CAR_Public/180213.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


             Tuesday, February 13, 2018, Vol. 20, No. 32



                            Headlines


ACT II JEWELRY: June 6 Settlement Approval Hearing Set
ADVANCE MICRO: Speck Sues over Defective AMD Processor
AETNA INC: Barrack Rodos Files Securities Class Action
ALLERGAN INC: Plumbers Fund Sues Over "Restatis" Price-fixing
ALPHA RECOVERY: O'Laire Sues over Debt Collection Practices

AMAZON.COM: Wants Solar Eclipse Glasses Class Action Tossed
AMC ENTERTAINMENT: Sued Over Inaccurate Registration Statement
ANTHEM INC: Savett Sues over Prerecorded Telephone Calls
APPLE INC: Jones Hits iOS Upgrade Bug, Undisclosed Battery Fix
APPLE INC: "Mills" Suit Hits Upgrade Bug, Undisclosed Battery Fix

APPLE INC: Loses Bid to Reverse iPhone Class Certification Order
APPLEBEE'S: Class Action Over Mandatory Tip Policy Can Proceed
ASSET ACCEPTANCE: "Noble" Suit Disputes Collection Letter
BANK OF AMERICA: May 30 ISDAfix Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
BARRACUDA NETWORKS: Faces "Pollack" Suit Over Thoma Merger Plans

BARRACUDA NETWORKS: WeissLaw LLP Files Securities Class Action
BRINKERHOFF INSPECTION: Fails to Pay Employees OT, Action Claims
C.C. SUBWAY: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, "Rodriguez" Suit Says
CANADA: Minister Says Indian Hospital Suit Not an Ideal Approach
CANADA: Class Actions Mulled Over Administrative Segregation

CENTURYLINK: Faces Overbilling Class Action in Florida
CHICAGO, IL: Sued for Discriminating Against Disabled Students
CHICAGO, IL: 1.2-Mil. Motorists to Share $38.755MM Settlement
CHICAGO BRIDGE: Leon Trust Seeks to Enjoin Merger with McDermott
CKS FINANCIAL: "McAllister" Disputes Collection Letter Validity

DEUTSCHE BANK: Bond Investors Seek Class Action Certification
DFL PIZZA: Faces "Wilson" Suit Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wages
ENCORE RECEIVABLE: Reese Sues over Debt Collection Practices
FACEBOOK INC: Covington Attorneys Discuss Privacy Case Ruling
FIAT CHRYSLER: Three Former Employees File Class Action

FINAL LEVEL: Fails to Pay Minimum Wage & Overtime, Loebell Says
FINANCIAL ASSET: "Loveday" Suit Disputes Collection Letter
FITNESS INT'L: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Gym Membership
FLINT, MI: ACLU, White & Case Provide Testimony in Class Action
FRANKLIN TEMPLETON: Loses Bid to Appeal Class Certification

FUYAO GLASS: Workers File Class Action Over Wages, Scheduling
GARCES RESTAURANT: Sued Over Produce Deliveries Amid Class Action
GOAUTO LLC: Medina Sues over Unwanted Text Message Calls
GREENWAY RESOURCE: Salgado Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages under FLSA
HALLIBURTON COMPANY: "German" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages

HEWLETT PACKARD: Settles Class Action Over Pavillion Screens
HOME WARRANTY: Denial of Motion to Compel Arbitration Upheld
HONEYWELL INT'L: Moldenhauer Sues Over Gender Discrimination
HOSOPO CORPORATION: Sued Over Illegal Telemarketing Practices
HSBC BANK: RMBS Investors Defend Class Certification Bid

HUDSON VALLEY NEWS: "Lorberer" Suit Moved to N.D. New York
I.C. SYSTEM: Lawson Sues Over Erroneous Credit Report
INFINITY STAFFING: Smith & Johnson Sue over Wage Statements
INTEL CORPORATION: Park Sues over Defective CPUs
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Plaintiff Wants Court to Reinstate Talc Case

KENTUCKY: Jenner & Block to Represent Medicaid Case Plaintiffs
KIA MOTORS: APA Files Suit Over Alleged Forte Auto Engine Defect
LENOVO INC: Judge Cuts Claims in Laptop Adware Class Action
LIBERTY UNIVERSITY: Sued in California Over Automated Calls
MARCO'S PIZZA: "Mitchell" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages under FLSA

MATCO TOOLS: Laisney Sues over Telemarketing Calls
MDL 2804: Logansport Considers Joining Opioid Class Action
MGM: Law Firm Seeks Route 91 Harvest Festival Shooting Victims
MONSANTO COMPANY: Dicamba Herbicides Case Moved to E.D. Missouri
MONSANTO COMPANY: Forest River Sues over Dicamba-Based Crops

MONTEREY FINANCIAL: Garrett Sues over Debt Collections Practices
MSP CROSSROADS: Former Tenants to Get $290,000 Settlement Payout
MUNGER BROS: Vows to Fight Class Action in Washington
MURRAY GOULBURN: Shareholders May Face Long Wait for Payout
NEBRASKA: Sued Over Juveniles Placed on Sex Offender List

NBYT INC: Troutman Sanders Attorney Discusses Court Ruling
NBTY INC: Foley & Lardner Attorneys Discuss Court Ruling
NEW MEXICO: Tax Department Sued Over Driver's Denial of ID Cards
OGLETREE DEAKINS: Faces "Knepper" Suit Over Gender Discrimination
PAINTING FIRM: "Cardona" Suit Seeks OT & Minimum Wages under FLSA

PENSION BENEFIT: Plaintiffs' Lawyers Bid for More Fees Denied
POSABILITIES: Jenkins Seeks Overtime Pay for Off-the-Clock Work
PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE: Faces Life Insurance Benefits Class Claims
PTC ALLIANCE: Faces "Kilgore" Suit over Failure to Pay Overtime
QUICKEN LOANS: Pagano Sues Over Auto-dialed Collection Calls

RED BARN: Faces Class Action Over Washroom Voyeurism
RED PARROT: Must Face Class Action Over Unsolicited Fax Ads
REMINGTON: Massachusetts AG Protests Approval of Rifle Settlement
RESTORATION HARDWARE: Class Action Objectors Face Setback
SHOP FAIR: Doesn't Pay Security Guards Overtime, Espinal Says

STUDIO GROUP: Illegally Debits Bank Account, Ruiz Claims
SUCAMPO PHARMA: Otugo Seeks to Halt Sale to Mallinckrodt
SYKES ENTERPRISES: "Payne" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
TARLAND: "Rodriguez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
TD AMERITRADE: Diamond Kaplan Alerts Customers of Class Action

TEXAS: In Settlement Talks in Case Over Heat-Related Deaths
TEZOS: Funder to Step Back Once Project is Back on Track
TIMMINCO LTD: Canada High Ct. Closes Shareholders' Class Action
TINA NAILS: Doesn't Pay Overtime to Salon Staff, Gutierrez Claims
TREASURE COAST: Brokers Among Defendants in "Ponzi Scheme" Case

TRUE BLUE: Faces "Nembhard" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
ULTA BEAUTY: Resells Used Cosmetics, Class Action Alleges
UNITED STATES: Judge Can't Ignore Trump's Immigrant Statements
UNITED STATES: Justice Dep't Wants Veterans' Class Action Tossed
VALEANT PHARM: Two Law Firms File Securities Class Action

VIRTUS INVESTMENT: March 23 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set
VODAFONE GROUP: March 20 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
VOLKSWAGEN AG: Diesel Emissions Scandal Suit in UK Pending
WELLS FARGO: Judge Recommends RMBS Class Certification Denial
WILLIAM PYLIARIS: Richmond Strippers File FLSA Class Action

WOLVERINE WORLDWIDE: Seeks Dismissal of PFAS Contamination Case
WORD ENTERPRISES-PERRY: Sued Over Failure to Pay Drivers' Wages

* Class Action Notification Methods in Canada Need Improvement
* Securities Class Action Filings Up 89% Over Past Two Years
* Securities Class Actions Hit Record High, Cornerstone Says
* Seeger Weiss LLP Mourns Passing of Melvyn Weiss
* Shareholder Class Actions Target Life Science Companies




                            *********


ACT II JEWELRY: June 6 Settlement Approval Hearing Set
------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Siprut PC regarding
the lia sophia Class Action Settlement.

A Settlement has been reached in a lawsuit alleging that Act II
Jewelry, LLC f/k/a lia sophia ("Act II") breached its promise to
provide a lifetime warranty, and that Act II harmed its sales
advisors by misappropriating their customer information and
making false statements to those sales advisors concerning the
closing of its business.  Act II denies these allegations and
denies any wrongdoing.  The Court has not decided who is right.

The settlement covers Class Members of one or more of the
following Settlement Classes which include all individuals in the
United States who: Customer Class -- purchased jewelry from Act
II between June 23, 2011, and December 1, 2014; Sales Advisor
Class -- sold at least $250 of jewelry for Act II between
January 1, 2014, and August 17, 2014; New Sales Advisor Class --
purchased initial starter kits from Act II between August 1,
2014, and December 1, 2014.  In total, the classes contain
approximately 4 million members.  If the settlement is approved,
a settlement fund of $6.7 million dollars will be created for
distribution among those Class Members who submit Valid Claims,
attorneys' fees, incentive awards, and settlement administration
expenses.

To get a payment class members must submit a claim online or by
mail by April 9, 2018. Customer and Sales Advisor Class Members'
cash payments will depend on the amount of jewelry purchased or
sold from Act II, and the total number of Valid Claims filed.
New Sales Advisor Class Members will receive a full reimbursement
of the amount paid for his or her initial starter kit, which
ranged from $99 to $149, subject to a cap on total recovery for
the class.

Other Options. Class members that do not want to be legally bound
by the Settlement's terms or who want to pursue their own case
against Act II, must Opt Out of the Settlement by April 9, 2018,
and will not get a payment from the Settlement.  If a class
member does not Opt Out, they may Object to the Settlement by
April 9, 2018. The detailed notice available on the Settlement
Website explains how to Opt Out or Object.

The Court will hold a Hearing on June 6, 2018 at 9:00 a.m. to
consider whether to approve the Settlement and a request for
attorneys' fees of up to one third of the $6.7 million Settlement
Fund after settlement administration expenses (approximately
$1,800,000) and incentive awards of $2,500-$7,500 to the Class
Representatives.  The Motion for Fees will be posted on the
website after it is filed.  You may appear at the hearing, at
your own expense, but you don't have to. For more information,
call or visit the website.

This is only a summary of the information related to the
Settlement.  For detailed information, about the Settlement,
class member rights, and the benefits that may be available,
visit: www.LiaSophiaSettlement.com or call 1-844-412-1945.


ADVANCE MICRO: Speck Sues over Defective AMD Processor
------------------------------------------------------
BRIAN SPECK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. ADVANCE MICRO DEVICES, INC., a
Delaware Corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 5:18-cv-00744-HRL
(N.D. Cal., Feb. 4, 2018), alleges that AMD's processors based on
the x86-64x architecture suffer from security vulnerabilities
that allow unprivileged access to extremely secure kernel data.

The x86 is a CPU architecture created by AMD in 2000. AMD
released the first x86 CPU in 2003 called the Opteron.  According
to the complaint, the x86 CPU architecture is the primary CPU
design even today.  The security vulnerabilities are inherent to
the x86 CPU as they are the result of design shortcuts intended
to increase processor speed. Unfortunately, these shortcuts
sacrificed security in the name of speed leaving consumers with
CPUs that have inherent design flaws exposing the secure data of
millions of AMD CPU users.

Cyber-security experts have identified two distinct methods of
"attacking" the security vulnerabilities that are inherent in the
design of x86 CPUs from AMD, Intel Corporation and ARM Holdings.
Named "Meltdown" and "Spectre" by the individuals who discovered
these flaws, these attack methods take advantage of the breakdown
of the typical security protocol when accessing kernel data that
occurs when the CPUs are performing speculative execution and
out-of-order execution. Speculative execution and out-of-order
execution are two methods used by the affected CPUs to increase
processing speeds.

Both Meltdown and Spectre are side-channel attacks which are
attacks based on information gained from some observable aspect
of a computer's physical operation. For example, the observation
of timing, power consumption and cache use. The observation and
analysis of these behaviors can then be used to expose secure
data on the computer. Unlike some software or operating system
attacks, side-channel attacks do not corrupt, change or delete
data.

AMD CPUs do not appear to be afflicted with the Meltdown flaw but
do contain the more invidious, widespread and difficult to
eradicate Spectre vulnerability. Any AMD CPU that implements
speculative execution is vulnerable to Spectre side-channel
attacks, which would include almost every modern-day AMD CPU. AMD
x86 processors, are among the most widely utilized CPUs in the
world and power large numbers of desktops, laptop computers, and
servers in the United States. These flawed CPUs also power
medical equipment such as CT scanners, ECG monitors and
recorders, and pacemakers and defibrillators.

To date, Defendant has been unable or unwilling to repair the
security vulnerabilities in the subject CPUs or offer Plaintiff
and class members a non-defective CPU or reimbursement for the
cost of such CPU and the consequential damages arising from the
purchase and use of such CPUs. The software updates or "patches"
pushed by AMD onto CPU owners does not appear to provide
protection from all the variants of Spectre. At the very least,
firmware updates or changes will be required. Even then, these
"patches" dramatically degrade CPU performance.

A number of experts believe the security flaws in Defendant's
CPUs cannot be completely "patched" via the use of software and
firmware updates because these vulnerabilities arise from
fundamental design flaws in the CPUs themselves. At best, these
"patches" serve to mitigate the problem. According to these
experts, the only real "fix" is a newly designed processor free
of the inherent design flaws creating the security
vulnerabilities. Indeed, these vulnerabilities do not arise from
malware changing how the system operates but rather take
advantage of security flaws inherent in the CPU operating as it
was designed to do. Currently, affected AMD CPU owners are left
with the unappealing choice of either purchasing a new processor
or computer containing a CPU that does not contain these
vulnerabilities, or continuing to use a computer with massive
security vulnerabilities or one with significant performance
degradation. Any "patch" to secure the vulnerabilities requires
extensive changes to the root levels of the computer operating
system, which dramatically reduces CPU performance. These ecurity
vulnerabilities render AMD's CPUs unmerchantable and unfit for
their intended use and purpose.

Defendant's conduct violates state common law as well as state
and federal statutory consumer protection and warranty statutes.
Having purchased a CPU that suffers from these security
vulnerabilities, the Plaintiff and class members suffered injury
in fact and a loss of money or property. Defendant has failed to
remedy this harm and has earned, and continues to earn,
substantial profit from selling defective CPUs.

As a result, Plaintiff bring this class action against Defendant
AMD on behalf of all other persons and entities in the United
States that purchased an AMD CPU processor, or purchased a
laptop, desktop, server or other computing device containing an
AMD CPU.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William J. Doyle II, Esq.
          Chris W. Cantrell, Esq.
          DOYLE APC
          550 West B St., Fourth Floor
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 736 0000
          Facsimile: (619) 736 1111
          E-mail: bill@doyleapc.com
                  chris@doyleapc.com

               - and -

          J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq.
          Benjamin A. Gastel, Esq.
          Tricia Herzfeld, Esq.
          BRANSTETTER, STRANCH
          & JENNINGS, PLLC
          223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200
          Nashville, TN 37203
          Telephone: (615) 254 8801
          Facsimile: (615) 255 5419
          E-mail: gerards@bsjfirm.com
                  beng@bsjfirm.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Jeffrey L. Fazio, Esq.
          Dina E. Micheletti, Esq.
          FAZIO | MICHELETTI LLP
          2410 Camino Ramon, Suite 315
          San Ramon, California 94583
          Telephone: (925) 543 2555
          Facsimile: (925) 369 0344
          E-mail: jlf@fazmiclaw.com
                  dem@fazmiclaw.com


AETNA INC: Barrack Rodos Files Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Barrack, Rodos & Bacine on Jan. 29 disclosed that it has filed a
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Case No. 2:18-cv-00323-RK, on
behalf of investors who hold common stock of Aetna, Inc. ("Aetna"
or the "Company") (NYSE:AET), for alleged violations of Sections
14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in
connection with the proposed sale of the Company to CVS Health
Corporation.

The complaint alleges that the Form S-4 filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on January 4, 2018 and
disseminated to Aetna stockholders contains materially incomplete
and misleading information concerning the background of the
Proposed Transaction, the Aetna Board's recommendation, and key
inputs and assumptions used by Aetna's financial advisors in
providing their fairness opinions with regard to the Proposed
Transaction.  The complaint further alleges that without this
information, Aetna's stockholders cannot make an informed
decision on whether to vote their shares in favor of the Proposed
Transaction.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court
no later than March 19, 2018.  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 are a current Aetna stockholder and wish to discuss your
rights, please contact Barrack Rodos & Bacine at the following
toll-free number: 877-386-3304, or via e-mail to Julie B. Palley
(jpalley@barrack.com).  Barrack Rodos & Bacine has four decades
of experience prosecuting stockholder securities class actions
and derivative actions and has achieved some of the largest
recoveries in the history of such litigation. [GN]


ALLERGAN INC: Plumbers Fund Sues Over "Restatis" Price-fixing
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plumbers & Pipefitters Local 178 Health & Welfare Trust Fund, on
behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. Allergan,
Inc., Case No. 2:18-cv-00011 (E.D. Tex., January 15, 2018), is an
action for damages as a result of Allergan's conspiracy to
monopolize and contract in restraint of trade over prescription
cyclosporine emulsion ("Restasis") and its generic equivalents in
the United States.

Allergan, Inc. is a global pharmaceutical company focused on eye
care, neurosciences, medical dermatology, medical aesthetics,
breast enhancement, obesity intervention and urologics. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert Christopher, Esq.
      PARKER, BUNT & AINSWORTH PC
      100 E. Ferguson St., Suite 1114
      Tyler, TX 75702
      Telephone: (903) 531-3535
      Facsimile: (903) 533-9687
      E-mail: rcbunt@pbatyler.com

         - and -

      Lee Albert, Esq.
      Gregory B. Linkh, Esq.
      GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
      230 Park Avenue, Suite 530
      New York, NY 10169
      Telephone: (212) 682-5340
      E-mail: lalbert@glancylaw.com
              glinkh@glancylaw.com


ALPHA RECOVERY: O'Laire Sues over Debt Collection Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------
MICHELLE L. O'LAIRE, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. ALPHA RECOVERY CORPORATION,
a Colorado corporation; VELOCITY INVESTMENTS LLC, a New Jersey
limited liability company, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-00192
(E.D. Wisc., Feb. 3, 2018), seeks to recover statutory damages,
attorney fees, costs, and all other relief, equitable or legal in
nature, as deemed appropriate by this Court, pursuant to the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff, on her own behalf and on behalf of the class she
seeks to represent, brings this action for the illegal practices
of Defendants who, inter alia, used false, deceptive, and
misleading practices, and other illegal practices, in connection
with their attempts to collect an alleged debt from Plaintiff and
other similarly situated Wisconsin consumers.

The Plaintiff alleges Defendants' collection practices violate
the FDCPA. The FDCPA regulates the behavior of collection
agencies attempting to collect a debt on behalf of another. The
United States Congress has found abundant evidence of the use of
deceptive, and unfair debt collection practices by many debt
collectors, and has determined that abusive debt collection
practices contribute to a number of personal bankruptcies,
marital instability, loss of jobs, and invasions of individual
privacy.

ALPHA regularly collects, and attempts to collect, defaulted
debts which were incurred, or are alleged to have been incurred,
for personal, family, or household purposes on behalf of others
using the U.S. Mail, telephone, and Internet. In addition, the
principal purpose of ALPHA is the collection of such debts.

VELOCITY regularly collects, and attempts to collect, defaulted
debts which were incurred, or are alleged to have been incurred,
for personal, family, or household purposes on behalf of others
using the U.S. Mail, telephone, and Internet. In addition, the
principal purpose of VELOCITY is the purchase and collection of
defaulted consumer debts.

On advice of counsel, Plaintiff alleges that there existed a
principal-agent relationship between VELOCITY on the one-hand,
and ALPHA on the other hand. ALPHA was also the agent for
VELOCITY, acting within the course and scope of its employment at
the time of the incidents complained of herein, and were under
the direct supervision, control, and approval of VELOCITY. At a
minimum, at as the principal and a debt collector, VELOCITY is
vicariously liable for the illegal collection activities of other
debt collection companies and collectors, such as ALPHA, who are
working on its behalf to collect debts from consumers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


AMAZON.COM: Wants Solar Eclipse Glasses Class Action Tossed
-----------------------------------------------------------
C. Ryan Barber, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that a pair of Amazon.com customers should be barred from
bringing a class action over allegedly defective solar eclipse
glasses that were purchased online last year, the e-commerce
company told a judge on Jan. 29 in South Carolina federal
district court. [GN]


AMC ENTERTAINMENT: Sued Over Inaccurate Registration Statement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hawaii Structural Ironworkers Pension Trust Fund, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AMC
Entertainment Holdings, Inc., Adam M. Aron, Craig R. Ramsey,
Chris A. Cox, Lin Zhang, Jack Q. Gao, Maojun Zeng, Anthony J.
Saich, Lloyd Hill, Gary F. Locke, Howard W. Koch, Jr., Kathleen
M. Pawlus, Citigroup Global Markets Inc., Merrill Lynch, Pierce,
Fenner & Smith Incorporated, Barclays Capital Inc. and Credit
Suisse Securities (USA) LLC, Case No. 1:18-cv-00299 (S.D.N.Y.,
January 12, 2018), alleges that the Registration Statement and
Prospectus issued in connection with the Defendants' secondary
public offering (the "SPO") omitted and misrepresented material
facts about the Company and its business.

AMC Entertainment Holdings, Inc. owns and operates a theatrical
exhibition company in the United States and Europe. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
      ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
      58 South Service Road, Suite 200
      Melville, NY 11747
      Telephone: (631) 367-7100
      Facsimile: (631) 367-1173
      E-mail: srudman@rgrdlaw.com


ANTHEM INC: Savett Sues over Prerecorded Telephone Calls
--------------------------------------------------------
ADAM SAVETT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. ANTHEM, Inc., an Indiana corporation,
Defendant, the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-00274 (N.D. Ohio, Feb.
2, 2018), wants Anthem to cease placing prerecorded telephone
calls to consumers nationwide, as well as an award of statutory
damages, costs, and reasonable attorneys' fees.

Anthem is a health insurance company that placed telephone calls
featuring a prerecorded voice to consumers' residential telephone
lines throughout the nation. Anthem made these calls to
consumers' phones indefinitely regardless of whether the phone
numbers had been reassigned to new subscribers and thus no longer
belonged to the same consumers who enrolled in the first place.

Consequently, Anthem routinely made prerecorded calls to
consumers -- like Savett -- whose phone numbers previously
belonged to someone else. The Telephone Consumer Protection Act,
47 U.S.C. section 227, prohibits companies from making
prerecorded telephone calls to individuals without their prior
express consent. To satisfy the TCPA, such consent must come from
the actual, current subscriber of the phone number, not from the
former subscriber.

According to the FCC, the "unwitting recipients of reassigned
numbers" often "face a barrage of telemarketing voice calls and
texts along with debt collection calls [which] pose a unique
concern for consumers [and] are exactly the types [of calls] that
the TCPA is designed to stop."

For these reasons, Anthem, which has failed to implement proper
policies or protocols to identify and scrub reassigned numbers
from its database, systematically violates the TCPA by placing
prerecorded phone calls to recycled phone numbers (including
Savett's phone number) without consumers' consent. These TCPA
violations have caused Savett and the putative class to suffer
actual harm, including the violation of their statutory rights
and the aggravation, nuisance, and invasion of privacy that
necessarily accompany unsolicited phone calls.[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiff:

          Daniel R. Karon, Esq.
          Beau D. Hollowell, Esq.
          KARON LLC
          700 West St. Clair Ave., Suite 200
          Cleveland, OH 44113
          Telephone: (216) 622 1851
          Facsimile: (216) 241 8175
          E-mail: dkaron@karonllc.com
                  bhollowell@karonllc.com

               - and -

          Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
          EDELSON PC
          350 North LaSalle Street, 13th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 589 6370
          Facsimile: (312) 589 6378
          E-mail: brichman@edelson.com


APPLE INC: Jones Hits iOS Upgrade Bug, Undisclosed Battery Fix
--------------------------------------------------------------
Brent Jones and Karen Palmer, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Apple, Inc., Defendants,
Case No. 18-cv-00406, (N.D. Cal., January 18, 2018), seeks
redress for breach of implied contract, trespass to chattel,
breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing in violation of
California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act in accordance with
California's Unfair Competition Law.

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

iPhone users reported sudden shutdowns of iPhones 5 and 6 running
versions of iOS 10 software. In February of 2017, Apple claimed
that it had almost entirely resolved the issue in its latest
10.2.1 iOS update, however users still complained of slow
devices. Jones and Palmer purchased an iPhone 5 and iPhone 4S
respectively.

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

Plaintiff is represented by:

     William M. Audet, Esq.
     S. Clinton Woods, Esq.
     Ling Y. Kuang, Esq.
     AUDET & PARTNERS, LLP
     711 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 500
     San Francisco, CA 94102
     Telephone: (415) 568-2555
     Facsimile: (415) 568-2556
     Email: waudet@audetlaw.com
            cwoods@audetlaw.com
            lkuang@audetlaw.com


APPLE INC: "Mills" Suit Hits Upgrade Bug, Undisclosed Battery Fix
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judy Mills, Judith Dean, Carla Compagnone and Kenneth L. Buck,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. Apple Inc., Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-00780, (D.
N.J., January 18, 2018), seeks injunctive relief and damages
arising from Defendant's unlawful failure to inform consumers
that updating their iPhone 6, 6S, SE or 7 to iOS 10.2.1 (and/or
later to iOS 11.2) would dramatically and artificially reduce the
performance of these devices.  The Plaintiffs seek restitution of
illegally acquired money, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs,
as well as prejudgment and post-judgment interest and such other
and further relief resulting from negligent misrepresentation
and/or fraudulent omission.

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

Mills owns an iPhone 6, which was purchased new approximately
three years ago from Verizon Wireless. Dean owned an iPhone 6,
which was purchased new several years ago. Both phones were
covered by written warranties.

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

Plaintiff is represented by:

      James E. Cecchi, Esq.
      CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO P.C.
      5 Becker Farm Road
      Roseland, NJ 07068
      Tel: (973) 994-1700
      Email: JCecchi@carellabyrne.com

             - and -

      Christopher A. Seeger, Esq.
      SEEGER WEISS LLP
      77 Water Street, 26th Floor
      New York, NY 10005
      Tel: (212) 584-0700
      Email: cseeger@seegerweiss.com


APPLE INC: Loses Bid to Reverse iPhone Class Certification Order
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tina Bellon, writing for Reuters, reports that a California
appeals court on Jan. 29 said a trial court had erred by
certifying a class action by consumers suing Apple Inc over
alleged power button defects in certain iPhone models but stopped
short of reversing the order.

In a unanimous decision, the three-judge panel of the Fourth
Division of California's Court of Appeals said it would not grant
Apple's request to outright reverse the certification but ordered
the trial court judge to revisit the issue and apply the correct
legal standard in considering plaintiffs' experts. [GN]


APPLEBEE'S: Class Action Over Mandatory Tip Policy Can Proceed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jurist reports that a federal judge ruled on Jan. 26 that a class
action lawsuit may proceed against Applebee's for its mandatory
minimum tip policy.

US District Judge Paul Oetken of US District Court for the
Southern District of New York ruled that the restaurant needs to
disclose the mandatory policy to customers upfront.

Judge Oetken opined that while "tipping is a well-accepting
social norm [it] does not defeat plaintiffs' claims.  [T]he
social norm is that tips are expected but subject to the
customer's discretion."

The plaintiffs filed suit in March after eating at one of
Applebee's locations in Times Square and the computer system
required them to tip at least 18 percent.  The plaintiffs allege
this is an illegal mandatory surcharge.

Applebee's argues that the menu adequately disclosed on the
menus, which notes that prices do not include taxes or gratuity,
thereby invalidating plaintiffs' claims.  This was the same
argument they used in 2014 in the same court, resulting in a
dismissal.  However, according to Oetken, "the disclosure was
inadequate" in this instance.

Plaintiffs allege unfair business practices, false advertising,
breach of contract, negligent misrepresentation and unjust
enrichment. [GN]


ASSET ACCEPTANCE: "Noble" Suit Disputes Collection Letter
---------------------------------------------------------
Donna Noble, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Asset Acceptance, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 18-cv-00023, (E.D. Tenn., January 18, 2018), seeks statutory
damages, costs, and reasonable attorneys' fees under the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA).

Defendants attempted to collect a delinquent consumer debt from
Green, which she allegedly owes from a Providian Bank credit card
account. Asset Acceptance sent a collection letter to that failed
to state that Providian Bank could not also sue on the debt and
that Providian Bank could not also make a credit report about the
debt. Said debt at issue was time-barred by the statute of
limitations in the State of Tennessee, namely six years after the
cause of action accrued, notes the complaint.

