class
claims on behalf of individuals and entities worked in, or owned
or leased real or personal property within the California
counties of Santa Barbara or Ventura (the "Fire and Mudslides
Area"); California entities that owned, operated, or leased a
physical facility in the Fire and Mudslides Area and sold
products directly to consumers or end users or regularly
purchased products from the Fire and Mudslides Area to produce
goods for resale, or provided services while physically present
in the Fire and Mudslides Area, or owned or leased real property
in the Fires and Mudslides Area.

The lawsuit seeks compensation for plaintiffs' real and personal
property losses, loss of wages and earning capacity, business
profits, displacement expenses, and punitive damages, among other
claims. Read a copy of the Complaint.

About Lieff Cabraser

Lieff Cabraser has a long history of successfully championing the
rights of those injured or who have lost property and businesses
as a result of fires and other environmental disasters. Over the
last 45 years, we have assisted our clients in recovering over
$118 billion in verdicts and settlements. Our firm helped lead
litigation against BP over the 2010 Gulf of Mexico Deepwater
Horizon oil rig explosion and oil spill, successfully
representing property owners, business owners, wage earners, and
other harmed parties. Lieff Cabraser was also appointed by the
court to lead litigation on behalf of homeowners, businesses and
employees who suffered economic injuries relating to 2015 Plains
pipeline oil spill in Santa Barbara, and also helps lead two
class action cases on behalf of homeowners and businesses who
suffered losses from the 2015-2016 Porter Ranch gas leak in
Southern California.

         Lexi Hazam, Esq.
         Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein
         Tel: 415-956-1000
         E-mail: lhazam@lchb.com [GN]


ELEGANCE GALLERY: Faces "Gold" Suit over Sale of Antique Replica
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Elegance Gallery &
Auctioneers; and DOES 1-10, inclusive. The case is captioned as
Sam Gold, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Elegance Gallery & Auctioneers; and
DOES 1-10, the Defendants, Case No. L0106700 (Cal. Super, Los
Angeles Cty., Jan. 8, 2018).

On or around April 30, 2016, Plaintiff bid on and purchased a
Japanese Dagger from Defendant. The Defendant represented that
the Antique originated around the year 1900. Plaintiff's expert
examined the Dagger and determine that it was a replica created
around the period of 1980.

Plaintiff brings the class action against the Defendant to stop
the Defendant's practice of falsely advertising its goods for
sale in its auction listing.

Elegance Gallery & Auctioneers -- http://eleganceauction.com/--
focus on Asian Antiques and Art Auction.  The Company is
headquartered in Los Angeles, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ERELEVANCE CORPORATION: Made Unsolicited Calls, Jaffe Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Olwen Jaffe, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. eRelevance Corporation, Inc., Case No. 2018CH00268
(Ill. Cir., Cook Cty., January 8, 2018), alleges that Defendant
has made unsolicited calls in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant made unauthorized text messages
and calls using an automatic telephone dialing system to the
cellular telephone numbers of Plaintiff and the other members of
the Class without their prior express written consent.

eRelevance Corporation, Inc. provides a technology-enabled
marketing automation service to small- and medium-sized
businesses. The company users multiple digital communication
channels, including email, text, Web, social, and automated
conversations through an application and text messaging to
generate leads. It serves healthcare, marketing, and real estate
industries. The company was founded in 2013 and is based in
Austin, Texas. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David L. Gerbie, Esq.
          MCGUIRE LAW, P.C.
          55 W. Wacker Drive, 9th Fl.
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 893-7002
          Facsimile: (312) 275-7895
          E-mail: dgerbie@mcgpc.com


EQUIFAX INC: Faces "Turner" Suit in N.D. Georgia
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Equifax Inc., and
Equifax Information Services, LLC. The case is captioned as
Trevor Turner, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Equifax Inc., and Equifax Information
Services, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-00112 (N.D. Ga.,
Jan. 8, 2018). The case is assigned to the Hon. Thomas W. Thrash,
Jr.  The "Turner" suit is a member case in the multi-district
litigation proceeding, MDL No. 2800.[BN]

Equifax Inc. provides information solutions and human resources
business process outsourcing services for businesses,
governments, and consumers. The company operates through four
segments: U.S. Information Solutions (USIS), International,
Workforce Solutions, and Global Consumer Solutions. The USIS
segment offers consumer and commercial information services, such
as credit information and credit scoring, credit modeling and
portfolio analytics, locate, fraud detection and prevention,
identity verification, and other consulting; mortgage loan
origination information; financial marketing; and identity
management services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Danielle Anne Fuschetti, Esq.
          SANFORD HEISLER SHARP, LLP
          111 Sutter Street, Suite 975
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 795-2022
          Facsimile: (415) 795-2021

               - and -

          Edward Dewey Chapin, Esq.
          SANFORD HEISLER SHARP, LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1700
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 577-4253
          Facsimile: (619) 577-4250

               - and -

          Kevin Sharp, Esq.
          SANFORD HEISLER SHARP, LLP
          611 Commerce St., Suite 3100
          Nashville, TN 97203
          Telephone: (615) 434-7001
          Facsimile: (615) 434-7020


EXPRESS COURIER: Faces "Ryte" Suit over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Ryte, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated v. Express Courier International, Inc. and EMP LSO
Holding Corporation, Case No. 1:18-cv-00186-LMM (N.D. Ga.,
January 12, 2018) is brought against the Defendants for failure
to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Each Plaintiff performed courier services for Defendant within
the State of Georgia.

Express Courier International, Inc. provides same-day logistics,
courier, and warehousing solutions to healthcare, financial
services, office products, pharmaceuticals, auto parts,
manufactured goods, and other businesses in the Southeast. It
offers on demand delivery, scheduled/routed pickups and
deliveries, out-of-town and exclusive use, distribution, and
next-day distribution services. The company was founded in 1984
and is headquartered in Franklin, Tennessee with branch offices
in Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi,
Missouri, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Texas. As of December 23,
2014, Express Courier International, Inc. operates as a
subsidiary of Lone Star Holdings, LLC.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         C. Andrew Head, Esq.
         HEAD LAW FIRM, LLC
         4422 n. Ravenswood Avenue.
         Chicago, IL 60640
         Telephone: (404) 924-4151
         Facsimile: (404) 796-7338
         E-mail: ahead@headlawfirm.com
                 bhilbert@headlawfirm.com

              - and -

         Donna L. Johnson, Esq.
         HEAD LAW FIRM, LLC
         White Provision, Suite 305
         1170 Howell Mill Road NW
         Atlanta, GA 30318
         Telephone: (404) 924-4151
         Facsimile: (404) 796-7338
         E-mail: djohnson@headlawfirm.com

              - and -

         Joshua West, Esq.
         SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
         650 South Shackleford, Suite 411
         Little Rock, AK 72211
         Telephone: (501) 221-0088
         Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
         E-mail: west@sanfordlawfirm.com


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

            Missing Piece Of Consumer Protection

While Austria recognizes some forms of class action law suits,
Ireland does not.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


FORD MOTOR: Johnson Moves to Certify 15 Statewide Owners Classes
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the consolidated lawsuit captioned CHARLES
JOHNSON, et al. v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Case No. 3:13-cv-06529
(S.D.W. Va.), file with Court their corrected motion for class
certification, pursuant to Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(3) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

The 15 statewide classes are defined as:

    1. West Virginia Class:

       All current and former owners or lessees of a Ford Gen II
       Vehicle (as defined herein), who purchased or leased that
       vehicle in West Virginia (the "West Virginia Class").
       Plaintiffs seek the appointment of Charles T. Burd as the
       class representative for the West Virginia Class;

    2. California Class:

       All current and former owners or lessees of a Ford Gen II
       Vehicle (as defined herein), who purchased or leased that
       vehicle in California (the "California Class").
       Plaintiffs seek the appointment of Timothy Matthews as the
       class representative for the California Class;

    3. Georgia Class:

       All current and former owners or lessees of a Ford Gen II
       Vehicle (as defined herein), who purchased or leased that
       vehicle in Georgia (the "Georgia Class").  Plaintiffs seek
       the appointment of Samuel Hairston as the class
       representative for the Georgia Class;

    4. Idaho Class:

       All current and former owners or lessees of a Ford Gen II
       Vehicle (as defined herein), who purchased or leased that
       vehicle in Idaho (the "Idaho Class").  Plaintiffs seek the
       appointment of Rhoda Jeffers as the class representative
       for the Idaho Class;

    5. Kentucky Class:

       All current and former owners or lessees of a Ford Gen II
       Vehicle (as defined herein), who purchased or leased that
       vehicle in Kentucky (the "Kentucky Class").  Plaintiffs
       seek the appointment of William S. Troutman as the class
       representative for the Kentucky Class;

    6. Louisiana Class:

       All current and former owners or lessees of a Ford Gen II
       Vehicle (as defined herein), who purchased or leased that
       vehicle in Louisiana (the "Louisiana Class").  Plaintiffs
       seek the appointment of Shane Mayfield as the class
       representative for the Louisiana Class;

    7. Maryland Class:

       All current and former owners or lessees of a Ford Gen II
       Vehicle (as defined herein), who purchased or leased that
       vehicle in Maryland (the "Maryland Class").  Plaintiffs
       seek the appointment of Charles Johnson as the class
       representative for the Maryland Class;

    8. Minnesota Class:

       All current and former owners or lessees of a Ford Gen II
       Vehicle (as defined herein), who purchased or leased that
       vehicle in Minnesota (the "Minnesota Class").  Plaintiffs
       seek the appointment of Daniel Gallegos as the class
       representative for the Minnesota Class;

    9. Montana Class:

       All current and former owners or lessees of a Ford Gen II
       Vehicle (as defined herein), who purchased or leased that
       vehicle in Montana (the "Montana Class").  Plaintiffs seek
       the appointment of Mary Phippen as the class
       representative for the Montana Class;

   10. New York Class:

       All current and former owners or lessees of a Ford Gen II
       Vehicle (as defined herein), who purchased or leased that
       vehicle in New York (the "New York Class").  Plaintiffs
       seek the appointment of Michael Antramgarza as the class
       representative for the New York Class;

   11. Oklahoma Class:

       All current and former owners or lessees of a Ford Gen II
       Vehicle (as defined herein), who purchased or leased that
       vehicle in Oklahoma (the "Oklahoma Class").  Plaintiffs
       seek the appointment of ACA Legal Investigations, Inc. as
       the class representative for the Idaho Class;

   12. Pennsylvania Class:

       All current and former owners or lessees of a Ford Gen II
       Vehicle (as defined herein), who purchased or leased that
       vehicle in Pennsylvania (the "Pennsylvania Class").
       Plaintiffs seek the appointment of John McGee as the class
       representative for the Pennsylvania Class;

   13. South Carolina Class:

       All current and former owners or lessees of a Ford Gen II
       Vehicle (as defined herein), who purchased or leased that
       vehicle in South Carolina (the "South Carolina Class").
       Plaintiffs seek the appointment of Andrea Martin and
       Thomas Porter as the class representatives for the South
       Carolina Class;

   14. Virginia Class:

       All current and former owners or lessees of a Ford Gen II
       Vehicle (as defined herein), who purchased or leased that
       vehicle in Virginia (the "Virginia Class").  Plaintiffs
       seek the appointment of David H. Patton and Inez A. Patton
       as the class representatives for the Virginia Class; and

   15. Washington Class:

       All current and former owners or lessees of a Ford Gen II
       Vehicle (as defined herein), who purchased or leased that
       vehicle in Washington (the "Washington Class").
       Plaintiffs seek the appointment of Shelley Riley as the
       class representative for the Washington Class.

For purposes of these class definitions, "Ford Gen II Vehicle"
includes these models and model years:

   * Ford Vehicles:

     2005-2010 Crown Victoria, 2005-2010 E-Series (except for
     2009-2010 4.6L and 5.4L), 2007-2010 Edge, 2005-2009 Escape
     HEV, 2005-2008 Expedition, 2004~2010 Explorer, 2007-2010
     Explorer Sport Trac, 2004-2008 F Series, 2005-2007 Five
     Hundred, 2009-2010 Flex (except for 2010 GTDI), 2005-2007
     Freestyle, 2006-2009 and 2010 (3.5L only) Fusion, 2005-2010
     Mustang, 2008-2010 Taurus (except for 2010 GTDI), 2008-2009
     Taurus X, 2003-2005 Thunderbird, and 2010 Transit Connect.

   * Lincoln Vehicles:

     2003-2006 LS, 2006-2008 Mark LT, 2009-2010 MKS (except for
     2010 GTDI), 2010 MKT (except for 2010 GTDI), 2007-2010 MKX,
     2007-2009 and 2010 (3.5L only) MKZ, 2005-2008 Navigator,
     2005-2010 Town Car, and 2006 Zephyr.

   * Mercury Vehicles:

     2005-2010 Grand Marquis, 2006-2009 Mariner HEV, 2006-2009
     and 2010 (3.5L only) Milan, 2005-2007 Montego, 2004-2010
     Mountaineer, and 2008-2009 Sable.

The Plaintiffs also move for the appointment of Spilman Thomas &
Battle, PLLC; DiCello Levitt & Casey LLC; Bailey Javins Carter;
Grant & Eisenhofer P.A.; Isaac Wiles Burkholder & Teetor, LLC;
and Bartimus, Frickleton & Robertson, PC, as Class Counsel.

A copy of the Corrected Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=vxjj35uh

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Niall A. Paul, Esq.
          SPILMAN, THOMAS & BATTLE, PLLC
          300 Kanawha Boulevard, East
          Charleston, WV 25301
          Telephone: (304) 340-3800
          E-mail: npaul@spilmanlaw.com

               - and -

          Nathan B. Atkinson, Esq.
          SPILMAN THOMAS & BATTLE, PLLC
          110 Oakwood Drive, Suite 500
          Winston-Salem, NC 27103
          Telephone: (336) 725-4710
          E-mail: natkinson@spilmanlaw.com

               - and -

          Adam J. Levitt, Esq.
          John E. Tangren, Esq.
          DICELLO LEVITT & CASEY LLC
          Ten North Dearborn Street, Eleventh Floor
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 214-7900
          E-mail: alevitt@dlcfirm.com
                  jtangren@dlcfirm.oom

               - and -

          Mark A. DiCello, Esq.
          Robert F. DiCello, Esq.
          DICELLO LEVITT & CASEY LLC
          7556 Mentor Avenue
          Mentor, OH 44060
          Telephone: (440) 953-8888
          Facsimile: (440) 953-9138
          E-mail: madicello@dicellolaw.com
                  rfdicello@dicellolaw.com

               - and -

          Jeff A. Almeida, Esq.
          Kyle J. McGee, Esq.
          GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A.
          123 Justison Street
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 622-7000
          Facsimile: (302) 622-7100
          E-mail: jalmeida@gelaw.com

               - and -

          Timothy C. Bailey, Esq.
          L. Lee Javins, II, Esq.
          BAILEY, JAVINS & CARTER, L.C.
          213 Hale Street
          Charleston, WV 25301
          Telephone: (304) 932-4639
          Facsimile: (304) 345-0375
          E-mail: Timbailey@BJC4U.com
                  Ljavins@BJC4U.com

               - and -

          James R. Bartimus, Esq.
          Anne M. Tarvin, Esq.
          BARTIMUS, FRICKLETON & ROBERTSON, P.C.
          11150 Overbrook Road, Suite 200
          Leawood, KS 66211
          Telephone: (913) 266-2300
          Facsimile: (913) 266-2366
          E-mail: jb@bflawfirm.com
                  atarvin@bflawfirm.com

               - and -

          Gregory M. Travalio, Esq.
          Mark H. Troutman, Esq.
          ISAAC WILES BURKHOLDER & TEETOR, LLC
          Two Miranova Place, Suite 700
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Telephone: (614) 221-2121
          Facsimile: (614) 365-9516
          E-mail: gtravalio@isaacwiles.com
                  mtroutman@isaacwiles.com

               - and -

          Stephen M. Gorny, Esq.
          THE GORNY LAW FIRM, LC
          2 Emanuel Cleaver II Blvd., Suite 410
          Kansas City, MO 64112
          Telephone: (816) 756-5071
          Facsimile: (816) 756-5067
          E-mail: steve@gornylawfirm.com

               - and -

          Brad Honnold, Esq.
          GOZA & HONN OLD, LLC
          11181 Overbrook Road, Suite 200
          Leawood, KS 66211
          Telephone: (913) 451-3433
          E-mail: bhonnold@gohonlaw.com

               - and -

          John T. Murray, Esq.
          Margaret M. Murray, Esq.
          MURRAY AND MURRAY CO., L.P.A.
          111 East Shoreline Drive
          Sandusky, OH 44870
          Telephone: (419) 624-3000
          Facsimile: (419) 624-0707
          E-mail: jotm@murrayandmurray.com

               - and -

          John Scarola, Esq.
          C. Calvin Warriner III, Esq.
          SEARCY DENNEY SCAROLA BARNHART & SHIPLEY, P.A.
          2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard
          West Palm Beach, FL 33409
          Telephone: (800) 780-8607
          Facsimile: (561) 686-6300
          E-mail: jsx@searcylaw.com
                  ccw@searcylaw.com

               - and -

          Joseph J. Siprut, Esq.
          SIPRUT PC
          17 North State Street, Suite 1600
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 236-0000
          Facsimile: (312) 948-9212
          E-mail: jsiprut@siprut.com

               - and -

          E. Powell Miller, Esq.
          Richard L. Merpi II, Esq.
          Martha J. Olijnyk, Esq.
          THE MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C.
          950 West University Drive, Suite 300
          Rochester, MI 48307
          Telephone: (248) 841-2200
          Facsimile: (248) 652-2852
          E-mail: epm@millerlawpc.com
                  rlm@millerlawpc.com
                  mjo@millerlawpc.com

               - and -

          Keith G. Bremer, Esq.
          Alison K. Hurley, Esq.
          Benjamin L. Price, Esq.
          BREMER WHYTE BROWN & O'MEARA, LLP
          20320 SW. Birch Street, Second Floor
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Telephone: (949) 221-1000
          Facsimile: (949) 221-1001
          E-mail: kbremer@bremerwhyte.com
                  ahurley@bremerwhyte.com
                  bprice@bremerwhyte.com

               - and -

          Guy R. Bucci, Esq.
          BUCCI LAW FIRM
          200 Capitol Street, Suite 200
          Charleston, WV 25301
          Telephone: (304) 344-0020
          Facsimile: (304) 344-0029
          E-mail: guy@buccilawfirm.com

               - and -

          Paul Buooi, Esq.
          LAFFEY BUCCI KENT LLP
          1435 Walnut Street, Suite 700
          Philadelphia, PA, 19102
          Telephone: (215) 399-9255
          Facsimile: (215) 241-8700
          E-mail: pbucci@laffeybuccikent.com

               - and -

          Stephen J. Fearon, Jr., Esq.
          SQUITIERI & FEARON, LLP
          32 East 57th Street, 12th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 421-6492
          Facsimile: (212) 421-6553
          E-mail: stephen@sfclasslaw.com

               - and -

          Donald H. Slavik, Esq.
          SLAVIK LAW FIRM, LLC
          2834 Blackhawk Court
          Steamboat Springs, CO 80487
          Telephone: (970) 457-1011
          Facsimile: (267) 878-7697
          E-mail: dslavik@slavik.us


FORD MOTOR: Removes "Schneider" Suit to C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
The Defendant in the case, Steven Schneider, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Ford Motor
Company, and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendant, filed a notice to
remove the lawsuit from the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of San Luis Obispo, (Case No. 17CV-0665) to
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
and assigned Case No. 2:18-cv-00367-RGK-AS (C.D. Cal., Jan. 16,
2018).

Ford Motor Company, together with its subsidiaries, designs,
manufactures, markets, and services automobiles in North America,
South America, Europe, the Middle East and Africa, and the Asia
Pacific. The company was founded in 1903 and is based in
Dearborn, Michigan. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Michael L. Turrill, Esq.
          HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP
          1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1400
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 785-4600
          Facsimile: (310) 785-4601
          E-mail: Michael.turrill@hoganlovells.com


FORD MOTOR: Ohanians Sue over Defective Automobiles
---------------------------------------------------
CHARLES OHANIAN AND SCOTT OHANIAN V. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, FUTURE
FORD, et al., Case No. 18CECG00190 (Cal. Super., Jan. 16, 2018),
seek to recover damages from Ford Motor Company for selling
defective automobiles and fraudulently concealing the alleged
defects to the Plaintiffs.

According to the complaint, Plaintiffs are members of the
putative class action, Vargas v. Ford Motor Company (C.D. Cal.
No. 2:12-cv-08388, September 28, 2012), which has not yet been
certified.

The Vargas Class is defined as "[a]ll individuals in the United
States who purchased or leased any 2011 through 2014 Ford Fiesta
or 2012 through 2013 Ford Focus vehicles equipped with a
PowerShift Transmission."

Plaintiffs are individuals in the United States who purchased a
2012 Ford Focus vehicle equipped with a PowerShift Transmission.
Plaintiffs state that they did not learn of Ford's acts of
concealment and failure to disclose the material facts regarding
the subject vehicle until shortly before filing the original
complaint.

Ford Motor Company is a corporation organized and in existence
under the laws of the State of Delaware with a principal place of
business in Palo, Alto, California. Defendant was engaged in the
business of designing, manufacturing, constructing, assembling,
marketing, distributing, and selling automobiles and other motor
vehicles and motor vehicle components in Fresno, County.

Future Ford is a corporation organized and in existence under the
laws of the State of California, with a principal place of
business in the State of California. Defendant Future Ford is
engaged in the business of selling automobiles and automobile
components, and servicing and repairing automobiles in Clovis,
California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by

          Rowena Santos, Esq.
          STRATEGIC LEGAL PRACTICES, APC
          1840 Century Park East, Suite 430
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 929-4900
          Facsimile: (310) 943-3838


FOWLER PACKING: Judge Approves Expansion of Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Nick Cahill, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a
multimillion-dollar lawsuit against Fresno, California-based
farming giant Fowler Packing could include more than 14,000
farmworkers after a federal judge approved several subclasses on
Jan. 24 in the employment action.

The class action is closer to trial after U.S. District Judge
Dale Drozd certified seven subclasses in the lawsuit that accuses
Fowler of not paying seasonal migrant workers overtime or for
business and travel expenses.

Judge Drozd also rejected Fowler's argument that the selected
class representatives lacked standing and that plaintiffs'
counsel should be removed for being aligned with a prominent
farmworkers labor union.

Plaintiffs' attorney Mario Martinez said the farmworkers were
pleased with Drozd's order and that they may ask for up to $30
million in damages if the case advances to trial.

"The evidence and the law were on the side of the workers,"
Mr. Martinez said in a phone interview.  "It's a testament to the
effort that the workers and both law firms put into the case."