Asset Acceptance is a bad debt buyer that buys large portfolios
of defaulted consumer debts for pennies on the dollar, which it
then collects upon directly, or through other collection
agencies. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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

             - and -

      Cynthia T. Lawson, Esq.
      Heather Banks, Esq.
      BOND, BOTES & LAWSON, P.C.
      6704 Watermour Way
      Knoxville, TN 37912
      Tel: (865) 938-0733
      Fax: (865) 938-7931
      Email: cynthialawson@bbllawgroup.com
             heatherbanks@bbllawgroup.com


BANK OF AMERICA: May 30 ISDAfix Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
---------------------------------------------------------------
If You Transacted in ISDAfix Instruments Between January 1, 2006
and January 31, 2014, You May Be Affected by Class Action
Settlements.

This notice is to alert Settlement Class Members to proposed
settlements reached with Defendants Bank of America, N.A.;
Barclays Bank PLC and Barclays Capital Inc.; Citigroup Inc.;
Credit Suisse AG, New York Branch; Deutsche Bank AG; The Goldman
Sachs Group, Inc.; HSBC Bank USA, N.A.; JPMorgan Chase & Co.;
Royal Bank of Scotland PLC; and UBS AG (collectively, "Settling
Defendants") in a class action against the Settling Defendants
and B.N.P. Paribas SA, ICAP Capital Markets LLC, Morgan Stanley &
Co. LLC, Nomura Securities International, Inc., and Wells Fargo
Bank, N.A. ("Non-Settling Defendants," and together with the
Settling Defendants, "Defendants").  The lawsuit alleges that the
Defendants engaged in anticompetitive acts that affected the
market for ISDAfix Instruments in violation of Section 1 of the
Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1.  The lawsuit also alleges that
Defendants were unjustly enriched under common law and breached
ISDA Master Agreements. The lawsuit was brought by, and on behalf
of, certain persons or entities (together, "Persons") who
transacted in ISDAfix Instruments.  The Defendants deny doing
anything wrong.

For the purposes of these settlements, "ISDAfix Instrument" means
(i) any and all interest rate derivatives, including but not
limited to any swaps, swap spreads, swap futures, variance swaps,
volatility swaps, range accrual swaps, constant maturity swaps,
constant maturity swap options, digital options, cash-settled
swaptions, physically-settled swaptions, swapnote futures, cash-
settled swap futures, steepeners, flatteners, inverse floaters,
snowballs, interest rate-linked structured notes, and digital and
callable range accrual notes, where denominated in USD or related
to USD interest rates, and (ii) any financial instruments,
products, or transactions related in any way to any USD ISDAfix
Benchmark Rates, including but not limited to any instruments,
products, or transactions that reference ISDAfix Benchmark Rates
and any instruments, products, or transactions relevant to the
determination or calculation of ISDAfix Benchmark Rates.

Settlements have been reached with the ten Settling Defendants.
The lawsuit continues against the five Non-Settling Defendants.
The Settling Defendants have agreed to pay $408.5 million (the
"Settlement Fund").  The United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York ("Court") authorized this notice.
Before any money is paid, the Court will hold a hearing to decide
whether to approve the settlements. Approval of these settlements
by the Court will resolve this lawsuit in its entirety with
respect to the Settling Defendants.

Subject to certain exceptions, the Settlement Class includes all
Persons who, from January 1, 2006 through January 31, 2014,
entered into, received or made payments on, settled, terminated,
transacted in, or held an ISDAfix Instrument, as defined above.

For anyone unsure if they are a Settlement Class Member, more
information, including a detailed notice, is available at
www.ISDAfixAntitrustSettlement.com, or by calling 1-844-789-6862
(U.S.), or +1-503-597-5526 (Int.).

Settlement Class Members who do not opt out of the Settlement
Class will be eligible to file a proof of Claim Form. The amount
of the payment will be determined by a Plan of Distribution.
Details about the Plan of Distribution are available at
www.ISDAfixAntitrustSettlement.com.  A date for distribution of
the Settlement Fund has not been set.  Proof of Claim Forms must
be submitted by July 16, 2018.

Settlement Class Members who do not opt out will release certain
legal rights against the Settling Defendants and the Released
Parties, as explained in the detailed notice and settlement
agreements, available at www.ISDAfixAntitrustSettlement.com.
Settlement Class Members who do not want to take part in the
proposed settlements must opt out by April 30, 2018.

Settlement Class Members may, but do not have to, comment on or
object to the proposed settlements, the Plan of Distribution, or
Class Counsel's application to the Court for an award of
attorneys' fees, expenses, and incentive awards to the Class
Plaintiffs for representing the Settlement Class.  To do so,
Settlement Class Members must file their comments or objections
by April 30, 2018.

Information on how to opt out, or file comments or objections, is
in the detailed notice available at
www.ISDAfixAntitrustSettlement.com.

The Court will hold a hearing on May 30, 2018, at 3:30 p.m., at
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York, Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley
Square, Courtroom 1105, New York, New York 10007 to consider
whether to approve the proposed settlements, the Plan of
Distribution, and Class Counsel's application for an award of
attorneys' fees, expenses, and incentive awards to the Class
Plaintiffs.  Settlement Class Members or their lawyers may ask to
appear and speak at the hearing at their own expense, but do not
have to.

The Court has appointed the lawyers listed below to represent the
Settlement Class in this lawsuit:

         Daniel L. Brockett
         Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP
         51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor
         New York, NY 10010

         David W. Mitchell
         Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd, LLP
         655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
         San Diego, CA 92101

         Christopher M. Burke
         Scott+Scott, Attorneys at Law, LLP
         707 Broadway, Suite 1000
         San Diego, CA 92101


BARRACUDA NETWORKS: Faces "Pollack" Suit Over Thoma Merger Plans
----------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Pollack, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Barracuda Networks, Inc., William D.
Jenkins, Jr., Jeffry R. Allen, John Harvey Kispert, Stephen P.
Mullaney, Michael D. Perone, and Chet Kapoor, Case No. 4:18-cv-
00317-HSG (N.D. Cal., January 15, 2017), is brought on behalf of
all public holders of the common stock of Barracuda Networks,
Inc., to enjoin the proposed merger between Barracuda and certain
affiliates of Thoma Bravo, LLC for $1.6 billion.

According to the complaint, Barracuda filed a Proxy Statement on
a Schedule 14A with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission,
which recommends that Barracuda stockholders vote in favor of the
Proposed Transaction.  However, the Proxy omits or misrepresents
material information concerning, among other things: (i)
management's financial projections for the Company that were
relied upon by the Board in recommending the Company's
shareholders vote in favor of the Proposed Merger; and (ii)
financial projections utilized by the Company's financial
advisor, Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC. The Complaint says the
Proposed Transaction will unlawfully divest Barracuda's public
stockholders of the Company's valuable assets without fully
disclosing all material information concerning the Proposed
Transaction to Company stockholders. To remedy the Defendants'
Exchange Act violations, Plaintiff seeks to enjoin the
stockholder vote on the Proposed Transaction unless and until
such problems are remedied.

Barracuda Networks, Inc. is an information technology services
company, which offers content security, networking, and
application delivery, as well as data storage, protection, and
disaster recovery services to customers worldwide. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Benjamin Heikali, 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

         - and -

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

         - and -

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


BARRACUDA NETWORKS: WeissLaw LLP Files Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
WeissLaw LLP on Jan. 30 disclosed that a class action was
commenced in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California on behalf of shareholders of Barracuda
Networks, Inc. ("Barracuda") (NYSE: CUDA) seeking to pursue
remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange
Act") in connection with the proposed acquisition of Barracuda by
private equity firm Thoma Bravo, LLC ("Thoma Bravo").

On November 27, 2017, Barracuda and Thoma Bravo announced that
they had entered into a definitive agreement pursuant to which
Thoma Bravo will acquire all outstanding shares of Barracuda in a
transaction valued at approximately $1.6 billion ("Proposed
Transaction").  Under the terms of the agreement, Barracuda
shareholders will receive $27.55 in cash for each share held.

The complaint seeks injunctive relief on behalf of the named
plaintiff and all Barracuda shareholders.  The plaintiff is
represented by WeissLaw, which has expertise in prosecuting
investor class actions and extensive experience in actions
involving financial fraud.  The complaint further alleges that in
an attempt to secure shareholder approval for the merger, the
defendants filed a materially false and/or misleading Proxy
Statement with the SEC in violation of the Exchange Act.  The
omitted and/or misrepresented information is believed to be
material to Barracuda shareholders' ability to make an informed
decision whether to vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction.

On January 26, 2018, Barracuda filed on Form DEFA14A with the
Securities and Exchange Commission an amendment to its January 9,
2018 definitive proxy statement that included supplemental
disclosures that addressed allegations set forth in the
complaint.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court
no later than sixty (60) days from January 30, 2018.  If you wish
to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this
notice or your rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's
counsel, Joshua M. Rubin of WeissLaw at 888.593.4771, or by e-
mail at stockinfo@weisslawllp.com.  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.

WeissLaw LLP has litigated hundreds of stockholder class and
derivative actions; recovered over a billion dollars for
defrauded clients. If you have information or would like legal
advice concerning possible corporate wrongdoing please email us
at stockinfo@weisslawllp.com. [GN]


BRINKERHOFF INSPECTION: Fails to Pay Employees OT, Action Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Joshua Holdridge, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Brinkerhoff Inspection, Inc.; Bront Bird;
Luke Bird; and Steven Sheffield, Case No. 7:18-cv-00007 (W.D.
Tex., January 12, 2018), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime wages for work more than 40 hours per
week.

Brinkerhoff Inspection, Inc. is in the business of providing
inspection services to oil and gas producers and others in the
energy industry. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Josh Borsellino, Esq.
      BORSELLINO, P.C.
      1020 Macon St., Suite 15 Fort
      Worth, TX 76102
      Telephone: (817) 908-9861
      Facsimile: (817) 394-2412
      E-mail: josh@dfwcounsel.com


C.C. SUBWAY: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, "Rodriguez" Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
EDITH RODRIGUEZ, as an individual, and on behalf of all similarly
situated employees, the Plaintiff, v. C.C. SUBWAY, LLC, A
California Limited Liability Corporation; and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC692670 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
Feb. 2, 2018), seeks to recover overtime wages and unpaid wages
under the California Labor Code.

The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants failed to pay all wages
due, including minimum, regular, and overtime wages as a result
of Defendants' policy of improperly paying its non-exempt hourly
employees; failed to provide meal and rest periods or
compensation in lieu; failed to pay wages of terminated or
resigned employees; and failed to provide accurate itemized wage
statements upon payment of wages.

C.C. Subway LLC is in the Sandwiches and Submarines Shop
business.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kevin Mahoney, Esq.
          Morgan Glynn, Esq.
          Alexander Perez, Esq.
          MAHONEY LAW GROUP
          249 East Ocean Boulevard, Suite 814
          Long Beach, CA 90802
          Telephone: (562) 590 5550
          Facsimile: (562) 590 8400
          E-mail: kmahonev@mahoney-law.net
                  mglvnn@mahoney-law.net
                  aperez@mahonev-law.net


CANADA: Minister Says Indian Hospital Suit Not an Ideal Approach
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lauren Pelley, writing for CBC News, reports that Liberal cabinet
minister Carolyn Bennett says the federal government hopes to
"right any wrongs" that happened within the country's now-
shuttered "Indian hospitals," but suggests a class-action lawsuit
may not be the ideal approach.

Ms. Bennett, the minister for Crown-Indigenous relations, made
the comments during a media scrum on Jan. 30, after CBC News
reported on a $1.1 billion class-action lawsuit launched against
the federal government regarding segregated hospitals across the
country.

"We hope to be able to get to the table as quickly as possible,"
Ms. Bennett said.  "We want justice to be done."

But Ms. Bennett says many of the things Indigenous survivors
often request -- the need for healing, the need for an apology --
can't be awarded by a court.  "The sooner we can get this out of
court, the better," she said.

The lawsuit, filed by two Canadian law firms, focuses on 29
segregated hospitals operated across the country by the federal
government between 1945 and the early 1980s.  Researchers say
thousands of Indigenous patients may have been admitted to the
institutions during that four-decade span.

The facilities were overcrowded, inadequately staffed, and rife
with physical and sexual abuse, alleges the statement of claim.

Indigenous patients were also unable to leave on their own
accord, it continues, and were "forcibly detained, isolated, and,
at times, restrained to their beds."

'There must be structural changes'
"It is truly unfortunate that it takes a class action to bring
attention to the issues that should have never occurred in the
first place," said Yvonne Boyer, the associate director of the
University of Ottawa Centre for Health Law, Policy and Ethics.

But Boyer says "no one really wins" class-action lawsuits in the
long-term. Instead, she hopes to see racism in Canada's modern
health care system addressed through more funding and increased
dialogue with Indigenous communities.

"There must be structural changes in health care to address
injustices in quality, access and health outcomes," she said.
"Indigenous people must co-design their own health services that
are constitutionally protective of their rights with culturally
appropriate and safe care."

Indigenous activist Gerald McIvor believes a class-action lawsuit
of some kind is necessary -- and hopes to file one of his own --
but worries that plaintiffs could wind up with only minimal
financial compensation.

Mr. McIvor feels a lawsuit should encompass alleged abuses within
not just government-run "Indian hospitals," but also tuberculosis
sanatoriums and other facilities in which First Nations children
were allegedly "victims of insidious medical procedures which
were tantamount to torture."

The recently-filed lawsuit focuses solely on the "Indian
hospitals" operated by the federal government, not other types of
institutions. [GN]


CANADA: Class Actions Mulled Over Administrative Segregation
------------------------------------------------------------
Arthur White-Crummey, writing for Regina Leader-Post, reports
that Regina lawyer Tony Merchant plans to file class action
lawsuits against the federal and provincial governments on behalf
of inmates who have been held in administrative segregation.

One of his legal assistants, Sherri Maier, made the announcement
during a Regina rally on behalf of Nicholas Dinardo -- whose
family claims he has been in segregation at Regina Correctional
Centre for more than 230 days.

"In Canada, our courts have said this is contrary to the Charter
of Rights and Freedoms," Merchant said. "Our courts have said,
and will say, this is punishment added onto punishment."

The lawsuit is open to all federal and provincial prisoners who,
at any time since 1992, were held in solitary confinement for
administrative reasons -- meaning they were isolated due to
security, safety or investigative concerns, and not as a
disciplinary measure.

He said any inmate in Canada can theoretically join the federal
case, though he will be focusing his efforts on Saskatchewan.

Mr. Merchant said he has already been contacted by about 30
current and former inmates who are interested in joining the
class action.  He planned to file with Court of Queen's Bench in
Regina on Feb. 2.  The main plaintiff is Daniel Theodore, one of
the three accused currently facing trial for the murder of Reno
Lee.

Mr. Theodore's co-accused, Bronson Gordon, is also named in the
lawsuit, as is Mr. Dinardo.

Mr. Merchant said that segregation violates several sections of
the Charter and various international conventions.  He argued
that it worsens mental health issues.  He went on to say that
criminologists have found that prisoners held in segregation are
more likely to reoffend.

"You've got all these things saying what you're doing is illegal
and stupid, and contrary to the aims of the prison system," he
said.

Ministry of Justice spokesman Drew Wilby responded that
administrative segregation is authorized by the Correctional
Services Act, and remains an important tool to "help ensure the
safety and security of the province's facilities."  But he said
it would be inappropriate to discuss Merchant's potential
lawsuit, or to comment on the length of time Mr. Dinardo has
spent in segregation.

According to documents obtained from the Saskatchewan government,
the use of administrative segregation in Saskatchewan jails
sometimes fails to meet the province's own legal requirements.

Mr. Merchant said he doesn't yet know how much money the class
action will seek in compensation.

Mr. Dinardo's sister, Prairie Crowe, said her brother told her he
wants to join Mr. Merchant's case.  She said he goes through good
days and bad, but his long stint in segregation has taken a toll.

"My brother already has lifelong issues going into jail, and
you're just exacerbating them," she said.  "It's inhumane, it's
cruel . . . people hang themselves in jail."

Ms. Crowe hopes the lawsuit will end the practice.

"Something needs to change." [GN]


CENTURYLINK: Faces Overbilling Class Action in Florida
------------------------------------------------------
Todd Ulrich, writing for WFTV9, reports that three months after
Action 9 first exposed overbilling complaints against
CenturyLink, the telecommunications giant now faces a class-
action lawsuit.  A top Orlando attorney filed the federal
lawsuit.

Fred Busching claims his internet and landline were supposed to
cost $80, but his CenturyLink bills packed a mean surprise.  "We
had one bill for $280, and I went through the roof," he said.

Jared Collin says his CenturyLink internet connection shut down
for weeks, but he never got promised refunds.  "A nightmare is
the best way to put it," said Collin.

A dozen more customers contacted Action 9 since the October
investigation and claimed the company routinely overbilled them.

Florida's attorney general is investigating, and now, there's a
class-action lawsuit in Florida.

"Are you claiming the overbilling was deliberate and systematic?"
asked Todd Ulrich.

"Absolutely, there's no question," said Attorney Mark O'Mara.
"Promising things they don't deliver, charging too much for what
they can deliver."

O'Mara, who successfully defended George Zimmerman in the Trayvon
Martin case, is taking on CenturyLink.  The federal lawsuit he
filed in Orlando has been rolled into a giant class-action
lawsuit with two dozen other attorneys nationwide.  The lawsuit
claims employee whistleblowers say they were encouraged to run up
customer bills.

"The former employees would walk in and go, 'Here's why they have
that complaint, because this is what we were doing to them,'"
said Mr. O'Mara.

The lawsuit seeks overbilling refunds and some future rate
discounts.

CenturyLink officials responded, telling Action 9 the company is
operating with honesty and integrity, the allegations are
unfounded and the company will vigorously defend itself.

Jared Collin and Fred Busching are still waiting for their
refunds.

"I have yet to see anything taken off my bill," said Mr. Collin.

29 customers contacted Action 9 with overbilling complaints since
2016, and CenturyLink resolved most issues.

The company settled a lawsuit with Minnesota's attorney general,
agreeing to disclose the full price, and stick to it.

CenturyLink's response:

"The allegations in the lawsuits are completely inconsistent with
our company culture.  Our position is clear -- we aim to operate
our business with honesty and integrity.

However speculative or unfounded we think these claims may be, we
are treating them very seriously and will vigorously defend
ourselves." [GN]


CHICAGO, IL: Sued for Discriminating Against Disabled Students
--------------------------------------------------------------
Equip for Equality disclosed that a federal civil rights class
action lawsuit was filed on Jan. 29 against the Chicago Public
Schools (CPS) for failing to adequately serve students with
disabilities and their parents who have limited English skills.
CPS serves a diverse community that includes a large population
of students from families whose native language is not English.
52,231 CPS students with disabilities receive special education
students and 41 percent, or approximately 21,000, of these
students lived in a household where English is not the native
language.  The Complaint gives numerous examples where parents
who have limited English skills were denied the opportunity to
have vital special education documents translated into their
native language.  Additionally, the Complaint documents that CPS
has repeatedly failed to provide competent interpreters at
important special education meetings for parents who have limited
English skills.  As a result, thousands of students with
disabilities have been harmed and denied the crucial special
education services they need and are entitled to by law.

The suit alleges violations of the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the
Equal Education Opportunities Act, and Section 504 of the
Rehabilitation Act.  The suit also names the Illinois State Board
of Education (ISBE) as a defendant for failing to provide proper
oversight of CPS and for failing to provide interpretation and
translated documents for due process hearings and mediations.
The suit was filed by Equip for Equality, the federally mandated
Protection and Advocacy System for people with disabilities in
Illinois, and Kirkland & Ellis, which is providing representation
on a pro bono basis.

"The special education process is already intimidating for
parents of students with disabilities," said Olga Pribyl, Vice
President for Special Education and Pro Bono at Equip for
Equality.  "It becomes exponentially more difficult for parents
who have limited English skills when they are not provided with
critical information about their children's education in their
native language."

The Complaint seeks a finding by a federal judge that CPS and
ISBE are in violation of the law and an order requiring that
parents with limited English proficiency be provided with special
education documents in their native language, and language
interpretation by competent interpreters at key special education
meetings.

"The law is clear that parents are entitled to meaningfully
participate in special education planning for their children by
receiving information in their native language," said
Donna Welch, lead pro bono attorney and a partner at Kirkland and
Ellis.  "Our firm is committed to ensuring that the promise of
meaningful participation becomes a reality for all parents and
students regardless of what language they speak."

"For thirty-two years, Equip for Equality has been fighting for
students with disabilities to receive the special education
services they need to be successful in school and in the real
world," said Zena Naiditch, President and CEO of Equip for
Equality.  "We hope this litigation will ensure that a parent's
limited English skills are not a barrier to a student's success."

The case is H.P. v. Board of Education of the City of Chicago,
2018 cv 0621. A copy of the complaint can be found at
www.equipforequality.org

                      About Equip for Equality

Established in 1985, Equip for Equality (EFE) is a private, not-
for-profit organization that advances the human and civil rights
of people with disabilities and serves as the Governor
designated, federally mandated Protection and Advocacy system for
Illinois.  EFE is dedicated to expanding opportunities for people
with disabilities to live full and independent lives by providing
self-advocacy assistance, legal services, disability rights
education, public policy advocacy and abuse investigations.
(Equip for Equality is supported by the U.S. Department of Health
& Human Services, Administration on Intellectual and
Developmental Disabilities.  This press release does not
represent the views, positions or policies of, or the
endorsements by that federal agency.)

                     About Kirkland & Ellis

Kirkland & Ellis -- http://www.kirkland.com/CSR-- is a global
law firm with more than 2,000 attorneys representing clients in
private equity, M&A and other complex corporate transactions,
litigation and dispute resolution/arbitration, restructuring, and
intellectual property matters.  From 13 offices around the world,
Kirkland lawyers are committed to providing legal services
without charge to those who cannot afford counsel, with the goals
of improving lives, bettering communities and deepening our
attorneys' professional experience.  Kirkland attorneys at all
levels pursue pro bono matters dealing with a variety of issues
such as immigration, disability rights, civil rights, prisoner
rights, death penalty cases and criminal appeals, guardianship,
veterans' benefits, education and the representation of nonprofit
organizations, among other areas.  In 2017, Kirkland attorneys
devoted more than 118,000 hours of free legal service to pro bono
clients. [GN]


CHICAGO, IL: 1.2-Mil. Motorists to Share $38.755MM Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Fran Spielman, writing for Chicago Sun Times, reports that nearly
40 percent of the 1.2 million motorists denied due process after
being slapped with tickets from Chicago's red light and speed-
cameras have claimed their slice of a $38.75 million settlement
pie.

Cash refunds will go to 389,187 motorists who paid their tickets.
The average refund check: $36.62.

In addition, 78,638 motorists who never paid their tickets will
have part of their debt forgiven and become eligible for
additional debt relief going forward.

Under that previously undisclosed $82.3 million program,
motorists who pay whatever is left of their fine after the
partial debt is wiped out will have late fees and collection
costs waived.

Some motorists will receive a combination of cash and debt
relief.

Added together, the cash refunds and debt relief will average
$58.50 per motorist.

Refund checks could be in the mail by late summer, but only after
the settlement is approved by a Cook County Circuit Court judge.

Plaintiffs attorney Jacie Zolna -- jzolna@cherry-law.com -- noted
that even a 10-percent claims rate is viewed as an excellent
response to a settlement stemming from a class-action lawsuit.
Some class-action settlements have struggled to reach a 1-percent
claims rate, he said.

Not so with the 1.2 million motorists denied due process when the
city failed to send them a second notice of violation (that was
required until May 2015) and also imposed $100 late fees four
days too soon.

They came forward in droves -- to the tune of 38.9 percent -- to
claim their piece of the pie during a 60-day window that ended on
Dec. 11.

To submit a claim, motorists were required to either fill out a
form and return it in a stamped, self-addressed envelope or go to
a website set up by the city for the purpose of administering the
settlement and fill out a claim form online.

"It's phenomenal that nearly half a million people were able to
participate.  Oftentimes, all the money isn't claimed and the
defendant gets to keep whatever is left over in the pot," said
Zolna -- jzolna@cherry-law.com -- a partner at the law firm of
Myron M. Cherry & Associates.

"That's not what's gonna happen here . . . . The city isn't gonna
be able to keep a single penny of this settlement.  They're gonna
have to pay out every single penny."

The 1.2 million motorists eligible for 50 percent refunds
together received 1.5 million red-light and speed-camera tickets
between 2010 and 2015, when the rules were changed to drop the
second notice requirement the city had ignored.

Almost as important as the refunds and debt relief is the city's
promise not to use any of those 1.5 million tickets when it comes
to determining whose car gets a Denver boot and whose driver's
license gets suspended.

"One of our named plaintiffs got three tickets in the mail at the
same time. . . . It was $300. Before she knew it, it doubled to
$600 she couldn't afford to pay. The city has been hounding her
for years to boot her car and take her license away trying to get
this money," Zolna said.

"People are in even worse shape than that.  There has been a
spike in bankruptcy filings. According to those studies, it's
due, in large part, to traffic debt."

Austin resident Delyn McKenzie-Lopez is getting $309.20 in debt
wiped off the books. Thanks to the debt relief provision, she'll
be able to satisfy the rest of her four-ticket, $976 debt for
just $90.80.

McKenzie-Lopez children borrowed the car and accumulated four
tickets--with fines that appeared to double overnight--before she
ever knew they got them.

"It's absolutely a great relief.  It was very stressful.  I'm
getting a ticket, it seemed like every other day," said McKenzie-
Lopez, 44.

"That particular area--in talking to other people that I know--
they received a lot of tickets there, too. You can get two or
three tickets in one day for the same thing."

On the day the City Council signed off on the settlement,
Mayor Rahm Emanuel offered motorists a mea culpa for the due
process mistakes on his watch.

"I take responsibility that, under my tenure . . . the continuity
of the way it operated was wrong, " the mayor said on that day.

Asked whether he was sorry, the mayor said: "It's implicit in the
payment.  As well as explicit because otherwise, we wouldn't have
agreed to it."

Corporation Counsel Ed Siskel said he agreed to the settlement to
avoid a massive liability for Chicago taxpayers.

Mr. Siskel pegged the amount at $264 million in nullified tickets
and $143 million in outstanding debt if a judge chose to void all
tickets issued during a five-year statute of limitations and $700
million in refunds and $206 million in debt if there was no
limit.

Still, Transportation Committee Chairman Anthony Beale (9th),
complained about the $11.7 million "pot of gold" awarded to
attorneys who filed the class-action lawsuit.

"If 100 percent of the people submit to get reimbursed, you're
gonna be waiting for your check -- a whole whopping $7,"
Mr. Beale said then.

Finance Committee Chairman Edward Burke (14th) insisted that the
average refund check would be more like $42 and that average
amount of forgiven debt would be $88.

Mr. Burke's prediction turned out to be a lot closer to the
truth. [GN]


CHICAGO BRIDGE: Leon Trust Seeks to Enjoin Merger with McDermott
----------------------------------------------------------------
THE GEORGE LEON FAMILY TRUST, Individually and On Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. CHICAGO BRIDGE &
IRON COMPANY N.V., L. RICHARD FLURY, FORBES I.J. ALEXANDER, JAMES
R. BOLCH, DEBORAH M. FRETZ, W. CRAIG KISSEL, LARRY D. MCVAY,
JAMES H. MILLER, MARSHA C. WILLIAMS, MCDERMOTT INTERNATIONAL,
INC., MCDERMOTT TECHNOLOGY, B.V., MCDERMOTT TECHNOLOGY
(AMERICAS), LLC, MCDERMOTT TECHNOLOGY (US), LLC, COMET I B.V.,
COMET II B.V., CB&I OIL & GAS EUROPE B.V., CB&I GROUP UK
HOLDINGS, CB&I NEDERLAND B.V., and THE SHAW GROUP, INC., the
Defendants, Case No. 4:18-cv-00314 (S.D. Tex., Feb. 2, 2018),
seeks to enjoin defendants and all persons acting in concert with
them from proceeding with, consummating, or closing a proposed
merger transaction.  In the event defendants consummate the
Proposed Transaction, Plaintiff asks the Court to rescind it and
set it aside, or award rescissory damages, pursuant to the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The case stems from a proposed transaction announced on December
18, 2017, pursuant to which Chicago Bridge & Iron Company N.V.
and its affiliates will be acquired by McDermott International,
Inc. and its affiliates. On December 18, 2017, CB&I's Board of
Directors caused the Company and its affiliates -- Comet I B.V.,
Comet II B.V., CB&I Oil & Gas Europe B.V., CB&I Group UK
Holdings, CB&I Nederland B.V., and The Shaw Group, Inc. -- to
enter into a business combination agreement with McDermott and
its affiliates.

Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, McDermott and
Chicago Bridge will combine their businesses by a series of
transactions, beginning with McDermott Bidco launching an offer
to exchange any and all of CB&I's common stock for 2.47221 shares
of McDermott common stock, or, if McDermott effects a planned
3-to-1 reverse stock split prior to the closing of the Proposed
Transaction, 0.82407 shares of McDermott common stock.