In a pretrial hearing, Fowler and farm labor contractor Ag Force
argued that Mr. Martinez should not be involved with the case
because he is also general counsel for the United Farm Workers of
America.

Judge Drozd, nominated by President Barack Obama, rejected the
defendants' conflict of interest arguments and approved
Mr. Martinez and the Bush Gottlieb firm as class counsel.

Mr. Martinez called the defendants' move a "bogus argument" but
said he will continue working with their attorneys at Sagaser,
Watkins & Wieland of Fresno.

"We hope that with the certification the defendants try to take a
more reasonable approach and come to a resolution," Mr. Martinez
added.

Defendants' counsel did not return email or phone calls regarding
the ruling.

The farmworkers sued Fowler, one of California's largest
agricultural businesses, in the Eastern District of California in
March 2015.  Their 28-page amended complaint accuses the
defendants of requiring employees to work off-the-clock and of
not providing adequate meal and rest breaks, among other causes
of action.

Mr. Martinez said that some of the class members still work for
Fowler and that most are seasonal migrant workers in the Fresno
area. The plaintiffs assisted with Fowler's fruit packing
operation which includes mandarin oranges and table grapes.
Martinez added that while the current class estimate is around
14,000 workers, it could expand now that the court has certified
the subclasses.

Fowler operates a 200,000 square-feet packing facility along with
a business park and solar power farm. The third-generation family
farm has also started growing a variety of hops on its
properties.

The farmers are fighting cases in both federal and state courts
and have accused the state of carving them out of a new farm
labor law at the farm workers union's behest.

The bill, crafted by California Gov. Jerry Brown with labor
unions and agricultural businesses, forced farmers to pay back
wages to employees such as fruit pickers and those paid by the
mile driven.  Fowler was left out of the relief plan, which it
claims opened it up to employment lawsuits.


GATEWAY ENERGY: Hitchner Sues over Deceptive Trade Practices
------------------------------------------------------------
Erin Hitchner, individually and all behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Gateway Energy Services
Corporation, Case No. 7:18-cv-00380-VB (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 16, 2018),
alleging that the Defendant violated the Deceptive Trade Practice
Act.

Gateway Energy Services Corporation operates as a retail energy
supplier in North America. The company supplies electricity and
natural gas to residential and commercial customers. It offers
natural gas and electric products, and related services in
deregulated markets across Kentucky, Maryland, New Jersey, New
York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and the District of Columbia;
and Ontario, Canada. Gateway Energy Services Corporation was
formerly known as Econnergy Energy Company, Inc. and changed its
name to Gateway Energy Services Corporation in March 2008. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan Shub, Esq.
          Kohn, Swift, & Graf, P.C.
          1 South Broad Street, Suite 2100
          Philadelphia, PA 19107
          Telephone: (215) 238-1700
          Facsimile: (215) 238-1968
          E-mail: jshub@kohnswift.com


GC SERVICES: Webb Alleges Wrongful Conduct Over Debt Collection
---------------------------------------------------------------
Douglas Webb on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. GC Services Limited Partnership, Case No. 2:18-cv-
00629-MCA-LDW (D.N.J. January 18, 2018), seeks to stop the
Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

GC Services Limited Partnership provides accounts receivable and
customer care solutions to public and private sector
organizations. GC Services Limited Partnership was founded in
1957 and is based in Houston, Texas. It has call center locations
in the United States, the Caribbean, and the Philippines.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lawrence C. Hersch
          17 Sylvan Street
          Suite 102B
          Rutherford, NJ 07070
          Telephone (201) 507-6300
          E-mail: lh@herschlegal.com


GENERAL MOTORS: Faces "Davis" Fraud Suit in Texas
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against General Motors
Company. The case is captioned as Jenni Davis, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
General Motors Company, and General Motors LLC, the Defendants,
Case No. 5:18-cv-00045-FB (W.D. Tex., Jan. 16, 2018). The case is
assigned to the Hon. Judge Fred Biery.

General Motors Company designs, builds, and sells cars, trucks,
crossovers, and automobile parts worldwide. The company operates
through GM North America, GM Europe, GM International Operations,
GM South America, and GM Financial segments. It markets its
vehicles primarily under the Buick, Cadillac, Chevrolet, GMC,
Holden, Opel, Vauxhall, Baojun, Jiefang, and Wuling brand names.
The company, through its subsidiary, General Motors Financial
Company, Inc., provides automotive financing services. General
Motors Company was founded in 1897 and is based in Detroit,
Michigan.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dennis C. Reich, Esq.
          REICH&BINSTOCK
          4265 San Felipe-Suite 1000
          Houston, TX 77027
          Telephone: (713) 622-7271
          Facsimile: (713) 623-8724
          E-mail: dreich@reichandbinstock.com

               - and -

          Ernest (Bo) Hopmann , III, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF ERNEST "BO" HOPMANN, III
          3700 North Main Street
          Houston, TX 77009
          Telephone: (713) 869-9252
          Facsimile: (713) 869-8859
          E-mail: bhopmann@hopmannlaw.com

               - and -

          Richard Schechter, Esq.
          RICHARD SCHECHTER, P.C.
          1 Greenway Plaza, Suite 740
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 623-8919
          Facsimile: (713) 622-1680
          E-mail: richard@rs-law.com


GOLDMAN SACHS: 2d Cir. Vacates Certification of Investor Class
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ARKANSAS TEACHERS RETIREMENT SYSTEM, WEST VIRGINIA
INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT BOARD, PLUMBERS AND PIPEFITTERS PENSION
GROUP, ILENE RICHMAN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, PABLO ELIZONDO, HOWARD SORKIN, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, TIVKA BOCHNER,
EHSAN AFSHANI, LOUIS GOLD, THOMAS DRAFT, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v.
GOLDMAN SACHS GROUP, INC., LLOYD C. BLANKFEIN, DAVID A. VINIAR,
GARY D. COHN, Defendants-Appellants, Docket No. 16-250 (2d Cir.),
Judge Richard C. Wesley of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit vacated the Sept. 24, 2015 Order of the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York granting the
Plaintiff's motion for class certification, and remanded for
further proceedings consistent with his Opinion.

Investors in a securities fraud class action traditionally have a
problem proving that questions of law or fact common to class
members predominate over questions affecting only individual
members under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3).  The
presumption established in Basic Inc. v. Levinson addressed that
problem by allowing courts to presume that the price of stock
traded in an efficient market reflects all public, material
information -- including misrepresentations -- and that investors
rely on the integrity of the market price when they choose to buy
or sell stock.  Basic also established, however, that the
defendants may rebut the presumption, and therefore defeat class
certification, by showing the misrepresentations did not actually
affect the price of the stock.  The question presented in the
instant case is what the Defendants must do to meet that burden.

The Plaintiffs-Appellees acquired shares of common stock in
Goldman between Feb. 5, 2007 and June 10, 2010.  In July 2011,
they commenced a securities fraud action in the District Court
against Goldman and several of its directors for violating
section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.

In their consolidated class action complaint, the Plaintiffs
alleged that the Defendants made material misstatements about
Goldman's efforts to avoid conflicts of interest, causing the
value of their stock to decline.  The Defendants initially moved
to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure 9(b) and 12(b)(6), arguing the alleged misstatements
were too general and vague to be actionable as a matter of law.
The District Court denied the Defendants' motion, holding that
the Plaintiffs sufficiently pleaded all six elements of a
securities fraud action.  It subsequently denied the Defendants'
motions for reconsideration and interlocutory appeal.

The Plaintiffs then moved to certify a class consisting of all
persons or entities who, between Feb. 5, 2007 and June 10, 2010,
purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of Goldman and
were damaged thereby.  The Defendants opposed class certification
by attempting to rebut the Basic presumption.  They presented
evidence that Goldman's stock experienced no price decline in
response to these or similar reports about Goldman's conflicts in
the CDOs.

Without holding an evidentiary hearing or oral argument, the
District Court rejected the Defendants' arguments and certified
the class.  It rejected the Defendants' evidence and held the
Plaintiffs were entitled to the presumption of reliance and
certified the class.  The Appellate Court granted the Defendants'
petition for leave to appeal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23(f).

Judge Wesley finds that the District Court erred in declining to
consider the Defendants' evidence at this stage of the
litigation.  The Judge espouses no views as to whether the
evidence is sufficient to rebut the Basic presumption; he holds
only that the District Court should consider it on remand, in
determining whether defendants established by a preponderance of
the evidence that the misrepresentations did not in fact affect
the market price of Goldman stock.  He encourages the court to
hold any evidentiary hearing or oral argument it deems
appropriate under the circumstances.

In light of the Court's recent pronouncement that the Defendants
bear the burden of persuasion to rebut the Basic presumption by a
preponderance of the evidence, and because it is unclear whether
the District Court applied the correct standard in the case,
Judge Wesley vacated the Sept. 24, 2015 Order of the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York granting the
Plaintiff's motion for class certification, and remanded for
further proceedings consistent with the Opinion.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 12, 2018 Opinion is
available at https://is.gd/DVRH7g from Leagle.com.

THOMAS C. GOLDSTEIN -- tgoldstein@goldsteinrussell.com --
Goldstein & Russell, P.C., Bethesda, MD ( Susan K. Alexander --
salexander@rgrdlaw.com -- Andrew Love -- alove@rgrdlaw.com --
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, San Francisco, CA; Thomas A.
Dubbs -- tdubbs@labaton.com -- James W. Johnson --
jjohnson@labaton.com -- Michael H. Rogers -- mrogers@labaton.com
-- Labaton Sucharow LLP, New York, NY, on the brief) for
Plaintiffs-Appellees.

ROBERT J. GIUFFRA, JR. -- giuffrar@sullcrom.com -- ( Richard H.
Klapper -- klapperr@sullcrom.com -- David M.J. Rein --
reind@sullcrom.com -- on the brief), Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, New
York, NY, for Defendants-Appellants.

Max W. Berger -- mwb@blbglaw.com -- Salvatore J. Graziano --
sgraziano@blbglaw.com -- Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman
LLP, New York, NY; Blair Nicholas -- blairn@blbglaw.com --
Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, San Diego, CA; Robert
D. Klausner -- bob@robertdklausner.com -- Klausner, Kaufman,
Jensen & Levinson, Plantation, FL, for Amicus Curiae National
Conference on Public Employee Retirement Systems in support of
Plaintiffs-Appellees.

Rachel S. Bloomekatz -- rachel@guptawessler.com -- Deepak Gupta -
- deepak@guptawessler.com -- Gupta Wessler PLLC, Washington,
D.C.; Mark I. Gross -- migross@pomlaw.com -- Jeremy A. Lieberman
-- jalieberman@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, New York, NY; Robert
D. Klausner, Klausner, Kaufman, Jensen & Levinson, Plantation,
FL, for Amicus Curiae Louisiana Sheriffs' Pension and Relief Fund
in support of Plaintiffs-Appellees.

Daniel P. Chiplock -- dchiplock@lchb.com -- Lieff Cabraser
Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, New York, NY, for Amicus Curiae
National Association of Shareholder and Consumer Attorneys in
support of Plaintiffs-Appellees.

Jeffrey W. Golan -- jgolan@barrack.com -- Barrack, Rodos &
Bacine, Philadelphia, PA; James A. Feldman, Washington, D.C., for
Amici Curiae Evidence Scholars in support of Plaintiffs-
Appellees.

Barbara A. Jones, AARP Foundation Litigation, Pasadena, CA, for
Amici Curiae AARP and AARP Foundation in support of Plaintiffs-
Appellees.

David Kessler -- dkessler@ktmc.com -- Kessler Topaz Meltzer &
Check, LLP, Radnor, PA; Ernest A. Young, Apex, NC, for Amici
Curiae Procedure Scholars in support of Plaintiffs-Appellees.

Robert V. Prongay -- RProngay@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay &
Murray LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Amici Curiae Securities Law
Professors in support of Plaintiffs-Appellees.

George T. Conway III -- GTConway@wlrk.com -- Wachtell, Lipton,
Rosen & Katz, New York, NY, for Amici Curiae Former SEC Officials
and Law Professors in support of Defendants-Appellants.

Charles E. Davidow -- cdavidow@paulweiss.com -- Marc Falcone --
mfalcone@paulweiss.com -- Robyn Tarnofsky, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind,
Wharton & Garrison LLP, Washington, D.C.; Ira D. Hammerman, Kevin
M. Carroll, Securities Industry & Financial Markets Association,
Washington, D.C., for Amicus Curiae Securities Industry &
Financial Markets Association in support of Defendants-
Appellants.

Lewis J. Liman -- lliman@cgsh.com -- Cleary Gottlieb Steen &
Hamilton LLP, New York, NY; Kate Comerford Todd, U.S. Chamber
Litigation Center, Inc., Washington, D.C., for Amicus Curiae
Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America in support of
Defendants-Appellants.


GOOGLE LLC: Court Dismisses Disparate Impact Claim in "Heath"
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Beth Labson Freeman of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, San Jose Division, granted
without leave to amend Google's motion to dismiss the disparate
impact claim in the case, ROBERT HEATH, on behalf of himself and
CHERYL FILLEKES, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. GOOGLE LLC, Defendant, Case No. 15-cv-
01824-BLF (N.D. Cal.).

Heath originally filed the action on April 22, 2015, alleging age
discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act
("ADEA") and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act
("FEHA").  The Complaint included an ADEA disparate impact claim,
specifically alleging that Google has used policies and practices
related to hiring and employment that have had a disparate impact
on the basis of age (discriminating against workers who are age
40 and older) that are not job-related for the positions at
issue, not consistent with business necessity and are not
necessitated by any reasonable factor other than age.

On June 11, 2015, Google filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint,
arguing that Heath's disparate impact claim was not actionable
because Section 4(a)(2) of the ADEA does not apply to applicants
for employment and the claim can only be brought on behalf of
existing employees.  Rather than oppose Google's motion to
dismiss, Heath and the newly added Plaintiff Fillekes filed a
First Amended Complaint ("FAC") on June 25, 2015, voluntarily
withdrawing the disparate impact claim under the ADEA.  Google
answered the FAC.

The case then proceeded through discovery for over a year, and on
Oct. 5, 2016, the Court granted Fillekes' motion to conditionally
certify a collective action and denied Heath's motion for partial
joinder. Discovery continued, involving numerous disputes over
Opt-In discovery and other case management matters.

On Aug. 1, 2017, Fillekes and the Opt-In Plaintiffs moved for
leave to file the Second Amended Complaint ("SAC"), in which they
sought to re-allege a disparate impact claim against Google under
the ADEA.  Google opposed the motion for leave to file the SAC,
but the Court granted the Plaintiffs leave on the grounds that
whether applicants may allege disparate impact claims under the
ADEA is a novel question in the Ninth Circuit, and the parties
were limited in their briefing on the issue in the context of the
Plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend.

Rather than deem the Plaintiffs' disparate impact claim futile
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15, the Court found that
the issue warranted full briefing on the merits in the context of
a motion to dismiss the disparate impact claim.  It also
specifically stated on the record and in its Order that it
deferred consideration of whether the Plaintiffs had waived their
disparate impact claim by failing to re-plead it in the FAC, and
indicated that the Parties may address the waiver argument in
connection with their motion to dismiss briefing.

The Parties did so, and now before the Court is Google's motion
to dismiss the disparate impact claim on the grounds that (1) the
Plaintiffs waived the disparate impact claim by failing to re-
plead it in the FAC; (2) the ADEA does not authorize disparate
impact claims by job applicants; and (3) Fillekes did not exhaust
her administrative remedies on the disparate impact claim in her
charge filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

At the hearing on Jan. 11, 2018, the Court indicated on the
record that it was persuaded by Google's waiver argument.  The
Parties generally agreed that if the Court granted Google's
motion to dismiss on waiver grounds then it would obviate the
need for an advisory opinion in the form of an extensive
discussion on whether the ADEA authorizes disparate impact
claims.

Judge Freeman finds that the Plaintiffs have waived the ADEA
disparate impact claim against Google and are precluded from
reasserting the claim in the SAC.  She further determines that
leave to amend would be futile.  Because the claim has been
waived, the Judge does not reach Google's arguments that the ADEA
does not authorize disparate impact claims by job applicants, or
that Fillekes failed to exhaust her administrative remedies.  The
Judge is also not convinced by the Plaintiffs' unsupported
argument that a new district court decision, or revelations
gleaned from further discovery, have any impact on waiver and a
plaintiff's ability to re-assert a previously withdrawn claim.

For these reasons, Judge Freeman granted without leave to amend
Google's motion to dismiss the disparate impact claim because
Fillekes' failure to re-plead the disparate impact claim against
Google in the FAC constituted waiver.  Google will file an Answer
to the SAC by Jan. 26, 2018.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 12, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/nSWg1F from Leagle.com.

Robert Heath, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, represented by Dow Wakefield Patten --
dow@smithpatten.com -- Smith Patten.

Cheryl Fillekes, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel A. Kotchen --
dkotchen@kotchen.com -- Kotchen & Low LLP, pro hac vice, Daniel
Lee Low -- dlow@kotchen.com -- Kotchen and Low LLP, George S.
Duesdieker -- george@duesdieker.com -- Law Office of George
Duesdieker, Michael F. Brown -- mfbcounsel@aol.com -- DVG Law
Partner LLC, pro hac vice & Michael J. von Klemperer --
mvonklemperer@kotchen.com -- Kotchen and Low LLP.

Google LLC, a Delaware corporation, Defendant, represented by
Brian Davis Berry -- brian.berry@ogletreedeakins.com -- Ogletree,
Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., Thomas Michael McInerney --
tmm@ogletree.com -- Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak & Stewart, P.C.,
Anthony Craig Cleland -- craig.cleland@ogletree.com -- Ogletree,
Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., pro hac vice & Elizabeth A.
Falcone -- elizabeth.falcone@ogletree.com -- Ogletree, Deakins,
Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C.


GOPRO INC: Stull Stull Files Securities Class Action Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Stull, Stull & Brody filed a class action lawsuit against GoPro,
Inc. and certain of its officers in the United States Court for
the Northern District of California, Case Number 3:18-cv-00533,
on behalf of purchasers of GoPro securities during the period
August 4, 2017, and January 5, 2018, inclusive, pursuing remedies
pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

If you purchased or acquired GoPro common shares during the Class
Period and wish to serve as a lead plaintiff you may move the
Court no later than March 12, 2018. If you wish to discuss this
action or have any questions concerning this notice or your
rights or interests, please contact Howard T. Longman at 1-212-
687-7230 ext.110 or at gpro@ssbny.com.

The complaint alleges that defendants issued materially false and
misleading statements regarding the prospects of, among other
things, GoPro's Karma drone. On January 8, 2018 a GoPro press
release stated, that GoPro: would "exit the [aerial] market after
selling its remaining Karma inventory"; reduce its workforce by
more than 254 employees; was forced to lower the price of its
HERO5 and HERO6 cameras in order to compete; and that its revenue
for its Fourth Quarter was negatively impacted. On this news,
GoPro's common shares opened at $6.69, down from the prior close
of $7.52, and down over 43% its Class Period high ($11.89).

Any member of the proposed class may move the Court to be
appointed lead plaintiff by no later than March 12, 2018. Your
ability to share in any recovery is not whether you serve as lead
plaintiff. You may retain Stull, Stull & Brody or other counsel
of your choice to serve as your counsel in this action.

Stull, Stull & Brody, with offices in New York and Beverly Hills
(www.ssbny.com), has litigated many class actions for violations
of securities laws on behalf of defrauded investors over the past
40 years and has obtained court approval of substantial
settlements. [GN]


HARRIS & HARRIS: Accused of Wrongful Conduct over Debt Collection
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Daniella McKenna, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Harris & Harris, Ltd., Case No. 2:18-cv-
00240-SJF-SIL (E.D.N.Y., January 12, 2018), seeks to stop the
Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Harris and Harris, Ltd., is an Illinois Limited Liability Company
with a principal place of business in Cook County, Illinois.
Defendant is regularly engaged, for profit, in the collection of
debts allegedly owed by consumers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
          BARSHAY SANDERS, PLLC
          100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Telephone: (516) 203-7600
          Facsimile: (516) 706-5055
          E-mail: csanders@barshaysanders.com


ILLINOIS: Alden Management Sues over Delay in Medicaid Benefits
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case, Alden Management Services, Inc., as Authorized
Representative of Janet Grimm, Mary Vidmar, Marilyn Pigors,
George Neely and Marie Moroz, the Plaintiffs, v. FELICIA F.
NORWOOD, in her official capacity as the Director of the Illinois
Department of Healthcare and Family Services, Case No. 1:18-cv-
00238 (N.D. Ill., Jan. 12, 2018), is brought against the
Defendant for its failure to issue a timely determination on
Plaintiffs' pending applications for long-term care Medicaid
benefits.

Chicago-based Alden Management provides financial and business
consulting services to a network of skilled nursing home
facilities in Illinois, referred to as the Alden network.

Grimm et al. are individual residents who receive nursing
facility services and/or medical care at Alden healthcare
facilities, who submitted Medicaid applications for which a
decision to grant or deny benefits was excessively delayed and in
fact is still pending with the Illinois Department of Healthcare
and Family Services.

Grimm et al. are class representatives of the plaintiffs' class
they seek to represent, the lawsuit claims.

Felicia F. Norwood, is the Director of the Illinois Department of
Healthcare and Family Services, which is an Illinois state agency
that provides Medicaid services to enrollees in Illinois. It is
the sole state agency administering Medicaid in the state of
Illinois. She is sued in her official capacity only.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Katie Z. Van Lake, Esq.
          1426 N. 3rd Street, Suite 200
          Harrisburg, PA 17102
          Telephone: (516) 509-1289
          Facsimile: (717) 909-5925
          E-mail: kvanlake@sb2inc.com


INC RESEARCH: Holzer & Holzer Files Class Action Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
Holzer & Holzer, LLC, has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf
of investors in INC Research Holdings, Inc., now doing business
as Syneos Health, Inc., who purchased INC shares between May 10,
2017 and November 8, 2017. The case is pending in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina
and captioned Vaitkuviene v. Syneos Health, Inc., et al., Case
No. 18-cv-0029-H.

The complaint alleges INC issued false and misleading statements
about the acquisition and operations of inVentiv. On November 9,
2017, INC announced a loss from operations resulting from, among
other things, customer and regulatory delays at inVentiv. INC's
stock price fell significantly on the news.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court
no later than January 30, 2018. If you wish to discuss your legal
rights, you are encouraged to contact Corey D. Holzer, Esq. at
cholzer@holzerlaw.com or by toll-free telephone at (888) 508-
6832. Any member of the putative class may move the Court to
serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may
choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member.

Holzer & Holzer, LLC is an Atlanta, Georgia law firm that
dedicates its practice to vigorous representation of shareholders
and investors in litigation nationwide, including shareholder
class action and derivative litigation. More information about
the firm is available through its website, www.holzerlaw.com and
upon request from the firm. Holzer & Holzer, LLC has paid for the
dissemination of this promotional communication, and Corey D.
Holzer is the attorney responsible for its content.

         Contacts
         Corey D. Holzer, Esq.
         Holzer & Holzer, LLC
         Tel: 888-508-6832 (toll-free)
         Email: cholzer@holzerlaw.com [GN]


INDIAN RIVER: Cooley Seeks to Certify Classes of Resident Drivers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Charles W. Cooley asks the Court to certify the case entitled
CHARLES W. COOLEY on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. INDIAN RIVER TRANSPORT CO., a Florida Corporation,
and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Case No. 8:17-cv-00932-DOC-JCG (C.D.
Cal.), as a class action pursuant to Rule 23(a) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of these classes:

   * Non-California Resident Class:

     All non-California resident drivers who performed work in
     California for at least one full day from 4 years prior to
     the filing of this Complaint to the present.

   * California Resident Class:

     All California resident drivers who performed work in
     California for at least one full day from 4 years prior to
     the filing of this Complaint to the present.

   * California Resident Separate Compensation Class:

     All California resident drivers who performed work in
     California for at least one full day from January 1, 2016 -
     September 5, 2016.

Mr. Cooley brings the action on behalf of himself and all
similarly situated employees against the Defendant for its
alleged failure to pay him for performing certain work, including
work done before and after shifts, to separately compensate for
rest breaks, to notify its employees of California break
requirements, to record start and end time for meal breaks, to
pay drivers for certain time spent in sleeper berths, and to pay
his wages due upon termination of employment.

The Plaintiff also seeks authority to send Notice (in a form to
be approved by the Court after a conference with defense
counsel).  He also asks the Court to appoint Desai Law Firm,
P.C., and Aashish Y. Desai, Esq., as class counsel.  He further
asks the Court to appoint him as Class Representatives, and to
add Grady Anderson and Nicholas Marone as Class Representatives.

The Court will commence a hearing on February 26, 2018, at 8:30
a.m., to consider the Motion.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Aashish Y. Desai, Esq.
          Adrianne De Castro, Esq.
          DESAI LAW FIRM, P.C.
          3200 Bristol Street, Suite 650
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Telephone: (949) 614-5830
          Facsimile: (949) 271-4190
          E-mail: aashish@desai-law.com
                  adrianne@desai-law.com


INTEL CORPORATION: Robbins Sues over Sale of Defective CPUs
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jordan Robbins, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Intel Corporation, Case No. 1:18-cv-00540-
JHR-JS (D.N.J., Jan. 12, 2018) alleges that Intel breached its
implied warranties by selling the Plaintiffs and Class members
defective Intel central processing units.

Intel's Defective CPUs suffer from a defect that exposed the CPUs
to critical security vulnerabilities and that proposed OS-level
"patches" will slow the performance of these Defective CPUs. Not
only will any "patch" directly impact the performance of a
particular user's Intel-based device, but they will have indirect
performance impacts.

Intel Corporation is a citizen of the state of Delaware and of
the state of California, as it is a corporation organized and
existing under the laws of the state of Delaware, with its
principal place of business in California.  For at least 10
years, Intel has marketed, distributed, and warranted these
defective Intel CPUs in Indiana and throughout the United States.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James E. Ceecchi, Esq.
          Donald A. Ecklund, Esq.
          Michael A. Innes, Esq.
          CARELLA BRYNE CECCHI OLSTEIN
          BRODY AND AGNELLO, P.C
          5 Becker Farm Road
          Roseland, NJ 07068
          Telephone: (973) 994-1700

              - and -

          Christopher A. Seeger, Esq.
          David R. Buchanan, Esq.
          Cristopher L. Ayers, Esq.
          SEEGER WEISS LLP
          55 Challenger Road, 6th Floor
          Ridgefield Park, NJ 07660
          Telephone: (973) 639-9100


INTEL CORPORATION: Sued by West Over Defective Core Processors
--------------------------------------------------------------
BRADLEY WEST, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. INTEL CORPORATION, Case No. 5:18-cv-00146-BLF (N.D.
Cal., January 4, 2018), alleges that Intel's sale of defective
microprocessors constitutes a violation of the Illinois Consumer
Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, the California
Consumers Legal Remedies Act, and California Unfair Competition
Law.

Intel x86-64 microprocessors, which serve as the computational
backbone for the majority of personal computers sold in the
United States, contain a defect that prevents them from
functioning as intended and results in diminished performance.

The Meltdown defect exposes systems with Intel x86-64
microprocessors to the possibility that normal programs can read
the contents of the private kernel memory, making it possible for
malicious programs to harvest user data including passwords and
other sensitive information.

Intel Corporation is a business incorporated under the laws of
the state of Delaware with its principal place of business
located in Santa Clara, California.  Intel is engaged in the
business of designing, manufacturing, distributing, and/or
selling computer products, including processors and the defective
Intel CPUs that are at issue.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

               - and -

          Ben Barnow, Esq.
          Erich P. Schork, Esq.
          Jeffrey D. Blake, Esq.
          Anthony L. Parkhill, Esq.
          BARNOW AND ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          One N. LaSalle Street, Ste. 4600
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 621-2000
          Facsimile: (312) 641-5504
          E-mail: b.barnow@barnowlaw.com
                  e.schork@barnowlaw.com
                  j.blake@barnowlaw.com
                  aparkhill@barnowlaw.com


INTERCONTINENTAL CAPITAL: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Leigh Dipace, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated v. Intercontinental Capital Group, Inc., Case no. 2:18-
cv-00248 (E.D.N.Y., January 12, 2018), seeks to stops the
Defendant's practice of sending unsolicited text messages and
prerecorded messages to cellular telephones without the
recipient's prior express written consent.

Intercontinental Capital Group, Inc. is company organized and
existing under the laws of the State of New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ross H. Schmierer, Esq.
          DENITTIS OSEFCHEN PRINCE, P.C.
          315 Madison Avenue, 3rd Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone (646) 979-3642
          E-mail: rchmierer@denittislaw.com

               - and -

          Stefan Coleman, Esq.
          DENITTIS OSEFCHEN PRINCE, P.C.
          5 Penn Plaza, 23rd Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (877) 333-9427
          Facsimile: (888) 498-8946
          E-mail: Law@StefanColeman.com


INVENTION SUBMISSION: Sued for Defrauding Inventors
---------------------------------------------------
Barbara Leonard, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports
that detailing a multilayered scheme to defraud aspiring
inventors and entrepreneurs, two Westchester women say in a class
action that victims pay thousands of dollars up front to
Invention Submission Corporation, d/b/a InventHelp, are pressured
into taking out loans from Innovation Credit Corp., pay a lawyer
for patents they will never obtain, and then charged a final fee
by sham distributors.

Attorney for Plaintiff:

     Julie Pechersky Plitt, Esq.
     OXMAN LAW GROUP, PLLC
     120 Bloomingdale Road, Suite 100
     White Plains, NY 10605
     Tel: 914-422-3900
     Fax: 914-422-3636
     Email: jplitt@oxmanlaw.com


JD BEVERAGE: "Peralta" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages
-------------------------------------------------
Christian Peralta, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. JD Beverage Corp., and Jose
Diaz, the Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-00118-DRH-GRB (E.D.N.Y.,
Jan. 8, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, maximum
liquidated damages and attorneys' fees, pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was employed by
Defendants from in or around 2017 until on or about December,
2017.  From 2010 until December 2012 or January 2013, Plaintiff
regularly worked a weekly schedule of 4:30 a.m. until 8:30 p.m.
every Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday and 4:30 a.m.
until 5:00 p.m. every Saturday.

The Plaintiff was paid a flat rate per day, dependent upon the
number of cases he delivered. Plaintiff was paid $150 on days
that he was scheduled to deliver less than 350 cases of Arizona
Beverages products. Plaintiff was paid $200 on days that he was
scheduled to deliver 350 or more cases of Arizona Beverages
products.

From December 2012 or January 2013 until the cessation of his
employment on or about December 7, 2017, Plaintiff regularly
worked no fewer than 56 hours per week. Defendants paid Plaintiff
a flat rate of $150 or $200 per day, regardless of the number of
hours worked.  Plaintiff was paid an average weekly wage of $700
per week.

The Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff and the putative class
members at a rate of at least 1.5 times their regular rate for
hours worked in excess of 40 in a week, for each week during the
period of his employment with Defendants.[BN]

JD Beverage Corp. is a corporation organized and existing under
the laws of New York. JD Beverage Corp. is a wholesale
distributor for products produced by Arizona Beverages USA.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Saul D. Zabell, Esq.
          ZABELL & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          1 Corporate Drive, Suite 103
          Bohemia, NY 11716
          Telephone: (631) 589-7242
          Facsimile: (631) 563-7475
          E-mail: SZabell@laborlawsny.com


JP MORGAN CHASE: Faces "Gomes" Suit over TILA Violations
--------------------------------------------------------
Richard R. Gomes and Carol Ricciuti, on behalf of all others
similarly situated  v. JP Morgan Chase & Company, JP Morgan Chase
Bank, NA, Case No. 2:18-cv-00236-LDW-AYS (E.D.N.Y. January 12,
2018), is a consumer class action lawsuit alleging violation of
the Truth in Lending Act.

JPMorgan Chase & Co. operates as a financial services company
worldwide. It operates through Consumer & Community Banking,
Corporate & Investment Bank, Commercial Banking, and Asset &
Wealth Management segments. The Consumer & Community Banking
segment offers deposit and investment products and services to
consumers; lending, deposit, and cash management and payment
solutions to small businesses; residential mortgages and home
equity loans; and credit cards, payment services, payment
processing services, auto loans and leases, and student loans.
The Corporate & Investment Bank segment provides investment
banking products and services, including advising on corporate
strategy and structure, and capital-raising in equity and debt
markets, as well as loan origination and syndication; treasury
services, such as cash management and liquidity solutions; and
cash securities and derivative instruments, risk management
solutions, prime brokerage, and research services. It also offers
securities services, including custody, fund accounting and
administration, and securities lending products for asset
managers, insurance companies, and public and private investment
funds. The Commercial Banking segment offers financial solutions,
including lending, treasury, investment banking, and asset
management to corporations, municipalities, financial
institutions, and nonprofit entities, as well as financing to
real estate investors and owners. The Asset & Wealth Management
segment provides investment and wealth management services across
various asset classes, such as equities, fixed income,
alternatives, and money market funds; multi-asset investment
management services; retirement services; and brokerage and
banking services comprising trusts, estates, loans, mortgages,
and deposits. JPMorgan Chase & Co. was founded in 1799 and is
headquartered in New York, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Abel L. Pierre, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF ABEL L. PIERRE,
          ATTORNEY AT LAW, P.C.
          140 Broadway, 46th floor
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 766-3323
          Facsimile: (212) 766-3322
          E-mail: abel@apierrelaw.com


KOHLS DEPARTMENT: "Waters" Suit Removed to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------
Crystal Waters, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated v. Kohls Department Stores, Inc., Case No. BC650906, was
removed from the Superior Court of California, County of Los
Angeles, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California, on Jan. 12, 2018. The District Court clerk assigned
Case no 2:18-cv-00328-ODW-AFM. The case was assigned to the Hon.
Judge Dolly M. Gee and Magistrate Judge Alicia G. Rosenberg.

Kohls Department Stores, Inc., operates department stores in the
United States. The company offer's apparel, footwear, accessories
and home products to middle-income customers. The company was
incorporated in 1986 and is based in Menomee Falls, Wisconsin.
Kohl's Department Stores, operates as a subsidiary of Kohl
Corporation.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by

          Jordan S Esensten, Esq.
          Robert L Esensten, Esq.
          ESENSTEN LAW
          12100 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 1660
          Los Angeles, CA 90025
          Telephone: (310) 273-3090
          Facsimile: (310) 207-5969
          E-mail: jesensten@esenstenlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Jeffrey S Jacobson, Esq.
          KELLEY DRYE AND WARREN LLP
          101 Park Avenue
          New York, NY 10178
          Telephone: (212) 808-7800
          Facsimile: (212) 808-7897

               - and -

          Lauri A Mazzuchetti, Esq.
          KELLEY DRYE AND WARREN LLP
          One Jefferson Road 2nd Floor
          Parsippany, NJ 07054
          Telephone: (973) 503-5900
          Facsimile: (973) 503-5950
          E-mail:lmazzuchetti@kelleydrye.com

               - and -

          Sarah E Diamond, Esq.
          KELLEY DRYE AND WARREN LLP
          10100 Santa Monica Boulevard, 23rd Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 712-6100
          Facsimile: (310) 712-6199
          Email: sdiamond@kelleydrye.com


LIBERTY TAX: Glancy Prongay & Murray Files Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP has filed a class action lawsuit in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New
York on behalf of persons and entities that acquired Liberty Tax,
Inc. securities between June 29, 2016 and December 11, 2017,
inclusive, asserting claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Investors are hereby notified that they have until February 13,
2018 to move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff in this action.

Investors suffering losses on their Liberty investments are
encouraged to contact Lesley Portnoy of GPM to discuss their
legal rights at 310-201-9150 or by email to
shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit the Liberty case page on our
website at www.glancylaw.com/case/liberty-tax-inc.

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

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that, throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made a series of false and
misleading statements regarding the Company's disclosure controls
and procedures. For example, although Defendants told the
investing public that the Company maintained effective internal
controls to ensure the accuracy of its financial reporting,
investors ultimately learned the opposite was true, i.e. the
Company's internal controls were ineffective and did not ensure
accurate financial reporting. The market learned the truth on
December 11, 2017, when Liberty Tax filed a Form 8-K with the SEC
announcing the sudden resignation of its independent registered
public accounting firm, and stated that the Company would delay
the filing of its quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarter
ended October 31, 2017.

Follow us for updates on Twitter: twitter.com/GPM_LLP.

If you purchased Liberty securities during the Class Period you
may move the Court no later than February 13, 2018 to ask the
Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff. To be a member of the
Class you need not take any action at this time; you may retain
counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an absent
member of the Class. If you wish to learn more about this action,
or if you have any questions concerning this announcement or your
rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact
Lesley Portnoy, Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park East, Suite
2100, Los Angeles California 90067 at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at
888-773-9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit
our website at www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email please
include your mailing address, telephone number and number of
shares purchased.

         Lesley Portnoy, Esq.
         Glancy Prongay and Murray LLP, Los Angeles
         E-mail: lportnoy@glancylaw.com [GN]


LOUISIANA: Sanctioned for Nondisclosure of Evidence in "Lewis"
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Shelly D. Dick of the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Louisiana granted the Plaintiffs' Motion for
Evidentiary Sanctions in the case, JOSEPH LEWIS, JR., et al., v.
BURL CAIN, et al., Civil Action No. 15-318-SDD-RLB (M.D. La.).

The suit is brought by several inmates incarcerated at the
Louisiana State Penitentiary ("LSP").  The Plaintiffs claim that
the medical care provided at LSP violates the Eighth Amendment
prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment.  They also claim
that the medical treatment of disabled inmates at LSP violates
the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act.

The Plaintiffs moved to certify the case as a class action, and
the Court held a class certification hearing on Nov. 2, 2017,
where the Parties presented argument and evidence regarding class
certification.  The Plaintiffs objected at the hearing to several
of the Defendants' hearing exhibits, arguing that the documents
had been requested but not produced during discovery.

The Plaintiffs now move for evidentiary sanctions under Rule
37(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for the Defendants'
failure to supplement their discovery responses and disclose the
requested healthcare directives prior to the class certification
hearing.  Initially, the Plaintiffs claimed that, while the
Defendants produced a sequence of 95 LSP healthcare directives,
the Defendants failed to produce 61 of those directives during
discovery despite the fact that such documents were responsive to
the Plaintiffs' Request for Production.  After some
investigation, the Plaintiffs filed a Supplement to the motion
indicating that 10 directives had been produced, but noted that
it appears that some 46 directives were never produced in any
form, and approximately 52 directives -- more than half -- were
not produced during document discovery.

The Defendants oppose the motion, claiming that all LSP
healthcare directives were contained in the LSP Healthcare Manual
which was reviewed by the Plaintiff's experts, and purportedly
all directives were turn over to the Plaintiffs on a disc.
Nevertheless, they acknowledge that 25 directives cannot be
"specifically accounted for" in the course of discovery, but
claim they believe the directives were produced on the disc, and
if they were not, this should have been discovered by the
Plaintiffs prior to the class certification hearing.  The
Defendants contend sanctions are unwarranted in this case because
Plaintiffs have suffered no prejudice as many of the undisclosed
documents "arguably have no bearing upon any of the issues" in
the case, and any discovery failures were inadvertent and not
willful or in bad faith.

The Judge finds that modest sanctions are warranted for the
Defendants' nondisclosure.  First, the Defendants' argument that
many of the undisclosed directives are irrelevant to the case is
without merit as it is not the Defendants' place to make such a
determination.  She also rejects the Defendants' claim that the
Plaintiffs have suffered no prejudice.  Finally, the Defendants'
attempt to shift the blame to the Plaintiffs for not discovering
the omissions sooner is weak and unacceptable.

Accordingly, the Judge finds that modest sanctions are warranted
for the Defendants' nondisclosure.  However, she does not find
the nondisclosure to be willful or in bad faith.  Thus, she
granted the Plaintiffs' Motion for Evidentiary Sanctions, and
excluded any evidence or documents not produced in discovery
unless such documents were attached to pleadings filed into the
record prior to the class certification hearing.  The Judge
declined to award any monetary sanctions.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 12, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/CODDVb from Leagle.com.

Kentrell Parker, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Farrell Sampier, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Reginald George, John Tonubbee, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Otto Barrera, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Clyde
Carter, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Edward Giovanni, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Ricky D. Davis, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, Lionel Tolbert, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Rufus White, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Shannon
Hurd, Alton Adams, Ian Cazenave, Edward Washington & Alton
Batiste, Plaintiffs, represented by Mercedes Hardy Montagnes --
mmontagnes@thejusticecenter.org -- The Promise of Justice
Initiative, Amanda Boozer, The Promise of Justice Initiative, pro
hac vice, Bruce Warfield Hamilton, ACLU of Louisiana, Daniel A.
Small -- dsmall@cohenmilstein.com -- Cohen Milstein Sellers &
Toll PLLC, pro hac vice, Jeffrey Dubner --
jdubner@cohenmilstein.com -- Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC,
pro hac vice, Miranda Tait -- mtait@advocacyla.org -- Advocacy
Center & Nishi Lal Kumar, Promise of Justice Initiative.

Stephanie Lamartiniere, Assistant Warden for Health Services, in
her official capacity, James M LeBlanc, Secretary of the
Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections, in his
official capacity & The Louisiana Department of Public Safety and
Corrections, Defendants, represented by Mary E. Roper, Shows,
Cali, & Walsh LLP, Randal J. Robert -- randy@kswb.com -- Kantrow,
Spaht, Weaver & Blitzer, Andrea Leigh Barient, Louisiana
Department of Justice, Angelique Duhon Freel, Louisiana
Department of Justice, Caroline Tomeny Bond, Shows, Cali, &
Walsh, LLP, Colin Andrew Clark, Office of the Louisiana Attorney
General - Criminal Division, Connell Lee Archey --
connell@kswb.com -- Kantrow, Spaht, Weaver & Blitzer, Elizabeth
Baker Murrill, Office of Attorney General, George Holmes --
george@kswb.com -- Kantrow Spaht Weaver and Blitzer, Jeffrey K.
Cody, Shows, Cali, Berthelot & Walsh, LLP, John Clifton Conine,
Jr., Shows, Cali & Walsh, L.L.P., Keith Fernandez --
keith@kswb.com -- Kantrow, Spaht, Weaver & Blizer, Michelle
Marney White, Louisiana Department of Justice & Patricia Hill
Wilton, Louisiana Department of Justice.

Darrel Vannoy, Warden of Angola, Raman Singh, MD, Stacye Falgout,
Randy Lavespere, MD, Sherwood Poret, RN & Cynthia Park, ACNP,
Defendants, represented by Mary E. Roper, Shows, Cali, & Walsh
LLP, Randal J. Robert, Kantrow, Spaht, Weaver & Blitzer, Andrea
Leigh Barient, Louisiana Department of Justice, Caroline Tomeny
Bond, Shows, Cali, & Walsh, LLP, Colin Andrew Clark, Office of
the Louisiana Attorney General - Criminal Division, Connell Lee
Archey, Kantrow, Spaht, Weaver & Blitzer, George Holmes, Kantrow
Spaht Weaver and Blitzer, Jeffrey K. Cody, Shows, Cali, Berthelot
& Walsh, LLP, John Clifton Conine, Jr., Shows, Cali & Walsh,
L.L.P. & Keith Fernandez, Kantrow, Spaht, Weaver & Blizer.


MARYLAND PLAZA: Seeks Prelim. Okay of "Merriweather" Class Accord
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in the lawsuit styled ALLEGRA MERRIWEATHER ET AL.,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v.
MARYLAND PLAZA RESTAURANTS, LLC, Case No. 4:17-cv-02924-RWS (E.D.
Mo.), jointly move for:

   (1) certification of collective action under the Fair Labor
       Standards Act and for certification of class for
       settlement purposes under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of
       Civil Procedure;

   (2) preliminary approval of class action settlement agreement;
       and

   (3) approval of notice to the respective class members.

The Plaintiffs are Allegra Merriweather, Wince Williams, Hannah
Costillo, Jennifer Reyes, Tiffany Lakamp, Jessica Remington,
Katrina Brown, Bradley Roderick, Ashley Muniz, Jordan Graham, and
Rashawn Pettiford.  The Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit against
MPR, alleging that they and others similarly situated were
employed by MPR as hourly employees at Scape restaurant and/or
Crepes, Etc. restaurant, and performed work "off the clock"
during customarily deducted thirty-minute meal periods without
receiving proper overtime pay pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the Missouri Minimum Wage Law.

As reflected by the Settlement Agreement, the Parties have
reached an agreement on all settlement terms except the incentive
payment to be provided to the Representative Plaintiffs.  The
Plaintiffs maintain that a $1,000 incentive payment should be
provided to each of the 11 Representative Plaintiffs for their
service to the Class Members, and that this is a fair and
reasonable incentive payment and will not adversely impact the
remaining Class Members.

MPR maintains that an incentive payment of $1,000 per
Representative Plaintiff is unfair to the rest of the Class
Members considering the total Settlement Sum and the number of
Representative Plaintiffs, and that no more than a $500 incentive
payment should be provided to each Representative Plaintiff.  The
parties defer to the Court to decide this issue and agree to
execute an amendment to the Settlement Agreement reflecting
whatever incentive payment the Court approves to be distributed
to the Representative Plaintiffs.