Upon closing of the Proposed Transaction, McDermott stockholders
will own approximately 53% of the outstanding shares of McDermott
common stock and CB&I shareholders will own approximately 47% of
the outstanding shares of McDermott common stock.

On January 24, 2018, defendants filed a Form S-4 Registration
Statement with the United States Securities and Exchange
Commission ("SEC") in connection with the Proposed Transaction.
The Registration Statement omits material information with
respect to the Proposed Transaction, which renders the
Registration Statement false and misleading.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joe Kendall, Esq.
          Jamie J. McKey, Esq.
          KENDALL LAW GROUP, PLLC
          3232 McKinney Avenue, Suite 700
          Dallas, TX 75204
          Telephone: (214) 744 3000
          Facsimile: (214) 744 3015
          E-mail: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com
                  jmckey@kendalllawgroup.com

               - and -

          RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
          300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 295 5310
          Facsimile: (302) 654 7530

               - and -

          RM LAW, P.C.
          1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 300
          Berwyn, PA 19312
          Telephone: (484) 324 6800
          Facsimile: (484) 631 1305


CKS FINANCIAL: "McAllister" Disputes Collection Letter Validity
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dustin McAllister, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. CKS Financial, LLC and John and Jane Does
Numbers 1 Through 25, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-00094 (E.D.
Wisc., January 18, 2018), seeks actual and statutory damages,
costs, and reasonable attorneys' fees under the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

On January 17, 2017, CKS attempted to collect from Plaintiff an
allegedly defaulted financial obligation that arose out of a
transaction with Worlds Foremost Bank - Cabelas Club Visa account
with a past-due balance. Said letter failed to provide
information regarding how to dispute the validity of the Debt and
request validation as required by law, says the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Andrew T. Thomasson, Esq.
      STERNTHOMASSON LLP
      150 Morris Avenue, 2nd Floor
      Springfield, NJ 07081-1329
      Tel: (973) 379-7500
      Fax: (973) 532-5868
      Email: andrew@sternthomasson.com


DEUTSCHE BANK: Bond Investors Seek Class Action Certification
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Hill, writing for Law360, reports that bond investors suing
Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. over its handling of nearly five
dozen residential mortgage-backed securities trusts originally
worth a combined $85.8 billion have urged a New York federal
judge to certify their case as a class action.

The investors, which include funds of BlackRock Inc., PIMCO and
other asset managers, bought notes in the trusts and claim to
have suffered billions of dollars in losses as a result of the
Deutsche Bank unit's alleged failure to fulfill its obligations.

The case is Blackrock Balanced Capital Portfolio (FI) et al v.
Deutsche Bank National Trust Company et al, Case No. 1:14-cv-
09367 (S.D.N.Y.).  The case is assigned to Judge Jesse M. Furman.
The case was filed November 24, 2014. [GN]


DFL PIZZA: Faces "Wilson" Suit Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kaylee Wilson, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
persons v. DFL Pizza, LLC, Case No. 1:18-cv-00109 (D. Col.,
January 15, 2018), is brought against the Defendants for failure
to pay delivery drivers' minimum wages in violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

DFL Pizza, LLC operates a chain of Domino's Pizza stores in
Colorado. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mark A. Potashnick, Esq.
      WEINHAUS & POTASHNICK
      11500 Olive Boulevard, Suite 133
      St. Louis, MO 63141
      Telephone: (314) 997-9150
      Facsimile: (314) 997-9170
      E-mail: markp@wp-attorneys.com

         - and -

      Richard M. Paul III, Esq.
      PAUL LLP
      601 Walnut, Suite 300
      Kansas City, MO 64106
      Telephone: (816) 981-8100
      Facsimile: (816) 981-8101
      E-mail: Rick@PaulLLP.com


ENCORE RECEIVABLE: Reese Sues over Debt Collection Practices
------------------------------------------------------------
Donald Reese, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Encore Receivable Management, Inc., a
Kansas corporation, and Allied Interstate, LLC, a Minnesota
limited liability company, the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-00894
(N.D. Ill., Feb. 2, 2018), seeks to recover damages under the
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants act as debt collector,
as defined by section 1692a of the FDCPA, because they regularly
uses the mails and/or the telephone to collect, or attempt to
collect, defaulted consumer debts.

Encore operates a defaulted debt collection business, and
attempts to collect debts from consumers in virtually every
state, including consumers in the State of Illinois. In fact,
Encore was acting as a debt collector as to the defaulted
consumer debt it attempted to collect from Plaintiff.

Encore sent Mr. Reese an initial form collection letter, dated
September 11, 2017, demanding payment of a defaulted debt he
allegedly owed to Ashley Furniture. That collection letter
contained the notice required by section 1692g of the FDCPA of
his "validation rights", i.e., that he had 30 days to dispute the
debt, etc.

Inexplicably, and only four days later, Defendant Allied also
sent Mr. Reese an initial form collection letter, dated September
15, 2017, demanding payment for the same defaulted debt that he
allegedly owed to Ashley Furniture. This collection letter also
contained the notice required by section 1692g of the FDCPA of
his "validation rights", i.e., that he had 30 days to dispute the
debt, etc. There was, however, no information as to how Encore's
prior demand for payment and Allied's current demand for payment
fit together, why Allied was also now collecting the debt, or why
both Encore and Allied were collecting the same debt at the same
time.

Violations of the FDCPA which would lead a consumer to alter his
or her course of action as to whether to pay or whether to
dispute a debt, or which would be a factor in the consumer's
decision making process, are material, see, Lox v. CDA, 689 F.3d
818, 827 (7th Cir. 2012).  According to the complaint,
Defendants' conflicting collection demands left Plaintiff without
the statutorily-required information of how long he had to
exercise his validation rights, and to whom he had to exercise
them, or to whom he needed to make payment -- all of which is
material information that would play a role in a consumer's
decision of what to do about the collection of the debt at
issue.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


FACEBOOK INC: Covington Attorneys Discuss Privacy Case Ruling
-------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel P. Cooper, Esq. -- dcooper@cov.com -- and Joseph Jones,
Esq. -- jjones@cov.com -- of Covington & Burling LLP, in an
article for The National Law Review, report that on January 25,
2018, the Court of Justice of the European Union ("CJEU") handed
down a ruling permitting consumer privacy actions to be brought
in the consumer's home jurisdiction -- as opposed to the
jurisdiction in which the defendant data controller has its main
establishment.

Background
Maximilian Schrems ("Schrems") -- an Austrian resident, lawyer
and privacy activist (best known for his involvement in
litigation relating to the EU-U.S. Safe Harbor and the EU Model
Clauses) -- brought a class action against Facebook's Irish-
registered office, before the Austrian courts.  Mr. Schrems'
action alleges various breaches of Austrian, Irish, and EU data
privacy rules, and includes claims for damages arising from these
alleged breaches.

Mr. Schrems, a Facebook user of ten years, initially registered
with Facebook under a false name for personal purposes only,
engaging in typical private uses of the site such as to share
photos and posts with his 250 or so Facebook Friends.  Then, in
2011, Mr. Schrems created a Facebook page to report on his legal
proceedings against Facebook Ireland, reference his lectures and
media appearances, advertise his books and solicit public
donations.

The Austrian Supreme Court sought a preliminary ruling from the
CJEU on two points.

  -- Whether Mr. Schrems is a "consumer" as defined and
interpreted under EU law (namely Article 15 of Regulation No.
44/2001 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of
judgments in civil and commercial matters), in relation to his
Facebook account, specifically the use of his Facebook page ("the
Consumer Issue").

  -- Whether Mr. Schrems could bring his action alongside and on
behalf other consumers in contractual relationships with
Facebook, those consumers numbering more than 25,000 and residing
in Austria, other Member States, and outside the EU ("the Class
Action Issue").

Decision

   -- The Consumer Issue. The CJEU ruled that Mr. Schrems could
be considered a "consumer" for the purpose of bringing a claim
against Facebook's Irish-registered office in Austria.
Mr. Schrems' activity on Facebook -- including activities
associated with his commercial or professional endeavors -- did
not prevent him from maintaining his consumer user status,
entitling him to launch claims in his domestic courts.  The CJEU
held that a user may still be considered a "consumer" for the
purpose of EU consumer law if the link between the user's
contract and any professional activities is "negligible".  The
CJEU found that expertise developed by Mr. Schrems and his
agreeing to represent other consumers in their claims against
Facebook did not deprive him of his consumer status under EU law.

   -- The Class Action Issue.  The CJEU found that Mr. Schrems,
as a consumer, could not be assigned the claims of other
consumers for the purpose of bringing a class action against
Facebook in Austria.  In other words, Mr. Schrems can only act as
a consumer with respect to his own relationship with Facebook,
and cannot remain a consumer, and avail himself of the
protections extended to consumers under EU law (namely Article 15
of Regulation No. 44/2001) to bring claims locally, where he acts
on behalf of other consumers.  This position, the CJEU ruled,
cannot be circumvented by assigning claims.

Significance and Next Steps
The CJEU expanded the scope and meaning of "consumer" under EU
law.  Notwithstanding the presence of non-traditional consumer
activities (e.g., activities related to a person's profession),
an individual will not be deprived of their consumer status.
This decision potentially exposes defendants in "consumer"
actions to being sued in the consumer's -- rather than the
defendant's -- home court with those local rules applying.

It remains to be seen how significant the CJEU's ruling on the
class action issue will be.  The ruling specifically concerns the
ability for a consumer, as defined by EU law, to initiate a class
action on behalf of other consumers.  However, from May 25, 2018,
Article 80 of the GDPR shall empower data subjects to instruct a
not-for-profit body, organization or association to bring actions
on their behalf.  It also permits Member States to adopt rules
allowing such bodies, organizations or associations to bring
claims on behalf of data subjects without a mandate from the
relevant data subjects.

The proceedings now return to the Austrian courts, where
Mr. Schrems can continue with his individual -- rather than
multi-party -- lawsuit against Facebook. [GN]


FIAT CHRYSLER: Three Former Employees File Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a proposed class-action lawsuit
has been filed by three employees against Fiat Chrysler and
United Auto Workers in connection with a federal corruption
investigation.

The Detroit News and Detroit Free Press report on Jan. 29 that
the suit alleges union dues paid from 2009 to 2015 may have been
spent on tainted or illegal bargaining.

Former Fiat Chrysler executive Al Iacobelli (IKE'-uh-belly)
handled labor relations and admitted that he was trying to gain
an advantage for the automaker.  He has pleaded guilty to paying
$1.5 million in cash and gifts to high-ranking UAW members.

Then-UAW vice president General Holiefield was charged in the
case, but died in 2015.  His wife also is charged.

The money for the scheme came from the UAW-Chrysler National
Training Center in Detroit.

UAW denies the payments influenced contract bargaining. [GN]


FINAL LEVEL: Fails to Pay Minimum Wage & Overtime, Loebell Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
GREGORY LOEBELL, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. FINAL LEVEL PRODUCTIONS,
LLC, a California Limited Liability Company, ERIC BATES, an
individual, ROBERT PARADA, an individual, and DOE ONE through and
including DOE TEN, the Defendants, Case No. BC692789 (Cal. Super.
Ct., Feb. 2, 2018), seeks to recover minimum wage and overtime
under California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to timely
compensate Plaintiff or other Aggrieved Employees for all
outstanding wages, and did not provide Plaintiff or other
Aggrieved Employees wage statements with required information,
including but not limited to, hours worked, the inclusive dates
of the pay period, employee identification number or last four
digits of his social security number, and all applicable rates of
pay.

Final Level Productions, LLC is in the television film production
business.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alan Harris, Esq.
          Min Ji Gal, Esq.
          HARRIS & RUBLE
          655 North Central Avenue 17th Floor
          Glendale CA 91203
          Telephone: 323 962 3777
          Facsimile: 323 962 3004
          E-mail: harrisa@harrisandruble.com
                  mgal@harrisandruble.com


FINANCIAL ASSET: "Loveday" Suit Disputes Collection Letter
----------------------------------------------------------
Melissa Loveday individually and on behalf of a class of
similarly situated persons, Plaintiff, v. Financial Asset
Management Systems, Inc. (FAMS), Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-10218,
(E.D. Mich., January 18, 2018), seeks actual and statutory
damages, costs, and reasonable attorneys' fees under the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act.

Plaintiff received a letter from FAMS, dated January 27, 2017,
regarding a student loan debt alleged to be owed to Navient
Credit Finance Corp for her federally backed student loan.
Defendant attempted to collect a time barred debt, using a form
letter, without informing the debtor that they cannot be sued on
the debt because of the age of the debt, says the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Curtis C. Warner, Esq.
     WARNER LAW FIRM, LLC
     350 S. Northwest HWY., Ste. 300
     Park Ridge, IL 60068
     Tel: (847) 701-5290
     Email: cwarner@warner.legal

            - and -

     John A. Evancek, Esq.
     KELLEY & EVANCHECK PC
     43695 Michigan Ave.
     Canton, MI 48188
     Tel: (734) 397-4540
     Email: john@kelawpc.com


FITNESS INT'L: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Gym Membership
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lori Rocca, individually, and on behalf of other members of the
general public similarly situated v. Fitness International, LLC,
and Does 1-10, Case No. 8:18-cv-00058 (C.D. Cal., January 15,
2018), seeks to stop Defendants' practice of cheating consumers
out of thousands of dollars each and to obtain redress for a
nationwide class of consumers who purchased gym memberships from
the Defendants.

Fitness International, LLC is a California limited liability
company and is engaged in the business owning and operating
fitness and training facilities open to the public. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
      Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
      324 S. Beverly Dr., #725
      Beverly Hills, CA 90212
      Telephone: (877) 206-4741
      Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
      E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
              abacon@toddflaw.com


FLINT, MI: ACLU, White & Case Provide Testimony in Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
WILX reports that the American Civil Liberties Union, the
Education Law Center, and White & Case LLP provided testimony on
Jan. 29 in Federal court on behalf of children in Flint exposed
to lead.

The lawsuit claims that the state has not identified children who
were affected by lead poisoning in Flint.

Federal and educational disability laws require states to provide
the appropriate special education services and accommodations to
students that are affected by things such as lead posing.

On Jan. 29 the plaintiff's asked for a court order that would
force the state of Michigan to start giving screenings and
assessments to children in Flint to address their elevated
exposure to lead.

The class action lawsuit was originally filed in 2016. [GN]


FRANKLIN TEMPLETON: Loses Bid to Appeal Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------
Rebecca Moore, writing for PlanSponsor, reports that the 9th U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals has denied Franklin Templeton's petition
for permission to appeal a district court's order granting class
action certification in a self-dealing suit regarding its 401(k)
plan.

In its argument, the firm pointed out that plaintiff Marlon H.
Cryer signed an agreement not to pursue class action claims
against the firm in return for receiving post-severance benefits.
Cryer contended that the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
(ERISA) Section 502(a)(2) mandates that he bring his claims on
behalf of the plan and similarly situated participants.  But,
Franklin Templeton's lawyers said a Supreme Court decision in
LaRue v. DeWolff, Boberg & Assoc., Inc. allows Mr. Cryer to
pursue a claim on behalf of himself.

Mr. Cryer sued Franklin Resources and the plan's investment
committee alleging that defendants breached their fiduciary
duties by causing the plan to invest in funds offered and managed
by Franklin Templeton, when better-performing and lower-cost
funds were available.  Last January, a district court judge
denied a motion to dismiss the suit, which Franklin Templeton
said was not allowed due to Mr. Cryer's agreement.

The 9th Circuit offered no explanation for why it denied the
firm's petition. [GN]


FUYAO GLASS: Workers File Class Action Over Wages, Scheduling
-------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Gnau, writing for Dayton Daily News, reports that thirteen
Fuyao Glass America workers and former workers have sought to
join a potential class-action lawsuit against the company over
wages and scheduling.

That's a tiny sliver of a factory workforce that has about 1,500
production workers.

But Robert DeRose, a Columbus attorney representing the workers,
said in a recent interview that he doesn't necessarily need a
large number of Fuyao employees to join the lawsuit in order to
achieve class-action status.

"I have to show that they (Fuyao workers and former workers) are
similarly situated," Mr. DeRose said.  "We've shown that 13
people (so far) agree that they are all treated similarly."

"Changing their pay practices to comply with the federal and Ohio
wage statutes is one of our goals," Mr. DeRose said.

Mr. DeRose with other attorneys represent Julia Staggs, a former
Fuyao employee who first sued the auto glass manufacturer in June
2017.

Staggs worked at Fuyao in the tempered assembly section of the
plant from September 2016 to December 2016, when she was
terminated, according to a filing from Fuyao's attorneys.

She charged that she worked overtime at Fuyao without being paid
a time-and-a-half wages for that work.  She contends also that
she and others were not completely relieved of duties for meal
breaks and other times.

She claims that over the Thanksgiving weekend in 2016, Fuyao
"promised" to pay Staggs and about 100 other employees time-and-
one-half wages for all hours worked that weekend, as an
enticement to work extra that weekend.

"Defendant (Fuyao) has failed to pay plaintiff and approximately
100 other similarly situated employees time and one half of their
regular rates of pay for all hours they worked," the suit
charges.  Instead, employees received $50 gift cards, the suit
claims.

Staggs and her attorneys also argue that Fuyao automatically
deducts from workers' pay for lunch breaks -- whether or not
employees actually take the breaks.  They claim that Fuyao
deducts for a half-hour break from employee pay, although some
employees work through lunch or they don't take the entire 30
minutes as an uninterrupted break from work.

Fuyao representatives have denied the allegations in the suit and
are fighting the action.

In filings, Fuyao acknowledges using a "30-minute auto-deduct
program for meal breaks." But the company says that when
employees work through their breaks, they are paid accordingly.

Scott Young, one of the attorneys representing Fuyao, declined to
comment at length on the lawsuit, but said: "Fuyao Glass America
(FGA) denies any allegations by the plaintiffs that they were not
properly paid by FGA."

Young also said Fuyao takes the position that class certification
for the plaintiffs in this action is not appropriate.

The plaintiffs' attorneys -- which include three lawyers from
Columbus and one from Cincinnati -- hope that U.S. District Court
Judge Thomas Rose will offer "conditional certification" as a
class-action lawsuit.

Mr. DeRose sees a possible multi-stage process playing out:
Working to achieve conditional certification as a class-action
lawsuit, notifying other Fuyao workers of the lawsuit and their
rights, then litigation.

If class-action status is granted, then Mr. DeRose and his fellow
attorneys on the plaintiffs' side hope to have permission to
contact other Fuyao workers about the lawsuit.

"I need permission from a judge to talk with them specifically
about this case," Mr. DeRose said.

The plaintiffs' attorneys have asked Rose for permission to write
workers letters, send them texts or emails. "It's soliciting
clients with the permission of the courts," DeRose said.

But while Mr. DeRose and his colleagues can't yet solicit workers
directly, workers who are aware of the suit are slowly starting
to join, Mr. DeRose said.

Clients who join the lawsuit can seek damages going as far back
as two years, if they worked for Fuyao that long, Mr. DeRose
said.

Fuyao Global founder and Chairman Cho Tak Wong bought the Fuyao
plant in Moraine -- once home to a General Motors SUV assembly
operation -- in May 2014.  Work refurbishing the plant and slowly
beginning glass manufacturing slowly began in the months
afterward. [GN]


GARCES RESTAURANT: Sued Over Produce Deliveries Amid Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Walsh, writing for Courier Post, reports that a West Deptford
firm has sued celebrity restaurateur Jose Garces, alleging it's
owed a lot of lettuce for produce deliveries.

J. Ambrogi Food Distribution Inc. is seeking some $54,000 for
deliveries to eight Garces operations, including Distrito, Volver
and Tinton, according to its lawsuit.

The complaint is one of two filed against Garces' restaurant
operations in federal court, Philadelphia.

A separate action, a proposed class-action suit brought by a New
York man, alleges a website for a Garces restaurant in
Philadelphia discriminates against blind people.

A representative for Garces, the president of Garces Restaurant
Group Inc., had no immediate comment.

The Philadelphia-based business operates more than a dozen
restaurants in South Jersey, Pennsylvania and New York.  Its
outlets include Distrito at the Moorestown Mall and Ol¢n in
Atlantic City.

In its suit, Ambrogi alleges the defendants "recently informed
(Ambrogi) that they did not have money to pay . . . and that no
payments would be forthcoming."

It contends the funds should have been available in a trust
"designed to assure payment to produce suppliers."

The lawsuit, filed Jan. 19, also seeks interest and attorney's
fees.

The proposed class-action suit, filed Jan. 22, asserts a website
for The Olde Bar, a Garces restaurant on Walnut Street in Center
City, has "access barriers that make it difficult, if not
impossible, for blind customers to use."

The suit says "assistive computer technology," such as
descriptive links and resizable texts, would make the site
accessible to blind patrons.

The suit, brought by Michael Godino of Long Island, alleges a
violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act.  It seeks
court-ordered changes to the website, as well as "compensatory
damages" for class members "subjected to unlawful
discrimination."

Mr. Godino brought similar suits against two other downtown
eateries, Federal Donuts and Wm. Mulherin's Sons.  He also has
suits pending against restaurants in New York and Massachusetts,
court records show.

A law firm representing Mr. Godino, Lee Litigation Group of New
York City, did not respond to a request for comment. [GN]


GOAUTO LLC: Medina Sues over Unwanted Text Message Calls
--------------------------------------------------------
OSCAR MEDINA, on behalf of himself and other persons similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v.  GOAUTO, LLC, the Defendant, Case No.
2:18-cv-00996 (E.D. La., Feb. 1, 2018), seeks injunction
requiring Defendant to cease all unlawful text messaging
activities, and seeks an award of statutory damages, together
with costs and reasonable attorneys' fees.

The Plaintiff brings this class action complaint and demand for
jury trial against Defendant to stop its practices of making
unauthorized and unwanted text message calls to the cellular
telephones of consumers nationwide and to obtain redress for all
persons injured by its conduct.

According to the complaint, GoAuto is a provider of car insurance
to consumers in Louisiana and Nevada. In order to increase its
revenue, Defendant sends unauthorized automated text message
advertisements to thousands of consumers' cellular telephones.

The Defendant takes steps necessary to physically place such text
message calls using an automated telephone dialing system and/or
are so involved in placing the texts as to be deemed to have
initiated them. Defendant does not obtain the required consent
from such consumers to make such text message calls and,
therefore repeatedly violate the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Roberto Luis Costales, Esq.
          William H. Beaumont, Esq.
          Jonathan M. Kirkland, Esq.
          BEAUMONT COSTALES LLC
          3801 Canal Street, Suite 207
          New Orleans, LA 70119
          Telephone: (504) 534 5005


GREENWAY RESOURCE: Salgado Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ELIAS SALGADO, on behalf of himself and other persons similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. GREENWAY RESOURCE RECOVERY, LLC,
Defendant, the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-00889 (N.D. Ill., Feb.
2, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was employed as a
manual laborer by the Defendant. While working for the Defendant,
Plaintiff was not paid one-and-a-half times his regular hourly
rate for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours a workweek, in
violation of the FLSA. The Plaintiff was hired by Defendant in
March 2014 and worked for Defendants until January 2017.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Emily A. Westermeier, Esq.
          Roberto Luis Costales, Esq.
          William H. Beaumont, Esq.
          BEAUMONT COSTALES LLC
          3151 W. 26th Street, 2nd Floor
          Chicago, IL 60623
          Telephone: (773) 831 8000
          E-mail: rlc@beaumontcostales.com
                  whb@beaumontcostales.com
                  eaw@beaumontcostales.com


HALLIBURTON COMPANY: "German" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Brian German, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Halliburton Company, Case No. 4:18-cv-00100 (S.D.
Tex., January 12, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages
and other damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Halliburton Company is an oil and natural gas company operating
worldwide and throughout the United States, including Texas. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
      Matthew S. Parmet, Esq.
      BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
      8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
      Houston, TX 77046
      Telephone: (713) 877-8788
      Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
      E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com
              mparmet@brucknerburch.com

         - and -

      Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
      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


HEWLETT PACKARD: Settles Class Action Over Pavillion Screens
------------------------------------------------------------
Shaun Nichols, writing for The Register, reports that HP has
settled a class-action lawsuit in the US over the failing screens
in some of its Pavillion notebooks.

Judge Thomas Kuhnle of the Santa Clara County Superior Court in
California gave final approval on Jan. 26 to the settlement deal
that will see the PC vendor hand over $6.5m to customers who,
back in 2002, purchased one of 12 Pavilion notebook models that
were prone to failing screens.

Under the deal, HP will hand over $2.8m to cover attorneys fees,
$10,000 to each of the three named plaintiffs, and $494,143 to
cover additional costs. The remaining money will be divided up
among everyone who filed a claim on their defective notebooks.

The class covered the following HP Pavilion models:

   -- zt1150
   -- zt1155
   -- zt1170
   -- zt1175
   -- zt1180
   -- zt1185
   -- zt1190
   -- zt1195
   -- zt1250
   -- xz185
   -- xz275
   -- xz295

The suit, first filed 2003, claims HP wronged customers when it
sold laptops containing faulty inverters that resulted in screens
flickering and going dim.  Specifically, the suit alleged, the
inverters were improperly soldered in a way that made them prone
to cracking when screwed into the laptop.

Adding insult to injury the suit alleges that HP also replaced
the failed inverters with another defective unit, in some cases.

"Despite HP's affirmative representations of reliability,
mobility, 'bright and crisp' display screens and multimedia
capabilities, it knowingly sold computers to plaintiffs and class
members that contained defective inverters," the complaint
alleged.

"Specifically, HP sold more than 70,000 class computers
containing an inverter made by TDK with an insufficient margin on
the fuse."

The settlement deal says 60,578 people are covered in the class
action and have been notified of the deal via postcard.

To get a cut of the payout, you will have to have filed a claim
by January 15, so if you're only now hearing about the settlement
you're out of luck. Those that have filed and provided
documentation of their purchase and serial number will be able to
receive $1200, while those who don't have their documentation
handy will only get $500 per unit. [GN]


HOME WARRANTY: Denial of Motion to Compel Arbitration Upheld
------------------------------------------------------------
Law Journal Editorial Board reports that Amanda Kernahan filed a
consumer fraud act class action against Home Warranty
Administrator of Florida, Inc. and another company providing for
care of home appliances and systems.  The Appellate Division
upheld the denial of summary judgment and a motion to compel
arbitration.  The courts found the waiver of the right to sue
ineffective.

The plaintiff alleged that "a section of the Agreement located on
the last page entitled 'MEDIATION' failed to advise her that she
was waiving her right to file a court action and have her claims
decided by a jury; instead she was required to present her claims
in an arbitration, at which the remedies of treble damages,
punitive damages, attorney's fees and costs were not available."

The defendants argue that the Appellate Division holding and
Atalese v. U.S. Legal Services Group, L.P., 219 N.J. 430 (2014),
on which it relies, conflict with the Federal Arbitration Act.
Our Supreme Court has granted certification.

Defendants rely on Kindred Nursing Centers, L.P. v. Clark, 137 S.
Ct. 1421 (2017).  In an opinion by Justice Elena Kagan, the
Supreme Court majority emphasizes that the Federal Arbitration
Act preempts state statutes or decisions that burden arbitration
agreements beyond ordinary contract principles. But they
acknowledge that state court rulings that do not disfavor
arbitration are to be upheld: "The Kentucky Supreme Court began
its opinion by stating that the Wellner power of attorney was
insufficiently broad to give Beverly [Wellner] the authority to
execute an arbitration agreement for [plaintiff's decedent] Joe
[Wellner].  If that interpretation of the document is wholly
independent of the court's clear-statement rule, then nothing we
have said disturbs it.  But if that rule at all influenced the
construction of the Wellner power of attorney, then the court
must evaluate the document's meaning anew [on remand]."

Our Supreme Court and the Appellate Division have made clear that
our law requires -- across the board -- express waiver of
constitutional and statutory rights, as permitted by the FAA.
That principle is acknowledged in Justice Kagan's opinion as
noted above.

The core holding of Direct TV and its progeny such as Kindred
Nursing is that the FAA favors arbitration and requires
arbitration agreements be treated like other contracts.  Our
Supreme Court's jurisprudence law requires no less and no more.
The FAA declares arbitration agreements to be enforceable except
"upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the
revocation of any contract."  The Kentucky court's holding fell
because it interpreted Kentucky's Constitution so as to create a
special rule that burdened arbitration but not other contracts.
Justice Kagan's opinion dismissed the hypotheticals offered by
the Kentucky court as a ruse to disguise the fact that it had
adopted a rule that specially burdened arbitration agreements.