The Parties further agree that the incentive payment to the
Representative Plaintiffs will not increase the Gross Settlement
Sum, and shall be distributed from the Gross Settlement Sum
described in Paragraph 55 of the Settlement Agreement.

Solely for purposes of settlement, the Parties stipulate to final
certification of the FLSA collective action, consisting of all
current and former hourly personnel who worked for MPR at Scape
or Crepes, Etc. at any time during the period of May 15, 2013 to
May 15, 2016.

Solely for purposes of settlement, the parties stipulate to the
certification of a class consisting of all current and former
hourly personnel who worked for MPR at Scape or Crepes, Etc. at
any time during the period of May 15, 2011 to May 15, 2016.  The
parties agree that this proposed class is a proper and
appropriate class under Rule 23.

The Parties also ask the Court to appoint the Plaintiffs as the
Class Representatives and Thomas SanFilippo, Esq., of the Law
Firm of Thomas SanFilippo & Associates, LLC, as Class Counsel.
The Parties further ask the Court to approve the Notice of
Settlement of Class and Collective Action Wage and Hour Claims
and Hearing, which is attached to the Class Action Settlement
Agreement.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Thomas J. SanFilippo, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF THOMAS SANFILIPPO & ASSOCIATES, LLC
          1010 Market Street, Suite 1340
          St. Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: (314) 669-5752
          E-mail: Thomas@tsalawoffice.com

Defendant Maryland Plaza Restaurants, LLC, is represented by:

          Jill K. Luft, Esq.
          Molly R. Batsch, Esq.
          GREENSFELDER, HEMKER & GALE, P.C.
          10 South Broadway, Suite 2000
          St. Louis, MO 63102
          Telephone: (314) 241-9090
          Facsimile: (314) 241-3643
          E-mail: jluft@greensfelder.com
                  mrb@greensfelder.com


MDL 2420: Court Moves Antitrust Suit Claims Deadline to July 19
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: LITHIUM ION BATTERIES ANTITRUST LITIGATION.
This Order relates to the Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs, Case No.
4:13-md-02420-YGR (DMR) (N.D. Cal.), Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers
of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California has entered a second order extending claims deadline.

Having reviewed the second status report submitted by the
Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs ("IPPs") concerning the status of
the claims process of the Class Action Settlements with
Defendants Hitachi Maxell, NEC Corp., and LG Chem Defendants, the
Judge ordered that the Claims Administrator will extend the
claims period for the settlements approved between the IPPs and
Defendants Hitachi Maxell, NEC, LG Chem, and Sony to permit
submission of claims up to and including July 19, 2018.  The IPPs
will file an updated status report on July 6, 2018.

The Judge set the matter for a compliance hearing July 13, 2018,
on the Court's 9:01 a.m. calendar.  If the updated status report
is filed timely, the hearing will be vacated.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 12, 2018 Second Order is
available at https://is.gd/e97i85 from Leagle.com.

Kevin Young, Plaintiff, represented by Jeff D. Friedman --
jefff@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP.

Kevin Young, Plaintiff, represented by George W. Sampson, Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Jason Allen Zweig -- jasonz@hbsslaw.com
-- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Shana E. Scarlett --
shanas@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP & Steve W.
Berman -- steve@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP,
pro hac vice.

Bradley Seldin, Plaintiff, represented by Jeff D. Friedman,
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, George W. Sampson, Hagens Berman
Sobol Shapiro LLP, Jason Allen Zweig, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
LLP, Shana E. Scarlett, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP & Steve
W. Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice.

Bruce Sterman, Plaintiff, represented by Jeff D. Friedman, Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP & Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice.

Charles Carte, Plaintiff, represented by Guido Saveri --
guido@saveri.com -- Saveri & Saveri, Inc., Brian P. Murray --
bmurray@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Cadio R.
Zirpoli -- cadio@saveri.com -- Saveri & Saveri, Inc., David Yau-
Tian Hwu -- dhwu@saveri.com -- Saveri and Saveri Inc., Geoffrey
Conrad Rushing -- mheaphy@saveri.com -- Saveri & Saveri Inc.,
Gregory Bradley Linkh -- glinkh@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay &
Murray LLP, Lee Albert -- lalbert@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay
& Murray LLP, Lisa Maria Saveri -- lisa@saveri.com -- Saveri &
Saveri Inc., Richard Alexander Saveri -- rick@saveri.com --
Saveri and Saveri Inc, Richard Alexander Saveri, Saveri & Saveri,
Inc., Susan Gilah Kupfer -- skupfer@glancylaw.com -- Glancy
Prongay & Murray LLP & Todd Anthony Seaver, Berman Tabacco.

Brian Hanlon, Plaintiff, represented by Brent W. Johnson --
bjohnson@cohenmilstein.com -- Cohen Milstein Sellers and Toll
PLLC, Jeff D. Friedman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Kit A.
Pierson -- kpierson@cohenmilstein.com -- Cohen Milstein Sellers
and Toll PLLC & Laura M. Alexander --
lalexander@cohenmilstein.com -- Cohen Milstein Sellers and Toll.

Nichole M. Gray, Plaintiff, represented by Guido Saveri, Saveri &
Saveri, Inc., Aaron James Broussard, Broussard and Hart LLC,
David Yau-Tian Hwu, Saveri and Saveri Inc., Douglas A. Millen --
dmillen@fklmlaw.com -- Freed Kanner London & Millen LLC, Lisa
Maria Saveri, Saveri & Saveri Inc., Richard Alexander Saveri,
Saveri and Saveri Inc, Richard Kirchner, Bonsignore & Brewer,
Richard Alexander Saveri, Saveri & Saveri, Inc., Robert J.
Bonsignore -- rbonsignore@class-actions.us ---, Bonsignore Trial
Lawyers, PLLC & Todd Anthony Seaver -- tseaver@bermantabacco.com
-- Berman Tabacco.

Woodrow Clark, II, Plaintiff, represented by Brian Joseph Barry -
- bribarry1@yahoo.com -- Law Offices of Brian Barry, James E.
Cecchi, Carella Byrne, Lindsey H. Taylor --
LTaylor@carellabyrne.com -- Carella Byrne & Todd Anthony Seaver,
Berman Tabacco.

Rebecca Cervenak, Plaintiff, represented by William James Doyle,
II -- bill@doylelowther.com -- Doyle Lowther LLP.

John Russo, Plaintiff, represented by William James Doyle, II --
jim@doylelowther.com -- Doyle Lowther LLP, James Robert Hail,
Doyle Lowther & Katherine S. DiDonato, Shustak Reynolds &
Partners, P.C..

LG Chem Ltd., Defendant, represented by Benjamin Edward Waldin --
bwaldin@eimerstahl.com -- Eimer Stahl LLP, Brian Yanlang Chang --
bchang@eimerstahl.com -- Eimer Stahl LLP, Jungmin Lee --
jlee@eimerstahl.com -- Eimer Stahl LLP, Nathan P. Eimer --
neimer@eimerstahl.com -- Eimer Stahl LLP & Vanessa Greenwood
Jacobsen -- vjacobsen@eimerstahl.com -- Eimer Stahl LLP.

LG Chem America, Inc, Defendant, represented by Benjamin Edward
Waldin, Eimer Stahl LLP, Brian Yanlang Chang, Eimer Stahl LLP,
Jungmin Lee, Eimer Stahl LLP, Nathan P. Eimer, Eimer Stahl LLP &
Vanessa Greenwood Jacobsen, Eimer Stahl LLP.

Samsung SDI America Inc, Defendant, represented by John Roberti -
- john.roberti@allenovery.com -- Allen & Overy LLP, Bradley
Pensyl -- bradley.pensyl@allenovery.com -- Allen and Overy LLP,
Jacob S. Pultman -- jacob.pultman@allenovery.com -- Allen Overy
LLP, Matthew R. Boucher -- matthew.boucher@allenovery.com --
Allen and Overy LLP, Michael S. Feldberg --
michael.feldberg@allenovery.com -- Allen and Overy LLP & Nneka
Ukpai -- Nneka.Ukpai@AllenOvery.com -- Allen and Overy LLP.

Hitachi Ltd., Defendant, represented by Craig P. Seebald --
cseebald@velaw.com -- Vinson & Elkins LLP, Elliott J. Joh --
elliott.joh@squirepb.com -- Vinson and Elkins LLP & Matthew J.
Jacobs -- mjacobs@velaw.com -- Vinson & Elkins LLP.

Hitachi Maxell, Ltd, Defendant, represented by Christopher Walter
James -- cjames@velaw.com -- Vinson and Elkins LLP, Craig P.
Seebald, Vinson & Elkins LLP, Elliott J. Joh, Vinson and Elkins
LLP, Jason Alan Levine -- jlevine@velaw.com -- Vinson Elkins LLP,
Jeremy C. Keeney -- jkeeney@velaw.com -- Vinson and Elkins
L.L.P., Lindsey Robinson Vaala -- lvaala@velaw.com -- Matthew J.
Jacobs, Vinson & Elkins LLP & Thomas William Bohnett --
tbohnett@velaw.com -- Vinson and Elkins L.L.P..

Maxell Corporation of America, Defendant, represented by
Christopher Walter James, Vinson and Elkins LLP, Craig P.
Seebald, Vinson & Elkins LLP, Elliott J. Joh, Vinson and Elkins
LLP, Jason Alan Levine, Vinson Elkins LLP, Jeremy C. Keeney,
Vinson and Elkins L.L.P., Lindsey Robinson Vaala, Matthew J.
Jacobs, Vinson & Elkins LLP & Thomas William Bohnett, Vinson and
Elkins L.L.P..

Samsung SDI Co Ltd, Defendant, represented by John Roberti, Allen
& Overy LLP, Bradley Pensyl, Allen and Overy LLP, Jacob S.
Pultman, Allen Overy LLP, Matthew R. Boucher, Allen and Overy
LLP, Michael S. Feldberg, Allen and Overy LLP & Nneka Ukpai,
Allen and Overy LLP.

Maxwell Corporation of America, Defendant, represented by Thomas
William Bohnett, Vinson and Elkins L.L.P..

Hitachi Maxell Corporation of America, Defendant, represented by
Lindsey Robinson Vaala.

Toshiba America Electronic Components Inc, Defendant, represented
by Christopher M. Curran -- ccurran@whitecase.com -- White & Case
& J. Frank Hogue -- fhogue@whitecase.com -- White Case LLP.


MENARD INC: Astarita Moves for Certification of Class Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled ALBERT J. ASTARITA,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
MENARD, INC. d/b/a MENARDS, Case No. 5:17-cv-06151-RK (W.D. Mo.),
moves for conditional certification of this class under the Fair
Labor Standards Act:

     All persons currently and formerly employed by Defendant in
     hourly, non-exempt positions within the United States who
     participated in Defendant's In-Home Training Program at any
     time during the last three (3) years.

Mr. Astarita filed suit against the Defendant alleging that it
had a policy and practice of failing to pay him and similarly
situated employees overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and Missouri law.  Specifically, he alleges, the
Defendant failed to pay its employees for time spent
participating in the Defendant's In-Home Training Program.

The Plaintiff also asks the Court to appoint him as class
representative, and to appoint McClelland Law Firm, P.C., as
class counsel.  He further asks the Court to:

   a. order the Defendant to produce information for all proposed
      Class members, including full name, last known address and
      last known phone numbers;

   b. require that notice be mailed via first-class mail and
      electronic mail to such persons within 45 days of the
      Court's Order granting the Motion;

   c. require the posting of notice of the pending suit in
      conspicuous locations at Defendant's stores where putative
      class members are employed (including lunch room bulletin
      boards or bulletin boards where job notices are posted)
      during the opt-in period;

   d. allow a reminder postcard or electronic mail notice to
      putative class members 30 days before the opt-in deadline;

   e. order tolling of the FLSA's limitations period during the
      pendency of the briefing period of this motion, for
      individuals that untimely opt-in to this action to ensure
      that claims are not lost; and

   f. approve the Notice to Class Members and Consent Form, and
      setting forth a final date in which the Consent Form must
      be submitted for those Class members opting in, which
      should be at least 120 days from the date of the Court's
      Order conditionally certifying a class and from the date
      that Defendant produces the required contact information.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Bhdioc2p

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ryan L. McClelland, Esq.
          Michael J. Rahmberg, Esq.
          MCCLELLAND LAW FIRM, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
          The Flagship Building
          200 Westwoods Drive
          Liberty, MO 64068-1170
          Telephone: (816) 781-0002
          Facsimile: (816) 781-1984
          E-mail: ryan@mcclellandlawfirm.com
                  mrahmberg@mcclellandlawfirm.com


MIAMI COUNTY, OH: Court Refuses to Appoint Counsel for Marcum
-------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz denied the motion for
appointment of counsel filed by the Plaintiff in the lawsuit
captioned STATE OF OHIO, EX REL TED MARCUM v. SHERIFF DAVE
DUCHAK, et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-00437-WHR-MRM (S.D. Ohio).

Because appointment of counsel has been denied, the request for
class certification is moot, Judge Merz ruled.

Mr. Marcum represents (without providing any detail) that he is
indigent, according to the Order.

Appointment of counsel in criminal cases is mandated by the Sixth
Amendment to the United States Constitution, Judge Merz noted.
However, appointment of counsel in a civil case is not a
constitutional right, Judge Merz opined.  "It is a privilege that
is justified only by exceptional circumstances. . . . A district
court has no authority to compel an attorney to accept
appointment," Judge Merz continued.

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


MICHIGAN: Baraga Inmate Can't Proceed in Forma Pauperis
-------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CHRISTOPHER J. VELTHUYSEN, Plaintiff, v. UNKNOWN
PARTY #1 et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-179 (W.D. Mich.),
Judge Robert J. Jonker of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Michigan, Northern Division, denied the Plaintiff's
motion for class action status and leave to proceed in forma
pauperis.

The case is a civil rights action brought by a state prisoner
under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983.  Velthuysen filed the instant
complaint, which purports to be a class action on behalf of all
inmates at the Baraga Correctional Facility.  In addition, eight
other inmates have signed the Plaintiff's motion for order to
file the instant case as a class action.

Judge Jonker explains that it is well established that pro se
litigants are inappropriate representatives of the interests of
others.  Because the Plaintiff is an incarcerated pro se
litigant, he finds that he is not an appropriate representative
of a class.  Therefore, he will deny the Plaintiff's request for
class certification.  Because Velthuysen is the only individual
who signed the complaint, he is the only Plaintiff in the action.

The Plaintiff also seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
Because the Plaintiff has filed at least three lawsuits that were
dismissed as frivolous, malicious or for failure to state a
claim, he is barred from proceeding in forma pauperis under 28
U.S.C. Section 1915(g).

Therefore, Section 1915(g) prohibits the Plaintiff from
proceeding in forma pauperis in the action.  Judge Jonker ordered
the Plaintiff to pay the $400 civil action filing fee applicable
to those not permitted to proceed in forma pauperis.  The fee
must be paid within 28 days of the Opinion and accompanying
order.  If the Plaintiff fails to pay the fee, the Judge will
order that the case be dismissed without prejudice.  Even if the
case is dismissed, the Plaintiff must pay the $400 filing fee in
accordance with In re Alea, 286 F.3d 378, 380-81 (6th Cir. 2002).

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 12, 2018 Opinion is
available at https://is.gd/8Sk9gX from Leagle.com.

Christopher J. Velthuysen, plaintiff, Pro Se.

Paul Mullholland, movant, Pro Se.

Anthony Tarone Hubbard, movant, Pro Se.

Paul Turner, movant, Pro Se.

Albert Lee Garrett, Jr., (named as Gary Garrett on initiating
documents), movant, Pro Se.

Dabon Reed, movant, Pro Se.

Marcus Hill, movant, Pro Se.

Gerald Pittman, (named as Hannibal Pittman on the initiating
documents), movant, Pro Se.

Marcus Matthews, movant, Pro Se.


MT. GOX: Suit Says Karpeles, Mizuho Bank Cause Loss of $400MM
-------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Kahn, writing for courthouse News Service, reports that a
former user of the Mt. Gox Bitcoin Exchange claims in a federal
class action that Mark Karpeles and Mizuho Bank caused the loss
of $400 million through "gross negligence or outright theft."

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

     Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
     J. Aaron Lawson, Esq.
     EDELSON PC
     123 Townsend Street, Suite 100
     San Francisco, CA 94107
     Telephone: (415) 212-9300
     Facsimile: (415) 373-9435
     Email: rbalabanian@edelson.com
            alawson@edelson.com


OFF LEASE ONLY: Class Notice Plan in "Mohamed" Partly Granted
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, RAY MOHAMED, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. OFF LEASE ONLY, INC., a Florida
Corporation, Defendants, Case No. 15-cv-23352-Civ-COOKE/TORRES
(S.D. Fla.), Judge Marcia G. Cooke of the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Florida granted in part and denied in
part the Plaintiff's Motion for Approval of Class Notice Plan.

The Plaintiff, on behalf of the class, brings the case under the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), alleging the
Defendant, through an agent, sent text messages in violation of
the TCPA.

On July 12, 2017, Judge Cooke entered an Order Partially Adopting
Report and Recommendation, which certified the class of all
subscribers within the United States (i) who received a text
message (ii) on his or her cellular telephone (iii) from
InstantCarOffer.com, on behalf of Off Lease Only, (iv) through
the use of the Twilio platform (v) after placing an advertisement
on craigslist.org in connection with the sale of a vehicle (vi)
for a period of four (4) years prior to the filing of the initial
Complaint -- Sept. 4, 2011 -- to the date of class certification.

The Plaintiff filed the instant motion for approval of his Notice
Plan, which includes (1) email notice to those individuals for
whom Craigslist is able to produce a valid email address and
individual postcard notice to those without a valid email address
who can be identified through a reverse lookup performed by KCC1;
(2) a dedicated website that will include a long form notice, as
well as case and contact information; and (3) a telephone line
featuring an interactive voice response system to handle class
member inquiries.

The Plaintiff has filed, conventionally and under seal, a list of
phone numbers which American Motor Co., LLC ("AMC") has said were
sent text messages from InstantCarOffer.com using the Twilio
platform.  These are the phone numbers Craigslist will cross
check to see if they are associated with a Craigslist
advertisement in connection with the sale of a vehicle.  The
Plaintiff requests 30 days to certify to the Court that Notice
has been sent and for a deadline of 60 days from the date Notice
is sent for class members to request exclusion.

Judge Cooke agrees in part as for the Defendant's claim that the
Plaintiff's proposed notice is misleading.  The Defendant objects
to the Plaintiff's Email Notice, because the Email Notice states
that the recipient has received the email because records show
that he is a member of the Certified Class.  The Defendant says
it is possible that individuals receiving notice may not be class
members for various reasons, including that they did not receive
a text message.  It is therefore misleading to state they are
definitely a class member.

As for the Defendant's claim that the Plaintiff's Long Form
Notice, which states the recipient does not have to do anything
to remain a member of the class, the Judge finds nothing
objectionable in the language, given that she is not requiring
the class members to self-identify at this stage.

As for the Defendant's claim that the class notice does not
adequately describe its defenses, the Judge directs that the
following should clearly explain the defenses without adding too
much confusion: the Defendant denies liability on all of the
Plaintiff's claims.  Specifically, it alleges that AMC was not
acting on its behalf and that the text recipients consented to
receive the text messages.

In sum, Judge Cooke, with the limited modifications, finds that
the Plaintiff's Notice satisfies the requirements of Rule
23(c)(2)(b) and constitutes the best notice practicable under the
circumstances.  For these reasons, she granted in part and denied
in part the Plaintiff's Motion for Approval of Class Notice Plan.
The Plaintiff will have 21 days from the date of the Order to
certify that Notice, as modified above, has been sent to the
class.  The potential class members must request exclusion within
60 days of the date Notice is sent.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 12, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/XgpRjC from Leagle.com.

Ray Mohamed, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Bret Leon Lusskin, Jr. --
blusskin@lusskinlaw.com --, Bret Lusskin, P.A., Manuel Santiago
Hiraldo -- mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com -- Hiraldo P.A., Patrick
Christopher Crotty, The Law Office of Scott D. Owens, Sean Martin
Holas, Scott D. Owens, P.A., Seth Michael Lehrman --
seth@pathtojustice.com -- Edwards Pottinger, LLC, Steven R. Jaffe
-- steve@pathtojustice.com -- Steven R. Jaffe, P.A. & Scott David
Owens -- scott@scottdowens.com -- SCOTT D. OWENS, P.A.

Off Lease Only, Inc., a Florida corporation, Defendant,
represented by Franklin Lewis Zemel --
franklin.zemel@arnstein.com -- Saul Ewing Arnstein & Lehr, LLP,
Alan Richard Poppe -- alan.poppe@saul.com -- Saul Ewing Arnstein
& Lehr LLP & Rebecca Ann Radosevich --
rebecca.radosevich@offleaseonly.com.

Ian Crabtree & Michael Crabtree, Material Witnesss, represented
by Alan Richard Poppe, Saul Ewing Arnstein & Lehr LLP.

Off Lease Only, Inc., a Florida corporation, Cross Claimant,
represented by Franklin Lewis Zemel, Saul Ewing Arnstein & Lehr,
LLP, Alan Richard Poppe, Saul Ewing Arnstein & Lehr LLP & Rebecca
Ann Radosevich.


OGLETREE DEAKINS: Knepper Sues over Gender Discrimination
---------------------------------------------------------
Dawn Knepper, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff,  v. Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak and
Stewart, P.C., Case No. 3:18-CV-00304 (N.D. Cal., Jan. 12, 2018),
is brought against the Defendant's practices of discrimination
against female non-equity shareholders in pay, promotion, and
other terms and conditions of employment.

"Ogletree has created and fostered a male-dominated culture in
which male shareholders are grossly over-represented in the
Defendant's management and leadership structure," the suit
claims.

"Ogletree discriminates against female non-equity shareholders
through formal policies and widespread practices that limit,
interfere with, or prevent female non-equity shareholders from
receiving the credit they deserve for the business that they
generate for the Firm and the hours of work that they spend
litigating complex cases. Female non-equity shareholders do not
receive equal or comparable pay to their male counterparts, even
where they outperform their male counterparts."

Knepper is a female attorney and non-equity shareholder in
Ogletree's Orange County office.  She has been employed by
Ogletree since approximately June 1, 2005.

Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak and Stewart, P.C. is a law firm with
offices worldwide, including six offices in California.
Ogletree's California offices are located in Los Angeles, Orange
County, Sacramento, San Diego, San Francisco, and Torrance.
Ogletree employs over 100 attorneys in California. Ogletree is
one of the largest labor and employment law firms in the United
States. It specializes in defending employers against individual
and class action employment lawsuits, including lawsuits for
discrimination.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jill Sanford, Esq.
          Edward Chapin, Esq.
          David Sanford, Esq.
          Jeremy Heisler, Esq.
          Alexandra Harwin, Esq.
          James E. Richardson, Esq.
          Danielle Fuschetti, Esq.
          SANFORD HEISLER SHARP, LLP
          111 Sutter Street, Suite 975
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 795-2020
          Facsimile: (415) 795-2021
          E-mail: jsanford@sanfordheisler.com
                  echapin2@sanfordheisler.com
                  jheisler@sanfordheisler.com
                  aharwin@sanfordheisler.com
                  jrichardson@sanfordheisler.com
                  dfuschetti@sanfordheisler.com


OLD PRO INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, "Stollman" Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
Samantha Stollman, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Old Pro, Inc.; Local Union 271; Dan
Gordon, Gordon Biersch Brewing Company, Steve Sinchek and Does
1-100, inclusive, Case No. 18-cv-321842 (Cal. Super., Santa Clara
Cty., Jan. 16, 2018), is an action against the Defendants for
unpaid regular hours, overtime hours, minimum wages, wages for
missed meal and res periods.

Plaintiff and Class Members were/are employed as waiters,
waitresses, and bartenders.

Old Pro, Inc. was and is a corporation organized under the laws
of the State of California, and authorized and qualified to do
business in Santa Clara County. Old Pro is a restaurant and bar
owned and operated by Defendant Steve Senchik.

Gordon Biersch Brewing Company was and is a corporation organized
under the laws of the State of California, and authorized and
qualified to do business in Santa Clara County. Gordon Biersch is
parent entity and/or corporation that owns and operates Dan
Gordon's restaurant and bar. It is owned and/or operated by
Defendant Steve Senchik.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew S. Da Vega
          Da Vega/Fisher/Mechtenberg, LLP
          940 Stewart Dr., #229
          Sunnyvale, CA 94085
          Telephone: (408) 758-8974
          Facsimile: (877) 535-9358
          E-mail: Mdavega@mdmflaw.com


OREGON: Judge Refuses to Dismiss $1 Billion Timber Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mateusz Perkowski, writing for Capital Press, reports that a
judge has refused to dismiss a class action lawsuit seeking more
than $1 billion from Oregon's government for insufficient logging
of state forestlands.

Linn County filed a complaint in 2016 accusing Oregon's forest
managers of breaching a contract to maximize timber harvests from
forests donated to the state by county governments.

According to the lawsuit, Oregon began prioritizing environmental
protection and recreational values over logging due to a policy
change in 1998.

The lawsuit was certified as a class action by Linn County
Circuit Judge Daniel Murphy, which effectively included 14
counties and more than 100 taxing districts as plaintiffs in the
case.

Attorneys for Oregon raised several grounds for dismissing the
lawsuit that have now been rejected by Murphy.

The judge has ruled against the state on a particularly
controversial point that's resurfaced several times during the
litigation: Whether the doctrine of "sovereign immunity"
prohibits county governments from suing the State of Oregon.

Initially, Murphy allowed the case to proceed despite the state's
sovereign immunity claim, but later issued a ruling that it's a
valid defense.

The judge withdrew that opinion and has now again rejected
Oregon's motion to dismiss, referencing his original ruling that
counties can enforce their contract rights against the state
government in court under these circumstances.

"He's back to where he's historically been in the case," said
John DiLorenzo, Esq. -- johndilorenzo@dwt.com -- attorney for the
county plaintiffs.

As part of the ruling, the judge also threw out Oregon's argument
that counties can't seek to "maximize timber revenues" because
that term wasn't included in their contracts.

Oregon's government is required to manage the forestland for the
"greatest permanent value," but this term is ambiguous and may be
interpreted based on the circumstances under which the contract
was made, Murphy said.

The judge also disagreed with Oregon's attorneys that future
damages in this case were "too speculative" to be decided, since
"forestry experts make these estimates all the time," and
dismissed other motions filed by the state.

Frank Hammond, Esq. an attorney representing Oregon, said he
cannot comment on pending litigation.

DiLorenzo, the plaintiffs' attorney, said he's pleased with the
ruling, which removed the remaining obstacles standing in the way
of a trial.

For much of the litigation, Oregon's Board of Forestry -- which
oversees the defendant Oregon Department of Forestry -- has
treated the case with derision, DiLorenzo said.

"This should be a signal to state policymakers the court is
taking this case quite seriously," he said. "I hope this is a
wakeup call the Board of Forestry might very well lose this
case."

The plaintiffs are amenable to Oregon filing an "interlocutory
appeal" to challenge Murphy's most recent ruling before the
Oregon Court of Appeals, DiLorenzo said.

That way, the Court of Appeals can ensure that assumptions about
sovereign immunity and other legal issues are correct before the
beginning of trial, which may last a month, he said.

"From an efficiency perspective, it makes sense to get direction
from the Court of Appeals first," he said. "Everybody is going to
invest a lot of time and effort in this case." [GN]


PARTNERS HEALTHCARE: Denial of Leave to Amend "Hamilton" Upheld
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the cases, DIANE HAMILTON, on behalf of herself and all other
employees similarly situated; LYNNE P. CUNNINGHAM, on behalf of
herself and all other employees similarly situated; CLAIRE KANE,
on behalf of herself and all other employees similarly situated;
MARIA VICTORIA SORENSEN, Consent to Sue Plaintiff, Plaintiffs,
Appellants, v. PARTNERS HEALTHCARE SYSTEM, INC.; PARTNERS
COMMUNITY HEALTHCARE, INC.; THE BRIGHAM & WOMEN'S HOSPITAL;
BRIGHAM & WOMEN'S/FAULKNER HOSPITALS, INC.; MARTHA'S VINEYARD
HOSPITAL, INC.; THE MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL; McCLEAN
HEALTHCARE, INC.; THE McCLEAN HOSPITAL CORPORATION; NANTUCKET
COTTAGE HOSPITAL; NEWTON WELLESLEY HOSPITAL; NEWTON WELLESLEY
HEALTHCARE SYSTEM, INC.; NORTH SHORE CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL, INC.;
NORTH SHORE MEDICAL CENTER, INC.; NSMC HEALTHCARE, INC.; THE
SALEM HOSPITAL; UNION HOSPITAL AUXILIARY OF LYNN, INC.; FAULKNER
HOSPITAL, INC., Defendants, Appellees, YOUVILLE HOSPITAL &
REHABILITATION CENTER, INC.; JAMES J. MONGAN, MD; DENNIS D.
COLLING, Defendants, Case Nos. 12-2313, 16-2087 (1st Cir.), Judge
Sandra Lynch of the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
affirmed the district court's denial of the Plaintiffs' motion
for leave to amend the complaint.

In September 2009, Hamilton, Cunningham, and Kane filed suit in
the District of Massachusetts against a group of healthcare
entities allegedly affiliated with Partners Healthcare System,
Inc., alleging that the Defendants' compensation practices
violated the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA"), and the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO").  This was one
of at least 29 such cases filed by the Plaintiffs' counsel across
the country, including four other cases filed in the District of
Massachusetts, all involving virtually identical complaints.  It
purported to be brought as a class action.

The complaint stated that the Plaintiffs were at all relevant
times employees under the FLSA, employed within the District and
residing within the District, but did not describe which of the
Defendants actually employed the Named Plaintiffs and failed to
state whether the Plaintiffs worked more than forty hours per
week.  In total, the Plaintiffs' complaint listed 27 healthcare
facilities associated with the named Defendants and more than 100
"affiliated" healthcare facilities.

In October 2009, the Defendants filed an answer to the
Plaintiffs' complaint, along with a motion to dismiss their RICO
claim.  After briefing on the motion to dismiss, but before the
district court ruled on the motion, the parties notified the
district court that they had entered into a structured mediation
process.  The mediation resulted in two successive motions for
preliminary approval of class and collective action settlements,
which were heard by the district court.

On Dec. 27, 2010, the district court rejected the first proposed
settlement.  Several months later, it rejected an amended
settlement proposal on March 9, 2011.  The Settlement
negotiations broke down after the district court's second ruling.

On April 1, 2011, the defense counsel sent a letter to the
Plaintiffs' counsel with a number of requests, three of which
related to the Plaintiffs' federal claims as stated in their
complaint.  Second, the letter urged the Plaintiffs' counsel to
dismiss their RICO and ERISA claims.  Third, the letter requested
that the Plaintiffs' counsel amend and replead the FLSA claims to
comply with Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, and Ashcroft v.
Iqbal.  The defense counsel warned the Plaintiffs' counsel that
other district courts had dismissed nearly identical claims.

Despite the letter, the Plaintiffs' counsel informed the defense
counsel on April 12, 2011 that they had no intention of
repleading any of their claims or providing any more specificity
prior to a status conference.  Given their statement that they
would not seek to replead, the Defendants filed a motion for
judgment on the pleadings addressed to all of the Plaintiffs'
claims on April 19, 2011.  The Plaintiffs opposed the motion and,
in their memorandum in opposition, included a request to replead
should the Court grant the Defendants' motion.

Months later, the district court held a scheduling conference on
June 9, 2011.  After the hearing, the court denied the
Plaintiff's oral Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint.

Despite the court's invitation, the Plaintiffs failed to file a
motion for leave to amend with a new pleading between the June 9,
2011 scheduling conference and the Aug. 3, 2011 hearing on the
Defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings, which had been
scheduled at the June conference.  The Plaintiffs did not seek
leave to amend in the interim.

On Sept. 30, 2012, the district court issued an electronic order
granting the Defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings as
to all of the Plaintiffs' claims.  The Plaintiffs argue on appeal
that the district court's response to their June 9, 2011 oral
request is properly reviewable, despite their not having filed a
written motion for leave to amend, because the court heard from
both parties and said that it would not permit plaintiffs to
amend their complaint if they were to file a formal motion.  They
also argue that the district court erred when it dismissed their
complaint with prejudice.

Judge Lynch finds that the district court's denial of a motion
for leave to amend is not an abuse of discretion.  She says by no
later than April 1, 2011, the Plaintiffs were admittedly fully
aware of the defects that at least nine district courts had found
in their pleading and the defense counsel highlighted all of
these defects and demanded correction.  They acknowledged before
the district court that it would have been "very easy" for them
to eliminate the defects in their complaint.  Rather than filing
a motion for leave to amend with some modicum of dispatch, the
Plaintiffs delayed -- waiting until June to even broach the
subject directly with the court.

In addition, and most importantly, when asked point blank why
they did not do what they say they could have done upon receiving
defense counsel's letter, their counsel gave the district court
an explanation that could not have been correct -- i.e., that
they didn't believe that the Court would entertain an amended
complaint while the motion on the pleadings had been fully
briefed, which, of course, it had not been.  Finally, when the
court -- after explaining why it would not allow amendment --
nevertheless expressly offered them an opportunity to file a
formal motion with an amended pleading when the issues were
fresh, the Plaintiffs decided not to do so.  As a result, the
Judge says she has no proposed pleading to consider.

Therefore, as such a record, Judge Lynch cannot accept the
contention that the district court was required to allow leave to
amend.  Accordingly, she affirmed.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 12, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/KdPpaJ from Leagle.com.

Patrick J. Solomon -- psolomon@theemploymentattorneys.com -- with
whom Thomas & Solomon LLP was on brief, for appellants.

Lisa A. Schreter -- lschreter@littler.com -- with whom Bradley E.
Strawn -- bstrawn@littler.com -- and Littler Mendelson, P.C. were
on brief, for appellees.


PENBAR INC: Court Dismisses "Ridley" Unpaid Wages Suit
------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MARK RIDLEY, et al., Plaintiffs, v. PENBAR, INC., et
al., Defendants, Civil Action No. H-17-974 (S.D. Tex.), Judge
Gray H. Miller of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Texas, Houston Division, granted the Defendant's
motion to dismiss, and denied the Plaintiffs' motion for leave to
amend.

The Plaintiffs sued Regency Village on March 29, 2017, alleging
violations of (1) the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") for
unpaid overtime wages and (2) state law for unpaid "straight-
time" compensation.  The Plaintiffs sued as a collective action
under the FLSA and a Rule 23 class action for the state law
claims.

According to the Plaintiffs, Regency Village employed them and
others similarly situated as nurses.  Regency Village scheduled
its nurses to work numerous 12-hour shifts per week, and many
nurses regularly worked more than 40 hours per week.  Regency
Village's timekeeping software automatically deducted one hour
(during each 12-hour shift) for a lunch break.  The hour lunch
break would be deducted regardless of whether the nurses actually
took the break or worked through their break.  Further, the
Plaintiffs allege that Regency Village knew and expected its
nurses to work through their lunch breaks, despite its policy of
automatically deducting one hour.

The Plaintiffs filed the FLSA collective action claiming that
Regency Village should have paid overtime wages to nurses for the
one hour work break automatically deducted when the nurses worked
more than 40 hours per week.  They assert a Rule 23 class action
based on state law claims for the one hour deduction of
"straight-time," or when nurses worked 40 hours or fewer per
week.

In the instant motion, Regency Village moves to dismiss the
Plaintiffs' complaint for failure to state a claim under Rule
12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.  The Plaintiffs
argue that the case should not be dismissed, or in the
alternative, that they should be given leave to amend their
complaint to cure any deficiencies.

Judge Miller finds that the Plaintiffs fail to plead a short and
plain statement showing that they qualify for FLSA relief based
on individual coverage as required by Rule 8(a)(2) and fail to
plead sufficient facts to support FLSA enterprise coverage.  He
also finds that the statutory and common law factors favor
dismissal of the state law claims.  Thus, the Rule 23 claims
based on state causes of action will be dismissed without
prejudice.

Since the Plaintiffs have not yet amended their complaint in the
case, the Judge finds that leave to amend would not unduly delay
the case or prejudice Regency Village.  Further, there is no
indication of bad faith or dilatory motive on the Plaintiffs'
part; rather, it appears that they believed their complaint
sufficiently stated a claim upon which relief could be granted.
Therefore, he will grant the Plaintiffs leave to amend their
complaint.

Judge Miller concludes that because the Plaintiffs have not set
forth sufficient facts to support a reasonable inference that
either individual or enterprise coverage under the FLSA applies
to their case, he granted Regency Village's motion to dismiss.
He accordingly dismissed without prejudice the Plaintiffs'
claims.  He, however, granted the Plaintiffs leave to amend their
complaint to cure its deficiencies.  The Plaintiffs have 14 days
from the date of the Order to do so.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 12, 2018 Memorandum Opinion
and Order is available at https://is.gd/3zpSC5 from Leagle.com.

Mark Ridley, Stephanie Ketchum, Olga Guevara & Maria Fernandez,
Plaintiffs, represented by Michael Todd Slobin, Shellist Lazarz
Slobin LLP & Ricardo J. Prieto, Shellist Lazarz Slobin LLP.

Regency Village Inc., doing business as Regency Village Skilled
and Rehab Center & Penbar, Inc., doing business as Regency
Village Skilled and Rehab Center, Defendants, represented by
Allison C. Williams -- acwilliams@littler.com -- Littler
Mendelson & David Bryce Jordan -- djordan@littler.com -- Littler
Mendelson PC.


PENNSYLVANIA: Harold Moves for Class Certification
--------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit entitled RUSSELL HAROLD and SEAN
WILLIAMS, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated
v. LESLIE RICHARDS, in her official capacity as Secretary of
Transportation of the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation;
LEO BAGLEY, in his official capacity as Executive Deputy
Secretary of the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation; KURT
MYERS, in his official capacity as Deputy Secretary for Driver
and Vehicle Services of the Pennsylvania Department of
Transportation, TOM WOLF, in his official capacity as Governor of
Pennsylvania, Case No. 2:18-cv-00115-RK (E.D. Pa.), move to
certify the class defined as:

     All individuals whose Pennsylvania driver's licenses are
     currently suspended or will be suspended due to a conviction
     of any offense involving the possession, sale, delivery,
     offering for sale, holding for sale, or giving away of any
     controlled substance under the laws of the United States,
     Pennsylvania, or any other state, pursuant to 75 Pa. Cons.
     Stat. Section 1532(c).

The case is about the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation
operating a punitive driver's license suspension scheme that
automatically punishes any person convicted of a drug-related
offense, the Plaintiffs allege.  The Secretary of Transportation
automatically suspends the license of any person convicted of a
drug offense -- with no consideration of the seriousness of the
offense or the offender's traffic safety record -- for up to two
years, crippling their ability to achieve successful post-
conviction reentry.

"This practice is unconstitutional because it is discriminatory,
counterproductive and irrational, with no discernable purpose
other than to further punish those seeking successful reentry
into society.  For people already facing the harsh realities of
living with a criminal conviction, the ability to find and
maintain gainful employment, get their children to daycare, keep
medical appointments, or provide care for their family members is
essential to establishing and maintaining socially productive
lives," the Plaintiffs argue.

"By suspending their driver's licenses, the state of Pennsylvania
makes it nearly impossible for them to do so.  Therefore, Class
Members contest the constitutionality of this practice," the
Plaintiffs assert.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=8z9QqXHs

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Phil Telfeyan, Esq.
          Catherine Sevcenko, Esq.
          Rebecca Ramaswamy, Esq.
          Marissa Hatton, Esq.
          EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW
          400 7th Street NW, Suite 602
          Washington, DC 20004
          Telephone: (202) 670-1004
          E-mail: ptelfeyan@equaljusticeunderlaw.org
                  catherine@equaljusticeunderlaw.org
                  rramaswamy@equaljusticeunderlaw.org
                  mhatton@equaljusticeunderlaw.org

               - and -

          Zak Goldstein, Esq.
          GOLDSTEIN MEHTA LLC
          1221 Locust St.
          Philadelphia, PA 19107
          Telephone: (267) 225-2545
          E-mail: ztg@goldsteinmehta.com


PIER 1 IMPORTS: $70K Settlement Admin Costs in "Mathein" Approved
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Dale A. Drozd of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of California has entered an order regarding
preliminarily approved class settlement administration cost in
the case, LAUREN MATHEIN and CHRISTINE SABAS, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. PIER 1
IMPORTS (U.S.), INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-00087-DAD-SAB
(E.D. Cal.).

On Dec. 12, 2017, the Court issued an order granting preliminary
approval of a class action settlement in the action.  The order
preliminarily approved fees to administer the settlement in the
amount of $62,500.  On Jan. 8, 2018, the parties filed a
stipulation with the Court stating that the class administrator's
estimated cost to administer the settlement has increased to
$70,000 from the preliminarily approved amount of $62,500.  The
increased cost estimate for the class administrator is due to an
increase from 9,339 to 9,964 class members and the additional
cost of sending a notice to the attorneys general of 45 states
and the United States, pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act.

Based upon the parties' stipulation, Judge Drozd finds it
appropriate to update the budgeted claims administration cost to
$70,000 and preliminarily approve that amount.  However, the
final cost of the settlement administrator will be approved at
the time of final approval of the class action settlement as set
forth in the Court's prior preliminary approval order.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 12, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/tBqTtd from Leagle.com.

Lauren Mathein & Christine Sabas, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by William
Anthony Baird -- tbaird@marlinsaltzman.com -- Marlin & Saltzman,
LLP & Stanley D. Saltzman -- ssaltzman@marlinsaltzman.com --
Marlin & Saltzman, LLP.

Pier 1 Imports (U.S.), Inc., Defendant, represented by Gregory
William Knopp -- gknopp@akingump.com -- Akin Gump Strauss Hauer
and Feld LLP & Galit Avitan Knotz -- gknotz@akingump.com -- Akin
Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, LLP.


PURDUE PHARMA: Drew Memorial Suit Moved to E.D. Arkansas
--------------------------------------------------------
DREW MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, INC., Plaintiff v. PURDUE PHARMA L.P.;
PURDUE PHARMA, INC.; THE PURDUE FREDERICK COMPANY, INC.; TEVA
PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC.; CEPHALON, INC.; JOHNSON  &  JOHNSON;
JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; ORTHO-MCNEIL-JANSSEN
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. NIKI  A JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.;
JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICA INC. NIKI A JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.;
ENDO HEALTH SOLUTIONS INC.; ENDO PHARMACEUTICALS INC.; WATSON
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. NIKIAACTAVIS, INC.; WATSON LABORATORIES,
INC.; ACTAVIS LLC; ACTAVIS PHARMA, INC. FIKIA  WATSON PHARMA,
INC.; AMERISOURCEBERGEN DRUG CORPORATION; CARDINAL HEALTH, INC.;
MCKESSON CORPORATION; DR. RICHARD JOHNS; & JOHN DOE DEFENDANTS 1
THROUGH 9, Defendants, Civil Action No. CV-2017-221-3 (Circuit
Court of Drew County, Arkansas) was removed to the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, and assigned
Case No. 5:18-cv-00010-DPM (E.D. Ark., Jan. 16, 2018).

The Amended Complaint alleges that the Manufacturer Defendants
engaged in a campaign of misrepresentations about the risks of
FDA-approved prescription opioid medications by deceiving doctors
and patients about the risks and benefits of long-term opioid
use.

As to the Distributor Defendants, Plaintiff alleges that they
"failed to report orders of prescription opioids which [they]
knew or should have known were likely to be delivered and/or
diverted into Arkansas", "breached [their] duty to provide
effective controls and procedures to guard against theft and
diversion" of opioid medications, and "breached [their] duty to
design and operate a system to disclose suspicious orders of
controlled substances and failed to inform the DEA of 'suspicious
orders for drugs when discovered[.]"'

Purdue Pharma L.P. is engaged in the research, development,
production, and distribution of prescription and over-the-counter
(prescription and non-prescription) medicines and healthcare
products. The company offers a portfolio of medical products in
various categories, including prescription opioids, sleep,
laxatives, antiseptics, and dietary supplement. It serves
healthcare professionals, patients, and caregivers in the United
States and internationally. The company has a strategic research
collaboration agreement with Exicure Inc. Purdue Pharma L.P. was
formerly known as The Purdue Frederick Company and changed its
name to Purdue Pharma L.P. in January 1991. The company was
founded in 1892 and is based in Stamford, Connecticut. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jess Askew III, Esq.
          Andrew King, Esq.
          KUTAK ROCK LLP
          124 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2000
          Little Rock, AK 72201-3706
          Telephone: (501) 975-3000
          E-mail: Jess.Askew@kutakrock.com
                  Andrew.King@kutakrock.com

               - and -

          Ingo W. Sprie, Jr., Esq.
          ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP
          250 West 55th Street
          New York, NY 10019-9710
          Telephone: (212) 836-8000
          E-mail: Ingo.Sprie@apks.com

               - and -

          Sean Morris, Esq.
          ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP
          777 S. Figueroa Street, 44th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 243-4000
          E-mail: Sean.Morris@apks.com

The Defendants is represented by:

          Lyn P. Pruitt, Esq.
          Adria W. Conklin, Esq.
          MITCHELL, WILLIAMS, SELIG, GATES & WOODYARD, P.L.L.C.
          425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 1880
          Little Rock, AK 72201
          Telephone: (501) 688-8800
          E-mail: LPruitt@mwlaw.com
                 Aconklin@mwlaw.com

               - and -

          Sheila L. Birnbaum, Esq.
          Mark S. Cheffo, Esq.
          Hayden A. Coleman, Esq.
          QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN LLP
          51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor
          New York, NY 10010
          Telephone: (212) 849-7000
          E-mail: sheilabirnbaum@quinnemanuel.com
                  markcheffo@quinnemanuel.com
                  haydencoleman@quinnemanuel.com

               - and -

          David M. Donovan, Esq.
          WATTS, DONOVAN, & TILLER, P.A.
          200 River Market, Suite 200
          Little Rock, AK 72201-1769
          Telephone: (501) 372-1406
          Facsimile: (501) 372-1209
          E-mail: david.donovan@wdt-law.com

               - and -

          Steven A. Reed, Esq.
          MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          1701 Market Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 963-5000
          E-mail: steven.reed@morganlewis.com

               - and -

          Brian M. Ercole, Esq.
          MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          200 S. Biscayne Blvd., Suite 5300
          Miami, FL 33131-2339
          E-mail: brian.ercole@morganlewis.com

               - and -

          Steven W. Quattlebaum, Esq.
          E.B. Chiles IV
          QUATTLEBAUM, GROOMS & TULL PLLC
          111 Center Street, Suite 1900
          Little Rock, AK 72201
          Telephone: (501) 379-1700
          Facsimile: (501) 379-3834
          E-mail: quattlebaum@qgtlaw.com
                  cchiles@qgtlaw.com

               - and -

          Donna Welch, P.C., Esq.
          Martin L. Roth, Esq.
          Timothy Knapp, Esq.
          KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
          300 North LaSalle
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 862-2000
          E-mail: donna.welch@kirkland.com
                  martin.roth@kirkland.com
                  timothy.knapp@kirkland.com

                  - and -

           Jennifer G. Levy, P.C., Esq.
           KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
           655 Fifteenth Street, NW
           Washington, DC 20005
           Telephone: (202) 879-5000
           E-mail: Jennifer.levy@kirkland.com

                 - and -

          Charles C. Lifland, Esq.
          O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
          400 S. Hope Street
          Los Angeles, Ca 90071
          Telephone: (213) 430-6000

               - and -

          Russell D. Jessee, Esq.
          STEPTOE & Johnson PLLC
          Chase Tower, 17th Floor
          P.O. Box 1588
          Charleston, WV, 25326-1588
          Telephone: (304) 353-8103
          Facsimile: (304) 352-8180
          E-mail: Russell.Jessee@Steptoe-Johnson.com

               - and -

          Steven M. Pyser, Esq.
          Ashley W. Hardin, Esq.
          WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP
          725 Twelfth Street, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 434-5900
          Facsimile: (202) 434-5029
          E-mail: spyser@wc.com
                  ahardin@wc.com

                - and -

          Robert A. Nicholas, Esq.
          Shannon E. Mclure, Esq.
          REED SMITH LLP
          1717 Arch Street, Suite 3100
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 851-8100
          E-mail: rnicholas@reedsmith.com
                  smculre@reedsmith.com

                 - and -

          Alvin L. Emch, Esq.
          JACKSON KELLY PLLC
          500 Lee Street, East, Suite 1600
          P.O. Box 553
          Charleston, WV 25322
          Telephone: (304) 340-1000
          E-mail: aemch@jacksonkelly.com


RITE AID: Insured Consumers Sue Over Generic Prescription Drugs
---------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News, reports that consumers
accuse Rite Aid in a federal class action of charging insured
customers more for generic prescription drugs than it charges
uninsured ones, through its Rx Savings Program.

Counsel for Plaintiff:

     Walter W. Noss, Esq.
     SCOTT + SCOTT,
     ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP
     San Diego, CA 92101
     Tel: 619/232-4565
     Fax: 619/233-0508
     Email: wnoss@scott-scott.com

        -- and --

     Joseph P. Guglielmo, Esq.
     Erin Green Comite, Esq.
     SCOTT + SCOTT,
     ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP
     The Helmsley Building
     230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor
     New York, NY 10169
     Tel: 212.223.4478
     Fax: 212.223.6334
     Email: jguglielmo@scott-scott.com
            ecomite@scott-scott.com


SACRAMENTO, CA: Medical Services Authority Faces "Warren" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against the County of
Sacramento. The case is captioned as David Warren on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. County of Sacramento, Does 1-25,
Case No. 34-2018-00225194-CU-MC-GDS (Cal. Super., Sacramento
Cty., January 12, 2018).

The other Defendants include the California Emergency Medical
Services Authority; Hernando Garzon MD as an employee and
director of defendant Sacramento County Emergency Medical
Services Agency; Howard Backer MD as an employee and director of
defendant California Emergency Medical Services Authority;
Sacramento County Emergency Medical Services Agency; and State of
California.

Sacramento County is a county in the U.S. state of
California.[BN]

The Plaintiffs is represented by Kristina L Fox, Esq.


SAFEGUARD PROPERTIES: Court Certifies Class in "Bund" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JOHN R. BUND II, et al., and on behalf of others
similarly situated Plaintiffs, v. SAFEGUARD PROPERTIES LLC,
Defendant, Case No. C16-920 MJP (W.D. Wash.), Judge Marsha J.
Pechman of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Washington, Seattle, (i) granted in part the Plaintiffs' motion
to certify a class; (ii) denied the Plaintiffs' motion to certify
a sub-class; (iii) denied the Defendant's motion to strike the
material associated with the Plaintiffs' reply; and (iv) denied
the Defendant's motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' claims for
injunctive relief.

Safeguard provides property-related services on defaulted, pre-
and post-foreclosure properties to lending institutions and loan
servicers throughout Washington State; its services include
determining the occupancy status of the properties, securing
those considered to be vacated, and removing debris/personal
property.  Safeguard provides these services through a wide
network of vendors.

The Plaintiffs allege that information obtained through discovery
reveals pre-foreclosure activity (including interior occupancy
inspection, property preservation actions -- e.g., changing the
locks on the doors, winterizing, and/or boarding up the windows -
- or removal of personal property) by vendors employed by
Safeguard in over 18,000 homes during the class period.  They
maintain that the information obtained from Safeguard readily
identifies each member of the Class and their property address.

Safeguard has developed a system of uniform policies and
practices for conducting property-related activities which are
utilized by all its vendors on their assignments for the company.
In 2016, the Washington Supreme Court in Jordan v. Nationstar
Mortgage, LLC, declared that provisions in a trust deed
permitting entry onto an encumbered property after default but
prior to foreclosure (including activities like changing the
locks) were an invalid interference with a homeowner's exclusive
right to possession.  The Washington Supreme Court further found
that entry onto an encumbered property prior to the completion of
foreclosure constituted "possession" in violation of state law.

The Plaintiffs allege that Safeguard orders its vendors to enter
the properties of its class members and change the locks prior to
completion of foreclosure, in violation of Jordan as well as
common law and statutory prohibitions against trespass.  They
further allege that Safeguard's practices, combined with
generating revenues from the practices at the homeowners' expense
constitute unfair and deceptive acts in contravention of the CPA.
Finally, the Plaintiffs allege that the removal of personal
property from the home of the potential class members prior to
foreclosure amounts to conversion.

Safeguard indicates that their practices have changed since
Jordan.  While the Defendant claims in its responsive briefing
that presently Safeguard and its Clients generally do not order
or permit removal of personal property until after foreclosure,
testimony of Safeguard's 30(b)(6) representative indicates that,
if a client directs that personal property be removed from a
property, Safeguard will order its vendors to do so.

Before the Court are (i) the Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Class;
(ii) the Defendant's Response; (iii) the Plaintiffs' Reply; (iv)
the Plaintiffs' Notices of Supplemental Authority; (v) the
Defendant's Motion to Strike Material in the Plaintiffs' Reply
Brief; and the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Claims for
Injunctive Relief.

The Plaintiffs moved to certify the class of all current and
former citizens of Washington State who own or owned residential
property in Washington State subject to a loan that was in
default, which residence was entered by Safeguard or its agents
and the lock(s) changed prior to completion of a foreclosure and
within the applicable statute of limitations.

They further proposed a sub-class, defined as all current and
former citizens of Washington State who own or owned real
property in Washington State subject to a loan that was in
default, which property was, at any time within the applicable
statute of limitations entered upon by Safeguard or its agents
prior to the completion of a foreclosure, and during which entry
personal property located on the property was removed by
Safeguard or its agents.

Judge Pechman concludes that the main class proposed by the
Plaintiffs satisfies both the requirements of FRCP 23(a)
(numerosity, commonality, typicality and adequacy) and the
requirements of FRCP 23(b)(3) -- common questions of fact and law
predominate over individual questions and a class action is the
best way to attain a legal remedy for any wrong potentially done
to the class members.  However, the subclass does not fare as
well, primarily because the wrong it is attempting to redress --
personal property missing from the premises of the proposed class
members -- is not amenable to proof on a mass scale and is
subject to a variety of individual defenses. The Court declines
to certify the sub-class.

For these reasons, the Judge granted the Plaintiffs' motion to
certify a class, and certified the class defined as all current
and former citizens of Washington State who own or owned
residential property in Washington State subject to a loan that
was in default, which residence was entered by Safeguard or its
agents and the lock(s) changed prior to completion of a
foreclosure and within the applicable statute of limitations.

She denied the Plaintiffs' motion to certify a sub-class.  The
Defendant's motion to strike the material contained in the
Plaintiffs' class certification reply brief is also denied, as is
its motion to strike the Plaintiffs' claims for injunctive
relief.

Finally, Judge Pechman denied the Defendant's motion to dismiss
Plaintiffs' claims for injunctive relief as premature.  She says
the entire motion is premature and unwarranted at this stage of
the proceedings.  The Court is certifying a class under FRCP
23(b)(3), as requested by the Plaintiffs.  If there is to be
certification under FRCP 23(b)(2), the Plaintiffs will have to
move to amend the existing order.  Should they chose to do so,
they can make their legal arguments as to why that should be
permitted, the Defendant can make its counterarguments and the
Court can rule on the merits of the request.  None of that has
happened.  The Court should not and will not rule on the issue as
a speculative matter at this time.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 12, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/obcSdS from Leagle.com.

John R. Bund, II, personally, as Executor of the Estate of
Richard C. Bund, deceased, and on behalf of others similarly
situated & Crystal Haynes, a single woman, Plaintiffs,
represented by Clay M. Gatens -- clayg@jdsalaw.com -- JEFFERS
DANIELSON SONN & AYLWARD, Honea Lee Lewis, IV -- leel@jdsalaw.com
-- JEFFERS DANIELSON SONN & AYLWARD, Sally F. White --
sallyw@jdsalaw.com -- JEFFERS DANIELSON SONN & AYLWARD, Devon Amy
Gray -- devong@jdsalaw.com -- JEFFERS DANIELSON SONN & AYLWARD &
Michael Duane Daudt, DAUDT LAW PLLC.

Safeguard Properties LLC, a Delaware corporation, Defendant,
represented by Kellan W. Byrne -- kwb@leesmart.com -- LEE SMART
PS INC & Pamela J. DeVet -- pjd@leesmart.com -- LEE SMART PS INC.


SAFEGUARD PROPERTIES: Hanouseks Claims in "Bund" Suit Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JOHN R. BUND II, et al., Plaintiff, v. SAFEGUARD
PROPERTIES LLC, Defendant, Case No. C16-920 MJP (W.D. Wash.),
Judge Marsha J. Pechman of the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Washington, Seattle, granted the Defendant's
Motion for Summary Judgment Dismissal of Claims by Plaintiffs
Hanousek.

Mandy and Garrett Hanousek are the Named Plaintiffs in the
putative class action.  On Nov. 1, 2007, the Hanouseks took
ownership of their home (the mortgage on which was held by non-
party Nationstar).  In September 2012, after defaulting on their
loan, the Hanouseks moved elsewhere.

On July 2, 2013 Nationstar hired Assurant Field Services for
property preservation and inspection services.  Assurant hired a
vendor who changed the locks on the Hanouseks' home.  Photographs
of the interior of the home show two barstools belonging to the
Hanouseks still in the home that day. On July 10, 2013, a gas-cut
vendor hired by Assurant took photographs of the exterior which
show that the Hanouseks' grill was still on the back patio that
day.

On July 19, 2013, the Hanouseks returned to the home and
discovered that the two barstools and the grill were missing.
They also discovered a sticker on the exterior of a window beside
their front door.  The sticker read: "We found this property to
be vacated/abandoned.  This information will be reported to the
mortgage holder.  The mortgage holder has the right and duty to
protect this property.  The property may be rekeyed and/or
winterized within three days.  If this property is not vacant,
please call Safeguard Properties at 877-340-8482."

In February 2015, Nationstar foreclosed on the property.  On Feb.
23, 2015, ownership of the property was transferred from the
Hanouseks to Fannie Mae.  On May 8, 2015, Safeguard's records
reflect the receipt of the first order for services involving
entry onto the property.

The Hanouseks have alleged claims against Safeguard for trespass
(common law and statutory), violations of the Consumer Protection
Act, and conversion.  The Defendant seeks summary judgment of
dismissal regarding all the Hanouseks' claims.

Judge Pechman finds that in the face of Safeguard's motion
claiming that the Hanouseks do not have sufficient evidence to
establish their claims, these Plaintiffs are required to come
forward with evidence sufficient for a jury to "reasonably find"
in their favor.  If this went to trial, and the Hanouseks put on
the evidence that they had found the Safeguard sticker on their
window (and nothing more), rested, and a jury found in their
favor, the Court would be completely within its authority to
grant a judgment notwithstanding the verdict in Safeguard's
favor.  It would be, in fact, unreasonable to conclude, on the
basis on the sticker alone that Safeguard was responsible for the
loss.  From that failure of proof, the Judge concludes all of the
Hanouseks' claims fail.

The Judge agrees with the Plaintiffs that Safeguard's additional
evidence is duplicative and insubstantial and that the Defendant
has basically used the opportunity to re-argue its original
summary judgment theories.  However, this does nothing to change
the basic summary judgment equation which is fatal to the
Hanouseks' claims.  Safeguard is still entitled to summary
judgment dismissing the Hanouseks' claim.

Judge Pechman therefore concludes that the Defendant has met its
burden on summary judgment of demonstrating the Hanousek
Plaintiffs lack the requisite evidence to support their claims of
trespass and conversion.  The burden shifts to the Hanouseks, who
have been unable to satisfy rebut the Defendant's proof with
either further evidence of their claims or a demonstration of
material disputed facts sufficient to warrant denial of the
motion.  On that basis, she granted Defendant's motion and
dismissed the claims of the Hanouseks with prejudice.  The clerk
is ordered to provide copies of the order to all counsel.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 12, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/645b6J from Leagle.com.

John R. Bund, II, personally, as Executor of the Estate of
Richard C. Bund, deceased, and on behalf of others similarly
situated & Crystal Haynes, a single woman, Plaintiffs,
represented by Clay M. Gatens -- clayg@jdsalaw.com -- JEFFERS
DANIELSON SONN & AYLWARD, Honea Lee Lewis, IV -- leel@jdsalaw.com
-- JEFFERS DANIELSON SONN & AYLWARD, Sally F. White --
sallyw@jdsalaw.com -- JEFFERS DANIELSON SONN & AYLWARD, Devon Amy
Gray -- devong@jdsalaw.com -- JEFFERS DANIELSON SONN & AYLWARD &
Michael Duane Daudt, DAUDT LAW PLLC.

Safeguard Properties LLC, a Delaware corporation, Defendant,
represented by Kellan W. Byrne -- kwb@leesmart.com -- LEE SMART
PS INC. & Pamela J. DeVet -- pjd@leesmart.com -- LEE SMART PS
INC..


SAN FRANCISCO, CA: Sheriff Faces "Dupree" Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Vicki Hennessy, in
her official capacity as the San Francisco Sheriff. The case is
captioned as David Dupree, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v Vicki Hennessy, in
her official capacity as the San Francisco Sheriff, the
Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-00310-YGR (N.D. Cal., Jan. 14, 2018).
The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Maria-Elena James, and
later on transferred to the Hon. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez
Rogers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Chesa Boudin, Esq.
          PUBLIC DEFENDER'S OFFICE
          555 Seventh Street
          San Francisco, CA 94101
          Telephone: (415) 553-1019
          E-mail: chesa.boudin@sfgov.org

          - and -

          Katherine J. Bies, Esq.
          COVINGTON AND BURLING LLP
          One Front Street
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 591-7099
          E-mail: kbies@cov.com

          - and -

          Matthew Voll Miller, Esq.
          COVINGTON AND BURLING
          333 Twin Dolphin Drive, Ste 700
          Redwood Shores, CA 94065
          Telephone: (650) 632-4700
          E-mail: mmiller@cov.com

          - and -

          David M. Jolley, Esq.
          COVINGTON & BURLING
          One Front Street
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 591-6000
          Facsimile: (415) 591-6091
          E-mail: djolley@cov.com


SAN FRANCISCO, CA: Judge Advances Money Bail Fight
--------------------------------------------------
Maria Dinzeo, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that
in a split ruling January 16, a federal judge denied summary
judgment to both California bail agents and a proposed class of
San Francisco arrestees challenging money bail as
unconstitutional.

U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers said she could not
rule that San Francisco County Sheriff Vicki Hennessy and her
office violated detainees' fundamental right to liberty by
holding them because they could not afford bail.

"Given that even those who pay the set bail amount are detained
for some measure of time, the court cannot find that any amount
of detention per se is unconstitutional. Plaintiffs' motion thus
fails," Gonzalez Rogers wrote.

She also found the plaintiffs hadn't made a plausible showing of
some kind of less restrictive alternative to money bail, saying,
"The current record is insufficient at this point."

In an emailed statement, the California Bail Agents Association
said it "appreciates the portions of the order which find that
plaintiffs have failed to show either that application of the
bail schedule to them resulted in any significant infringement on
their rights, or that plausible alternatives exist to San
Francisco's comprehensive detention and release system. The court
places the burden of proving these two critical elements of their
case, squarely on plaintiffs. We look forward to a trial on the
merits of this important case, as we believe California's bail
law clearly meets constitutional muster."

In 2015, the nonprofit legal group Equal Justice Under Law
brought a federal class action against San Francisco, claiming it
unconstitutionally criminalizes poverty by keeping poor arrestees
in jail. Lead plaintiffs Riana Buffin and Crystal Patterson spent
29 and 48 hours in jail, respectively, because they couldn't
afford bail.

The two women were arrested in October 2015 in San Francisco,
Buffin on suspicion of grand theft and Patterson on suspicion of
assault. Buffin's bond was set at $30,000, Patterson's at
$150,000. Charges against both women were later dropped.

When someone is arrested in San Francisco, the sheriff's
department determines the bail amount by referencing a bail
schedule set by the superior court. Eligible arrestees can be
released on bail, or they can apply for pre-arraignment release
on lower bail or their own recognizance. In 2016, the OR project,
which acts under the auspices of the sheriff's department, began
using a risk assessment tool on each eligible arrestee for judges
to consider at arraignment, but there is no guaranteed time when
the OR workup will be completed. In Patterson's case, she had
already posted bail. Buffon's OR workup wasn't completed until
after she was released.

At a December hearing in Oakland, Gonzalez Rogers said she
thought the case must be reviewed with the highest level of
scrutiny for the county's money bail scheme to survive.
Therefore, it must be justified by a compelling state interest,
be narrowly tailored to meet that goal, and there must be no
other less restrictive ways of achieving it.

The California Bail Agents Association countered that there is no
fundamental right to pre-arraignment release, and that the
county's bail policy is constitutional under the less rigorous
rational basis standard.

But Gonzalez Rogers said she was persuaded by several cases
presented by Equal Justice Under Law that involve the
unconstitutional treatment of indigents in the criminal justice
system, including Bearden v. Georgia, a 1983 case where the
Supreme Court ruled that Georgia resident Danny Bearden had been
unconstitutionally imprisoned because he couldn't pay $750 in
fines and restitution after a robbery conviction.

"While the court disagrees that these cases establish an
unambiguous constitutional right not to be detained based on
indigence as plaintiffs apparently suggest, the cases appear to
require the court to consider the instant challenge with
heightened review," Gonzalez Rogers said.

Phil Telfeyan, the director of Equal Justice Under Law and the
lead attorney in the case, told Courthouse News in an email that
he's confident the case will end money bail in California.

"Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers said that she will apply strict
scrutiny to determine the constitutionality of money bail in
California. We are confident that this case will help to bring
down the discriminatory practice of money bail in the state," he
said. "The importance of a federal judge weighing in on this
national issue cannot be overstated."


SARBANAND FARMS: Class-action Lawsuit Filed
-------------------------------------------
Ashley Hiruko, writing for Lynden Tribune, reports that an
employment-law class-action lawsuit was filed in federal court on
Jan. 25 against Sarbanand Farms of Sumas. The action by Columbia
Legal Services and law firm Schroeter, Goldmark & Bender claims
violations of state and federal laws by the blueberry growing
operation.

Legal papers against three parties -- Sarbanand Farms, parent
company Munger Bros. LLC. of California and Mexican labor company
CSI Visa Processing -- allege violations of federal anti-
trafficking laws through use of threats to intimidate workers to
comply with "unlawful work demands."

A statement from Munger Bros. says that the company and
Sarbananad Farms have been unjustly charged and plan to
"vigorously fight" the allegations in the filing. They claim
these charges will be found untrue.

"The facts are that operations at the Sarbanand farm in
Washington are exemplary. They include modern housing, dining and
worker facilities for the H-2A workers. All employees are treated
well and are paid well," reads a statement from the Munger
company. "All the Munger companies take seriously their
responsibilities with respect to worker safety and they are
committed to the wellbeing of every one of their workers. There
are also comprehensive compliance programs in place to comply
with all laws and regulations governing the workplace."

The large blueberry farm based at 4625 Rock Rd. east of Sumas is
also the subject of an ongoing investigation by labor agencies
into the Aug. 6, 2017 death of a 28-year-old Mexican temporary
farmworker there hired through the federal H-2A program.

The class-action lawsuit doesn't directly bring up issues
surrounding farmworker Honesto Silva Ibarra's death. Instead, it
focuses on working conditions allegedly experienced by his
colleagues. The case is on behalf of potentially about 600
foreign H-2A workers hired for Sarbanand Farms in 2017.

After Ibarra fell ill while under contract with Sarbanand, around
70 others employed at the farm protested their working conditions
and demanded information on Ibarra. When they refused to work one
day, they were given an hour to vacate the farm premises,
farmworkers said at the time.