Our Supreme Court's holding in Atalese requiring express waiver
of rights of action is no anomaly.  It expresses long-standing
principles of New Jersey law.  In the 1960 landmark case of
Henningsen v. Bloomfield Motors, the court found waivers of
remedies. The court refused to enforce the adhesion contract.
Justice John J. Francis explained: "[T]he basic tenet of freedom
of competent parties to contract is a factor of importance. But
in the framework of modern commercial life and business
practices, such rules cannot be applied on a strict, doctrinal
basis.  The conflicting interests of the buyer and seller must be
evaluated realistically and justly, giving due weight to the
social policy evinced by the Uniform Sales Act, the progressive
decisions of the courts engaged in administering it, the mass
production methods of manufacture and distribution to the public,
and the bargaining position occupied by the ordinary consumer in
such an economy.  The history of the law shows that legal
doctrines, as first expounded, often prove to be inadequate under
the impact of later experience. In such case, the need for
justice has stimulated the necessary qualifications or
adjustments."

This history demonstrates that unlike the Kentucky court in the
Clark case, our courts have treated arbitration contracts like
they have treated others.  Our Supreme Court should stand firm
and uphold our long tradition of consumer-protective contract
law.

Editorial Board members John Connell and Harriet Derman recused
from this editorial. [GN]


HONEYWELL INT'L: Moldenhauer Sues Over Gender Discrimination
------------------------------------------------------------
Carol Moldenhauer, for and on behalf of herself and other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Honeywell International, Inc.
Defendant, Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-00126, (D. Minn., January
18, 2018), seeks all proper measures of monetary relief and
damages, plus interest, equitable, injunctive and declaratory
relief including restitution and disgorgement, costs of suit,
including reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses and such
further relief under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Equal Pay
Act, Age Discrimination in Employment Act and Minnesota Human
Rights Act.

Moldenhauer, age 64, alleges unlawful age discrimination, gender
discrimination, and retaliation. Plaintiff was the only female in
the Supplier Quality Group. Defendant allegedly paid her less
than male Supplier Engineers for equal work in jobs that required
equal skill, effort, and responsibility and which are performed
under similar working conditions. Honeywell terminated
Moldenhauer on January 22, 2015 for complaining.

Honeywell International Inc. -- https://www.honeywell.com/ -- is
a multinational conglomerate that produces a variety of
commercial and consumer products, engineering services and
aerospace systems for a wide variety of customers, from private
consumers to major corporations and governments. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Beth E. Bertelson, Esq.
      Andrea R. Ostapowich, Esq.
      Bertelson Law Offices, P.A.
      402 Union Plaza
      333 Washington Avenue North
      Minneapolis, MN 55401
      Tel: (612) 278-9832
      Fax: (612) 340-0190
      Email: beth@bertelsonlaw.com
             andrea@bertelsonlaw.com


HOSOPO CORPORATION: Sued Over Illegal Telemarketing Practices
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jeremiah Davila-Lynch, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. HOSOPO Corporation d/b/a Horizon Solar Power and John
Doe Corporation, Case No. 1:18-cv-10072 (D. Mass., January 15,
2018), arises out of Horizon Solar's illegal telemarketing
strategies, specifically by making use of an automatic telephone
dialing system to solicit potential customers through the use of
a predictive dialer, and hiring third parties that do the same.

HOSOPO Corporation operates a company that offers residential
solar services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Edward A. Broderick, Esq.
      Anthony I. Paronich, Esq.
      BRODERICK & PARONICH, P.C.
      99 High St., Suite 304
      Boston, MA 02110
      Telephone: (508) 221-1510
      E-mail: anthony@broderick-law.com

         - and -

      Alex M. Washkowitz, Esq.
      Jeremy Cohen, Esq.
      CW LAW GROUP, P.C.
      188 Oaks Road
      Framingham, MA 01701
      Telephone: (508) 309-4880
      Facsimile: (508) 597-7722
      E-mail: alex@cwlawgrouppc.com

         - and -

      Matthew P. McCue, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICE OF MATTHEW P. MCCUE
      1 South Avenue, Suite 3
      Natick, MA 01760
      Telephone: (508) 655-1415
      E-mail: mmccue@massattorneys.net


HSBC BANK: RMBS Investors Defend Class Certification Bid
--------------------------------------------------------
Jon Hill, writing for Law360, reports that investors suing HSBC
Bank USA NA over its handling of more than 200 residential
mortgage-backed securities trusts told a New York federal judge
on Jan. 26 that a magistrate judge's recent recommendation
against certifying a similar suit involving Wells Fargo as a
class action doesn't undermine their own bid for class
certification.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn earlier in January
recommended denying a bid for class certification filed by Royal
Park Investments SA/NV in its suit accusing Wells Fargo Bank NA
of bungling its duties as trustee.

The case is Blackrock Balanced Capital Portfolio (FI) et al v.
HSBC Bank USA Case No. 1:14-cv-09366 (S.D.N.Y.).  The case is
assigned to Judge Lorna G. Schofield.  The case was filed
November 24, 2014. [GN]


HUDSON VALLEY NEWS: "Lorberer" Suit Moved to N.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Jo Ann Lorberer, on behalf of
herself and those similarly situated, the Plaintiff. v. Hudson
Valley News Distributors, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 17-02475,
was removed from the New York State Supreme Court, Ulster County,
to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York
(Syracuse) of on Feb. 1, 2018. The District Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 1:18-cv-00140-LEK-DJS to the proceeding. The case is
assigned to the Hon. Senior Judge Lawrence E. Kahn.[BN]

Attorneys for Jo Ann Lorberer on behalf of herself and those
similarly situated:

          Nathaniel K. Charny, Esq.
          CHARNY & WHEELER
          9 West Market Street
          Rhinebeck, NY 12572
          Telephone: (845) 876 7500
          Facsimile: (845) 876 7501
          E-mail: ncharny@charnywheeler.com

Attorneys for Hudson Valley News Distributors, LLC:

          Abraham Y Skoff, Esq.
          MOSES, SINGER LAW FIRM
          405 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10174
          Telephone: (212) 554 7897
          Facsimile: (917) 206 4397
          E-mail: askoff@mosessinger.com


I.C. SYSTEM: Lawson Sues Over Erroneous Credit Report
-----------------------------------------------------
Daniel Lawson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. I.C. System, Inc., a Minnesota
corporation, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-00083 (N.D. Ala., January
18, 2018), seeks actual and statutory damages, costs, and
reasonable attorneys' fees under the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

On September 8, 2014, Mr. Lawson filed a Chapter 13 bankruptcy
petition. On August 28, 2105, he converted his bankruptcy to a
Chapter 7. Among the debts listed was a debt that he allegedly
owed to Comcast. On December 3, 2015, Mr. Lawson received a
discharge of his debts, and on December 5, 2015, Comcast was sent
notice of this discharge via U.S. Mail. In July of 2017, when
Lawson was attempting to purchase a house, he learned that his
credit score had dropped significantly since IC had reported the
Comcast debt as delinquent on his credit reports. [BN]

Salazar is represented by:

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

             - and -

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


INFINITY STAFFING: Smith & Johnson Sue over Wage Statements
-----------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL SMITH and YOLANDA DAWN JOHNSON, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. INFINITY
STAFFING SOLUTIONS, LLC, d/b/a LYNEER STAFFING SOLUTIONS; CIERA
STAFFING, LLC; STAFF4JOBS, LLC, d/b/a LYNEER STAFFING SOLUTIONS;
TODD MCNULTY; JAMES S. RADVANY; GARY SPINNER; BRYAN F. SMITH; and
DOES 1 through 50, the Defendants, Case No. BC692644 (Cal. Super.
Ct., Feb. 2, 2018), seeks to recover actual damages or statutory
damages, and reasonable attorney's fees and costs, pursuant to
the California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the Defendants are in the business of
providing temporary employees in California, and many other
states.  Michael Smith and Yolanda Dawn Johnson were two of those
employees. The Defendants knowing and intentional failed to
furnish itemized wage statements that comply with Labor Code. The
Plaintiffs and other members of the Class have suffered injury to
the extent provided by law.

Infinity Staffing is a full service staffing agency providing
temporary, temp-to-hire, and direct hire employees and
positions.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Justian Jusuf, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JUSTIAN JUSUF, APC
          17011 Beach Blvd., Suite 900
          Huntington Beach, CA 92647
          Telephone: (714) 274 9815
          Facsimile: (714) 362 3148

               - and -

          Sahag Majarian II, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF SAHAG MAJARIAN H
          18250 Ventura Blvd.
          Tarzana, CA 91356
          Telephone: (818) 609 0807
          Facsimile: (818) 609 0892


INTEL CORPORATION: Park Sues over Defective CPUs
------------------------------------------------
GLORIA K. PARK, an Individual, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. INTEL CORPORATION, a
Delaware Corporation with principal place of business in
California, the Defendant, Case No. 5:18-cv-00742 (N.D. Cal.,
Feb. 3, 2018), seeks to recover damages as a result of
Defendant's violations of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act,
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, California Consumer Legal Remedies
Act, and Unfair Competition Law.

Intel is a technology company that manufactures the
microprocessors found in most personal computers. It has been the
dominant force in the market since bringing out, in 1971, the
Intel 4004, the first commercial chip-based central processing
unit ("CPU"). In 1974, Intel produced the Intel 8080 CPU, which
was used in the MIT Altair 8080, the world's first successful
personal computer. In 1979, Intel brought out the 8088 and 8086
CPUs, which began the lines of x86 CPUs that, in successive
generations, continue to be marketed today, and that currently
power most Windows, Linux, and Apple OS personal computers.

As lately revealed, the Intel x86 CPUs in the personal computers
of Plaintiff and members of the Class contain serious bugs making
the computers susceptible to hackers.  Named "Meltdown" and
"Spectre," these bugs are flaws in Intel x86 CPUs that allow
malicious code to use "speculative processing" side-channel
attacks to circumvent the memory isolation normally present
between applications, enabling hackers to copy data used by
legitimate applications and steal sensitive personal and
financial information such as social security numbers, encryption
keys, and account and password information.

The Complaint says software patches are ineffective or
problematic and significantly impair performance, decreasing
effective computing power by up to 30 per cent. Intel has failed
to offer a true fix, such as simply replacing the Defective CPUs.
The Meltdown and Spectre bugs are not just present on one or a
few Intel CPUs but were copied by Intel from one generation of
CPUs to the next and incorporated into each new generation's
series of x86 processors. The bugs affect virtually all Intel
CPUs used in personal computers during the past 10 years. Making
the situation even worse, Intel knew about the bugs for at least
some six months before it disclosed their existence to at-risk
owners of affected computers, and may have known of the bugs even
longer. Intel also ignored industry studies warning of Meltdown-
and Spectre-like vulnerabilities in its chips as early as 1995,
and instead spent hundreds of millions of dollars falsely
advertising to consumers that its x86 CPUs, and the computers
using them, were superior, safe, and secure.

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

Attorneys for Individual and Representative Plaintiff Gloria K.
Park:

          Gordon M. Fauth, Jr., Esq.
          Rosanne L. Mah, Esq.
          FINKELSTEIN THOMPSON LLP
          100 Pine Street, Suite 1250
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Direct Telephone: (510) 238 9610
          Telephone: (415) 398 8700
          Facsimile: (415) 398 8704
          E-mail: gfauth@finkelsteinthompson.com
                  rmah@finkelsteinthompson.com


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Plaintiff Wants Court to Reinstate Talc Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sandy Liebhard, writing for RX Injury Help, reports that lawyers
representing California consumers have asked a federal appeals
court to reverse a lower court's decision dismissing a talcum
powder class action lawsuit for lack of standing.

According to the New Jersey Law Journal, the complaint sought to
represent consumers who allegedly incurred economic damages
related to the purchase of Johnson & Johnson's Baby Powder and
accused the company of violating certain California consumer
protection laws by marketing the product without an ovarian
cancer warning.

The case was initially filed in the U.S. District Court, Eastern
District of California in 2015.  However, it was ultimately
transferred to the U.S. District Court, District of New Jersey,
where all federal talcum powder ovarian cancer claims pending
against Johnson & Johnson are currently undergoing coordinated
pretrial proceedings.

The class action lawsuit was dismissed for lack of standing in
July, after the Court found that the lead plaintiff had failed to
prove that she was economically injured based on three different
theories of damages.

The Plaintiff then filed an appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit.  In her Opening Brief dated January 5th,
she asserted, among other things, that the District Court
inappropriately considered the damages theories even though her
attorneys weren't necessarily relying on them and, moreover, were
pursuing injunctive relief.

Talcum Powder Ovarian Cancer Allegations
Johnson & Johnson has been named a defendant in more than 5,500
talcum powder lawsuits currently pending in courts throughout the
United States.  The vast majority were brought on behalf of
individual women who allegedly developed ovarian cancer due to
their regular and repeated use of the company's Baby Powder
and/or Shower-to-Shower products for feminine hygiene purposes.

Among other things, plaintiffs allege that Johnson & Johnson has
been aware of research dating back to the 1970s that suggested
women who regularly applied talc-based powders to the genital
region were significantly more likely to develop ovarian cancer
compared to those who did not. Plaintiffs further claim that the
company made a deliberate decision not to include ovarian cancer
warnings on its product labels in order to protect the revenues
associated with Baby Powder and Shower-to-Shower sales.

Talcum Powder Verdicts
Since February 2015, plaintiffs in several high-profile talcum
powder ovarian cancer trials have been awarded multi-million-
dollar judgments ranging from $55 million to $417 million.
Recently, however, a judge in California overturned the $417
million verdict because of accusations involving juror misconduct
and other issues.

A $72 million verdict awarded to an out-of-state plaintiff in
Missouri's talcum powder litigation was also tossed to comply
with new jurisdictional standards set by the U.S. Supreme Court's
recent ruling in Bristol-Myers Squibb v. Superior Court of
California.

In November, however, a $110 million verdict awarded to another
out-state-plaintiff was upheld, after the trial court concluded
that jurisdiction was appropriate because Johnson & Johnson had
used a Missouri-based company to label, package and distribute
their talc products. [GN]


KENTUCKY: Jenner & Block to Represent Medicaid Case Plaintiffs
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kristen Rasmussen, writing for Law.com, reports that a pair of
prominent Jenner & Block partners, Thomas Perrelli and
Ian Gershengorn, both former high-ranking federal government
lawyers, are representing 15 Kentucky residents in high-stakes
litigation challenging the state's newly approved Medicaid work
requirements. [GN]


KIA MOTORS: APA Files Suit Over Alleged Forte Auto Engine Defect
----------------------------------------------------------------
Presse Canadienne reports that The Automobile Protection
Association has filed a request in Quebec Superior Court for
authorization to launch a class-action suit on behalf of owners
of Kia Forte automobiles equipped with a two-litre engine.

The APA contends it has found a serious fault manifested by
knocking in engines in cars assembled between 2010 and 2015.

The association argues that an assembly error causes the engine's
pistons to abnormally wear at their cylinders.  After a certain
time, the engine emits a small noise once it's started, but one
that intensifies with use.

The APA maintains that many consumers who complained about the
problem during their five-year or 100,000-kilometre Kia warranty
were told the noise was normal for that model of car.

Later, car owners learned that repairs were in fact necessary but
that the warranty had run out and the solution often involved
major repairs to the engine block, a measure that Kia dealers
estimated would cost $5,500.

The APA also alleges that in certain cases, Kia Canada did pay
for the repairs on the condition that consumers sign a
confidentiality agreement forbidding them to share the
information with other Forte owners.

Persons owning a Kia Forte manufactured between 2010 and 2015 and
possessing a two-litre engine who think they have detected an odd
sound from their engine and to whom free repairs have been
refused are urged to register on the web page of the law firm of
Trudel Johnston & Lesperance. [GN]


LENOVO INC: Judge Cuts Claims in Laptop Adware Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dorothy Atkins, writing for Law360, reports that a California
federal judge on Jan. 30 cut, for the second time, claims without
prejudice in a certified class action alleging software
preinstalled on Lenovo Inc. laptops creates performance, privacy
and security issues, finding that the consumers lack standing to
bring claims under New York law.

U.S. District Judge Haywood S. Gilliam Jr. said New York's
consumer protection statute does not protect consumers from out-
of-state deceptive business practices,

The case is In Re: Lenovo Adware Litigation, Case No. 4:15-md-
02624 (N.D. Cal.). The case is assigned to Judge Haywood S
Gilliam, Jr.  The case was filed June 19, 2015. [GN]


LIBERTY UNIVERSITY: Sued in California Over Automated Calls
-----------------------------------------------------------
Twonesha Johnsonhendricks, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Liberty University, Inc.; Does 1
through 10, inclusive, Case No. 2:18-cv-00072-MCE-DB (E.D. Cal.,
January 12, 2018), seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of
using an automatic telephone dialing system, to place its daily
calls to the Plaintiff seeking to sell or solicit its business
services.

Liberty University, Inc. owns and operates a private, non-profit
Christian research university located in Lynchburg, Virginia.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
      Meghan E. George, Esq.
      Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
      324 S. Beverly Dr., #725
      Beverly Hills, CA 90212
      Telephone: (877) 206-4741
      Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
      E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
              abacon@toddflaw.com
              mgeorge@toddflaw.com


MARCO'S PIZZA: "Mitchell" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------
Noelle Mitchell, 725 Wyman St. Toledo, Ohio 43609, the Plaintiff,
v. Marco's Pizza Distribution, LLC, 1435 Holland Rd., STE B
Maumee, Ohio 43537, the Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-00257 (N.D.
Ohio, Feb. 1, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid wages, including
overtime wages, liquidated damages, costs, and attorneys' fees
under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage
Standards Act, the Ohio Prompt Pay Act, and the Ohio's
Recordkeeping laws.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked beyond the
regularly scheduled business hours, including nights and
weekends, while performing substantial duties on behalf of
Defendant.  Plaintiff alleges she did not receive an
uninterrupted bona fide meal period because she performed
substantial duties on behalf of Defendant during her purported
meal period or the meal period was not uninterrupted for the full
meal period due to business interruptions or requests to perform
job duties on behalf of Defendant.

Despite not receiving an uninterrupted meal period as described
above, Defendant did not compensate her for that time even though
it was compensable hours because she performed her job duties on
behalf of Defendant. Despite working in excess of 40 hours in a
workweek during the Relevant Time Period, Defendant did not pay
Plaintiff one-and-a-half times her regular hourly rate ("overtime
rate") for all hours she worked in excess of 40 in a workweek.

Rather, Plaintiff was paid $750 per week no matter how many hours
she worked on behalf of Defendant. Defendant knew or should have
known that Plaintiff worked in excess of 40 hours per week during
all times relevant. The Defendant willfully elected not to
compensate her for all hours worked in excess of 40 during the
three years preceding the filing of this Complaint.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Daniel I. Bryant, Esq.
          Matthew B. Bryant, Esq.
          BRYANT LEGAL, LLC
          1457 S. High St.
          Columbus, OH 43207
          Telephone: (614) 704 0546
          Facsimile: (614) 573 9826
          E-mail: dbryant@bryantlegalllc.com
                  Mbryant@bryantlegalllc.com


MATCO TOOLS: Laisney Sues over Telemarketing Calls
--------------------------------------------------
Alexis Laisney, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Matco Tools Corporation, the
Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-00211-RV-CJK (N.D. Fla., Feb. 2,
2018), seeks to recover damages resulting from the illegal
actions of Defendant.

According to the complaint, the Defendant negligently, knowingly,
and/or willfully placed automated and prerecorded calls to
Plaintiff's cellular phone in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

MATCO is a manufacturer and distributor of professional
automotive repair tools, diagnostic equipment, and toolboxes. It
sells its products directly to customers through "a network of
independent franchised mobile distributors."

As part of its sales operation, MATCO bombards unsuspecting
consumers, with whom it has no relationship, with calls
containing prerecorded and artificial voices. Plaintiff is such a
consumer. He is not an MATCO customer yet has been bombarded with
pre-recorded calls made without her consent and over her explicit
objection.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

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


MDL 2804: Logansport Considers Joining Opioid Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Mitchell Kirk, writing for Pharos-Tribune Logansport, reports
that Logansport officials are considering joining over 15
governments across Indiana in litigation against over 20
pharmaceutical companies seeking compensation for the nation's
opioid epidemic.

Opioids are powerful painkillers that can be highly addictive and
come in both prescription form, like OxyContin, and illegal form,
like heroin.

City leaders discussed joining the litigation at a city council
finance committee meeting on Jan. 29.  There, Logansport Mayor
Dave Kitchell said Bose McKinney & Evans' Indianapolis office
would represent the city in the lawsuit, should the council agree
to join.

Mayor Kitchell said the city wouldn't have to pay the firm unless
it was successful in the suit.  If the firm is successful, the
city would not pay more than it would receive, Mayor Kitchell
added.

"So you can't lose by moving forward with this," he said.

Lynn Toops -- ltoops@cohenandmalad.com -- an attorney with
Indianapolis-based Cohen & Malad, said by phone on Jan. 30 that
the firm is working with Bose McKinney & Evans on the litigation.
Cohen & Malad has filed complaints for 13 governments from cities
and counties across Indiana, she said, adding it's been publicly
announced that the firm has been retained by four more.  The firm
is close to being retained by even more governments, Ms. Toops
continued, but details cannot yet publicly be disclosed.

The complaint Cohen & Malad filed on behalf of Indianapolis and
Marion County accuses the opioid manufacturers and distributors
listed among the defendants of using a "deceptive marketing
campaign" that's led to a "dramatic increase in the use of
prescription opioid pain medications."  The "economic damages
were foreseeable," the complaint continues, adding Indianapolis
and Marion County "spend millions of dollars each year to
provide" services for those affected by the nation's opioid
epidemic.

The complaint also refers to an October 2017 statistic from the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention indicating 91
Americans die every day from an opioid overdose.  It goes on to
refer to an October 2017 National Institute on Drug Abuse article
reporting nearly 80 percent of Americans using heroin reported
misusing prescription opioids first.

The complaint asks the defendants to compensate Indianapolis and
Marion County "for past and future costs to abate the ongoing
public nuisance caused by the opioid epidemic."

Ms. Toops said a court based in Cleveland is responsible for
hearing all of the federal lawsuits filed against opioid
manufacturers and distributors.

Logansport City Councilman Matt Meagher asked police personnel at
the Jan. 29 meeting to speak to the effect prescription opioids
have had on crime in Logansport.

Assistant Police Chief Dan Frye, who formerly worked with the
Cass County Drug Task Force, described the effect as significant.

"It has a negative impact on the police department, the
community, the whole nine yards," he said. ". . . I know we spend
countless hours chasing heroin dealers, heroin users."

Frye said the task force is made up of two Logansport Police
Department officers and one Cass County Sheriff's deputy.  That
"is not sufficient manpower" to fight drug crimes in the area, he
continued, adding officers with the LPD's patrol and
investigative divisions often work overtime to help the drug task
force.

Logansport Clerk-treasurer Stacy Cox said the two LPD officers on
the drug task force "consistently have overtime because of the
type of work and amount of time they have to devote to a case."

Dan Fagan, a patrolman with the LPD, said the effect of opioids
expand further than just drug crimes, explaining it drives
addicts to steal so they can afford their next fix while creating
problems in their home lives, when Child Protective Services has
to step in for the sake of addicts' children.

"It's like a snowball rolling down a hill," Fagan said of the
impact of opioids.

Meagher asked that any money Logansport would receive from the
lawsuit be allocated to the drug task force.

Cass County Coroner Randy Rozzi recently reported there were 10
drug overdose deaths in 2017, all of which were related to
opiates or methamphetamine. That's up from the seven drug
overdose deaths in 2016.

The rate of emergency room visits where an opioid overdose victim
didn't die tripled in Cass County between 2011 and 2015,
according to the Indiana State Department of Health.

Logansport City Council was set to vote on joining the class-
action lawsuit at its Feb. 5 meeting in the Council Chambers on
the third floor of the City Building, 601 E. Broadway.

Mayor Kitchell said a representative of Bose McKinney & Evans
would be at the meeting to answer questions. [GN]


MGM: Law Firm Seeks Route 91 Harvest Festival Shooting Victims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dave Brooks, writing for Amplify, reports that if you live in
Southern California and attend a few concerts each year, you've
probably seen Alex Napolin's ads on Facebook.  The sponsored
posts seek out anyone who attended or lost a loved one at the
Route 91 Harvest Festival in Las Vegas last year, where a single
a gunman fired on the event, killing 58 people and leaving 500
injured.

"TIME IS RUNNING OUT!" says a Facebook ad from Mr. Napolin, a
personal injury attorney from Claremont, California.  "If you
attended the Route 91 Harvest Country Music Festival, you may be
eligible for financial compensation."

Mr. Napolin is one of several attorneys using Facebook to find
plaintiffs for a class-action lawsuit against the estate of
shooter Stephen Paddock, as well as MGM, which owns the festival
site and Mandalay Bay hotel, and concert promoter Live Nation.
The Oct. 1 attack, the worst mass shooting in modern American
history, could result in a $1 billion payout, mostly paid by MGM
and Live Nation, attorneys claim.

While using advertisements to find plaintiffs for class action
lawsuits is nothing new -- think of the late night commercials
seeking victims of medical malpractice or asbestos exposure --
the use of targeted social media campaigns represents a paradigm
shift in the legal world, where viewers can tag friends (and
potential clients) in the comments section and easily share the
post with others.

"Facebook is a good way to market because it's a good way to get
people together," Mr. Napolin told Amplify in an interview.  "If
it wasn't working I wouldn't be doing it," he said, noting that
he's not the only attorney looking for clients on Facebook.
Personal injury Attorney Chad Pinkerton is also using the
service, running Facebook Live Q&As where he talks about the
1,500 clients he represents in the Las Vegas case and shares
updates on the class action lawsuit.  Mr. Pinkerton said he is on
a lead trial group of attorneys who will ultimately file the
master complaint in the case.

"We have a lot of people that were victims," Mr. Pinkerton said
on a recent Facebook live posting.  "The police report that
22,000 were at the concert that night," he explained, adding
"whoever was there was a victim and could have a claim in this
lawsuit."

Mr. Napolin said the Facebook ads aren't just about the suing MGM
and Live Nation, noting he's helped a number of clients receive
money from victims funds and GoFundMe campaigns.

"I know countless people that were there," he said, noting that
he is passionate about the case and wants to help the victims.
His partner Catherine Lombardo has attended all the hearings on
Route 91, he said, and has appeared on Fox News several times to
talk about the case.

Mr. Napolin won't say what keywords he uses to target the ads --
"I can't tell you specifically how I construct the ads, that's
proprietary information, but obviously they work," he explained.

"We've gotten a lot of negative comments about the Facebook ads,
it's been a hard run with those," Mr. Napolin said.  "There's
negative comments, but there's also positive comments.  There's
people that don't quite understand what everyone went through."

Mr. Napolin said he used a similar strategy to find plaintiffs in
a case against Children's Dental Group last year, with 58 claims
eventually filed against the city of Anaheim, alleging water
supplied to the clinic was contaminated and led to infections in
young patients undergoing root canals.

"I didn't get any negative publicity for that or negative
comments with people saying I'm just trying to make a buck," he
said.  "The whole thing has been difficult.  It's such a horrible
tragedy and I've spoken with so many people and hearing their
stories has been very hard."

He said the Route 91 case "is not your typical class action where
we're just counting up the dollars a credit card company owes,"
and added "every story is very intense and people are really
hurt.  Even those who attended the event but weren't shot are
affected," noting some had to miss work or pay for therapy, while
many are reliving the attack and suffering from PTSD.

"Some can't go into public places," he said.  "And I've got to
give a lot of emotional support to the clients and that's very
difficult personally, especially with this case which is
particularly painful and sad."

Mr. Napolin even operates a questionnaire on his site that first
asks if potential clients purchased their tickets, and whether
they have proof of their attendance either through receipts or
wristbands. It also asks questions like "Did you see anyone get
shot?" and "Did you see any bodies on the ground that had been
shot?"

So far, five lawsuits have been filed representing 450 victims,
mostly in California.  A judge still has to decide if the case
takes place in Nevada where the shooting took place, or in
California where many of the victims live. [GN]


MONSANTO COMPANY: Dicamba Herbicides Case Moved to E.D. Missouri
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Dicamba Herbicides Litigation was removed to the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri (Cape
Girardeau). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:18-md-
02820-SNLJ to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon.
District Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          Angela Marie Splittgerber, Esq.
          Beverly Turina Randles, Esq.
          Billy R. Randles, Esq.
          RANDLES AND SPLITTGERBER, LLP
          5823 N. Cypress Ave.
          Kansas City, MO 64119
          Tel: (816) 744-4779
          E-mail: angie@randleslaw.com
                  bev@randleslaw.com
                  bill@randleslaw.com

               - and -

          Hal E. Hunter, IV., Esq.
          HUNTER LAW FIRM, LLP
          New Madrid, MO 63869
          Telephone: (573) 748 5586
          Facsimile: (573) 748-5627
          E-mail: hhhatty@sbcglobal.net

               - and -

          Lawrence Benjamin Mook, Esq.
          DAVIS AND GEORGE LLC
          1600 Genessee St., Suite 328
          Kansas City, MO 64102
          Telephone: (816) 569 2629
          E-mail: ben@dgmlawyers.com

               - and -

          Brandon Michael Wise, Esq.
          Paul A. Lesko, Esq.
          PEIFFER AND ROSCA LLP
          818 Lafayette Ave.
          St. Louis, MO 63104
          Telephone: (314) 833 4825
          E-mail: bwise@prwlegal.com
                  plesko@prwlegal.com

               - and -

          Michael G. Smith, Esq.
          DOVER AND DIXON, PLLC
          425 West Capitol Ave., Suite 3700
          Little Rock, AR 72201
          Telephone: (501) 375 9151
          Facsimile: (501) 375 6484
          E-mail: msmith@ddh-ar.com

               - and -

          Paul J. James, Esq.
          JAMES AND CARTER, LLP
          500 Broadway, Suite 400
          Little Rock, AR 72201
          Telephone: (501) 372 1414
          Facsimile: (501) 372 1659
          E-mail: pjj@jamescarterlaw.com

               - and -

          Alyssa J. Leary, Esq.
          Charles S. Zimmerman, Esq.
          Hart L. Robinovitch, Esq.
          ZIMMERMAN REED PLLP
          1100 IDS Center
          80 South 8th St.
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 341 0400
          Facsimile: (612) 341 0844
          E-mail: alyssa.leary@zimmreed.com
                  charles.zimmerman@zimmreed.com
                  hart.robinovitch@zimmreed.com

               - and -

          D. Eric Sowers, Esq.
          SOWERS AND WOLF, LLC
          530 Maryville Centre, Suite 460
          St. Louis, MO 63141
          Telephone: (314) 744 4010
          Facsimile: (314) 744 4026
          E-mail: es@sowerswolf.com

               - and -

          Samuel Edward Ledbetter, Esq.
          Thomas William Bond, Esq.
          MCMATH WOODS P.A.
          711 West Third St.
          Little Rock, AR 72201
          Telephone: (501) 396 5400
          Facsimile: (501) 374 5118
          E-mail: sam@mcmathlaw.com
                  will@mcmathlaw.com

Attorneys for Defendant:

          A. Elizabeth Blackwell, Esq.
          Christopher M. Hohn, Esq.
          Daniel C. Cox, Esq.
          Jan P. Miller, Esq.
          Jeffrey A. Masson, Esq.
          John R. Musgrave, Esq.
          THOMPSON COBURN LLP
          One U.S. Bank Plaza, Suite 2700
          St. Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: (314) 552 6000
          Facsimile: (314) 552 7000
          E-mail: eblackwell@thompsoncoburn.com
                  chohn@thompsoncoburn.com
                  dcox@thompsoncoburn.com
                  jmiller@thompsoncoburn.com
                  jmasson@thompsoncoburn.com
                  jmusgrave@thompsoncoburn.com

               - and -

          John J. Rosenthal, Esq.
          WINSTON AND STRAWN, LLP
          1700 K Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 282 5000
          Facsimile: (202) 282 5100
          E-mail: jrosenthal@winston.com

               - and -

          Charles N. Insler, Esq.
          HEPLER BROOM
          211 North Broadway, Suite 2700
          St. Louis, MO 63102
          Telephone: (314) 241 6160
          Facsimile: (314) 241 6116
          E-mail: cni@heplerbroom.com

               - and -

          John P. Mandler, Esq.
          Ross W. Johnson, Esq.
          Tarifa Belle Laddon, Esq.
          FAEGRE AND BAKER LLP
          2200 Wells Fargo Center
          90 S. Seventh St.
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 766 7221
          Facsimile: (612) 766 1600
          E-mail: john.mandler@faegrebd.com
                  ross.johnson@FaegreBD.com
                  tarifa.laddon@faegrebd.com

               - and -

          Thomas J. Magee, Esq.
          Troy A. Bozarth, Esq.
          HEPLER BROOM
          211 North Broadway, Suite 2700
          St. Louis, MO 63102
          Telephone: (314) 241 6160
          Facsimile: (314) 241 6116
          E-mail: tm1@heplerbroom.com
                  tab@heplerbroom.com

               - and -

          Amie Adelia Vague, Esq.
          LIGHTFOOT AND FRANKLIN, L.L.C.
          400 N. 20th Street
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: (205) 581 0700
          Facsimile: (205) 581 0799
          E-mail: avague@lightfootlaw.com

               - and -

          C. David Goerisch, Esq.
          LEWIS RICE, LLC
          St. Louis, MO 63101, Suite 2500
          Telephone: (314) 444 7600
          Facsimile: (314) 241 6056
          E-mail: dgoerisch@lewisrice.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey P. Doss, Esq.
          John Mann Johnson, Esq.
          LIGHTFOOT AND FRANKLIN, L.L.C.
          400 N. 20th Street
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: (205) 581 0700
          Facsimile: (205) 581 0799
          E-mail: jdoss@lightfootlaw.com
          jjohnson@lightfootlaw.com

               - and -

          R. Brad Ziegler, Esq.
          Richard B. Walsh , Jr.
          LEWIS RICE, LLC
          St. Louis, MO 63101, Suite 2500
          Telephone: (314) 444 7792
          Facsimile: (314) 612 7792
          E-mail: bziegler@lewisrice.com
          rwalsh@lewisrice.com


MONSANTO COMPANY: Forest River Sues over Dicamba-Based Crops
------------------------------------------------------------
FOREST RIVER FARMS, on behalf of itself and others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant, Case
No. 4:18-cv-00181 (E.D. Mo., Feb. 1, 2018), seeks to recover
damages as a direct and proximate result of Monsanto's conduct in
violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act.

Genetically-modified ("GM") crops and food are often touted to
farmers and the public as miracle products. But when patented GM
technology so changes the economics of agriculture that farmers
have no choice but to use it, thus allowing biotech companies
to charge monopoly prices and unfairly control the market, it is
illegal conduct. Monsanto, one of the largest of a limited number
of massive multinational crop protection and seeds manufacturers,
irresponsibly commercialized its Roundup Ready Xtend cotton and
soybean seeds. Monsanto knew full well that commercializing
dicamba-resistant technology would cause a spike in the use of
dicamba, a dangerous and toxic herbicide, because the exclusive
feature of its patented Roundup Ready 2 Xtend seeds is the seeds'
resistance to dicamba. Monsanto conspired, agreed, and combined
with other major biotech firms, including at least Dupont-Pioneer
and BASF, to unlawfully dominate the soy and cotton seed market.
Monsanto and its co-conspirators' commercialization of dicamba-
resistant seeds has created a distorted and monopolized market, a
market manipulated by and susceptible to Monsanto's domination.

Soy and cotton producers lack competitive alternatives to
Monsanto's dicamba-resistant technology because they must buy
dicamba-resistant seeds or risk massive crop losses. In
commercializing its dicamba-resistant traits, Monsanto is
capitalizing on a problem it created by irresponsibly
commercializing its dicamba-based crop system. In short,
Monsanto released the proverbial genie in a bottle, knowing it
could charge monopoly prices for putting the genie back in the
bottle. In so doing, Monsanto created a vicious cyclical market
driven by a set of perverse incentives: farmers must buy dicamba-
resistant crop seeds to defend against dicamba volatility and
drift; the purchase and planting of dicamba-resistant seeds leads
to spraying more dicamba; and spraying more dicamba leads to the
purchase of more dicamba-resistant seeds. The wheel keeps
turning, and Monsanto and its cooperating competitors continue to
profit at the expense of producers, and in fact profit on the
very acrimony created by their dicamba crop system.

Monsanto allegedly engaged and continues to engage in a
conspiracy, contract, or combination to monopolize the market for
soy and cotton seeds through the commercialization and licensing
of dicamba-resistant seeds. Monsanto has monopolized and/or
attempted to monopolize the soy and cotton seed market.
Monsanto's actions constitute unreasonable restraints of trade
under the Sherman Act.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark A. Potashnick, Esq.
          WEINHAUS & POTASHNICK
          11500 Olive Boulevard, Suite 133
          St. Louis, MO 63141
          Telephone: (314) 997 9150
          Facsimile: (314) 997 9170
          E-mail: markp@wp-attorneys.com

               - and -

          Kenneth A. Wexler, Esq.
          Justin N. Boley, Esq.
          Tyler J. Story, Esq.
          WEXLER WALLACE LLP
          55 W. Monroe Street, Suite 3300
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 346 2222
          E-mail: kaw@wexlerwallace.com
                  jnb@wexlerwallace.com
                  tjs@wexlerwallace.com

               - and -

          Richard M. Paul III, Esq.
          Ashlea Schwarz, Esq.
          Sean Cooper, Esq.
          PAUL LLP
          601 Walnut Street, Suite 300
          Kansas City, MO 64106
          Telephone: (816) 984 8103
          Facsimile: (816) 984 8101
          E-mail: Rick@PaulLLP.com
                  Ashlea@PaulLLP.com
                  Sean@PaulLLP.com

               - and -

          Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq.
          Amanda M. Williams, Esq.
          Eric S. Taubel, Esq.
          GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
          Canadian Pacific Plaza - Suite 2600
          120 South 6th Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 333 8844
          Facsimile: (612) 339 6622
          E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com
                  awilliams@gustafsongluek.com
                  etaubel@gustafsongluek.com


MONTEREY FINANCIAL: Garrett Sues over Debt Collections Practices
----------------------------------------------------------------
CARLA GARRETT, 2513 Bianci Avenue Fort Meade, MD 20755
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
MONTEREY FINANCIAL SERVICES, 4095 Avenida De La Plata Oceanside,
CA 92056 And John Does 1-25, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-
00325-MJG (D. Md., Feb. 1, 2018), seeks damages and declaratory
and injunctive relief under the Fair Debt Collections Practices
Act on account of Defendant's attempt to collect on an obligation
incurred to Just Military Loans.  Plaintiff used the Just
Military Loan proceeds to purchase items primarily for personal,
family or household purposes.

The alleged Just Military Loans obligation is a "debt" as defined
by 15 U.S.C. section 1692a(5). Just Military Loans is a
"creditor" as defined by 15 U.S.C.Sec. 1692a(4). Just Military
Loans or a subsequent alleged owner of the Just Military Loans
debt contracted the Defendant to collect the alleged debt.

Monterey Financial provides receivables financing solutions. It
offers consumer finance programs for clients offering retail
sales, flex pay plans, and membership contracts. The company also
provides loan servicing and debt recovery services. Monterey
Financial Services, Inc. was founded in 1989 and is based in
Oceanside, California.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Aryeh E. Stein, Esq.
          MERIDIAN LAW, LLC
          600 Reisterstown Road, Ste 700
          Baltimore, MD 21208
          Telephone: (443) 326 6011
          Facsimile: (410) 653 9061
          E-mail: astein@meridianlawfirm.com


MSP CROSSROADS: Former Tenants to Get $290,000 Settlement Payout
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Reilly, writing for St. Paul Business Journal, reports that
former tenants in nearly 200 apartments at a big Richfield
apartment complex will share a payout of $290,000 in a settlement
against the property's landlord.

The Star Tribune has a report on the settlement of the class-
action suit against Concierge owners Jim Soderberg and MSP
Crossroads Apartments, which is expected to get final approval
from a court in the coming days.

Mr. Soderberg and MSP Crossroads bought the former 698-unit
Crossroads at Penn in 2015 and rebranded it the Concierge with a
goal of pushing the property upmarket.  The new owner raised
rents and instituted new income and credit-score requirements for
tenants.  Tenants sued, arguing that the changes violated housing
rules.

A tentative settlement was reached last fall for $650,000.
Owners -- who denied wrongdoing and said they would have won the
case eventually -- also agreed to eliminate minimum income
requirements for tenants and loosen other rules.

In addition to the $290,000 payout to ex-tenants, $207,000 will
go into a fund to preserve affordable housing.  The balance will
go toward others affected by the new rules, legal fees and Home
Line, a tenant advocacy group. [GN]


MUNGER BROS: Vows to Fight Class Action in Washington
-----------------------------------------------------
Don Jenkins, writing for Capital Press, reports that California-
based Munger Bros. denies allegations that foreign workers were
mistreated at its blueberry farm in Sumas, Wash,, and vows to
fight a class-action lawsuit filed Jan. 25 in U.S. District Court
in Seattle.

The suit claims that Mexican nationals last summer at Sarbanand
Farms, owned by Munger, were underfed and overworked and that
about 60 of them were illegally fired after staging a one-day
strike in response to a worker's death.

"The companies (Munger and Sarbanand) will vigorously fight the
allegations in the complaint, which will be shown to be untrue
and without merit," according to a Munger statement.

The lawsuit stems from events last August at Sarbanand, including
the death of farmworker Honesto Ibarra.  He was taken away by
ambulance Aug. 2 and died four days later at a Seattle hospital.
Some workers refused to pick Aug. 4 and were fired the next day.

Labor activists alleged an ailing Ibarra was ordered back to
work, though the company said it learned from a relative that
Ibarra was diabetic and immediately called the ambulance.

The Washington Department of Labor and Industries will complete
an investigation in early February into workplace conditions at
the farm, department spokesman Tim Church said on Jan. 26.  A
separate probe into whether the farm followed employment laws is
also underway, but the department does not have a deadline for
finishing it, he said.

The lawsuit was filed by Columbia Legal Services and a Seattle
law firm, Schroeter Goldmark & Bender.  It names workers Barbano
Rosas and Guadalupe Tapia as lead plaintiffs, but seeks
unspecified monetary damages for about 600 H-2A workers recruited
to pick last summer at Sarbanand.  The suit also names CSI Visa
Processing, a Mexico-based labor contractor, as a defendant.
Efforts to contact CSI were unsuccessful.

Munger Bros., based in Delano, Calif., calls itself North
America's largest fresh blueberry producer, with more than 3,000
acres in Washington, Oregon, California, British Columbia and
Mexico.

Columbia Legal Services attorney Joe Morrison said on Jan. 26
that the lawsuit doesn't depend on the circumstances of Ibarra's
death, but rather how workers were treated before and after his
death.

"We're hoping that people get put on notice that you may be able
to use the program, but you have to play within the lines," he
said.

The lawsuit alleges that a farm manager told workers they had to
pick unless they were on their "deathbed."

The suit also claims the workers weren't fed enough, with food
running out at some meals. The suit further claims the company
violated Washington labor law by firing the striking workers.

Munger, in its statement, said the company takes seriously its
responsibility to see to the wellbeing of workers.

"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," the company said.

The company said last summer that by refusing to pick, the
workers were violating their H-2A contracts.

Farms are allowed to hire foreign seasonal workers if they can't
find enough domestic workers.

At a press conference on Jan. 25 in Seattle, Morrison leveled
general criticism against the H-2A program.

"As a matter of public policy, you cannot import thousands and
thousands of workers from foreign countries, exclude them from
the protection of key labor laws, and expect everything to work
out fine," Morrison said.

Farms must provide housing, transportation and other benefits,
such as workers compensation insurance, to H-2A workers.  The
U.S. Labor Department sets minimum wages for H-2A workers at a
higher level than Washington's minimum wage.

The American Farm Bureau Federation has called for replacing what
it calls a "cumbersome" H-2A program with one that gives foreign
workers more freedom to choose employers. [GN]


MURRAY GOULBURN: Shareholders May Face Long Wait for Payout
-----------------------------------------------------------
Peter Hemphill, writing for The Weekly Times, reports that Murray
Goulburn shareholders and unit holders may have to wait up to 2-
1/2 years to see how much they will receive for their shares.

A class action against the co-operative by a group of share and
unit holders may be held up by legal process for years, if past
class actions are anything to go by.

A study of 22 Australian class actions since 1999 shows the
longest took nearly five years to be resolved, with an average
time to settle of 29 months.

All 22 cases were settled out of court.

Data seen by The Weekly Times shows the average payout in the
cases was 35.9 cents in the dollar.

Murray Goulburn investors have launched a class action against MG
over the drop in the price of units when they decreased the farm
gate milk price in April, 2016.

If Murray Goulburn class action litigants claim $240 million -- a
figure regarded by some as the maximum loss able to be claimed
for the Murray Goulburn unit price collapse in 2016 -- a payout
of 35.9 cents in the dollar would mean a $86.2 million
settlement.

That would result in a return to those investors of about $1 a
share or unit.

Another source, an overseas investor in Murray Goulburn, told The
Weekly Times a survey of two prominent Australian legal firms and
a lawyer suggested there was no certainty on a settlement figure.

The source said one of the law firms suggested a payout of up to
$250 million was possible in the class action.

But a $250 million class action payout would mean a diminished
pool for all shareholders and unit holders, who would receive
less than the 75 cents a share or unit return estimated by Murray
Goulburn.

A Murray Goulburn spokesman said the co-op would retain part of
the sale proceeds of $1.31 billion to cover any exposure to
outstanding legal actions.

The Weekly Times has calculated the retained funds at $194
million to $222 million.

"The retention amount is not an indication by MG that it has any
actual liability in respect of these actions or that such
liability is reflected by the total retention amount," the
spokesman said. [GN]


NEBRASKA: Sued Over Juveniles Placed on Sex Offender List
---------------------------------------------------------
Lori Pilger, writing for Lincoln Journal Star, reports that the
attorney who successfully sued to keep a 15-year-old boy's name
off the state's Sex Offender Registry now is seeking to file a
class-action lawsuit for those who the Nebraska State Patrol did
list.

Attorney Joshua Weir said it ruined the lives of the seven --
listed only as Johnny Doe I through VII -- and dozens of others.

"It's been devastating," one said on Jan. 30, speaking on
condition of anonymity.

He's no longer on the registry.  But, in his late 30s, he got a
letter from the state saying he had to register.  He then landed
on the registry, alongside adult sexual predators, for playing
doctor with a girl when he was a prepubescent, 12-year-old boy,
he said.

It wreaked havoc on his life.  Suddenly, he couldn't get a job
working with cattle and has been made out to be a monster.  One
night, a stranger pulled up to his home and came to the door,
intimidating his wife, yelling he had a right to talk to her
husband.

"Everybody makes poor choices. Some make worse choices than
others.  But holding those poor choices against a child is
absolutely irresponsible," he said.

In the lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in Omaha, his
attorney, Weir, said the seven were among 74 who the State Patrol
removed from the registry last August, four days after the 8th
Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the 15-year-old
Nebraska boy, whose family sued to block the State Patrol from
putting him on the list for something he did in Minnesota when he
was 11.

The boy in the case was adjudicated in juvenile court there for
criminal sexual conduct.  A Minnesota judge ordered him to
complete probation, counseling and community service, and his
name went on a part of that state's predatory offender list that
is visible only to police.

Nebraska's registry excludes juveniles unless they are prosecuted
criminally in adult court.

But, when he moved to Nebraska to live with relatives, the State
Patrol determined by a plain reading of the statute he should be
on the public registry.

The Attorney General's office conceded if he had done in Nebraska
exactly what he did in Minnesota, he wouldn't have been required
to register but interpreted the state law to mean all sex
offenders who move here must register, regardless of age.

Senior U.S. District Judge Richard Kopf disagreed, saying it made
no sense to believe Nebraska statutes were intended to be more
punitive to juveniles adjudicated elsewhere than those that go
through the system here.

When the state appealed, the 8th Circuit agreed.

Soon after, a State Patrol attorney notified 74 people, including
the seven in the civil rights lawsuit filed on Jan. 29, that they
no longer were subject to the Nebraska Sex Offender Registration
Act.

And Sen. Carol Blood has introduced a bill to make the language
more clear to exclude from the registry anyone adjudicated as a
juvenile.

But, Mr. Weir alleges, the damage already was done.

One of his clients, put on the list for an adjudication when he
was 12, wasn't allowed to attend public school with his peers
because he was on the registry.  At least two were incarcerated
for failing to register.  Two have been homeless.

The lawsuit seeks compensation for lost earning capacity and
wages, among other things, as well as punitive damages.

Asked what he hopes to come of the lawsuit, Mr. Weir's client who
is 42 now, said he's not looking for a paycheck, though admits
he'd like to get enough money so he and his family can move.

Mostly, he said, "I'm hoping that this never happens to anybody
else again." [GN]


NBYT INC: Troutman Sanders Attorney Discusses Court Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------
David M. Gettings, Esq. -- dave.gettings@troutman.com -- and
Timothy "Tim" J. St. George, Esq. -- tim.st.george@troutman.com
-- of Troutman Sanders LLP, in an article for Lexology, wrote
that in recent years, defendants have been attempting to curtail
class actions in federal court by arguing that the named
plaintiff lacked standing under the Supreme Court's holding in
Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins.  Although defendants have had success in
asserting Spokeo in "no injury" class actions, this success has
not been without a price.  Often, a successful Spokeo challenge
results in defendants litigating in state court instead of the
federal side of the ledger.  As the upside of Spokeo has waned in
certain scenarios, however, a new avenue of dismissal for certain
class claims is gaining traction in federal courts, specifically,
the theory that a court does not have personal jurisdiction to
render a judgment on behalf of a class of non-resident plaintiffs
against an out-of-state defendant.

In DeBernardis v. NBTY, Inc., the District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois became the most recent district court to
dismiss class claims based on the Supreme Court's ruling in
Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California.  In
DeBernardis, the plaintiff brought a nationwide class action in
Illinois federal court alleging various fraud and warranty claims
under state law.  The defendants moved to dismiss the case as to
the class of plaintiffs that were not Illinois residents.  The
defendants argued, based on Bristol-Myers, that the court did not
have personal jurisdiction over the claims of the non-resident
plaintiff class against the out-of-state defendants.  The Court
agreed.

The opinion stated that when assessing whether a court has
personal jurisdiction, the court must look at the burden a
defendant faces in having to litigate in a foreign court against
a class or mass of non-residents.  The court must also look at
the fairness of forcing an out-of-state defendant to submit "to
the coercive power of a State that may have little legitimate
interest in the claims in question."  Indeed, the court in
Bristol Myers noted that the Constitution's Due Process Clause
may sometimes "divest the state of its power to render a valid
judgment" with respect to a mass action of non-resident
plaintiffs.  Although the court in DeBernardis found the issue to
be a "close question," it ultimately dismissed the portion of the
claims brought on behalf of the "out-of-state plaintiff classes"
for lack of personal jurisdiction.

The Bristol-Myers decision could become a powerful tool in
dismissing certain classes of plaintiffs in nationwide class
actions.  There are risks, however, in deploying this tool. It
may ultimately result in plaintiffs' counsel bringing multiple
state-specific class actions instead of one nationwide class
action.  It may also lead to more lawsuits in a defendant's home
state, where it may be subject to general jurisdiction. [GN]


NBTY INC: Foley & Lardner Attorneys Discuss Court Ruling
--------------------------------------------------------
Michael D. Leffel, Esq. -- mleffel@foley.com -- and Aaron R.
Wegrzyn, Esq. -- awegrzyn@foley.com -- of Foley & Lardner LLP, in
an article for The National Law Review, report that Judge
Leinenweber of the Northern District of Illinois rejected a named
plaintiff's attempt to bring a nationwide class action, basing
his decision on the Supreme Court's decision last June in
Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California
("Bristol-Myers").[1]  The Bristol-Myers decision -- and now its
lower court progeny -- bolsters a jurisdictional ground for
defendants resisting class actions purporting to cover claims of
proposed multi-state classes comprised of non-forum residents.

In DeBernardis v. NBTY, Inc. ("DeBernardis")[2] Judge Leinenweber
addresses allegations that a distributor of a dietary supplement
made false and misleading representations regarding its potential
benefits.  In addition to a class of Illinois purchasers seeking
relief under the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act, the named plaintiff
sought to represent a putative nationwide class with respect to
consumer fraud, breach of warranty, and unjust enrichment
claims.[3]  The defendant moved to dismiss the complaint in its
entirety.

The defendant's principal argument for dismissal was that courts
in Illinois lacked personal jurisdiction -- based on the Bristol-
Myers opinion -- over the claims of absent class members who did
not have any connection to Illinois.[4]  The Supreme Court's
decision last summer in Bristol-Myers held that California state
courts lacked personal jurisdiction over non-residents' claims in
a mass tort action where the defendant was not subject to general
jurisdiction in California and the non-residents' claims lacked
any connection to California.[5]  Similarly, in DeBernardis, the
defendant was not subject to general jurisdiction in Illinois and
there was no connection between Illinois and absent class
members' alleged claims.

In response, the plaintiff attempted to cabin Bristol-Myers to
the context of mass tort cases, distinguishing his case on the
ground that it was a putative class action that would need to
satisfy the requirements of Rule 23.[6]  Plaintiff counsel cited
two recent, out-of-circuit district court opinions in support of
this distinction,[7] while the defense pointed to a factually-
analogous Northern District of Illinois case from just months
earlier, which had dismissed claims relating to non-Illinois
residents on personal jurisdiction grounds.[8]

Judge Leinenweber called the applicability of Bristol-Myers a
"close question," but he ultimately sided with the defendant and
dismissed the claims relating to non-resident putative class
members.  Reading the tea leaves, Judge Leinenweber wrote that he
believed it "more likely than not" that the Supreme Court would
eventually "apply Bristol-Myers Squibb to outlaw nationwide class
actions in a forum, such as in this case, where there is no
general jurisdiction over the Defendants."[9]  Having dismissed
the claims of non-Illinois residents, the court went on to
dismiss the claims of the named plaintiff and Illinois class
members due to a lack of standing to pursue injunctive relief and
a failure to comply with certain Illinois statutory notice
requirements.[10]

The DeBernardis decision highlights the significance of
jurisdictional requirements.  A lack of personal jurisdiction
with respect to non-resident claims may preclude multi-state
class actions.  Such personal jurisdiction issues should be
considered at the beginning of a case because, unlike subject
matter jurisdiction, lack of personal jurisdiction may be waived
by a defendant.[11]

Notably, the Supreme Court's Bristol-Myers decision addresses
specific jurisdiction: the Court expressly noted that a forum
might be permitted to exercise personal jurisdiction over non-
residents' claims in situations where it possesses general
jurisdiction over the defendant.[12]  It may still be possible
for national class actions to proceed in states where a given
defendant is considered "at home" under longstanding principles
of personal jurisdiction (e.g., a corporation's state of
incorporation or principal place of business).

Given the recency and prominence of the Bristol-Myers opinion, we
expect lower courts will continue to grapple with the
intersection between personal jurisdiction and class action
litigation.  With a split of authority already arising just six
months after the Supreme Court's decision, we will continue to
monitor the developing case law and provide further updates. [GN]


NEW MEXICO: Tax Department Sued Over Driver's Denial of ID Cards
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dan McKay, writing for Albuquerque Journal, reports that
David Coss says he was turned away repeatedly when he applied for
a driver's authorization card, even though he had the proper
documents.

Now he's the lead plaintiff in a class-action lawsuit that
accuses the state Taxation and Revenue Department of illegally
denying driver's authorization and other ID cards to New Mexicans
who can't or don't want to provide the more onerous documents
required for a full driver's license.

Mr. Coss, a former mayor of Santa Fe, said employees at the Motor
Vehicle Division improperly required him to provide a Social
Security card, which he had lost.

"Nothing I took to MVD was good enough," Mr. Coss told a news
conference on Jan. 29.  "I know I'm not the only New Mexican
dealing with this nightmare."

The Taxation and Revenue Department, in turn, described the
lawsuit's allegations as isolated examples and said that nearly
35,000 driver's authorization cards have been issued since 2016.

"This is the latest in their long line of political stunts,"
Benjamin Cloutier, a spokesman for the Taxation and Revenue
Department, said in a written statement.

Mr. Coss is one of seven plaintiffs identified by name in the
lawsuit, filed on Jan. 29 in the state's 1st Judicial District.
Also named as plaintiffs are the New Mexico Coalition to End
Homelessness and Somos un Pueblo Unido, a group that advocates
for immigrants' rights.

They say Gov. Susana Martinez's administration is improperly
requiring too much documentation for people who want a driver's
authorization card or similar identification card -- not a
driver's license that complies with the federal Real ID Act.

The suit also alleges the state has failed to notify people of
their right to appeal if they are denied the driver's
authorization card or ID.

The litigation comes after Martinez and a bipartisan coalition of
state lawmakers agreed in 2016 to a compromise law creating a
two-tiered licensing system for New Mexico drivers -- one ID card
that meets federal requirements and another available to people
who provide less documentation or are living in the country
illegally.

The second-tier option provides a driver's authorization card or
ID that cannot be used for federal purposes.

After winning election in 2010, Gov. Martinez repeatedly pushed
to change a 2003 law that allowed people living in the country
illegally to obtain driver's licenses.  She had initially sought
to repeal the law but later accepted the compromise legislation.

It was critical for public safety, Gov. Martinez said, to revise
the 2003 law, which she and other opponents said made New Mexico
a magnet for fraud.

"Our two-tiered compromise is a result of bipartisan legislation
that ends the dangerous practice of giving driver's licenses to
illegal immigrants and brings New Mexico into compliance with the
federal Real ID law," Mr. Cloutier said on Jan. 29.

Supporters of the class-action suit said the 2016 compromise
provided a way for homeless people, undocumented immigrants and
others to obtain an ID they could use to work, rent a hotel room
or open a bank account.

Denying access to those cards "really hits the most vulnerable in
our community the hardest," said Sovereign Hager, supervising
attorney for the New Mexico Center on Law and Poverty.

Gabriela Ibanez Guzman, an attorney for Somos un Pueblo Unido,
said the group tried to work with the state to avoid litigation.

"Unfortunately, this administration from the very beginning
failed to implement the law correctly," said Marcela D°az,
executive director of Somos un Pueblo Unido.

The lawsuit says the state Taxation and Revenue Department
invented an extra requirement that isn't outlined in state law --
requiring applicants to "establish proof of identification
number."  An "untold number" of people have been unlawfully
denied the driver's authorization cards and IDs, the suit says.

Mr. Coss said he wanted a driver's authorization card, rather
than a federally compliant driver's license, because he believes
the federal law is an overreach that infringes on people's
privacy rights, and he just wanted a card allowing him to drive.
[GN]


OGLETREE DEAKINS: Faces "Knepper" Suit Over Gender Discrimination
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dawn Knepper, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., Case
No. 3:18-cv-00303 (N.D. Cal., January 12, 2018), arises out of
Ogletree's discriminatory against the Plaintiff and female
shareholders with respect to compensation and promotions through
the use of common policies and procedures.

Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C. owns and operates
a law firm with offices worldwide, including six offices in
California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David Sanford, Esq.
      SANFORD HEISLER SHARP, LLP
      1666 Connecticut Ave, NW, Suite 300
      Washington, DC 20009
      Telephone: (202) 499-5200
      Facsimile: (202) 499-5199
      E-mail: dsanford@sanfordheisler.com

         - and -

      Jill Sanford, Esq.
      Edward Chapin, Esq.
      SANFORD HEISLER SHARP, LLP
      655 W Broadway, Suite 1700
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 577-4253
      Facsimile: (619) 677-4250
      E-mail: jsanford@sanfordheisler.com
              echapin2@sanfordheisler.com

         - and -

      Jeremy Heisler, Esq.
      Alexandra Harwin, Esq.
      SANFORD HEISLER SHARP, LLP
      1350 Avenue of the America, 31st Floor
      New York, NY 10019
      Telephone: (646) 402-5650
      Facsimile: (646) 402-5651
      E-mail: jheisler@sanfordheisler.com
              aharwin@sanfordheisler.com

PAINTING FIRM: "Cardona" Suit Seeks OT & Minimum Wages under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
NAUN ALEXANDER ACOSTA CARDONA and all others similarly situated
under 29 U.S.C. 216(b), the Plaintiff, v. PAINTING FIRM LLC,
CHARLES R ANSAROFF, and JENNIFER L ANSAROFF, the Defendants, Case
No. 1:18-cv-20424-CMA (S.D. Fla., Feb. 1, 2018), seeks to recover
overtime and/or minimum wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was a resident of Palm
Beach County, Florida at the time that this dispute arose.

This action arises under the laws of the United States. This case
is brought as a collective action under 29 USC 216(b).  The
Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants have employed several other
similarly situated employees, like Plaintiff, who have not been
paid overtime and/or minimum wages for work performed in excess
of 40 hours weekly from the filing of this complaint back three
years.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J.H. Zidell, Esq.
          J.H. ZIDELL, P.A.
          300 71st Street, Suite 605
          Miami Beach, FL 33141
          Telephone: (305) 865 6766
          Facsimile: (305) 865 7167
          E-mail: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM


PENSION BENEFIT: Plaintiffs' Lawyers Bid for More Fees Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Iafolla, writing for Reuters, reports that a federal
appeals court on Jan. 30 ruled that plaintiffs' lawyers who
netted $85 million in attorneys' fees in a $1 billion benefits
class action are not owed additional fees.

A unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the D.C. Circuit rejected the plaintiffs' attorneys' argument
that the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp violated an agreement to
wrap up their involvement in the case.  Under that deal, PBGC
assumed responsibility for distributing money to class members
while continuing to pay a portion of those awards as attorneys'
fees for 10 years. [GN]


POSABILITIES: Jenkins Seeks Overtime Pay for Off-the-Clock Work
---------------------------------------------------------------
Devrryn Jenkins, individually and on behalf of all similarly
situated employees, Plaintiff, v. POSabilities, Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 18-cv-00159, (D. Md., January 18, 2018), seeks to
recover unpaid wages, liquidated damages, interest, reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs under the federal Fair Labor Standards
Act of 1938, Maryland Wage and Hour Law and Maryland Wage Payment
and Collection Law.

POSabilities, Inc. is in the business of computer service and
repair, specializing in the repair of point of sale systems for
restaurants, bars and other commercial establishments. Plaintiff
was employed as a technician, frequently "on-call" working hours
outside of their regular schedules. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Benjamin L. Davis, III, Esq.
      George E. Swegman (26972)
      THE LAW OFFICES OF PETER T. NICHOLL
      36 South Charles Street, Suite 1700
      Baltimore, MD 21201
      Phone: (410) 244-7005
      Fax: (410) 244-8454
      Email: bdavis@nicholllaw.com
             gswegman@nicholllaw.com


PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE: Faces Life Insurance Benefits Class Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jacklyn Wille, writing for Bloomberg BNA, reports that life
insurance recipients who sued Prudential Insurance Co. of America
over its payment practices scored a partial win Jan. 29 when a
federal judge allowed them to present some claims as a certified
subclass.

The judge partially revised his 2016 opinion denying class status
to more than 100,000 people receiving life insurance benefits
through various Prudential plans.  While it remained true that
the Prudential plans included too many variations to justify
certifying a 100,000-person class action, the judge said class
status was warranted for about 1,000 people who receive benefits
under two specific plans for employees of JPMorgan and Con-Way
Inc.

The lawsuit, first filed in 2010 by the children of a deceased
JPMorgan employee, contends that Prudential's practice of paying
life insurance benefits in a checkbook-style account--rather than
a lump-sum payment--violates federal benefits law, because it
allows Prudential to continue earning interest on policy proceeds
that have been distributed to their rightful owners.  In December
2017, the judge said Prudential was wrong to pay benefits through
these accounts, because the relevant life insurance policies
required that benefits be paid in "one sum."

Retained asset accounts are a common method of paying life
insurance benefits in which a beneficiary receives a checkbook
that can be used to incrementally draw down the policy proceeds.
Many cases involving retained asset accounts -- including this
one against Prudential -- turn on the specific language of a
given life insurance policy and whether the policy allows
payments to be made in this way.  A Georgia-based federal judge
ruled in 2016 that MetLife's use of retained asset accounts
violated ERISA because the relevant policy required payments to
be made in "one sum." Other insurers, including UNUM, Sun Life,
and Lincoln National, have relied on more permissive policy
language to escape ERISA liability.

In September, Cigna Corp. became the latest insurer to face a
proposed class action over its use of retained asset accounts.

In the Jan. 29 decision in Prudential's case, the judge once
again declined to certify a 100,000-person class of life
insurance recipients across 2,200 different plans.  However, the
judge said a smaller class of about 1,000 people could be
certified because it would require analyzing only two different
plans.

Judge Joseph F. Leeson Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania wrote the decision.

The life insurance recipients were represented by Flitter Milz
PC, Bell & Brigham, Barrett Wylie LLC, and National Consumer Law
Center.  Prudential was represented by Stevens & Lee, Debevoise &
Pimpton, Ballard Spahr LLP, and Goodwin Procter LLP.

The case is Huffman v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 2018 BL 28906,
E.D. Pa., No. 2:10-cv-05135, order granting partial class
certification 1/29/18. [GN]


PTC ALLIANCE: Faces "Kilgore" Suit over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Kilgore, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. PTC Alliance, Inc., Alliance Tubular Products LLC,
and Alliance Tubular Holdings LLC, Case No. 5:18-cv-00103 (N.D.
Ohio, January 15, 2018), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime compensation at the rate of one and one-
half times the employees' regular rate of pay for the hours they
worked over 40 each workweek.

The Defendants own and operate a manufacturing company for welded
and cold drawn mechanical steel tubing and tubular shapes, plated
bar and tubing. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David J. Steiner, Esq.
      Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq.
      THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC
      920 Rockefeller Building
      614 W. Superior Avenue
      Cleveland, OH 44113
      Telephone: (216) 696-5000
      Facsimile: (216) 696-7005
      E-mail: anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com
              david@lazzarolawfirm.com
              chastity@lazzarolawfirm.com


QUICKEN LOANS: Pagano Sues Over Auto-dialed Collection Calls
------------------------------------------------------------
Jeanne Pagano and Dana Norris, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Quicken Loans, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-00117, (M.D. Fla., January 18, 2018),
seeks statutory and actual damages, declaratory and injunctive
relief, costs of this action, including reasonable attorneys'
fees and expenses, prejudgment interest and post-judgment
interest and such other and further relief for violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Quicken Loans is a debt collection agency who attempted to
collect an obligation Plaintiffs allegedly incurred using calls
from an automated dialing system. Pagano and Norris claim they
incurred unwanted charges for these calls. Their numbers are on
the National Do-Not-Call Registry. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Stefan Coleman, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF STEFAN COLEMAN, P.A.
      201 s. Biscayne Blvd., 28th floor
      Miami, FL 33131
      Tel: (877) 333-9427
      Fax: (888) 498.8946
      Email: law@stefancoleman.com

             - and -

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


RED BARN: Faces Class Action Over Washroom Voyeurism
----------------------------------------------------
CTV News reports that two women are part of a proposed class-
action lawsuit against a Saanich grocery store over allegations
they were unknowingly filmed in a washroom by a former employee,
with the images later surfacing online.

The claim alleges the women were filmed between 2009 and 2014
while using the washroom at Red Barn Market at Mattick's Farm, a
popular grocery store in the Cordova Bay area.

Stills taken from the footage, as well as one of the victim's
names and an offensive caption were allegedly posted to a Russian
"revenge pornographic website," the claim says.

The plaintiffs say they only learned about the alleged footage
when police contacted them in 2016 to show them images of
themselves posted to the Russian website.

They claim a former co-worker captured the footage using a video
recording device placed in the washroom over a lengthy period of
time.

The washroom was used by employees but also available to
customers on request, the women said.

In the claim, the women allege that the co-worker displayed a
"sexually charged and disrespectful" attitude toward women and
that in or around 2013, he exposed himself to a young female co-
worker.

Saanich police acknowledged a civil lawsuit had been filed, and
would only say an investigation was ongoing into multiple alleged
incidents of a male co-worker secretly filming female co-workers
in a staff bathroom at a store.

They said the investigation began Jan. 30, 2016, after one of the
victims brought forward the allegations.

A suspect was arrested and released and formal charges have not
yet been laid, according to police.

According to the claim, the women have learned of at least six
other victims allegedly filmed in the washroom.

They said they're filing the proposed class-action suit to reach
out to anyone else who believes they may have been filmed without
their knowledge.

In addition to naming the former employee in the lawsuit, the
plaintiffs are suing the business for general damages resulting
from "negligence resulting in an invasion of privacy."

Red Barn Market issued a statement in response to CTV's request
for comment saying it had been advised that the class-action
lawsuit had been filed regarding a workplace incident.

"The matters referred to in the lawsuit(s) concern information
that is private and personal," the statement said.  "We must, and
will respect the rights of those involved to have their privacy
respected and protected."

The company declined to comment further on the lawsuit. [GN]


RED PARROT: Must Face Class Action Over Unsolicited Fax Ads
-----------------------------------------------------------
Klein Moynihan Turco LLP, in an article for Lexology, reports a
federal district court in Illinois refused to dismiss a putative
class action lawsuit filed against Red Parrot Distribution, Inc.
("Red Parrot") amidst allegations that the pharmacy supplier's
fax advertisements violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
("TCPA").

The subject fax TCPA lawsuit was filed by Camp Drug Store, Inc.
("Camp Drug Store") -- a small-town pharmacy that is making a
name for itself throughout the telemarketing industry by virtue
of its use of the TCPA to repeatedly bring class action lawsuits.
In recent months, Camp Drug Store has filed no fewer than seven
such fax TCPA class action lawsuits in Illinois federal court
against a variety of sellers.

What should you do if you have been sued by Camp Drug Store?

Camp Drug Store's Fax TCPA Lawsuit

According to public court records, mom-and-pop pharmacy Camp Drug
Store, located in Wood River, Illinois, received two fax ads in
November 2016, which advertised Red Parrot's pharmaceuticals and
cash-and-carry products.  In May 2017, Camp Drug Store filed a
putative class action fax TCPA lawsuit against Red Parrot in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois (Case
No. 17-cv-502), alleging that Red Parrot's fax ads were delivered
to Camp Drug Store "and more than thirty-nine (39) other persons"
without securing each recipient's prior express written consent
to be faxed by Red Parrot.

In July 2017, Red Parrot filed a motion to dismiss Camp Drug
Store's complaint claiming, among other things, that Drug Store
failed to establish that Red Parrot sent the subject fax ads.

On January 24, 2018, the Court denied Red Parrot's motion to
dismiss.  The Court was unpersuaded by Red Parrot's arguments,
holding that "the pleadings sufficiently support the reasonable
inference that Red Parrot did, in fact, send the faxes or cause
them to be sent."

What should you do if Camp Drug Store or any other TCPA plaintiff
sues you?

Because the stakes are so high, it is critical to take the right
steps when you first learn that you or your business has been
named in a fax TCPA lawsuit, both to preserve critical defenses
and to avoid prejudice to your case.

Upon learning of the filing, or threat of filing, of a fax TCPA
suit by an entity such as Camp Drug Store, it is critical that
you do not: (1) speak with your adversary, who may look to
extract information harmful to your position; (2) issue press
releases; (3) speak with employees, marketing partners,
advertisers or others in the industry until after you have had
the opportunity to speak with an experienced TCPA attorney; or
(4) destroy, tamper with or create documents.  Extensive
experience with the aggressive defense of telemarketing lawsuits
has allowed us to formulate arguments informed by the most
effective legal theories related to TCPA claims, positioning our
clients to achieve favorable resolutions. [GN]


REMINGTON: Massachusetts AG Protests Approval of Rifle Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Alison Frankel, writing for Reuters, reports that the day after
the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued its instantly
controversial decision in In re Hyundai and Kia Fuel Efficiency
Litigation, striking down a $200 million nationwide class action
settlement because the trial judge failed to analyze differences
in state consumer laws when he approved the deal, the
Massachusetts attorney general sent a letter about the Hyundai
ruling to the 8th Circuit, where a group of state AGs is
protesting approval of a nationwide settlement over allegedly
defective Remington rifle triggers.

The Massachusetts AG's letter pointed out that in the Remington
case, as in the Hyundai class action, the trial judge approved a
nationwide class settlement despite differences in underlying
state consumer laws.  The 9th Circuit's Hyundai decision, which
held that trial courts must consider those differences in
evaluating whether classwide issues predominate over individual
concerns, is directly at odds with Remington trial judge's
assertion that a settlement obviates state choice-of-law
analysis.  The 9th Circuit in Hyundai, the letter said, called
such reasoning "wrong as a matter of law."

The letter is early proof of the significance of the 9th
Circuit's Hyundai decision, which has suddenly elevated choice of
law analysis as an obstacle to nationwide class action
settlements. No doubt, the ruling is contentious.  Critics --
including panel member Jacqueline Nguyen, who wrote a scathing
dissent from the Hyundai majority's holding -- say the opinion
conflicts with precedent from other circuits, in particular with
the 3rd Circuit's en banc 2011 decision in Sullivan v. DB
Investments.  Settlement proponents in the Hyundai case have said
they intend to ask the 9th Circuit for en banc review.
Regardless, new prominence in the already high-profile Remington
case will contribute to a choice-of-law reckoning for nationwide
class action proponents.

Approval of the nationwide Remington rifle settlement was hard-
won.  As you may recall, U.S. District Judge Ortrie Smith of
Kansas City at first refused to approve the deal -- which offered
replacement trigger mechanisms to the owners of more than 7.5
million supposedly defective bolt-action rifles -- because only a
tiny percentage of prospective class members filed claims.  In
January 2017, while the judge was considering a renewed motion
for final approval after a second campaign to notify rifle owners
about the settlement, Massachusetts and other AGs filed a brief
urging the judge to reject the proposed deal because it leaves
millions of dangerous weapons unfixed. Judge Smith nevertheless
approved the settlement in March 2017.

Objectors appealed approval of the settlement to the 8th Circuit.
In an amicus brief, Massachusetts and 12 other states, as well as
the District of Columbia, argued that Judge Smith ignored the
U.S. Supreme Court's directive in Amchem v. Windsor to evaluate
variations in the value of class members' claims.  Specifically,
the amicus brief argued, Judge Smith approved a nationwide
settlement based on Missouri's weak consumer protection laws even
though class members from states with more robust protections had
stronger claims for economic damages.

Objectors didn't raise choice-of-law arguments, so both Remington
and class counsel said in their 8th Circuit briefs that the issue
had been waived. But even if it hadn't, they said, the AGs were
wrong.  Judge Smith followed the 8th Circuit's holding in Keil v.
Lopez when he evaluated the proposed settlement in its entirety
rather than on a claim by claim basis, the briefs said.
Plaintiffs said Judge Smith did, in fact, engage in a state-by-
state analysis and concluded the settlement was fair. The deal,
they said, accounted for Amchem by creating subclasses to assure
all class members' interests were protected.

"As this court noted in Keil, a settlement is a compromise of
what the varying claims are worth and if a class member thinks he
or she has a more valuable claim, that class member can opt out,"
the plaintiffs' brief said.  "Every citizen represented by the
Attorneys General had the right to opt out if they thought their
state's remedies offered additional avenues of recovery not
offered in this settlement."

Mark Lanier of the Lanier Law Firm will be arguing on behalf of
class counsel when the 8th Circuit hears the Remington case on
Feb. 14.  In an email, he said the 9th Circuit's Hyundai decision
is "not normative," and that the AGs are asking the 8th Circuit
"to go into weirdness land on the law."  Mr. Lanier said the
class plans to file a response to the Massachusetts AG's Hyundai
notice on Jan. 29 but it was not immediately available.  Neblett
Beard & Arsenault, Levin Sedran & Berman and the Holland Law Firm
are also on the class brief at the 8th Circuit.

Ms. Frankel emailed Remington counsel John Sherk --
jsherk@shb.com -- of Shook Hardy & Bacon for comment on the
Massachusetts AG's letter but didn't hear back.  Remington is
also represented by Swanson Martin & Bell.

The 8th Circuit will at least hear, if not decide, the Remington
case before any reconsideration of Hyundai.  It's going to be
interesting to see if other courts regard the 9th Circuit's
holding as an anomaly or as a logical extension of Amchem. The
future of nationwide class actions may depend on the answer. [GN]


RESTORATION HARDWARE: Class Action Objectors Face Setback
---------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for Law.com, reports that the California
Supreme Court ruled on Jan. 29 that objectors in class actions
must intervene before filing an appeal of a settlement or
decision, raising the burden on objectors and setting the state
apart from more lenient federal rules.

The unanimous ruling is another setback for objector attorney
Lawrence Schonbrun, who lost a California Supreme Court case two
years ago challenging the calculation of attorney fees in class
actions.  This time, Mr. Schonbrun, a solo practitioner in
Berkeley, California, had asked the California Supreme Court to
reconsider its 1942 precedential decision in Eggert v. Pacific
States Savings & Loan, in which it found that only "a party to
the record" may appeal decisions in class actions brought in
state court.  The case had "significant practical consequences,"
wrote a lawyer for the Consumer Attorneys of California in an
amicus brief, and could prevent the frivolous objections that
have made the federal system "unsound" and "lax."

"We conclude the Court of Appeal correctly relied on Eggert to
hold that unnamed class members may not appeal a class judgment,
settlement, or attorney fees award unless they intervene in the
action," Justice Ming Chin wrote for the court, upholding a 2016
decision by the California Court of Appeal.  Mr. Schonbrun said
the ruling would "without question" makes it harder to bring
objections in class actions in California state courts.  "It's
clear these two decisions are decisions in favor of courts,
judges and lawyers, and against the interests of unnamed class
members in class actions," he said, referring to the Jan. 29
decision and the 2016 decision he lost in Laffitte v. Robert Half
International.  "The undercurrent of the Restoration Hardware
case are problems caused to class action lawyers by objectors, as
if that wasn't a manageable problem, as if that was the most
important.  Not the rights of class members, but is this being
annoying to lawyers and judges?" Allison Goddard of Patterson Law
Group in San Diego, who represented the plaintiffs, did not
return a call for comment.

Restoration Hardware Inc. was represented by Miriam Vogel --
mvogel@mofo.com -- of Morrison & Foerster but wasn't involved in
the appeal.  The class action was brought in 2008 alleging that
Restoration Hardware's retail stores asked customers for their
ZIP codes in violation of the Song-Beverly Credit Card Act.  The
case ended in a $36.4 million judgment against Restoration
Hardware.  Mr. Schonbrun's client, a class member named Francesca
Muller, appeared in the class, raising concerns that class
members hadn't been notified of a request for $9.1 million in
attorney fees.  When former San Diego Superior Court Judge
William Dato approved the judgment, Muller petitioned the Fourth
District Court of Appeal, which tossed her appeal on the ground
that she wasn't a "party aggrieved" as required under the
California Code of Civil Procedure.  In petitioning the
California Supreme Court, Mr. Schonbrun argued that the Eggert
decision was a "remnant of a bygone era" given the 1966 revisions
to the Federal Rule 23 of Civil Procedure governing class
actions.  Those rules don't require intervention, just a notice
of appearance.

"How big is this impediment? Is it a wall that's impenetrable?
No," Mr. Schonbrun said.  But it does create an additional
burden, he said.  "The bottom line is they want to get rid of
appeals."  But the Consumer Attorneys of California, in its
brief, noted that Rule 23 was recently amended to address
concerns that "professional objectors" were bringing frivolous
appeals, holding up settlement payments to class members. The new
rules require court approval of payments to objectors who later
drop their appeals.  "Eggert's intervention requirement acts to
discourage professional and frivolous objections, and thereby
protects the integrity of the class action procedure," Goddard
wrote, calling Ms. Muller's appeal a "frivolous appeal" that has
cost lawyers $100,000. For its part, the California Supreme Court
declined to follow the federal rules. "Our state common law,
legislation, and procedural rules of court differ significantly
from the federal common law and procedural rules," Justice Chin
wrote. "As the Court of Appeal emphasized here, our legislature
has chosen to continue Eggert's rule despite changes in federal
class action rules." [GN]


SHOP FAIR: Doesn't Pay Security Guards Overtime, Espinal Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
Leonardo Espinal, on behalf of himself and all other persons
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Shop Fair Corp., d/b/a Shop
Fair Supermarket, and Chris Doe, the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-
00711 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 1, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid wages and
overtime wages, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and New
York Labor Law.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was employed by
Defendant as a security guard from March until December 2017. The
Plaintiff roughly worked 105 hours per week during that time. The
Defendants failed to compensate Plaintiff at the appropriate
statutory minimum wage for all his hours worked.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Proposed FLSA Collective:

          Michael Samuel, Esq.
          SAMUEL & STEIN
          38 West 32nd Street, Suite 1110
          New York, NY 10001
          Telephone: (212) 563 9884
          E-mail: Michael@samuelstein.com


STUDIO GROUP: Illegally Debits Bank Account, Ruiz Claims
--------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTIAN RUIZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. THE STUDIO GROUP and does
1-10, the Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-00824 (C.D. Cal., Feb. 1,
2018), seeks to recover damages, injunctive relief, and any other
available legal or equitable remedies, resulting from the illegal
actions of Defendants debiting Plaintiff's and also the putative
Class members' bank accounts on a recurring basis without
obtaining a written authorization signed or similarly
authenticated for preauthorized electronic fund transfers from
Plaintiff and also the putative Class members' accounts, pursuant
to the Electronic Fund Transfer Act.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SUCAMPO PHARMA: Otugo Seeks to Halt Sale to Mallinckrodt
--------------------------------------------------------
Ositanachi Otugo, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Sucampo Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
and the members of the company's board of directors, Defendants,
Case No. 18-cv-00173 (D. Md., January 18, 2018), seeks to enjoin
defendants and all persons acting in concert from proceeding
with, consummating or closing the acquisition of Sucampo by
Mallinckrodt PLC through its wholly owned subsidiary, Sun
Acquisition Co., rescinding it in the event defendants consummate
the merger.  The plaintiff also seeks rescissory damages, costs
of this action, including reasonable allowance for plaintiff's
attorneys' and experts' fees and such other and further relief
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Mallinckrodt will commence a cash tender offer to acquire all of
the issued outstanding shares of Sucampo common stock for $18.00
per share. Deal is valued at approximately $1.2 billion.

The complaint says merger documents omitted material information
regarding Sucampo's financial projections as well as projected
free cash flows as well as the valuation analyses performed by
Jefferies LLC. Said disclosure of projected financial information
is material because it provides stockholders with a basis to
project the future financial performance of a company, and allows
stockholders to better understand the financial analyses in
support of its fairness opinion.

Sucampo is a biopharmaceutical company focused on the development
and commercialization of pharmaceutical products for
gastroenterology, ophthalmology and oncology-related disorders.
[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Donald J. Enright, Esq.
      Elizabeth K. Tripodi, Esq.
      1101 30th Street, N.W., Suite 115
      Washington, DC 20007
      Telephone: (202) 524-4290
      Facsimile: (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, 59th Floor
      New York, NY 10118
      Telephone: (212) 971-1341
      Email: jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com
             mschreiner@monteverdelaw.com


SYKES ENTERPRISES: "Payne" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tina Payne, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Sykes Enterprises, Incorporated, Case No. 2:18-cv-
00068 (E.D. Wis., January 15, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime compensation, unpaid agreed upon wages, liquidated
damages, costs, attorneys' fees, declaratory and injunctive
relief pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Sykes Enterprises, Incorporated is a Tampa, Florida corporation
that provides call center services for clients, such as the
American Association of Retired Persons, throughout the United
States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      James A. Walcheske, Esq.
      Scott S. Luzi, Esq.
      WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC
      15850 W. Bluemound Rd., Suite 304
      Brookfield, WI 53005
      Telephone: (262) 780-1953
      Facsimile: (262) 565-6469
      E-mail: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com
              sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com

TARLAND: "Rodriguez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Javier Rodriguez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Tarland, L.L.C., and Thomas McGill, Case No. 3:18-cv-
00088-G (N.D. Tex., January 15, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant located within the
Northern District of Texas. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      J.H. Zidell, Esq.
      Robert L. Manteuffel, Esq.
      Joshua A. Petersen, Esq.
      J.H. ZIDELL, P.C.
      6310 LBJ Freeway, Ste. 112
      Dallas, TX 75240
      Telephone: (972) 233-2264
      Facsimile: (972) 386-7610
      E-mail: zabogado@aol.com
              rlmanteuffel@sbcglobal.net
              josh.a.petersen@gmail.com


TD AMERITRADE: Diamond Kaplan Alerts Customers of Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
The securities arbitration law firm Dimond Kaplan & Rothstein,
P.A. ("DKR") (http://www.dkrpa.com)alerts current and former TD
Ameritrade customers of a January 19, 2018 securities class
action lawsuit filed against TD Ameritrade under case number
1:18-cv-00419 in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois.  The case involves naked put
options investment losses that TD Ameritrade customers suffered.
The TD Ameritrade customers used the investment advisory services
of Sheaff Brock Investment Advisor, LLC through TD Ameritrade's
AdvisorDirect program and suffered losses in a risky put income
options strategy.

Investors Should Consider Filing an Individual FINRA Arbitration
Claim
Investors should consider whether to participate in the class
action or file an individual FINRA securities arbitration claim.
DKR reminds current and former TD Ameritrade customers that
investors in securities class action lawsuits often recover only
nominal amounts, whereas investors who lost more than $100,000
may benefit more by filing their own case as an individual FINRA
securities arbitration claim.  Individual FINRA arbitration cases
are handled as private proceedings, rather than through the
public court system. Such cases must be brought timely or you may
be prohibited from pursuing your claims.

TD Ameritrade AdvisorDirect Program
TD Ameritrade introduces customers to third-party investment
advisors through its AdvisorDirect program.  If a customer enters
the program, TD Ameritrade receives a solicitation fee and 25% of
the investment advisor's ongoing investment management fee.  TD
Ameritrade also collects commissions for all trades that the
investment advisor makes in the customer's TD Ameritrade account.
These revenue streams incentivize TD Ameritrade to recommend its
AdvisorDirect program to customers.

Many options strategies, including the put income options
strategy that is the subject of the class action, are extremely
risky and are suitable only for investors who are willing to
speculate with their money.  The strategy involved selling naked
puts, which is among the riskiest forms of options trading.
Notwithstanding the risk, Sheaff Brock and TD Ameritrade appear
to have represented that the put income strategy was
conservative.

TD Ameritrade offices, including those located in Beverly Hills,
CA, Chicago, IL, Salt Lake City, UT, Fort Worth, TX, Harrisburg,
PA, and Vicksburg, MS are believed to have recommended that
customers invest in risky options through investment advisor
Sheaff Brock.  FINRA rules required the recommendations to be
suitable for the individual customers.  But many TD Ameritrade
customers have complained that the recommended options strategies
involved far more risk than the customers were willing to take.

Dimond Kaplan & Rothstein Represents TD Ameritrade Customers
Dimond Kaplan & Rothstein currently represents TD Ameritrade
customers who suffered options investment losses with Sheaff
Brock.  DKR's clients used Sheaff Brock's investment advisory
services through TD Ameritrade's AdvisorDirect program at TD
Ameritrade's recommendation.

Contact Our Investment Fraud Lawyers
Dimond Kaplan & Rothstein, P.A. is a nationally recognized
stockbroker negligence and investment fraud law firm that has
recovered more than $100 million from banks and brokerage firms
for their wrongful actions. With offices in Los Angeles, Miami,
New York, West Palm Beach, and Bloomfield Hills, MI, our
investment fraud attorneys represent clients nationwide and may
be able to help you recover your investment losses.

If you are or were a TD Ameritrade customer and you suffered
options investment losses of more than $100,000 with investment
advisor Sheaff Brock, contact a Dimond Kaplan & Rothstein
investment fraud lawyer for a free case evaluation at (888) 578-
6255 or info@dkrpa.com You may have a valid FINRA arbitration
claim to recover your TD Ameritrade options losses.  You also can
visit Dimond Kaplan & Rothstein, P.A. on the web at www.dkrpa.com

Contact:

Jeffrey B. Kaplan, Esq.
jkaplan@dkrpa.com
2029 Century Park East
Century Plaza Tower
Suite 400N
Los Angeles, CA 90067

* Offices in Los Angeles, Miami, New York, West Palm Beach, and
Bloomfield Hills, MI (888) 578-6255 [GN]


TEXAS: In Settlement Talks in Case Over Heat-Related Deaths
-----------------------------------------------------------
Gabrielle Banks, writing for San Antonio Express-News, reports
that Texas prison officials are in settlement talks with the
Austin law firm that sued over heat-related deaths during the
summers in cellblocks across Texas and are also considering a
resolution to the case involving the threat of perilous heat to
elderly and medically compromised inmates at the Pack Unit,
according to court documents.

According to an individual familiar with the case, the Texas
Department of Criminal Justice is meeting with attorneys from
Edwards Law to mediate several wrongful death suits brought by
the families of inmates who died during heat waves in 2011 and
2012.

Also officially on the table is the class-action lawsuit brought
by inmates at the geriatric Pack Unit about 75 miles northwest of
Houston which, like many prisons across Texas, does not have air
conditioning in its housing units.

A TDCJ spokesman declined to comment about the negotiations.
Jeff Edwards, lead attorney for the wrongful death and the Pack
Unit cases, also declined to comment.

The discussions between the inmates' lawyers and prison officials
include possible remedies for several of the families who sued in
the federal Southern District of Texas over their loved ones'
heat-related deaths at prisons across Texas, according to court
documents.

TDCJ has stated in court documents that 22 inmates had died from
heat stroke at 15 Texas prisons since 1998.

One victim was Larry McCollum, a 58-year-old cab driver from the
Dallas area imprisoned for writing bad checks.  He was found by
fellow prisoners at the Hutchins Unit convulsing on his bunk on
July 22, 2011.  He arrived at the hospital with a body
temperature of 109 degrees.  His family removed life support six
days later.

In addition, the prison is discussing a permanent remedy or
solution to the case involving air conditioning at the Pack Unit.

This summer, U.S. District Court Judge Keith P. Ellison issued a
hard-hitting emergency injunction in the class-action case,
ordering prison officials to provide air conditioning for heat-
sensitive inmates at the Pack Unit.

Rather than install air-conditioning units, which officials said
were prohibitively costly, TDCJ opted to fulfill the judge's
mandate by shipping more than 1,000 medically vulnerable inmates
to facilities that already had air conditioning.  People housed
at other prisons who weren't involved in the lawsuit were shipped
out of those prisons to make room for incoming Pack inmates.

The situation became complicated weeks later when Hurricane
Harvey forced evacuations at three prisons along the Brazos
River. Given the road conditions and the urgency due to historic
flooding, TDCJ at that time chose to ship inmates from the
Stringfellow Unit in Rosharon to take up the empty beds at the
Pack Unit.  The inmates' lawyers, led by their attorney Edwards,
then asked the judge to broaden the group included in the class-
action to include new heat-vulnerable inmates who had come in
from the Stringfellow Unit.

The judge made it clear that anyone at Pack was part of that
order.  Additional transports of these inmates to air-conditioned
facilities then followed. [GN]


TEZOS: Funder to Step Back Once Project is Back on Track
--------------------------------------------------------
Brenna Hughes Neghaiwi and Steve Stecklow, writing for Reuters,
report that the president of a foundation that controls funding
for a cryptocurrency project called Tezos has pledged to "step
back" from his role once the project is back on track, after
months of dysfunction and public battles with Tezos' founders.

Tezos raised $232 million in a "initial coin offering" in July,
but the project was quickly derailed by disputes between co-
founders Arthur and Kathleen Breitman, who control the code, and
the Tezos Foundation, which controls the funds.

Having had financial transactions frozen late last year, the
foundation has regained access to limited banking services,
allowing it to start paying creditors and software developers
again, the foundation's president, Johann Gevers, said in a blog
post on Jan. 28.  It has also made progress in recruiting, hired
a new law firm and is working on finding an accounting firm.

"I have consistently communicated . . . my intention to step back
from the Foundation as soon as things are on track with a new
board that is independent and has the support of the Tezos
community," Mr. Gevers wrote on the site Medium.

Mr. Gevers removed the post on Jan. 29 for what he called
"prudential reasons," but said in a replacement post that the
foundation was following through on the plans he had outlined.
Reached by Reuters, Mr. Gevers confirmed that he had authored the
posts but declined to elaborate.

The Breitmans did not immediately respond to a request for
comment.

Mr. Gevers' writings are the latest chapter in a saga that began
after July's controversial coin offering.  Although structured as
donations for a technology project, some contributors believed
they were investing in an asset similar to bitcoin because they
were promised coins called "Tezzies."

Board member Guido Schmitz-Krummacher resigned from the Tezos
Foundation in December because of the conflict, and several class
action lawsuits have been filed over the offering.  Contributors
have still not received any Tezzies.

Reuters first detailed the battle between the Breitmans and Mr.
Gevers in an investigation published last October.

In his post, Mr. Gevers said the foundation's financial service
providers froze all of its transactions from October to December,
due to what he called a "breakdown of trust." That made it
impossible to pay creditors, he said.

Although Mr. Gevers did not say his issues with the Breitmans had
been resolved, the foundation was recently able to restore its
financial relationships, he wrote.  It has also hired an interim
executive to oversee operations while it looks for a long-term
CEO, Mr. Gevers wrote, without naming the executive. [GN]


TIMMINCO LTD: Canada High Ct. Closes Shareholders' Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Canadian Underwriter reports that directors' and officers' (D&O)
insurers may breathe somewhat easier after a recent Supreme Court
of Canada decision that appears to have put the final nail in the
coffin of a shareholders' class action lawsuit that carried the
potential to stop the clock on three-year limitations periods.

Insurance Bureau of Canada, representing Canada's home, auto and
business insurers, has expressed concern in the past about the
way courts were interpreting Ontario laws that establish a three-
year statute of limitations on such lawsuits.  Pennyfeather v.
Timminco Ltd., now closed by the Supreme Court, raised some doubt
on how the established law on limitation periods would be
interpreted.

The courts have flip-flopped over the past six years over whether
the three-year limitations clock stops running when: 1)
plaintiffs' lawyers tell the court they plan to launch a lawsuit,
or 2) when the court actually grants leave to proceed with such a
class action.  A 2014 Court of Appeal for Ontario ruling in CIBC
v. Green held that the limitation clock stops running when a
representative plaintiff has "asserted" a cause of action, even
if the plaintiff has not sought leave.  But the Supreme Court of
Canada overruled that decision in 2015, saying that the
limitation clock does not stop running until the court actually
grants leave to start the lawsuit.

Basically, a series of cases were all being heard by the courts
as CIBC v. Green wound its way to the Supreme Court; all of the
cases dealt in some way with limitations issue.  The Supreme
Court's ruling in 2015 held out the possibility that its decision
may not necessarily be applied retroactively to correct previous
cases, such as in Pennyfeather v. Timminco Ltd.

But the Ontario Court of Appeal upheld a trial judge decision
that found retroactivity did apply to Pennyfeather, and therefore
the case was statute-barred for failing to meet the three-year
limitation period.  The Supreme Court announced on Jan. 18 that
it will not hear the case, effectively upholding the Ontario
Court of Appeal ruling.

The appeal was from St. Clair Pennyfeather, a shareholder of now-
defunct Toronto-based metals firm Timminco Limited.  Pennyfeather
is a representative plaintiff in a class-action alleging
misrepresentation; the allegation was never proven in court
because the three-year limitations period was ruled to have
elapsed.  The lawsuit was thrown out of court last year, with
more than $120,000 in costs awarded to the defendants, including
Heinz Schimmelbusch, Timminco's former chairman and CEO.

While the Supreme Court of Canada ultimately ruled in 2015 that
the class action lawsuit against CIBC could proceed, the ruling
was still "generally a good development" for insurers writing D&O
insurance, Stikeman Elliot lawyer Alan D'Silva, told Canadian
Underwriter at the time. (Ms. D'Silva represented IBC as an
intervenor in CIBC v. Green.)

The majority of Supreme Court judges in CIBC v. Green found that
plaintiffs wanting to sue publicly-traded companies in Ontario,
as well as their directors and officers, for misrepresentation in
the stock market can only get leave of the court to proceed if
they prove there is a "reasonable or realistic chance" that their
lawsuit will proceed.  This effectively makes it easier for the
defendant to have the case thrown out of court. [GN]


TINA NAILS: Doesn't Pay Overtime to Salon Staff, Gutierrez Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MISHELLE GUTIERREZ, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. TINA NAILS 2015, INC.
(D/B/A TINA'S NAILS), TINA NAIL INC. (D/B/A TINA'S NAILS), KWANG
H JHIN (A.K.A. MIKE), and DUK SUK PAK, the Defendants, Case No.
1:18-cv-00889 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 1, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid
minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act of 1938 and New York Labor Law.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was employed as a
manicurist, pedicurist and eyebrow waxer at the salon located at
937 Southern Blvd., Bronx, NY 10459. The Plaintiff worked for
Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate
minimum wage and overtime compensation for the hours that she
worked. Rather, Defendants failed to maintain accurate
recordkeeping of the hours worked, failed to pay Plaintiff
Gutierrez appropriately for any hours worked, either at the
straight rate of pay or for any additional overtime premium.

Further, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff Gutierrez the
required "spread of hours" pay for any day in which he had to
work over 10 hours a day. The Defendants' conduct extended beyond
Plaintiff and to all other similarly situated employees. The
Defendants maintained a policy and practice of requiring
Plaintiff and other employees to work in excess of 40 hours per
week without providing the minimum wage and overtime compensation
required by federal and state law and regulations.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Michael Faillace, Esq.
          MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
          New York, NY 10165
          Telephone: (212) 317 1200
          Facsimile: (212) 317 1620
          E-mail: Faillace@employmentcompliance.com


TREASURE COAST: Brokers Among Defendants in "Ponzi Scheme" Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lucas Daprile, writing for TCPalm, reports that an ongoing class-
action lawsuit now claims three Treasure Coast brokers helped
prop up a $1.2 billion "Ponzi scheme."

The civil suit filed in federal court in West Palm Beach alleges
Al Klager of Atlantic Financial Services in Vero Beach, Gordon C.
Hannah of Retirement Planning Solutions in Stuart and James H.
Gilchrist of Florida Tax Advisory Services in Fort Pierce
participated in a "civil conspiracy" to defraud investors by
selling investments in Woodbridge Group of Companies.

In a December 2017 lawsuit, the Securities and Exchange
Commission dubbed Woodbridge a Ponzi scheme, alleging the company
violated multiple securities laws.

Unlike the SEC lawsuit, the class-action suit targets those who
sold investments for Woodbridge.

"We believe that those individuals are culpable and have a
responsibility to these clients who they solicited investments
from," Jonathan Butler, an attorney representing the investors,
told TCPalm.

"At this point, we're giving the sales reps the benefit of doubt
that they weren't knowingly engaged in a Ponzi scheme," Butler
said. "At best, they dropped the ball.  At worst, they ignored
blatant red flags."

Florida's combination of elderly people and their money make it a
popular target for schemes like this, Mr. Butler said.

"We may well be titled the Ponzi scheme capital of the world in
South Florida," Butler said.

The suit was filed Jan. 6, but the three Treasure Coast brokers
weren't added until Jan. 26.  None of the three Treasure Coast
brokers were licensed to sell securities, and the Woodbridge
investment itself was unlicensed, according to federal
registration documents and the SEC suit.

Mr. Klager, whom the suit alleges sold $20 million in Woodbridge
investments and made $1.2 million in commissions, told TCPalm he
was duped, too.

"I have my money and my family's money in it, too," Mr. Klager
said.  "I wouldn't have put more of my own money into it back in
October if I knew (the bankruptcy) was going to happen."

The amount of money Mr. Klager made, according to the lawsuit,
shows brokers who sold Woodbridge investments may have profited
more from the investment than originally reported.

The lawsuit claims Woodbridge paid brokers such as Mr. Klager 9
percent interest on money invested, while brokers offered
investors 5 to 8 percent interest and kept the difference.  All
told, Woodbridge paid its brokers more than $64.5 million in
commissions, the lawsuit alleges.

The suit also names Mr. Klager's wife, Michele, who is listed as
the company's assistant treasurer and secretary as a defendant.

"Al and Michelle Klager's actions in providing a constant and
significant source of investor funds were critical to the success
of the Woodbridge scheme and conspiracy as it allowed (Woodbridge
Owner Robert Shapiro) and Woodbridge to continue to defraud
investors throughout the country," the lawsuit says.

Meanwhile, Vero Beach resident Gerald Roy claims to have invested
$450,000 in Woodbridge, according to the suit.  Others, such as
two Palm Beach County residents named in the suit, claim to have
invested over $1 million each.

Mr. Klager disputes the SEC's distinction Woodbridge operated
like a Ponzi scheme.

Asked what research he did to verify Woodbridge's claims before
investing other peoples' money, Mr. Klager said he visited one of
Woodbridge's Beverly Hills properties and pulled public records
that allegedly showed the property was worth more than Woodbridge
paid.

"They obviously are legit," Mr. Klager said he thought at the
time. "They had to be."

Mr. Klager is confident investors will get their money back; but
Butler is more cautious, given some of that money is already
gone.

At least $21 million of investor money was spent to finance
Woodbridge owner Robert Shapiro's lavish lifestyle, which
included private jets, luxury cars and country club memberships,
the SEC suit alleges.

"As with any Ponzi scheme, the likelihood of recovering enough
assets to make all investors whole is at best a tough
proposition," Mr. Butler said. [GN]


TRUE BLUE: Faces "Nembhard" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rhona Nembhard, and all others similarly situated v. True Blue
Home Health Care, Corp. and Karelina Reyes, Case No. 0:18-cv-
60076-BB (S.D. Fla., January 15, 2018), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a home health aide agency in
Broward County, Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jordan Richards, Esq.
      JORDAN RICHARDS, PLLC
      401 East Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1400
      Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
      Telephone: (954) 871-0050
      E-mail: Jordan@jordanrichardslaw.com


ULTA BEAUTY: Resells Used Cosmetics, Class Action Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------
Brian Grosh, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
a federal class-action lawsuit claims Ulta Beauty routinely
repackages used cosmetics that are returned to its retail stores
and then resells them to unsuspecting consumers who think they're
buying a new product.

The lawsuit, filed in Chicago federal court on Jan. 26 by lead
attorney Theodore Bell of Wolf Haldenstein, was prompted by a
viral Twitter thread from a woman claiming to be a former Ulta
employee.

The ex-employee posted the allegations to Twitter on Jan. 9 using
the handle @fatinamxo, alleging that Ulta managers trained
employees on how to repackage and reseal used cosmetics so that
they could be placed back on the shelf and sold as if they were
new.

The woman says she shared her experience because she thought
"makeup lovers should know what's going on behind closed doors."

According to the Jan. 26 lawsuit, @fantinamxo's allegations
prompted responses from dozens of other current and former Ulta
employees from all over the country who said similar practices
occurred at the stores where they worked.

One Twitter user responded, "Yep we did the same thing at my Ulta
I worked at.  I've actually worked at 3 different Ulta's and they
all did this with returns."

Another responded, "I've been working at an Ulta in Texas for 3
years & they do the same.  It's honestly so disgusting and I'm
glad you shared it with everyone."

The lawsuit goes on to explain how other employees have contacted
media outlets with similar stories, including a former manager at
an Ulta location in Ohio who spoke to Business Insider magazine
on the condition of anonymity.

The former manager told Business Insider, "Our bosses constantly
told us if it looked like it could be sold, put it back out.  The
company always had a percentage they wanted you to stay below
weekly in what we damaged.  We would literally get lectured by
our boss on our conference calls if our stores were over."

The same ex-manager also told Business Insider that "returned
mascara and foundation were almost always placed back on the
shelf since it was difficult to tell if they were used, and his
staff would clean bottled products to make them look new again."

Ulta Beauty said in a statement that it intends "to vigorously
defend against the allegations."

"Our policy does not allow the resale of used or damaged
products," a company spokesperson said.  "Our store associates
are trained to catalogue and then properly dispose of any opened,
used, or damaged items.  Our policies, training and procedures
are aimed at ensuring that only the highest quality products are
sold in our stores and online.  The health and safety of Ulta
Beauty guests is a top priority and we strive to consistently
deliver an optimal experience every time they shop with us."

The lead plaintiff in the Jan. 26 class-action lawsuit,
Kimberly Laura Smith-Brown, is a resident of Los Angeles, Calif.,
who seeks to represent all customers who bought cosmetics from
Ulta Beauty stores or, alternatively, a class of people who
bought cosmetics from Ulta stores in California.

Ms. Smith-Brown is suing Ulta for claims of unjust enrichment and
violations of the California Unfair Competition Law.  Her lawsuit
says it was filed in Illinois because Ulta is headquartered
there, in the Chicago suburb of Bolingbrook.

"Ulta's widespread and surreptitious practice of repackaging,
restocking and commingling used returned cosmetics with new
cosmetics on its shelves means that every sale of cosmetics since
Ulta began this policy is tainted with the possibility that the
customer is purchasing used, dirty cosmetics," the complaint
states.

Ms. Smith-Brown seeks damages, restitution and attorneys' fees.
Her lead attorney, Bell, did not immediately respond to an email
request for comment. [GN]


UNITED STATES: Judge Can't Ignore Trump's Immigrant Statements
--------------------------------------------------------------
Karen Matthews, writing for The Associated Press, reports that a
federal judge in New York who's hearing two lawsuits challenging
the cancellation of a program protecting some young immigrants
from deportation said on Jan. 30 that he can't ignore President
Donald Trump's "vicious" anti-immigrant statements.

U.S. District Judge Nicholas Garaufis told Justice Department
lawyers that Trump's "drumbeat" of statements and tweets about
immigrants from Mexico and other countries are relevant to the
case.

"In this country, in over 230 years, this is not ordinary," Judge
Garaufis said during the hearing. "It's extreme.  It's recurring.
It's vicious."

Judge Garaufis is hearing lawsuits seeking to overturn the
administration's decision to end the Deferred Action for
Childhood Arrivals program.

The plaintiffs say the decision to end the program was motivated
by racial animus against Latinos and is not based on any rational
justification.

"We don't think the government has set out any rationale with
clarity," David Chen, a law student with Yale's Worker and
Immigrant Rights Advocacy Clinic, told the judge.

Lawyers for the administration deny that the Republican
president's decision was motivated by hatred.  They say the DACA
program was legally flawed and is vulnerable to litigation from
Texas and the nine other states that urged the Trump
administration to rescind the program in a June letter.

"In the face of the litigation risk it was decided to wind down
the program," Justice Department lawyer Stephen Pezzi said in
court.

Trump has expressed sympathy for immigrants covered by the DACA
program, who are often called Dreamers, and advocates hope the
program will be renewed as part an immigration deal negotiated
between the White House and Congress.

Further complicating the issue, a federal judge in San Francisco
issued an order Jan. 9 keeping DACA in place.  The plaintiffs in
the New York case say the California order does not cover people
who became eligible to apply for the program after Trump acted to
rescind it.

"Regardless of what is happening in Congress, regardless of what
might be happening in other courts, we stand here asking that
this court recognize the needs of these New Yorkers and all other
Dreamers who are just like them around the country," Marielena
Hincapie, executive director of the National Immigration Law
Center, said after the Jan. 30 hearing.  "And we are asking for a
decision as soon as possible because we can't wait."

The plaintiffs in New York include several DACA recipients and a
consortium of states including New York, Washington and
Massachusetts.

The plaintiffs are seeking to block enforcement of the order to
end DACA.  They also are seeking class-action status, which would
extend the suit to represent all immigrants who qualify for the
program.  The government wants the lawsuits dismissed.

Plaintiff Carlos Vargas, who is 32, said he came to the United
States at age 4.  "I went to the public school system, I grew up
here," Mr. Vargas said before the hearing.  "I contributed to
this great nation.  I am American in every way but one -- on
paper."

New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman said after the
hearing that DACA is "a massive and successful program that
they're trying to shut down."

"We all benefit from the dreamers," Mr. Schneiderman said.  "In
New York we value their contributions.  We will not back off from
fighting for them." [GN]


UNITED STATES: Justice Dep't Wants Veterans' Class Action Tossed
----------------------------------------------------------------
LaCrosse Tribune reports that the U.S. Department of Justice is
asking a judge to dismiss a class-action lawsuit filed by a group
of veterans claiming they suffered emotional distress after
learning they may have been exposed to HIV and hepatitis while
receiving dental care at the VA Medical Center in Tomah. In
November 2016, VA officials learned that dentist Thomas Schiller
had been re-using drill bits and not properly sterilizing them
for over a year. [GN]


VALEANT PHARM: Two Law Firms File Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
On January 19, 2018, Safirstein Metcalf LLP and HGT Law commenced
a shareholder "opt-out" lawsuit ("Lawsuit") on behalf of a group
of retail investors ("Investors") against Valeant Pharmaceuticals
International, Inc. ("Valeant") (NYSE:VRX) and its senior
officers for violations of federal securities laws.

Previously, on June 24, 2016, a class action complaint was filed
in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, on
behalf of a class consisting of all purchasers of the common
stock of Valeant ("Class Action").  The Investors have opted out
of the Class Action to directly pursue their own claims.  To
date, this Lawsuit is the only opt-out action that has been filed
on behalf of retail investors.

A copy of the complaint filed by Safirstein Metcalf LLP and HGT
Law on behalf of the Investors can be found at
www.valeantshareholderlitigation.com

If you purchased Valeant common stock during the Class Period and
suffered losses of more than $200,000, then you may wish to
consider opting out of the existing class action.  If you would
like to learn about the options available to you, please call 1-
800-221-0015, email info@SafirsteinMetcalf.com or visit
www.valeantshareholderlitigation.com
The class action is brought on behalf of purchasers of Valeant
equity securities and senior notes between January 4, 2013 and
March 15, 2016 (the "Class Period").

Company: Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc.
Exchange: NYSE
Ticker: VRX
Class Period: 01/04/2013 to 03/15/2016

           About Safirstein Metcalf LLP and HGT Law

Safirstein Metcalf LLP focuses its practice on shareholder
rights.  The law firm also practices in the areas of antitrust
and consumer protection.

HGT Law is a boutique commercial litigation firm based in
New York.  The firm focuses on representing investors in
securities litigation and corporate governance/derivative
litigation. [GN]


VIRTUS INVESTMENT: March 23 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set
-------------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Bernstein Litowitz
Berger & Grossmann LLP and Labaton Sucharow LLP regarding the In
re Virtus Investment Partners, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case
No. 15-cv-1249 (S.D.N.Y).

To: All persons and entities that, during the period between
January 25, 2013 and May 11, 2015, inclusive (the "Class
Period"), purchased or otherwise acquired shares of the publicly
traded common stock of Virtus Investment Partners, Inc. and were
damaged thereby ("Class").

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York, that the above-
captioned action (the "Action") has been certified to proceed as
a class action on behalf of the Class as defined above. Please
Note:  At this time, there is no judgment, settlement, or
monetary recovery.  Trial in this Action is currently scheduled
for March 19, 2018.

IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE CLASS, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY
THIS ACTION. A full printed Notice of Pendency of Class Action
(the "Notice") is currently being mailed to known potential Class
Members.  If you have not yet received the full printed Notice,
you may obtain a copy of the Notice by downloading it from
www.virtussecuritieslitigation.com, or by contacting the
Administrator by toll-free phone at 1-866-680-8403, or in writing
at:

   In re Virtus Investment Partners, Inc. Securities Litigation
   c/o GCG
   P.O. Box 10489
   Dublin, OH 43017-4089

Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice, may be made to the
following representatives of Class Counsel:

         Jesse L. Jensen, Esq.
         BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
         1251 Avenue of the Americas
         New York, NY 10020
         1-800-380-8496

         Michael H. Rogers, Esq.
         LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
         140 Broadway
         New York, New York 10005
         1-888-219-6877

If you are a Class Member, you have the right to decide whether
to remain a member of the Class.  If you want to remain a member
of the Class, you do not need to do anything at this time other
than to retain your documentation reflecting your transactions
and holdings in Virtus common stock.  If you are a Class Member
and do not exclude yourself from the Class, you will be bound by
the proceedings in this Action, including all past, present, and
future orders and judgments of the Court, whether favorable or
unfavorable.  If you move, or if the Notice was mailed to an old
or incorrect address, please send the Administrator written
notification of your new address.

If you ask to be excluded from the Class, you will not be bound
by any order or judgment of this Court in this Action; however,
you will not be eligible to receive a share of any money which
might be recovered for the benefit of the Class.  To exclude
yourself from the Class, you must submit a written request for
exclusion postmarked no later than March 23, 2018, in accordance
with the instructions set forth in the full printed Notice.
Pursuant to Rule 23(e)(4) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, it is within the Court's discretion as to whether a
second opportunity to request exclusion from the Class will be
allowed in the event there is a settlement or judgment in the
Action.

Further information regarding this notice may be obtained by
writing to the Administrator at the address provided above.

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT REGARDING THIS NOTICE.

BY ORDER OF THE COURT
United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York


VODAFONE GROUP: March 20 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
-----------------------------------------------------------
The securities litigation law firm of Brower Piven, A
Professional Corporation, on Jan. 30 disclosed that a class
action lawsuit has been commenced in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of
purchasers of Vodafone Group Plc (Nasdaq:VOD) ("Vodafone" or the
"Company") securities during the period between February 11, 2015
and January 11, 2018, inclusive (the "Class Period").  Investors
who wish to become proactively involved in the litigation have
until March 20, 2018 to seek appointment as lead plaintiff.

If you wish to choose counsel to represent you and the class, you
must apply to be appointed lead plaintiff and be selected by the
Court.  The lead plaintiff will direct the litigation and
participate in important decisions including whether to accept a
settlement for the class in the action.  The lead plaintiff will
be selected from among applicants claiming the largest loss from
investment in Vodafone securities during the Class Period.
Members of the class will be represented by the lead plaintiff
and counsel chosen by the lead plaintiff.  No class has yet been
certified in the above action.

The complaint accuses the defendants of violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by virtue of the defendants'
failure to disclose during the Class Period that Vodafone had
contravened Australian law by permitting customers to purchase
pre-paid mobile phones without first verifying their identities.

According to the complaint, following a January 10, 2018
announcement by the Australian Communications and Media Authority
that an investigation into Vodafone Australia ("VHA") revealed
that VHA had contravened Australian law by permitting customers
to purchase pre-paid mobile phones without first verifying their
identities, the value of Vodafone Depositary Receipts declined
significantly.

If you have suffered a loss in excess of $100,000 from investment
in Vodafone securities purchased on or after February 11, 2015
and held through the revelation of negative information during
and/or at the end of the Class Period and would like to learn
more about this lawsuit and your ability to participate as a lead
plaintiff, without cost or obligation to you, please contact
Brower Piven either by email at hoffman@browerpiven.com or by
telephone at (410) 415-6616.

Attorneys at Brower Piven have extensive experience in litigating
securities and other class action cases and have been advocating
for the rights of shareholders since the 1980s.  If you choose to
retain counsel, you may retain Brower Piven without financial
obligation or cost to you, or you may retain other counsel of
your choice.  You need take no action at this time to be a member
of the class. [GN]


VOLKSWAGEN AG: Diesel Emissions Scandal Suit in UK Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
John Freund, writing for Litigation Finance Journal, reports that
55,000 claimants so far. 1.2 million potential claimants
nationally.  A total of $4.3B in fines paid thus far.  A total of
$25B in lost revenue.

"This has potential to be the largest class action the UK has
ever seen," says Gareth Pope, a lawyer at Slater & Gordon.
Mr. Pope is leading the Therium-Funded class action against
Volkswagen in the wake of the automaker's diesel emissions
scandal.

As reported by the FT, VW is alleged to have circumvented EU
legislation on diesel fuel emissions by installing software that
artificially lowered nitrogen oxides (NOx) during testing.
Worldwide, an estimate 11 million of such vehicles were sold --
roughly 1.2 million in the UK under the Volkswagen, Seat, Audi
and Skoda brands.

VW has already admitted guilt in the U.S., paid a $4.3B fine, and
is estimated to have lost $25B in revenue.  But in the EU, VW has
not admitted wrongdoing or liability.  The automaker has instead
offered a technical "fix" for affected cars, as well as enhanced
trade-in terms and other non-financial incentives.

Enter Slater & Gordon, backed by Therium Capital.  The
internationally recognized law firm is expected to square off
against the automaker in a UK High Court this March.  As LFJ
recently reported, that is when the solicitor selection process
(in addition to other procedural components) are due to take
place.  Slater & Gordon currently represents a pool of 45,000
claimants, but feels the claimant pool could grow much higher.

Your Lawyers, another UK-based law firm, is representing another
10,000 claimants in a separate action.

In a statement, VW said: "Our consistent position has been that
the instigation of legal proceedings in England is premature for
a number of reasons.  As we have said all along, we will defend
these claims robustly, and we have made it clear to the claimant
law firms that we do not anticipate that any of our UK customers
will have suffered loss as a result of the NOx issue.  We have
implemented the technical measures in approximately 820,000
vehicles in the UK and in over 6m vehicles across Europe, with
the overwhelming majority of customers in question fully
satisfied.  Given the English High Court proceedings have
commenced, it would not be appropriate for us to comment any
further at this time."

If the claims are successful, it will be up to the High Court to
determine the payout amount.


WELLS FARGO: Judge Recommends RMBS Class Certification Denial
-------------------------------------------------------------
Shearman & Sterling LLP, in an article for Lexology, wrote that
in a January 10, 2018 ruling unsealed on January 19, Magistrate
Judge Sarah Netburn of the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York recommended denial of Royal Park
Investments' request for class certification in an action against
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. ("Wells Fargo").  Royal Park Investments
SA/NV v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 14-CV-09764-KPF-SN (S.D.N.Y.
Jan. 10, 2018).  Plaintiff asserts claims for breach of contract
and breach of trust in connection with Wells Fargo's role as
trustee of two RMBS trusts, alleging that Wells Fargo disregarded
contractual duties by failing to protect RMBS Certificateholders
and breached its common law duty of trust to avoid conflicts of
interest by putting its own interests ahead of the beneficiaries'
and failing to take necessary action to the detriment of
beneficiaries.  Concluding that individual questions affecting
proposed class members predominated over common issues,
Magistrate Judge Netburn recommended that plaintiff's motion be
denied.

While recommending that plaintiff had demonstrated
ascertainability and satisfied the numerosity, commonality,
typicality and adequacy requirements of Rule 23(a), Magistrate
Judge Netburn nevertheless recommended that class certification
be denied under Rule 23(b)(3).  Rule 23(b)(3) requires that
questions of law or fact common to members of the proposed class
predominate over any questions affecting only individual members,
and that a class action is superior to other available methods
for fair and effective adjudication.  With respect to
predominance, Magistrate Judge Netburn noted that individualized
questions related to ensuring that each class member had Article
III standing "overwhelm[ed]" any questions common to the proposed
class. Slip op. at 24. In particular, Magistrate Judge Netburn
emphasized the "opaque" way in which RMBS certificates trade, due
to their (i) lack of a unique identifier and (ii) trading on
secondary markets without a central clearinghouse to record
trades.  As a result, identifying beneficial holders would be
exceedingly difficult and tracing transactions in the
Certificates would require "evidence that varies from member to
member" and was "not obviously susceptible to class-wide proof."
Id. at 27.  Compounding this problem, Magistrate Judge Netburn
noted other individualized determinations that would be required
to assess a class member's standing, such as choice-of-law and
factual determinations regarding whether Certificate holders had
assigned their litigation rights along with the sale of their
Certificates.  Specifically, Magistrate Judge Netburn explained
that, under New York law, litigation rights transfer
automatically with the sale of a Certificate; under most other
states' laws, however, assignors must manifest an intention to
transfer litigation rights.  In a similar vein, Magistrate Judge
Netburn found that different statutes of limitation might apply
depending on each class member's residence. Id. at 28-30.
Magistrate Judge Netburn also recommended finding that the
superiority requirement had not been met, for the same reasons
just discussed and also because the proposed class members were
sophisticated institutional investors and thus had a strong
interest in individually controlling the prosecution of their own
actions. Id. at 34.

Separately, Magistrate Judge Netburn recommended denying
plaintiff's alternative request that the Court should exercise
its discretion to certify a class for liability purposes pursuant
to Rule 23(c)(4), which permits certification "with respect to
particular issues." Id. at 35. Magistrate Judge Netburn reasoned
that a "liability class" would suffer from the same problems that
undermined plaintiff's ability to satisfy the predominance and
superiority requirements.

This decision is a reminder that, in actions based on state law,
choice-of-law issues and material differences in state
substantive laws can prevent class certification.

The case is Royal Park Investments SA/NV v. Wells Fargo Bank,
N.A. [GN]


WILLIAM PYLIARIS: Richmond Strippers File FLSA Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ned Oliver, writing for Richmond Times-Dispatch, reports that a
law firm representing a group of Richmond-area strippers is
pursuing a class action lawsuit against the owner of five adult
clubs in and around the city.

The suit alleges that the clubs and their owner,
William Pyliaris, failed to pay dancers minimum wage and overtime
while illegally withholding tips and charging dancers fees to
perform in the club -- all alleged violations of the U.S. Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Mr. Pyliaris, who owns Club Rouge, Daddy Rabbits, Candy Bar,
Paper Moon and Pure Pleasure, referred questions to his lawyer,
Tom Lucas, who said in a message that he could not comment on
pending litigation but that Mr. Pyliaris "obviously has a
different view of the facts and the law in this matter."

The suit, filed earlier in January in U.S. District Court in
Richmond, is the latest in a wave of legal actions brought by
strip club dancers around the country.

Past cases have generally hinged on whether strippers can
properly be classified as independent contractors or whether they
should be treated as employees, which would entitle them to labor
protections such as minimum wage and overtime rules.

In New York City, a group of 2,000 dancers won $10 million in a
class action suit against their employer, Rick's Cabaret, in
2014.  In Maryland, legal victories mean some dancers have been
added to club payrolls, The Baltimore Sun reported in 2016.

In Richmond, a flyer circulating on social media seeking to add
plaintiffs to the suit bills the action as the "RVA Stripper
Strike," though Lloyd Ambinder, the lawyer whose phone number is
listed as the primary contact, said he had neither produced nor
heard of the promotional material.

Mr. Ambinder said he believes more than 100 people could be owed
back wages and, so far, roughly 35 to 40 people have expressed
interest in learning about or participating in the case.

While the suit has been filed with one named plaintiff, Hannah
Cramer, he said it's up to a judge to decide whether it can
proceed as a class action or collective action.

Mr. Ambinder declined to make Cramer available for comment for
this story, but other dancers who worked in Mr. Pyliaris' clubs
said that despite being told they were contractors and could set
their own hours, management was inflexible and would fine dancers
if they were late or couldn't come in for a shift.

"The number one thing they tell you is you have a flexible
schedule," said a dancer who worked under the stage name Haunting
Melody at Pure Pleasure and other clubs owned by Mr. Pyliaris.
She spoke on the condition that she not be quoted using her legal
name because she has faced harassment in the past. "They do not
work with you.  There's no flexible schedule and they control
what you look like.  They control every aspect of you." [GN]


WOLVERINE WORLDWIDE: Seeks Dismissal of PFAS Contamination Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ken Kolker, writing for WOOD, reports that Wolverine Worldwide
plans to ask a judge to dismiss a federal lawsuit over PFAS
contamination, claiming the suit was "hastily filed in order to
win a class-action race to the courthouse," according to a court
document filed on Jan. 29.

Jan. 29 was the deadline for Wolverine, 3M and Waste Management
to answer the 52-page federal lawsuit filed in December in U.S.
District Court in Grand Rapids.

Instead, Wolverine asked for more time and for a conference with
the judge over its plans to file a motion to dismiss the lawsuit.

In the lawsuit, eight plaintiffs said they are worried not only
about their private property and wells, but also the potential
impact that Wolverine tannery and manufacturing waste may have on
municipal water systems in Kent County.

So far, the contamination has tainted several hundred private
wells in the Belmont area and in Algoma Township with PFAS, a
likely carcinogen.  Many of the wells are now over the
Environmental Protection Agency's advisory limit of 70 parts per
trillion for drinking water.

That contamination flowed from Wolverine's former House Street
dump in Belmont, as well as other dump sites identified in
Plainfield and Algoma townships.

The federal suit said one of the places the shoe manufacturer
also dumped toxic chemicals was the old Butterworth Landfill
within Grand Rapids' city limits.  The landfill, which now links
some Kent County trails, is on the EPA's list of Superfund Sites
in Michigan; that program is aimed at redevelopment of hazardous
or contaminated land.

But Wolverine, in its motion, said "none of the eight plaintiffs
(half of whom do not even reside in the area) alleges that his or
her property or drinking water has been contaminated, much less
contaminated to an extent causing actual injury."

The shoemaker said the eight class-action plaintiffs cannot claim
negligence because "they do not allege that PFAS physically
injured their person or property."

"The alleged disposal of PFAS occurred decades before there were
any EPA guidelines," Wolverine's attorneys wrote.  "There is no
allegation that Wolverine knew that PFAS was dangerous or that
its disposal decades ago was improper.  Nor is there any
plausible allegation that Wolverine intended to cause plaintiffs
emotional distress."

The federal lawsuit claims Waste Management, which owns a
separate landfill along the East Beltline in Plainfield Township,
failed to make sure toxic chemicals never reached aquifers and
drinking water supplies, nor did it work to remediate the area.

Waste Management also answered the federal lawsuit, asking the
judge to dismiss the case, saying the plaintiffs improperly
targeted the parent company, based in Delaware, and not Waste
Management of Michigan.

3M, which made the Scotchgard believed to be the source of the
PFAS contamination, also asked for an extension and for the suit
to be dismissed, saying it is not responsible for how Wolverine
Worldwide disposed of its product.

Wolverine is also facing about 60 individual lawsuits in Kent
County Circuit Court over contamination, "which is where these
(class-action) plaintiffs ultimately belong," the company
claimed.

The company has until mid-February to respond to the Kent County
lawsuits.

If you are eligible for a whole-house water filtration system
from Wolverine Worldwide, you can call 616.866.5627 or email
HouseStreet@wwwinc.com.

The Michigan Department of Environmental Quality Environmental
Assistance Center can be reached at 1.800.662.9278.


WORD ENTERPRISES-PERRY: Sued Over Failure to Pay Drivers' Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Marion Graham and Danielle Lavacs, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. The Word Enterprises-Perry,
L.L.C., previously known as "The Word Enterprises, L.L.C."; The
Word Enterprises-Haslett LLC; The Word Enterprises-Lansing,
L.L.C.; The Word Enterprises-Owosso, L.L.C.; The Word
Enterprises- St. Johns, L.L.C.; Dittrich Investments II, Inc.,
Wam Foods, Inc.; VAC Foods, Inc.; Kevin Dittrich; Dominic
Carbone; and Does 1-20 inclusive, Case No. 2:18-cv-10167-PDB-APP
(E.D. Mich., January 15, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid minimum
wages owed to drivers employed by the Defendants at their Hungry
Howie's stores.

The Defendants own and operate a chain of at least 11 Hungry
Howie's pizza franchise stores in the central Michigan area. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David M. Blanchard, Esq.
      BLANCHARD & WALKER PLLC
      221 North Main Street, Suite 300
      Ann Arbor, MI 48104
      Telephone: (734) 929-4313
      E-mail: blanchard@bwlawonline.com

         - and -

      Mark Potashnick, Esq.
      WEINHAUS & POTASHNICK
      11500 Olive Blvd., Suite 133
      St. Louis, MO 63141
      Telephone: (314) 997-9150
      Facsimile: (314) 997-9170
      E-mail: markp@wp-attorneys.com


* Class Action Notification Methods in Canada Need Improvement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Shane O'Herlihy, writing for Law Times, reports that there are
literally hundreds of ongoing and recently settled class actions
taking place in Canada on Jan. 29 that directly affect the rights
of Ontario residents.

It seems though that the methods used to notify potential class
action participants of these lawsuits are sorely lacking in scope
and detail, compared with the for-profit notification model
employed in the United States.  Many Ontarians may be missing out
as a result.

On Jan. 29, Ontarians are notified of class action lawsuits by a
patchwork system consisting of newspaper articles, direct
mailings and information found on the websites of law firms and
settlement administrators.

In class actions such as the case where the federal government
lost a USB containing the confidential personal information of
hundreds of thousands of Canadians, potential defendants already
know the identities of the class members and the courts can order
them to notify potentially damaged parties through the mail.

However, the same cannot be said for consumer protection and
product liability cases, which have the potential to affect
millions of people but are not necessarily high-profile cases
attracting media attention.  Unfortunately, both the government
and legal community's approach to solving this particular access-
to-justice problem has been mediocre at best.

Firstly, Ontario does not have a mandatory central register for
class actions like Quebec, which falls under Article 1050.2 of
the province's Civil Code.  In the rest of Canada, including
Ontario, law firms are merely encouraged to submit information to
a voluntary database run by the Canadian Bar Association.  As a
result, the National Class Action Database run by the CBA lists
only some of the class actions operating in Ontario today.

Both the mandatary database in Quebec and the CBA's optional one
really only serve as repositories for the media to pick out what
it believes to be the top public interest stories.  One can't
rely on the media to report on all of the specific cases that
apply to a given person's particular situation.

The United States has a fresher and more realistic approach to
notifying people about class action settlements.  There are a
number of privately run websites operating south of the border
that cash-strapped individuals use to give them the latest news
on ongoing class action litigation, current settlements and
submission deadlines.  There is an economic incentive to having a
well-run website providing worthwhile and up-to-date information
about a potential claimant's chances to acquire compensation in a
consumer protection matter.  Nothing like this operates in the
private sector in Ontario today.  One reason why class action
notification websites have not been a fit in Ontario is that they
are better suited to a jurisdiction where class litigation has
historically been an instigator for social change and consumer
protection in a much larger and more integrated nation-state.
Class action litigation has been a mainstay in the United States
since the 1960s, and more so than anywhere else in the western
world.

Meaningful class action litigation has only been around in
Ontario for approximately 20 years.  In addition, the ease with
which people can sign up for claims on class action notification
websites could further persuade ordinary people to submit false
claims from the comfort of their own homes.

Nonetheless, we cannot ignore the fact that class actions are
becoming a larger and more important vehicle for achieving
justice in consumer protection matters in this province.

Large corporations are genuinely fearful of years-long, multi-
million-dollar class action lawsuits, especially when compared to
the trivial fines and other toothless penalties issued under the
auspices of the Competition Act and the Canadian Code of
Advertising Standards.  From this perspective, class actions can
be seen as a wonderful development in our jurisprudence, but it
is imperative that the general public's full participation take
place or else their value becomes diminished.  On that note,
Ontario law firms may wish to take the initiative and channel
their resources by creating the country's first broad-based class
action notification website.  There are enough class action
lawsuits in existence now to warrant such a project.

Websites operating in the United States have shown that serving
the public interest is not strictly within the governmental
sphere and, in fact, private sector entities can often be better
trusted to take on these sorts of tasks.  There has always been a
market demand both for information and access to justice.  It is
time to shed our fears about "Americanizing" our province's legal
culture and better connect the Ontario public to class action
counsel and settlement administrators.

Shane O'Herlihy practises civil litigation and provincial
offences law in Toronto.  He can be reached at 416-824-5914, or
soherlihy79@gmail.com.


* Securities Class Action Filings Up 89% Over Past Two Years
------------------------------------------------------------
For the third year in a row, filings of US securities class
actions saw record growth, with 432 class actions filed in 2017,
an 89% increase over the past two years and a rate not seen since
1998, according to "Recent Trends in Securities Class Action
Litigation: 2017 Full-Year Review," an annual report released by
NERA Economic Consulting.

"Last year saw a dramatic increase in securities class action
filings.  This increase reflected growth not seen in almost two
decades, and drove the average filing rate to more than one per
day.  Once again, growth was dominated by a record number of
federal merger-objection filings, with 197 such filings.  In
addition, there was a record rate of case resolution, which was
driven by increases of more than 40% in dismissals and 30% in
settlements.  Despite this, the aggregate value of settlements
plunged to a level not seen since the early 2000s, stemming from
a dearth of large settlements," said NERA Managing Director Dr.
David Tabak.

"I am especially excited to share this year's report, as it marks
the 25th anniversary edition. My NERA colleagues and I are proud
to reflect back on the numerous NERA authors and experts who
contributed to our reports' success and impact over the past two
and a half decades.  The longevity of this series underscores
NERA's commitment to offering sound advice in the economics of
securities, finance, and commerce."

Highlighted Trends

   * A total of 353 securities class actions were resolved in
2017 -- a post-PSLRA high. Of those, 148 cases settled, coming
close to the 2007 record of 150.

   * The average settlement in 2017 fell to less than $25
million, a drop of roughly two-thirds compared to 2016.

   * Aggregate NERA-defined Investor Losses for filings were $334
billion in 2017, a 50% increase over the five-year average.

   * Aggregate plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and expenses were $467
million, a drop of roughly 65% to a level not seen since 2004.

   * In 2017, the number pending cases in the federal system
increased to 785, up by 12% from 2016 and 41% from 2011.
NERA Securities Class Action Trends Report Series

NERA has been analyzing trends in securities class actions for
more than 25 years.  This year-end study, Recent Trends in
Securities Class Action Litigation: 2017 Full-Year Review, is co-
authored by NERA Senior Consultants Stefan Boettrich and Svetlana
Starykh, with contributions from Dr. Tabak.  In addition to
NERA's US report, the firm produces annual reports on securities
class action litigation in Canada and on UK regulatory
enforcement actions.

To download the report, visit:

http://www.nera.com/publications/archive/2018/recent-trends-in-
securities-class-action-litigation--2017-full-y.html

                           About NERA

NERA Economic Consulting -- http://www.nera.com-- is a global
firm of experts dedicated to applying economic, finance, and
quantitative principles to complex business and legal challenges.
For over half a century, NERA's economists have been creating
strategies, studies, reports, expert testimony, and policy
recommendations for government authorities and the world's
leading law firms and corporations.  With its main office in New
York City, NERA serves clients from more than 25 offices across
North America, Europe, and Asia Pacific.


* Securities Class Actions Hit Record High, Cornerstone Says
------------------------------------------------------------
The number of federal securities class action lawsuits filed in
2017 reached a record high for the second straight year,
according to a new report issued by Cornerstone Research and the
Stanford Law School Securities Class Action Clearinghouse.  The
jump was spurred by a sharp increase in lawsuits targeting
mergers and acquisitions.

The 412 securities class action filings in 2017 represented a
more than 50 percent increase from the previous record of 271
filings in 2016, according to Securities Class Action Filings --
2017 Year in Review.  It also was more than double the historical
average over the previous 20 years and the highest level since
the enactment of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of
1995 (PSLRA).

Filings involving M&A transactions increased to 198 and accounted
for nearly half of all federal securities class action filings in
2017.  This was more than double the number of M&A filings in
2016.  In addition, core filings -- those excluding M&A claims --
rose 15 percent over the same period.

The growth in the number of core filings over the past six years
has coincided with activity by three plaintiff law firms, which
were typically appointed lead counsel in cases that were smaller
than average in size.

"The number of filings has reached unprecedented levels. In 2017,
companies on U.S. exchanges were more likely to be the subject of
a class action than in any previous year," said John Gould, a
senior vice president at Cornerstone Research.  "But unlike
previous years with substantial filing activity, these recent
increases have occurred during a period of thriving financial
markets."

The outcomes of securities class action filings in recent cohorts
showed higher dismissal rates than in previous years, and filings
in the 2017 cohort of core filings are on pace to have the
record-highest rate of dismissal within the first year of filing.
The report also finds that M&A cases filed from 2009 to 2016 have
been dismissed at a much higher rate than other federal filings.

"The recent surge in lawsuits that are likely to be dismissed is
troubling from a public policy perspective," according to
Professor Joseph Grundfest, director of the Stanford Law School
Securities Class Action Clearinghouse.  "The PSLRA was designed
to deter plaintiffs from filing low-quality complaints, but this
surge in complaints that are dismissed with greater frequency
suggests that the law is no longer having its intended quality-
enhancing effect.  Policymakers should, I think, study these data
carefully and ask whether the time is nigh for further reform."

New Developments

Consistent with the recent rise of cryptocurrency, 2017 saw the
emergence of filings against firms issuing initial coin offerings
(ICOs).  The price volatility of various cryptocurrencies
resulted in five class actions involving ICOs, all of them in
December 2017.

Key Trends

   -- The Maximum Dollar Loss Index(R) (MDL Index(R)) fell 35
percent from 2016 to 2017, returning to the level before the 2008
financial crisis.  The decrease in the MDL Index from $804
billion to $521 billion is due in part to a year-to-year drop in
the number of mega MDL filings, or filings with an MDL of at
least $10 billion.

   -- Disclosure Dollar Loss (DDL) increased in 2017 to $131
billion, up 22 percent from 2016 and 9 percent higher than the
1997-2016 DDL average of $120 billion.

   -- Plaintiffs targeted more European issuers in 2017 than in
any previous year, as the number of filings against non-U.S.
issuers continued to increase. As a percentage of total filings,
filings against non-U.S. issuers increased to the highest rate
since 2011.

   -- The number of filings against firms in the Consumer Non-
Cyclical sector (including biotechnology, pharmaceuticals, and
healthcare) stayed constant from 2016 but saw the most activity
among industry sectors for the eighth straight year.

   -- Filings against companies in the Financial sector fell from
22 in 2016 to 20 in 2017.

   -- In 2017, more than 8 percent of companies listed on U.S.
exchanges were the subjects of class action filings, the highest
in any of the previous nine years.

   -- Section 11 filings in California state courts decreased by
nearly two-thirds from 2016, to numbers more similar to pre-2015
levels.  This trend coincided with the U.S. Supreme Court's
decision to hear Cyan Inc. v. Beaver County Employees Retirement
Fund, a case that will determine whether state venues may be used
for adjudicating class actions with Section 11 claims.

   -- The number of M&A filings in each of the Second, Third,
Fourth, and Ninth Circuits was the highest since this report
began identifying them separately in 2009.

                     About Cornerstone Research

Cornerstone Research -- http://www.cornerstone.com-- provides
economic and financial consulting and expert testimony in all
phases of complex litigation and regulatory proceedings.  The
firm works with an extensive network of prominent faculty and
industry practitioners to identify the best-qualified expert for
each assignment.  Cornerstone Research has earned a reputation
for consistent high quality and effectiveness by delivering
rigorous, state-of-the-art analysis for over 25 years.  The firm
has 700 staff and offices in Boston, Chicago, London, Los
Angeles, New York, San Francisco, Silicon Valley, and Washington.
Please visit Cornerstone Research's website for more information
about the firm's capabilities in economic and financial
consulting and expert testimony.

      About the Stanford Law School Securities
                   Class Action Clearinghouse

The Securities Class Action Clearinghouse (SCAC) is an
authoritative source of data and analysis on the financial and
economic characteristics of federal securities fraud class action
litigation.  The SCAC maintains a database of more than 4,000
securities class action lawsuits filed since passage of the
Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.  The database
also contains copies of complaints, briefs, filings, and other
litigation-related materials filed in these cases.


* Seeger Weiss LLP Mourns Passing of Melvyn Weiss
-------------------------------------------------
On February 2, 2018, the Seeger Weiss family mourns the loss of
Melvyn I. Weiss, who passed away in his sleep on Feb. 1 at the
age of 82, surrounded by his family.  He had been diagnosed with
ALS last June, and lived his last days in the warm company of
friends and family, who loved and respected him deeply.

A founding partner of the internationally renowned law firm
Milberg Weiss Bershad Specthrie & Lerach from 1965 to 2008
together with Lawrence "Larry" Milberg, Mel was known as "a lion
of the plaintiff's bar," taking on corporate wrongdoers against
all odds.  He pioneered the class action legal field, blazing
trails that a generation of lawyers has followed to help level a
playing field that for decades was tilted against disenfranchised
individuals.

Described by colleagues as "a brilliant and creative mind with
unequalled character and charisma," Mel saw his work as a
calling, fighting tirelessly to defend the rights of individuals
wronged by powerful corporate interests.

"Throughout my life, my father was an inspiration, role model,
and hero to me," said his son Stephen, a founding partner of
plaintiff's law firm, Seeger Weiss LLP.  "He spent a lifetime in
honest service to others, leaving his unique handprint on the
practice of law and all of humanity, while somehow always
managing to make time to be a loving husband and father.  The
world is a better place because of Mel Weiss, and there will
never be another like him."

Mel was known and beloved for his warmth, kindness and
generosity, touching the lives of all who knew him.  He was
broadly admired for his heroic and tireless professional and
charitable work, dedicating years representing on a pro bono
basis Holocaust victims against Swiss and German banks and
industrial complexes, as well as countless victims of the
September 11 tragedy, to name a few.  In the early 1990s, he and
his wife established the Melvyn and Barbara Weiss Public Interest
Foundation at the New York University School of Law, encouraging
generations of lawyers to take on lower-paying public-interest
jobs by paying their student loans. He served on countless
philanthropic boards and committees, which were enriched by his
sound wisdom, judgment and generosity.

Mel also trained and mentored younger lawyers throughout his
career, including Christopher Seeger, who co-founded Seeger Weiss
in 1999.  "Mel was a visionary, who was the first to use the
class action mechanism to serve as a check against the power and
abuses of corporate America to the benefit of millions of
individuals in the United States and worldwide.  To me and many
others who had the privilege of working with him, he'll always be
remembered as a kind and generous man and a pioneering giant in
our field.  He truly made this world a better place for the
little guy," Seeger said.

Mel was born in the Bronx in 1935 during the height of the Great
Depression, and worked his way through law school as an
accountant.  He graduated NYU Law School in 1959 before embarking
on his storied career.  He leaves behind his wife, Barbara, three
children, Gary (Nancy), Stephen (Debra), and Leslie, and 7
grandchildren.   He will forever be in our hearts.


* Shareholder Class Actions Target Life Science Companies
---------------------------------------------------------
Kristen Rasmussen, writing for Law.com, reports that shareholder
class-action lawsuits against life sciences companies were on the
rise last year, continuing a decade-long trend.

But not all life-sciences companies were treated equally in 2017,
according to a new report by Cornerstone Research.  While
investor cases against pharmaceutical companies increased 30
percent, from 23 filings to 30, suits against biotechnology and
health care companies declined in a near-offsetting amount, the
report states.

And there's a new player in town.  California-based Glancy
Prongay & Murray has joined New York-based law firms Pomerantz &
Co. and The Rosen Law Firm as one of the biggest players in the
shareholder lawsuit game against a range of industries, including
life sciences.

According to the report, for the past four years, these three
firms have been responsible for more than 50 percent of
complaints overall.  In 2016, Pomerantz and The Rosen Law Firm
filed more than half of the 67 cases against life sciences firms,
and Glancy likewise has become particularly active in this space,
said Kevin LaCroix, an attorney and executive vice president of
RT ProExec, an insurance intermediary focused exclusively on
management liability issues.  Mr. LaCroix authors a blog called
The D&O Diary, which features news and developments related to
directors and officers liability.

"These are the three firms that are filing the smaller lawsuits,"
Mr. LaCroix said in an interview. "They're filing a lot of the
lawsuits, but in general they particularly like to target life
sciences."

Among the favorite health sciences targets are companies that do
not have products in commercial development but rather are
involved in the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval
process, Mr. LaCroix said.

"As a drug or device progresses [from one approval step to
another], the consequence of any setback magnifies," he said.
"If a company hits a setback, share prices will plunge and that
will draw a lawsuit. In many cases, the likelihood of a lawsuit
depends on where the product is in its life cycle."

Other trends in investor suits against life sciences companies,
Mr. LaCroix said, are frequent complaints involving regulatory
hurdles and clinical trial issues as opposed to claims involving
financial matters.  In addition, more claims are filed against
life sciences companies with smaller market caps, he said.

The upside, though, Mr. LaCroix added, is that while the health
sciences industry tends to attract more cases, those companies'
dismissal rate tends to be higher.

Given the continued uptick in health sector securities class
actions, Mr. LaCroix offered several tips to the companies'
general counsel:

1. Ensure that trading does not take place at sensitive times,
such as just prior to the end of a trial or when the company is
in a delicate regulatory phase.
2. Have an insider trading plan that individuals can adopt to
rebut allegations of insider trading.
3. Always use caution in your disclosures and when communicating
about your product.

"Any biotech company [in-house lawyer] knows that, but there's a
cheerleading mentality that sets in when the drug moves toward
that commercial date," Mr. La Croix said.  "But it's really
crucial to manage those communications." [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  * * *