In a written statement two days after the death, Sarbanand said
that Ibarra had a diabetic condition he had not disclosed
earlier, that the company did everything possible to help Ibarra
after learning of his illness, and that it followed
confidentiality laws in not putting out more information on
Ibarra's situation as it developed.

In this legal action, a top management official of Sarbanand is
alleged to have told farmworkers at the start of the blueberry
harvest that they had to be in the field working every day
"unless they were on their deathbed."

"The most important piece of information to understand is that H-
2A agricultural workers are the most vulnerable and least
protected farmworkers in our country," said attorney Joe
Morrison, of Columbia Legal Services, a Seattle-based advocacy
nonprofit, during a press conference on January 25 morning. "H-2A
workers are more vulnerable and have fewer legal rights in this
country than undocumented farmworkers."

The Federal Trafficking Victims Protection Act has been used in
other cases involving H-2A workers, Morrison said. A lawsuit of
three plaintiffs brought against an eastern Washington sheep
rancher in 2013 alleged that Max Fernandez committed offenses by
isolating ranch workers and threatening them with deportation.

This is the first time the law has been used in a class-action
lawsuit in Washington, however, Morrison said.

Foreign workers coming under "guestworker" H-2A visas are not
covered under anti-retaliation provisions guaranteed by the
Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act, Morrison
said.

CSI Visa Processing is being sued on infractions of the
Washington Farm Labor Contractor Act that require contractors to
be licensed. The plaintiffs also allege that CSI failed to inform
workers of pay for daily meals that would exceed the $12 deducted
from paychecks by the farm.

With respect to Ibarra's death, the Washington State Department
of Labor & Industries has said that its investigation into
Ibarra's death should be concluded in early February. [GN]


SERENITY TRANSPORTATION: Johnson Moves to Certify Drivers Class
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit styled CURTIS JOHNSON and GARY
JOHNSON, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated v. SERENITY TRANSPORTATION, INC., a California
Corporation, DAVID FRIEDEL, SERVICE CORPORATION INTERNATIONAL,
and SCI CALIFORNIA FUNERAL SERVICES, INC., Case No. 3:15-cv-
02004-JSC (N.D. Cal.), move the Court for an order certifying a
Class and subclass:

     All persons who have worked as independent
     contractor-classified Serenity Drivers and/or Technicians in
     the State of California between January 1, 2011 through the
     date of class certification ("the class"); and a subclass of
     all persons from the class who were made available to
     SCI/SCI Cal between January 1, 2015 through class
     certification.

The Plaintiffs also seek to have certified for resolution each of
the causes of action pled in their Fifth Amended Class Action
Complaint, which include claims for minimum wage and overtime
violations and reimbursement of necessary expenses under the
California Labor Code.  The Plaintiffs further ask the Court to
appoint their counsel as Class Counsel.

The Court will commence a hearing on April 12, 2018, at 9:00
a.m., to consider the Motion.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Peter Rukin, Esq.
          Jessica Riggin, Esq.
          Valerie Brender, Esq.
          RUKIN HYLAND LLP
          1939 Harrison St., Suite 290
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (415) 421-1800
          Facsimile: (415) 421-1700
          E-mail: prukin@rukinhyland.com
                  jriggin@rukinhyland.com
                  vbrender@rukinhyland.com


SIMM ASSOCIATES: Court Certifies Class in "Smith" FDCPA Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JESSICA SMITH, Plaintiff, v. SIMM ASSOCIATES, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 17-C-769 (E.D. Wis.), Judge William C.
Griesbach of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Wisconsin granted the Plaintiff's motion for class certification
and denied the Defendant's motions to strike.

Smith alleges that the Defendant violated the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA") by sending the Plaintiff a
debt collection letter naming the Defendant's client as PayPal
Credit and the original creditor as Comenity Capital Bank.  She
asserts that the letter violates the FDCPA because it fails to
identify the current creditor of the debt and falsely implies
that Comenity Capital Bank transferred, sold, or assigned
ownership of the debt to unknown creditors.

The Plaintiff filed a motion for class certification on Oct. 31,
2017.  She proposes to represent a class consisting of all
persons with addresses in the State of Wisconsin to whom Simm
mailed an initial written communication, between May 31, 2016 and
June 21, 2017, which was not returned as undeliverable, and which
identified 'Paypal Credit' as the 'Client' but not the current
creditor or owner of the debt.

The Defendant has since filed motions to strike certain filings
submitted by the Plaintiff.  First, it seeks to strike the
declarations of the Plaintiff and her counsel, which were
attached to the Plaintiff's reply brief in support of her motion
for class certification.  Second, the Defendant requests that the
court strike the Plaintiff's notice of supplemental facts in
support of her motion for class certification, which was filed
after the motion for class certification was fully-briefed.  In
the alternative, it requests an opportunity to respond to the
Plaintiff's supplemental facts.

Judge Griesbach denied the Defendant's motion to strike and
construe it as a response to the Plaintiff's supplemental facts.
According to the Judge, it appears the Plaintiff relies on these
supplemental facts to refute the Defendant's assertion that, by
listing both PayPal Credit and Comenity Capital Bank on the
letter, unsophisticated consumers would be able to recognize the
account and understand who they owe money to.  Yet, this argument
goes to the merits of the claim, which he does not consider in
addressing a motion for class certification.  Therefore, he says
he will only consider these facts to the extent they are needed
to determine whether the Plaintiff has satisfied the requirements
of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Because the Plaintiff has fulfilled the requirements of Rule
23(a) and Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
the Judge granted the Plaintiff's motion for class certification.
He certified the class of all persons with addresses in the State
of Wisconsin to whom Simm mailed an initial written
communication, between May 31, 2016 and June 21, 2017, which was
not returned as undeliverable, and which identified 'Paypal
Credit' as the 'Client' but not the current creditor or owner of
the debt.

Judge Griesbach appointed the counsel of record for the Plaintiff
as the class counsel.  Within 30 days of the Order, the class
counsel will provide the Court with a proposed notice to be
provided to potential class members consistent with Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 23(c)(2)(B).  The Class counsel will consult
with the Defendant before submitting the proposed notice.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 12, 2018 Decision and Order
is available at https://is.gd/6a0WJJ from Leagle.com.

Jessica Smith, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew T. Thomasson --
andrew@sternthomasson.com -- Stern Thomasson LLP, Daniel A.
Edelman --  dedelman@edcombs.com -- Edelman Combs Latturner &
Goodwin LLC, Francis R. Greene -- fgreene@edcombs.com -- Edelman
Combs Latturner & Goodwin LLC, Philip D. Stern --
philip@sternthomasson.com -- Stern Thomasson LLP & Heather B.
Jones -- heather@sternthomasson.com -- Stern Thomasson LLP.

Simm Associates, Inc., Defendant, represented by Katherine M.
Saldanha Olson -- kolson@messerstrickler.com -- Messer Stricker
Ltd., Nicole M. Strickler -- nstrickler@messerstrickler.com --
Messer Stricker Ltd. & Stephanie A. Strickler --
sstrickler@messerstrickler.com -- Messer Stricker Ltd..


STAFFMARK INVESTMET: Fails to Pay Wages, "Salvador" Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
JACQUELYNE SALVADOR, on behalf of himself, all others similarly
situated v. STAFFMARK INVESTMENT LLC; STAFFMARK INVESTMET INC;
GENESIS LOGISTICS INC.; and DOES 1 to 100, Inclusive, Case No.
RC18889603 (Cal. Super., Alameda Cty., January 12, 2018), alleges
that the Defendants failed to provide the Plaintiff and all other
similarly situated individuals with meal and rest periods, and to
pay them overtime wages at the correct rate, among other
failures.

Staffmark Investment LLC was acquired by Staffmark Holdings, Inc.
as of January 21, 2008. Staffmark Investment LLC provides
staffing solutions to companies and opportunities to employees.
The company was founded in 1996 and is based in Little Rock,
Arkansas. It has additional offices in Oregon, Washington,
Virginia, Texas, Tennessee, South Carolina, Pennsylvania, North
Carolina, New Jersey, Nevada, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma,
Mississippi, Massachusetts, Kentucky, Kansas, Indiana, Illinois,
Georgia, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware,
and Florida.

Genesis Logistics, Inc. provides truckload, LTL transportation,
and logistics management services in North America. The company
was founded in 1983 and is based in Bensenville, Illinois. It has
additional offices and warehouse space in College Park, Georgia;
Eagan, Minnesota; and Dayton and Somerville, New Jersey.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph Lavi, Esq.
          Joshua M. Webster, 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
                  jwebster@lelawfirm.com


STEINHOFF: PSA Wants to Join Class Action Case
----------------------------------------------
Jan Cronje, writing for Fin24 News, reports that trade union the
Public Servants Association (PSA) says it has approached the
Public Investment Corporation (PIC) to join an international
class action suit against embattled SA retailer Steinhoff.

In a media briefing on January 25 in Cape Town, PSA deputy
general manager Tahir Maepa said the union had approached the PIC
in December to join a class action suit against the global
retailer.

The PIC invests on behalf of, and manages the assets of
government employees.

"The PIC indicated that it would join the international class
action," he said.

Maepa said SA state workers had lost about R17bn due to the
dramatic fall in Steinhoff's share price.

The PIC is one of the biggest investors in Steinhoff, whose share
price has fallen sharply since news broke that its CEO Markus
Jooste was stepping down amid an accounting scandal on December
5.

On January 25 at 15:45 Steinhoff shares were changing hands at
R7.23 a share. This is over 80% down on the conglomerate's share
price the evening before Jooste abruptly resigned.

The PIC did not immediately reply to a request for comment.

There are a number of different class action lawsuites in the
works against Steinhoff, which is registered in Amsterdam and
trades on the Frankfurt Stock Exchange, including by Dutch and
German firms.

At the briefing, the PSA also gave its initial reaction to a
trove of Steinhoff documents, including minutes of board meetings
and financials.

While the union said it had only been able to conduct a
"preliminary look" at the documents, there was cause for concern.

The PSA's chief accountant, Dominic Storm, said it appeared to
make no sense that Steinhoff chief shareholder, Christo Wiese,
was also the chair of its board.

Wiese stepped down from the company in mid-December.

Storm said the union was also investigating why it appeared that
Steinhoff's tax rate had remained relatively flat over the past
few years, while its declared revenues had increased year-on-
year.

But he noted the union did not yet believe there was a "prima
facia" case against the group, and it would still conduct a deep
analysis of the documents.

The union also said that it would not disrupt the upcoming Sun
Met horse race, but would hold a "solidarity march" against
Jooste's role in the South African horse racing fraternity. [GN]


SUCAMPO PHARMACEUTICALS: Shareholders Challenge Sale
----------------------------------------------------
Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that
shareholders challenge the $1.2 billion sale of Sucampo
Pharmaceuticals to Mallinckrodt, for $18 a share, in a federal
class action.

Plaintiffs' counsel:

     Donald J. Enright, Esq.
     Elizabeth K. Tripodi, Esq.
     LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
     1101 30th Street, N.W., Suite 115
     Washington, DC 20007
     T: (202) 524-4290
     F: (202) 333-2121
     Email: denright@zlk.com
            etripodi@zlk.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
     Tel: (212) 971-1341
     Fax: (212) 202-7880
     Email: jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com
            mschreiner@monteverdelaw.com


SUCAMPO PHARMACEUTICALS: Monteverde & Associates Files Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Notice is hereby given that Monteverde & Associates PC has filed
a class action lawsuit in the United States Central District
Court of Maryland, case no. 8:18-cv-00173, on behalf of
stockholders of Sucampo Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ("Sucampo" or the
"Company") (NASDAQ: SCMP) who held Sucampo securities and have
been harmed by Guidance and its board of directors' (the "Board")
for alleged violations of Sections 14(d)(4), 14(e), and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") in
connection with the tender offer of Company common stock to be
purchased by Mallinckrodt plc ("Mallinckrodt").

Under the terms of the agreement, Sucampo stockholders are only
anticipated to receive $18.00 per share in cash in exchange for
each share of Sucampo.  The complaint alleges that this offer is
inadequate and alleges that the Schedule 14D-9
Solicitation/Recommendation Statement (the "Recommendation
Statement") provides materially incomplete and misleading
information concerning: (i) financial projections for the
Company; and (ii) the valuation analyses performed by the
Company's financial advisor, Jefferies LLC ("Jefferies"), in
support of their fairness opinions.

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

Click here for more information:
www.monteverdelaw.com/investigations/m-a/ It is free and there is
no cost or obligation to you.

Monteverde & Associates PC is a boutique class action securities
and consumer litigation law firm committed that has recovered
millions of dollars and is committed to protecting shareholders
and consumers from corporate wrongdoing.  Monteverde & Associates
PC lawyers have significant experience litigating Mergers &
Acquisitions and Securities Class Actions, whereby they protect
investors by recovering money and remedying corporate misconduct.
Mr. Monteverde, who leads the legal team at the firm, has been
recognized by Super Lawyers as a Rising Star in Securities
Litigation in 2013 and 2017, an award given to less than 2.5% of
attorneys in a particular field.  He has also been selected by
Martindale-Hubbell as a 2017 Top Rated Lawyer.

         Contact:
         Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
         MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
         The Empire State Building
         350 Fifth Ave, Suite 4405
         New York, NY 10118
         United States of America
         Tel: (212) 971-1341
         Email: jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com [GN]


TACOMANIA INC: Ct. Vacates Mar. 8 Hearing on Sanchez's Cert. Bid
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Edward J. Davila directs the parties in the lawsuit
captioned ZELYN SANCHEZ, et al. v. TACOMANIA, INC., et al., Case
No. 5:17-cv-01691-EJD (N.D. Cal.), to submit supplemental
briefing on stipulation to conditionally certify class.

Judge Davila directs the Parties to file a joint supplemental
briefing addressing whether the proposed class notice and Consent
to Join Collective Action form will be sent to class members in
the Spanish language as well as in the English language, and
identifying by name (or company) the third party administrator
the Parties intend to employ.

The motion to certify the class, which is scheduled for hearing
on March 8, 2018, is moot and the hearing date is vacated.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=MRr4iffq


TAMPA BAY: Lawsuit Filed for Revoking Fans' Season Tickets
----------------------------------------------------------
Michael Paluska, writing for ABC Action News, reports that former
supers fans are turning on their beloved Tampa Bay Buccaneers
after the long-time season ticket holders had their privileges
revoked.

Sean Fontaine said he is outraged and hurt that the team he grew
up watching would treat him so poorly.

"There's no fan loyalty the way we showed loyalty to them,"
Fontaine said.

On January 25, a class action lawsuit was filed in Hillsborough
County. The suit alleges Fontaine and another fan, Louis Mendel,
had their tickets revoked for "no legitimate reason."

The suit alleges that the Bucs are in breach of their contract,
contract renewal rights, unjust enrichment, misrepresentation,
and other violations.

Fontaine said they gave their tickets away to friends or sold
them for six games during the 2016 season. In one instance,
Fontaine and his wife Melissa said they went on a cruise so they
missed a Sunday and Thursday game in the same week.

Fontaine said the team encouraged them to sell their tickets
through the NFL ticket exchange website. They said they followed
the Bucs requests and ended up being penalized for it.

"You can't do this to your loyal season ticket holders even if
it's for profit. We've been there through the thick and thin when
no one wanted to show up we were still there and you should be
rewarding us," Fontaine said.

The suit alleges that when Fontaine tried to reach out to the
Bucs to figure out what was going on he was told "too bad, the
decision had been made," and the Bucs Director of Sales, Deno
Agnoste, hung up the phone on him.

The team told Fontaine he violated a Bucs policy barring the
resale of tickets.

Fontaine's attorney Luke Lirot said the Bucs mistreated their
fans for money and made up the policy violation to have a reason
to revoke their season tickets and sell them to new fans at a
higher price.

"I don't know that any fan base can withstand this kind of abuse,
this kind of bullying, it amazed me. I couldn't even believe that
they did it," Lirot said. "It's disappointing they would choose
funds over fans."

The Bucs told ABC Action News reporter Michael Paluska they would
not comment on pending litigations.

But, during previous reports on this issue an official with the
Bucs told ABC Action News they do encourage fans to use the NFL
ticket exchange website, but they're starting to go after a small
percentage of season ticket holders who repeatedly resell more
than half of their tickets; many times they are resold to fans of
the visiting team.

In an emailed statement about the ticket re-sale policy, Brian
Ford, the Buccaneers Chief Operating Officer said:

To ensure that Buccaneers fans have the best opportunity to
purchase season pass memberships in the most desirable locations,
we have made the decision to stop selling memberships to a
limited number of account holders that have been identified as
ticket resellers to opposing team fans.

Our top priority is providing our fans with a best-in-class
experience when they attend games at Raymond James Stadium. By
providing our most passionate fans with access to the best seats,
we create the type of home field advantage that our players feed
off on game days. Fans from opposing teams will still have the
option to purchase individual tickets in various locations around
the stadium or may choose to sit in designated visiting fan
sections which we have provided.

The Buccaneers added the right to revoke tickets is in the fine
print.

Fontaine and his wife Melissa said they spent the 2017 football
season driving to Jacksonville. They said they love football and
loved watching the Bucs but are now season ticket holders for the
Jaguars.

"The customer service is unbelievable there and their all about
the fan experience which is something we never really had,"
Melissa Fontaine said. "There is a difference between the two
teams as far as the way they treat their fans."

Both said they will not be stepping foot in Raymond James Stadium
to cheer on the Bucs ever again.

"The wounds are so deep I don't feel comfortable going there
anymore," Melissa Fontaine said.

Lirot said any fan that had their tickets revoked might be able
to join this class action lawsuit. He estimated more than 1,400
fans were impacted. [GN]


TRIANGLE CAPITAL: "Holden" Suit Moved to E.D. North Carolina
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Gary W. Holden, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v.
Triangle Capital Corporation, the Defendant, was moved from the
Southern District of New York (Case No. 1:17-cv-09311) to the
Eastern District of North Carolina (Case No. 5:18-cv-00010-FL) on
Jan. 12, 2018.

Triangle Capital Corporation is a business development company
specializing in private equity and mezzanine investments. It
focuses on leveraged buyouts, management buyouts, ESOPs, change
of control transactions, acquisition financings, growth
financing, and recapitalizations in lower middle market, mature,
and later stage companies. Triangle Capital Corporation was
founded in 2002 and is based in Raleigh, North Carolina. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jeremy Alan Lieberman, Esq.
          Joseph Alexander Hood , II, Esq.
          Hui M. Chang, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          600 Third Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 661-1100
          E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
                  ahood@pomlaw.com
                  hchang@pomlaw.com

               - and -

          Samuel Ranchor Harris , III, Esq.
          GIRARDI KEESE
          9113 Langley Drive
          Raleigh, NC 27617
          Telephone: (336) 500-1834
          E-mail: ranchorharris@gmail.com

               - and -

          Mark R. Sigmon, Esq.
          SIGMON LAW PLLC
          5 W. Hargett Street, Suite 1001
          Raleigh, NC 27601
          Telephone: (919) 451-6311
          Facsimile: (919) 882-9057
          E-mail: mark@sigmonlawfirm.com

               - and -

          David G. Schiller, Esq.
          SCHILLER& SCHILLER
          5540 Munford Rd., Suite 101
          Raleigh, NC 27612
          Telephone: (919) 789-4677
          Facsimile: (919) 789-4469
          E-mail: dgschiller@yahoo.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Chelsea J. Corey, Esq.
          KING & SPALDING, LLP
          100 North Tryon Street, Suite 3900
          Charlotte, NC 28202
          Telephone: (704) 503-2575
          Facsimile: (704) 503-2622
          E-mail: ccorey@kslaw.com

               - and -

          Benjamin Warren Pope, Esq.
          KING & SPALDING, LLP (GA)
          1180 Peachtree Street
          Atlanta, GA 30309-1763
          Telephone: (404) 572-4897
          Facsimile: (404) 572-5100

               - and -

          Israel Dahan, Esq.
          KING & SPALDING LLP (NYC)
          1185 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 556-2100
          Facsimile: (212) 556-2222

               - and -

          Michael R. Smith, Esq.
          KING & SPALDING LLP
          1180 Peachtree Street, N.E.
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Telephone: (404) 572-4824
          Facsimile: (404) 572-5139
          E-mail: mrsmith@kslaw.com


UNITED STATES: Class Certification Sought in "Mosquera" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Omar Anchico Mosquera and other plaintiffs in the lawsuit
entitled OMAR ANCHICO MOSQUERA, ET AL. v. UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA, ET AL., Case No. 1:17-cv-02160-UNA (D.D.C.), move for
class certification.

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

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

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=mxTY9TFT


UNITED STATES: Summary Ruling in Truck Drivers' Suit Partly OK'd
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, OWNER-OPERATOR INDEPENDENT DRIVERS ASSOCIATION,
INC., ET AL., Appellants, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION, ET AL., Appellees, Case No. 16-5355 (D.C. App.),
Judge David S. Tatel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in
part the district court's order granting the Department's motion
for summary judgment, and remanded the case for further
proceedings.

In Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, the Supreme Court held that Article
III standing requires a concrete injury even in the context of a
statutory violation.  In this case, several commercial truck
drivers and their industry association claim they were injured by
the Department of Transportation's violation of its statutory
obligation to ensure the accuracy of a database containing
driver-safety information.

The Appellants are five commercial truck drivers and their
industry association, the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers
Association, Inc.  Between 2010 and 2013, state law-enforcement
authorities cited each driver for violating safety regulations.
The drivers successfully challenged the citations in state court:
one driver was found not guilty after trial, and the others had
their citations dismissed.  All but one of the drivers then asked
through DataQs to have the violation reports relating to the
citations removed from the Department's database.  Their requests
were rejected because, according to the relevant state
authorities, the database at the time displayed only initial
citations, not adjudicated outcomes.  The safety records of two
drivers -- Klint Mowrer and Fred Weaver, Jr. -- including the
challenged violation reports, were shared through the Pre-
Employment Screening Program; the other drivers' records were
never disseminated.

The individual drivers and the industry association then sued,
challenging the Department's failure to ensure the accuracy of
the database and seeking injunctive and declaratory relief under
the Administrative Procedure Act, as well as damages under the
Fair Credit Reporting Act.  The Department moved for summary
judgment, arguing, among other things, that the drivers lacked
Article III standing because they failed to show concrete injury
in fact.  The district court agreed and dismissed the case.  The
drivers appeal.

Judge Tatel finds that the drivers' inability to identify a clear
common-law analog or to cite statutory support for their injury
confirms that the mere existence of inaccurate information in the
database is insufficient to confer Article III standing.  Even
though the inaccuracy results from the Department's violation of
its statutory obligations, the drivers have identified no
concrete interest that is de facto, real, and actually exists.

In his view, however, the Judge says Mowrer and Weaver did raise
the issue, stating in their opening brief that at a minimum, the
false report of a criminal history for them constitutes the
demonstration of the kind of concrete injury sufficient to
satisfy Article III standing.  Given this, and because he agrees
that the two drivers have suffered concrete harm, he will remand
their damages claims to the district court.

Therefore, Judge Tatel holds that because the drivers are
unharmed by the mere existence of inaccurate information in the
Department's database and because dissemination of that
information is not imminent, they -- with the exception of Mowrer
and Weaver -- have suffered no concrete injury in fact sufficient
to confer Article III standing.  To be sure, it is possible that
the mere existence of inaccurate information in a government
database could cause concrete harm depending on how that
information is to be used.

The Judge concludes only that, under the specific circumstances
of the case, the drivers have failed to show standing for all of
the relief they seek.  He thus affirmed in part, reversed in
part, and remanded to the district court for further proceedings
consistent with the Opinion.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 12, 2018 Opinion is
available at https://is.gd/NVysZL from Leagle.com.

Joyce E. Mayers -- jem@cullenlaw.com -- argued the cause for
appellants.  With her on the briefs were Paul D. Cullen, Sr. --
pdc@cullenlaw.com -- and Paul D. Cullen, Jr. --
pxc@cullenlaw.com.

Caroline D. Lopez, Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice, argued
the cause for appellees. With her on the brief were Matthew M.
Collette, Attorney, Paul M. Geier, Assistant General Counsel,
U.S. Department of Transportation, Joy K. Park, Senior Trial
Attorney, and Sue Lawless, Assistant Chief Counsel for
Enforcement and Litigation, Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration.


VENTURE EXPRESS: Ratliff's Bid to Certify Class Entered & Cont'd
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois made a docket entry on January 9, 2018, in the case
entitled Jerome Ratliff Jr. v. Venture Express, Inc., Case No.
1:17-cv-07214 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing held before the
Honorable Gary Feinerman.

The minute entry states that:

   -- Defendant's motion to dismiss is entered and continued;

   -- Plaintiff's motion for class certification is entered and
      continued; and

   -- the January 30, 2018 status hearing shall stand.

A copy of the Notification of Docket Entry is available at no
charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=oq2hy7dB


VOLKSWAGEN AG: Quebec Class Action Approved
-------------------------------------------
CBC News reports that a Quebec Superior Court judge has ruled a
class-action lawsuit can proceed against Volkswagen in connection
with its emissions-cheating scandal.

While the courts in Ontario and Quebec approved a settlement deal
with vehicle owners in 2017, this new lawsuit is not only for
people who owned or leased cars from Volkswagen.

The Association quebecoise de lutte contre la pollution
atmospherique, a provincial environmental group, contends all
Quebecers were victims of pollution generated by the company's
vehicles.

The association is seeking $35 in damages for every person who
lived in Quebec at some point between Jan. 1, 2009 and Sept. 21,
2015.

In 2016, the flagship Volkswagen brand admitted it faked results
in emissions tests in order to meet emissions standards for
millions of its vehicles sold worldwide. About 100,000 of those
vehicles were sold in Canada.

Andre Belisle, the president of the association, said large
companies like Volkswagen need to be held accountable for
environmental damage.

"They see the environment as something very minor but the
problems are growing and growing and growing," he said. "And at
some point we have to put our foot down."

The lawsuit, if successful, could cost Volkswagen hundreds of
millions of dollars. [GN]


WAL-MART ASSOCIATES: Three Classes Certified in "Magadia" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Lucy H. Koh grants the Plaintiff's motion for class
certification in the lawsuit titled RODERICK MAGADIA v. WAL-MART
ASSOCIATES, INC., et al., Case No. 5:17-cv-00062-LHK (N.D. Cal.).

The Court certifies these three classes under Rule 23(b)(3) of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure:

   * Meal Period Regular Rate Class:

     All current and former California non-exempt retail store
     employees of [Wal-Mart] who received non-discretionary
     remuneration, including "MYSHARE INCT," and was paid any
     meal period premium payments in the same period that the
     non-discretionary remuneration was earned, at any time
     between December 2, 2012, through the present.

   * OVERTIME/INCT Wage Statement Class:

     All current and former California non-exempt employees of
     [Wal-Mart] who received "OVERTIME/INCT," at any time between
     December 2, 2015, through the present.

   * Final Wage Statement Class:

     All former non-exempt employees who worked for [Wal-Mart] in
     the State of California and whose employment terminated
     (whether voluntarily or involuntarily) at any time from
     December 2, 2015 to the present.

Judge Koh appoints Roderick Magadia as representative of the
class, and appoints Larry Lee, Esq., of Diversity Law Group,
P.C.; Dennis Hyun, Esq., of Hyun Legal, APC; and William L.
Marder, Esq., of Polaris Law Group LLP as class counsel to
represent the classes.

Plaintiff Roderick Magadia brings the putative class action
against the Defendants Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. and Wal-Mart
Associates, Inc., for violations of the California Labor Code.

The Plaintiff identifies three "class-wide policies and practices
engaged in by" Wal-Mart that allegedly violate California law:
(1) Wal-Mart's alleged failure to pay adequate meal period
premiums to its employees; (2) Wal-Mart's "failure to specify the
hourly rates and number of hours worked for [] overtime
adjustment wages"; and (3) Wal-Mart's failure to "list the pay
period start and end dates" on wage statements issued to
terminated employees.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=c6Uy3OTn


WAL-MART STORES: Mislabeled Store-Brand Eggs, Gibson Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
DONNIE LEE GIBSON II, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. WAL-MART STORES, INC., Case No. 3:18-cv-
00134-KAW (N.D. Cal., January 8, 2018), is brought on behalf of
all persons in the state of California, for Defendant's alleged
violations of the California Unfair Competition Law, Consumers
Legal Remedies Act, False Advertising Law, and California Common
Law.

Gibson II alleged that Wal-Mart is responsible for the marketing
and sale of store-brand eggs, labeled as having come from hens
"with outdoor access."  However, the hens producing Cal-Maine's
store-brand eggs are actually confined to industrial barns,
without outdoor access. [BN]

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. operates retail stores in various formats
worldwide. It operates through three segments: Walmart U.S.,
Walmart International, and Sam's Club. The company operates
discount stores, supermarkets, supercenters, hypermarkets,
warehouse clubs, cash and carry stores, home improvement stores,
specialty electronics stores, apparel stores, drug stores,
convenience stores, and membership-only warehouse clubs; and
retail Websites, such as walmart.com and samsclub.com, as well as
mobile commerce applications. It offers grocery products,
including meat, produce, natural and organics, deli and bakery,
dairy, frozen foods, alcoholic and nonalcoholic beverages, floral
and dry grocery.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Elaine T. Byszewski, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          301 N. Lake Avenue, Suite 920
          Pasadena, CA 91101
          Telephone: (213) 330-7150
          E-mailL elaine@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

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


WATER TRANSFER: Fails to Pay Overtime, "Sander" Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Steve Sanders, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated, v. Water Transfer Solution, LLC, Case No. 2:18-cv-
00063-AJS (W.D. Pa., January 12, 2018), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Water Transfer Solutions, LLC, is a service company in the oil
and gas business operating in multiple states, including in Ohio
and Pennsylvania.

Water Transfer Solution employs oilfield personnel, like
Plaintiff Sanders, to carry out its work.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

           Richard J. Burch
           BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
           8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
           Houston, TX 77046
           Telephone: (713) 877-8788
           Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
           E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com

                - and -

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


WATERLOO, ON: Cambridge Councillors Named in Class Action Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Rutledge, writing for Cambridge Times, reports that two
Cambridge councillors, both retired Waterloo Regional Police
officers, have been called out in a class action lawsuit claiming
the police service perpetuated a culture of sexual harassment and
gender-based discrimination.

City councillors Frank Monteiro and Mike Mann have been named in
the $167-million lawsuit launched by former and current members
of the police organization who claim they were sexually harassed
and bullied by their male peers, passed over for promotions by
supervisors and had their careers capped after speaking up.

Their allegations have not been tested in court and legal action
has not been court-certified at this time.

Affidavits filed by plaintiffs behind the suit allege Monteiro
and Mann played contributing roles in cultivating an atmosphere
of misogyny within the organization.

An affidavit filed by one of the six plaintiffs claims then-
sergeant Monteiro "referred to female officers as 'split tails',
which he told me was in reference to our genitals".

She also alleges Monteiro "came up behind me in the lunch room
and lifted my skirt over my waist, revealing my undergarments, in
front of several male officers".

Another plaintiff alleges she approached Mann, then a deputy
chief with the organization, to report a superintendent texted
her photos of his penis and asked her to send sexually explicit
photos back. She refused.

She said while Mann urged her to make a formal complaint, he
advised her the superintendent "would likely only get a warning
and that it was it".

She said Mann told her the superintendent would not be involved
in any transfer meetings involving her career path, but " . . .
to the best of my knowledge, he continued to participate in
every transfer meeting where my transfers have always been
denied".

The Cambridge Times contacted Monteiro and Mann by email with a
list of questions to ask for comment in response to claims made
in the class action lawsuit.

Both declined to comment, citing ongoing legal matters.

"It would be inappropriate for me to respond as this is ongoing
litigation," wrote Mann in his email response.

"It would be wrong for me to comment in any way at this time as
this is an ongoing litigation before the court," Monteiro told
the Times in his email.

Monteiro, however, indicated he was surprised to learn his name
came up in affidavits surfacing as part of the lawsuit.

". . . it appears that you know more than I do because I only
found out that my name was in an affidavit last January 20
through social media."

Coun. Donna Reid, a member of the Sexual Violence Task Force
reviewing and developing recommendations to ensure victims of
violence are better served by the justice system, expressed
concern by allegations contained in the affidavits.

"I am distressed that two councillors are named in affidavits,"
she told the Times. "It is not new that police officers are
accused of sexism and harassment of women. It is a theme repeated
over and over."

However, she was quick to point out claims made in the lawsuit
are allegations and have not been proven in court.

"As disturbing as it is, we need to respect the rights of the
accused."

Waterloo Regional Police Chief Bryan Larkin has continuously
stated the service takes claims of sexual harassment and
discrimination seriously, and assures such actions are not
tolerated in the workforce.

The culture within the regional police service came under fire
yet. Members of the task force took Larkin to task for defending
the service without acknowledging issues of gender disparity.
They also challenged a lawyer representing the organization for
calling allegations "untrue, exaggerated and misleading".

The members wrote an open letter to the service, suggesting the
comments undermine the task force's work and discourages victims
from coming forward because they may not be believed.

While Reid didn't sign the open letter, she said she fully
supports its message.

"It is vital that we believe the women who have come
forward."[GN]


WELLS FARGO: McPhee Seeks to Certify Sales Reps Class Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned THEO McPHEE and other
similarly situated individuals v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Case
No. 0:17-cv-62308-RNS (S.D. Fla.), asks the Court to issue an
order conditionally certifying a collective action of current and
former Customer Service Sales Representatives, who worked for the
Defendant nationwide in the last three years prior to the filing
of the Complaint and who were not paid overtime compensation for
their hours worked over 40 each week.

Inter alia, the Plaintiff's claim is for overtime pay under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Mr. McPhee also asks the Court to compel expedited production by
the Defendant of a complete list of each and every person, who
was employed by the Defendant as a "Customer Service Sales
Representatives" or the like, to authorize his counsel's mailing
of a Court-approved Notice to all such persons about their right
to opt into this collective action, and to provide all
individuals whose names appear on the list a total of 60 days
from the date the notices are initially mailed to file a Consent
to Become Opt-In Plaintiff form.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Peter M. Hoogerwoerd, Esq.
          Nathaly Lewis, Esq.
          REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
          44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200
          Miami, FL 33130
          Telephone: (305) 416-5000
          Facsimile: (305) 416-5005
          E-mail: pmh@rgpattorneys.com
                  nl@rgpatttorneys.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Richard L. Alfred, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
          Two Seaport Lane, Suite 300
          Boston, MA 02210-2028
          Telephone: (617) 946-4800
          E-mail: ralfred@seyfarth.com

               - and -

          Timothy M. Watson, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
          700 Milam Street, Suite 1400
          Houston, TX 77002-2812
          Telephone: (713) 225-2300
          E-mail: twatson@seyfarth.com

               - and -

          Louisa J. Johnson, Esq.
          Katherine M. Smallwood, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
          1075 Peachtree Street, N.E., Suite 2500
          Atlanta, GA 30309-3958
          Telephone: (404) 885-1500
          Facsimile: (404) 892-7056
          E-mail: lojohnson@seyfarth.com
                  ksmallwood@seyfarth.com


WELLS FARGO: "Peters" Transferred to S.D. Texas
-----------------------------------------------
In the case, MICHAEL PETERS, Plaintiff, v. WELLS FARGO BANK,
N.A., Defendant, Case No. 17-cv-04367-JST (N.D. Cal.), Judge Jon
S. Tigar of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California granted the Defendant's Motion to Transfer Venue.

The action concerns Wells Fargo's practice of collecting post-
payment interest on loans insured by the Federal Housing
Administration ("FHA").  Post-payment interest is interest that a
lender collects after the borrower has paid the full unpaid
principal of the loan.

Peters, alleges that the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development ("HUD")'s regulations prohibit lenders from
collecting post-payment interest unless two strict conditions are
met: (a) the borrower makes payment of the full unpaid principal
on a day other than the first of the month, and (b) the lender
must provide the borrower with a form approved by the FHA.
According to him, Wells Fargo does not use an approved form, and
instead uses its own unauthorized form which does not fairly
disclose the terms under which Wells Fargo can collect post-
payment interest or properly explain how borrowers can avoid such
charges.

Peters owns a home in Montgomery, Texas.  In early 2017, Wells
Fargo held a loan secured by Peter's home.  In February 2017,
Peters' refinanced his home.  He alleges that he requested a
payoff statement from Wells Fargo so he could pay off his loan
and that he was not provided with an HUD-approved form.  Peters
then paid interest for the entire month of February 2017, even
though he had paid the full unpaid principal by Feb. 21, 2017.

Peters now brings a putative class action seeking relief under
the California Unfair Competition Law and the Texas Debt
Collection Act.  He proposes a nationwide class consisting of any
person in the United States other than in California who had a
FHA-insured loan for which (i) the Date of the Note is during a
period beginning on June 1, 1996 and ending on Jan. 20, 2015;
(ii) as of the date the total amount due on the loan was brought
to zero, Wells Fargo was the Lender, Mortgagee, or otherwise held
legal title to the Note; and (iii) Wells Fargo collected interest
for any period after the total amount due on the loan was brought
to zero.  He also proposes a Texas subclass consisting of any
person who had a FHA-insured loan secured by a mortgage on real
property located in Texas who meets the same conditions as the
nationwide class.

Wells Fargo brought the instant action to transfer venue to the
Southern District of Texas, where Peters and his property are
located.

Judge Tigar finds that the California courts cannot claim
specific jurisdiction over the plaintiffs who are not California
residents and do not claim to have suffered harm in California.
Peters is not a California Plaintiff and the proposed class does
not include California Plaintiffs or any allegations of harm
suffered in California.  The Judge is satisfied that the lawsuit
could have been filed in the Southern District of Texas.

The Judge also finds that multiple factors weigh against
consideration of Peter's choice of forum.  First, Peters brought
the case as a class action.  And Peters himself is a citizen of
Texas, residing in the city of Montgomery.  Second, many, if not
all, of the operative facts did not occur within California.
Peters alleges that he paid off an FHA-insured loan secured by
his home in Montgomery, Texas.  Third, Wells Fargo argues that
there is evidence of forum shopping because this case is an
attempt to reconstruct a failed nationwide class under the guise
of related cases.  He says not every careful forum selection
decision can reasonably be called forum shopping.  Nonetheless,
given the first two factors summarized, he will give Peters'
choice of venue less deference.

He further finds that the convenience of parties and witnesses
weighs in favor of transfer.  Wells Fargo cites evidence located
in Texas, which Peters does not dispute.  The Plaintiffs have not
offered any evidence that Wells Fargo's policy and procedure
documents" and standard forms are located at its headquarters, as
opposed to any of its other offices.

Finally, Judge Tigar finds that the case belongs in the Southern
District of Texas considering the diminished weight given to
Peters' choice of forum, the greater weight given to the
convenience of non-party witnesses in Texas, the slight weight
given to the ease of access to evidence in Texas, Texas' clear
interest in the controversy as opposed to California's potential
interest, and the relative neutrality of the other section
1404(a) factors.

For the reasons he stated, the Judge granted the Defendant's
Motion to Transfer Venue.  He denied as moot the Motion to
Dismiss, Motion to Strike, and Motion to Stay Discovery.  He
vacated the Case Management Conference currently scheduled for
Jan. 17, 2018.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 12, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/Nlt6P3 from Leagle.com.

Michael Peters, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Michael Francis Ram
-- mram@robinskaplan.com -- Robins Kaplan LLP, Susan S. Brown --
sbrown@robinskaplan.com -- Robins Kaplan LLP, Adam Lewis
Hoipkemier --  adam@ehdhlaw.com -- Epps Holloway DeLoach &
Hoipkemier, LLC, pro hac vice, Jeffrey William DeLoach, Epps
Holloway DeLoach & Hoipkemier, LLC, pro hac vice, Kevin Epps --
kevin@ehdhlaw.com -- Epps Holloway DeLoach & Hoipkemier, LLC, pro
hac vice & Samuel Joseph Strauss -- sam@turkestrauss.com -- Turke
& Strauss LLP, pro hac vice.

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Defendant, represented by David S. Reidy
-- dreidy@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods LLP, K. Issac deVyver
-- kdevyver@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods LLP, pro hac vice,
Karla Lynn Johnson -- kjohnson@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods
LLP, pro hac vice & Sara F. Holladay-Tobias --
stobias@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods LLP, pro hac vice.


WEST WIND: Passengers in Fond du Lac Crash File Class-Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Colette Derworiz, writing for CTV News, reports that survivors of
a plane crash in a remote community in northern Saskatchewan have
filed a class-action lawsuit alleging the airline was negligent.

The claim against West Wind Aviation and Athabasca Basin
Development, the airline's majority shareholder, alleges that
their acts or omissions harmed those on the plane.

The plaintiffs include six passengers who were on board the
flight when it went down near the Fond du Lac airstrip shortly
after taking off on Dec. 13.

Everyone on board escaped the wreckage, but seven people were
seriously injured. One 19-year old man, Arson Fern Jr., later
died in hospital from his injuries.

"We believe we can establish negligence," said Regina lawyer Tony
Merchant, Esq. who filed the lawsuit January 24 on behalf of his
clients.

Fern and his parents, Arson Fern Sr. and Janey Fern, are among
the six plaintiffs in the lawsuit. The others are Tiffany Hanson
of Stoney Rapids and Fond du Lac residents Carey Clayton Mercredi
and Dakota McDonald.

The claim alleges the companies breached the standard of care by
using a runway that was too short for the size and weight of the
plane and by not having proper de-icing equipment. It also
alleges the employees overloaded the plane with passengers and
freight and failed to alert emergency officials quickly after the
crash.

It suggests the passengers have suffered harm, including pain,
increased medical expenses and loss of enjoyment of life.

Merchant said one of his clients overheard a member of the flight
staff say that the plane was "too heavy" before it departed. He
said the airport has a short runway and doesn't have de-icing
equipment, which makes taking off in winter conditions more
difficult.

"Fundamentally, there's an issue with West Wind operating such a
heavy airplane in that circumstance, going into Fond du Lac,"
said Merchant.

He also said West Wind employees also didn't give any warning of
the crash and didn't help the passengers once they were on the
ground.

"They were working together in circumstances of fright and
horror, darkness, the fear of an explosion. Some people were
injured," said Merchant. "It all together is right out of an
awful movie."

None of the allegations has been proven in court and the lawsuit
still has to be certified by the courts to proceed.

"We are hearing that legal proceedings may be initiated," Dennis
Baranieski, West Wind Aviation's vice president of business
development and corporate services, said in a statement January
24.

"If this does come to pass, we certainly will respect the legal
process and its due diligence processes."

Officials with the Transportation Safety Board are still
investigating the crash. They have already said there was no
engine failure, but haven't said when a final report will be
complete.

Merchant said his clients could wait for the report, but he
believes that negligence can be established without it.

"I can't imagine that they are going to come back and say
everything is fine," he said. "To say everything was fine is
saying these planes are going to fall out of the sky once in a
while -- and that's not the case -- so they are going to identify
something wrong."

West Wind Aviation grounded its other twin-engine ATR42-320
planes after the Fond du Lac crash. [GN]


XUNLEI LIMITED: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, disclosed the
filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of Xunlei Limited (NASDAQ: XNET) from October 10, 2017
through January 11, 2018, both dates inclusive ("Class Period").
The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Xunlei investors under
the federal securities laws.

To join the Xunlei class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1276.htmlor call Phillip Kim,
Esq. or Daniel Sadeh, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email
pkim@rosenlegal.com or dsadeh@rosenlegal.com for information on
the class action.

NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A
CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU
RETAIN ONE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO
NOTHING AT THIS POINT. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE.

According to the lawsuit, defendants during the Class Period made
materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) Xunlei had engaged in unlawful financial
activity; (2) OneCoin, Xunlei's blockchain-based product, was a
form of disguised Initial Coin Offering; (3) Xunlei was engaged
in the promotion of an Initial Miner Offering; and (4) as a
result, defendants' statements about Xunlei's business,
operations, and prospects were false and misleading and/or lacked
a reasonable basis. When the true details entered the market, the
lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than
March 20, 2018. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting
on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If
you wish to join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1276.htmlor to discuss your
rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact
Phillip Kim or Daniel Sadeh of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-
767-3653 or via email at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
dsadeh@rosenlegal.com.

Follow us for updates on LinkedIn:
https://www.linkedin.com/company/the-rosen-law-firm or on
Twitter: https://twitter.com/rosen_firm.

Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Since 2014, Rosen Law Firm has
been ranked #2 in the nation by Institutional Shareholder
Services for the number of securities class action settlements
annually obtained for investors.

         Laurence Rosen, Esq.
         Phillip Kim, Esq.
         Daniel Sadeh, Esq.
         The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
         275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor
         New York, NY 10016
         Tel: (212) 686-1060
         Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
         Fax: (212) 202-3827
         Website: www.rosenlegal.com
         Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
                pkim@rosenlegal.com,
                dsadeh@rosenlegal.com [GN]


                            *********


S U B S C R I P T I O N  I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills,
Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.
Marion Alcestis A. Castillon, Jessenius Pulido, Noemi Irene A.
Adala, Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche
Maricon Castillon-Lopez, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G.
Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2018.  All rights reserved.  ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail.  Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each.  For subscription information, contact Peter A.
Chapman at 215-945-7000.



                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *