CAR_Public/180215.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


            Thursday, February 15, 2018, Vol. 20, No. 34



                            Headlines


3 KINGS SECURITY: "Vindel" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
4819 VERNON KITCHEN: "Calderon" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
ADVANCED MICRO: "Kim" Suit Alleges Exchange Act Violations
AEROHIVE NETWORKS: "McGovney" Sues Over Share Price Drop
ALLERGAN INC: Appeals Ruling in Asacol Antitrust Suit to 1st Cir.

ALLTRAN FINANCIAL: Faces "Nisanov" Suit in E.D. New York
AMC ENTERTAINMENT: "Nichols" Hits Stock Drop from Theater Buy
AMETEK INC: Court Refuses to Disqualify Counsel in "Greenfield"
APPLE & EVE: "Quiroz" Hits Mislabeling, False Advertising
AZZ INC: Kessler Topaz Files Shareholder Class Action

BANK OF MONTREAL: Fire Pension Assoc. Asserts Sherman Act Breach
BAY BRIDGE: Mobile Home Residents Mull Suit Over Water Woes
BITCONNECT: Faces 2nd Class Action Over Alleged Ponzi Scheme
BLATT HASENMILLER: Court Certifies "Spice" FDCPA Class
BOISE, ID: Class Action Over Public Defense System Can Proceed

BOVET FLEURIER: Faces "Thorne" Suit in S.D. New York
BREITLING USA: Faces "Thorne" Suit in S.D. New York
BUDGET RENT: Court Denies Further Class Discovery in "Benson"
CANADA: Court Approves Hepatitis C Class Action Settlement
CANADA: More Former Indian Hospital Patients Expected to Show Up

CANADA: WRPS Superintendent Named in Class Action Retires
CANADA: RCMP Harassment Claims Filing Deadline Set
CAPITAL MANAGEMENT: Faces "Shabazz" Suit in S.D. New York
CENTRAIS ELECTRICAS: To Settle U.S. Suits Before Privatization
CHICAGO, IL: Strip Search Settlement Payout Disappointing

CHICAGO BRIDGE: Monteverde & Associates Files Class Action Suit
CIVEO CORP: Monteverde & Associates Files Class Action
CLEVELAND PUBLIC: Class Action Lawsuit Moves Forward
CLOVERLEAF COLD: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Wages
CONSUMER ADVOCACY: Jackson Hits Illegal Telemarketing Calls, SMSs

CREDENCE RESOURCE: Morris Sues Over Illegal Collection Calls
CSC SERVICE: Faces D.S. Ridgeside Suit in M.D. Tennessee
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: D.C. Circuit Appeal Filed in "DL" Suit
DNB: Norway's Consumer Council to Appeal Class Action Ruling
DUKE UNIVERSITY: Antitrust Lawsuit Can Proceed as Class-Action

ENTELLUS MEDICAL: "Horstman" Suit Alleges Exchange Act Violation
EQUIFAX INC: Invasion of Privacy Class-Action Proceeds in Ontario
FACEBOOK INC: Challenges Class Action Certification in BIPA Suits
FACEBOOK INC: Alston & Bird Attorney Discusses EU Case Ruling
FIELDTURF: Montgomery County Joins Class Action

FIRE INSURANCE: Denial of Summary Adjudication Bid Upheld
FORD MOTOR: Faces Class Action Over Super Duty Diesel Emissions
FORSTER & GARBUS: Seeks 2nd Cir. Review of Order in "Winslow"
FOWLER PACKING: Court Partly Certifies "Aldapa" Classes
GENERAL ELECTRIC: Faces Class Action in Connecticut

GEORGE & FRANK'S: Failed to Pay Minimum Wages, "Cuizon" Suit Says
GETSWIFT: Flunks Deadline, Faces Class Action
GLENWOOD LUXURY: "Camacho" Suit Alleges ADA Violations
HAIN CELESTIAL: Bid to Dismiss "Pecanha" Denied
HIGH TECH RAIL: "Campbell" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT

HMI INDUSTRIES: Seeks 7th Cir. Review of Ruling in "Rench" Suit
HOTEL ON RIVINGTON: Faces "Olsen" Suit in S.D. New York
HUHTAMAKI INC: Goodwin Seeks to Recoup Unpaid Wages
HYUNDAI MOTORS: Montgomery Attorney Discusses Class Action Ruling
INFUSYSTEM HOLDINGS: Court Dismisses Securities Class Action

INTEREXCHANGE INC: Court Denies Bid to Exclude Kerr Testimony
JACOBS ENGINEERING: Court Dismisses "Kritch" Suit
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Robbins Geller to Lead in Remicade Suit
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Perth Mum Joins CA After Years of Pain
LEXISNEXIS RISK: Dismissal of First Advantage's Suit Affirmed

LG ELECTRONICS: Settles Class Action Over Phone Bootloop Problems
LIFE TIME: "Lenardson" Suit Seeks to Recoup Minimum, OT Wages
LINCOLN NATIONAL: 6th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of ERISA Suit
LOOMIS ARMORED: "Hawkins" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages
MARK GOBER: Faces "Darrough" Suit in E.D. of Arkansas

MARYLAND: Taxpayers to Appeal Class Action Dismissal
MDL 2804: Trade Group Responds to Opioid Crisis Lawsuits
MDL 2804: Wapello County Opts Out of Opioid Crisis Class Action
MEDTRONIC INC: Judge Allows Class-Action Suit to Proceed
MO'S FISHERMAN: Bid to Consolidate FLSA Suits Denied

MONTRES BREGUET: Faces "Thorne" Suit in S.D. of New York
MORGAN STANLEY: Sued for Racial Bias a Decade After CA Settlement
NAVIENT SOLUTIONS: Misleading Students About Loan Forgiveness
NORTH STAR: Peoplease Dismissed as Defendant in FLSA Suit
NORTHEAST TEXAS HOME: "Easley" Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages

NORTON HEALTHCARE: Plan Members Allege Fund Mismanagement
OCEAN SPRAY: Seeks 1st Circuit Review of Ruling in "Winters" Suit
OSTEOMED LP: Court Narrows Claims in "Sclar" Suit
PARKER SCHOOL: "Johnson" Suit Alleges WARN Violation
PHI AIR MEDICAL: Faces "Wray" Suit in District of Arizona

PHILIP MORRIS: AVL Cancer Hospital Joins Tobacco Class Action
PREMIER NUTRITION: Court Dismisses Sonner's Claims in "Mullins"
PREMIERE VACATION: Summary Ruling in Favor of Plan Member Upheld
PRIMESTAR PAINTING: Leverette Seeks Unpaid Overtime Premium
PURDUE PHARMA: New Hampshire's Suit Remanded to State Court

PYRAMID CONSULTING: "Banks" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
RED PARROT: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss TCPA Suit
RETAIL FOOD: Franchisees Launch Class Action
RM PARADIS: "Hackman" Suit Alleges TCPA Violations
SCIENCE APPS: Individual Claims in "Ostendorf" Dismissed

SMJ CONSTRUCTION: "Haidong" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
SORRENTO THERAPEUTICS: April 3 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
SOUTHEAST PERSONNEL: Fails to Pay Minimum, OT Wages, Sanchez Says
SP FOODS: "Taylor" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under EPA
SQUARETRADE INC: Nguyen Sues for Invasion of Privacy

STATE FARM: Faces "Allen" Suit in Georgia State Court
STEINHOFF: Set to Face Class Action Following Accounting Scandal
STEINHOFF: BarentsKrans Initiates Shareholder Class Action
TARGET CORP: Faces "McAteer" Suit in District of Minnesota
TASCH LLC: Court Conditionally Certifies "Lemons" FLSA Class

TESARO INC: Kessler Topaz Announces Shareholder Class Action
TOURNEAU LLC: Faces "Thorne" Suit in S.D. New York
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: "Greder" Suit Alleges Consumer Acts Violations
UNITED STATES: Court Dismisses Detained Immigrant's Suit
UNITED STATES: DHS Denial of Class Cert in "Manirakiza" Upheld

UNITED STATES: Appeals Decision in "Vidal" Suit to Second Circuit
VISALUS INC: Court Dismisses 3rd Amended "Kerrigan" Rico Suit
VODAFONE GROUP: March 20 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
WOLF PETROLEUM: Court Conditionally Certifies "Moss" Class
YELP INC: Klein Law Firm Files Securities Class Action

ZTO EXPRESS: Faces Linde Foundation Securities Suit Over IPO

* Germany Urged to Consider US-Style Class Action Amid Dieselgate
* Miles Attorney Discuses CFPB Class Action Waiver Rule
* Securities Fraud Class Actions Tougher Than Ever to Win





                            *********


3 KINGS SECURITY: "Vindel" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
LAZARO VINDEL, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. 3 KINGS SECURITY AND RENTALS, INC., a
California Corporation, KINGS ENTERPRISES SECURITY SERVICES,
INC., and DOES 1 through 100, Case No. BC690597 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
Los Angeles Cty., January 17, 2018), seeks to recover alleged
unpaid wages and penalties under the California Business and
Professions Code, the California Labor Code and the Industrial
Welfare Commission Wage Order No. 4.

The Defendants do business by providing onsite security services
to individuals and businesses.  The Defendants employed the
Plaintiff and other similarly-situated non-exempt employees
within Los Angeles County and the state of California.  The
Plaintiff does not know the true names or capacities of the Doe
Defendants.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Paul K. Haines, Esq.
          HAINES LAW GROUP, APC
          2274 East Maple Ave.
          El Segundo, CA 90245
          Telephone: (424) 292-2350
          Facsimile: (424) 292-2355
          E-mail: phaines@haineslawgroup.com

               - and -

          Sam Sani, Esq.
          SANI LAW, APC
          1055 West 7th Street, 33rd Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (310) 935-0405
          Facsimile: (310) 935-0409
          E-mail: ssani@sanilawfirm.com


4819 VERNON KITCHEN: "Calderon" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
---------------------------------------------------------------
OSCAR BARRON CALDERON, JOSE MEDEL SOLIS, SALVADOR ASTUDILLO, and
ELIAS ASTUDILLO, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated v. 4819 VERNON KITCHEN LLC, AUSTIN 88 LLC, B10
LLC, B12 LLC, NGM MANAGEMENT GROUP LLC, FIDI DISTRICT LLC,
MIDTOWN EAST NY LLC, COLUMBUS VILLAGE LLC and/or any other
related or affiliated entities, Case No. 150471/2018 (N.Y. Sup.
Ct., New York Cty., January 17, 2018), is brought pursuant to the
New York Labor Law and the New York Codes, Rules, and Regulations
to recover alleged unpaid overtime and spread of hours
compensation owed to the Plaintiffs and others.

The Defendants own and operate organic fast food restaurants
operating under the trade name "Bare Burger."

Vernon is a domestic limited liability company organized and
existing under the laws of the state of New York with a principal
place of business in Long Island City, New York.  Austin is a New
York domestic limited liability company with a principal place of
business in Forest Hills, New York.  B10 is a New York domestic
limited liability company with a principal place of business in
Bayside, New York.  B12 is a New York domestic limited liability
company with a principal place of business in Long Island City,
New York.

NGM is a New York domestic limited liability company with a
principal place of business in New York City.  FIDI is a New York
domestic limited liability company with a principal place of
business in Long Island City.  Midtown is a New York domestic
limited liability company with a principal place of business in
New York City.  Columbus is a New York domestic limited liability
company with a principal place of business in New York City.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


ADVANCED MICRO: "Kim" Suit Alleges Exchange Act Violations
----------------------------------------------------------
Doyun Kim, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., Lisa T. Su and Devinder
Kumar, Case No. 5:18-cv-00321 (N.D. Calif., January 16, 2018),
seeks to recover compensable damages under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

This is a federal securities class action on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons other than Defendants who purchased or
otherwise acquired common shares of AMD between February 21, 2017
and January 11, 2018, both dates inclusive.

Plaintiff Doyun Kim purchased AMD securities at artificially
inflated prices during the Class Period and was damaged upon the
revelation of corrective disclosure, says the complaint.

Defendant Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. manufactures semiconductor
products, which includes microprocessors, embedded
microprocessors, chipsets, graphics, video and multimedia
products. The Company offers its products worldwide. Founded in
1969, the Company is headquartered in Sunnyvale, California, and
its stock trades on the NASDAQ Capital Market under the ticker
symbol "AMD."

Defendant Lisa T. Su has served as the Company's CEO, President
and Director since October 2014.

Defendant Devinder Kumar has served at all relevant times as the
Company's Chief Financial Officer, Senior Vice President and
Treasurer. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

          - and -

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


AEROHIVE NETWORKS: "McGovney" Sues Over Share Price Drop
--------------------------------------------------------
Jacob McGovney, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Aerohive Networks, Inc., David
K. Flynn and John Ritchie, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-00435,
(N.D. Cal., January 19, 2018), seeks to recover compensable
damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal
securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Aerohive, together with its subsidiaries, designs and develops
cloud networking and enterprise Wi-Fi solutions in Americas,
Europe, the Middle East and Africa, and the Asia Pacific.
Defendants failed to disclose that there were underlying sales
execution issues that were uncovered at the end of the third
quarter of 2017.  Consequently, Aerohive's revenue guidance for
the fourth quarter of 2017 was overstated.  On this news, shares
of Aerohive fell $1.63 per share, or over 29%, from its previous
closing price to close at $4.07 per share on January 17, 2018.

McGovney purchased Aerohive securities at artificially inflated
prices and lost substantially upon the revelation of the alleged
corrective disclosure. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
      THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
      275 Madison Ave., 34th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 686-1060
      Fax: (212) 202-3827
      Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com


ALLERGAN INC: Appeals Ruling in Asacol Antitrust Suit to 1st Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Allergan Sales, LLC, Allergan USA, Inc., Allergan,
Inc., Allergan, PLC and Warner Chilcott Limited filed an appeal
from a court ruling in the lawsuit styled IN RE ASACOL ANTITRUST
LITIGATION, Case No. 1:15-cv-12730-DJC, in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Massachusetts, Boston.

The appellate case is captioned as Teamsters Union, et al. v.
Warner Chilcott Limited, et al., Case No. 18-1065, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.

The litigation is a putative class action in which the
Plaintiffs, members of a putative class of end-payor purchasers
of certain pharmaceutical products, allege that the Defendants,
manufacturers of certain pharmaceutical products, engaged in
exclusionary conduct impermissible under antitrust laws by
pulling one product, Asacol 400mg, from the market at the same
that it introduced a new product, Delzicol.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the District
Court has issued a Memorandum and Order granting the Plaintiffs'
motion for class certification and denying the Defendants' motion
for summary judgment.

The Plaintiffs seek to certify a class defined as:

     All persons or entities in the United States and its
     territories who purchased and/or paid for some or all of the
     purchase price for Delzicol or Asacol HD in Arizona,
     California, Florida, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan,
     Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada,
     New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North
     Dakota, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee,
     Vermont, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and the District of
     Columbia for consumption by themselves, their families, or
     their members, employees, insureds, participants, or
     beneficiaries, during the period July 31, 2013 through and
     until the anticompetitive effects of Defendants' unlawful
     conduct cease and also purchased and/or paid for some or all
     of the purchase price for Asacol 400mg prior to July 31,
     2013.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that
Appearance Form, Docketing Statement, Transcript Report/Order
form, and Fee was due February 1, 2018.[BN]

Plaintiffs UNITED FOOD & COMMERCIAL WORKERS UNIONS AND EMPLOYERS
MIDWEST HEALTH BENEFITS FUND, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated; and MARK ADORNEY are represented by:

          Justin N. Boley, Esq.
          Kenneth A. Wexler, Esq.
          WEXLER WALLACE LLP
          55 W Monroe St., Suite 3300
          Chicago, IL 60602-0000
          Telephone: (312) 346-2222
          E-mail: jnb@wexlerwallace.com
                  kaw@wexlerwallace.com

Plaintiffs-Appellees UNITED FOOD & COMMERCIAL WORKERS UNIONS AND
EMPLOYERS MIDWEST HEALTH BENEFITS FUND, on behalf of itself and
all others similarly situated; MARK ADORNEY; and TEAMSTERS UNION
25 HEALTH SERVICES & INSURANCE PLAN, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated; MINNESOTA LABORERS HEALTH AND
WELFARE FUND, on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated; AFSCME HEALTH AND WELFARE FUND; PENNSYLVANIA EMPLOYEES
BENEFIT TRUST FUND; AHOLD U.S.A., INC.; ROCHESTER DRUG CO-
OPERATIVE, INC.; VALUE DRUG COMPANY; MEIJER, INC.; and MEIJER
DISTRIBUTION, INC., are represented by:

          Daryl DeValerio Andrews, Esq.
          Glen DeValerio, Esq.
          ANDREWS DEVALERIO
          265 Franklin St
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617) 999-6473
          E-mail: gdevalerio@bermandevalerio.com
                  gdevalerio@bermandevalerio.com

               - and -

          Tyler J. Story, Esq.
          Bethany R. Turke, Esq.
          WEXLER WALLACE LLP
          55 W Monroe St., Suite 3300
          Chicago, IL 60602-0000
          Telephone: (312) 346-2222
          E-mail: tjs@wexlerwallace.com
                  brt@wexlerwallace.com

               - and -

          Nathaniel L. Orenstein, Esq.
          BERMAN TABACCO
          1 Liberty Sq., 8th Floor
          Boston, MA 02109
          Telephone: (617) 542-8300
          E-mail: norenstein@bermantabacco.com

Plaintiffs-Appellees TEAMSTERS UNION 25 HEALTH SERVICES &
INSURANCE PLAN, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated; NECA-IBEW WELFARE TRUST FUND, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated; and WISCONSIN MASONS' HEALTH
CARE FUND, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated,
are represented by:

          David P. Barclay, Esq.
          Eric D. Barton, Esq.
          Thomas P. Cartmell, Esq.
          Tyler W. Hudson, Esq.
          WAGSTAFF & CARTMELL, LLP
          4740 Grand Avenue, Suite 300
          Kansas City, MO 64112
          Telephone: (816) 701-1100
          E-mail: dbarclay@wcllp.com
                  ebarton@wcllp.com
                  tcartmell@wagstaffcartmell.net
                  thudson@wcllp.com

               - and -

          Norman Berman, Esq.
          Justin Nader Saif, Esq.
          John Henby Sutter, Esq.
          BERMAN TABACCO
          1 Liberty Sq., 8th Floor
          Boston, MA 02109
          Telephone: (617) 542-8300
          E-mail: nberman@bermantabacco.com
                  jsaif@bermantabacco.com
                  jsutter@bermantabacco.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey L. Kodroff, Esq.
          John A. Macoretta, Esq.
          Diana J. Zinser, Esq.
          SPECTOR ROSEMAN & KODROFF PC
          1818 Market St., Suite 2500
          Philadelphia, PA 19103-0000
          Telephone: (215) 496-0300
          E-mail: jkodroff@srkwlaw.com
                  jmacoretta@srkw-law.com
                  dzinser@srkw-law.com

               - and -

          Peter J. Mougey, Esq.
          LEVIN PAPANTONIO THOMAS MITCHELL RAFFERTY & PROCTOR PA
          316 S Baylen St., Suite 600
          Pensacola, FL 32502
          Telephone: (850) 435-7068
          E-mail: pmougey@levinlaw.com

Plaintiffs-Appellees MINNESOTA LABORERS HEALTH AND WELFARE FUND,
on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated; AFSCME
HEALTH AND WELFARE FUND; PENNSYLVANIA EMPLOYEES BENEFIT TRUST
FUND; AHOLD U.S.A., INC.; ROCHESTER DRUG CO-OPERATIVE, INC.;
VALUE DRUG COMPANY; MEIJER, INC.; and MEIJER DISTRIBUTION, INC.,
are represented by:

          Karen H. Riebel, Esq.
          Heidi M. Silton, Esq.
          Devona L. Wells, Esq.
          LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP
          100 Washington Ave S, Suite 2200
          Minneapolis, MN 55401-0000
          Telephone: (612) 339-6900
          E-mail: khriebel@locklaw.com
                  hmsilton@locklaw.com
                  dlwells@locklaw.com

Plaintiffs-Appellees AHOLD U.S.A., INC.; ROCHESTER DRUG CO-
OPERATIVE, INC.; VALUE DRUG COMPANY; MEIJER, INC.; and MEIJER
DISTRIBUTION, INC., are represented by:

          Lauren G. Barnes, Esq.
          David S. Nalven, Esq.
          Thomas M. Sobol, Esq.
          Kiersten A. Taylor, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          55 Cambridge Pkwy., Suite 301
          Cambridge, MA 02142-0000
          Telephone: (617) 482-3700
          E-mail: lauren@hbsslaw.com
                  davidn@hbsslaw.com
                  tom@hbsslaw.com
                  kierstent@hbsslaw.com

Plaintiffs-Appellees ROCHESTER DRUG CO-OPERATIVE, INC.; VALUE
DRUG COMPANY; MEIJER, INC.; and MEIJER DISTRIBUTION, INC., are
represented by:

          Neill Wilson Clark, Esq.
          Peter R. Kohn, Esq.
          Joseph T. Lukens, Esq.
          FARQUI & FARQUI LLP
          101 Greenwood Ave., Suite 600
          Jenkintown, PA 19046
          Telephone: (215) 277-5770
          Facsimile: (215) 277-5771
          E-mail: nclark@faruqilaw.com
                  pkohn@faruqilaw.com
                  jlukens@faruqilaw.com

               - and -

          Miles Greaves, Esq.
          Brett Cebulash, Esq.
          Barry S. Taus, Esq.
          TAUS, CEBULASH & LANDAU, LLP
          80 Maiden Ln., Suite 1204
          New York, NY 10038
          Telephone: (212) 931-0703
          E-mail: mgreaves@tcllaw.com
                  bcebulash@tcllaw.com
                  btaus@tcllaw.com

               - and -

          David F. Sorensen, Esq.
          BERGER & MONTAGUE PC
          1622 Locust St.
          Philadelphia, PA 19103-0000
          Telephone: (215) 875-5705
          E-mail: dsorensen@bm.net

Plaintiffs-Appellees VALUE DRUG COMPANY; MEIJER, INC.; and MEIJER
DISTRIBUTION, INC., are represented by:

          Zachary David Caplan, Esq.
          BERGER & MONTAGUE PC
          1622 Locust St.
          Philadelphia, PA 19103-0000
          Telephone: (215) 875-5705
          E-mail: zcaplan@bm.net

               - and -

          Dan Chiorean, Esq.
          Stuart E. Des Roches, Esq.
          ODOM & DES ROCHES, LLC
          650 Poydras St.
          Poydras Center
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Telephone: (504) 522-0077
          E-mail: dchiorean@odrlaw.com
                  stuart@odrlaw.com

               - and -

          Russell A. Chorush, Esq.
          Christopher M. First, Esq.
          PAYNES & CHORUSH, LLP
          1111 Bagby St., Suite 2100
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (713) 221-2000
          E-mail: rchorush@hpcllp.com
                  cfirst@hpcllp.com

               - and -

          Bruce E. Gerstein, Esq.
          Ephraim R. Gerstein, Esq.
          Dan Litvin, Esq.
          Joseph Opper, Esq.
          GARWIN GERSTEIN & FISHER LLP
          Wall Street Plaza
          88 Pine St, 10th Floor
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 398-0055
          E-mail: bgerstein@garwingerstein.com
                  egerstein@garwingerstein.com
                  dlitvin@garwingerstein.com
                  jopper@garwingerstein.com

               - and -

          David C. Raphael, Jr., Esq.
          Susan C. Segura, Esq.
          SMITH SEGURA & RAPHAEL LLP
          3600 Jackson St., Suite 111
          Alexandria, LA 71303-3000
          Telephone: (318) 445-4480
          E-mail: draphael@ssrllp.com
                  ssegura@ssrllp.com

Plaintiffs-Appellees MEIJER, INC.; and MEIJER DISTRIBUTION, INC.,
are represented by:

          John Paul Bjork, Esq.
          David P. Germaine, Esq.
          Jeffrey Moran, Esq.
          Joseph M. Vanek, Esq.
          VANEK VICKERS & MASINI PC
          55 W Monroe St., Suite 3500
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 404-9644
          E-mail: jbjork@vaneklaw.com
                  dgermaine@vaneklaw.com
                  jmoran@vaneklaw.com
                  jvanek@vaneklaw.com

               - and -

          Thomas David Brooks, Esq.
          Paul Ethan Slater, Esq.
          SPERLING & SLATER PC
          55 W Monroe St., Suite 3200
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 641-3200
          E-mail: tdbrooks@sperling-law.com
                  mslater@sperling-law.com

               - and -

          Donald Sean Nation, Esq.
          Steve D. Shadowen, Esq.
          LANGLEY & BANACK INCORPORATED
          745 E Mulberry Ave., Suite 700
          San Antonio, TX 78212
          Telephone: (717) 903-1177
          E-mail: sean@hilliardshadowenlaw.com
                  steve@hilliardshadowenlaw.com

Plaintiff-Appellee MEIJER DISTRIBUTION, INC., is represented by:

          Matthew Charles Weiner, Esq.
          HILLIARD SHADOWEN LLP
          2407 S Congress Ave., Suite E
          Austin, TX 78704-5500
          Telephone: (845) 323-8036
          E-mail: matt@hilliardshadowenlaw.com

Defendants-Appellants WARNER CHILCOTT LIMITED; ALLERGAN, INC.,
f/k/a Actavis, PLC; ALLERGAN USA, INC.; ALLERGAN SALES, LLC; and
ALLERGAN, PLC, Formerly known as Actavis, PLC; and Defendants
WARNER CHILCOTT (US), LLC; WARNER CHILCOTT SALES (US), LLC; and
WARNER CHILCOTT COMPANY, LLC, are represented by:

          Kevin C. Adam, Esq.
          Katherine Dyson, Esq.
          WHITE & CASE LLP
          75 State St.
          Boston, MA 02109
          Telephone: (978) 836-6363
          E-mail: kevin.adam@whitecase.com
                  kate.dyson@whitecase.com

               - and -

          Matthew Bernstein, Esq.
          Noah Austin Brumfield, Esq.
          Peter J. Carney, Esq.
          Eileen M. Cole, Esq.
          Dana Foster, Esq.
          John Mark Gidley, Esq.
          Matthew Sterrett Leddicotte, Esq.
          Holly Letourneau, Esq.
          Celia McLaughlin, Esq.
          Matthew Hendy, Esq.
          WHITE & CASE LLP
          701 13 St., NW
          Washington, DC 20005-3807
          Telephone: (202) 637-6193
          Facsimile: (202) 639-9355
          E-mail: matthew.bernstein@whitecase.com
                  noah.brumfield@whitecase.com
                  pcarney@whitecase.com
                  ecole@whitecase.com
                  defoster@whitecase.com
                  mgidley@whitecase.com
                  mleddicotte@whitecase.com
                  hletourneau@whitecase.com
                  mmclaughlin@butlerpappas.com
                  matthew.hendy@whitecase.com

               - and -

          Caitlin Cipicchio, Esq.
          Micheal J. Gallagher, Esq.
          Trisha Grant, Esq.
          Alison Hanstead, Esq.
          Stefan M. Mentzer, Esq.
          Jack E. Pace, III
          WHITE & CASE LLP
          1221 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10020-1095
          Telephone: (212) 819-8200
          Facsimile: (212) 354-8113
          E-mail: caitlin.cipicchio@whitecase.com
                  mgallagher@whitecase.com
                  trisha.grant@whitecase.com
                  ahanstead@whitecase.com
                  smentzer@whitecase.com
                  jpace@whitecase.com

               - and -

          Angela Daker, Esq.
          WHITE & CASE LLP
          200 South Biscayne Blvd., Suite 4900
          Miami, FL 33131-2352
          Telephone: (305) 371-2700
          E-mail: adaker@whitecase.com

               - and -

          Nicole J. Benjamin, Esq.
          ADLER POLLOCK & SHEEHAN PC
          1 Citizens Plaza, 8th Floor
          Providence, RI 02903-1345
          Telephone: (401) 274-7200
          E-mail: nbenjamin@apslaw.com

               - and -

          Alexandra G. Calistri, Esq.
          MINTZ LEVIN COHN FERRIS GLOVSKY & POPEO PC
          666 Third Avenue
          New York, NY 10017-0000
          Telephone: (914) 450-9140
          E-mail: LGCalistri@mintz.com

               - and -

          Jonathan Isaac Handler, Esq.
          David W.S. Lieberman, Esq.
          DAY PITNEY LLP
          1 International Pl
          Boston, MA 02110-0000
          Telephone: (617) 345-4600
          E-mail: jihandler@daypitney.com
                  dlieberman@daypitney.com

Defendants-Appellants ALLERGAN, INC., f/k/a Actavis, PLC;
ALLERGAN USA, INC.; ALLERGAN SALES, LLC; and ALLERGAN, PLC,
Formerly known as Actavis, PLC, are represented by:

          Demetra Frawley, Esq.
          WHITE & CASE LLP
          1221 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10020-1095
          Telephone: (212) 819-7037
          Facsimile: (212) 354-8113

               - and -

          Sonia Murphy, Esq.
          Nicholas L. Wilkins, Esq.
          WHITE & CASE LLP
          701 13 St., NW
          Washington, DC 20005-3807
          Telephone: (202) 637-6161
          Facsimile: (202) 639-9355
          E-mail: smurphy@whitecase.com
                  nick.wilkins@whitecase.com

Defendants ZYDUS PHARMACEUTICALS USA INC.; CADILA HEALTHCARE
LIMITED; WARNER CHILCOTT (US), LLC; WARNER CHILCOTT SALES (US),
LLC; and WARNER CHILCOTT COMPANY, LLC, are represented by:

          Randall A. Hack, Esq.
          Stephen Gerard Huggard, Esq.
          Elizabeth Howar Kelly, Esq.
          Andy Miller, Esq.
          LOCKE LORD EDWARDS LLP
          111 S Wacker Dr.
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 443-0676
          E-mail: rhack@lockelord.com
                  stephen.huggard@lockelord.com
                  liz.kelly@lockelord.com
                  amiller@lockelord.com


ALLTRAN FINANCIAL: Faces "Nisanov" Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Alltran Financial,
LP. The case is styled as Yasmin Nisanov, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Alltran
Financial, LP, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-00830 (E.D. N.Y.,
February 7, 2018).

Alltran Financial, LP offers collection services for credit card,
retail, commercial, and deficiency loan industries.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
   Joseph H. Mizrahi Law, P.C.
   337 Avenue W, Suite 2f
   Brooklyn, NY 11223
   Tel: (917) 299-6612
   Fax: (347) 665-1545
   Email: jmizrahilaw@gmail.com


AMC ENTERTAINMENT: "Nichols" Hits Stock Drop from Theater Buy
-------------------------------------------------------------
Warren Nichols, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, 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., and Kathleen M. Pawlus, Defendants,
Case No. 18-cv-00510, (S.D. N.Y., January 19, 2018), seeks to
recover damages caused by violations of the Securities Act of
1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

AMC Entertainment Holdings Inc. operates as a holding company,
and through its subsidiaries, provides theatrical exhibition
services worldwide. On December 21, 2016, AMC completed the
acquisition of Carmike Cinemas, Inc. for $858.2 million.
Defendants failed to disclose that Carmike's operations had been
experiencing a prolonged period of financial underperformance due
to a protracted period of underinvestment in its theaters,
Carmike had experienced a significant loss in market share when
its loyal patrons migrated to competitors that had renovated and
upgraded their theaters and that AMC was able to retain only a
very small number of Carmike's loyalty program members after the
Carmike acquisition. AMC announced that its 2017 revenues were
expected to range between $5.10-5.23 billion and its 2017 net
loss between $150 and $125 million, or a loss of $1.17 to $0.97
per diluted share. On this news, AMC stock fell around 27% to
close at $15.20 per share on August 2, 2017, or more than 50%
below the price at which the shares were sold in the Company's
secondary public offering.

Plaintiff acquired AMC securities at artificially inflated prices
during that time and lost substantially upon the revelation of
the alleged corrective disclosures, notes the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
      J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
      POMERANTZ LLP
      600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 661-1100
      Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
      Email: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
             ahood@pomlaw.com

             - and -

      Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
      POMERANTZ LLP
      10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Telephone: (312) 377-1181
      Facsimile: (312) 377-1184
      Email: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com

             - and -

      Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
      BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC
      60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600
      New York, NY 10165
      Telephone: (212) 697-6484
      Facsimile (212) 697-7296
      Email: peretz@bgandg.com


AMETEK INC: Court Refuses to Disqualify Counsel in "Greenfield"
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, GREENFIELD MHP ASSOCIATES, L.P., et al., Plaintiffs,
v. AMETEK, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:15-cv-01525-GPC-
AGS (S.D. Cal.), Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel of the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of California (i) denied Ametek's
motion to disqualify Baron & Budd P.C. and Gomez Trial Attorneys
as counsel to the Plaintiffs in the action and three other
related federal lawsuits before the Court: Trujillo, et al. v.
Ametek, et al. (Case No. 15-cv-1394), Cox, et al. v. Ametek, Inc.
et al. (Case No. 17-cv-597), and Cox, et al. v. Ametek, Inc. et
al. (Case No. 17-cv-1211); ad (ii) denied the Plaintiffs' motion
for sanctions.

In the action, the Plaintiffs -- owners of three mobile home
parks located in El Cajon, California -- have brought suit
claiming damage to their property as a result of ground
contamination.  Defendants are Ametek, a former owner and
operator of an aircraft parts manufacturing facility near the
Plaintiffs' properties ("The Facility"); and Senior Operations,
LLC, the current owner of the facility.  In short, the Plaintiffs
allege that Ametek, while operating The Facility, constructed an
underground waste sump, which eventually leaked and produced a
chemical plume contaminating nearby soil and groundwater.  This
contamination is the origin of five lawsuits, four of which are
before the Court, and one of which is in state court.

On May 29, 2015, students and staff from Magnolia Elementary
School ("MES") -- which abuts The Facility -- filed a putative
class action, Trujillo, et al. v. Ametek, Inc., et al., in state
court against Ametek, Thomas Deeney (an Ametek officer), and
Senior.  The plaintiffs in Trujillo allege injury as a result of
inhaling toxic vapors while on MES property.  The plaintiffs in
Trujillo are represented by Baron & Budd, P.C.  The case is
currently in discovery.

On Jan. 25, 2017, three residents of the Greenfield park filed
suit, Rossiter, et al. v. Greenfield MHP, et al., in state court
against Greenfield's owners.  According to the electronic state
court docket -- of which this Court may take judicial notice,
see, e.g., Williams v. Los Angeles Cty. Super. Ct., No. CV 08-
4823-TJH (MAN), 200, it appears that the plaintiffs in Rossiter
are represented by the Gilleon Law Firm, and the Greenfield
owners are represented by Cooksey Toolen Gage Duffy & Woog.  No
one in this case suggests that Baron & Budd or Gomez Trial
Attorneys are involved in the Rossiter lawsuit.

On March 24, 2017, residents of the three mobile home parks filed
a putative class action, Cox, et al. v. Ametek, Inc., et al., in
the Court against Ametek, Deeney, and Senior.  In Cox I, the
plaintiffs allege that they have been injured as a result of
inhaling toxic vapors stemming from the contamination of the soil
and groundwater at the mobile home parks.  The plaintiffs are
represented by Baron & Budd.

Finally, on June 14, 2017, three sons of a deceased resident of
the Villa Cajon park filed suit, Cox, et al. v. Ametek, Inc., et
al., in the Court against Ametek and Deeney.  Cox II is not a
class action.  There, the plaintiffs claim wrongful death against
the defendants, alleging that the contamination in the mobile
home parks caused their mother's death.  The Cox II plaintiffs
are represented by Baron & Budd.

Before the Court is a motion to disqualify opposing counsel filed
by Defendant Ametek, seeking an order disqualifying the
Plaintiffs' Counsel in the instant action and three other related
federal lawsuits before the Court: Trujillo, et al. v. Ametek, et
al., Cox I, and Cox II.  Ametek contends that the Plaintiffs'
Counsel must be disqualified from representing any of the
plaintiffs in the four federal lawsuits because there is a
concurrent conflict of interest.  The mobile home park residents
and owners have adverse interests, according to Ametek, because
the mobile home park residents have viable claims against the
park owners for the owners' alleged failure to warn the residents
about the plume's contamination of the park properties.

In their opposition memorandum, the Plaintiffs assert that the
Court should enter sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 11 against Ametek because the motion to disqualify has
"no legal or factual support," and was brought to harass or to
cause unnecessary delay.

Judge Curiel finds that both parties erroneously assume that
Ametek must demonstrate Article III standing for the Court to
consider the disqualification motion.  In light of the totality
of the circumstances of the case, however, he finds that
disqualification is inappropriate.

The Judge concludes that Article III does not prevent the Court
from entertaining and deciding a motion to disqualify counsel.
That conclusion, of course, does not require that such a motion
be granted.  Having concluded that Article III does not pose a
barrier to deciding the instant motion, he must consider whether
disqualification under these circumstances is appropriate.  He
holds it is not.  In light of the clear indication by the clients
impacted by the potential conflict of interest that they wish to
be represented by the Plaintiffs' Counsel, the age of the case,
and the risk that this motion was brought as a matter of tactical
gamesmanship, the the Judge finds that the totality of the
circumstance weigh against disqualification.

Finally, Judge Curiel finds the sanctions under these
circumstances unwarranted. The motion to disqualify filed by
Ametek was far from frivolous: it raised a viable claim that the
Plaintiffs' Counsel's concurrent representation of the mobile
home park residents and owners violates California's rules of
professional conduct.  While there is evidence suggesting that
Ametek's filing of the motion was motivated at least in part by
tactical gamesmanship, the Judge does not find that Rule 11
sanctions are appropriate under the circumstances.

For the reasons he stated, Judge Curiel denied Ametek's motion to
disqualify Baron & Budd and Gomez Trial Attorneys as the counsel
for the Plaintiffs in the instant case, as well as Trujillo, Cox
I, and Cox II.  He also denied the Plaintiffs' motion for
sanctions.  The Judge vacated the hearing scheduled for Jan. 26,
2018.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 24, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/FuJK4a from Leagle.com.

Greenfield MHP Associates, L.P., a limited partnership, Starlight
MHP, LLC, a California limited liability company, Starlight
Exchange, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Davis Group
Exchange, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company & Villa Cajon
MHC, L.P., a Utah limited partnership, Plaintiffs, represented by
Brett D. Land, Baron & Budd PC, pro hac vice, Carla Burke, Baron
& Budd PC, pro hac vice, Celeste A. Evangelisti, Baron & Budd PC,
Jason J. Julius, Baron & Budd, John P. Fiske, Baron & Budd, P.C.,
Scott Summy, Baron & Budd PC, pro hac vice, Zachary Sandman,
Baron & Budd PC, pro hac vice & Deborah S. Dixon --
ddixon@gomeztrialattorneys.com -- Gomez Trial Attorneys.

Ametek, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Defendant, represented by
Anna L. Nguyen -- anguyen@ww-envlaw.com -- Wactor and Wick,
Edward C. Walton -- ed.walton@procopio.com -- Procopio, Cory,
Hargreaves & Savitch, LLP, Joseph Duffy --
joseph.duffy@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, Jon
K. Wactor -- jonwactor@ww-envlaw.com -- Wactor & Wick, Kristen
Lee Price -- kristen.price@procopio.com -- Procopio, Cory,
Hargreaves & Savitch LLP & Sean Michael Sullivan --
sean.sullivan@procopio.com -- Procopio, Cory, Hargreaves &
Savitch LLP.

Senior Operations LLC, a limited liability company, Defendant,
represented by David James Porter -- david.porter@bipc.com --
Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC, pro hac vice, Jordan Webster --
jordan.webster@bipc.com -- Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC, pro
hac vice & Kimberly Arouh -- kimberly.arouh@bipc.com -- Buchanan
Ingersoll & Rooney LLP.


APPLE & EVE: "Quiroz" Hits Mislabeling, False Advertising
---------------------------------------------------------
Daniela Quiroz and Gilbert Hernandez, on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. The Apple & Eve, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-00401 (S.D. N.Y., January 19, 2018),
seeks redress for unfair and deceptive practice of false
advertising and marketing of Defendant's products having "No
Sugar Added" and claiming "No preservatives have been added"
despite containing the preservatives citric acid and/or ascorbic
acid in violation of the consumer protection laws of New York,
California, the other 49 states, and the District of Columbia.

Defendant develops, markets and sells beverage products under the
"Apple & Eve" brand name throughout the United States. Defendant
also manufactures, markets, advertises and sells extensive juice
Products across the United States, available at numerous
supermarkets, retail, and online outlets such as Walmart,
Safeway, CVS, Ralphs, Stop & Shop and Amazon.com.

Quiroz and Hernandez purchased Apple & Eve juices, relying on
Defendant's representations on the packaging that they did not
contain preservatives. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      C.K. Lee, Esq.
      Anne Seelig, Esq.
      LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
      30 East 39th Street, Second Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Tel: (212) 465-1188
      Fax: (212) 465-1181


AZZ INC: Kessler Topaz Files Shareholder Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, disclosed
that a shareholder class action lawsuit has been filed against
AZZ Inc. on behalf of purchasers of the Company's securities
between April 22, 2015 and January 8, 2018, inclusive.

Investors who purchased AZZ securities during the Class Period
may, no later than March 12, 2018, seek to be appointed as a lead
plaintiff representative of the class. For additional information
or to learn how to participate in this action please visit
https://www.ktmc.com/new-cases/azz-inc#join

AZZ shareholders who wish to discuss this action and their legal
options are encouraged to contact Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check,
LLP (Darren J. Check, Esq., D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq. or Adrienne
Bell, Esq.) at (888) 299-7706 or at info@ktmc.com.

AZZ is a global provider of galvanizing services, welding
solutions, specialty electrical equipment, and highly engineered
services to the power generation, transmission, distribution,
refining and industrial markets.

As detailed in the complaint, on January 9, 2018, AZZ disclosed
to investors that it "should have accounted differently for
certain contracts within its Energy Segment." The Company further
disclosed that it was "reviewing whether its historical
accounting for these contracts differs materially and if there
are any significant impacts to the Company's audited consolidated
financial statements." Finally, AZZ indicated that its accounting
review was "ongoing, and the Company cannot yet estimate when it
will be completed," and that "the Company cannot yet conclude
upon the materiality of any potential adjustments."

Following these disclosures, shares of AZZ's stock fell $3.14 per
share, or over 6%, to close on January 9, 2018 at $47.50 per
share, on heavy trading volume.

Among other things, the shareholder class action complaint
alleges that, during the Class Period, AZZ and certain of its
executive officers made false and misleading statements and/or
failed to disclose that the Company: (i) had misstated revenues
for its Energy Segment; (ii) had failed to report revenues in
compliance with applicable accounting standards; and (iii) lacked
adequate internal controls over financial reporting. As a result
of the foregoing, AZZ's publicly disseminated financial
statements during the Class Period were materially false and
misleading.

AZZ shareholders may, no later than March 12, 2018, seek to be
appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class through
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, or other counsel, or may choose to
do nothing and remain an absent class member.  A lead plaintiff
is a representative party who acts on behalf of all class members
in directing the litigation.  In order to be appointed as a lead
plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim
is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the
class member will adequately represent the class in the action.
Your ability to share in any recovery is not affected by the
decision of whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff.

Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check prosecutes class actions in state
and federal courts throughout the country. Kessler Topaz Meltzer
& Check is a driving force behind corporate governance reform,
and has recovered billions of dollars on behalf of institutional
and individual investors from the United States and around the
world.  The firm represents investors, consumers and
whistleblowers (private citizens who report fraudulent practices
against the government and share in the recovery of government
dollars).  The complaint in this action was not filed by Kessler
Topaz Meltzer & Check. For more information about Kessler Topaz
Meltzer & Check, please visit www.ktmc.com.

         Darren J. Check, Esq.
         D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq.
         Adrienne Bell, Esq.
         Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP
         Tel: (888) 299-7706
                  (610) 667-7706
         Email: dcheck@ktmc.com
                skaskela@ktmc.com
                abell@ktmc.com [GN]


BANK OF MONTREAL: Fire Pension Assoc. Asserts Sherman Act Breach
----------------------------------------------------------------
Fire & Police Pension Association of Colorado, individually and
on behalf of all those similarly situated v. Bank of Montreal et
al., Case No. 1:18-cv-00342 (S.D. N.Y., January 12, 2018), is
brought against the Defendants for violations of the Sherman Act,
Commodity Exchange Act, and Racketeer Influenced Corrupt
Organization Act.

This action arises from Defendants' unlawful conspiracy to
increase the profitability of their derivatives trading business
by manipulating the Canadian Dealer Offered Rate during the
period of at least August 9, 2007 through at least June 30, 2014.

Plaintiff Fire & Police Pension Association of Colorado was
established in January 1980 and administers a statewide,
multiemployer, public employee retirement system providing
defined benefit plan coverage as well as death and disability
coverage for police officers and firefighters throughout the
State of Colorado.

Defendant Bank of Montreal is a Canadian bank with its principal
place of business in Montreal, Canada. Bank of Montreal uses the
trade name "BMO Financial Group" for all of its operating
entities and has three operating groups: Personal and Commercial
Banking, Wealth Management, and BMO Capital Markets. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Vincent Briganti, Esq.
      Geoffrey M. Horn, Esq.
      Peter D. St. Phillip, Esq.
      Christian Levis, Esq.
      Roland R. St. Louis, III, Esq.
      LOWEY DANNENBERG P.C.
      44 South Broadway
      White Plains, NY 10601
      Tel: (914) 997-0500
      Fax: (914) 997-0035
      E-mail: vbriganti@lowey.com
              ghorn@lowey.com
              pstphillip@lowey.com
              clevis@lowey.com
              rstlouis@lowey.com


BAY BRIDGE: Mobile Home Residents Mull Suit Over Water Woes
-----------------------------------------------------------
Beth Brogan, writing for Bangor Daily News, reports that
frustrated by ongoing water supply problems, residents of
Brunswick's Bay Bridge Estates mobile home park have formed a
tenants association and retained an attorney to investigate a
potential class-action suit.

Kennebunk attorney Peter Clifford confirmed on Jan. 30 that he
represents the tenants association and would begin fact-finding
about potential legal action against the park's owners.

Mr. Clifford attended a meeting of the residents of the park on
Jan. 28, and he said he was "very cautious" in explaining
potential legal options, but mentioned the possibility of a
class-action suit.

Early in January, during a prolonged cold spell, residents of Bay
Bridge informed Brunswick officials that they had no water.  Town
Attorney Stephen Langsdorf and municipal administrators declared
the lack of water a "public health issue" and ordered Bay Bridge
to correct the situation.

When town officials deemed that response inadequate, Town Manager
John Eldridge ordered water to be trucked to the mobile home park
at Bay Bridge's expense.

Mr. Langsdorf wrote in a Jan. 5 release that Bay Bridge had
agreed to pay for the water, which would supplement any
groundwater in the park's dozen 5,000-gallon storage tanks, and
that would result in no rationing.

The same day, Bay Bridge sent a letter to tenants informing them
of "the installation of a new well," previously anticipated for
spring.

According to the release, the owners had committed to drilling a
new well, which was expected to be completed by Jan. 19.

But according to correspondence Mr. Eldridge provided on Jan. 30,
Bay Bridge personnel denied an inadequate water supply, and they
said an unusually long cold spell caused the complaints about
supply. They claimed tenants left water running to prevent frozen
pipes, resulting in a low supply, which prompted management to
reduce the overall flow to prevent damage to the system.

Rodney Doray of the tenants association said on Jan. 28 that
tenants spent money they didn't have on water at the time -- and
that some are still having problems.

Some residents spent as much as $2,500 repairing the main water
line into their homes, he said.

Water has been an issue in the park for years, Mr. Doray said,
"with some of the plumbing freezing up, or septic things
overflowing. I do know I have a rotted-out bathroom floor from
years of this happening."

"Some people were buying their own water, so how much are people
out of pocket," Mr. Clifford said.  "If you're forced to live in
uninhabitable conditions, you're entitled to a rebate on your
rent.  Some had to go to a hotel because it was so cold."

Mr. Clifford said the decision to drill a new well or tap an
existing, capped well would be made by management, but he said,
"obviously, it raises some questions about the quality of the
water and its safety.  And many, many residents have let it be
known for years they don't like the quality of the water."

But he said all testing seems to show it met standards --
although he said recent testing showed "unacceptably high levels
of arsenic."

Kevin McCarthy, who represents the park's owners, The Liberty
Group, said on Jan. 31 that the two existing wells were enough to
meet regular customer demands, until the cold spell.

"But the problem was we had tenants just running water,"
Mr. McCarthy said.  "In many cases, there were just frozen pipes,
so there was no water.  But usage in the park almost doubled [at
that time], and the wells couldn't recover quickly.  As a result,
we had to limit outflow."

In a Jan. 4 letter to the town, Mr. McCarthy wrote that it was
the responsibility of the mobile home owners to insulate their
pipes with wrap insulation, heat tape and skirting to prevent
freezing.  He added that such is often not the case, or plumbing
is not in good repair, but that on-site management is available
to help tenants.

He claimed Bay Bridge Estates, and not the town, is currently
trucking in the water, and said the park did expedite the process
of bringing an old, capped well back online, which he hopes,
pending state approval, will increase supply.

On Jan. 30, Mr. Eldridge said the town had just received results
of water testing, which showed elevated pH levels at various
sites and elements that could contribute to the bitter water
complained about by residents. He said the tests also included
water trucked in from the Brunswick Topsham Water District, which
could affect the samples.

Mr. McCarthy said the park has tried to work with tenants, and he
has met with leaders of the new tenants association.  He said he
was disappointed to hear of potential legal action.

"I don't know what kind of class action there could be," he said.
"We're willing to, and have expressed to the leaders we want to
sit down and work this out."

"The issue is whether there's a breach of habitability -- whether
they were living in uninhabitable conditions, with the lack of
water," Mr. Clifford said.  "I think there's been a question as
to what extent the town's provision of water mitigated those
circumstances." [GN]


BITCONNECT: Faces 2nd Class Action Over Alleged Ponzi Scheme
------------------------------------------------------------
John Colston, writing for emchat, reports that it seems that
things are not looking that good for Bitconnect now.  The company
is said to be dealing with a new class action lawsuit.  This is
the second lawsuit filed against the company on allegations of
operating a Ponzi scheme.

This class action lawsuit was filed in Kentucky by plaintiff
Brian Paige on claims that the company engaged in an online
investment scam.

The plaintiff also sought a restraining order.  This is the
second time when Bitconnect is sued on such allegations in about
one week.  The class action includes a total of 1,000 people and
of course the class is open for more individuals to join.

The class action lawsuit was filed on January 29 in a Kentucky
court.  Reportedly, the company managed to scam an important
number of people in Kentucky, as well as thousands of other
people across the US, cheating them of important sums of money.
The lawsuit indicated that people have lost millions of dollars
because of Bitconnect.

According to the lawsuit, Ryan Maasen used a series of YouTube
videos with the purpose to promote the company and make people
believe that depositing money into Bitconnect's website would be
beneficial for them.  Of course, Maasen made promises of high
returns, but the claims were never turned into reality.  In fact,
Bitconnect finally shut down after a series of investigations and
cease-and-desist orders from state authorities.

The plaintiff also accused the company of operating a Ponzi
scheme, saying that Bitconnect actually relied on money it
obtained from new users and did not actually perform a business
activity.  As imagined, the plaintiff wants the company to pay
damages to the class of people affected by its practices.
Mr. Paige also filed a request for a restraining order for the
freezing of assets. [GN]


BLATT HASENMILLER: Court Certifies "Spice" FDCPA Class
------------------------------------------------------
In the case, GLORIA SPICE, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. BLATT, HASENMILLER, LIEBSKER &
MOORE LLC, Defendant, Cause No. 1:16-CV-366-TLS (N.D. Ind.),
Judge Theresa L. Sprigmann of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Indiana, Fort Wayne Division, granted the
Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification.

Spice, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, has
brought the class action against Blatt, asserting a violation of
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA").  The matter is
before the Court on the Plaintiff's Motion for Class
Certification.

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

The crux of the Plaintiff's argument is that the Defendant used
this language for both consumer debts subject to the accrual of
interest and those not subject to the interest accrual.  The
language in the Template, therefore, can be reasonably
interpreted in multiple ways and thus violates the FDCPA.

The Defendant is an entity that, in some instances and for some
purposes, uses the mail and telephone to collect debts.  The
Plaintiff allegedly owed consumer debts to two creditors, neither
of which are the Defendant.  The Plaintiff alleges that the
Defendant mailed three letters to her in an attempt to collect
the debts, and these three letters form the basis of the
Plaintiff's suit.

The first letter involved a debt allegedly owed to a Midland
Funding, LLC account number ending-0557 (MF-0557 Debt).  The
Defendant sent the Plaintiff a letter, dated April 20, 2016,
which states: "As of the date of this letter, you owe
$14,599.73."  The second letter involved a debt allegedly owed to
Bank of America, with an account number ending-3344 (BoA-3344
Debt).  The Defendant sent the Plaintiff a letter, dated April
21, 2016, which states: "As of the date of this letter, you owe
$33,230.90."  The third letter involved another debt allegedly
owed to Bank of America, with an account number ending-6122 (BoA-
6122 Debt).  The Defendant sent the Plaintiff a letter, also
dated April 21, 2016, which states: "As of the date of this
letter, you owe $4,735.80.

The Plaintiff was not the only person to receive this type of
letter from the Defendant.  During the proposed class period --
Oct. 18, 2015, through Oct. 18, 2016 -- the Defendant estimates
that it mailed a letter based on the same template or form as the
April 2016 letters to approximately 86,106 individuals within the
proposed class definition.  The Defendant possesses the names,
addresses, and phone numbers of each potential member of the
class as defined, and has agreed to preserve such information.

The Defendant objects to class certification.  First, the
Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff is not an adequate class
representative because she agreed to class action waiver
provisions in the terms and conditions for two of the accounts at
issue.  Second, the Defendant maintains that the proposed class
is not readily ascertainable and that each proposed class member
is subject to differing arbitration and class action waiver
provisions.  Third, the Defendant argues that a class action is
not a superior means of adjudicating the Plaintiff's FDCPA claim.
Finally, the Defendant claims that the Plaintiff is not
represented by adequate class counsel.

Judge Springmann finds the Defendant's positions unpersuasive.
She finds that (i) the arbitration agreements between the
Plaintiff and Bank of America do not preclude her from
representing the proposed class; (ii) the Plaintiff has
sufficiently alleged an objectively identifiable class; and (iii)
the Plaintiff has satisfied the requisite elements of Rule
23(a)(1)-(4), Rule 23(b)(3), and Rule 23(g).

For these reasons, the Judge granted the Plaintiff's Motion for
Class Certification.  She certified the class of all individuals
in the State of Indiana to whom the Defendant sent -- between
Oct. 18, 2015, and Oct. 18, 2016 -- in connection with the
collection of a debt, a letter based upon the Template.  The
Template is defined as the form debt collection letter upon which
the April 20, 2016, and April 21, 2016, letters that the
Defendant sent to the Plaintiff are based, containing the
language: As of the date of this letter, you owe [dollar amount].

The Judge appointed Thompson Consumer Law Group PLLC as the Class
Counsel.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 24, 2018 Opinion and Order
is available at https://is.gd/cmUFah from Leagle.com.

Gloria Spice, on behalf of herself and all Others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Joseph M. Panvini , Thompson
Consumer Law Group PLLC & Russell S. Thompson, IV , Thompson
Consumer Law Group PLLC.

Blatt Hasenmiller Leibsker & Moore LLC, Defendant, represented by
David M. Schultz , Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP & Jennifer J. Kalas ,
Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP.

Gloria Spice, Plaintiff, represented by Joseph M. Panvini --
jpanvini@consumerlawinfo.com -- Thompson Consumer Law Group PLLC
& Russell S. Thompson, IV -- rthompson@consumerlawinfo.com --
Thompson Consumer Law Group PLLC.

Blatt Hasenmiller Leibsker & Moore LLC, Defendant, represented by
David M. Schultz -- dschultz@hinshawlaw.com -- Hinshaw &
Culbertson LLP & Jennifer J. Kalas -- jkalas@hinshawlaw.com --
Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP.


BOISE, ID: Class Action Over Public Defense System Can Proceed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Stephanie Hale-Lopez, writing for kivitv.com, reports that it's
been three years since the American Civil Liberties Union of
Idaho filed a lawsuit against the Gem State for inadequately
funding its public defense system. Now, a district judge has
ruled the case worthy of a class action lawsuit.

The ACLU of Idaho says the state's public defense system is
broken, and it took the state to court to prove it.

"In Idaho, for years now, we've actually had an issue with
regards to representation that we believe has been lacking in
part, because of the inadequate resources from the state," said
Leo Morales, Executive Director of ACLU of Idaho.

Mr. Morales says there are too few public defenders and not
enough funding or resources to ensure those who need a public
defense are receiving adequate representation.

"That's what it really falls down to," Mr. Morales said.  "It's a
sixth amendment right to counsel."

Recently, a district judge ruled the lawsuit, originally filed in
2015, can move forward as a class action.

The new status, experts explain, means more plaintiffs who say
they've received deficient representation can be included in the
lawsuit.

"Once class certification happens, usually the next step is
settlement," said Katherine Macfarlane, Associate Professor of
Law at the University of Idaho.  "So here, plaintiffs have more
power than they ever have at any stage in this case."

Ms. Macfarlane says this lawsuit has the possibility to enact
sweeping reform in the state's public defense system.

"There could be more money, there could be more attorneys, and
there could be a little less county control," Ms. Macfarlane
said.

And for the ACLU of Idaho, that means an equal playing field for
everyone.

"Because the prosecutor's office is strong, we should also have a
public defender office that also has the adequate resources to
adequately defend their clients, as well," Mr. Morales said.

Under the court's ruling, anyone in Idaho with a pending charge
against them who cannot afford an attorney is now part of the
class action. [GN]


BOVET FLEURIER: Faces "Thorne" Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bovet Fleurier S.A.
The case is styled as Braulio Thorne, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Bovet Fleurier S.A.
also known as: Bovet LLC a/k/a BOVET LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:18-cv-01107 (S.D. N.Y., February 7, 2018).

Bovet Fleurier SA manufactures and markets clocks and
watches.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Daniel Chaim Cohen, Esq.
   Daniel Cohen PLLC
   407 Rockaway Avenue, 3rd Floor
   Brooklyn, NY 11212
   Tel: (646) 645-8482
   Email: dancohenlaw@gmail.com


BREITLING USA: Faces "Thorne" Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Breitling U.S.A.
Inc. The case is styled as Braulio Thorne, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Breitling U.S.A.
Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-01106 (S.D. N.Y., February 7,
2018).

Breitling USA Inc. manufactures watches, clocks, watchcases, and
parts.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


BUDGET RENT: Court Denies Further Class Discovery in "Benson"
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, PETER R. BENSON, Plaintiff, v. BUDGET RENT A CAR
SYSTEM INC., et al., Defendants. ANNE HUMPHREYS, Plaintiff, v.
BUDGET RENT A CAR SYSTEM INC., et al., Defendants, Civil Action
Nos. 08-cv-4512, 10-cv-1302 (E.D. Pa.), Judge Lawrence F. Stengel
of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania denied the Plaintiff's motion to permit further
class discovery.

The initial complaint was filed on Sept. 16, 2008, alleging that
Budget Rent A Car overbills customers in Pennsylvania for damage
to rental cars.  On Nov. 20, 2008, the Plaintiff filed an amended
complaint.  Discovery proceeded on both the class action claims
and the Plaintiff's individual claims.  On Oct. 15, 2010, prior
to any class certification, the Defendants filed a motion for
summary judgment and on Nov. 15, 2010 the Plaintiff filed
opposition.

During this time, Ann Humphreys, represented by the same counsel
as Mr. Benson, filed a putative class action suit that also
challenged Budget's method of calculating damages.  The parties
agreed to stay proceedings in the Humphreys matter pending the
outcome of the Benson summary judgment motion.  The parties also
agreed that the outcome of the Benson summary judgment motion
would apply to both cases.

On Sept. 29, 2011, Judge Stengel issued an Order granting in part
and denying in part Budget's motion.  He granted summary judgment
in favor of Budget on the reasonableness of using retail fair
market value to calculate the pre-damage value of damaged rental
cars, and denied summary judgment as to Budget's calculation of
the loss of use charges.

The Plaintiff's counsel disputed that the findings in the Benson
summary judgment decision applied to the Humphreys case.
Accordingly, on April 13, 2012, the Judge issued an order
directing the parties to brief the application of the Benson
decision to the Humphreys case as well as a choice of law issue.
On April 30, 2012, the plaintiff in Humphreys filed a motion to
amend the complaint along with her response to the April order.
On March 4, 2013, the Judge granted the plaintiff's motion to
amend the complaint.

Extensive discovery proceeded in both Benson and Humphreys.  The
Plaintiff's counsel subsequently stated their intent to move for
class certification in Benson.  Following a telephone conference
on April 7, 2015, Judge Stengel issued an order staying discovery
in Benson pending resolution of class certification in Humphreys.

The class discovery closed on July 10, 2015.  On July 21, 2016,
following an evidentiary hearing and oral argument, the Judge
issued an Order denying class certification because the Plaintiff
failed to demonstrate the commonality requirement of Rule 23 and
because the proposed nationwide class would not be manageable.
The Plaintiff now moves to lift the discovery stay in Benson and
permit class discovery.

Judge Stengel finds that additional class discovery is not
warranted.  Initially, certification in Benson is precluded for
the same reasons he denied certification in Humphreys: because
the plaintiff failed to demonstrate the commonality requirement
of Rule 23.  He disagrees with the Plaintiff's argument that the
choice of law variations that precluded certification in
Humphreys simply do not exist in Benson because the proposed
class is defined as all Pennsylvania consumers, who received
demand letters from [defendants], relating to damage to Budget
rental vehicles.  As the Defendant aptly points out, there is no
limitation in the Plaintiff's class definitions as to the state
in which the rental (or the property damage) occurred.

The Judge would be obliged to undertake the choice of law
analysis numerous times prior to certifying the class, which
defeats the commonality prong of the certification analysis.
What is more, extensive and burdensome discovery has taken place
in both Benson and Humphreys.  To permit class discovery at this
stage in the litigation would result in a fishing expedition that
would create an enormous cost to the Defendant, and would not
change the outcome of the Plaintiff's proposed class
certification.

Accordingly, Judge Stengel denied the Plaintiff's motion to
permit further class discovery.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 24, 2018 Memorandum is
available at https://is.gd/YZsRrt from Leagle.com.

ANNE HUMPHREYS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by ANN MILLER, Law Office of Ann
Miller, ARTHUR STOCK -- astock@bm.net -- BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.,
DANIEL M. HARRIS -- daniel.harris@floydskerenlaw.com -- THE LAW
OFFICES OF DANIEL HARRIS, SHOSHANA MICHELLE SAVETT --
stsavett@bm.net -- BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C. & TODD S. COLLINS --
tcollins@bm.net -- BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.

BUDGET RENT A CAR SYSTEM, INC. & VIKING COLLECTION SERVICE, INC.,
Defendants, represented by BRIDGET E. MONTGOMERY --
bmontgomery@eckertseamans.com -- ECKERT SEAMANS CHERIN & MELLOTT,
LLC, ADAM M. SHIENVOLD -- ashienvold@eckertseamans.com -- ECKERT
SEAMANS, CAROL L. PRESS -- cpress@eckertseamans.com -- ECKERT
SEAMANS CHERIN & MELLOTT LLC, DAVID J. SCHERTZ, ECKERT SEAMANS &
RYAN LEE STAUFFER, ECKERT SEAMANS CHERIN & MELLOTT.


CANADA: Court Approves Hepatitis C Class Action Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------
A decades-long fight to compensate thousands of Canadians who
were infected with hepatitis C from receiving blood transfusions
or blood products between January 1, 1986 and July 1, 1990 is
entering the final chapter in the search for claimants who have
yet to come forward.

The Courts have recently approved a compensation plan providing
for approximately $40 million to be distributed to eligible
victims who did not claim before the initial deadline -- the
original settlement program was approved in 1999 -- due to
matters beyond their control or where there is otherwise a
reasonable explanation for their delay.

Anyone who believes they or a member of their family contracted
hepatitis C from receiving blood or blood products in Canada
during this period are encouraged to visit www.HepCclassaction.ca
to find out more about the application process.

"Our goal is to ensure that all eligible victims are
compensated," said Kathryn Podrebarac, one of the lawyers who
sits on the Joint Committee which oversees the administration of
the 1986-1990 Hepatitis C Settlement Agreement.  "We will guide
them on the steps they need to take to start the application
process, because the sooner they do this, the sooner they can
collect any compensation they may be entitled to."

This settlement provides compensation tailored to the victim's
circumstances.  Victims may be entitled to initial compensation
ranging from $14,600 to $329,000, tax-free, and possibly
additional compensation depending on their health and
circumstances.

Hepatitis C is a progressive chronic disease that attacks liver
cells and causes liver inflammation. A person infected with
hepatitis C may not have symptoms for decades, and the virus may
be transmitted from human to human.

The most common symptoms linked to the hepatitis C virus are:

   -- Fever
   -- Fatigue
   -- Joint pain
   -- Dark urine
   -- Light stools
   -- Abdominal pains
   -- Loss of appetite
   -- Nausea and vomiting
   -- Jaundice (yellowing of the skin and eyes)

Anyone concerned about hepatitis C should consult their doctor.

Potential claimants are urged to visit www.HepCclassaction.ca or
call 1-866-353-4003 for additional information about the
application process and the compensation available. Claimants
have until March 31, 2025 to begin the application process.

For further information: For media inquiries: Vasiliki Zobolas,
vzobolas@argylepr.com, 416-968-7311 ext. 233; Marie-Pier Cìte,
mpcote@tactconseil.ca, 418-529-3223 ext. 236  [GN]


CANADA: More Former Indian Hospital Patients Expected to Show Up
----------------------------------------------------------------
Andrea Huncar, writing for CBC News, reports that a Sherwood Park
lawyer leading a $1.1 billion class action lawsuit says he
expects to hear from thousands of former patients of so-called
"Indian hospitals," including one in Edmonton, as allegations of
medical experimentation emerge.

"What we have heard is absolutely horrifying," said Steve Cooper
-- steve.cooper@masuchalbertlaw.com -- of the Sherwood Park,
Alta.-based firm Masuch Albert LLP,  "Children being disciplined
by being placed in full body casts -- not as a matter of medical
need but in order for the staff to be able to control children
who are a long ways from their parents."

Other allegations include surgeries performed on children without
parental consent, physical and sexual abuse, medical negligence,
and even medical experimentation -- something they're just
beginning to look into.

"I have heard, but not investigated, nutrition experiments," said
Mr. Cooper, who was part of the committee that helped negotiate
the $5-billion national residential school settlement in 2006.
"Denying certain vitamins or other dietary components to see the
effect.  I suspect other so-called experiments will come out in
the fullness of time."

Mr. Cooper's firm filed the lawsuit in conjunction with Toronto-
based firm Koskie Minsky LLP on Jan. 26.

"We believe this class is in the thousands," said Mr. Cooper,
noting Edmonton's former Charles Camsell Indian Hospital operated
for decades.  "And that's one hospital amongst 29 that we know of
and there could be more."

Danielle Metcalfe-Chenail, who is writing a book about the
Camsell, said the facility increasingly functioned as a
segregated hospital for Indigenous patients while under federal
jurisdiction between the late 1940s to 1960s.

Often admitted with tuberculosis, patients stayed up to three
years because the main treatment was a "rest cure," she said.
Many were isolated from their families, culture and language.

Non-Indigenous veterans were treated at the Camsell in its
earliest years just after the Second World War, said Metcalfe-
Chenail.  The hospital was opened to the general population in
the late 1960s when the province took over operations and built a
second building, which has been closed as a hospital for years
but is under redevelopment.

Even as a student of Indigenous history and colonialism in
Canada, Metcalfe-Chenail said she only began learning about
Indigenous hospitals a few years ago, after meeting former
patients while collecting stories about the Camsell, including
Ann Hardy, one of the chief complainants in the lawsuit.

"Unfortunately in Canada it's taken lawsuits like this to shine a
light on these dark corners of our history," said Metcalfe-
Chenail.

"And so it's through these kinds of actions that we get it into
the curriculum, we get it on the media, and that people start
paying attention." [GN]


CANADA: WRPS Superintendent Named in Class Action Retires
---------------------------------------------------------
CBC News reports that a senior Waterloo police officer named in
an affidavit, as part of a proposed multi-million dollar class-
action lawsuit, retired on Jan. 31.

Waterloo Regional Police Service superintendent Pat Dietrich said
"I will have retired as of January 31, 2018," on his work
voicemail.

An automated email response from his account also states "I have
retired from the Waterloo Regional Police Service."

Mr. Dietrich's name is mentioned in an affidavit filed for a
proposed class action lawsuit against the Waterloo region police
force.

Two women filed the lawsuit in May 2017 claiming they experienced
"systemic and institutional gender-based discrimination and
harassment, sexual harassment and sexual assault," on the job.

The women -- a former constable and a current officer with the
force on leave -- are seeking $100 million for general and
aggravated damages and $50 million for exemplary damages.  As
part of the same suit, the families of the officers are seeking
damages of $17 million, bringing the total to $167 million.


Mr. Dietrich is named in the affidavit submitted by Sgt. Karin
Eder, who alleges Dietrich sent her a photo of his penis and
asked her for a naked photo in return.

None of the allegations against Dietrich and other officers have
been proven in court and the proposed class-action lawsuit has
not been certified.

CBC News reached out to Dietrich for comment, but he did not
respond. [GN]


CANADA: RCMP Harassment Claims Filing Deadline Set
--------------------------------------------------
Rachel Houlihan and Dave Seglins, writing for CBC News, report
that when Jessica joined the RCMP two decades ago, she was proud
to begin a career as an IT specialist with Canada's highly
esteemed national police force.

"My hopes were to have a successful career to advance in my
career path . . . and experience different types of jobs
throughout the RCMP," said Jessica (not her real name).

But she said that in 2011 she was forced to take stress leave for
depression and anxiety after enduring innuendo, unwanted groping
and sexual advances on the job.

"I had a supervisor grab me and [he] kissed me.  He wanted to
engage in a lot more than that and I refused," Jessica told CBC
News.

"I loved the work I was doing, but the relationship with the
supervisor was very difficult because I refused the advances.
There was then bullying and intimidation and [him] mocking me in
front of people. And that went on for many years."

CBC has agreed to not reveal her identity because she fears
retaliation from former colleagues.  Jessica has never even told
her closest friends or family about her experiences.

But she's been paying close attention to recent allegations from
women who've come forward to expose sexual harassment in the
entertainment industry and politics.  After much hesitation, she
decided to come forward about her experiences at the RCMP, just
one in a recent wave of women to file claims for compensation
from the RCMP in numbers that are ballooning beyond anyone's
expectations.

"A lot of stories are coming out in the #MeToo movement," Jessica
said.  "I started thinking about it and it took me probably six,
seven months of slowly taking some notes of things I was
remembering to finally come forward."

'All hands on deck'
In 2016, the RCMP delivered a formal apology to female RCMP
members and committed to a range of anti-harassment training and
enforcement as part of a settlement in two class-action lawsuits.

After a judge approved a plan last spring to settle a class-
action lawsuit on behalf of female RCMP officers, the federal
government originally set aside $100 million for compensation.
The court set a filing deadline of Feb. 8.

This is the first gender harassment class-action settlement in
Canada.

Officials predicted between a few hundred and 1,500 female RCMP
employees might file claims for gender discrimination and sexual
harassment dating back to the 1970s.

It's been "all hands on deck" at the offices of lawyers assisting
claimants, said Megan McPhee, a Toronto-based lawyer who
represents one of two former RCMP officers who launched the class
action.

Ms. McPhee said there are approximately 2,400 claimants right now
and said she "wouldn't be surprised" if it was 3,000 or 4,000 by
the time the process was completed.

"I think that what we're really seeing is there's been a change
in the environment since this settlement was first negotiated,"
Ms. McPhee said.

"The discussions about Harvey Weinstein and the Hollywood
coverage, the surge in the #MeToo movement and the changing
conversation has prompted a lot of women to think long and hard
about their experience and to think about sharing that
experience."

David Klein, the B.C. lawyer who represents the second plaintiff
in the class-action said "the new awareness is assisting women in
coming to grips with what happened and speaking out about it and
making claims."

Many women inside the RCMP have long feared retaliation and
workplace reprisals. But according to these lawyers, claimants
now coming forward allege a wide range of workplace abuses, from
name-calling and bullying to discrimination and denial of
promotion to sexual assault.

As many as 20,000 women who worked at the RCMP between 1974 and
2017 are eligible to file claims.  The lawyers say approximately
half of the current claims submitted have been filed by women who
still work at the RCMP.

100-day extension?
With the February filing deadline looming, lawyers are scrambling
to process the high volume of claims.

They are now asking the federal court for a 100-day extension to
allow any women who register by the deadline more time to
complete their submission, a proposal supported by the Crown.

Ms. McPhee said the claims process takes considerable time and
can be emotional and even traumatic for some women who have only
recently decided to come forward.

"Some of [the women] are suffering from PTSD. As they relive
these issues, they're having to seek psychiatric support.  And so
it's taken a lot longer than any of us had anticipated to go
through and to file these claims," Ms. McPhee said.

The federal government said there is no cap on its compensation
fund, and that it is prepared to cover costs even if the number
of claims winds up being double or triple the original estimates.

"Every claimant who is determined by the Independent Assessor to
be eligible for compensation will receive the amount they are
entitled to," said Andrew Gower, spokesperson for Public Safety
Canada, in an email to CBC News.

"If, in the future, it is determined that additional funds will
be required to continue to meet this important obligation, the
necessary steps will be taken to allocate the appropriate amount
of additional resources."

For Jessica, filing her claim is about seeking recognition for a
derailed career.

"It was important to me to do that.  First of all, for me to
heal. I'm not doing this for the money.  I'm no longer in that
environment, but . . . it's still inside me, bottled up . . . so
many things I've never told anyone." [GN]


CAPITAL MANAGEMENT: Faces "Shabazz" Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Capital Management
Services, L.P. The case is styled as Yaasmiyn Shabazz,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Capital Management Services, L.P. and John Does l-
25, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-01079 (S.D. N.Y., February 7,
2018).

Capital Management Services L.P. is a nationally licensed and
recognized collections agency, providing delinquent receivables
resolution.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


CENTRAIS ELECTRICAS: To Settle U.S. Suits Before Privatization
--------------------------------------------------------------
Marcelo Teixeira, writing for Reuters, reports that Brazil's
state-controlled power company Eletrobras aims to settle U.S.
class action lawsuits before it begins what is expected to be the
country's largest privatization in almost two decades, Chief
Executive Wilson Ferreira Jr said on Jan. 31.

Investors in the United States have sued Centrais Eletricas
Brasileiras SA (Eletrobras) after the company reported large
losses related to a sprawling corruption scandal in Brazil.

"Over the course of the lawsuits, settlement initiatives could
arise, and we are willing to evaluate each one of them," he told
Reuters in an interview.

The company, which is on a list of assets the Brazilian
government has decided to sell, says it has also been the victim
of wrongdoing and that it is collaborating with U.S. prosecutors.

Mr. Ferreira said Eletrobras has held talks with the U.S.
Department of Justice, the Securities and Exchanges Commission
(SEC) and investors, but he declined to say whether the company
would accept a deal that includes a cash payment.

The Brazilian government plans to privatize the company in the
second half of the year in what is likely to be Brazil's largest
privatization in almost 20 years.  New Eletrobras shares will be
issued to investors in a transaction that will result in the
government losing a majority stake.

Ferreira said the Brazilian government expects to eliminate some
legal hurdles for the privatization in coming days.

The rules for the privatization are contained in a draft bill the
government has sent to Congress.  Investors fear lawmakers will
make changes that could reduce interest in the firm, such as
leaving some subsidiaries out of the privatization.

Congressman Jose Carlos Aleluia, from Bahia state, has insisted
that subsidiary Chesf, which has a strong presence in the
politically influential Northeast region, remain out of the
privatization.  Mr. Ferreira refuted that.

"There is no sense on that, these assets have synergies," he
said, adding that reaction against the bill was natural given the
company's long history in the public sector.

Ferreira, who was appointed Eletrobras CEO in 2016 after years in
charge of power company CPFL Energia, said he would remain in the
post if the new controlling shareholders ask him to after
privatization. [GN]


CHICAGO, IL: Strip Search Settlement Payout Disappointing
---------------------------------------------------------
Mary Mitchell, writing for Chicago Sun Times, reports that
Orlando Cajigas, 53, waited nearly a decade for his piece of a
class-action settlement pie.

Checks went out to individuals jailed between Jan. 30, 2004, and
March 2009, that were stripped-searched at Cook County Jail and
had filed a claim.

Mr. Cajigas' check landed in the mailbox on Jan. 29.

But if the people subjected to the humiliating searches expected
a windfall, they were sorely disappointed.

Of the $55 million settlement the Cook County Board of
Commissioners and its insurers agreed to pay in 2010, the amount
going to the individuals who were violated is a pittance.

Mr. Cajigas' check was $300 and some change.

"I went back to the bank and cashed it and was able to buy some
groceries," he said.

Mr. Cajigas, who is disabled, spent $56 on two bags of groceries.
He was hauling them home in the cold when I reached him on
Jan. 31.

"I could have paid off a bill or two, but it wasn't enough money
to even do that," he told me.

Mr. Cajigas still remembers the humiliation of being butt naked
while guards searched the detainees in a group.

"All these years I've been waiting, and I get a $300 check.
That's ridiculous.  It should have been more," he said.

A spokesman for Loevy & Loevy declined to comment on the
settlement distribution, citing a "confidentiality" agreement,
but acknowledged Cajigas' check stemmed from the strip-search
settlement.

"There is a website, cookcountystripsearch.com, and that has all
the documents, and all the answers about how much is getting
distributed," the spokesman said.

This is a complicated settlement, so bear with me.

Besides winning a record-breaking $55 million settlement over
strip searches, Mr. Loevy also sued a number of the county's
insurers for fraud in state court.

The civil rights firm was able to negotiate a settlement in that
case, which netted a $52 million payment by the insurers.

Of that amount, $32,500,000 was allocated to the class; the rest
was to go to the county and the State of Illinois, according to
an order by District Court Judge Matthew F. Kennelly.

"Class Counsel has now secured $87.5 million for the Class,"
lawyers said in "Plaintiffs Motion for Attorneys' Fees and
Incentive Awards," one of several legal documents posted on the
cookcountystripsearch.com website.

The court awarded the firm one-third of the common fund for fees.

The check Mr. Cajigas received represents a "pro rata portion of
the $32,500,000 million court award, after deducting court
awarded fees and expenses of attorneys and incentive awards to
the class representatives," according to the website.

Payments will be made in two distributions.

"This is hardly, in other words, a case where class members
receive scraps for their injuries while the attorneys get some
kind of windfall," Mr. Loevy argued in the motion.

A decade ago, Mr. Cajigas was getting arrested regularly.

"I was going back and forth to County Jail every two weeks," he
said.

That's a lot of strip searches.

His mother was the one who notified him that there was a class-
action lawsuit being filed against the county over the illegal
strip searches.

Although he's no longer getting in trouble with the law, he's
still struggling to survive.

"I thought I was going to get $400,000. Thirty-two million
divided by 70,000 people is a lot more than $300," he said.

There's no question that the stellar civil rights law firm did a
heck of a job.  Mr. Cajigas was glad to get the $300 bucks.

Nonetheless, to the people whose rights and dignity were
violated, the payout disparity in class action suits is as wide
as the gap between a CEO's compensation and the paychecks handed
out to worker bees.

We accept it.

But it doesn't feel right. [GN]


CHICAGO BRIDGE: Monteverde & Associates Files Class Action Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Notice is hereby given that Monteverde & Associates PC has filed
a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for
The Southern District Of Texas Houston Division, case no. 4:18-
cv-00273, on behalf of stockholders of Chicago Bridge & Iron
Company N.V. ("CB&I" or the "Company") (NYSE: CBI) who held CB&I
securities and have been harmed by CB&I and its board of
directors' (the "Board") for alleged violations of Sections 14(a)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange
Act"), 15 U.S.C. Sec. 78n(a) and 78t(a) respectively, and United
States Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") Rule 14a-9, 17
C.F.R. Sec. 240.14a-9 in connection with acquisition of CB&I by
McDermott International, Inc. ("McDermott") through a merger
transaction as alleged in detail herein (the "Proposed
Transaction").

Under the terms of the agreement, CB&I stockholders will receive
2.47221 shares of McDermott common stock in exchange for each
share of CB&I they own (the "Merger Consideration"). The
complaint alleges that the Registration Statement Form S-4 (the
"S-4") contains materially incomplete and misleading information
concerning: (i) financial projections for CB&I; (ii) financial
projections for McDermott; (iii) financial projections for the
operating synergies projected to result from the Proposed
Transaction (the "Synergies"); (iv) the valuation analyses
performed by the CB&I's financial advisor, Centerview Partners
LLC ("Centerview"), in support of their fairness opinions; (v)
the valuation analyses performed by the McDermott's financial
advisors, Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC ("Goldman Sachs") and Greenhill
& Co., LLC ("Greenhill," and together with Goldman Sachs
"McDermott's Financial Advisors"), in support of their fairness
opinions; and (vi) the background process leading to the Proposed
Transaction.

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

Monteverde & Associates PC is a boutique class action securities
and consumer litigation law firm committed that has recovered
millions of dollars and is committed to protecting shareholders
and consumers from corporate wrongdoing.  Monteverde & Associates
PC lawyers have significant experience litigating Mergers &
Acquisitions and Securities Class Actions, whereby they protect
investors by recovering money and remedying corporate misconduct.
Mr. Monteverde, who leads the legal team at the firm, has been
recognized by Super Lawyers as a Rising Star in Securities
Litigation in 2013 and 2017, an award given to less than 2.5% of
attorneys in a particular field.  He has also been selected by
Martindale-Hubbell as a 2017 Top Rated Lawyer.

         Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
         MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
         Tel: (212) 971-1341
         Email: jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com [GN]


CIVEO CORP: Monteverde & Associates Files Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Monteverde & Associates PC on Jan. 31 disclosed that it has filed
a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for
The Southern District of Texas Houston Division, case no. 4:18-
cv-0259, on behalf of shareholders of Civeo Corporation, ("Civeo"
or the "Company") (NYSE: CVEO) who held Civeo securities and have
been harmed by Civeo and its board of directors' (the "Board")
for alleged violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act"), 15 U.S,C.
Sec 78n(a) and 78t(a) respectively, and United States Securities
and Exchange Commission ("SEC") Rule 14a-9, 17 C.F.R.
Sec. 240.14a-9 in connection with acquisition of Noralta Lodge
Ltd. ("Noralta") by Civeo through a merger transaction as alleged
in detail herein ("Proposed Transaction").

The complaint alleges that the Merger Consideration appears
excessive, and the process by which Defendants agreed to
consummate the Proposed Transaction is fundamentally unfair to
Plaintiff and Civeo's other public stockholders.  In particular,
the 14A contains materially incomplete and misleading information
concerning: (i) financial projections for the Company, Noralta,
and the synergies expected to result from the Proposed
Transaction; (ii) the valuation analyses conducted by the
Company's financial advisor, Lazard Fräres & Co. LLC ("Lazard");
and (iii) the background process leading up to the Proposed
Transaction.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court
no later than 60 days from January 31, 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 wish to discuss this
action, or have any questions concerning this notice or your
rights or interests, please contact:

Click here for more information:
www.monteverdelaw.com/investigations/m-a/ It is free and there is
no cost or obligation to you.

Monteverde & Associates PC is a boutique class action securities
and consumer litigation law firm committed that has recovered
millions of dollars and is committed to protecting shareholders
and consumers from corporate wrongdoing.  Monteverde & Associates
PC lawyers have significant experience litigating Mergers &
Acquisitions and Securities Class Actions, whereby they protect
investors by recovering money and remedying corporate misconduct.
Mr. Monteverde, who leads the legal team at the firm, has been
recognized by Super Lawyers as a Rising Star in Securities
Litigation in 2013 and 2017, an award given to less than 2.5% of
attorneys in a particular field.  He has also been selected by
Martindale-Hubbell as a 2017 Top Rated Lawyer. [GN]


CLEVELAND PUBLIC: Class Action Lawsuit Moves Forward
----------------------------------------------------
Joe Pagonakis, writing for News5 Cleveland, reports that the
class action lawsuit filed against Cleveland Public Power,
claiming the public utility charged millions in unsubstantiated
environmental charges, from 2007 to 2017, continues to move
forward.

Attorney Jack Landskroner, Esq. who filed the lawsuit on behalf
of more than 80,000 CPP customers, said notices went out to
consumers, and the next step is the court's determination on
summary judgment in two weeks.

Landskroner told News 5 the court has to make rulings on issues
of law, to interpret what the Cleveland codified ordinance allows
CPP to do in billing customers.

"In a day and age where transparency should reign supreme, we
have a utility saying we can charge what we want, when we want,"
said Landskroner.

"The lawsuit states Cleveland Public Power improperly and
illegally charged, consumers within their bills, that wasn't
disclosed, and was in violation of city ordinance."

Landskroner told News consumers getting notices on the lawsuit
need to do nothing if they want to be part of the lawsuit, and
only fill-out and return the post card if they wish to opt out.

News 5 made 4 request to CPP for on-camera interviews on the
controversial energy adjustment charge in the past 8 months, but
all of our request were denied.

CPP instead issued the following statement:

"The Energy Adjustment Charge reflects Cleveland Public Power's
cost of energy and transmission. CPP's energy and transmission
costs rise annually.

Base rates, which cover distribution-related costs, on the other
hand, have remained unchanged for more than 20 years.

Since there is on-going litigation, we cannot comment further at
this time. " [GN]


CLOVERLEAF COLD: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------
Louie Torres, writing for Cook County Record, reports that a
woman has filed a class action suit against Cloverleaf Cold
Storage Co. for alleged unpaid wages, violation of state and
federal law and violation of workers' compensation acts.

Whitney Edwards filed a complaint on Jan. 3 in Cook County
Circuit Court, alleging she worked as the defendant's employee
and was paid at the rate of $14.02 per hour, but was not paid any
vacation pay.  The plaintiff holds the defendant responsible for
allegedly failing to pay her and other workers like her for all
vacation time earned.

The plaintiff seeks to enjoin the defendant, the monetary
equivalent of all costs deducted from her, statutory damages, all
deductions made from her, court costs and any further relief this
court grants.  She is represented by Alvar Ayala and Christopher
J. Williams of Workers' Law Office PC in Chicago.

Cook County Circuit Court case number 2018CH00071 [GN]


CONSUMER ADVOCACY: Jackson Hits Illegal Telemarketing Calls, SMSs
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Gerard Jackson, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Consumer Advocacy Center, Inc.,
Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-00146, (M.D. Pa., January 19, 2018),
seeks statutory damages and any other legal or equitable relief
under the Telephone Consumers Protection Act and the Pennsylvania
Telemarketer Registration Act.

Consumer Advocacy sells student loans nationwide and promotes
this via telemarketing that includes autodialing equipment,
prerecorded messages and text messaging. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Stephen P. DeNittis, Esq.
      Ross H. Schmierer, Esq.
      DENITTIS OSEFCHEN PRINCE, P.C.
      1515 Market Street, Suite 1200
      Philadelphia PA 19102
      Tel: (215) 564-1721
      Email: sdenittis@denittislaw.com


CREDENCE RESOURCE: Morris Sues Over Illegal Collection Calls
------------------------------------------------------------
Florence Morris, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Credence Resource Management,
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-00132, (S.D. Cal., January 19,
2018), seeks damages and other available legal or equitable
remedies resulting from willfully contacting Plaintiff on his
cellular telephone in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act, thereby invading Plaintiff's privacy.

Plaintiff allegedly fell behind in the payments allegedly owed on
the alleged debt to Credence. Plaintiff retained the services of
the Law Office of Daniel G. Shay who then transmitted a Letter of
Representation which indicated that Defendant was to cease all
communications with Plaintiff, demanding all future
communications with regard to Plaintiffs' account be sent and
directed directly to DGS's office only. Despite this, Credence
continued to contact Morris, says the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
      Matthew M. Loker, Esq.
      Elizabeth Wagner, Esq.
      KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
      245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1
      Costa Mesa, CA 92626
      Telephone: (800) 400-6808
      Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
      Email: ak@kazlg.com
             ml@kazlg.com
             elizabeth@kazlg.com

             - and -

      Joshua Swigart, Esq.
      HYDE AND SWIGART
      2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101
      San Diego, CA 92108
      Telephone: (619) 233-7770
      Facsimile: (619) 297-1022 to 26
      Email: Josh@westcoastlitigation.com

             - and -

      Daniel G. Shay, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF DANIEL G. SHAY
      409 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101B
      San Diego, CA 92108
      Telephone: (619) 222-7429
      Facsimile: (866) 431-3292
      Email: danielshay@tcpafdcpa.com


CSC SERVICE: Faces D.S. Ridgeside Suit in M.D. Tennessee
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against CSC Service Works,
Inc. The case is styled as D.S. Ridgeside, Inc., Brendon Park
Associates, LLC, D.S. Poplar Village, Inc., Windover DE, LLC and
South Wind Apartments, LLC, individually and on behalf of all
similarly-situated, Plaintiffs v. CSC Service Works, Inc.,
individually and as successor to Coinmach Corporation, Mac-Gray
Services, Inc. and Mac-Gray Services, LLC, as a subsidiary of
Coinmach Corporation, Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-00126 (M.D.
Tenn., February 7, 2018).

CSC ServiceWorks is a provider of home and commercial laundry
solutions as well as tire inflation and vacuum vending services
at stores and gas stations nationwide.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

   Joshua L. Burgener, Esq.
   Dickinson Wright PLLC (Nashville Office)
   424 Church Street, Suite 800
   Nashville, TN 37219
   Tel: (615) 244-6538
   Fax: (615) 254-1878
   Email: jburgener@dickinsonwright.com

      - and -

   Judith E. Beasley, Esq.
   Freeman Webb, Inc.
   555 Great Circle Road, Suite 100
   Nashville, TN 37228
   Tel: (615) 271-2716
   Fax: (615) 726-1937
   Email: judy.beasley@freemanwebb.com

      - and -

   Martin D. Holmes, Esq.
   Dickinson Wright PLLC (Nashville Office)
   424 Church Street, Suite 800
   Nashville, TN 37219
   Tel: (615) 244-6538
   Email: mdholmes@dickinsonwright.com

      - and -

   Morris Reid Estes, Jr., Esq.
   Dickinson Wright PLLC
   Fifth Third Center
   424 Church Street, Suite 1401
   Nashville, TN 37219-2392
   Tel: (615) 244-6538
   Email: restes@dickinsonwright.com


DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: D.C. Circuit Appeal Filed in "DL" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Leah Bland, DL, Frederick Davy, Monica Davy, FD,
Tameka Ford, HW, JB, Timothy Lantry, Arlette Mankemi, Angelique
Moore, Kerianne Piester, TF, TL, Ronald Wisor, XY, Bryan Young
and Tammika Young filed an appeal from a District Court decision
entered in their lawsuit entitled DL, et al. v. District of
Columbia, et al., Case No. 1:05-cv-01437-RCL, in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the case,
originally filed in 2005, was brought by the parents of preschool
age children with various disabilities, who tried to obtain
special education services from the District of Columbia Public
Schools, alleging violations of the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act ("IDEA"), the Rehabilitation Act, and District of
Columbia law, which require that the District offer a free and
appropriate public education to disabled children.

The Plaintiffs alleged numerous knowing, pervasive, and systemic
failures to comply with the "Child Find" requirement.  The
Plaintiffs ultimately brought claims related to four subclasses:
(i) disabled three-to-five-year-olds whom the District failed to
identify for the purpose of offering special education services;
(ii) disabled three-to-five-year-olds whom the District failed to
give an initial evaluation within 120 days of being referred for
special education services; (iii) disabled three-to-five-year-
olds whom the District failed to give an eligibility
determination -- i.e., a decision as to whether they qualify for
IDEA services -- within 120 days of being referred; and (iv) all
children who transitioned from early intervention to preschool
programs, and whom the District denied a smooth transition by age
three.

The appellate case is captioned as DL, et al. v. District of
Columbia, et al., Case No. 18-7004, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:

   -- APPELLANT docketing statement is due on February 16, 2018;

   -- APPELLANT certificate as to parties is due on February 16,
      2018;

   -- APPELLANT statement of issues is due on February 16, 2018;

   -- APPELLANT underlying decision is due on February 16, 2018;

   -- APPELLANT deferred appendix statement is due on
      February 16, 2018;

   -- APPELLANT notice of appearance is due on February 16, 2018;

   -- APPELLANT transcript status report is due on February 16,
      2018;

   -- APPELLANT procedural motions are due on February 16, 2018;

   -- APPELLANT dispositive motions are due on March 5, 2018;

   -- APPELLEE certificate as to parties is due on February 16,
      2018;

   -- APPELLEE entry of appearance is due on February 16, 2018;

   -- APPELLEE procedural motions are due on February 16, 2018;
      and

   -- APPELLEE dispositive motions are due on March 5, 2018.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants DL; Tameka Ford, Parent and Next Friend of
D.L.; JB; Leah Bland, Parent and Next Friend of JB; FD; Frederick
Davy, Parent and Next Friend of FD; Monica Davy, Parent and Next
Friend of FD; TF; and Angelique Moore, Parent and Next Friend of
TF - On their own behalf and on behalf of a class of similarly
situated individuals; HW; Timothy Lantry; Arlette Mankemi;
Kerianne Piester; TL; Ronald Wisor; XY; Bryan Young; and Tammika
Young are represented by:

          Todd Gluckman, Esq.
          Kathleen L. Millian, Esq.
          Carolyn Smith Pravlik, Esq.
          TERRIS, PRAVLIK & MILLIAN, LLP
          1816 12th Street, NW, Suite 303
          Washington, DC 20009-4422
          Telephone: (202) 682-2100
          E-mail: tgluckman@tpmlaw.com
                  kmillian@tpmlaw.com
                  cpravlik@tpmlaw.com

               - and -

          Cyrus Mehri, Esq.
          MEHRI & SKALET, PLLC
          1250 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 300
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 822-5100
          E-mail: cmehri@findjustice.com


Plaintiffs-Appellants DL; Tameka Ford, Parent and Next Friend of
D.L.; JB; Leah Bland, Parent and Next Friend of JB; FD; Frederick
Davy, Parent and Next Friend of FD; Monica Davy, Parent and Next
Friend of FD; TF; and Angelique Moore, Parent and Next Friend of
TF - On their own behalf and on behalf of a class of similarly
situated individuals, are represented by:

          Margaret A. Kohn, Esq.
          MARGARET A. KOHN, ATTORNEY AT LAW
          619 Pennsylvania Avenue, SE, 2nd Floor
          Washington, DC 20003
          Telephone: (202) 544-1200
          E-mail: Margaret.Kohn07@gmail.com

Defendants-Appellees District of Columbia, A Municipal
Corporation; Michelle Rhee, Chancellor; and Deborah Gist,
District of Columbia State Superintendent of Education, are
represented by:

          Loren L. AliKhan, Esq.
          DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL
          OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
          441 4th Street, NW
          One Judiciary Square, Sixth Floor
          Washington, DC 20001-2714
          Telephone: (202) 727-3400
          E-mail: loren.alikhan@dc.gov


DNB: Norway's Consumer Council to Appeal Class Action Ruling
------------------------------------------------------------
Terje Solsvik, writing for Reuters, reports that Norway's
Consumer Council will appeal against a court ruling which found
that banking group DNB did not overcharge customers who invested
in its funds, the watchdog said in a statement on Feb. 1.

The council had sought to reclaim 690 million crowns on behalf of
180,000 DNB customers who had placed money in three funds between
January 2010 and December 2014, in what had been billed as a
class action test case.

DNB Asset Management was alleged to have charged customers for
actively managing the funds, while in reality simply tracking a
stock market index, a claim DNB denied. [GN]


DUKE UNIVERSITY: Antitrust Lawsuit Can Proceed as Class-Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ray Gronberg, writing for The Herald Sun, reports that if a
former Duke University radiology professor wins her anti-trust
lawsuit against the school, all the medical school professors at
Duke and UNC-Chapel Hill may receive compensation for damages.

U.S. District Court Judge Catherine Eagles ruled February 1 that
radiologist Danielle Seaman's case against Duke can proceed as a
class-action lawsuit on behalf of anyone on faculty who's held an
"academic appointment" in the Duke or UNC medical schools from
Jan. 1, 2012, to the present day.

Eagles ruled out including non-faculty physicians at Duke or UNC,
or the nurses and "other skilled medical staff" Seaman and her
lawyers wanted to also represent. Their inclusion would "make it
very difficult" to manage the case and might confuse a jury, the
judge said.

Moreover, the case is "substantially weaker" that non-faculty
employees at the medical schools suffered from the alleged hiring
collusion between the universities that Seaman claims limits
opportunities to swap a job on one campus for a job at the other,
Eagles said.

Even with their exclusion, class-action status will entitle
Seaman and her San Francisco-based lawyers to speak for about
5,649 Duke and UNC professors who might have had their salaries
depressed if the medical schools actually tried to restrict the
so-called lateral movement of faculty, Eagles said.

The judge's ruling February 1 was the latest development in a
lawsuit that's been pending since 2015 and began after Seaman
lost out on a chance to move from Duke to UNC.

An administrator at the UNC School of Medicine later emailed her
to say he couldn't give her a job because "lateral moves between
Duke and UNC are not permitted" thanks to an agreement between
their medical deans. Lateral moves are job switches into same-
rank positions, for instance a move from an assistant professor's
post at Duke into an assistant professorship at UNC.

The dean of UNC's medical school, Bill Roper, last year told
lawyers he'd urged subordinates with hiring authority to avoid
"engaging in what I would view as a hostile, unneighborly
behavior" toward Duke. And he admitted having urged former Duke
Chancellor for Health Affairs Victor Dzau to consider formalizing
"some kind of understanding between us about the movement of
faculty."

But Roper denied that there was a formal agreement or policy on
the matter at UNC, and told lawyers that Dzau ultimately told him
people on Duke's side "just don't think that's something we ought
to enter into."

Seaman's lawyers eventually negotiated an out-of-court settlement
with UNC-CH that bars it from colluding with anyone to suppress
the competition for labor, and that requires it to train senior
administrators on the relevant points of federal anti-trust law.

Duke's lawyers, meanwhile, are poised to deny any wrongdoing by
the Durham institution. A former dean of the Duke School of
Medicine, Nancy Andrews, has told Eagles she's unaware of any lid
on the school's hiring people from UNC.

But Seaman and her attorneys contend the absence of a formal
agreement between the schools masks under-the-table practices
that amount to the same thing.

They'd argued that any collusion affecting faculty hirings would
also have spillover effects up and down the payroll, as medical
professors typically assemble regular teams of nurses and other
personnel to support their work. When the leading faculty member
switches jobs, the rest of the team often comes along and
benefits from increased pay, the lawyers claimed.

Eagles, however, said the argument depends on "several
inferences-on-inferences" and raises the possibility "that the
strength of the faculty claim or the weakness of the non-faculty
claims might tend to bleed over to the other [in] the jury's
mind." That would create "a real potential for unfairness" to
professors and to Duke, she said.

In a footnote, Eagles also signaled that Duke wouldn't
necessarily win by pointing to examples of successful hiring
raids on the UNC faculty -- a strategy the university's lawyers
have already deployed.

Seaman's case "does not require her to prove that the movement of
every faculty member was restrained," the judge said as she
analyzed the merits of giving the lawsuit class-action status.
[GN]


ENTELLUS MEDICAL: "Horstman" Suit Alleges Exchange Act Violation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pete Horstman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Entellus Medical, Inc., John K. Bakewell, Joshua
Baltzell, Brian E. Farley, Shawn T. McCormick, David S. Milne,
Guido Neels, James Momtazee, Duke Rohlen, Robert S. White,
Explorer Merger Sub Corp., and Stryker Corporation, Case No. 18-
cv-00109 (D. Minn., January 16, 2018), is brought against the
Defendants for violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
arising out of the Board's attempt to sell the Company to Stryker
Corporation through its wholly-owned subsidiary Explorer Merger
Sub Corp.

Plaintiff Pete Horstman is the owner of shares of common stock of
Entellus.

Defendant Entellus is a corporation organized and existing under
the laws of the State of Delaware. The Company's principal
executive offices are located at 3600 Holly Lane North, Suite 40,
Plymouth, Minnesota 55447. Entellus common stock trades on NASDAQ
under the ticker symbol "ENTL." Entellus develops products for
treating ear, nose and throat issues such as sinusitis, nasal
airway obstruction and Eustachian tube dysfunction.

Individual Defendants are board members of Entellus. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gregg M. Fishbein, Esq.
      Richard A. Lockridge, Esq.
      Kate M. Baxter-Kauf, Esq.
      LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP
      100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
      Minneapolis. MN 55401-2159
      Tel: (612) 339-6900
      Fax: (612) 339-0981
      E-mail: gmfishbein@locklaw.com
              ralockridge@locklaw.com
              kmbaxter-kauf@locklaw.com

          - and -

      Shane T. Rowley, Esq.
      Danielle Rowland Lindahl, Esq.
      ROWLEY LAW PLLC
      50 Main Street, Suite 1000
      White Plains, NY 10606
      Tel: (914) 400-1920
      Fax: (914) 301-3514


EQUIFAX INC: Invasion of Privacy Class-Action Proceeds in Ontario
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Meckbach, writing for the Canadian Underwriter, reports that
a class-action lawsuit arising from last year's Equifax cyber
breach is proceeding in Ontario on the basis of a new invasion-
of-privacy tort that has caught the eye of Canada's property and
casualty insurers because it allows courts to award damages even
when no economic loss is proven.

In a ruling released Jan. 24, the Ontario Superior Court of
Justice ruled that law firm Sotos can proceed with a class action
against Equifax Inc. and Equifax Canada Co. The representative
plaintiffs are Bethany Agnew-Americano and a "Jane Doe" plaintiff
who is requesting anonymity from the court because of the
sensitivity of information that Jane Doe says fell into the wrong
hands.

In the Jan. 24 ruling -- Agnew-Americano v. Equifax Canada --
Justice Benjamin Glustein stayed a separate class action lawsuit
against Equifax filed by Merchant Law Group on behalf of Laura
Ballantine. Allegations that Equifax failed to take adequate
steps to protect consumers' privacy have not been proven in
court. The Jan. 24 ruling was not on the merits of the lawsuit
but rather on which of two class-actions would proceed.

Merchant Law -- whose lawsuit is now pretty much dead in the
water -- had argued unsuccessfully that the Sotos lawsuit should
not proceed. This is because Sotos wants one cause of action to
be "intrusion upon seclusion," which was recognized in 2012 by
the Court of Appeal for Ontario as a new tort in 2012.

Justice Glustein decided it was not obvious that an intrusion-
upon-seclusion lawsuit against Equifax would fail.

The tort of intrusion upon seclusion is significant for liability
insurance providers because "if your personal privacy has been
invaded, even if you haven't suffered any economic harm, you
could still sustain an action," Brian Rosenbaum, senior vice
president and national cyber and privacy practice leader at Aon
Canada Inc., said during the International Cyber Risk Management
Conference, held in March, 2017.

Equifax announced in 2017 that cyber criminals were able to
access personal information through a security vulnerability on
its website. Information on Canadians that may have been
compromised included names, addresses, social insurance numbers
and -- in some cases -- credit card numbers.

An intrusion upon seclusion lawsuit, "if viable, provides a
broader claim" than one of negligence, 'which opens up a
defendant's exposure," Justice Glustein wrote Jan. 24, 2018 in
Agnew-Americano v. Equifax Canada.

The ruling that established intrusion upon seclusion was Jones v.
Tsige, released in 2012 by the Court of Appeal for Ontario. Bank
of Montreal employee Winnie Tsige has accessed Bank of Montreal
customer records for Sandra Jones, who was also a BMO employee.
Tsige was in a relationship with Jones's former husband. Jones
sued Tsige and in 2011 the Ontario Superior Court of Justice
ruled against Jones, finding there is no common-law tort of
invasion of privacy in Ontario. That finding was overturned on
appeal, with Jones being awarded $10,000 in damages. [GN]


FACEBOOK INC: Challenges Class Action Certification in BIPA Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BiometricUpdate.com's Chris Burt, writing for Law360, reports
that Facebook has told a federal judge in California that
plaintiffs attempting to certify a pair of related class action
suits against the company have failed to show common harm, and
that the certification attempts are last-ditch efforts to save
their claims.

The claim was made by Facebook in response to a motion filed by
users and non-user Frederick Gullen to certify their suits under
Illinois' Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) as class
actions.  Facebook argues that there is no simple or unified way
to show identical harms for the proposed classes, or that it had
analyzed and stored facial scans.

If the proposed class members' biometrics data was not captured
by Facebook, they would not be eligible to sue under BIPA.
Facebook also referred to an Illinois appellate court decision in
Rosenbach v. Six Flags that a consumer must show "injury or
adverse effect" to qualify as "aggrieved" under BIPA.

"Each plaintiff admitted at his deposition that he has suffered
no harm from Facebook's alleged conduct, and plaintiffs do not
give a reason to believe that any class member is different in
that respect," Facebook said, per Law360.  "Yet they claim
entitlement to billions of dollars based on an aggregation of
BIPA's statutory damages provision. Neither Rule 23 nor federal
due process permits certification of a no-injury class seeking an
aggregate award in the billions."

Facebook also contends that the plaintiffs have forwarded a
fundamentally different class definition in their latest filing
than in the consolidated complaint.  The company says the latest
filings violate procedure and highlight the problems that have
characterized the attempt at class treatment.  It also says
Gullen's action is "in shambles," and that it has no identifying
information about non-users who appear in images uploaded to the
site, and no feasible way to identify or obtain consent from
them.

Both class action certification attempts are expected to be
considered at a March 29 hearing.

As previously reported, U.S. District Judge James Donato
expressed skepticism of Facebook's position that harm had not
been demonstrated in a November hearing. [GN]


FACEBOOK INC: Alston & Bird Attorney Discusses EU Case Ruling
-------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Felz, Esq. -- daniel.felz@alston.com -- of Alston & Bird,
in an article for JDSupra, wrote that in late 2015, the European
Court of Justice (ECJ) issued its initial Schrems decision,
invalidating the EU/US Safe Harbor and leading to important
developments in the rules for transferring personal data from the
EU to the US.  Since that decision, Mr. Schrems has pursued two
further legal proceedings in the EU.

The first involves Mr. Schrems' challenge in the Irish courts to
EU Standard Contractual Clauses, which permit data to be
transferred internationally between contract parties.  In the
trial, Alston & Bird Special Counsel Peter Swire testified as an
expert on US national security law, and the case is now being
referred to the ECJ.

This post relates to Mr. Schrems's second action, an attempt to
consolidate an EU-wide consumer class action against Facebook
before the Austrian courts.  To support a class action, Mr.
Schrems has been actively soliciting claim assignments from
consumers throughout the EU, with the intent to assert them in a
single proceeding before the Austrian courts.  As part of his
solicitation efforts, Mr. Schrems maintains a "submit-your-
claim"-style website, accepts donations, gives paid speeches, and
has written a book.

Mr. Schrems's class action is structured differently than US
class actions due to the fact that the Austrian courts -- like
most systems outside the US -- do not have a certification
mechanism akin to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.  Instead,
individual claimants must personally assign their claims to
Mr. Schrems, who appears as the single plaintiff in the action
asserting both his own claims, as well as those that have been
assigned to him.

This structure resulted in complex procedural questions under the
Brussels I Regulation, which regulates jurisdiction among EU
member states.  Mr. Schrems's class action is directed against
Facebook Ireland Ltd., an EU company.  As Brussels I's baseline
rule, EU defendants must be sued in the Member State where they
are "domiciled," which for a dispute between Mr. Schrems and
Facebook Ireland would mean Irish jurisdiction.  However, Art. 16
Brussels I contains special jurisdiction provisions for "consumer
contracts" that permit consumers to sue in their home state --
which for Mr. Schrems would mean Austria.

Mr. Schrems contended that he is a consumer who concluded a
contract with Facebook and was entitled to sue in Austria.  He
further contended that since he received full assignments of
other consumers' claims against Facebook, he was entitled to
assert those in Austria as well.

A. The ECJ Decision

The ECJ faced two questions.  It resolved the first in Mr.
Schrems's favor, but found against him in regards to the second
-- and in doing so, established precedent that will likely make
for further litigation once the General Data Protection
Regulation (GDPR) enters into force:

1.  Under the Brussels I Regulation, is Mr. Schrems still
considered a "consumer" if he has operated a website, published
books, delivered paid speeches, and collected donations in
connection with soliciting and asserting third-party claims?

One of Facebook's arguments was that Mr. Schrems's systematic
solicitation of claims had shaded into 'professional' territory,
such that Mr. Schrems should no longer be considered a "consumer"
needing the protection of the special jurisdiction provisions of
Art. 16 Brussels I.  The ECJ disagreed.  On the one hand, it held
that an individual who starts using Facebook as a "consumer"
could lose consumer status if his use of Facebook "subsequently
become[s] predominantly professional."  But the Court ultimately
reasoned that the term "consumer" was defined by contrast to the
term "economic operator" -- and that a "consumer" does not lose
his status due to (a) "the knowledge and information" he
possesses, (b) "the expertise [he] may acquire in the field
covered by [] services" provided by an economic operator, nor (c)
"his assurances given for purposes of" representing other
consumers' claims.  The ECJ expressed concern that stripping
well-informed consumers of their consumer status would hinder
consumers' attempts to organize to assert their rights.  As a
result, the Court held that Mr. Schrems did not lose consumer
status because he had "publish[ed] books, lectur[ed], operat[ed]
websites, fundrais[ed] and be[en] assigned the claims of numerous
consumers for the purpose of their enforcement."  Thus, Mr.
Schrems's own claims against Facebook can proceed.

2.  Under the Brussels I Regulation, is Mr. Schrems entitled to
assert claims assigned to him by consumers who reside in other EU
member states or in non-EU states, if all claims are asserted
against the same defendant?

For many observers, this second question was the more important
question: Was Mr. Schrems permitted to consolidate EU
jurisdiction over numerous individual consumer claims from around
the EU in Austria by virtue of a straightforward civil-law
assignment of rights?  The ECJ ruled he was not.  The Court
relied on two main arguments:

   -- Only One Contract per Consumer Suit.  By its express
wording, Art. 16 Brussels I only creates special local
jurisdiction over "matters relating to a contract concluded by a
. . . consumer" and a business.  As a result, the Court stated
that "an applicant who is not himself a party to the consumer
contract in question cannot enjoy the benefit of the jurisdiction
relating to consumer contracts."  Thus, the Court held that only
Mr. Schrems's contract with Facebook was at issue, and that
individuals who assigned claims to Mr. Schrems could not
piggyback on the jurisdiction Mr. Schrems's claim created.  The
Court held that this rule "makes it possible to make sure the
attribution of jurisdiction is predictable" -- e.g. by preventing
consumer claims from being transferred to a plaintiff-friendly EU
jurisdiction where the defendant has no assets or operations.

   -- Jurisdiction does not Follow Assignment.  The Brussels I
Regulation sets forth the exclusive list of EU fora having
jurisdiction over litigation involving EU parties.  In the lead-
up to the ECJ's decision, the Court's Advocate General argued
that permitting jurisdiction over consumer claims to follow their
assignment into a new EU member state would create a "new
specific forum" for consumer claims not foreseen in the Brussels
I framework.  The ECJ agreed: Brussels I's framework for
jurisdiction remains exclusive; jurisdiction of courts "other
than those expressly referred to by [Brussels I] cannot be
established [by] the concentration of several claims in the
person of a single [plaintiff]."  As a result, "the assignment of
claims cannot, in itself, have an impact on the determination of
the court having jurisdiction" over a claim.

As a result of the Court's holding, Mr. Schrems's individual
claims will be able to proceed before the Austrian courts.
However, his class action may be finished in its present form

B. Looking Forward under the GDPR

The ECJ's reasoning in regards to Mr. Schrems's attempted class
action may make it more difficult to assert EU-wide class actions
under the GDPR.  The GDPR provides a new and different avenue for
seeking collective relief against companies that hold personal
data: Article 80 GDPR permits individuals to "mandate" a
nonprofit consumer-rights organization to assert their privacy
claims against companies in EU courts.  As a result, nonprofit
organizations could find themselves overseeing "opt-in" style
class actions, where the organization acts analogously to "class
counsel" asserting the claims of all individuals who have
mandated its services.

These nonprofit-led suits will differ from Mr. Schrems's current
class-action because there will be no assignments of claims.
Instead, the nonprofit will be asserting claims "on behalf of"
individuals - so the individuals themselves will appear as
parties, not the nonprofit.

Still, the ECJ's holding in Mr. Schrems's case may have effects
on these nonprofit-led collective suits.  The ECJ's holding in
Mr. Schrems's case was based on Art. 16 Brussels I Regulation,
which provides special jurisdiction provisions permitting
consumers to sue in their home state.  Similarly, Art. 79(2) GDPR
contains special jurisdiction provisions permitting data subjects
to file privacy claims in their home state.

This brings up a similar question as to what the ECJ answered in
its most recent Schrems decision: Can EU consumers consolidate
jurisdiction over a nonprofit-brought GDPR class action in a
single member state?  In its Schrems holding, the ECJ found that
"consumer contract" jurisdiction cannot be consolidated in a
single member state via assignment of claims.  Could jurisdiction
over GDPR claims be consolidated in a single member state via
"mandating" those claims to a single nonprofit entity?  For
example, could Austrian, German, French, and Belgian consumers
all retain a German nonprofit to assert their GDPR claims before
German courts -- even though the GDPR only permits Austrians to
sue in Austria, Belgians to sue in Belgium, etc.?

In such a situation where an EU-wide consolidated GPDR class
action is attempted in a single EU jurisdiction, the ECJ's
holding that "the assignment of claims cannot, in itself, have an
impact on the determination of the court having jurisdiction" may
reappear.  If assigning a claim to an Austrian resident cannot
create Austrian jurisdiction, an individual mandating his GDPR
claim to an Austrian nonprofit may also be insufficient to permit
the Austrian nonprofit to assert it in Austria.  If so, it may be
that if an EU-wide class action is to be brought, the nonprofit
representing plaintiffs from multiple EU states would either have
to (a) bring separate class actions within each member state, or
(b) fall back to baseline Brussels I jurisdictional grounds, and
consolidate jurisdiction over the class action in the defendant's
home state.  As with a number of issues under the GDPR, this
question may have to be separately answered by the ECJ. [GN]


FIELDTURF: Montgomery County Joins Class Action
-----------------------------------------------
Bethany Rodgers, writing for Bethesda Magazine, reports that the
Montgomery County Parks system is joining a class action lawsuit
against the makers of the artificial turf fields that are
installed in several locations in the county, including
Montgomery Blair High School in Silver Spring.

As yet, Montgomery County Public Schools hasn't jumped onboard.

Artificial turf fields are at seven public schools in Montgomery
County: Blair, Richard Montgomery High, Walter Johnson High,
Gaithersburg High, Paint Branch High, Thomas S. Wootton High and
Somerset Elementary.  MCPS owns all of the fields except the one
at Blair, which is maintained by the parks system.

In a statement, Director of Parks Mike Riley said the parks
system is joining the lawsuit because the company, FieldTurf,
violated the Maryland Consumer Protection Act by misrepresenting
the reliability, performance and cost effectiveness of its
fields.  The Canada-based company also "knowingly provided turf
fields which contained defects in materials that were never
disclosed . . . and, otherwise, asserted that the fields were in
merchantable condition and fit for their intended purpose, in
breach of its express and implied warranties."

School board President Michael Durso said he and his colleagues
haven't officially discussed joining the class action lawsuit,
but would be monitoring developments in the case.

"It certainly is interesting, but as to what's going to happen
further down the road or what our role may or may not be, I'm
just not sure," Mr. Durso said on Jan. 31.

Last year, after finding Blair's turf field had become heavily
worn, the parks system had to replace the playing surface with
one that featured organic infill and a shock absorption pad.
Riley informed County Council member Marc Elrich that the field
had still been under warranty at the time of the $725,000
replacement project.

MCPS spokesman Derek Turner said the school system checks the
condition of its fields on an ongoing basis.

"We will continue to evaluate all options with regards to our
fields," he wrote in an email on Jan. 30.

The parks department will become a defendant in a federal lawsuit
that was opened in June to consolidate five different cases
against FieldTurf.  The plaintiffs, governments and school
districts across the country, are alleging the company knowingly
sold defective synthetic turf from 2005 to at least 2012. A
federal order states the allegedly defective turf was installed
in more than 1,400 locations.

Attorneys representing FieldTurf in the case could not
immediately be reached for comment.

A FieldTurf spokesperson wrote in a prepared statement that
Blair's synthetic field was installed in 2009 and lasted for its
full, eight-year warranty term. However, the spokesperson, Darren
Gill, acknowledged the company had experienced problems with
Duraspine, grass fibers used in the synthetic fields.

In 2011, FieldTurf sued the Chinese company, TenCate, that made
the grass fibers for many of its Duraspine fields because
FieldTurf found the fibers withered away under ultraviolet light.

"Since we first became aware of the issue with Duraspine, we have
tried to be forthcoming with our customers and we have not hid
from this problem.  Additionally, it is important to note that
the issue with Duraspine has not impacted safety--  only how a
field looks as it wears -- and has been limited to high-UV
environments. We are committed to honoring our warranties and
working with our customers to address any issues if they arise,"
Gill wrote in the prepared statement.

Montgomery Parks' decision to enter the lawsuit was first
reported by Forbes.

Members of local civic groups have been vocal in their concerns
about the safety of synthetic turf fields in Montgomery County
parks and schools.  Danila Sheveiko, a member of the Montgomery
County Civic Federation, said worn fields don't adequately
cushion athletes when they fall, increasing the risk of
concussion and other injuries.

Ms. Sheveiko said federation members question why the county
can't stick with grass playing surfaces.

"Natural grass is healthier and more cost-effective," he said.

The MCPS website states that artificial fields have a wide range
of benefits, such as needing less maintenance, allowing safer
year-round use and offering more equity between schools.

But federation members spoke up in 2016 after discovering that
the synthetic field at Richard Montgomery had failed a safety
test. Another firm that conducted two subsequent tests at the
field found that it passed both times.  A school system
spokeswoman at the time said the field had been repaired after
the first test found safety concerns.

The MCPS spokeswoman said FieldTurf pays consulting firms to
conduct GMAX tests, which evaluate a playing surface's ability to
absorb impact.

MCPS posts GMAX test results online, along with periodic
maintenance reports. [GN]


FIRE INSURANCE: Denial of Summary Adjudication Bid Upheld
---------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CRAIG STREIT et al., Plaintiffs, Cross-defendants
and Appellants, v. FIRE INSURANCE EXCHANGE et al., Defendants,
Cross-complainants and Respondents, Case No. B276430 (Cal. App.),
Judge John Segal of the Court of Appeals of California, Second
District, Division Seven, (i) reversed the trial court's order
granting the motion for summary adjudication by Streit and Eric
Lucan; and (ii) affirmed the trial court's order denying Farmers'
motion for summary adjudication.

Streit and Lucan filed the action on behalf of themselves and
others to whom Farmers Insurance Group, Inc. had issued insurance
policies.  Streit paid an annual premium of $1,159.24 for a
Farmers homeowners or landlord insurance policy, but he canceled
it 39 days into the policy period.  He expected a refund of
$1,035.38, which he calculated as 326 days (365-39) at $3.176 per
day ($1,159.24/365).  Instead, Streit received only $915.80, or
approximately $119 less than he thought he should have received.

Lucan paid $360.76, the first six-month installment of his
$743.85 annual premium for a Farmers homeowners insurance policy,
but he canceled it 81 days into the policy period.  He expected a
refund of approximately $196, but he received a refund of only
$118, or approximately $77 less than he thought he should have
received.

In their first amended class action complaint, Streit and Lucan
alleged that Farmers' practice of charging them and the other
members of the class the higher Short Rate to determine the
amount it would return as their unused portion of their premium
was unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent.  They claimed the short
rate is an insurance premium rate that is higher than the rate
Farmers stated in its solicitations and policies.  They also
alleged Farmers' policies did not define "short rate," explain
how Farmers used it to calculate returns of premiums, or disclose
that imposing a "short rate penalty" made the premiums more than
those stated in the policies.  They also claimed the use of the
term "short rate" was ambiguous and prevented policyholders from
understanding a material term of their policies.  Streit and
Lucan pointed out that Farmers did not disclose or make available
to its insureds or its agents the RONOCO Six and Twelve Month
Calculator apparently used to calculate short rate returns of
premiums.

Streit and Lucan alleged six causes of action in their first
amended complaint, including three unfair competition causes of
action under Business and Professions Code section 17200: one for
unlawful practices, one for unfair practices, and one for
fraudulent practices.  These causes of action were based on
alleged violations of sections 330 (concealment by neglecting to
communicate), 332 (failing to communicate required disclosures),
and 381, subdivision (f) (failing to specify the premium in an
insurance policy), and Civil Code sections 1573 (constructive
fraud), 1709 (deceit), 1710 (deceit), 1670.5 (unconscionable
contract), and 1671, subdivision (d) (void liquidated damages
provision).  They also alleged causes of action for breach of the
implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing,
"unconscionability," and unjust enrichment.

Farmers demurred which the trial court sustained without leave to
amend.  The Appellate Court reversed.

Streit and Lucan's allegations in the third amended complaint
focused more specifically on section 481, subdivision (a).
Quoting the Appellate Court's opinion in Streit v. Farmers Group,
Inc. ("Streit I"), Streit and Lucan alleged Farmers' policies
violated section 481, subdivision (a), as well as the statutes
they had identified in prior versions of their complaint:
sections 330 and 332 (but not section 381) and Civil Code
sections 1573, 1709, 1710, (but not Civil Code sections 1670.5
and 1671, subdivision (d)).  They also amended their cause of
action for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair
dealing to reference section 481, subdivision (a), and the
Appellate Court's opinion in Streit I.  Finally, they added a new
cause of action for breach of contract alleging that section 481,
subdivision (a), was read into and deemed a part of each
insurance policy contract issued by Farmers and that Farmers
breached the terms of its policies because the insureds did not
agree in the insurance policy contract that return of premium
would be calculated pursuant to a particular formula other than
pro rata.

Streit and Lucan moved for summary adjudication against Fire
Insurance Exchange and Mid-Century Insurance Co. (but not Farmers
Group) on the first cause of action for unfair competition based
on unlawful business practices and the fifth cause of action for
breach of contract.  Meanwhile, Farmers filed a motion for
summary adjudication on the first and fifth causes of action
based on the same arguments they made in opposition to Streit and
Lucan's motion for summary adjudication.  The trial court granted
the motion by Streit and Lucan for summary adjudication and
denied the motion by Farmers.

The trial court subsequently held a hearing on the damages
"phase" of the motion by Streit and Lucan for summary
adjudication.  The court ruled the appropriate amount of damages
against Mid-Century Insurance was $6,597,814.20 and the
appropriate amount of damages against Farmers Insurance Exchange
was $7,522,150.04, plus interest.

The court entered judgment against Fire Insurance Exchange and
Mid-Century Insurance.  Fire Insurance Exchange and Mid-Century
Insurance challenge the trial court's orders granting Streit and
Lucan's motion for summary adjudication and denying Farmers'
motion for summary adjudication.  Streit and Lucan challenge the
trial court ruling at the damages phase of the hearing on their
motion for summary adjudication.

As a preliminary matter, Judge Segal finds that he has serious
reservations about whether the trial court's judgment is
appealable because there are outstanding causes of action between
the parties to the appeal.  There are still causes of action
remaining between Streit and Lucan (and the class members), on
one side, and Fire Insurance Exchange and Mid-Century Insurance,
on the other.  Nevertheless, assuming the Court has jurisdiction
to review the trial court's ruling, either by appeal or by
extraordinary writ, the trial court erred.

He says the trial court's ruling was based on its belief that the
Appellate Court held in Streit I that under section 481,
subdivision (a), insurers cannot adopt a `short rate' formula
unless they define that term in the contract itself. It did not.
It held only that Streit stated a cause of action for, among
other things, unfair competition based on unlawful practices
because, by alleging Farmers concealed and did not communicate
what "short rate" meant or how Farmers used it to calculate
return of premium, Streit had alleged violations of several
statutes.  Contrary to the trial court's ruling, the Judge says
the Appellate Court's in Streit I did not mandate summary
adjudication in favor of Streit and Lucan.

The Judge also finds that disputed factual issues precluded
summary adjudication.  He says the trial court erroneously ruled
the Appellate Court's decision in Streit I had decided the issue,
created factual issues that precluded summary adjudication on
Streit and Lucan's first cause of action for unfair competition.
Whether the disclosures and explanations on the websites of
Farmers and the Department of Insurance of the short rate return
of premium were sufficient, or whether Fire Insurance Exchange
and Mid-Century Insurance concealed or breached their duties to
communicate, are questions for the trier of fact.

Finally, Farmers also moved for summary adjudication on the first
and fifth causes of action.  Judge Segal finds that the trial
court properly denied that motion because, as discussed, there
were factual issues on both of those causes of action.  Whether
Farmers adequately disclosed and explained that short rate did
not mean pro rata does not determine whether Farmers adequately
disclosed and explained what short rate meant and how Farmers
used it to calculate a return of premium.

For these reasons, Judge Segal reversed the trial court's
judgment (to the extent it is one).  He directed the trial court
to vacate its order granting the motion for summary adjudication
by Streit and Lucan and to enter a new order denying that motion.
He affirmed the order denying Farmers' motion for summary
adjudication.  The parties are to bear their costs on appeal.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 24, 2018 Opinion is
available at https://is.gd/iK0rfp from Leagle.com.

Eppsteiner Law, Stuart M. Eppsteiner --
stuarteppsteiner@eppsteiner.com; The Kralowec Law Group and
Kimberly A. Kralowec -- kkralowec@kraloweclaw.com -- for
Plaintiffs, Cross-defendants and Appellants.

Hinshaw & Culbertson, Kent Keller -- kkeller@hinshawlaw.com --
and Larry M. Golub -- lgolub@hinshawlaw.com; Locke Lord, Stephen
A. Tuggy, and Matthew B. Nazareth -- nazareth@lockelord.com --
for Defendants, Cross-complainants and Respondents.


FORD MOTOR: Faces Class Action Over Super Duty Diesel Emissions
---------------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Bradley, writing for Daily Hornet, reports that Ford
and parts-supplier Bosch have been hit with a class action
lawsuit alleging that Ford F-250 and F-350 Super Duty diesel
pickup truck spew nitrogen oxide emissions that hit 50-times the
legal limit.

Over 500,000 of the diesel trucks were sold from 2011 to 2017,
costing $8,400 more than their gasoline-fueled counterparts.

The lawsuit states that on-road testing showed that Ford's diesel
trucks polluted at levels far exceeding legal limits.

Bosch is accused of developing the software that enabled the Ford
Super Duty diesel vehicles to sense when they were being tested
for emissions and adjust fuel levels, exhaust re-circulation, air
pressure and urea injection, allegedly for the purpose of
cheating the test.

Specifically, the lawsuit states that the technology allowed
Super Duty trucks to reverse the order of exhaust treatment
during emissions testing, allowing Ford to advertise fuel-
efficiency as well as power.

If the lawsuit prevails, Ford Super Duty trucks may need changes
to the exhaust system that will reduce power, torque, and fuel
efficiency.

Daniel Barbosa, a spokesman for Ford, told Bloomberg:

"All Ford vehicles, including those with diesel engines, comply
with all U.S. EPA and CARB emissions regulations. Ford vehicles
do not have defeat devices.  We will defend ourselves against
these baseless claims."

Ford is at least the 5th auto-maker accused of cheating on
emissions for diesel vehicles in the U.S., a country with some of
the strictest laws in the world for nitrous oxide (NOx)
pollution.  Diesel engines are more fuel-efficient than gasoline-
fueled vehicles, but they emit more NOx.

Bosch faces similar allegations in lawsuits against VW, Fiat
Chrysler and GM. [GN]


FORSTER & GARBUS: Seeks 2nd Cir. Review of Order in "Winslow"
-------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Forster & Garbus, LLP, Mark A. Garbus and Forster
Ronald, Esq., filed an appeal from the District Court's
memorandum and order entered on December 13, 2017, in the lawsuit
styled as BARBARA WINSLOW, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. FORSTER & GARBUS, LLP, RONALD
FORSTER, Esq. and MARK GARBUS, Esq., Defendants, Case No. 15-cv-
2996, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New
York.

The appellate case is captioned as Winslow v. Forster & Garbus,
LLP, Case No. 18-116, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Jan. 18, 2018, the
U.S. Magistrate Judge Anne Y. Shields granted the Plaintiff's
motion for class certification.  The action is commenced by the
Plaintiff pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and
the New York State General Business Law.  The class and two
subclasses are:

   a. The Class:

        i. Natural persons;

       ii. Who were sued by National Collegiate Student Loan
           Trust 2005 ("National Collegiate");

      iii. In a New York state court consumer collection action;

       iv. In an action in which F&G represented National
           Collegiate;

        v. And in which the Complaint states that (a) "Plaintiff
           is authorized to proceed with this actions" and/or
           (b)"Plaintiff is the original creditor."

   b. The FDCPA Subclass:

        i. All those who meet the class criteria set forth in the
           class description above and who, in addition, were
           sent the said complaint within one year of the
           initiation of the instant class action; and

   c. The NYGBL Section 349 Subclass:

        i. All those who meet the class criteria set forth in the
           class description above and who, in addition, were
           sent the said complaint within three years of the
           initiation of the instant class action.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellee Barbara Winslow, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Daniel Adam Schlanger, Esq.
          KAKALEC & SCHLANGER, LLP
          85 Broad Street
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 500-6114
          Facsimile: (646) 612-7996
          E-mail: daniel.schlanger@schlangerlegal.com

Defendants-Appellants Forster & Garbus, LLP, Forster Ronald,
Esq., and Mark A. Garbus, Esq., are represented by:

          Glenn M. Fjermedal, Esq.
          DAVIDSON FINK LLP
          28 East Main Street
          Rochester, NY 14614
          Telephone: (585) 756-5950
          E-mail: gfjermedal@davidsonfink.com


FOWLER PACKING: Court Partly Certifies "Aldapa" Classes
-------------------------------------------------------
In the case, BEATRIZ ALDAPA and ELMER AVALOS, on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. FOWLER
PACKING COMPANY, INC., a California corporation; AG FORCE LLC, a
California limited liability company; FOWLER MARKETING
INTERNATIONAL LLC, a California limited liability company; and
DOES 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 1:15-cv-00420-DAD-SAB (E.D.
Cal.), Judge Dale A. Drozd of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of California granted in part the Plaintiffs'
motion to certify one main class and 13 subclasses.

The lawsuit stems from a variety of alleged state and federal
labor law violations by the Defendants, who employ seasonal
workers for a variety of tasks necessary in commercial
agricultural operations.  Some of the farms on which the
agricultural workers are employed are owned by the Defendants,
while others are owned by third-party growers who contract with
defendants to provide a labor force.

Defendant Fowler Packing is a commercial grower, packer, and
shipper of various fruits, while Defendant Ag Force is a farm
labor contractor.  Defendant Fowler Marketing International is
responsible for marketing and selling the crops owned by Fowler
Packing and harvested by the employees of Ag Force.  These three
corporate entities are all owned by Grant Parnagian and members
of the Parnagian family.

The wage-and-hour class action suit was initially filed by the
Plaintiffs in the Court on March 17, 2015, and currently proceeds
on the Plaintiffs' first amended complaint ("FAC") filed on Oct.
20, 2016.  On Feb. 3, 2017, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to
certify one main class and 13 subclasses.  A hearing on the
motion was held May 17, 2017, following which the Court ordered
additional briefing, which the parties timely submitted.

In their FAC, the Plaintiffs allege 13 separate claims: (1)
violations of the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker
Protection Act for failing to pay all wages due or provide
necessary tools; (2) failure to compensate for rest breaks in
accordance with California Labor Code Section 226.71 and Wage
Order 14; (3) failure to pay all wages due under the employment
contract by requiring off-the-clock work and allowing the use of
"ghost workers"; (4) failure to pay overtime, as required by
state law; (5) failure to pay the minimum wage, in violation of
Labor Code Section 1194; (6) failure to pay waiting time
penalties in violation of Labor Code Section 203; (7) failure to
provide necessary tools or reimburse for tools in violation of
Labor Code Section 2802; (8) violations of California Business
and Professions Code Section 17200 by underpaying workers,
failing to provide rest periods, and retaining the benefits of
the labor without reasonable compensation; (9) violations of
Labor Code Section 226 by failing to keep accurate records or
provide accurate statements to the employees; (10) failure to
record and/or pay for travel time and wait time, in violation of
Labor Code Section 1194 and 29 U.S.C. Section 1801, et seq.; (11)
failure to reimburse for vehicle expense, in violation of Labor
Code Section 2802; and (12) failure to provide meal periods and
keep accurate records of meal periods, in violation of Wage Order
14 and 29 U.S.C. Section 1801, et seq.

The Plaintiffs seek certification of the following class and 13
subclasses:

     a. Main Class: All individuals who have been employed, or
are currently employed, by Defendants Ag Force, LLC, Fowler
Packing, Co. and/or Fowler Marketing, Int'l. as a non-exempt
field worker or agricultural worker, any time from March 17, 2011
up to the present, excluding supervisors, swampers, office,
clerical, or other non-agricultural workers.

     b. Subclasses:

          1. Piece Rate Rest Period Subclass: All individuals who
have been employed, or are currently employed, by the Defendants
as a non-exempt field worker or agricultural worker, who worked
on a piece rate basis at any time from March 17, 2011 up to the
present, and were not separately compensated for rest periods
during their piece rate shifts.

          2. Ghost Worker Crew Subclass: All individuals who have
been employed, or are currently employed, by Defendants as a non-
exempt field worker or agricultural worker, any time from March
17, 2011 up to the present, who worked on a crew piece rate basis
and were not compensated properly due to the inclusion of
payments to ghost workers in their crew(s).

          3. Unpaid Travel Time Subclass: All individuals who
have been employed, or are currently employed, by the Defendants
as a non-exempt field worker or agricultural worker, any time
from March 17, 2011 up to the present, who worked at two or more
fields in one day but were not compensated for their time spent
travelling between fields.

          4. Waiting Time Subclass: All individuals who have been
employed, or are currently employed, by the Defendants as a non-
exempt field worker or agricultural worker, any time from March
17, 2011 up to the present, who spent time waiting before harvest
work would commence and were not paid for that waiting time.

          5. Pre-Shift Work Subclass: All individuals who have
been employed, or are currently employed, by the Defendants as a
non-exempt field worker or agricultural worker, any time from
March 17, 2011 up to the present, who performed uncompensated and
unrecorded work before the fixed start time of a daily shift.

          6. Post-Shift Work Subclass: All individuals who have
been employed, or are currently employed, by the Defendants as a
non-exempt field worker or agricultural worker, any time from
March 17, 2011 up to the present, who performed uncompensated and
unrecorded work after the fixed end time of a daily shift.

          7. Tools Subclass: All individuals who have been
employed, or are currently employed, by the Defendants as a non-
exempt field worker or agricultural worker, any time from March
17, 2011 up to the present, who incurred unreimbursed tool
expenses while working for the Defendants.

          8. Meal Period Subclass: All individuals who have been
employed, or are currently employed, by the Defendants as a non-
exempt field worker or agricultural worker, any time from March
17, 2011 up to the present, who did not receive a meal period
and/or for whom a meal period was not recorded.

          9. Inaccurate Wage Statement Subclass: All individuals
who have been employed, or are currently employed, by the
Defendants as a non-exempt field worker or agricultural worker,
any time from March 17, 2011 up to the present, who due to the
violations claimed herein (other than the violations in
subclasses 4 and 8), received an inaccurate itemized wage
statement.

          10. Vehicle Expense Subclass: All individuals who have
been employed, or are currently employed, by the Defendants as a
non-exempt field worker or agricultural worker, any time from
March 17, 2011 up to the present, who worked at two or more
fields in one day and drove their own cars between fields but
were not reimbursed by the Defendants for their vehicle expenses.

          11. AWPA Subclass: All individuals who have been
employed, or are currently employed, by the Defendants as a non-
exempt field worker or agricultural worker, any time from March
17, 2011 up to the present, who, due to the violations claimed,
were not provided employment consistent with the terms of the
working arrangements made with them by the Defendants.

          12. Section 17200 Subclass: All individuals who have
been employed, or are currently employed, by the Defendants as a
non-exempt field worker or agricultural worker, any time from
March 17, 2011 up to the present, who, due to the violations
claimed, were employed under unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent
business acts or practices.

          13. Final Paycheck Subclass: All individuals who have
been employed, or are currently employed, by the Defendants as a
non-exempt field worker or agricultural worker, any time from
March 17, 2011 up to the present, who were not paid all wages due
when they were laid off each season, discharged, or quit, as
required by the California Labor Code.

Judge Drozd granted in part the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification, and the following subclasses are certified:

     a. Piece Rate Rest Period Subclass: All individuals who were
employed by the Defendants as a non-exempt field worker or
agricultural worker from March 17, 2011 to present, and were
compensated on a piece rate basis.

     b. Unpaid Travel Time Subclass: All individuals who were
employed by the Defendants as a non-exempt field worker or
agricultural worker from March 17, 2011 to present, and worked at
two or more fields in one day.

     c. Vehicle Expense Subclass: All individuals who were
employed by the Defendants as a non-exempt field worker or
agricultural worker from March 17, 2011 to present, worked at two
or more fields in one day, and drove their own cars between
fields.

     d. Meal Period Subclass: All individuals who were employed
by the Defendants as a non-exempt field worker or agricultural
worker from March 17, 2011 to present, for whom no meal period
was recorded on at least one day in which the employee worked
more than five hours.

     e. Tools Subclass: All individuals who were employed by the
Defendants as a non-exempt field worker or agricultural worker
from March 17, 2011 to present who purchased gloves, files, oil,
safety glasses, shears, clippers, scissors, sheaths, or
replacement parts for their work for the Defendants.

     f. Unpaid Work Subclass: All individuals who were employed
by Defendants as a non-exempt field worker or agricultural worker
from March 17, 2011 to present who were required to arrive before
their shift or perform duties after their shift, or wait for
fruit to dry before beginning work.

     g. Inaccurate Wage Statement Subclass: All individuals who
were employed at any of the Defendants between March 17, 2012 and
present as non-exempt field or agricultural workers for the
Defendants.

Because he separately certified each of the subclasses under Rule
23, the Judge denied certification of an overarching main class.
Additionally, pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3), he denied certification
as to all other subclasses not specifically addressed in clause
1, paragraphs a through g, particularly the Ghost Worker Crew
Subclass and each of the subclasses proposed solely for the
purpose of bringing a derivative claim.

Judge Drozd denied the Plaintiffs' motion to certify any of the
subclasses under Rule 23(b)(2) for the purpose of seeking
injunctive relief based upon its conclusion that the Named
Plaintiffs lack standing to seek injunctive relief.

The Judge finds that Plaintiffs Avalos and Aldapa to be adequate
class representatives, and confirmed them as the class
representatives for each of the certified subclasses, except for
the Vehicle Expense Subclass, for which only Plaintiff Avalos is
a class representative.  He also finds that the Plaintiffs'
counsel to be adequate to represent the class in this proceeding,
and the firms of Martinez, Aguilasocho, & Lynch APLC (MAL) and
Bush Gottlieb ALC are confirmed as the class counsel.

Judge Drozd denied without prejudice the Defendants' motion for a
trial planto being re-raised following the conclusion of merits-
phase discovery.  He also denied the Plaintiffs' request for the
imposition of sanctions under 28 U.S.C. Section 1927.

The Judge directed the parties to meet and confer promptly upon
service of the Order concerning the submission of a joint
stipulated class notice and distribution plan, based on the
subclasses as certified in the Order.  The parties will file
either a stipulated class notice and distribution plan or a
notice that no stipulation can be reached within 21 days of
service of the Order.  If the parties cannot agree to a class
notice or distribution plan, the Plaintiffs will submit a
proposed class notice and distribution plan within 35 days of
service of the Order.

The Defendants will have 14 days following the Plaintiffs'
submission of a proposed class notice and distribution plan to
file any objections thereto.  The Plaintiffs will have seven days
thereafter to submit a reply.

The matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for
further scheduling and other proceedings consistent with the
Order.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 24, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/QLmlam from Leagle.com.

Beatriz Aldapa, Plaintiff, represented by Dexter Flood Rappleye -
- drappleye@bushgottlieb.com -- Bush Gottlieb, ALC, Erica Deutsch
-- edeutsch@bushgottlieb.com -- Bush Gottlieb, Mario Martinez --
mmartinez@farmworkerlaw.com -- Martinez Aguilasocho & Lynch Aplc
& Ira L. Gottlieb -- igottlieb@bushgottlieb.com -- Bush Gottlieb,
A Law Corporation.

Elmer Avalos, Plaintiff, represented by Erica Deutsch, Bush
Gottlieb, Mario Martinez, Martinez Aguilasocho & Lynch Aplc & Ira
L. Gottlieb, Bush Gottlieb, A Law Corporation.

Fowler Packing Company Inc., a California Corporation, AG Force
LLC, a California Limited Liability Company & Fowler Marketing
International LLC, a California Limited Liability Company,
Defendants, represented by Howard A. Sagaser -- has@sw2law.com --
Sagaser, Watkins & Wieland, PC & Ian Blade Wieland --
ian@sw2law.com -- Sagaser, Watkins & Wieland, PC.


GENERAL ELECTRIC: Faces Class Action in Connecticut
---------------------------------------------------
Yamil Berard, writing for Guru Focus, reports that investors who
want to know what went wrong in the accounting department at
General Electric Corp. can read about it in a class-action
lawsuit.

The suit in the U.S. District of Connecticut was filed just two
days after GE divulged a $6.2 billion mistake in calculating
costs for its run-off insurance business.  It accuses the
company's former leadership of being aware of the problems for
years and doing nothing to fix them, or tell anybody about it.

It's a juicy read, especially if you like accusations backed up
by old earnings reports.

Problems, the suit says, erupted over five years ago when the GE
Capital program began losing ground. Since 2013, it had been
experiencing increasingly low earnings and revenues.

Over time, GE didn't disclose problems to investors even as the
fund continued to amass shortages.

Then, to make the problem even worse, it failed to allocate
sufficient reserves to make up for growing payouts.  The hole
just got bigger and bigger.  In the end, the company accrued
"billions of dollars in unreported impairment charges."

In recent days, the company has been barraged with bad publicity.
Barclay's is calling for GE's removal from the Dow Jones
Industrial, a spot it has held for over a century. (This has not
happened.  The stock is still part of the index.)

What's more, the Securities and Exchange Commission is all over
the company's books and file folders.  And don't forget those
lawsuits that are screaming "fraud" and making highly unfavorable
allegations.

But that's the nadir, says guru investor Mario Gabelli (Trades,
Portfolio).  Go buy it, Mr. Gabelli declared.  At $16 a share, it
hasn't been cheaper since 2016. It has never been a better time
to buy it.

Mr. Gabelli is buying GE.  Why? He says key portions of the
company are strong.  He likes the new management.

Once the SEC finishes its job, and some fixable issues get sorted
out, the stock should go up. How far? The guru investor predicts
the stock will be in the $20s in two years.

And perhaps, by then, the stock will be welcomed back into the
ranks of the historic Dow Jones Industrial Average. [GN]


GEORGE & FRANK'S: Failed to Pay Minimum Wages, "Cuizon" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ian Cuizon, Nan Aye Thida, Nia Williams, Pornping Theeradechakul,
Pwint Su Wai Win and Suphichaya Sodwan, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. George &
Frank's Japanese Noodle Rest. Inc., Thomas Hamada and Ichi
Asakawa, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-00549 (S.D. N.Y., January 22,
2018), seeks unpaid minimum wages pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act and New York Labor Law including applicable
liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs.

Defendants own, operate, or control a Japanese restaurant,
located at 152 West 49th Street, New York, New York 10019 under
the name "Sapporo Restaurant" where Plaintiffs have been employed
as food packers and ostensibly as food runners and servers. They
claim to have worked without appropriate minimum wage
compensation for the hours that they have worked and have been
paid a lowered tip-credited rate. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


GETSWIFT: Flunks Deadline, Faces Class Action
---------------------------------------------
Michael Bailey, writing for Financial Review, reports that
logistics software maker GetSwift may face a class action from
global law firm Squire Patton Boggs, as the drama around the
company built on February 2 with its failure to release a
promised answer to regulator queries before the close of trade.

The class action threat capped a dramatic day in which the Wall
Street Journal was told by "a person familiar with GetSwift's
situation" that it was set to launch a formal process to evaluate
takeover approaches.

However no announcements had been made by GetSwift by late
February 2, and the story was widely lampooned on social media as
most likely a plant by an investor in the company.

Squire Patton Boggs said in a statement that it had obtained
funding for a class action against GetSwift, and invited
shareholders that had purchased shares between 24 February 2017
and 18 January 2018 to register their interest.

The firm noted that GetSwift's share price had risen above $4.00
on a series of bullish announcements about new clients, but had
plummeted to just $1.61 on the United States over-the-counter
market following an investigation by The Australian Financial
Review casting doubt on their veracity.

GetSwift's shares remained suspended for the eighth trading day
in a row on February 2 at $2.92.

On January 30 the company announced the appointment of PwC to
review its continuous disclosure policy, and had flagged the
release of a response to further ASX queries by the close of
business on February 2.

An $800,000 entry under 'Other' in the 'estimated cash flows for
next quarter' section of GetSwift's quarterly update released on
Wednesday was speculated on social media as payment for PwC's
review, with some observers opining that would not be enough for
a complete policy overhaul.

Anticlimactically, the response to GetSwift's own deadline for
its response to ASX queries was not met on February 2.

"The GetSwift situation is a bit like school," tweeted Perth
trader James Middleweek.

"It's had to complete a 20 question test and write an essay. The
teacher is also a slow marker," he said, referring to the belief
in some quarters that the ASX was too slow to act on GetSwift (a
claim the bourse refutes).

Meanwhile Buddy Platform is another small cap to have endured a
trading suspension while the ASX sought more clarity on its new
contract announcements.

Shares in the Adelaide-based environmental software company,
which counted a venture capital firm set up by pop star Lady Gaga
and her former manager among its early investors, were suspended
on February 2 after the bourse was dissatisified with details it
provided on four contracts which the company forecast in its
September 2017 quarterly update to have aggregate revenues of $52
million.

The bourse had sent Buddy Platform the 'aware query' letter on
January 23, four days after publication of the Financial Review
investigation of over-hyping of client win announcements by
GetSwift.

Buddy Platform's main product is Buddy Ohm, a real-time energy
usage monitoring system which the company labels as a "Fitbit for
buildings", which tracks energy usage and claims to help
companies make savings on electricity, gas and water bills.

By the December quarter update, released on January 31,
management's revenue forecast for signed contracts had grown to
$69.3 million, albeit only $428,000 of actual revenue was
reported in the quarter (up 5 per cent from the previous
quarter). Meanwhile operating cash outflows had ballooned to
$3.21 million, up 25 per cent from the previous quarter's $2.56
million outflow.

Buddy Platform's share price was suspended at $0.22, down from a
high of $0.40 in November 2017. [GN]


GLENWOOD LUXURY: "Camacho" Suit Alleges ADA Violations
------------------------------------------------------
Jason Camacho, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Glenwood Luxury Apartment Rental Corp., Case No.
1:18-cv-00281 (E.D. N.Y., January 16, 2018), is brought against
the Defendant for violation of the American with Disabilities Act
because the Defendant's website is not equally accessible to
blind and visually-impaired consumers.

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

Defendant operates Glenwood Luxury real estate sales offices as
well as the Glenwood Luxury website.  The Plaintiffs says the
website must offer to the public features that should allow all
consumers to access the facilities and services that Defendant
offers regarding its sales offices. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

          - and -

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


HAIN CELESTIAL: Bid to Dismiss "Pecanha" Denied
-----------------------------------------------
In the case, MAKINDE PECANHA, et al., Plaintiffs, v. THE HAIN
CELESTIAL GROUP, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-04517-
EMC (N.D. Cal.), Judge Edward M. Chen of the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California denied the Defendants'
motion to dismiss the first amended class action complaint
("FAC") or, alternatively, to stay based on primary jurisdiction
of the FDA.

Plaintiffs Pecanha and Shaun Ray Bell have filed a class action
against Defendants Hain and JASON(R) Natural Products, Inc.
("JNP"), asserting claims for, inter alia, false advertising and
breach of warranty based on the Defendants' marketing of their
JASON? deodorant products as "Naturally Fresh" and "Pure Natural"
when in fact they contain synthetic ingredients.

Hain is a company that focuses on food and personal care
products.  One of its brands is the JASON(R) brand, which covers
personal care products.   Hain, along with JNP, promote the
JASON? brand as a leader in natural cosmetics.

At issue in the instant case are JASON(R) deodorant products.
The front packaging for the deodorant products use one or more of
the following labels: "Naturally Fresh," "Pure Natural
Deodorant," "Pure Natural Deodorant Stick," and/or "Natural
Pioneer Since 1959."  Although the labels use the term "natural"
in some form, the deodorant products actually use synthetic
ingredients -- namely, tocopheryl acetate, glycerin, and
ethylhexylglycerin.

Based on, inter alia, the allegations, the Plaintiffs have
asserted the following causes of action: (i) violation of the
California Consumer Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"); (ii) violation
of California Business & Professions Code Section 17200; (iii)
violation of California Business & Professions Code Section
17500; (iv) breach of express warranty; (v) unjust enrichment;
and (vi) fraud.

The Defendants have moved to dismiss the first amended class
action complaint ("FAC") or, alternatively, to stay based on
primary jurisdiction of the FDA.  They protest that the use of
the term "natural" on the deodorant products cannot be viewed in
a vacuum; rather, the term must be taken in context, in
particular, other information on the front of the label.  They
contend that, at the very least, there is ambiguity because of
the "no aluminum" language and, once there is ambiguity, it is,
in essence, the duty of the consumer to look at the ingredient
list on the back of the label to clarify any ambiguity.

With respect to the fraud-based claims, the Defendants argue
that, if the Court is not inclined to dismiss, then it should at
the very least stay the claims (and presumably the entire case
since it is largely predicated on the fraud claims) based on the
primary jurisdiction doctrine.  More specifically, the Defendants
argue that the Court should stay the case to see what further
guidance is given by the FDA with respect to the term "natural."
According to them, there is ongoing FDA regulatory review of the
meaning of the word natural based on the FDA's November 2015
request for comments on the use of the term 'natural' in the
labeling of human food products, including foods that are
genetically engineered or contain ingredients produced through
the use of genetic engineering.

Judge Chen finds, among other things, that even crediting their
ambiguity argument, the Defendants still would not prevail at
this juncture of the proceedings because, as the Plaintiffs point
out, it is not readily apparent that the ingredient list would be
helpful -- i.e., it is not clear that a reasonable consumer would
be able to determine whether the ingredients on the ingredient
list were natural or synthetic.  The ingredient list provided by
Defendants lists many chemicals but a chemical is not necessarily
synthetic.  Hence, the inclusion of an ingredient list does not
warrant, at this 12(b)(6) juncture, judgment as a matter of law.
The Judge thus will deny the Defendants' motion to dismiss the
fraud-based claims.

The Judge also finds that the Defendants point to no specific FDA
action reasonably anticipated in the near future which warrants
delaying the case.  He therefore will decline to stay proceedings
based on the primary jurisdiction doctrine.

As to the Defendants' challenge on the unjust enrichment claim on
the same basis as they contested the fraud-based claims -- i.e.,
"no reasonable consumer would be deceived, the Judge says it is a
question of fact that cannot be resolved at the 12(b)(6) phase.

Having considered the parties' briefs and accompanying
submissions, as well as the oral argument of the counsel, Judge
Chen denied the Defendants' motion to dismiss or stay.  The Order
disposes of Docket No. 29.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 24, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/jsKHdn from Leagle.com.

Makinde Pecanha & Shaun Ray Bell, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Joel
Dashiell Smith -- jsmith@bursor.com -- Bursor & Fisher, Reuben D.
Nathan -- rnathan@nathanlawpractice.com -- Nathan & Associates,
APC & Lawrence Timothy Fisher -- ltfisher@bursor.com -- Bursor &
Fisher, P.A.

The Hain Celestial Group, Inc., Defendant, represented by Kenneth
Kiyul Lee -- klee@jenner.com -- Jenner & Block LLP, Alexander
Michael Smith -- asmith@jenner.com -- Jenner and Block LLP & Dean
N. Panos -- dpanos@jenner.com -- Jenner And Block LLP, pro hac
vice.

Jason Natural Products, Inc., Defendant, represented by Kenneth
Kiyul Lee, Jenner & Block LLP.


HIGH TECH RAIL: "Campbell" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
----------------------------------------------------------
Brandon Campbell, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated v. High Tech Rail and Fence, LLC, David
Moffat, and Curtis L. Whitaker II, Case No. 3:18-cv-00004 (N.D.
Ga., January 12, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid regular and
overtime compensation pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff Brandon Campbell resides in Griffin, Georgia. Plaintiff
was employed by the Defendants as installer.

Defendants own and operate a construction business installing
railing and fencing on residential and commercial construction as
well as other improvements in Georgia. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Tyler B. Kaspers, Esq.
      THE KASPERS FIRM, LLC
      152 New Street, Suite 109B
      Macon, GA 31201
      Tel: (404) 944-3128
      E-mail: tyler@kaspersfirm.com


HMI INDUSTRIES: Seeks 7th Cir. Review of Ruling in "Rench" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
HMI Industries, Inc., filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit entitled Sabra Rench v. HMI Industries, Inc., Case No.
3:13-cv-00922-SMY-RJD, in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Illinois.

The appellate case is captioned as HMI Industries, Inc. v. Sabra
Rench, Case No. 18-8003, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Seventh Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Respondent SABRA RENCH, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Kevin P. Green, Esq.
          GOLDENBERG, HELLER, ANTOGNOLI, ROWLAND, SHORT & GORI
          2227 S. State Route 157
          Edwardsville, IL 62025-0000
          Telephone: (618) 656-5150
          Facsimile: (618) 656-6230
          E-mail: kevin@ghalaw.com

Defendant-Petitioner HMI INDUSTRIES, INC., is represented by:

          Gary K. Shipman, Esq.
          SHIPMAN & WRIGHT, LLP
          575 Military Cutoff Road
          Wilmington, NC 28405
          Telephone: (910) 762-1990
          Facsimile: (910) 762-6752
          E-mail: gshipman@shipmanlaw.com


HOTEL ON RIVINGTON: Faces "Olsen" Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Hotel on
Rivington Managing Corp. The case is styled as Thomas J Olsen,
individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. The Hotel on Rivington Managing Corp.
agent of The Hotel on Rivington, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-
01118 (S.D. N.Y., February 7, 2018).

The Hotel on Rivington is a 20-story luxury hotel on Rivington
Street between Ludlow and Essex Streets in Downtown Manhattan.
Completed in 2005, the hotel's expensive rates, ultramodern
design, upscale bar, and trendy clientele have made it a
trademark of gentrification in the Lower East Side.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


HUHTAMAKI INC: Goodwin Seeks to Recoup Unpaid Wages
---------------------------------------------------
Ashley Goodwin, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Huhtamaki, Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 18-cv-00016 (W.D. Ky., January 22, 2018), seeks to
recover compensation, liquidated damages and attorneys' fees and
costs pursuant to the provisions of Sections 207 and 216(b) of
the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and Kentucky Revised
Statute.

Huhtamaki, Inc. produces packaging for consumer products and
foodservice, plastic and paper cups, bowls, cutlery, and takeout
packaging. Goodwin worked taking finished products off the
assembly line and loading them into crates for shipment from
April to August 2017. Plaintiff routinely worked in excess of
forty hours per workweek and was subject to improper meal-period
deductions. Huhtamaki automatically deducted 30 minutes from
Plaintiff's hours for meal breaks whether or not it was availed
of or not. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Clif Alexander, Esq.
      Austin W. Anderson, Esq.
      ANDERSON2X, PLLC
      819 N. Upper Broadway
      Corpus Christi, TX 78401
      Tel: (361) 452-1279
      Fax: (361) 452-1284
      Email: clif@a2xlaw.com
             austin@a2xlaw.com


HYUNDAI MOTORS: Montgomery Attorney Discusses Class Action Ruling
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Breslauer, Esq. -- pbreslauer@mmwr.com -- of Montgomery
McCracken Walker & Rhoads LLP, in an article for Lexology, wrote
that in an opinion that could make certification of nationwide
class action settlements considerably more difficult, a divided
panel of the Ninth Circuit has ruled that when deciding whether
to certify a multistate settlement class, the district court must
consider whether differences in state laws cause individual
questions of law to predominate over common questions of law and
fact.  In re Hyundai and Kia Fuel Economy Litig., No. 15-56014,
2018 WL 505343 (9th Cir. Jan. 23, 2018).  The Ninth Circuit
reaffirmed that the burden of proving common legal questions
predominate is, like all of the Rule 23(b)(3) requirements, on
the plaintiff, and the relaxation of Rule 23(b)(3) for
settlements that the Supreme Court recognized in Amchem Prods.,
Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591 (1997), extends only to those
questions of trial manageability that will not arise once a case
settles.  The court ruled that state-law variation is not merely
a question of manageability, but also implicates the substantive
rights of class members. Therefore, before a nationwide class can
be certified, the plaintiffs must establish -- even in a
settlement -- that the substantive state-law variations do not
predominate over common questions.  Because the district court in
Hyundai failed to consider variation in state substantive
consumer-protection laws, the Ninth Circuit vacated certification
of the settlement class and remanded for further proceedings.  In
addition, the Ninth Circuit ruled that the record did not support
including used car owners in the settlement class, because there
was no evidence used car owners were subject to a massive
advertising campaign justifying a presumption of reliance on that
that advertising, or that they were uniformly exposed to mileage
stickers on the windows of the cars they bought; unlike for new
cars, there is no requirement that used cars have mileage
stickers.

Judge Ikuta's opinion for the court drew a sharply worded dissent
on grounds that the majority opinion could prevent class members
from realizing substantial recoveries, and that assignment of the
multistate-law issues to the plaintiffs was contrary to
California's choice-of-law rules.  As Judge Nguyen's dissent saw
it, the proponents of applying non-California law to class
members outside California -- here, objectors to the settlement -
- had the burden of establishing that individual state-law
questions predominated. Because, in the dissent's view, the
objectors did not meet that challenge, the panel should not have
reached the choice-of-law issues at all, and instead should have
affirmed the district court's order certifying a nationwide
class.

Hyundai involved allegations originally made by a large group of
plaintiffs (the "Espinosa" plaintiffs) that Hyundai and Kia
inflated the mileage performance posted on the windows of certain
2011-13 vehicles.  As often happens, the defense argued that the
state-by-state variation in consumer-protection statutes
precluded certification of a nationwide class, because individual
issues in the law applicable to the members of a nationwide class
would predominate over common questions at a trial. Accepting
this argument, the district court issued a tentative ruling
denying the plaintiffs' class certification motion.

Following the tentative ruling, plaintiffs in another nationwide
class action in the Central District of California, Krauth v.
Hyundai Motor Am., moved the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation to consolidate twelve nationwide class actions
asserting substantially the same claims.  The MDL panel granted
the motion and transferred the cases to the judge presiding over
the Espinosa case and who had issued the tentative ruling denying
class certification. Ultimately 56 cases were consolidated in
that court as "tag-along" cases.

A week after the MDL panel's transfer order, the Espinosa
plaintiffs, along with plaintiffs in two of the other nationwide
class actions, announced that they had agreed to settle with
Hyundai and Kia on a nationwide basis, with several options for
relief to be provided to the members of the settlement class.
The district court certified the nationwide class for settlement
purposes, with the parties predicting that the value of the
relief would be $353 for class members who owned or leased a new
Hyundai and $667 for those who owned or leased a new Kia.  Those
with used cards would receive about half those amounts.  Upon
final approval of the settlement, all of the other cases in the
MDL proceeding would be dismissed.

During an eight-month period of "confirmatory" discovery after
the settlement, a set of plaintiffs commenced a separate class
action against Hyundai.  Gentry v. Hyundai Motor Am., in the
Western District of Virginia.  The Gentry plaintiffs claimed
relief under Virginia's consumer-protection, false advertising,
and vehicle warranty laws.  Notably, their false advertising
claims sought the greater of $1,000 or treble damages, which
would substantially exceed the value of the settlement as
described by the Espinosa plaintiffs.  The MDL panel transferred
the Gentry action to the Central District of California as a
"tag-along" case.

After confirmatory discovery closed, the settling plaintiffs
moved for preliminary approval of their nationwide settlement.
The Gentry plaintiffs, however, opposed certification of the
nationwide class and sought remand of their case to Virginia.
They argued that under the California's choice-of-law rules,
Virginia law applied to their claims, on grounds that there was a
Virginia choice-of-law clause in their vehicle-purchase
contracts, and Virginia had a strong governmental interest in
having Virginia law apply to the claims of Virginia citizens.

The district court disagreed and preliminarily certified the
nationwide settlement class.  The district court declined to
undertake a choice-of-law analysis, stating that this was
unnecessary because the case was not going to trial. The district
court regarded the substantive differences between state laws as
of lesser importance in a settlement and something that could be
addressed at the final approval hearing. After a period for
notice to the class and submission of claims, the district court
granted final approval of the settlement in June 2015. Hyundai,
2018 WL 505343, at *11.

After the district court granted final approval, objectors --
including plaintiffs in Gentry -- appealed, principally on
grounds that in certifying the nationwide settlement class, the
district court abused its discretion by failing to perform a
choice-of-law analysis or consider the variations in state
consumer-protection laws.  The Ninth Circuit observed -- and this
was undisputed by the parties -- that "the district court did not
conduct a choice of law analysis, and did not apply California
law or the law of any particular state in deciding to certify the
class for settlement." Id. at *12.  The Ninth Circuit then held
that this led to three legal errors, requiring certification to
be vacated and the case remanded to the district court for
further consideration of the certification question.

First, "[i]n failing to apply California choice of law rules, the
district court committed a legal error." Id.  This followed
directly from the Ninth Circuit's prior opinion in Mazza v. Am.
Honda Motor. Co., 666 F.3d 581 (9th Cir. 2012), which stated the
familiar principle that "[a] federal court sitting in diversity
must look to the forum state's choice of law rules to determine
the controlling substantive law." Hyundai, 2018 WL 505343, at *12
(quoting Zinser v. Accufix Research Inst., Inc., 253 F.3d 1180,
1187 (9th Cir. 2001)). Second, the Ninth Circuit ruled that the
district court erred "by failing to acknowledge, as it had in its
tentative ruling, that Hyundai and the Gentry plaintiffs
submitted evidence that the laws in various states were
materially different than those in California, and that these
variations prevented the court from applying only California
law." Id.  This led to the third error that the Ninth Circuit
identified, that the district court failed "to make a final
ruling as to whether the material variations in state law
defeated predominance under Rule 23(b)(3)."  Noting the Fifth
Circuit's opinion in Castano v. Am. Tobacco Co., 84 F.3d 734, 741
(5th Cir. 1996), that "variations in state law may swamp any
common issues and defeat predominance," the Ninth Circuit ruled
that the district court was required to "analyze whether 'the
consumer-protection law of the affected States vary in material
ways.'" Hyundai, 2018 WL 505343, at *12 (quoting Pilgrim v.
Universal Health Card, LLC, 660 F.3d 943, 947 (6th Cir. 2011)).

The Ninth Circuit made clear that settling does not dilute the
need to assess whether state-law variations will cause individual
questions to predominate before granting class certification.
"While the district court was correct that it need not consider
litigation management issues in determining whether to certify a
class, the Rule 23(b)(3) predominance inquiry focuses on whether
common questions outweigh individual questions, an issue that
preexists any settlement." Id. (citing Amchem Prods., Inc. v.
Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 623 (1997)). Notably, the Ninth Circuit
stated that unsatisfied class members' right to opt-out was
"irrelevant" to the certification question. Id.

Although the Ninth Circuit did not explain in detail why state-
law variations, which traditionally have acted as a barrier to
class certification because of difficulties in trial
manageability -- for example different evidence for different
state-law violations, and proliferation of jury instructions
tailored to each statute -- the court did provide some policy
reasons why "undiluted, even heightened, attention in the
settlement context," Amchem, 521 U.S. at 620, was needed where
individual state-law variations were present.  Noting that "the
district court made clear that it would be unlikely to certify
the same class for litigation purposes," the Ninth Circuit
observed that this opened the possibility that the nationwide
class settlement would sell the class members short: again
quoting the Supreme Court's opinion in Amchem, the court noted
that

the class representatives were well aware that they would be
unlikely to succeed in any efforts to certify a nationwide
litigation class.  Thus, by "permitting class designation despite
the impossibility of litigation, both class counsel and court
[were] disarmed."  Hyundai and Kia knew that there was little
risk that they would face a nationwide litigation class action if
they did not reach a settlement agreement.  Accordingly, "[c]lass
counsel confined to settlement negotiations could not use the
threat of litigation to press for a better offer, and the court
[faced] a bargain proffered for its approval without benefit of
adversarial investigation.

Hyundai, 2018 WL 505343, at *13 (quoting Amchem, 521 U.S. at
621).

Finally, the Ninth Circuit observed that a fairness hearing, as
would occur at proceedings on final approval, was "no substitute
for rigorous adherence to those provisions of [Rule 23] designed
to protect absentees." Id. (quoting Ortiz v. Fibreboard Corp.,
527 U.S. 815, 849 (1999)).  The Ninth Circuit accordingly vacated
the district court and remanded the case for further proceedings
on certification. In doing so, the court stated that "[w]e make
no ruling on this issue, and merely note that Mazza determined
that no such class was possible in a closely analogous case." Id.

The Ninth Circuit also reiterated important guidance about when a
district court may presume reliance on advertising or other
messaging when certifying a class.  The Hyundai class included
persons who owned or leased new as well as used cars. With regard
to new cars, the court appeared satisfied that reliance on the
defendants' mileage numbers could be presumed because new cars
all bore federally required mileage stickers on their windows,
even if the record did not show that the advertising campaigns
for the vehicles rose to the level of pervasiveness that would
permit an inference of uniform exposure under Mazza and the
California Supreme Court's opinion in In re Tobacco II Cases, 207
P.3d 29 (Cal. 2009). Hyundai, 2018 WL 505343, at *13. In
contrast, there was no requirement of mileage stickers for used
cars, leading the Ninth Circuit to conclude that the record
failed to support any inference of reliance based on uniform
exposure to false statements.  The Ninth Circuit accordingly
concluded that persons owning or leasing used cars should not
have been included in the class. Id.  Hyundai underscores the
importance that proponents of class certification based on
uniform representations point to actual representations that were
provided to all class members, such as the mileage stickers on
new cars, or an advertising campaign whose pervasiveness can
justify an inference of uniform exposure and reliance by the
class members.

Dissenting, Judge Nguyen strongly disagreed, stating that the
majority opinion "deprives thousands of consumers of any chance
to recover what is, conservatively speaking, a more than $159
million settlement."  As the dissent saw it, the majority
departed sharply from case law in the Ninth and other circuits,
by shifting "the burden of proving whether foreign law governs
class claims from the foreign law proponent -- here, the
objectors -- to the district court or class counsel.  This newly
invented standard significantly burdens our overloaded district
courts, creates a circuit split, and runs afoul of the doctrine
established long ago in Erie R.R. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 65
(1938)." Id. at *16. The dissent therefore regarded the majority
as improperly demanding that the plaintiffs, who proposed the
settlement (as well as the district court), unrealistically take
on the task of proving that state-law variations do not
predominate, when the party actually advocating that foreign law
applies, here the objectors, did not in her view demonstrate that
the variations do predominate. Id. at 17-18.  Whereas the
majority saw the issue requiring the plaintiff -- as advocate of
certification -- to establish that common questions of law
predominated despite the variations in the applicable state
substantive laws, the dissent would strictly relegate discussion
of those differences to the objectors, who failed to carry their
burden.

The majority opinion in Hyundai may significantly raise the bar
for certification of multistate class action settlements in the
Ninth Circuit.  By narrowing the range of manageability issues
that the district court, under Amchem, may disregard -- and by
specifically requiring that state-law variations must be
considered when deciding a motion to certify a settlement class -
- the Ninth Circuit has at least complicated, if not made
impossible, the possibility of certifying a nationwide consumer-
protection class action for settlement. [GN]


INFUSYSTEM HOLDINGS: Court Dismisses Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
InfuSystem Holdings, Inc. (NYSE American: INFU) ("InfuSystem" or
the "Company"), a national provider of infusion pumps and related
services for the healthcare industry in the United States, on
Jan. 31 disclosed it has received notice that on January 29, 2018
the United States District Court for the Central District of
California has issued an order dismissing, with prejudice, a
putative class-action lawsuit against the Company.

The dismissal relates to an action brought on November 8, 2016 by
a purported shareholder of the Company (Case No. 2:16-cv-08295-
ODW) against the Company and two individual defendants: Eric
Steen, the Company's former Chief Executive Officer, President
and Director; and Jonathan Foster, the Company's former Chief
Financial Officer.  The complaint asserted claims against all
defendants under the antifraud provisions of the federal
securities laws and against Messrs. Steen and Foster as control
persons.

On June 19, 2017, the Company and all defendants filed a Motion
to Dismiss the amended complaint. On December 15, 2017, the Court
dismissed the plaintiff's first amendment to the class action
compliant ("FAC"), with leave to amend.  On December 20, 2017,
the parties stipulated, and the Court extended, the plaintiff's
time to amend the FAC up to January 19, 2018.  As of January 19,
2018, the plaintiff never filed an amended complaint and the
Court dismissed the lawsuit with prejudice on January 29, 2018.

               About InfuSystem Holdings, Inc.

InfuSystem Holdings, Inc. is a provider of infusion pumps and
related services to hospitals, oncology practices and other
alternate site healthcare providers.  Headquartered in Madison
Heights, Michigan, the Company delivers local, field-based
customer support and also operates Centers of Excellence in
Michigan, Kansas, California, Texas, Georgia and Ontario, Canada.
The Company's stock is traded on the NYSE American under the
symbol INFU. [GN]


INTEREXCHANGE INC: Court Denies Bid to Exclude Kerr Testimony
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JOHANA PAOLA BELTRAN, LUSAPHO HLATSHANENI, BEAUDETTE
DEETLEFS, DAYANNA PAOLA CARDENAS CAICEDO, ALEXANDRA IVETTE
GONZALEZ, SARAH CAROLINA AZUELA RASCON, LAURA MEJIA JIMENEZ,
JULIANE HARNING, NICOLE MAPLEDORAM, and those similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. INTEREXCHANGE, INC, USAUPAIR, INC., GREAT AUPAIR,
LLC, EXPERT GROUP INTERNATIONAL INC., d/b/a Expert AuPair,
EURAUPAIR INTERCULTURAL CHILD CARE PROGRAMS, CULTURAL HOMSTAY
INTERNATIONAL, CULTURAL CARE, INC. d/b/a Cultural Care Au Pair,
AUPAIRCARE INC., AU PAIR INTERNATIONAL, INC., APF GLOBAL
EXCHANGE, NFP, d/b/a AuPair Foundation, AMERICAN INSTITUTE FOR
FOREIGN STUDY d/b/a Au Pair in America, AMERICAN CULTURAL
EXCHANGE, LLC, d/b/a GoAuPair, GOAUPAIR OPERATIONS, LLC, d/b/a
GoAuPair, AGENT AU PAIR, A.P.EX. AMERICAN PROFESSIONAL EXCHANGE,
LLC d/b/a/ ProAuPair, and 20/20 CARE EXCHANGE, INC. d/b/a The
International Au Pair Exchange, Defendants, Civil Action No. 14-
cv-03074-CMA-KMT (D. Colo.), Magistrate Judge of the Kathleen F.
Tafoya of the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado
denied the Defendants' Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony of
William Kerr Pursuant to F.R.E. 702.

A detailed and lengthy motion for Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 class
certification has been filed by the Plaintiffs.  The Defendants
vigorously oppose such certification.  In attempting to meet the
burden to show treatment as a class action is justified in the
case, the Plaintiffs presented two expert reports from William O.
Kerr, the Expert Report of William O. Kerr and the Rebuttal
Expert Report of William O. Kerr.

As it relates to Dr. Kerr's reports and expert testimony, the
District Court will be required to consider the common impact on
the members of the proposed class from the complained-of
activities.  The activity is allegedly conspiring to fix the
stipend paid to au pairs at an artificially and illegally low
$195.75 per week.  Dr. Kerr, an economist, presents two models
which address the harm (or damages) to the au pair class(es)
caused by the Defendants' alleged anti-competitive behavior.
Both models utilize the so-called "but-for" comparative analysis,
meaning that the expert looks to the economic circumstances that
would likely have transpired absent the wrongdoing by Defendants.

Dr. Kerr concludes that "but-for the actions of the defendants,
standard au pairs would have been paid at least the legally
required amount of weekly stipend.  Given this conclusion, he
presents the Court with a model for calculation of damages for
the proposed classes at the floor -- to wit: at least the legally
required amount of stipend pursuant to federal and state minimum
wage laws -- and another model applicable to the competitive
ceiling -- to wit: comparing the au pair class in this case
against benchmark groups of workers operating in the free market
of the United States, which includes within it, the market's
legislative restrictions such as minimum wage laws.

The Defendants assert Dr. Kerr's opinions should be disallowed
because he lacks any workable methodology for calculating damages
on a class-wide basis.  As a preliminary challenge, they claim
that a survey Dr. Kerr relied upon in determining that all the au
pair classes nearly uniformly received $195.75 per week as a
stipend did not comply with professional standards that govern
survey research.  Second, the Defendants claim Dr. Kerr's "Wage
and Hour Law Compliance Model" for computing damages for the
classes is a mere restatement of the Plaintiffs' legal position
concerning labor law violations and is therefore inapplicable to
an antitrust class.  Third, they claim Dr. Kerr's "Price
Competition Model" lacks a reliable basis for calculating damages
because the benchmark comparative groups chosen by Dr. Kerr are
flawed and the Price Competition Model does not live up to the
standards set by Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms. for the
admissibility of expert opinion testimony.  They therefore urge
that Dr. Kerr's reports and testimony should be stricken and not
considered for any purpose in the Court's determination regarding
Rule 23 class certification.

Magistrate Judge Tafoya finds that even if the survey and its
results were discounted entirely, Dr. Kerr's conclusion that all,
or a substantial majority of, au pairs were offered and paid a
weekly stipend of approximately $195.75 is amply supported by the
other overwhelming evidence he considered.  For class
certification purposes, Dr. Kerr's expert opinion that the record
demonstrates commonality with regard to the weekly stipend amount
is based on sufficient facts, data and testimony to render it
reliable.

The Magistrate Judge also finds that finds the Wage and Hour
Compliance model set forth by Dr. Kerr is appropriate under the
holding of Comcast Corp. v. Behrend and supports one theory of
antitrust injury derived from the Defendants' alleged antitrust
behavior.  She finds that Comcast does not bar a model of damage
calculation based on au pairs' entitlement to at least the
federal, state and local minimum wage laws, simply because a
similar method would be used to calculate damages for the labor
law claims involving the same classes of au pairs also brought in
the case.  The antitrust laws' underlying policy is to assure
that anticompetitive conduct does not go unpunished for mere
uncertainty in the amount of loss inflicted.

Finally, the Magistrate Judge finds that, in the case, Dr. Kerr's
Report and Rebuttal Report meet the criteria for consideration by
the District Court at this stage of the class certification
analysis and that striking them on an over-technical application
of Daubert is inappropriate at this time.

For these reasons, Magistrate Judge Tafoya denied the Defendant's
Motion.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 24, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/kNZUwk from Leagle.com.

Johana Paola Beltran, Lusapho Hlatshaneni, Beaudette Deetlefs &
Alexandra Ivette Gonzalez, and those similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, represented by Byron Pacheco -- bpacheco@bsfllp.com -
- Boies Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Dawn Smalls --
dsmalls@bsfllp.com -- Boies Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Joshua James
Libling -- jlibling@bsfllp.com -- Boies Schiller & Flexner, LLP,
Juan Pablo Valdivieso -- jvaldivieso@bsfllp.com -- Boies Schiller
& Flexner, LLP, Lauren Fleischer Louis -- llouis@bsfllp.com --
Boies Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Matthew Lane Schwartz --
mlschwartz@BSFLLP.com -- Boies Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Peter
Murray Skinner -- pskinner@bsfllp.com -- Boies Schiller &
Flexner, LLP, Randall Wade Jackson -- rjackson@bsfllp.com --
Boies Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Sabria Alexandria McElroy --
smcelroy@bsfllp.com -- Boies Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Sean
Phillips Rodriguez -- srodriguez@bsfllp.com -- Boies Schiller &
Flexner, LLP, Sigrid Stone McCawley -- smccawley@bsfllp.com --
Boies Schiller & Flexner, LLP & Alexander Neville Hood, Towards
Justice.

Juliane Harning, Nicole Mapledoram, and those similarly situated,
Laura Mejia Jimenez & Sarah Carolina Azuela Rascon, Plaintiffs,
represented by Byron Pacheco, Boies Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Dawn
Smalls, Boies Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Joshua James Libling,
Boies Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Juan Pablo Valdivieso, Boies
Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Matthew Lane Schwartz, Boies Schiller &
Flexner, LLP, Peter Murray Skinner, Boies Schiller & Flexner,
LLP, Sean Phillips Rodriguez, Boies Schiller & Flexner, LLP &
Alexander Neville Hood, Towards Justice.

InterExchange, Inc., Defendant, represented by Brooke A. Colaizzi
-- bcolaizzi@shermanhoward.com -- Sherman & Howard, L.L.C.,
Raymond Myles Deeny -- rdeeny@shermanhoward.com -- Sherman &
Howard, L.L.C., Alyssa Lauren Levy -- alevy@shermanhoward.com --
Sherman & Howard, L.L.C., Heather Fox Vickles --
hvickles@shermanhoward.com -- Sherman & Howard, L.L.C. & Joseph
H. Hunt -- jhunt@shermanhoward.com -- Sherman & Howard, L.L.C.

USAuPair, INC, Defendant, represented by Chanda Marie Feldkamp --
cfeldkamp@kellywalkerlaw.com -- Kelly & Walker, LLC & William
James Kelly, III -- wkelly@kellywalkerlaw.com -- Kelly & Walker,
LLC.

GreatAuPair, LLC, Defendant, represented by Martin Jose Estevao -
- mestevao@armstrongteasdale.com -- Armstrong Teasdale, LLP,
Meshach Yustine Rhoades -- mrhoades@armstrongtea -- Armstrong
Teasdale, LLP & Vance Orlando Knapp , Armstrong Teasdale, LLP.

Expert Group International, Inc, doing business as Expert AuPair,
Defendant, represented by Bogdan Enica, Bogdan Enica, Attorney at
Law.

EuRaupair InterCultural Child Care Programs, Defendant,
represented by David Meschke -- dmeschke@bhfs.com -- Brownstein
Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP & Martha Louise Fitzgerald --
mfitzgerald@bhfs.com -- Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP.

Cultural Homestay International, Defendant, represented by Adam
A. Hubbard -- aahubbard@hollandhart.com -- Holland & Hart, LLP,
James Edward Hartley -- jhartley@hollandhart.com -- Holland &
Hart, LLP & Jonathan S. Bender -- jsbender@hollandhart.com --
Holland & Hart, LLP.

Cultural Care, Inc., doing business as Cultural Care Au Pair,
Defendant, represented by Diane Rebecca Hazel-- dhazel@lrrc.com -
- Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP, James Michael Lyons --
jlyons@lrrc.com -- Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP, Jessica
Lynn Fuller -- jfuller@lrrc.com -- Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie
LLP, Joan A. Lukey -- joan.lukey@choate.com -- Choate, Hall &
Stewart, LLP, Justin J. Wolosz -- jwolosz@choate.com -- Choate,
Hall & Stewart, LLP, Kevin Patrick O'Keefe -- kokeefe@choate.com
-- Choate Hall & Stewart, LLP, Lyndsey Marie Kruzer --
lkruzer@choate.com -- Choate, Hall & Stewart, LLP, Michael T.
Gass -- mgass@choate.com -- Choate, Hall & Stewart, LLP, Robert
M. Buchanan, Jr. -- rbuchanan@choate.com -- Choate, Hall &
Stewart, LLP & Samuel Newland Rudman -- srudman@choate.com --
Choate Hall & Stewart, LLP.

AuPairCare, Inc., Defendant, represented by Jennifer Arnett
Roehrich -- jarnett-roehrich@grsm.com -- Gordon & Rees LLP,
Nathan Andrew Huey -- nhuey@grsm.com -- Gordon & Rees LLP, Peggy
E. Kozal -- pkozal@grsm.com -- Gordon & Rees LLP & Thomas Baker
Quinn -- tquinn@grsm.com -- Gordon & Rees, LLP.

APF Global Exchange, NFP, doing business as Aupair Foundation,
Defendant, represented by Susan M. Schaecher --
sschaecher@fisherphillips.com -- Fisher & Phillips, LLP.


JACOBS ENGINEERING: Court Dismisses "Kritch" Suit
-------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Michael Wilner of the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California dismissed without prejudice
the case, JAMES KRITCH, as an individual, on behalf of himself,
all others similarly situated, and the general public, Plaintiff,
v. JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC., an Delaware corporation, and
DOES 1-100, inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-05666-MRW
(C.D. Cal.).

Having reviewed the Parties' Joint Stipulation to Dismiss Class
Action Case Without Prejudice Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure 23(e), and good cause appearing, the Magistrate Judge
granted the Parties' Joint Stipulation.  He directed that the
Parties will be responsible for their own attorneys fees and
costs expended in the action and neither will recover their
attorneys fees and costs from the other.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 23, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/0k9H0K from Leagle.com.

James Kritch, as an individual on behalf of himself, all others
similarly situated, and the general public, Plaintiff,
represented by Jessica Sun Choi -- jchoi@akgllp.com -- Alexander
Krakow and Glick LLP, Michael S. Morrison -- mmorrison@akgllp.com
-- Alexander Krakow and Glick LLP & Michael Ross Parker --
michael@mrparkerlaw.com -- M.R. Parker Law PC.

Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc., a Delaware corporation,
Defendant, represented by Betsy Johnson --
betsy.johnson@ogletreedeakins.com -- Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak
and Stewart PC, Ted Allan Gehring -- ted.gehring@ogletree.com --
Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak and Stewart PC & Thomas B. Song --
thomas.song@ogletreedeakins.com -- Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak
and Stewart PC.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Robbins Geller to Lead in Remicade Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: REMICADE ANTITRUST LITIGATION, Civil Action
No. 17-CV-4326 (E.D. Pa.), Judge J. Curtis Joyner of the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (i)
granted the Plaintiffs National Employees Health Plan ("NEHP")
and Plaintiff Local 295 IBT Employer Group Welfare Fund ("Local
295")'s Motion to Appoint Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP as
Interim Class Counsel and Jayne A. Goldstein of Shepherd,
Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLP as Interim Liaison Counsel; and
(ii) denied the remaining Applications.

Multiple Plaintiffs appear before the Court asserting claims as
direct-purchasers against Janssen and its parent, Johnson &
Johnson.  Each of these Plaintiffs have asserted individual
claims on behalf of themselves and class action claims on behalf
of those similarly situated.  The Plaintiffs contend that the
Defendants have violated state and federal antitrust laws by
undertaking anticompetitive conduct with regard to their
pharmaceutical medication, Remicade.

The Court has since consolidated these class action lawsuits into
the single action.  It then provided the Plaintiffs' counsel the
opportunity to organize and seek the appointment as the interim
class counsel.

Before the Court are (i) NEHP's and Local 295's Motion to Appoint
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP as Interim Class Counsel and
Jayne A. Goldstein of Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLP as
Interim Liaison Counsel; (ii) Plaintiff UFCW Local 1500 Welfare
Fund's Application to Appoint Gregory S. Asciolla of Labatton
Sucharow LLP to Plaintiffs' Steering Committee ("PSC"); (iii)
Plaintiff City of Providence, Rhode Island's Application to
Appoint Whitney E. Street of Block & Leviton LLP to Plaintiffs'
Steering Committee; (iv) Plaintiff Twin Cities Pipe Trades
Welfare Fund's Application to Appoint Heidi M. Silton of
Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P. to Plaintiffs' Steering
Committee and Dianne Nast of NastLaw LLC as Interim Liaison
Counsel; and the parties' responses thereto.

Judge Joyner holds that the applications demonstrate, to the
Court's satisfaction, that Robbins Geller and the members of the
proposed PSC are adequate to serve as interim counsel under the
factors set forth in Rule 23(g)(1).  Both groups of attorneys
have worked diligently in identifying and investigating potential
claims. B oth groups have significant experience in handling
complex antitrust class action litigation. Both groups appear to
have a strong grasp on the applicable law.  Lastly, he says both
groups appear to have more than adequate resources at their
disposal to represent the proposed class.

Because there are two competing applications, both of which he
finds adequate under the factors listed in Rule 23(g)(1), the
Judge holds that at this point in the litigation, he believes the
proposed class is best served under a single-firm structure
advanced by NEHP and Local 295.  The PSC applicants are correct
that a multi-firm structure may, at times, promote effective
representation of the class's interests.  However, this is not
such a case.  With attorneys from three firms working on behalf
of the proposed class, the PSC naturally runs a greater risk of
increased costs, difficulties in managing the litigation, and
efficiently delegating tasks.

The PSC has not demonstrated how the possible benefits derived
from a multi-firm structure outweigh these inherent risks.  The
Judge will therefore not burden the proposed class with the
litigation-by-committee approach.  Accordingly, he finds in favor
of NEHP and Local 295's proposal and approve Robbins Geller as
the interim class counsel, and Jayne A. Goldstein of Shepherd,
Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLP as the Interim Liaison Counsel.

For these reasons, Judge Joyner granted Plaintiffs NEHP and Local
295's Motion, and denied the remaining Applications.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 23, 2018 Memorandum is
available at https://is.gd/Gwxf8g from Leagle.com.

NATIONAL EMPLOYEES HEALTH PLAN, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff, represented by JAYNE A.
GOLDSTEIN -- jgoldstein@sfmslaw.com -- SHEPHERD FINKELMAN MILLER
& SHAH LLP, ALEXANDRA S. BERNAY -- xanb@rgrdlaw.com -- ROBBINS
GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP, BRIAN O. O'MARA -- bomara@rgrdlaw.com -
- ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP, CARMEN A. MEDICI --
cmedici@rgrdlaw.com -- ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP, DAVID W.
MITCHELL -- davidm@rgrdlaw.com -- ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD
LLP, DEBORAH R. GROSS -- dgross@kcr-law.com -- KAUFMAN, COREN &
RESS, PC, PATRICK J. COUGHLIN -- patc@rgrdlaw.com -- ROBBINS
GELLER RUDMAN DOWD LLP, RANDI D. BANDMAN , ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN
& DOWD LLP & NATALIE FINKELMAN BENNETT -- nfinkelman@sfmslaw.com
-- SHEPHERD FINKELMAN MILLER & SHAH LLC.

JOHNSON & JOHNSON & JANSSEN BIOTECH, INC., Defendants,
represented by LESLIE E. JOHN -- john@ballardspahr.com -- BALLARD
SPAHR ANDREWS & INGERSOLL LLP, ADEEL A. MANGI -- aamangi@pbwt.com
-- PATTERSON BELKNAP WEBB & TYLER LLP, JAMISON DAVIES --
jmdavies@pbwt.com -- PATTERSON BELKNAP WEBB & TYLER LLP, JONATHAN
H. HATCH -- jhatch@pbwt.com -- PATTERSON BELKNAP WEBB & TYLER
LLP, MATTHEW VAHEY -- vaheym@ballardspahr.com -- BALLARD SPAHR,
SARA A. ARROW -- sarrow@pbwt.com -- PATTERSON BELKNAP WEBB &
TYLER LLP & WILLIAM F. CAVANAUGH, Jr. -- wfcavanaugh@pbwt.com --
PATTERSON, BELKNAP, WEBB AND TYLER.

THE CITY OF PROVIDENCE, RHODE ISLAND, Movant, represented by
WHITNEY E. STREET -- whitney@blockesq.com -- BLOCK & LEVITON LLP.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Perth Mum Joins CA After Years of Pain
---------------------------------------------------------
Emma Young, writing for WA Today, reports that a Perth woman has
described the "12.5 years of hell" she went through as a mesh
implant intended to treat mild incontinence slowly eroded her
bladder.

Katrina Strange shared her story in a bid to urge other affected
women to add their voices to a class action launched by Shine
Lawyers, alleging Johnson & Johnson failed to properly test mesh
devices and played down their risk to both surgeons and patients.

Australia's medical regulator recently banned vaginal mesh, used
to treat prolapse and stress urinary incontinence, after finding
the risks posed to patients by the devices outweighed any
benefits.

Perth mother of two Katrina Strange got her device implanted in
2005 after suffering from mild stress urinary incontinence.

"The gyno said, 'oh we can do this, easy as -- everything will be
fine," she said.

She had little idea that she was about to embark on a journey of
suffering that would last more than a decade. It would abort her
career, absent her from her boys' teen years, place enormous
stress on her marriage and ruin the family finances.

Two days after the operation, her catheter came out and she was
supposed to be able to urinate, she said. But she was unable to,
and when the pain grew intolerable she sought medical help. An
ultrasound showed her bladder was full and she was catheterised
for a further two weeks.

She was not given any reason. She assumed she was too bruised and
swollen internally to urinate.

When the catheter was removed she was left with an "overactive"
bladder that left her frequently and urgently needing to urinate.

Within a year she visited the doctor with sore hips. Normally an
active 32-year-old who spent plenty of time bushwalking with her
husband, she found herself too sore and tired to move much. An X-
ray found nothing wrong with her bones.

She kept up her job working in a government department, taking
painkillers, getting physiotherapy to try to relieve her muscle
aches and spending days off in bed in an attempt to recover
enough for the next shift. She had to give up the outdoor
activities she loved.

After two years a doctor told her she had fibromyalgia. She had
the feeling this diagnosis was a label used to mask bafflement at
her symptoms.

"It was a terrible way to live. I thought I was dying. I wrote
out a will and thought, I don't care -- I've had enough," she
said.

She couldn't keep up her job as a public servant. She got a part-
time job as a housekeeper in an effort to help make ends meet.

"I couldn't sit, my husband had to buy me a special cushion. I
was spending so much of my life lying down," she said.

"Sometimes I had to get Mum to take the boys to school because I
couldn't get out of bed. I had to buy them frozen meals. By age
11 and 12 they were cleaning, vacuuming for me, doing their own
washing.

"I had to quit the housekeeping job after a year and a half and
did some housecleaning here and there ... but it got harder for
me to travel distances or go out."

Her husband, a mine worker, took on more and more work in an
effort to keep the family afloat.

"He has been so supportive. But his mental health has suffered a
lot," Mrs Strange said.

"We couldn't plan our future. I couldn't travel. Even standing
was hard."

By 2013 tests showed adrenal failure. Her body was no longer
making enough cortisol, associated with complex processes
including waking up, energy levels and exercise as well as stress
responses.

By early 2017 there were two weeks in which she struggled to
walk. Her sons were now grown; one had his own daughter. But Mrs
Strange was unable to lift up her granddaughter for a cuddle.

In May, her husband saw television coverage of women from across
Australia emerging to tell their stories as a Senate inquiry
gathered evidence into problems vaginal mesh implants, also used
to treat prolapse.

Then they came across a local newspaper story about a neighbour
suffering the same symptoms.

She saw there was a support group, so she got online and began to
read the women's stories.

"They all sounded so familiar," she said.

That September, Mrs Strange found out about a surgeon in Sydney
with experience removing her particular brand of mesh, which was
considered the easiest to remove, she said.

She went home and gave evidence to the Senate Inquiry hearings in
Perth.

In December she had the mesh surgically removed.

"It was considered the easiest type to remove," she said. "It
still took 4 hours of surgery. "They found the thing had grown on
to my pubic bone and eroded my bladder.

"I woke up the same day with minimal bruising, and only mild
period-type pain. I felt fantastic. I felt so much lighter."

It is now eight weeks on. Mrs Strange said her bladder was
functioning normally. Her pain was gone.

"I have so much energy it is ridiculous," she said. I have been
back on the paddleboard. I am so grateful every day to have a
life now, a future I couldn't see before."

She urged other women who had had gynaecological surgery and any
ensuing problems to find out exactly what products had been used
in their surgery and to "stand up and be counted".

"They need more people to show this is not a small thing, it's a
lot of women and it's disrupting lives," she said.

More than 700 Australian women have joined in the product
liability class action against Johnson & Johnson.

More than 100,000 American women who were implanted with J&J
devices have started legal action in the US, with proceedings
also commencing in the UK and Canada, according to Shine Lawyers.

"A lot of women may not realise they have these inside them.
Doctors call them all different things," Mrs Strange said.

"Mine called it a "hammock". I was only young, a bit naive, when
I look back ... we tend to trust our surgeons. But you must be
proactive in your own health and ask questions. Get a copy of
your notes and see exactly what you had done.

"This has been 12 and a half years of hell, with doctors looking
at me like I was depressed, or I was looking for drugs, of my
family looking at me and wondering if I was a hypochondriac."

Now 44-years-old, Mrs Strange is looking forward to taking a more
active role in the lives of her sons, now 21 and 22.

"I was so down on myself before. I thought I was lazy and lacked
self-discipline because everything was too hard," she said.

"Now I have all this energy; I can't stop doing things. I now
know I was beating myself up for something that wasn't my fault.
I feel so sad for all these women who are still suffering and in
pain."

Mrs Strange had to wind up the interview to go to her Pilates
class.

If you believe you have been impacted by a Johnson & Johnson
vaginal mesh implant, there is still time to join the action.
[GN]


LEXISNEXIS RISK: Dismissal of First Advantage's Suit Affirmed
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, FIRST ADVANTAGE LNS, INC., ET AL., Plaintiffs-
Appellants, v. LexisNEXIS RISK SOLUTIONS, INC., Defendant-
Respondent, Case No. 653812/15, 5509, 5508 (N.Y. App. Div.), the
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First
Department, affirmed the dismissal of the amended complaint.

Judge Kathryn E. Freed of the New York County Supreme Court
entered Judgment on Feb. 17, 2017, which, among other things,
dismissed the amended complaint, unanimously affirmed, without
costs.  An appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered
Feb. 2, 2017, which granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss the
amended complaint, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as
subsumed in the appeal from the judgment.

The Court holds that the Supreme Court correctly dismissed the
Plaintiffs' indemnification claims for the cases Freckleton and
Baker, as neither is within the Defendant's indemnification
obligations under the Purchase Agreement.  Neither case is among
the specific matters set forth below in Schedule 9.1(j) of the
agreement.  Nor were the Freckleton and Baker cases resulting
from, attributable to, based upon or arising out of Goode and
Goodman v LexisNexis Risk & Information Analytics Group, Inc.
(the G & G Action), one of the matters set forth below  on
Schedule 9.1(j).  The Freckleton and Baker suits could have been
brought even had the G & G Action never been commenced, and they
result from, and are based on, defendant's alleged conduct, not
the G & G Action.

The Plaintiffs' construction of 9.1(j)(i) renders 9.1(j)(ii)
redundant.  The Court rejects the Plaintiffs' efforts to fit
Baker, which postdated the limitations period of 9.1(j)(ii), into
9.1(j)(i).  A contrary holding would impermissibly strip that
provision of all force and effect.

The Court also rejects the Plaintiffs' efforts to fit Freckleton
into Schedule 9.1(j)(ii), as they disregard or contort that
subsection's caveat that to the extent such matters below are
claims by a Governmental Entity or private class-action.  To fit
within (j)(ii), Freckleton's claims needed to be the same or
similar to the class-action claims asserted in the G & G Action,
which they are not.

Finally, the Court disagrees that Freckleton and the G & G class
claims are substantially similar because both concern Fair Credit
Reporting Act violations in the context of the Esteem database.
Were this general category the intended scope of indemnification,
the parties, sophisticated corporate entities on both sides,
could have so indicated.  However, the specific language of
Schedule 9.1(j) shows that they did not, and the Court should not
read the agreement to imply what they chose not to include.

The Court have considered the Plaintiffs' remaining arguments and
finds them unavailing.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 23, 2018 Decision and Order
is available at https://is.gd/Nh2pmm from Leagle.com.

Mayer Brown LLP, New York (Evan M. Tager -- etager@mayerbrown.com
-- and Daniel F. Fisher -- daniel.fisher@mayerbrown.com -- of
counsel), for appellants.

Morrison & Foerster LLP, New York (Joseph R. Palmore --
jpalmore@mofo.com -- of counsel), for respondent.


LG ELECTRONICS: Settles Class Action Over Phone Bootloop Problems
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Alex Wagner, writing for phonedog, reports that some LG devices
have had a nasty history of bootloops, so much so that LG ended
up facing a class action lawsuit about it.  Now it looks like a
settlement has been reached.

Law firm Girard Gibbs has set up a website dedicated to the
settlement of a class action lawsuit against LG about the
bootloop problems that affected many of its phones.  According to
the website, which was up earlier on Jan. 31 before disappearing,
members of the class action lawsuit could get either $425 in cash
or a $700 rebate toward a new LG phone.

The class action lawsuit focused on the LG G4, LG G5, LG V10, LG
V20, and Nexus 5X for their bootloop issues.

The website included a proof of claim for those who took part in
the class action lawsuit to fill out. That form must be filled
out by February 12, 2018.

Having your phone reboot over and over and over again is
frustrating, as most people have a lot of personal data on their
phone and rely on it to stay connected to what's happening in the
world.  It's good to see that customers affected by LG's bootloop
issues will be compensated for dealing with the problem. [GN]


LIFE TIME: "Lenardson" Suit Seeks to Recoup Minimum, OT Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jack Lenardson and Todd Ortowski, Individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Life Time Fitness, Inc.
(MN), Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-00293 (N.D. Ga., January 19,
2018), seeks declaratory relief, liquidated and actual damages
for failure to pay federally mandated minimum and overtime wages
to Plaintiffs in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act of
1938.

Plaintiffs worked at Life Time Fitness in Johns Creek, Georgia as
Personal Trainers within the past three years and were
compensated using a commission-based system based on sales or
services provided to Life Time members. Life Time allegedly did
not keep accurate records of Plaintiffs' regular hourly rate,
overtime rate of pay, hours worked each workday or workweek, all
deductions made from their gross wages, and the settlement
periods used to allocate the commissions over pre-determined
periods of time. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Paul J. Sharman, Esq.
      THE SHARMAN LAW FIRM LLC
      11175 Cicero Drive, Suite 100
      Alpharetta, GA 30022
      Phone: (678) 242-5297
      Fax: (678) 802-2129
      Email: paul@sharman-law.com


LINCOLN NATIONAL: 6th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of ERISA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Deborah L. Cook of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth
Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of the case,
OLIVER HUSTON BARBER, III, on behalf of himself and two classes
of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LINCOLN
NATIONAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 17-
5588 (6th Cir.).

Barber worked as a litigator at Stites & Harbison, PLLC.  The
firm's long-term disability insurance policy with Lincoln offers
both Total and Partial Disability benefits.  Under the policy,
beneficiaries may qualify for disability benefits when they
cannot perform one or more of the Main Duties of his or her
Specialty in the Practice of Law on a full-time basis.  If a
beneficiary engages in Partial Disability Employment -- in other
words, an employee continues working at his or her Own Occupation
or any other occupation under reduced hours, duties, or pay --
then Partial Disability benefits apply.  But if a disabled
beneficiary stops working altogether, then he may be entitled to
Total Disability benefits.

After being diagnosed with Parkinson's disease, Barber applied
for Total Disability benefits and Lincoln approved his
application.  When Lincoln later asked whether he had any other
sources of income, Barber reported that he was working as an
independent contractor for a political campaign.  Lincoln
thereafter began reducing his monthly benefits to reflect those
consulting earnings.  After Lincoln denied his requests to stop
offsetting his benefits, Barber initiated the purported class
action.

Barber sued Lincoln under the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act of 1974 ("ERISA") for (1) offsetting from his disability
benefits his earnings as a political consultant and (2)
calculating those offsets using figures he disclosed to Lincoln
rather than the numbers he later reported for federal income tax
purposes.  The district court dismissed the first count for
failure to state a claim and the second for failure to exhaust
administrative remedies.  Barber now appeals the district court's
dismissal of his complaint.

Judge Cook finds that although the parties dispute whether
Barber's benefits should be calculated under the policy's Total
or Partial Disability benefits section, Barber's appeal turns on
whether his consulting earnings qualify as "Other Income
Benefits," which the policy incorporates into both sections.  Per
the policy, the Total Disability benefit equals the Insured
Employee's Basic Monthly Earnings multiplied by the Benefit
Percentage minus Other Income Benefits.  And the Partial
Disability benefit comprises the lesser of either the Insured
Employee's Predisability Income, minus all Other Income Benefits
(including earnings from Partial Disability Employment), or the
Insured Employee's Predisability Income multiplied by the Benefit
Percentage (limited to the Maximum Monthly Benefit); minus Other
Income Benefits, except for earnings from Partial Disability
Employment.

The Judge says even evaluating Barber's claim under the Total
Disability formula as he alleges it should be calculated, Barber
fails to plausibly state a claim because the policy allows
Lincoln to consider his earnings as Other Income Benefits under
either section.  Given the policy's clear language, the Judge
cannot overlook language in the Other Income Benefits section
that he deems contrary to the policy's purpose.

The Judge also finds that because no ERISA provision requires
Lincoln to use tax documentation in offsetting benefits, any such
duty could only come from the policy itself.  As Barber alleges a
claim based on the policy, he must either administratively
exhaust his claims or plead futility.  He does neither.  Although
Barber exhausted his administrative remedies for his denial of
benefits claim related to Count I, he concedes that his counts
"do not overlap."  Lincoln also underscores that before the
lawsuit Barber never challenged Lincoln's decision to offset his
earnings on a monthly basis using self-reported figures.  Because
Barber failed to administratively exhaust his remedies or plead
futility for Count II, the district court correctly dismissed
that count.

Accordingly, Judge Cook affirmed the district court's dismissal.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 23, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/0ZfsOs from Leagle.com.


LOOMIS ARMORED: "Hawkins" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages
----------------------------------------------------
Tony Hawkins, Paul Nigh, Shondell Ollison and Charlie Grice III,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v.
Loomis Armored US, LLC, Case No. 18-cv-00047, (E.D. Ark., January
19, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime, liquidated damages,
attorneys' fees and expenses, and any other relief under the
federal Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

Hawkins worked for Loomis as an armored vehicle driver and guard
from approximately December 2015 until October 2016. During the
past three years, Hawkins has worked more than 40 hours in one or
more workweeks, and he was not paid overtime compensation for all
his overtime hours. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     John Hollerman, Esq.
     Timothy Steadman, Esq.
     Jerry Garner, Esq.
     HOLLEMAN & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
     1008 West Second Street
     Little Rock, AR 72201
     Tel: 501.975.5040
     Fax: 501.975.5043
     Email: jholleman@johnholleman.net
            tim@johnholleman.net
            jerry@johnholleman.net


MARK GOBER: Faces "Darrough" Suit in E.D. of Arkansas
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mark Gober. The
case is styled as Paul Darrough, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Mark Gober, individually
and in his Official Capacity and John Does 1-10, Defendants, Case
No. 4:18-cv-00113-JLH (E.D. Ark., February 7, 2018).[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Luther Oneal Sutter, Esq.
   Sutter& Gillham, PLLC
   Post Office Box 2012
   Benton, AR 72018
   Tel: (501) 315-1910
   Fax: (501) 315-1916
   Email: luthersutter.law@gmail.com


MARYLAND: Taxpayers to Appeal Class Action Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------
Anamika Roy, writing for The Daily Record, reports that an
attorney representing a class of Maryland taxpayers who sued in
the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court striking down the state's
"piggyback tax" said his clients plan to appeal a Baltimore
judge's dismissal of the $38 million lawsuit. [GN]


MDL 2804: Trade Group Responds to Opioid Crisis Lawsuits
--------------------------------------------------------
Mitchell Kirk, writing for Pharos-Tribune Logansport, reports
that prescription opioid distributors are being wrongfully
charged in lawsuits being filed across the state casting blame
for the nation's opioid epidemic, according to a trade group
representing three of the defendants.

Healthcare Distribution Alliance represents AmerisourceBergen,
Cardinal Health and McKesson, three of the defendants in a class-
action lawsuit accusing opioid manufacturers and distributors of
dramatically increasing the use of prescription opioid pain
medications through deceptive marketing.

Logansport officials are considering joining other governments
across the state in the litigation.

John Parker, senior vice president of Healthcare Distribution
Alliance, responded to the litigation in a statement.

"The misuse and abuse of prescription opioids is a complex public
health challenge that requires a collaborative and systemic
response that engages all stakeholders," Mr. Parker said.  "Given
our role, the idea that distributors are responsible for the
number of opioid prescriptions written defies common sense and
lacks understanding of how the pharmaceutical supply chain
actually works and is regulated.  Those bringing lawsuits would
be better served addressing the root causes, rather than trying
to redirect blame through litigation."

The statement goes on to describe distributors as logistics
experts "tasked with the primary responsibility of delivering all
medicines to licensed pharmacies and healthcare providers."

"Distributors do not manufacture, prescribe, dispense or in any
way, drive demand," the statement continues.  "Further,
distributors cannot make medical determinations about patient
care or provider prescribing."

The statement also indicates that the Drug Enforcement
Administration "is responsible for setting the annual production
of controlled substances in the market, approving and regulating
the entities allowed to prescribe and handle opioids and sharing
data with entities in the supply chain regarding potential cases
of diversion."

Distributors report all opioid orders to the DEA whether
suspicious or not, the statement continues.

"Greater communication and coordination with the DEA will help
support real-time response against abuse and diversion where it
occurs," according to the statement. [GN]


MDL 2804: Wapello County Opts Out of Opioid Crisis Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Newman, writing for Ottumwa Courier, reports that questions
about the wisdom -- and ethics -- of filing a lawsuit against big
pharmaceutical companies were enough to keep the county out of a
class-action lawsuit.

Wapello County is part of a regional committee discussing action
to reduce the dangers of opioids -- prescription painkillers
found to be addictive.  The supervisors said they find value in
that conversation. But they had to decide whether they wanted to
pile onto the civil suit.

In this state, counties belong to ISAC, Iowa's State Organization
of Counties.

"ISAC would like us on board because the more litigants, the more
powerful the suit will be," Supervisor Jerry Parker had said
during a discussion.

But he and fellow supervisors Brian Morgan and Greg Kenning said
on Jan. 30 they let the deadline to join the suit come and go.
There were too many questions.

County Sheriff Mark Miller said it's not unusual for area
resident to go "doctor shopping" until they get a cooperative
physician to provide what they want.  And there were a large
number of people reporting their medicine stolen; they'd ask for
a police report saying their Vicodin was gone.  Then, they'd go
to the nurse and get their meds "refilled."

Mr. Kenning, whose son is a physician, got some basics on the
subject.

Information about the dangers of opioid use could help prevent
future addiction, said Mr. Parker.

Last time the subject came up, the Courier asked why the county
would hesitate to get in on the suit.  Especially if there was
funding to be found.

"It's the principle," said Mr. Parker. "Are we blaming the drug
companies unfairly?"

Mr. Kenning spoke to doctors and administrators to learn more, he
said.

"This isn't like the tobacco settlement," said Mr. Kenning.  "In
that, we had a product that is not needed, it is not good for
you.  There are times patients need an opioid pain reliever."

"It was the state of medicine at the time," is what he learned,
he said.  "If the patient was experiencing any pain, you weren't
doing your job as a medical entity."

While Wapello County won't get anything in this particular
settlement, if nearby counties bring in a few thousand dollars,
the three said, they're not going to feel bad. [GN]


MEDTRONIC INC: Judge Allows Class-Action Suit to Proceed
--------------------------------------------------------
Joe Carlson and Jim Spencer, writing for the Star Tribune,
reports that a federal judge in Minnesota has granted a group of
investors permission to pursue a class-action lawsuit against
Medtronic over allegations that the med-tech company inflated its
stock value by secretly paying doctors millions of dollars to
conceal adverse events associated with its bone-growth product
Infuse.

The last time a federal judge in Minnesota granted class-action
status to an Infuse-related shareholder lawsuit, Medtronic and
the plaintiffs quickly moved into settlement talks in 2012 that
resulted in Medtronic agreeing to pay $85 million to the
investors to resolve that litigation.

On February 1 a Medtronic spokesman noted the ruling in the
latest case, West Virginia Pipe Trades Health and Welfare Fund
vs. Medtronic, limits the scope of the lawsuit, and the company
continues to believe the litigants' claims are without merit. "We
intend to pursue a vigorous defense in this matter and will
continue efforts to obtain a complete dismissal of the case,"
Medtronic spokesman Eric Epperson said in an e-mailed statement.

University of Minnesota Law School Prof. Brett McDonnell said the
judge's decision to certify class-action status in a securities-
law case like this one was an important step for the plaintiffs.
"If you don't get a class certification, you're done," McDonnell
said, "because it is not financially feasible to sue
individually."

In his 31-page ruling Jan. 30, U.S. District Chief Judge John
Tunheim ruled that the West Virginia Pipe Trades class-action
suit is limited to shareholders who bought stock between Sept. 8,
2010, and June 28, 2011. About 6.5 million shares of Medtronic
stock were traded daily during that period, and nearly 1,200
major institutions owned Medtronic stock in that time.

The only plaintiffs in the suit today are the West Virginia Pipe
Trades Health and Welfare Fund, the state of Hawaii's retirement
system and a German investment group called Union Asset
Management Holding AG. Mitchell Hamline School of Law professor
emeritus Dan Kleinberger said Thursday that the order to expand
the pool of potential plaintiffs could fundamentally change the
legal calculus behind a potential settlement.

Class certification paves the way for a discovery process in
which Medtronic might have to reveal internal company records on
its handling of Infuse to legal adversaries, and eventually to
the public, which company executives might want to avoid.

"Even in situations where allegations are not as juicy as they
are here," Kleinberger said, the prospects for disclosing company
documents can be "fraught with bad publicity" and "are sometimes
enough to induce reasonable corporate decisionmakers to start
thinking about settling."

Medtronic is working to finalize settlements with about 6,000
Infuse patients in unrelated lawsuits and claims, following a
December agreement to pay $12 million to five states to end their
investigations into the controversial biotech product. The
company has admitted no wrongdoing or liability in those cases.

Infuse is a complex product with a complicated legal history. The
active ingredient is a genetically engineered biologic drug
called recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2, or rhBMP-
2, which only Medtronic has approval to sell in the U.S.

The Food and Drug Administration in 2002 approved sales of Infuse
to treat lower back pain by using the chemical to spur bone
growth to fuse vertebrae in the lower spine, but only from
specific surgical approaches in combination with other devices.
Using Infuse for spinal-fusion surgery is supposed to eliminate
the pain and expense of having a secondary surgery to harvest
living bone-graft material from the patient's own hip.

In recent years, independent researchers have concluded that
Infuse carries such serious potential side effects and higher
costs that it's difficult to find a clear rationale to use it in
spinal fusion. "Earlier disclosure of all relevant data would
have better informed clinicians and the public than the initial
published trial reports did," a team of researchers in Oregon
concluded in a report in the Annals of Internal Medicine in 2013.

Infuse was a key part of Medtronic's spine division, which
reported $3.5 billion in revenue in 2008, 2009 and 2010. The West
Virginia Pipe Trades plaintiffs say that safety risks discovered,
but not reported, in the early clinical trials would have
"threatened" Infuse sales goals if they were publicized.

The West Virginia Pipe Trades litigation centers on allegations
that Medtronic paid physicians millions of dollars to conceal
adverse events and side effects associated with Infuse use in
early studies.

Specifically, they say Medtronic-affiliated doctors published
research reports in medical journals that concealed Infuse
adverse effects while overstating the disadvantages of
traditional bone-graft procedures. The lawsuit accuses Medtronic
employees of secretly editing those articles, while also
concealing $210 million in company payments to the authors.

Medtronic argued in court filings that at least some of those
payments were disclosed in the fine print of the early journal
articles, which noted certain authors had received Medtronic
payments "in excess of $10,000."

In his 31-page ruling Jan. 30, Tunheim wrote that describing
millions of dollars in payments as simply being "more than
$10,000" may be factual, but effectively omits conflict-of-
interest information that could have tipped off doctors and
investors.

After the Spine Journal revealed in June 2011 that past Infuse
study authors had omitted adverse events while accepting millions
in payments, stock analysts said the revelation diminished the
value of the studies, and in some people's eyes, completely
invalidated them.

"In the mind of the reasonable investor, payments totaling $210
million are something quite different than several payments 'in
excess of $10,000,'" Tunheim wrote.

Medtronic maintains that payments to physician-authors were for
legitimate purposes, including royalties on patents. "Physician-
inventors, whose groundbreaking medical devices improve patients'
lives, are entitled to compensation for their intellectual
property. Medtronic does not compensate physicians for the use or
endorsement of our products, and disagrees with any suggestion to
the contrary," the company's statement February 1 said. [GN]


MO'S FISHERMAN: Bid to Consolidate FLSA Suits Denied
----------------------------------------------------
Judge Ellen Lipton Hollander of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Maryland denies the motion to consolidate the cases
captioned ERICK RIVERA et al., Plaintiffs, v. MO'S FISHERMAN
EXCHANGE, INC. et al., Defendants. CLEMENTE GALVEZ et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. MO'S FISHERMAN EXCHANGE, INC et al., Defendants,
Civil Action Nos. ELH-15-1427, ELH-17-2901 (D. Md.).

The Rivera Plaintiffs filed a collective action on May 19, 2015,
against Mo's, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA") and other employment statutes.  The Rivera Complaint has
since been amended twice.

On Jan. 15, 2016, the Rivera Plaintiffs filed a Motion for
Conditional Certification and to Facilitate Notice Under the
FLSA.  In their motion, they proposed a 90-day opt-in period for
other Plaintiffs to join the collective action.  The Defendants
opposed the motion, arguing, inter alia, that a 60-day opt-in
period, rather than a 90-day opt-in period, was appropriate.  In
Judge Hollander's Memorandum Opinion and Orderof June 23, 2016,
she granted, in part, the motion for conditional certification
and approved the 90-day opt-in period.

The Rivera Plaintiffs and the Defendants agree that the 90-date
opt-in period for the collective action expired in November 2016,
although they appear to disagree as to whether it expired on Nov.
2, 2016, or on Nov. 5, 2016.  The Rivera Plaintiffs never moved
to extend the opt-in deadline, although at least one Plaintiff
joined the lawsuit after the deadline had passed, without an
objection from the defense.  The Discovery in Rivera was
completed on Aug. 30, 2017.

On Sept. 29, 2017, Clemente Galvez, Salvador Lopez, Juan Lopez,
and Carlos Melgar filed a separate class action against the same
Defendants, alleging roughly the same violations of the same
statutes as the Rivera Plaintiffs.  On the same day, the Galvez
Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Consolidate Cases, which was
mirrored by a motion filed by the Rivera Plaintiffs in their
case.  The two motions to consolidate are supported by memoranda
of law.

The Plaintiffs in both cases assert that consolidation is proper
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a) because the cases involve common
questions of law and fact, the risk of inconsistent adjudications
of common issues is high, and the risk of prejudice and possible
confusion is low.  Further, they contend that consolidation
furthers the FLSA's remedial purpose.  They do not dispute that
the opt-in deadline has passed.

The Defendants oppose the Motion on the grounds that it is
premature, and that the Motion is an unfair attempt to circumvent
the opt-in deadline set by the Court.  They do not deny that
there are common questions of law and fact in the two cases.

Judge Hollander finds that the Plaintiffs insist that the risk of
prejudice or confusion is non-existent, because the Galvez
Plaintiffs will submit answers to the Defendants' interrogatories
and will seek only that written discovery pertaining to their
individual claims that was previously requested by the Rivera
Plaintiffs.  However, the Judge says, discovery in the Rivera
action has already closed, and a motion for partial summary
judgment is currently pending.  Adding more the Plaintiffs to the
Rivera action, even for limited discovery, would necessitate the
revision of the Court's scheduling order.  Such a modification
requires a showing of good cause.  The Galvez Plaintiffs have
offered no good cause why they could not have timely opted into
the Rivera action.

Accordingly, Judge Hollander declined to permit the Galvez
Plaintiffs to join the Rivera action.  The request was made more
than 10 months after the opt-in deadline and a month after the
close of discovery.  She recognized, however, that judicial
economy may counsel in favor of the consolidation of the two
actions at a later time.  Therefore, the Judge denied deny the
Motion, without prejudice.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 23, 2018 Memorandum is
available at https://is.gd/SLq80h from Leagle.com.

Clemente Galvez, Salvador Lopez & Juan Lopez, Plaintiffs,
represented by Andrew David Freeman -- adf@browngold.com -- Brown
Goldstein and Levy LLP, Brooke E. Lierman --
BLierman@browngold.com -- Brown Goldstein Levy, Jessica Paulie
Weber -- jweber@browngold.com -- Brown Goldstein and Levy LLP,
Monisha Cherayil, Public Justice Center & Sally Jean Dworak
Fisher, Public Justice Center Inc.

Carlos Melgar, On behalf themselves and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew David Freeman, Brown
Goldstein and Levy LLP, Brooke E. Lierman, Brown Goldstein Levy,
Jessica Paulie Weber, Brown Goldstein and Levy LLP, Monisha
Cherayil, Public Justice Center & Sally Jean Dworak Fisher,
Public Justice Center Inc.

Mo's Fisherman Exchange, Inc., doing business as Mo's Towson
doing business as Mo's, Mo's Pulaski Highway Corp., doing
business as Mo's White Marsh doing business as Mo's Seafood
Restaurant doing business as Mo's, Mo's Crab and Pasta Factory,
Inc., doing business as Mo's Crab & Pasta doing business as Mo's
Little Italy, Mo's Fisherman's Ritchie Highway, Inc., doing
business as Mo's Seafood Factory, Mo's Belair Seafood, Inc.,
doing business as Mo's Fisherman's Wharf doing business as Mo's
Inner Harbor, Mo's Eastern Avenue, Inc., doing business as Mo's
Seafood Factory Neighborhood Bar & Grill doing business as Mo's
Neighborhood Bar & Grill, Fisherman's Wharf Inner Harbor, Inc.,
doing business as Mo's Fisherman's Wharf doing business as Mo's
Inner Harbor & Mohammed S. Manocheh, also known as Mohammad S.
Manocheh doing business as Mo's Seafood Restaurant doing business
as Mo's Fisherman's Wharf doing business as Mo's doing business
as Mo's Inner Harbor doing business as Mo's Towson doing business
as Mo's White Marsh doing business as Mo's Seafood Factory doing
business as Mo's Crab and Pasta Factory doing business as Mo's
Neighborhood Bar and Grill, Defendants, represented by Andrew
Marc Dansicker -- ADANSICKER@DANSICKERLAW.COM -- Dansicker Law
Firm.


MONTRES BREGUET: Faces "Thorne" Suit in S.D. of New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Montres Breguet
S.A. The case is styled as Braulio Thorne, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Montres Breguet
S.A. d/b/a Breguet, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-01108 (S.D. N.Y.,
February 7, 2018).

Montres Breguet S.A. designs and manufactures watches and
jewelry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Daniel Chaim Cohen, Esq.
   Daniel Cohen PLLC
   407 Rockaway Avenue, 3rd Floor
   Brooklyn, NY 11212
   Tel: (646) 645-8482
   Email: dancohenlaw@gmail.com


MORGAN STANLEY: Sued for Racial Bias a Decade After CA Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Dolmetsch, writing for Bloomberg, reports that a former
Morgan Stanley wealth manager sued the bank saying he was
terminated following a "campaign of harassment," even after the
settlement a decade ago of a class-action discrimination lawsuit.

The suit was filed in federal court in New York by John Lockette,
an African-American man from New Jersey who worked at Morgan
Stanley as an assistant vice president in its wealth management
division in 2013 until he was fired in August 2016. Lockette says
the reforms obtained by the settlements of class-action suits
have "utterly failed" and that the company's discriminatory
policies and practices continue.

"Morgan Stanley has no genuine intent to reform, to provide equal
opportunities to African-Americans, or to abide by the spirit of
its agreement" to settle the racial discrimination claims,
Lockette says in his suit.

Spokeswoman Christy Jockle said "Morgan Stanley denies the
allegations in the complaint. The firm is strongly committed to
nondiscrimination, and looks forward to addressing this former
employee's claims on the merits."

The bank agreed in 2007 to pay $16 million to settle claims that
branch managers steered new and existing accounts to white male
brokers, depriving black and Latino financial advisers in its
global wealth management group the opportunity to earn
commissions and promotions. [GN]


NAVIENT SOLUTIONS: Misleading Students About Loan Forgiveness
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jackie Callaway, writing for ABC Action News, reports that former
FSU teacher and national weather service meteorologist Bill
Cottrill says he asked the right questions. Cottrill was 6 years
into his student loan payments when he called Navient, then
Sallie Mae, about the loan forgiveness program.

According to a class-action lawsuit filed in federal court,
Cottrill made 120 payments, about $130,000 worth, on time - moves
that should have freed him from the remainder of his balance. But
instead of loan forgiveness after 10 years he was told he had the
wrong type of loan.

Tampa student loan attorney Christie Arkovich, Esq. --
Christie@christiearkovich.com -- filed the suit. She accuses
Navient of misleading Cottrill and others about the
qualifications for debt forgiveness.

For Cottrill it means delaying retirement another decade. We
asked Navient to respond to the allegations in the suit, but they
refused to comment on pending litigations.

The suit says Navient failed to advise Cottrill and thousands of
others to convert their loan into what's known as a direct loan
in order to qualify for forgiveness.

The forgiveness program just turned 10 years old. Many of those
affected won't find out about their loss until they've paid a
decade and stayed in a certain job in order to qualify.

ABC Action News reached out to Navient who said they can't
comment on either of the two pending cases or the specific
consumer accounts. However, they did release the following
statement:

"At Navient we are on the front lines of repayment every day, so
we know how complex the federal loan program can be. That is why
we have made a series of recommendations to policymakers to
simplify the program. In this case, Public Service Loan
Forgiveness was created by Congress solely for Federal Direct
Loans.  A borrower's loan type is stated in the loan contract and
on other multiple documents, and our representatives take care to
explain Public Service Loan Forgiveness eligibility to interested
borrowers and refer customers to complete an Employment
Certification Form annually to ensure they are eligible." [GN]


NORTH STAR: Peoplease Dismissed as Defendant in FLSA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
In the case, WILLIAM STEVE VALENCIA, an individual, and LUIS
FERNANDEZ SOTO, an individual, on behalf of themselves and on
behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. NORTH STAR
GAS LTD. CO., a California corporation; PEOPLEASE LLC, a South
Carolina Corporation, Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-00250-GPC-JMA
(S.D. Cal.), Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel of the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of California granted the Defendant's
motion to dismiss Defendant Peoplease.

On Feb. 8, 2017, Valencia and Soto filed a putative hybrid class
action in federal court against the Defendants.  On June 27,
2017, the Court granted Peoplease's motion to dismiss for failure
to state a claim, but granted the Plaintiffs leave to amend.  The
Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Complaint ("FAC") on May 30,
2017.

The Plaintiffs bring a putative collective action for violation
of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), a putative class action
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 ("Rule 23") for
violations of California state law, and a representative action
under the Private Attorney General Act.  They allege that North
Star owns, operates, or otherwise manages a natural gas company
responsible for distribution and supply of propane.

In their FAC, the Plaintiffs have expanded their discussion of
Peoplease's role.  Peoplease served as the Plaintiffs' co-
employer.  Peoplease advised the Plaintiffs that they served as
thelaintiffs' "co-employer" and had responsibility for paying
their wages, administering some benefit programs, and working
with site supervisors to administer all human resources
functions.  Peoplease offers human resource offerings, which
include tasks such as recruiting, hiring, negotiating and setting
pay rates, setting schedules and hours, and training.

The Plaintiffs allege that Peoplease controlled substantial
aspects of their rate and method of pay.  In particular,
Peoplease dictated whether the Plaintiffs received overtime on
their piece rate earnings and did much more than just the
ministerial task of handing out payroll.  Finally, the Plaintiffs
asserted that Peoplease is the co-employer responsible for all
human resources functions and as a leading provider of
administrative solutions and services for the transportation and
logistics industry sets and negotiates rates of pay.

The Plaintiffs bring the instant action on behalf of themselves
and on behalf of current and former non-exempt employees who
transported propane along certain routes for the Defendants.
They assert nine claims for relief based on the Defendants' (1)
failure to pay wages due under the FLSA, (2) failure to pay
overtime due under state law, (3) failure to pay regular wages
under state law, (4) failure to pay meal period premium pay under
state law, (5) failure to pay rest break premium pay under state
law, (6) failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements
under state law, (7) failure to timely pay wages under state law;
(8) violation of the UCL; and (9) enforcement of the Private
Attorney General Act ("PAGA").

Peoplease filed the instant motion on June 27, 2017 under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).  It asserts that it is not in
an employment relationship with the Plaintiffs and thus cannot be
held liable for violations of the Labor Code or the FLSA.  The
Plaintiffs responded on Aug. 4, 2017 and Peoplease replied on
Jan. 12, 2018.

Judge Curiel finds that the Plaintiffs have not adequately
alleged facts showing that Peoplease had the power or authority
to negotiate and set their rates of pay, beyond the mere
responsibility to provide Plaintiffs with payment.  Their
allegations do not satisfy the first definition of employment
articulated in Martinez v. Combs.  Absent factual allegations
tending to show such power or authority, the Plaintiffs'
Complaint does not yield a reasonable inference that Peoplease
exercised control over the Plaintiffs' wages.  Accordingly, the
Plaintiffs have not adequately pled that Peoplease qualifies as
an "employer" under California law.

The Judge also finds that the Plaintiffs' allegations continue to
fail to give rise to a plausible inference that they were their
joint employers under the FLSA.  The Plaintiffs did not plead
that Peoplease had the power to hire and fire them.  They do not
allege that Peoplease supervised their work schedules.  Finally,
the Judge says the Plaintiffs' have not adequately alleged that
Peoplease determined the pay rate of the Plaintiffs or other
similarly situated Plaintiffs.  The totality of the circumstances
do not suggest that Peoplease was a joint employer of the
Plaintiffs in economic reality.

Finally, as amendments could cure the deficiencies in the
pleading, Judge Curiel will allow the Plaintiffs a final
opportunity to amend their complaint.  The Plaintiffs should take
care to plead facts that indicate an inference that Peoplease had
the power and authority to control the wages of the Plaintiffs
and other similarly situated Plaintiffs in the case.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Curiel granted the Defendant's
motion to dismiss.  The Plaintiffs may amend their Complaint
within 14 days of entry of the Order.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 23, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/RLJZ9A from Leagle.com.

William Steve Valencia, an individual on behalf of themselves and
on behalf of others similarly situated & Luis Fernandez Soto, an
individual on behalf of themselves and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Alex M. Tomasevic
-- atomasevic@nicholaslaw.org -- Nicholas and Tomasevic LLP,
Craig McKenzie Nicholas -- cnicholas@nicholaslaw.org -- Nicholas
and Tomasevic & Shaun A. Markley -- smarkley@nicholaslaw.org --
Nicholas & Tomasevic LLP.

North Star Gas LTD. Co., a California corporation, Defendant,
represented by Marie Burke Kenny -- marie.kenny@procopio.com --
Procopio Cory Hargreaves & Savitch LLP.


NORTHEAST TEXAS HOME: "Easley" Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alesha R. Easley, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Northeast Texas Home Health, Ltd. (d/b/a At
Home Health), Case No. 18-cv-00019 (E.D. Tex., January 22, 2018)
seeks to recover overtime wages, improper deductions from
Plaintiff's salary, liquidated damages, all available equitable
relief, attorney fees, and litigation expenses/costs, including
expert witness fees and expenses for violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Defendant operates as At Home Health, with locations in
Henderson, Tyler, Sulphur Springs and Canton, Texas. Easley
worked as a home health nurse in Canton, TX. She worked between
60 and 70 hours per week without overtime wages. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      William S. Hommel, Jr.
      HOMMEL LAW FIRM
      1404 Rice Road, Suite 200
      Tyler, TX 75703
      Tel: (903) 596-7100
      Fax: (469) 533-1618
      Email: info@hommelfirm.com


NORTON HEALTHCARE: Plan Members Allege Fund Mismanagement
---------------------------------------------------------
Donna Disselkamp and Erica Hunter, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Norton Healthcare,
Inc., Richard S. Wolf, G. Hunt Rounsavall, Stephen A. Williams,
Donald H. Robinson, The Norton Healthcare Retirement Plan
Investment Committee and Jane and/or John Does 1-25 Defendants,
Case No. 18-cv-00048, (W.D. Ky., January 22, 2018), seeks
damages, equitable or remedial relief, attorneys' fees and
expenses and any other relief for breach of fiduciary duty and
for violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of
1974.

The Norton Healthcare 403(b) Plan is a defined contribution,
individual account, employee pension benefit plan for employees
of Norton Healthcare and any direct or indirect subsidiary of the
company that has been offered the Plan.

Plaintiffs allege that the fiduciaries to the Plan failed to
monitor the available share classes and to select the lowest
share class of the funds for inclusion in the plan menu over a
three-year period prior to 2015, costing plan participants
$339,984.65 unnecessary charges. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     John S. Friend, Esq.
     Robert W. Bishop, Esq.
     Tyler Z. Korus, Esq.
     BISHOP KORUS FRIEND, PSC
     6520 Glenridge Park Place, Suite 6
     Louisville, KY 40222
     Tel: (502) 425-2600
     Email: firm@bishoplegal.net

            - and -

     Frank H. Tomlinson, Esq.
     TOMLINSON LAW, LLC
     2100 First Avenue North, Suite 600
     Birmingham, AL 35203
     Tel: (205) 326-6626
     Email: hilton@tomlawllc.com

            - and -

     James H. White, IV, Esq.
     JAMES WHITE FIRM, LLC
     2100 First Avenue North, Suite 600
     Birmingham, AL 35203
     Tel: (205) 383-1812
     Email: james@whitefirmllc.com

            - and -

     Brice M. Johnston, Esq.
     JOHNSTON LAW FIRM, P.C.
     2100 First Avenue North, Suite 600
     Birmingham, AL 35203
     Tel: (205) 328-9445 Ext. 600
     Email: brice@johnstonfirmpc.com


OCEAN SPRAY: Seeks 1st Circuit Review of Ruling in "Winters" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Ocean Spray Cranberries, Inc., filed an appeal from a
court ruling in the lawsuit titled Winters, et al. v. Ocean Spray
Cranberries, Inc., Case No. 1:12-cv-12016-RWZ, in the U.S.
District Court for the District Court of Massachusetts.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the District
Court issued a Memorandum of Decision granting in part and
denying in part Parties' Motion for Summary Judgment in the case.

Ocean Spray moves for summary judgment on Counts I and II.  A
number of plaintiffs move for partial summary judgment on Count
I.

In this action, some 50 plaintiffs allege that Ocean Spray
Cranberries, Inc., an agricultural cooperative, has unlawfully
manipulated the price of cranberry juice concentrate and
discriminated against B Pool members of the cooperative.

In their Fourth Amended Complaint, plaintiffs bring three claims:
(1) that Ocean Spray engaged in unfair and deceptive acts in
violation of Massachusetts General Laws chapter 93A, Section 11,
thereby injuring the independent growers (Count I); (2) that
Ocean Spray engaged in a pattern of anti-competitive conduct in
violation of section 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 2,
thereby injuring both B pool and independent growers (Count II);
and (3) that Ocean Spray retaliated against certain plaintiffs in
violation of Massachusetts General Laws chapter 93A, Section 11
(Count III).

The appellate case is captioned as Winters, et al. v. Ocean Spray
Cranberries, Inc., Case No. 18-8001, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the First Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Respondents JOHN DOE GROWERS 1-7, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated as a class, and JOHN
DOE B POOL GROWER 1, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated as a class, are represented by:

          Frederick J. Carleton, Esq.
          Shala McKenzie Kudlac, Esq.
          CARLETON LAW OFFICES
          PO Box 38
          Bandon, OR 97411
          Telephone: (541) 347-2468
          E-mail: bandoncarllaw.fjc@gmail.com
                  kudlac.cran@gmail.com

               - and -

          Paul S. Hassett, Esq.
          Daniel S. Lenz, Esq.
          James A. Olson, Esq.
          LAWTON & CATES, S.C.
          345 W Washington Ave., Suite 201
          PO Box 2965
          Madison, WI 53701
          Telephone: (608) 282-6200
          Facsimile: (608) 282-6252
          E-mail: shassett@lawtoncates.com
                  dlenz@lawtoncates.com
                  jolson@lawtoncates.com

               - and -

          Manuel C. Hernandez, Esq.
          Javier D. Spyker, Esq.
          HERNANDEZ AND ASSOCIATES, LLC
          PO Box 979
          Bandon, OR 97411
          Telephone: (541) 347-2911
          Facsimile: (365) 365-3656
          E-mail: lawtalk@visitbandon.com

               - and -

          Norman H. Jackman, Esq.
          JACKMAN & ROTH, LLP
          26 W Village of Loon Mountain
          PO Box 635
          Lincoln, NH 03251
          Telephone: (603) 745-5071
          E-mail: njackman@post.harvard.edu

Plaintiffs-Respondents BARRY K. WINTERS, d/b/a BKW Farms; BKW
FARMS; RICK JACKSON; JACKSON FARMS, INC.; JAMES M. SCHAER; JULIE
A. SCHAER; SCOTT VIERCK; FRED P. BUSSMAN; JOHN L. MEYER; JOHN L.
MEYER CRANBERRIES, INC.; CHRISTOPHER M. BUSSMAN; DEANNA M.
BUSSMAN; DELMER C. ROBISON; PAUL D. SOGN, d/b/a Wintersogn Farm
LLC; RACHELLE D. SOGN, d/b/a Wintersogn Farm LLC; WINTERSOGN FARM
LLC, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated as
a class; STACY PRESTON WINTERS; MICHAEL A. WEBB; CHARLES V.
GOLDSWORTHY, d/b/a Thunderlake-Tomahawk Cranberries, Inc.;
TIMOTHY R. GOLDSWORTHY, d/b/a Thunderlake-Tomahawk Cranberries,
Inc.; and H.E. QUERREY, INC., on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated as a class, are represented by:

          Paul S. Hassett, Esq.
          Daniel S. Lenz, Esq.
          James A. Olson, Esq.
          LAWTON & CATES, S.C.
          345 W Washington Ave., Suite 201
          PO Box 2965
          Madison, WI 53701
          Telephone: (608) 282-6200
          Facsimile: (608) 282-6252
          E-mail: shassett@lawtoncates.com
                  dlenz@lawtoncates.com
                  jolson@lawtoncates.com

               - and -

          Norman H. Jackman, Esq.
          JACKMAN & ROTH, LLP
          26 W Village of Loon Mountain
          PO Box 635
          Lincoln, NH 03251
          Telephone: (603) 745-5071
          E-mail: njackman@post.harvard.edu

               - and -

          Javier D. Spyker, Esq.
          HERNANDEZ AND ASSOCIATES, LLC
          PO Box 979
          Bandon, OR 97411
          Telephone: (541) 347-2911
          Facsimile: (365) 365-3656

Plaintiff-Respondent BKW FARMS is represented by:

          Larry J. Saylor, Esq.
          MILLER, CANFIELD, PADDOCK & STONE, PLC
          150 W. Jefferson, Suite 2500
          Detroit, MI 48226-0000
          Telephone: (313) 496-7986
          E-mail: saylor@millercanfield.com

               - and -

          Kimberly L. Scott, Esq.
          MILLER, CANFIELD, PADDOCK & STONE, PLC
          101 N. Main St.
          Ann Arbor, MI 48104
          Telephone: (734) 668-7696
          E-mail: scott@millercanfield.com

Plaintiffs-Respondents GRETCHEN WEINER, RICHARD E. HALIBURTON,
RANDY FARR, WINTER CREST FARM, MCKENZIE CRANBERRIES, ELK RIVER
FARMS, RICHARD E. HALIBURTON REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST, CANNON,
INC., ROBERT MCKENZIE, III, HIGH 5 ACRES, INC., HIGH 5 FARM, LLC,
EARL LANG, MERRI LANG, LAUREL CREEK ACRES, LLC, NELSON FAMILY
FARM, LLC, DAVID HUGHES, VIRGINIA HUGHES, WILLIAM STODDARD, LINDA
STODDARD, GLEN FLORA BOGS, OREGON CRANBERRY SUPPLY, RANDALL P.
MANICKE, MANICKE FARMS ENTERPRISES, ALDER LAKE CRANBERRY CORP.,
RICHARD D. INDERMUEHLE, ALLEN'S CRANBERRY, LLC, CURT ALLEN,
THERESA ALLEN-HUBKA, BIRES CRANBERRY, LLC, JAMES BIRES, BOSSHARD
BOGS, LLP, WILLIAM BOSSHARD, BRANDY CREEK CRANBERRY, BRIAN
PEDERSON, CALLAWAY CRANBERRY, DAVID CALLAWAY, BARBARA CALLAWAY,
FIFIELD CRANBERRIES, LLC, JOHN SERAMUR, HUNGRY RUN CRANBERRY,
LLC, KEVIN GRIFFIN, SUE GRIFFIN, HIGHLANDER CRANBERRIES, LLC,
DAVID BREHM, INDIAN HILLS CRANBERRIES, LLC, RICHARD OKRAY, J & J
CRANBERRIES, INC., JOHN SAGER, JERRY'S BERRIES, GERALD
FUERSTENBERG, K & S CRANBERRIES, KRANCO, INC., PAUL KONOPACKY,
LONE OAK CRANBERRY, MICHAEL STUMP, NADEN CRANBERRY COMPANY, INC.,
SCOTT NADEN, NECEDAH CRANBERRY, INC., JEFF BENTZ, PEARDOT BROS.
CRANBERRIES, BRUCE PEARDOT, PERGANDE CRANBERRY MARSH, INC., MARK
PERGANDE, R.E.D. CRANBERRY MARSH, INC., EDWARD ALLEN, LISA
KELLEY, EUGENE SCHWEMMER, SHERRY BERRY, LLC, RICHARD BECKER,
SNIDER MARSH, JEFF SNIDER, TIMBERLINE CRANBERRIES, LTD., ALBERT
OATES, RICHARD TESKE, KAREN TESKE, TROUT RIVER CRANBERRY CO.,
BRAINFRANK NOMINEE TRUST and EDWARD M. KOPLOVSKY are represented
by:

          James A. Olson, Esq.
          LAWTON & CATES, S.C.
          345 W Washington Ave., Suite 201
          PO Box 2965
          Madison, WI 53701
          Telephone: (608) 282-6200
          Facsimile: (608) 282-6252
          E-mail: jolson@lawtoncates.com

Defendant-Petitioner OCEAN SPRAY CRANBERRIES, INC., an
agricultural cooperative, is represented by:

          Jessica N. Boluda, Esq.
          Lawrence E. Buterman, Esq.
          Jennifer L. Giordano, Esq.
          William J. Rinner
          Marguerite M. Sullivan
          Margaret M. Zwisler
          LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
          555 11th St., NW, Suite 1000
          Washington, DC 20004-1304
          Telephone: (202) 637-2200
          E-mail: Ejessica.bratten@lw.com
                  lawrence.buterman@lw.com
                  jennifer.giordano@lw.com
                  william.rinner@lw.com
                  marguerite.sullivan@lw.com
                  margaret.zwisler@lw.com

               - and -

          Elyse M. Greenwald, Esq.
          LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
          200 Clarendon St., 27th Floor
          Boston, MA 02106
          Telephone: (617) 948-6000
          E-mail: elyse.greenwald@lw.com

               - and -

          Alfred C. Pfeiffer, Esq.
          LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
          505 Montgomery St., Suite 1900
          San Francisco, CA 94111-2562
          Telephone: (415) 395-8898
          E-mail: Eal.pfeiffer@lw.com

Interested Parties CLIFFSTAR LLC, d/b/a Registered Agent
Solutions, Inc., and COTT BEVERAGES, LLC, d/b/a Registered Agent
Solutions, Inc., are represented by:

          David Lawrence Ferrera, Esq.
          Katy O. Meszaros, Esq.
          NUTTER MCCLENNEN & FISH LLP
          155 Seaport Blvd
          Boston, MA 02210-2604
          Telephone: (617) 439-2000
          E-mail: dferrera@nutter.com

               - and -

          Dorothy Alicia Hickok, Esq.
          DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP
          1 Logan Sq., Suite 2000
          Philadelphia, PA 19103-6996
          Telephone: (215) 988-2700
          E-mail: alicia.hickok@dbr.com

               - and -

          John J. Powers, Esq.
          DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP
          50 Fremont St., 20th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 591-7500
          E-mail: john.powers@dbr.com

               - and -

          Norman H. Jackman, Esq.
          JACKMAN & ROTH, LLP
          26 W Village of Loon Mountain
          PO Box 635
          Lincoln, NH 03251
          Telephone: (603) 745-5071
          E-mail: njackman@post.harvard.edu


OSTEOMED LP: Court Narrows Claims in "Sclar" Suit
-------------------------------------------------
Judge Federico A. Moreno of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida, Miami Division, granted in part and
denied in part the Defendant's motion to dismiss the case,
ANTHONY G. SCLAR, DMD, and SCLAR ORAL, SURGERY, P.A. Plaintiffs,
v. OSTEOMED, L.P., Defendant, Case No. 17-23247-CIV-MORENO (S.D.
Fla.).

The purported class action case arises out of the use of an
allegedly defective drill known as the Osteopower System, a
rotary bone cutting drill manufactured by OsteoMed, Plaintiffs
Sclar, DMD, an oral surgeon of nearly 26 years, and Sclar Oral
allege that the drill em its dangerous levels of noise that
result in permanent hearing loss to the user.

The Amended Complaint states that the Plaintiffs purchased the
drill from the Defendant, but does not allege a date of purchase.
Instead, they allege that Dr. Sclar was diagnosed with hearing
loss in August 2016, which is when the Plaintiffs first learned
the product was not as represented.

Importantly, the Amended Complaint makes clear that this is not a
personal injury case and the Plaintiffs do not seek damages for
any personal injuries suffered.  Rather, they seek dam ages for
economic harm suffered as a result of purchasing the allegedly
defective drill.

The purported class members include all Florida individuals or
entities that purchased the drill from Aug. 28, 2013 to the
present.  The Amended Complaint includes three counts.  Count I
is for a violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade
Practices Act.  Count II is a breach of express warranty claim
under Florida law.  Count III is a claim for common law assumpsit
(unjust enrichment).

The Defendants move to dismiss with three principal arguments.
First, the breach of express warranty claim (Count II) fails
because the Plaintiffs failed to comply with the pre-suit notice
requirement under Florida law.  Second, the Florida Deceptive and
Unfair Trade Practices Act claim (Count I) is barred: (a) by the
four-year statute of limitation; (b) because the Plaintiffs fail
to identify a deceptive or unfair practice that could not have
reasonably been avoided; and because it does not meet Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b)'s heightened pleading standard.
Third, the claim for common law assumpsit fails because it seeks
recovery for the same conduct as the breach of express warranty
claim.

Judge Moreno finds that the Plaintiffs' ninth inning attempt to
recast Dr. Sclar as a warranty beneficiary is untimely.  Thus,
because the Amended Complaint does not allege that the Plaintiffs
complied with Florida's pre-suit notice requirement, they have
failed to state a claim for breach of express warranty and Count
II will be dismissed without prejudice.

The Judge also finds that the Amended Complaint does not allege a
date on which the drill was purchased.  Accordingly, because the
he cannot ascertain such date, he will grant the Defendant's
Motion to Dismiss, but provides the Plaintiffs with leave to
amend.

Lastly, the Judge dismissed the Plaintiffs' breach of express
warranty claim for failure to comply with pre-suit notice as
required by Florida law.  Thus, viewing the well-pleaded
allegations in the light most favorable to the Plaintiffs, he
will deny the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Count III.

For the reasons he stated, Judge Moreno that granted in part and
denied in part the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss.  The Motion is
granted as to Count I and Count I is dismissed without prejudice
with leave to file a Second Amended Complaint no later than Jan.
31, 2018.  The Plaintiffs will add solely two allegations to
their Second Amended Complaint: (1) which Plaintiff purchased the
drill and (2) the specific date the drill was purchased.  It is
granted as to II and Count II is dismissed without prejudice for
failure to comply with the pre-suit notice requirement under
Florida law.  The Motion is denied as to Count III.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 24, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/n6RTGL from Leagle.com.

DMD Anthony G Sclar, individually, and on behalf of all those
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Barbara Perez --
bp@aronovitzlaw.com -- Aronovitz Law, Bruce W. Steckler --
bruce@stecklerlaw.com -- Steckler Gresham Cochran, PLLC, pro hac
vice, L. Kirstine Rogers -- krogers@stecklerlaw.com -- Steckler
Gresham Cochran, PLLC, pro hac vice, Tod N. Aronovitz --
ta@aronovitzlaw.com -- Aronovitz Law & Robert Baldwin Brown, III.

Sclar Oral Surgery, P.A., formerly known as Holmes & Sclar, PA
d/b/a South Florida Oms, Plaintiff, represented by Tod N.
Aronovitz, Aronovitz Law.

OsteoMed, L.P., Defendant, represented by Jonathan B. Skidmore --
jon.skidmore@nortonrosefulbright.com -- Norton Rose Fulbright US
LLP, pro hac vice, Jordan Scott Cohen -- jcohen@wickersmith.com -
- Wicker Smith Tutan O'Hara McCoy Graham & Ford, Michael A.
Swartzendruber -- michael.swartzendruber@nortonrosefulbright.com
-- Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP, pro hac vice & Michael Gene
Polatsek -- mpolatsek@wickersmith.com -- Wicker, Smith, O'Hara,
McCoy, Ford, P.A.


PARKER SCHOOL: "Johnson" Suit Alleges WARN Violation
----------------------------------------------------
Antonio Johnson and Demetrias Black, on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated v. Parker School Uniforms, LLC, Case
No. 4:18-cv-00105 (S.D. Tex., January 12, 2018), seek damages
under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act for
failure to provide advance notice of a mass layoff.

The Plaintiffs are residents of Texas and were employees of
Parker School Uniforms, LLC.

Defendant Parker School Uniforms, LLC, operated approximately 36
stores in Texas, Alabama, California, Georgia, Kansas, Kentucky,
Mississippi, Oklahoma and Tennessee. Parker School Uniforms, LLC
abruptly closed its Houston Headquarters and all locations around
the country on January 3, 2017. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Alfonso Kennard, Jr., Esq.
      Keenya R. Harrold, Esq.
      KENNARD RICHARD P.C.
      2603 Augusta Drive, 1450
      Houston, TX 77057
      Tel: (713) 742-0900
      Fax: (713) 742-0951
      E-mail: Alfonso.Kennard@KennardLaw.com
              keenya.harrold@kennardlaw.com


PHI AIR MEDICAL: Faces "Wray" Suit in District of Arizona
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against PHI Air Medical
LLC. The case is styled as Christina C Wray, on behalf of herself
and all other similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PHI Air Medical
LLC, a Louisiana Limited Liability Company, Defendant, Case No.
2:18-cv-00432-SRB (D. Ariz., February 7, 2018).

PHI Air Medical, L.L.C. provides air transportation services. The
Company offers air medical transportation services for hospitals
and emergency service agencies.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Jared Lynn Sutton, Esq.
   Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP-Phoenix Office
   201 E Washington St., Ste. 1200
   Phoenix, AZ 85004
   Tel: (602) 262-0259
   Fax: (602) 734-3924
   Email: JSutton@lrrc.com


PHILIP MORRIS: AVL Cancer Hospital Joins Tobacco Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
DutchNews.nl reports that The Antoni van Leeuwenhoek (AVL) cancer
hospital in Amsterdam said in a statement on Feb. 1 that it was
joining an ongoing legal action against four Dutch-based tobacco
firms.

The AVL said it was the first hospital or research institute in
the Netherlands to make such a move against the tobacco industry.

"At least 30% of all cancer patients develop the disease through
smoking," said hospital chairman Rene Medema.  "Many people still
don't realise that two out of three smokers will die because of
tobacco, and a quarter of them before they reach pension age."

The hospital said civil cases around the world had so far failed
to resolve the smoking problem.  Thus AVL has joined the ongoing
class action suit against Phillip Morris, British American
Tobacco, Imperial Tobacco and Japan Tobacco which started in
2016.

The case was started by lung cancer patient Anne Marie van Veen
and lawyer Benedicte Ficq who accused the tobacco firms of doing
'deliberate damage to public health' and 'forgery of documents'.
They aim not to win damages but to force tobacco companies to
behave differently.

Influencing behaviour
They argue that tobacco firms cannot hide behind the freedom of
choice of people to smoke because they are deliberately
influencing smokers' behaviour.

"To limit that freedom, addictive chemicals such as nicotine and
other additives are put into cigarettes," they say.  "And [the
companies] overcome our natural aversion to poisons by adding
substances like menthol."

Last year, cancer charity KWF Kankerbestrijding was among the
parties joining the campaign.

The AVL called on other doctors and hospitals to join the class
action lawsuit and work towards a smoke-free society.  Later on
Feb. 1, Groningen University's teaching hospital said it too was
signing up to the lawsuit.

Chairman Jos Aartsen said he is planning to raise the issue at
the next meeting of all eight academic hospitals and call on them
all to join in. [GN]


PREMIER NUTRITION: Court Dismisses Sonner's Claims in "Mullins"
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, VINCENT D. MULLINS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. PREMIER
NUTRITION CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 13-cv-01271-RS (N.D.
Cal.), Judge Richard Seeborg of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California granted the Defendant's motion to
dismiss Plaintiff Kathie Sonner's claims for restitution.

Premier Nutrition makes and sells Joint Juice, a dietary
supplement beverage that contains glucosamine and chondroitin.
Its marketing and labeling states that Joint Juice helps to
support and nourish cartilage, to lubricate joints, that it was
developed by an orthopedic surgeon for pro athletes to keep
joints healthy and flexible, and that it lubricates and cushions
the cartilages in joints.

Sonner alleges that these and other statements in Joint Juice's
marketing are false and misleading because the glucosamine and
chondroitin in Joint Juice purportedly do not provide any of the
represented joint health benefits.  She asserts that she and
other consumers who purchased Joint Juice incurred financial
harm, as they would not have purchased the product had they known
it does not provide the claimed joint health benefits.

On Aug. 24, 2017, Sonner filed her second amended class action
complaint ("SAC"), which dropped the prayer for damages under the
California Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"), including punitive
damages, in favor of seeking restitution and injunctive relief
under the CLRA and the California Unfair Competition Law ("UCL").
The SAC prays for (i) an award of equitable restitution and
disgorgement, and (ii) injunctive relief enjoining Premier from
continuing its allegedly deceptive advertising, and ordering
Premier to engage in a corrective advertising campaign.

The Defendant now moves to dismiss Sonner's claims for
restitution on the grounds that her voluntary dismissal of
damages contentions does not demonstrate inadequacy of a remedy
at law.

Judge Seeborg finds that Sonner points to several cases involving
a jury trial followed by a bench trial, where the Plaintiff
received both an award of damages and restitution arising out of
the same conduct, under the same statutes at issue here.  The
Judge says these cases, however, merely stand for the
unchallenged propositions that restitution may be awarded where
damages are found to be inadequate, and that a court generally
follows a jury's findings of fact in a bench trial on the same
claims.  It remains doubtful that a court could part ways with a
jury's finding on liability and award restitution as a
replacement for damages, or by extension, that a court could
award restitution without any determination on damages.

In the instant case, the Judge says Sonner has brought a claim
under the CLRA, which provides for a damages remedy.  That she
has elected not to request damages does not relieve her from
having to show that her remedy at law is inadequate.  Because she
has not done so, and -- having dropped her prayer for damages
despite being advised of the potential consequences -- is unable
to do so, she may not proceed on her equitable claims for
restitution in lieu of a damages claim.

For the reasons set forth, Judge Seeborg granted the motion to
dismiss, and dismissed the claims for equitable restitution and
disgorgement under the CLRA and the UCL.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 23, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/IRjTqT from Leagle.com.

Vincent D. Mullins, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Joseph Jeremy
Siprut -- jsiprut@siprut.com -- Siprut PC, Timothy G. Blood --
tblood@bholaw.com -- Blood Hurst & O'Rearden, LLC, Adam J. Levitt
-- alevitt@dlcfirm.com -- DiCello Levitt & Casey LLC, Paula R.
Brown, Blood Hurst & O'Reardon LLP, Thomas Joseph O'Reardon, II -
- toreardon@bholaw.com -- Blood Hurst O'Reardon LLP, Todd David
Carpenter -- tcarpenter@carlsonlynch.com -- Carlson Lynch Sweet
Kilpela & Carpenter LLP & Tyler Zanders, Siprut PC.

Kathie Sonner, Plaintiff, represented by Craig Michael Peters ,
The Veen Firm, PC, Timothy G. Blood, Blood Hurst & O'Rearden,
LLC, Paula R. Brown, Blood Hurst & O'Reardon LLP & Thomas Joseph
O'Reardon, II, Blood Hurst O'Reardon LLP.

Premier Nutrition Corporation, formerly known as Joint Juice,
Inc., Defendant, represented by Angel A. Garganta --
aagarganta@Venable.com -- Venable LLP, Anton A. Ware --
anton.ware@apks.com -- Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP, Brian A.
Featherstun -- bafeatherstun@Venable.com -- Venable LLP, Daniel
Scott Blynn -- dsblynn@Venable.com -- Venable LLP, pro hac vice,
George Freeman Langendorf -- george.langendorf@apks.com -- Arnold
& Porter Kaye Scholer LLP, Guido Emerson Toscano --
getoscano@venable.com -- Venable LLP, Jessica L. Grant --
jgrant@Venable.com -- Venable LLP, John C. Vazquez --
jcvazquez@Venable.com -- Venable LLP & Trenton Herbert Norris --
trent.norris@apks.co -- Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP.


PREMIERE VACATION: Summary Ruling in Favor of Plan Member Upheld
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, NORMAN ZWICKY, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. PREMIERE
VACATION COLLECTION OWNERS ASSOCIATION, Defendant/Appellant, Case
No. 1 CA-CV 16-0659 (Ariz. App.), Judge Patricia A. Orozco of the
Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division One, affirmed the superior
court's summary judgment in favor of Zwicky enforcing his
statutory right to inspect Association records, but vacated the
order modifying the protective order and directing the
Association to send a notice to its member.

The Association is an incorporated association of members holding
an interest in the Premiere Vacation Collection timeshare plan.
Zwicky is a member of the Association.

In 2004, Zwicky paid approximately $26,000 for his timeshare
interest.  After a subsidiary of Diamond Resorts Corp. acquired a
substantial portion of the timeshare assets, Zwicky experienced a
significant increase in his annual assessments.  He alleges that
the high assessments rendered his membership interest
"essentially worthless."

Zwicky filed a lawsuit in superior court seeking judicial
enforcement of his right to inspect the books and records of the
Association pursuant to A.R.S. Sections 10-11602, 33-2209, and
common law.  His stated purpose was to determine whether the
Association's board acted reasonably and in good faith in
calculating and approving the assessments in question.

In response to discovery, the Association produced some
documents.  After reviewing the documents, Zwicky's counsel
determined they were insufficient to clearly ascertain and verify
the basis for calculating Mr. Zwicky's annual assessments.
Accordingly, Zwicky moved for summary judgment seeking inspection
of additional documents.  The Association cross-moved for summary
judgment asserting that it had already provided the documents
requested in the complaint and all documents to which Zwicky was
entitled under A.R.S. Section 33-2209.

Following oral argument on the cross-motions, the superior court
granted summary judgment in favor of Zwicky.  In a subsequent
ruling, the court specified the documents Zwicky could inspect
and issued a protective order stating they will be maintained in
confidence and disclosed only to Zwicky, his attorneys,
accountants, and experts.  Thereafter, the Association produced
more than one thousand pages of documents, designating some as
"confidential," claiming they contained sensitive personal
information, personnel records, trade secrets, proprietary
business information, or other confidential research,
development, financial, or commercial information.

After reviewing the documents produced, Zwicky moved to modify
the protective order.  He explained that the documents revealed a
good faith basis for a federal class action lawsuit, and asked
the superior court to permit him to quote, refer to, or otherwise
utilize the documents in his proposed lawsuit.  At the same time,
he moved for an order requiring the Association to send a letter
or notice to Association members informing them that the
Association was under court order to produce records in
conjunction with his lawsuit.

After oral argument, the superior court granted Zwicky's motion
and modified its prior order to authorize Zwicky and his
attorneys to use the documents produced by the Association in a
complaint or other court filing in the proposed class action
litigation.  The court also ordered the Association to send a
Notice of Court Order to timeshare members, pursuant to A.R.S.
Section 33-2210, advising them of the document production and
providing them with contact information for Zwicky's counsel.

Thereafter, the superior court entered final judgment, and the
Association timely appealed.

Judge Orozco finds that Zwicky was attempting to determine why
his annual assessments had roughly tripled to the point that his
financial interest in the timeshare had become "worthless" and
specifically whether those problems were due to improper
management practices.  Zwicky's inquiry could enable him to
protect his interest in the timeshare plan and was reasonably
related to his interest as a timeshare member.  Therefore, Zwicky
has articulated a proper purpose for his record request.  She
also finds that while the documents that the Association provided
in response to Zwicky's discovery requests contain some of the
information listed in Paragraph 20 of Zwicky's complaint, they do
not fully explain how the Association calculated or determined
annual assessments.  Therfore, the court did not merely grant
Zwicky an order authorizing his inspection of the information
specified within Paragraph 20.  Rather, the court enforced his
inspection rights under A.R.S. Section 33-2209 as those rights
were defined by the superior court.  Accordingly, the Judge will
affirm the superior court's entry of summary judgment in favor of
Zwicky.

The Judge also finds that there is nothing in the record to
suggest that the superior court reviewed the confidential
documents produced by the Association to determine if they should
remain subject to a protective order.  The Association made an
initial showing of why certain documents should be protected as
trade secret, proprietary, and confidential.  Because the relief
requested by Zwicky's motion regarding the "confidential"
documents was unclear, the Judge thinks it appropriate to allow
the Association an opportunity to establish why the protective
order should continue to apply to these "confidential" documents.
Accordingly, she will vacate the superior court's ruling
modifying the protective order, and remands for further
proceedings allowing the court to evaluate the need for a
continued protective order covering the confidential documents.

Judge Orozco further finds that applying the plain language of
A.R.S. Section 33-2210, she must determine whether the purpose of
the Notice advances "legitimate association business."  She
concludes that it does not.  Rather, the Notice benefits Zwicky
and his lawyer in their efforts to amass a group of plaintiffs
for their proposed class action lawsuit.  Therefore, the superior
court erred in ordering the Association to mail the Notice
pursuant to A.R.S. Section 33-2210.  Accordingly, she wil vacate
the order directing the Association to mail the Notice to its
members.

Finally, as to Zwicky's requests or attorneys' fees on appeal,
the Judge finds Zwicky provides no statutory basis or other
authority for such an award.  Contrary to Zwicky's assertion, a
prevailing party on appeal is not entitled to reasonable
attorneys' fees absent a valid basis.  Accordingly, she will deny
his request.  Zwicky also requests attorneys' fees at the
superior court level.  The superior court, however, denied his
request for fees, and Zwicky did not cross-appeal from that
ruling.  Accordingly, the Court lacks jurisdiction to review the
court's ruling.

For these reasons, Judge Orozco affirmed the superior court's
entry of summary judgment in favor of Zwicky.  She vacated the
court's order modifying the protective order and requiring the
Association to mail the Notice to its members.  She remanded for
further proceedings regarding the need for a continued protective
order applying to the confidential documents.  Because both
parties partially prevailed on appeal, the Judge declined to
award costs.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 23, 2018 Opinion is
available at https://is.gd/BWB9vU from Leagle.com.

Phelps & Moore PLLC, Phoenix, By Jon L. Phelps, Robert M. Moore,
Shannon A. Lindner, Co-Counsel for Plaintiff/Appellee.

Edward L. Barry Attorney at Law, Christiansted, Virgin Islands,
By Edward L. Barry -- ed@attorneyedbarry.com -- Co-Counsel for
Plaintiff/Appellee.

Coppersmith Brockelman, PLC, Phoenix, By John E. DeWulf --
jdewulf@cblawyers.com -- Katherine DeStefano --
kdestefano@cblawyers.com -- Co-Counsel for Defendant/Appellant.

Baker & Hostetler, LLP, Orlando, Florida, By Brandon T. Crossland
-- bcrossland@bakerlaw.com -- Co-Counsel for Defendant/Appellant.


PRIMESTAR PAINTING: Leverette Seeks Unpaid Overtime Premium
-----------------------------------------------------------
Aaron Leverette, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Primestar Painting, Inc. and Richard A.
O'Reilly, individually, Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-10238, (E.D.
Mich., January 18, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime, an
additional equal amount as liquidated damages, declaratory relief
and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Defendants provide professional painting and wallcovering
services to property owners and tenants of office buildings where
Leverette worked as a manual laborer. Primestar allegedly failed
to compensate Plaintiff overtime premium for their hours worked
over forty throughout the relevant time period. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael N. Hanna, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
      600 N. Pine Island Road, Suite 400
      Plantation, FL 33324
      Telephone: (954) 318-0268
      Facsimile: (954) 327-3016
      Email: MHanna@forthepeople.com


PURDUE PHARMA: New Hampshire's Suit Remanded to State Court
-----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Paul Barbadoro of the U.S. District Court for the District
of New Hampshire granted the State's motion to remand the case,
State of New Hampshire, v. Purdue Pharma, et al., Case No. 17-cv-
427-PB (D. N.H.) to state court.

For at least 20 years, Purdue has manufactured, marketed, and
sold opioid pain medications in New Hampshire and elsewhere.
During this period, Purdue spent hundreds of millions of dollars
promoting its medications in ways that falsely and misleadingly
minimized the risks of opioid addiction and overstated the
benefits Purdue's medications could provide.  As a direct result,
opioid addiction, overdoses, and deaths have exploded, to the
point where the Center for Disease Control has described the
current situation as a "public health epidemic."

The State of New Hampshire has sued Purdue Pharma based on
misrepresentations Purdue allegedly made to the state's consumers
concerning the risks and benefits of the company's opioid pain
medications.  It contends that Purdue's false and misleading
marketing campaign has injured the State, its municipalities, and
its consumers.  It asserts claims for violations of New
Hampshire's Consumer Protection Act ("CPA"); violations of the
New Hampshire Medicaid Fraud and False Claims Act, Public
Nuisance, Unjust Enrichment, and Fraudulent or Negligent
Misrepresentation.

The State seeks to recover damages for its own injuries as well
as injunctive relief, civil penalties, restitution, abatement,
and attorneys' fees on behalf of itself, its municipalities, and
its consumers.

The State filed its complaint in Merrimack County Superior Court
and Purdue later removed the case to the Court.  Purdue argues
that the Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to the
Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA"), but the State has challenged
Purdue's jurisdictional argument in a motion to remand.  The
current dispute turns on whether the case is removable under CAFA
as a class action.

Judge Barbadoro finds that Purdue's argument that the State's
complaint should be treated under CAFA just like any other
representative action in which one or more members of a class sue
on behalf of others who have suffered similar injuries, fails to
sufficiently account for both the State's sovereign power to sue
on behalf of its citizens and its governmental duty to protect
the health and welfare of its citizens.  He says opioid addiction
costs the lives of hundreds of the State's citizens each year.
It has flooded the State's prisons, demanded a vast commitment of
law enforcement resources, and strained the capacity of the
State's first responders.  Deaths from overdoses continue to
occur at an alarming rate.  When the State sues to protect its
citizens from such ongoing injuries, it is not acting merely as a
member of a class of injured persons seeking to obtain
compensation on behalf of others.  It is acting in a sovereign
capacity to protect its citizens.  CAFA does not deprive states
of the power to litigate such claims in their own courts.  For
these reasons, he granted the State's motion to remand the case
to state court.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 9, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/s6yRdv from Leagle.com.

State of NH, Plaintiff, represented by James T. Boffetti, NH
Attorney General's Office Criminal Justice Bureau & Linda Singer
-- lsinger@motleyrice.com -- Motley Rice LLC, pro hac vice.

Purdue Pharma L.P., Purdue Pharma Inc. & The Purdue Frederick
Company, Inc., Defendants, represented by David A. Vicinanzo --
dvicinanzo@nixonpeabody.com -- Nixon Peabody LLP, Mara Cusker
Gonzalez -- maracuskergonzalez@quinnemanuel.com -- Quinn Emanuel
Urquhart & Sullivan LLP, pro hac vice, Mark Cheffo --
markcheffo@quinnemanuel.com -- Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan
LLP, pro hac vice & W. Daniel Deane -- ddeane@nixonpeabody.com --
Nixon Peabody LLP.


PYRAMID CONSULTING: "Banks" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
-------------------------------------------------------
Sabrina M. Banks, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Pyramid Consulting, Inc., Case No. 3:18-cv-
00078 (S.D. Calif., January 12, 2018), seeks to recover damages
for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff Sabrina Banks worked as a consultant at an hourly rate
of $40 per hour on June 24, 2013. Plaintiff worked at or around
this hourly rate through approximately July 8, 2016.

Founded in 1996 and headquartered in Atlanta, GA, Pyramid
supports client partners around the world, including the United
States, Canada, and India through a combination of local offices
and global delivery. Defendant's clients include
telecommunications companies, such as AT&T Services, Inc. and
Verizon Corporate Services Group Inc. Defendant's
Telecommunications Clients routinely sought contract labor
through Defendant for individuals to perform non-exempt work at
hourly rates with payroll, timekeeping, and recordkeeping
functions to be performed and monitored by Defendant. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jack Fitzgerald, Esq.
      Trevor M. Flynn, Esq.
      Melanie Persinger, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICE OF JACK FITZGERALD, PC
      Hillcrest Professional Building
      3636 Fourth Avenue, Suite 202
      San Diego, CA 92103
      Tel: (619) 692-3840
      Fax: (619) 362-9555
      E-mail: jack@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com
              trevor@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com
              melanie@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com


RED PARROT: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss TCPA Suit
-------------------------------------------------
Judge David R. Herndon of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Illinois denied the Defendant's motion to
dismiss the case, CAMP DRUG STORE, INC., Plaintiff, v. RED PARROT
DISTRIBUTION, INC., Defendant, Case No. 17-CV-502-DRH-RJD (S.D.
Ill.).

The Plaintiff brings the putative class action against Red
Parrot, alleging that Red Parrot sent the Plaintiff at least two
unsolicited advertisements by facsimile in violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") (Count I).  Camp Drug
also alleges a conversion claim (Count II).

In bringing the action on behalf of a class, the two-count
complaint alleges that Red Parrot violated the TCPA by sending
advertisements by facsimile to the Plaintiff and more than 39
other persons.  It also asserts that by sending unsolicited and
unauthorized advertisements to its fax machine and that of
others, Red Parrot unlawfully converted the fax machine to its
own use.  Furthermore, Camp Drug notes that "hen printed (as in
the Plaintiff's case), the Defendant also improperly and
unlawfully converted the class members' paper and toner to the
Defendant's own use.

Under the TCPA, Camp Drug seeks statutory damages, to be trebled
if the facts show that Red Parrot acted willfully or knowingly,
along with injunctive relief.  For its conversion count, Camp
Drug asks for an award of "appropriate damages" along with
punitive damages, attorneys' fees, and costs.

On July 31, 2017, Red Parrot filed the pending motion to dismiss
to which Camp Drug opposes on grounds that its allegations
support the reasonable inference that Red Parrot did, in fact,
send the faxes or cause them to be sent, that Red Parrot's class
certification challenge is premature, and that Camp Drug's
conversion claim is supported by case law.  Red Parrot also
asserts that Camp Drug's class action allegations are
insufficient to survive a motion to dismiss.  It attempts to
argue that Camp Drug's complaint fails to allege the attributes
of those similarly situated fax recipients and fails to allege
the number of faxes sent or where they were sent.

Judge Herndon holds that because Camp Drug has plausibly alleged
that Red Parrot was a 'sender' of the faxes at issue, the motion
to dismiss is denied as to Count I.  He also holds that Camp Drug
Stores, Inc. v. Emily Corp and Zidek instructive, and at this
stage of the litigation, he declines to limit the avenues for
relief that the Plaintiffs may pursue when it comes time for them
to prove their case.  Therefore, the motion to dismiss is denied
as to Count II.

Finally, the Judge finds last Red Parrot's argument is premature.
It is simply not practical at this stage of the litigation to
preclude the Court from obtaining a full assessment of the
litigation before deciding the class certification issue and
therefore, the Court agrees with Camp Drug.  The inquiry into
whether a plaintiff has fulfilled Rule 23 class action
requirements is not an appropriate inquiry at the motion to
dismiss stage, and the Judge finds that it is more appropriate to
handle this issue in a class certification motion after proper
discovery related to this issue has occurred.

For these reasons, Judge Herndon denied Red Parrot's motion to
dismiss the Plaintiff's complaint.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 24, 2018 Memorandum and
Order is available at https://is.gd/n6RTGL from Leagle.com.

Camp Drug Store, Inc., an Illinois Corporation, individually and
as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons,
Plaintiff, represented by Daniel Jay Cohen, Law Offices of Daniel
J. Cohen, David M. Oppenheim -- david@classlawyers.com -- Bock &
Hatch, LLC, James M. Smith -- jim@classlawyers.com -- Bock &
Hatch, LLC & Phillip A. Bock -- phil@classlawyers.com -- Bock &
Hatch, LLC.

Red Parrot Distribution, Inc., Defendant, represented by Dale R.
Sisco, Sisco-Law & Vanessa L. Albaum, Sisco-Law.


RETAIL FOOD: Franchisees Launch Class Action
--------------------------------------------
Adam Zuchetti, writing for My Business, reports that Retail Food
Group (RFG -- which owns a number of well-known food brands
including Gloria Jean's Coffees, Michel's Patisserie, Donut King
and Brumby's Bakery -- is the subject of a potential class action
by franchisees.

Bannister Law, which is already leading a shareholder class
action against the group, announced last month that it was
representing disgruntled franchisees who alleged repeated
disclosure failures, including of the company's financial
performance, terms of operation and financial contributions
required of franchisees.

"Accounts by many franchisees suggest that some franchisees may
have been forced into severe financial hardship. Many have been
left devastated -- financially and personally," Bannister Law
founder Charles Bannister said.

The move was prompted by "over 100" complaints from franchisees
to action group Franchise Redress.

"We've had contact from over 100 franchisees, many of whom have
raised concerns around RFG's conduct. They allege issues around
the company's goodwill, the viability of stores at sale and the
lack of appropriate disclosure on a range of matters including
the prior performance of stores at purchase," said Franchise
Redress co-founder Maddison Johnstone.

"Given the accounts of hardship, it is important to us that
franchisees have an avenue of redress for the severe financial
distress they're living with. Franchise Redress strongly
encourages all disaffected RFG franchisees to express interest in
a potential class action with Bannister Law."

RFG did not respond to requests for comment on the matter.

It comes as insolvency specialist Andrew Spring of Jirsch
Sutherland -- who was appointed as voluntary administrator for
retailer Kangaroo Tent City & BBQs -- warned of likely collapses
of franchise businesses in the near future.

"The retail sector is really struggling. In the last six months
we've seen a number of high-profile brands collapse -- painting a
gloomy picture for Australian retailers. But the franchise sector
has additional pressures," he said.

"The challenge is a question of balance. All franchise models
must find the right balance between the cost structure
established by the franchisor and the support expectations of the
franchisees. If the franchise relationship cannot find its
equilibrium, then the model will impede the success of both
franchisor and franchisee.

"This, coupled with the difficulties associated with an already
challenging retail environment, is likely to continue to mean
that we will see further insolvencies in the franchising sector."
[GN]


RM PARADIS: "Hackman" Suit Alleges TCPA Violations
--------------------------------------------------
James Hackman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. RM Paradis Enterprises, LLC, Case No. 18-cv-60086
(S.D. Fla., January 16, 2018), is brought against the Defendant
for violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Plaintiff James Hackman is a resident of Palm Beach County,
Florida.

Defendant is a Florida health food restaurant and clothing store.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
      SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA
      14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 400
      Miami, FL 33132
      Tel: (305) 479-2299
      Fax: (786) 623-0915
      E-mail: efilings@shamisgentile.com


SCIENCE APPS: Individual Claims in "Ostendorf" Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ANGELA OSTENDORF, an individual, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SCIENCE
APPLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 3:17-
cv-01792-BEN-BLM (S.D. Cal.), Judge Roger T. Benitez of the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California granted in
part the Plaintiff's motion to dismiss her own action.

The Judge has reviewed the Plaintiff's motion.  The Defendant
filed a notice of non-opposition to the Plaintiff's motion.  The
Plaintiff represents that she has settled her individual claims
with the Defendant, and seeks dismissal with prejudice of those
claims, but without prejudice to the class claims.  She further
represents that the putative class will not be prejudiced by the
dismissal, and the action may be dismissed without notice to the
putative class, who did not receive notice of the putative class
action.

Good cause appearing, Judge Benitez granted in part the
Plaintiff's motion.  The Plaintiff's action is dismissed with
prejudice as to her individual claims.  As a result, the class
claims are moot and are therefore dismissed as moot.  The Court
will retain jurisdiction over the matter pending full performance
of the terms of the settlement.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 23, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/XY2718 from Leagle.com.

Angela Ostendorf, an individual, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Paul K.
Haines -- phaines@haineslawgroup.com -- Haines Law Group, APC.

Science Applications International Corporation, a Delaware
Corporation, Defendant, represented by James Sullivan McNeill --
Jim.McNeill@dentons.com -- Dentons US LLP.


SMJ CONSTRUCTION: "Haidong" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Haidong Li, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
Plaintiff, v. TNC Construction Inc., SMJ Construction Tech LLC
d/b/a SMJ Construction d/b/a SMJ Construction, LLC, Steve Kang,
Min Jung Park, Tian Nan Che, Lian Jun Chu and "John" Jiang,
Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-00804 (D. N.J., January 19, 2018),
seeks to recover unpaid minimum wage, unpaid overtime wage,
unpaid spread of hours premium, liquidated damages, prejudgment
and post-judgment interest, attorneys' fees and costs under the
Fair Labor Standards Act, New Jersey Statutes, New Jersey
Administrative Code, New York Labor Law and the Connecticut
Minimum Wage Act.

TNC Construction, operating as SMJ Construction, is engaged in
the construction and/or home improvements service business where
Haidong primarily worked as bricklayer, carpenter and plastering
for several of Defendants' construction and/or interior work
projects in the state of New York, New Jersey and Connecticut.
Plaintiff was not compensated overtime for all hours worked above
forty in each workweek, says the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Keli Liu, Esq.
      HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
      136-20 38th Avenue, Suite 10G
      Flushing, NY, 11354
      Tel: (718)353-8588
      Email: kliu@hanglaw.com


SORRENTO THERAPEUTICS: April 3 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
--------------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Friedlander & Gorris,
P.A. and Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP regarding the
Sorrento Therapeutics, Inc. Stockholder Action:

IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

YVONNE WILLIAMS, on behalf of herself and similarly situated
Sorrento Therapeutics, Inc. stockholders and derivatively on
behalf of Sorrento Therapeutics, Inc.,

Plaintiff,



v.


HENRY JI, WILLIAM S. MARTH, KIM D. JANDA, JAISIM SHAH, DAVID H.
DEMING, DOUGLAS EBERSOLE, GEORGE NG, AND ERAGON VENTURES, LLC,

Defendants,

and

SORRENTO THERAPEUTICS, INC.,

Nominal Defendant.

SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF STOCKHOLDER
ACTION, SETTLEMENT FAIRNESS HEARING,
AND RIGHT TO APPEAR

TO:  All holders of Sorrento Therapeutics, Inc. ("Sorrento" or
the "Company") common stock as of December 22, 2017 (the
"Settlement Class").

PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY.  YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED
BY A STOCKHOLDER CLASS AND DERIVATIVE LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS
COURT.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that the above-captioned stockholder
class and derivative action (the "Action") is pending in the
Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (the "Court"), and
that, pursuant to Delaware Court of Chancery Rules 23(a),
23(b)(1) and 23(b)(2), the Court has preliminarily certified the
Action as a non-"opt-out" class action on behalf of the
Settlement Class.

YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that plaintiff Yvonne Williams
("Plaintiff"), on behalf of herself and the Settlement Class, and
derivatively on behalf of the Company, has reached a proposed
settlement of the Action (the "Settlement") with defendants Henry
Ji, William S. Marth, Kim D. Janda, Jaisim Shah, David H. Deming,
Douglas Ebersole, and George Ng (collectively, the "Individual
Defendants"); defendant Eragon Ventures, LLC ("Eragon," and
together with the Individual Defendants, the "Defendants"); and
nominal defendant Sorrento.

As consideration for the Settlement, Defendants have agreed to
cancel all remaining options, warrants and shares issued in five
subsidiaries of Sorrento to the Individual Defendants and certain
executives of Sorrento; cancel a sale of stock in a Sorrento
subsidiary to Eragon; for two other stock sales to Eragon, Eragon
would either pay for the stock by December 31, 2017, with
interest, or, as occurred, return the stock to the subsidiary;
for any shares in that subsidiary retained by Eragon, Eragon will
no longer have super-voting rights; a committee of disinterested
and independent directors with expert advice and independent
legal counsel must approve all future related-party transactions
and subsidiary equity grants; all future stock plans at the
subsidiaries will be submitted to a vote of the Sorrento
stockholders; and a voting agreement that provided the Board with
the power to vote 2.75% of Sorrento's stock in its direction will
be voted in the same proportion that all other unaffiliated
stockholders vote.  If approved by the Court, the Settlement will
resolve all claims asserted against Defendants in the Action.

If you are a Class Member, your rights will be affected by the
pending Action and the Settlement.  A full-printed Notice of
Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Stockholder Action,
Settlement Fairness Hearing, and Right to Appear (the "Notice")
is currently being mailed to potential Class Members.  If you
have not yet received the Notice, you may obtain a copy by
contacting the Settlement Administrator at Sorrento Stockholder
Litigation c/o KCC Class Action Services, P.O. Box 404020,
Louisville, KY 40233-4020, 1-866-657-1976.  Copies of the Notice
can also be downloaded from
http://sorrentotherapeutics.com/notices/.

Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice, may be made to
Plaintiff's Lead Counsel:

         Christopher Foulds, Esq.
         Friedlander & Gorris, P.A.
         1201 N. Market St., Ste. 2200
         Wilmington, DE 19801
         1-302-573-3500

         David Wales, Esq.
         Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP
         1251 Avenue of the Americas
         New York, NY 10020
         1-800-380-8496

A hearing will be held on April 3, 2018, at 2:00 p.m., before
Vice Chancellor Montgomery-Reeves at the Court of Chancery of the
State of Delaware, Leonard L. Williams Justice Center, 500 North
King St., Wilmington, DE 19801 (the "Settlement Fairness
Hearing").  At the Settlement Fairness Hearing, the Court will,
among other things:  (a) determine whether the proposed
Settlement on the terms and conditions provided for in the
Stipulation is fair, reasonable, and adequate to the Settlement
Class and the Company, and should be approved by the Court; (b)
determine whether the Judgment should be entered dismissing the
Action with prejudice against Defendants; (c) determine whether
to approve the application by Lead Counsel for an award of
attorneys' fees and reimbursement of Litigation Expenses to
Plaintiffs' Counsel and an incentive award to Plaintiff; and (d)
consider any other matters that may properly be brought before
the Court in connection with the Settlement.

Any objections to the proposed Settlement and/or Lead Counsel's
application for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of
Litigation Expenses, must be filed with the Register in Chancery
and delivered to Lead Counsel and Defendants' Counsel such that
they are received no later than March 5, 2018, in accordance with
the instructions set forth in the Long-Form Notice.

Please note that there is no proof of claim form for Class
Members to submit in connection with the Settlement.  Also,
because the Settlement Class was certified as a non-"opt-out"
class, Class Members do not have the right to exclude themselves
from the Class.

DO NOT CALL OR WRITE THE COURT OR THE OFFICE OF
THE REGISTER IN CHANCERY REGARDING THIS NOTICE.

Dated:  January 19, 2018

BY ORDER OF THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF
DELAWARE
1-800-380-8496 [GN]


SOUTHEAST PERSONNEL: Fails to Pay Minimum, OT Wages, Sanchez Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LUIS PULIDO SANCHEZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. SOUTHEAST PERSONNEL LEASING, INC. a
corporation; AMERICAN RECLAMATION, INC.; and DOES 1-20,
inclusive, Case No. BC690372 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty.,
January 17, 2018), is brought to remedy the Defendants' alleged
wage-and-hour violations, including failure to pay minimum and
overtime wages.

SouthEast Personnel Leasing, Inc., is a self-described
professional employer organization that offers its clients
workers' compensation, payroll administration, risk management,
and human resources services.  American Reclamation, Inc.,
provides recurring and one-time collection services for waste and
recycling materials to multi-family and commercial customers.
The Plaintiff is unaware and ignorant of the true names and
capacities of the Doe Defendants.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Vache A. Thomassian, Esq.
          Caspar Jivalagian, Esq.
          KJT LAW GROUP LLP
          230 N. Maryland Ave., Suite 306
          Glendale, CA 91206
          Telephone: (818) 507-8525
          E-mail: vache@kjtlawgroup.com
                  caspar@kjtlawgroup.com

               - and -

          Christopher A. Adams, Esq.
          ADAMS EMPLOYMENT COUNSEL
          4740 Calle Carga
          Camarillo, CA 93012
          Telephone: (818) 425-1437
          E-mail: ca@AdamsEmploymentCounsel.com


SP FOODS: "Taylor" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under EPA
---------------------------------------------------------------
ELIZABETH TAYLOR and other similarly situated non-exempt
employees v. SP FOODS & SPECIALITIES, INC and BURGER KING
CORPORATION, Case No. CACE-18-001227 (Fla. Cir. Ct., Broward
Cty., January 17, 2018), seeks to recover alleged unpaid wages
and damages under the Equal Pay Act of 1963.

SP Foods & Specialities, Inc., is a Florida Profit Corporation
conducting business in Broward County, Florida, where the
Plaintiff worked for the Defendant.

Burger King Corporation is a Florida Profit Corporation
conducting business in Broward.  Burger King operates a chain of
fast food hamburger restaurants worldwide.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jason S. Reiner, Esq.
          Brody M. Shulman, Esq.
          REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
          44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200
          Miami, FL 33130
          Telephone: (305) 416-5000
          Facsimile: (305) 416-5005
          E-mail: jremer@rgpattorneys.com
                  bshulman@rgpattorneys.com


SQUARETRADE INC: Nguyen Sues for Invasion of Privacy
----------------------------------------------------
Tuan Nguyen, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Squaretrade, Inc. and Does 1-20
inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-00129, (E.D. Tenn., January
18, 2018), seeks only damages and injunctive relief for recovery
of economic injury pursuant to California's Invasion of Privacy
Act, California Penal Code Sec. 632.7.

Squaretrade is in the business of debt collection and regularly
collects debts. It called Nguyen regarding the collection of a
debt allegedly owed by Plaintiff, specifically the cancelation of
a protection plan that Plaintiff purchased from Squaretrade.
Their phone conversation was illegally recorded by the
Defendants. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
      Matthew M. Loker, Esq.
      Elizabeth Wagner, Esq.
      KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
      245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1
      Costa Mesa, CA 92626
      Telephone: (800) 400-6808
      Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
      Email: ak@kazlg.com
             ml@kazlg.com
             elizabeth@kazlg.com

             - and -

      Joshua Swigart, Esq.
      HYDE AND SWIGART
      2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101
      San Diego, CA 92108
      Telephone: (619) 233-7770
      Facsimile: (619) 297-1022 to 26
      Email: Josh@westcoastlitigation.com


STATE FARM: Faces "Allen" Suit in Georgia State Court
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against State Farm General
Insurance Company in Georgia State Court, Clayton County, on
February 7, 2018. The case is styled as Allen, Indv. and on
behalf of a class of similarly situated, Plaintiff v. State Farm
General Insurance Company, RCC Wesley Chapel Crossing LLC, Little
Giant Farmers Market Corporation, Planet Fitness Inc, Phantom
Fireworks Eastern Region LLC, New Nails Salon Spa LLC, Dollar
Tree Stores Inc and American Wings Corporation, Defendants, Case
No. 2018CV00206 D.

State Farm General Insurance Company operates as an insurance
company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   ROBERT N FRIEDMAN, Esq.
   275 SCIENTIFIC DRIVE
   NORCROSS, GA 30092
   Tel: (404) 881-2622

      - and -

   MATTHEW Q WETHERINGTON, Esq.
   1380 WEST PACES FERRY ROAD NW, SUITE 2100
   ATLANTA, GA 30327
   Tel: (404) 467-1155


STEINHOFF: Set to Face Class Action Following Accounting Scandal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Enca.com reports that both Steinhoff and accounting firm Deloitte
are set to face a huge class action suit from one of Europe's
mass litigation firms.

The Barents-Krans firm says people who acquired Steinhoff shares
between June 2013 and the 6th of December 2017 can register
online to participate.

In December, the retail giant's shares plummeted over 80-percent
after accounting irregularities were revealed.

Legal action is being taken against Deloitte for its role in
auditing Steinhoff's financial statements.  Steinhoff's CEO,
Markus Jooste, resigned in the wake of the revelations.

Jooste was on Jan. 31 reported to the Hawks on suspicion of
offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act. [GN]


STEINHOFF: BarentsKrans Initiates Shareholder Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Litigation Finance Journal reports that in December of last year,
Steinhoff announced that information concerning "accounting
irregularities requiring further investigation" had come to the
attention of its Supervisory Board, and that its CEO Markus
Jooste had subsequently resigned.  As a result, share prices took
a tumble.

Now, BarentsKrans, one of Europe's leading mass litigation law
firms, has initiated a shareholder class action being funded by
Claims Funding Europe, the global litigation funder established
in 2012 by Maurice Blackburn Lawyers (Australia's most successful
plaintiff class action law firm) and the Singapore-based funding
firm International Litigation Funding Partners. [GN]


TARGET CORP: Faces "McAteer" Suit in District of Minnesota
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Target Corporation.
The case is styled as Megan McAteer, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Target
Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 0:18-cv-00349 (D. Minn, February
7, 2018).

Target Corporation is the second-largest discount store retailer
in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Genevieve M Zimmerman, Esq.
   Meshbesher & Spence
   1616 Park Avenue
   Minneapolis, MN 55404
   Tel: (612) 339-9121
   Fax: (612) 339-9128
   Email: gzimmerman@meshbesher.com


TASCH LLC: Court Conditionally Certifies "Lemons" FLSA Class
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ANTONIO SANTOS LEMONS, ET AL. v. TASCH, L.L.C., ET
AL., SECTION: "S" (4), Civil Action No. 17-7212 (E.D. La.), Judge
Mary Ann Vial Lemmon of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Louisiana granted the Plaintiffs' Motion for
Conditional Certification.

Defendant Tasch is a construction company, and Defendant Jack R.
Allen, Jr. is a corporate officer of Tasch.  The Plaintiffs
allege that they were employed by Tasch as construction laborers.
They allege that they often worked more than 40 hours per week,
without receiving overtime pay, and that the Defendants
improperly classified them as independent contractors.  They
allege that Allen directed, monitored, supervised and evaluated
plaintiffs' work and set plaintiffs' schedules, work hours, and
rates of pay.

On July 28, 2017, the Plaintiffs' filed the action alleging that
the Defendants violated the overtime provisions of the FLSA by
failing to pay them and other similarly situated employees one-
and-one-half times of their regular rate for hours worked in
excess of 40 hours per week.  They seek to proceed as a
collective action under section 216(b)3 the FLSA.

On Nov. 3, 2017, the Plaintiffs filed the instant motion for
class certification.  They seek conditional class certification
of an opt-in class consisting of all individuals who worked for
the Defendants at any time since July 28, 2014, and were
classified as independent contractors.

The Plaintiffs argue that conditional class certification is
appropriate because there is a substantial class of other
construction laborers employed by the Defendants that were
treated similarly to the Plaintiffs and not paid over-time.  They
also seek an order requiring the Defendants to disclose the
names, addresses, email addresses and telephone numbers of
potential opt-in Plaintiffs within two weeks of the date of the
Court's order on their motion for conditional certification, and
an order permitting notice of the action to be sent to the
potential Plaintiffs allowing them 90 days from the date of the
date the notice is mailed to opt-in.

The Defendants argue that the Plaintiffs have failed to
demonstrate that they represent a class of similarly situated
individuals.  They also argue that the class is too broad as it
is defined.  Further, the Defendants raise a number of objections
to the Plaintiffs' proposed notice.

Judge Lemmon finds that the Plaintiffs presented substantial
allegations that they and the other putative class members were
victims of the Defendants' alleged policy of improperly
classifying construction laborers as independent contractors and
not paying them an overtime rate for work performed in excess of
40 hours in a week.  They allege that this policy extended to all
construction laborers employed by Tasch.  Indeed, numerous
individuals have already opted-in to the class.  Because
credibility determinations are not made at the certification
stage, the statements in Allen's counter-veiling affidavit cannot
defeat conditional class certification.

Further, the Judge finds that the class is not overly broad and
need not be limited to work done in specific Parishes.  The class
as defined by the Plaintiffs includes all individuals who worked
for defendants at any time since July 28, 2014, and were
classified as independent contractors.  The use of the word
individuals indicates that the class includes individual people,
not subcontractors.  Also, although the Plaintiffs' affidavits
indicate that they performed work in specific parishes, there is
no need to restrict the conditional class to individuals who
worked for Tasch in those Parishes because it is not unreasonable
to assume that the alleged policy of improperly classifying
individuals as independent contractors and failing to pay them
overtime extended to work in other parishes.  Hence, the Judge
will grant the Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification.

For these reasons, Judge Lemmon granted the Plaintiffs' Motion
for Conditional Certification.  He conditionally certified the
class of all individuals who worked for defendants at any time
since July 28, 2014, and were classified as independent
contractors.  Within 14 days of the date of the Order, the
Defendants will provide to the Plaintiffs' counsel the names,
addresses, email addresses, and telephone numbers of the putative
class members in a usable electronic format.

As to the Defendants' objections to the notice and consent forms,
Judge Lemmon directed the parties to meet and confer regarding
the proposed notice and attempt to resolve these disputes in good
faith, and thereafter submit to the Court joint proposed Notice
and Consent Forms no later than 21 days from the date of the
Order.  If the parties are unable to agree on the proposed Notice
and Consent Forms, the parties will file the appropriate motions
with their objections no later than 21 days from the date of the
Order.

The counsel for the Plaintiffs will have 30 days from the date
the proposed Notice and Consent Forms are approved by the Court
to transmit the Notice and Consent Forms to the potential class
members via United States mail.  The opt-in Plaintiffs are
granted a period of 90 days from the date that the Notice and
Consent Forms are mailed to return their signed Consent Forms to
the Plaintiffs' counsel via mail, email, fax or electronic
signature service.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 24, 2018 Order and Reasons
is available at https://is.gd/8LVVlX from Leagle.com.

Antonio Santos-Lemos, On behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Carlos Duenas, On behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Gerson Ivan Flores, On behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Gerardo Deras, On
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Osman Nunez,
On behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Amilcar
Guerrero, On behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Andres Gomez Lopez, Walter Rigoberto Escobar, On behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Julio R. Escobar,
Milgen Wilson Morales, Luis Emilo Villatoro Almendarez, Maximo C.
Urbina, Luis Enrique Torres Vasquez, Denia Aurora Gonzalez,
Dennis Enrique Gonzales Navarro, Maria Hilda Sanchez, Jose Walter
Quiroz-Flores, Alejandro Casco & Oliver Gabriel Pineda Duron,
Plaintiffs, represented by Christopher L. Williams --
Chris@williamslitigation.com -- Williams Litigation, LLC,
Cristian P. Silva, Christian P. Silva, Attorney at Law & Stephen
J. Haedicke -- stephen@haedickelaw.com -- Law Offices of Stephen
J. Haedicke, LLC.

Enrique Veles, Ronnin Sanchez & Gerardo Aguilor Salgado,
Plaintiffs, represented by Christopher L. Williams, Williams
Litigation, LLC.

Tasch, LLC & Jack R. Allen, Jr., Defendants, represented by Eve
B. Masinter -- eve.masinter@bswllp.com -- Breazeale, Sachse &
Wilson, L. L. P & Rachael M. Coe -- rachael.coe@bswllp.com --
Breazeale, Sachse & Wilson, L. L. P.


TESARO INC: Kessler Topaz Announces Shareholder Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, discloses
that a shareholder class action lawsuit has been filed against
TESARO, Inc. on behalf of purchasers of the Company's securities
between March 14, 2016 and January 12, 2018, inclusive.

Investors who purchased TESARO securities during the Class Period
may, no later than March 19, 2018, seek to be appointed as a lead
plaintiff representative of the class. For additional information
or to learn how to participate in this action please visit
https://www.ktmc.com/new-cases/TESARO-inc#join.

TESARO shareholders who wish to discuss this action and their
legal options are encouraged to contact Kessler Topaz Meltzer &
Check, LLP (Darren J. Check, Esq., D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq. or
Adrienne Bell, Esq.) at (888) 299-7706 or at info@ktmc.com.

TESARO is an oncology-focused biopharmaceutical company that
identifies, acquires, develops, and commercializes cancer
therapeutics and oncology supportive care products.  TESARO's
product portfolio includes Varubi (rolapitant), a neurokinin-1
receptor antagonist for the prevention of chemotherapy induced
nausea and vomiting.

As detailed in the complaint, on January 12, 2018, TESARO
disclosed to investors that it had updated the U.S. labeling for
the intravenous formulation of Varubi after receiving reports of
"[a]naphylaxis, anaphylactic shock and other serious
hypersensitivity reactions in the post-marketing setting, some
requiring hospitalization."

Following this news, shares of TESARO's common stock fell $4.07
per share, or over 5.8%, to close on January 16, 2016 at $65.52,
on heavy trading volume.

The shareholder class action complaint alleges that, during the
Class Period, TESARO and certain of the Company's executive
officers made false and misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose to investors that: (i) substantial undisclosed health
risks, including anaphylaxis and anaphylactic shock, were
associated with TESARO's intravenous formulation of Varubi; and
(ii) that as a result of the foregoing, TESARO's shares traded at
artificially inflated prices during the Class Period.

TESARO shareholders may, no later than March 19, 2018, seek to be
appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class through
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, or other counsel, or may choose to
do nothing and remain an absent class member.  A lead plaintiff
is a representative party who acts on behalf of all class members
in directing the litigation.  In order to be appointed as a lead
plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim
is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the
class member will adequately represent the class in the action.
Your ability to share in any recovery is not affected by the
decision of whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff.

Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check prosecutes class actions in state
and federal courts throughout the country. Kessler Topaz Meltzer
& Check is a driving force behind corporate governance reform,
and has recovered billions of dollars on behalf of institutional
and individual investors from the United States and around the
world.  The firm represents investors, consumers and
whistleblowers (private citizens who report fraudulent practices
against the government and share in the recovery of government
dollars).  The complaint in this action was not filed by Kessler
Topaz Meltzer & Check.

         Darren J. Check, Esq.
         D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq.
         Adrienne Bell, Esq.
         Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP
         Tel: (888) 299-7706
                  (610) 667-7706
         E-mail: dcheck@ktmc.com
                 skaskela@ktmc.com
                 abell@ktmc.com [GN]


TOURNEAU LLC: Faces "Thorne" Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tourneau, LLC. The
case is styled as Braulio Thorne, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Tourneau, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 1:18-cv-01109 (S.D. N.Y., February 7, 2018).

Tourneau, LLC, is a luxury watch retailer established in 1900 and
based in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Daniel Chaim Cohen, Esq.
   Daniel Cohen PLLC
   407 Rockaway Avenue, 3rd Floor
   Brooklyn, NY 11212
   Tel: (646) 645-8482
   Email: dancohenlaw@gmail.com


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: "Greder" Suit Alleges Consumer Acts Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Greder, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Uber Technologies, Inc., Rasier, LLC, and Raiser-CA,
LLC, Case No. 18-cv-00116 (D. Minn., January 16, 2018), seeks
damages under the Consumer Protection Acts.

In November 2017, Uber announced that over a year earlier in
October 2016, hackers gained access and had stolen information
relating to 57 million driver and rider accounts for the Uber
rideshare service.

Because of this breach, Plaintiff and the millions of individuals
whose personal data were exposed now face serious risk of further
injury from identity theft, credit and reputational harm, false
tax claims, and even extortion, notes the complaint.

Plaintiff Andrew Greder is an individual who resides in
Minnetonka, Minnesota and was a citizen of the State of Minnesota
during the period of the Uber Data Breach. Plaintiff had an
active account with Uber at the time of the Uber Data Breach.

Defendant Uber is a multi-billion-dollar California corporation
that provides ridesharing services to millions of consumers
across the globe. It enables users to arrange and schedule
transportation and/or logistics services with third-party
providers. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq.
      Daniel C. Hedlund, Esq.
      Joseph C. Bourne, Esq.
      Eric S. Taubel, Esq.
      Kaitlyn L. Dennis, Esq.
      GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
      Canadian Pacific Plaza
      120 South Sixth Street, Suite 2600
      Minneapolis, MN 55402
      Tel: (612) 333-8844
      Fax: (612) 339-6622
      E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com
              dhedlund@gustafsongluek.com
              jbourne@gustafsongluek.com
              etaubel@gustafsongluek.com
              kdennis@gustafsongluek.com

UNITED STATES: Court Dismisses Detained Immigrant's Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Judge Terry J. Hatter, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California dismissed without prejudice the
case, LUIS L. ARMENTERO, Petitioner, v. THOMAS HOMAN, Respondent,
Case No. CV 17-2355 TJH (FFM) (C.D. Cal.).

On Nov. 2, 2017, petitioner Armentero, a detainee of the
immigration detention facility located in Adelanto, California,
appearing pro se, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 2241.  Armentero claims that U.S.
Immigration Customs Enforcement ("ICE") is unlawfully detaining
various individuals in violation of Immigration Nationality Act
Section 241(a).

The Court is aware that Armentero has filed a separate petition,
CV 17-2213 TJH (FFM), with the same claim in which he names only
himself as a petitioner.  In the instant case, however, Armentero
also purports to file his claim on behalf of Jorge Valles
Sanchez, Jesus Ceballo Pedrasas, Carlos Hernandez, Francisco
Valdez Hernandez, Ismael Flores, Ignacio Mendinueta, and Jose
Ramirez.

Judge Hatter finds that summary dismissal in the case is
warranted.  Armentero's claim provides no basis for relief.
Armentero is not an attorney, thus, he may not represent other
petitioners.  Moreover, a litigant acting pro se may not appear
as the class counsel on behalf of others.  Because Armentero is a
non-attorney acting pro se, he may not represent other potential
parties.  His individual claim for relief in case 17-2213 TJH
(FFM) may proceed as filed.

In sum, Judge Hatter finds that there is no possibility that
Armentero can obtain relief on the grounds presented.
Accordingly, he dismissed without prejudice the petition.  He
denied a certificate of appealability.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 24, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/ZXXjL5 from Leagle.com.


UNITED STATES: DHS Denial of Class Cert in "Manirakiza" Upheld
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, EUPHREM MANIRAKIZA et al., v. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
AND HUMAN SERVICES, Case No. Ken-17-119 (Me.), Judge Joseph Jabar
of the Supreme Judicial Court of Maine vacated the Superior
Court's judgment upholding the final agency decision of the
Department of Health denying Manirakiza's application for food
supplement benefits.

Manirakiza and his family arrived in the United States in 2014.
In August of 2015, after Manirakiza and his wife received
Employment Authorization Documents, Manirakiza applied for food
assistance for his household pursuant to 22 M.R.S. Section 3104-
A(1)(D) (2017) ("Paragraph D").  Title 22 M.R.S. Section 3104-A
limits the categories of legal non-citizens who are eligible to
receive food assistance, and Paragraph D establishes that non-
citizens who are unemployed but who have obtained proper work
documentation are eligible to receive the benefit.

Although certain members of Manirakiza's family were eligible for
benefits pursuant to Paragraph D, the Department denied
Manirakiza's application.  After an administrative hearing, the
hearing officer found that the Department was correct when it
denied Manirakiza's application based on language in the public
law that is not present within the statutory text, which
contained a fiscal limitation on the availability of funding for
benefits for persons otherwise eligible under Paragraph D.  The
Commissioner accepted the findings of fact and recommendation of
the hearing officer that the Department correctly denied the
application for food assistance pursuant to Paragraph D and
Section OO-14.

To resolve the statutory interpretation issue, namely how the
limitations within Section OO-14 affected the plain language of
Paragraph D, Manirakiza appealed to the Superior Court.  That
petition and complaint included four counts: Count I alleged that
the Department erred when it found that Manirakiza was not
entitled to food assistance under Paragraph D; Count II requested
that the court certify the action as a class action and, pursuant
to 5 M.R.S. Section 8058 (2017), requested judicial review of the
Department rule interpreting Paragraph D, 17 C.M.R. 10 144 301-14
Section FS-111-2 (2013); Count III sought a declaratory judgment;
and Count IV sought injunctive relief.  The Department filed
oppositions to all counts and a motion to dismiss the independent
claims, Counts II and III, as duplicative.

On June 28, 2016, the court denied Manirakiza's motion to certify
the class and granted the Department's motion to dismiss the
independent claims as duplicative.  In order to determine whether
Manirakiza was likely to succeed on the merits, the court also
requested memoranda of law concerning the interpretation of
Paragraph D.  After receiving further argument on that issue, in
an order dated Jan. 15, 2017, the court denied Manirakiza's
motion for a preliminary injunction, determining that Manirakiza
had failed to demonstrate he was more likely than not to succeed
on the merits.

After the denial of the preliminary injunction, the parties
agreed that the record was complete, that it was unnecessary to
conduct further discovery, and that it was unnecessary to provide
additional briefing or argument.  On Feb. 28, 2017, upon those
agreements by the parties, the court entered final judgment in
favor of the Department, upholding the Department's statutory
interpretation of Paragraph D and the resulting denial of
Manirakiza's application for food assistance.  Manirakiza timely
appealed.

On appeal, Manirakiza contends that the court erred by (1)
entering final judgment in favor of the Department on the
statutory interpretation issue, effectively determining that
Paragraph D also contained the temporal and fiscal limitations of
Section OO-14, and that those limitations were effective beyond
the fiscal years ending June 30, 2013, June 30, 2014, and June
30, 2015; (2) denying his motion for class certification; and (3)
dismissing the independent claims contained in Counts II and III
of his complaint as duplicative.

Judge Jabar concludes that the Legislature intended for Paragraph
D to be a permanent exception to the general ineligibility of
noncitizens for food assistance under 22 M.R.S. Section 3104-
A(1), that the language of limitation contained in Section OO-14
was language of limitation only for the fiscal years ending June
30, 2013, June 30, 2014, and June 30, 2015, and that once that
budget period ended on June 30, 2015, absent other legislative
action, the Department was required to provide food assistance to
applicants eligible under Paragraph D in the same way that it
must provide food assistance to those persons eligible under
paragraphs (A), (B), and (C) of the same statutory provision.

Manirakiza argues that the court applied the incorrect legal
standard when it denied his motion for class certification, and
that it was improper for the court to dismiss the independent
claims, Counts II and III, as duplicative.  Finding no error in
these decisions, the Judge will affirm the actions of the court.

For these reasons, Judge Jabar vacated the judgment ad remanded
for further proceedings consistent with the Opinion.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 23, 2018 Opinion is
available at https://is.gd/s45GZW from Leagle.com.

Melissa A. Hewey, Esq. -- mhewey@dwmlaw.com -- David M. Kallin,
Esq. -- dkallin@dwmlaw.com -- and Amy K. Olfene, Esq. --
aolfene@dwmlaw.com -- (orally), Drummond Woodsum, Portland, and
Robyn Merrill, Esq., Maine Equal Justice Partners, Augusta, for
appellants Euphrem Manirakiza and Fatima Nkembi.

Janet T. Mills, Attorney General, and Thomas J. Quinn, Asst.
Atty. Gen. (orally), Office of the Attorney General, Augusta, for
appellee Department of Health and Human Services.


UNITED STATES: Appeals Decision in "Vidal" Suit to Second Circuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Kirstjen M. Nielsen, Jefferson B. Sessions III and
Donald J. Trump filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit entitled Vidal, et al. v. Nielsen, et al., Case No. 16-
cv-4756, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
New York (Brooklyn).

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Hon.
Jose A. Cabranes granted the Government's emergency motion for a
stay of discovery and record supplementation in the appellate
case relating to the lawsuit -- Elaine C. Duke, et al. v. Martin
Jonathan Batall Vidal, et al., Case No. 17-3345.

"The Government's emergency motion for a stay of discovery and
record supplementation in the proceedings before the district
court is GRANTED pending its consideration by a regular three-
judge panel of the Court, it being understood that during the
pendency of this emergency motion and the stay hereby granted no
rights or claims of rights of any of the parties shall have been
waived or forfeited," according to Judge Cabranes' Order.  "The
stay is contingent upon the Government filing the 'full petition
for a writ of mandamus', as described in its papers."

The appellate case is captioned as Nielsen v. Vidal, Case No. 18-
122, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Respondents Martin Jonathan Batall Vidal; Make the
Road New York, on behalf of itself, its members, its clients, and
all similarly situated individuals; Antonio Alarcon; Eliana
Fernandez; Carlos Vargas; Mariano Mondragon; and Carolina Fung
Feng, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated
individuals, are represented by:

          Karen Cassandra Tumlin, Esq.
          NATIONAL IMMIGRATION LAW CENTER
          3450 Wilshire Boulevard
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Telephone: (213) 639-3900
          Facsimile: (213) 639-3911
          E-mail: tumlin@nilc.org

Defendants-Petitioners Kirstjen M. Nielsen, Secretary of Homeland
Security; Jefferson B. Sessions III, United States Attorney
General; and Donald J. Trump, President of the United States, are
represented by:

          Mark B. Stern, Esq.
          UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
          950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20530
          Telephone: (202) 514-5089
          E-mail: Mark.Stern@usdoj.gov


VISALUS INC: Court Dismisses 3rd Amended "Kerrigan" Rico Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Matthew F. Leitman of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division, granted the
Defendants' motions to dismiss the case, TIMOTHY KERRIGAN, et
al., Plaintiffs, v. VISALUS, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No.
14-cv-12693 (E.D. Mich.) and terminated as moot the Plaintiffs'
motion to file a corrected Third Amended Complaint.

In this complex putative class action, the Plaintiffs allege that
the Defendants, nearly 50 individuals and entities, many of which
have overlapping ownership structures and contractual
relationships, conned them into joining a fraudulent pyramid
scheme.  They filed the action in 2014, and the Court has
previously issued two substantive opinions that resolved motions
to dismiss the Plaintiffs' initial Complaint and their First
Amended Complaint.

On March 8, 2017, the Plaintiffs filed a Third Amended Complaint,
the operative pleading in the action.  The parties have now filed
four motions with respect to the Third Amended Complaint:

     a. Defendants Ropart Asset Management, LLC, Ropart Asset
Management Fund, LLC, Ropart Asset Management Fund II, LLC, Rock
Ridge Asset Management Company, LLC, the Living Trust dated
9/30/91 f/b/o Robert B. Goergen, and HashTag One, LLC have moved
to dismiss Count I (violation of the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO")) and Count II (conspiracy to
violate the RICO) of the Third Amended Complaint under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and Count VII (unjust
enrichment) and Count IX (civil conspiracy) under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 12 (b)(1);

     b. Defendants Robert Goergen, Sr. and Todd Goergen have
moved to dismiss Count I of the Third Amended Complaint under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6);

     c. Defendants Jason O'Toole, Kyle Pacetti, Jr., Prospex
Automated Wealth Systems, Inc., and Gooder, LLC have moved to
dismiss Count I of the Third Amended Complaint under Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6); O'Toole and Pacetti have moved to
dismiss Count III (violations of 5 U.S.C. Section 78j(b) and 17
C.F.R. Section 240.10b-5(a) and (c)) of the Third Amended
Complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6); and
Defendants A Berry Good Life, Inc., ArriveBy25, Inc., BAM
Ventures, Inc., BeachLifestyle Enterprises, LLC, Michael Craig,
Aaron Fortner, Freedom Legacy, LLC, Gooder, LLC, Got Heart
Global, Inc., Rachel Jackson, Jaketrz, Inc., Holley Kirkland,
Timothy Kirkland, Anthony Lucero, Rhonda Lucero, M-Power Path,
Inc., Kevin Merriweather, Mojos Legacy, LLC, Network Dynamics
America Corp., Jason O'Toole, Jason O'Toole International
Holdings, Inc., OCD Marketing, Inc., Kyle Pacetti, Jr., Lori
Petrilli, Power Couple, Inc., Prospex Automated Wealth Systems,
Inc. Red Letters, LLC, Residual Marketing, Inc., Gary J.
Reynolds, Jake Trzcinski, Frank Varon, Wealth Builder
International LLC, Tara Wilson, and 9248-2587 Quebec, Inc. have
moved to dismiss Count II of the Third Amended Complaint under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(b) and Count VII of the
Third Amended Complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(1)2; and

    d. The Plaintiffs have moved to file a corrected Third
Amended Complaint, which includes certain revisions to the
factual allegations Plaintiffs have made.

The Court held a hearing on these motions on Dec. 8, 2017.

Judge Leitman agrees that the Third Amended Complaint does not
sufficiently allege that the Trust participated in the alleged
RICO enterprise.  The Plaintiffs do not appear to have alleged
any facts in the Third Amended Complaint that the Trust invested
any capital in ViSalus directly or that the Trust had any direct
involvement with ViSalus at all.  Simply put, the allegations
against the Trust appear too attenuated to plausibly establish
that the Trust participated in the enterprise's affairs.  The
Judge says the Plaintiffs may attempt to address the deficiencies
identified above in their Fourth Amended Complaint.

The Judge finds that the Rule 10b-5(b) claim in the proposed
"corrected" Third Amended Complaint is not sufficiently pleaded.
He says the Plaintiffs' proposed revisions to their factual
allegations do not satisfy this standard.  Their proposed
revisions do not clearly identify a specific statement on which
they relied.  Some of the proposed revised allegations stretch
the concept of alternative pleading beyond its breaking point.
If the Plaintiffs seek to assert a Rule 10b-5(b) claim in the
Fourth Amended Complaint, the Judge says they must satisfy the
standard identified above and all other requirements of a Rule
10b-5(b) claim.

The Judge also agrees with the Defendants that each named
Plaintiff must have individual standing to pursue an unjust
enrichment claim.  To establish such standing in the Fourth
Amended Complaint, each named Plaintiff must plead facts that
could plausibly establish that each Defendant named in the unjust
enrichment count was unjustly enriched at that Plaintiff's
expense.  Next, if the Plaintiffs do sufficiently plead an unjust
enrichment claim in the Fourth Amended Complaint, the Court will
allow them to conduct limited jurisdictional discovery in order
to allow them to test the veracity of Ms. Bosev's affidavit.  The
Court will rule on the subject matter jurisdiction question
following the completion of this limited discovery.

Finally, because he will allow the Plaintiffs to file a Fourth
Amended Complaint, the Judge will allow them to add the
allegations with respect to the Goergens that their counsel
identified at the hearing in that pleading (or to plead
sufficient facts showing that the Goergens caused the mails or
wires to be used).

For the reasons stated, Judge Leitman granted the Defendants'
motions to dismiss and terminated as moot the Plaintiffs' motion
to file a corrected Third Amended Complaint.  The Plaintiffs may
file a Fourth Amended Complaint no later than 30 days from the
date of the Order; and the Defendants will not answer or
otherwise respond to a Fourth Amended Complaint until ordered to
do so by the Court following a telephonic status conference that
the Court will schedule after the Plaintiffs file the Fourth
Amended Complaint.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 24, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/eQBwbl from Leagle.com.

Timothy Kerrigan, Lori Mikovich & Ryan M. Valli, Plaintiffs,
represented by Brent Caldwell -- bcaldwell@pfalawfirm.com --
Pregeg Faucett & Abbott PLLC, Edward A. Wallace, Wexler Wallace
LLP, Jason J. Thompson , Sommers Schwartz, P.C., Mark R. Miller ,
Wexler Wallace, Matthew J.M. Prebeg -- mprebeg@pfalawfirm.com --
Prebeg, Faucett & Abbott PLLC, Sarah Lindsay Rickard --
SRickard@sommerspc.com -- Sommers Schwartz PC & Andrew
Kochanowski -- akochanowski@sommerspc.com -- Sommers Schwartz,
P.C.

VISALUS, INC., Visalus Holdings, LLC, Robert Goergen, Sr., Todd
Goergen, Ryan Blair & Blake Mallen, Defendants, represented by
Andrew Clark , Honigman, Miller, Schwartz & Cohn, LLP, Barry M.
Rosenbaum -- BROSENBAUM@SEYBURN.COM -- Seyburn, Kahn, Brian A.
Howie -- brian.howie@quarles.com -- Quarles & Brady LLP, Edward
A. Salanga -- Edward.salanga@quarles.com -- Quarles & Brady LLP,
Kevin D. Quigley -- kevin.quigley@quarles.com -- Quarles & Brady
LLP, Michael S. Catlett , Quarles & Brady LLP & Nicholas B. Gorga
-- -- ngorga@honigman.com -- Honigman, Miller.

Ropart Asset Management Fund, LLC & Ropart Asset Management Fund
II, LLC, Defendants, represented by Barry M. Rosenbaum, Seyburn,
Kahn, Marc L. Newman -- mln@miller.law -- The Miller Law Firm, E.
Powell Miller -- epm@miller.law -- The Miller Law Firm & Kevin F.
O'Shea -- kfo@miller.law -- Miller Law Firm.

Mojos Legacy, LLC, Fragmob, LLC, Freedom Legacy, LLC, Wealth
Builder International, Inc., Residual Marketing, Inc., Jaketrz,
Inc., Insider Corporate and Partnership Defendant Company Does 1-
10, Frank Varon, Kyle Pacetti, Jr., Jake Trzcinski, Michael
Craig, Lavon Craig, Timothy Kirkland, Holley Kirkland, Joshua
Jackson, Aaron Fortner, Rachel Jackson, Tara Wilson, Anthony
Lucero, Rhonda Lucero, Individual Defendant John Does 1-10, Jason
O'Toole, Lori Petrilli, Gary J. Reynolds, Kevin Merriweather, OCD
Marketing, Inc., Power Couple, Inc., ArriveBy 25, Inc., BAM
Ventures, Inc., Jason O'Toole International Holdings, Inc.,
Gooder, LLC, Red Letters, LLC, M-Power Path, Inc., A Berry Good
Life, Inc., Network Dynamics America Corp., Got Heart Global,
Inc., Beachlifestyle Enterprises, LLC, Wealth Builder
International, LLC, Prospex Automated Wealth Systems, Inc. &
9248-2587 Quebec, Inc., Defendants, represented by Barry M.
Rosenbaum, Seyburn, Kahn.

Nick Sarnicola, Defendant, represented by Marc L. Newman, The
Miller Law Firm.

Rock Ridge Asset Management Company, LLC, Ropart Asset
Management, LLC, Living Trust Dated 9/30/1991 F/B/O Robert B.
Goergen & Hashtag One, LLC, Defendants, represented by E. Powell
Miller, The Miller Law Firm, Kevin F. O'Shea, Miller Law Firm &
Marc L. Newman, The Miller Law Firm.


VODAFONE GROUP: March 20 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong 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
investors who purchased Vodafone Group Public Limited Company
("Vodafone") (NASDAQ:VOD) ADRs between February 11, 2015 and
January 11, 2018.

Click here to learn about the case: http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-
sbm/vodafone-group-public-limited-company?wire=3.  There is no
cost or obligation to you.

According to the complaint, throughout the Class Period
defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed
to disclose that Vodafone had contravened Australian law by
permitting customers to purchase pre-paid mobile phones without
first verifying their identities.

On January 10, 2018, the Australian Communications and Media
Authority ("ACMA") issued a press release disclosing that,
following an investigation into Vodafone Australia, it determined
that the Company had "failed to verify the identity of at least
1,028 customers before activating their prepaid mobile services."
Upon this news, Vodafone ADRs declined from a closing price of
$32.60 on January 9, 2018, to a closing price of $31.44 on
January 11, 2018.

If you suffered a loss in Vodafone you have until March 20, 2018
to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your
ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve
as a lead plaintiff.  To obtain additional information, contact
Vincent Wong, Esq. either via email vw@wongesq.com, by telephone
at 212.425.1140, or visit

http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-sbm/vodafone-group-public-limited-
company?wire=3

Vincent Wong, Esq. is an experienced attorney that has
represented investors in securities litigations involving
financial fraud and violations of shareholder rights. [GN]


WOLF PETROLEUM: Court Conditionally Certifies "Moss" Class
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MICHAEL MOSS, ET AL, v. WOLF PETROLEUM SERVICES,
LLC, Civil Action No. 16-cv-1435 (W.D. La.), Magistrate Judge
Mark L. Hornsby of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Louisiana, Shreveport Division, granted the
Plaintiffs' Motion for Conditional Certification.

The Plaintiffs worked in North Dakota as rig operators for Wolf,
a Minden-based company that has provided well services in a
number of states.  They allege that Wolf violated the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA") by not paying them and similarly situated
employees overtime pay.  The Plaintiffs filed suit against Wolf
and company president Marc Meitner on behalf of themselves and
all other similarly situated employees across the country.

The Plaintiffs alleges in the first amended complaint that Wolf
employed them and similarly situated employees to maintain and
service customer wells.  They allege that rig workers performed
various well servicing activities, such as maintaining the wells
and bailing water off the top of the wells.  They allege that
they regularly worked in excess of 40 hours, sometimes 70 hours
or more per work week, but Wolf paid them only a flat rate or
salary.  The Plaintiffs allege that this deprived them of
overtime pay to which they were entitled under the FLSA. This
allegedly continued for many months, but the Defendants
eventually began paying employees an hourly rate.

Before the Court is the Plaintiffs' Motion for Conditional
Certification that requests certification as a collective action
and authority to issue notice to the other employees and afford
them an opportunity to opt in to the suit.  The principal
disagreement between the parties with respect to the notice stage
is the geographic scope of the employees to be notified.  Wolf
argues that the Plaintiffs have presented enough facts to justify
notice to only their former co-workers in the North Dakota
location.

Magistrate Judge Hornsby is not persuaded by Wolf's attempts to
separate the employees by their job titles and whether they could
earn bonuses, but notice to the far flung employees in other
states is not merited based on the mere "upon information and
belief" allegation in the petition and the unexplained assertion
of personal knowledge in the affidavits that those employees were
paid based on a similar policy.  The Plaintiffs testify that they
have personal knowledge that the other employees were paid in a
similar manner, but they do not provide any facts to support that
conclusory assertion.  He says such generic and conclusory
assertions of a common policy are not adequate to justify notice.
If they are, then the standard would be met in every case.  The
group of notified employees is limited to rig operators, swab
operators, swab hands, and other employees, no matter their
company-assigned title, who are employed in rig service
operations in Wolf's North Dakota operations.  He directs that
the notice in the case is limited to those employees who work for
Wolf within the three years prior to the date notice is approved.

The Defendants also request an end date that coincides with the
last date an original Plaintiff was employed by Wolf, but the
Magistrate Judge is not persuaded that is appropriate.  He finds
that the employees in the case are few, so it is not likely there
were many employed after these Plaintiffs left the company, but
they should be able to join and enforce their overtime rights if
they were subjected to the same payment policy.  Wolf also asks
that the relevant time period end on Oct. 27, 2016, the last day
on which the North Dakota operation was active.  The notice need
not include such a specification.  If there were no employees
after that date, it will not be an issue.

The Magistrate Judge also finds that there does not seem to be
any significant burden on Wolf to provide contact information for
the other employees, and it would have only a limited effect on
the privacy of the employees who might be called.  Given the
often itinerant nature of oilfield workers, a telephone number
(especially a cell phone number) may be the most reliable way to
contact some of the employees.  The numbers must be provided in
the case.

Finally, the Magistrate Judge directs the counsel to begin
conferring promptly to craft a notice consistent with the Order
and, within 14 days, file a motion for approval of the form of
notice and any related forms.  If there are any disagreements on
the content of the forms, the motion should advise the Court of
those issues, and the Court will set a method to resolve them.

Accordingly, Magistrate Judge granted the Plaintiffs' Motion for
Conditional Certification, and the notice will be issued to Wolf
employees who were employed in any capacity performing rig
services at its North Dakota operations within the three years
prior to the Court's final approval of the form of notice.

Within 14 days of the Order, the Defendants disclose to the
Plaintiffs' counsel the names, last known addresses, email
addresses, phone numbers, and dates of employment of the
potentially similarly situated employees within the scope of the
notice.  The counsel promptly begins to confer about the final
version of the notice and consent forms and, within 14 days,
submit a motion for approval.  The motion for approval should
note any areas of disagreement that require resolution by the
Court.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 23, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/s45GZW from Leagle.com.

Michael Moss & Korry Moss, Plaintiffs, represented by Barrett
Black Beasley -- bbeasley@salim-beasley.com -- Salim Beasley &
Robert W. Cowan -- rcowan@bpblaw.com -- Bailey Peavy et al, pro
hac vice.

Wolf Petroleum Services L L C & Marc T Meitner, individually and
in his official capacity, Defendants, represented by Elizabeth M.
Carmody -- elizabeth.carmody@cookyancey.com -- Cook Yancey et al.


YELP INC: Klein Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
The Klein Law Firm disclosed that a class action complaint has
been filed on behalf of shareholders of Yelp Inc. who purchased
shares between February 9, 2017 and May 9, 2017. The action,
which was filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California, alleges that the Company
violated federal securities laws.

In particular, the complaint alleges that throughout the Class
Period, defendants made materially false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that (i) Yelp's transition
from a Cost-Per-Thousand-Impressions ("CPM") to a Cost-Per-Click
("CPC") model in Fiscal 2016 created a distinct cohort of local
advertisers that would reach the end of their contracts during
the first part of Fiscal 2017; (ii) new customers that signed up
with Yelp under the CPC pricing model had lower retention rates
because the customers did not effectively compete with Yelp's
more established customers; and (iii) that, as a result of the
lower retention rates, Yelp was not on track to achieve its
financial guidance or results during the Class Period. On May 9,
2017, the Company announced their first quarter 2017 financial
results and announced it was revising its full year 2017 guidance
to reflect poor retention rates with existing customers.

Shareholders have until March 19, 2018 to petition the court for
lead plaintiff status. Your ability to share in any recovery does
not require that you serve as lead plaintiff. You may choose to
be an absent class member.

Joseph Klein, Esq. represents investors and participates in
securities litigations involving financial fraud throughout the
nation. [GN]


ZTO EXPRESS: Faces Linde Foundation Securities Suit Over IPO
------------------------------------------------------------
THE RONALD AND MAXINE LINDE FOUNDATION, Individually and On
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. ZTO EXPRESS (CAYMAN)
INC., MEISONG LAI, JIANFA LAI, JILEI WANG, XIANGLIANG HU, BAIXI
LAN, XING LIU, FRANK ZHEN WEI, and JlANMIN (JAMES) GUO, Case No.
18CIV00264 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Mateo Cty., January 17, 2018),
is brought on behalf of those who purchased ZTO American
Depository Shares pursuant and/or traceable to ZTO's October 27,
2016 initial public offering for alleged violations of the
Securities Act of 1933.

At the commencement of the IPO, the Defendants made a series of
false and misleading statements in ZTO's offering documents
regarding the Company's financial results and future outlook, the
Plaintiff alleges.  The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants
told the investing public that ZTO had attained high growth and
profitability when in reality the Company had to lower its
network transit fees to subsidize its network partners in
response to increased costs, pricing pressures, and competition,
which had negative impacts on the Company's revenue, margins,
earnings, and forecasts.

ZTO is an emergent growth company that provides express delivery
services throughout China and in certain international markets
through various business partners.  The Individual Defendants are
directors and officers of ZTO.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
          Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
          Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq.
          Charles H. Linehan, Esq.
          GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 201-9150
          Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
          E-mail: lglancy@glancylaw.com
                  rprongay@glancylaw.com
                  lportnoy@glancylaw.com
                  clinehan@glancylaw.com


* Germany Urged to Consider US-Style Class Action Amid Dieselgate
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Delhaes, writing for Handelsblatt, reports that as
coalition talks press on in Berlin, negotiators are urged to
consider legislation for US-style class action lawsuits as German
consumers harmed by Dieselgate face a difficult path for
compensation.  Without a provision for class-action suits,
thousands of individual diesel lawsuits are piling up in Germany.
Lawyers and consumer-rights groups say these could be handled
more fairly and efficiently with new legislation.

In a letter seen by Handelsblatt, a federation of German consumer
organizations and the ADAC auto club demanded Chancellor Angela
Merkel's conservatives and the center-left Social Democrats
(SPD), currently in talks to form a new government, make a
binding commitment to changing the law.

"Amid all the debate about how to go about it, there must be no
question that it will be introduced," they said.  "Consumers in
Germany need legislation as soon as possible that provides them
with concrete help in getting their complaints through." [GN]


* Miles Attorney Discuses CFPB Class Action Waiver Rule
-------------------------------------------------------
Zachary S. Schultz, Esq., of Miles & Stockbridge, in an article
for Mondaq, reports that in October 2017, the United States
Senate voted to invalidate a rule promulgated by the Consumer
Financial Protection Bureau ("CFPB"), which would have prohibited
financial institutions from using arbitration agreements in which
the consumer waives the right to participate in a class action.
The rule -- which was announced by the CFPB in July 2017 and was
not yet in effect at the time it was invalidated -- prohibited
class action waivers imbedded in consumer arbitration agreements
(the "Arbitration Rule").  If the Arbitration Rule had gone into
effect, financial institutions and other companies offering
consumer products would have been blocked from requiring that
consumers resolve their disputes on an individual, non-class
basis in arbitration.

On October 24, 2017, Vice President Pence broke a 50-50 Senate
tie, voting to invalidate the CFPB Arbitration Rule.  The vote
thus set in motion the full repeal of the Arbitration Rule, and,
on November 1, 2017, President Trump signed a joint resolution
passed by Congress finalizing the repeal.  The CFPB has since
published a notice removing the Arbitration Rule from the Code of
Federal Regulations.

The action taken by Congress is reflective of the ongoing efforts
by the Trump Administration and Congress to curtail the power and
impact of the once-powerful CFPB. In November 2017, Richard
Cordray resigned as director of the CFPB and named his deputy
director, Leandra English, as his interim replacement.  Shortly
after Cordray's announcement, President Trump nominated his
Office of Management and Budget Director, Mick Mulvaney, to
replace Cordray as interim director.  This sequence of events has
set in motion a legal showdown over the authority of the
president to name the replacement for CFPB director. Thus far,
the Trump Administration has been successful in court defending
its decision.  The United States Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia recently granted English's request for an
expedited review of the case, following the denial of English's
request to preliminarily enjoin Mr. Mulvaney from replacing
English as interim director.

Mr. Mulvaney distributed an internal memo to the CFPB staff in
which he pledged to curtail the agency's aggressive regulatory
enforcement practices.  Mr. Mulvaney wrote that: "[The] CFPB has
a new 'mission': we will exercise, with humility and prudence,
the almost unparalleled power given to us to faithfully enforce
the law in furtherance of the mandate given to us by Congress.
But we go no further. Simply put, the days of aggressively
'pushing the envelope' of the law in the name of the 'mission'
are over."

The collective action of the Trump Administration and Congress
reflects continuing efforts to overhaul the agency.  These
efforts likely come as welcome news to consumer financial service
providers, who have faced constant scrutiny and pressure from the
CFPB since the days of the Obama Administration. [GN]


* Securities Fraud Class Actions Tougher Than Ever to Win
---------------------------------------------------------
Alison Frankel, writing for Reuters, reports that securities
fraud litigation can be a cutthroat business for plaintiffs'
firms.  Just look at the newly-released report from NERA Economic
Consulting.  Despite a spike in the number of securities filings
-- mostly the result of M&A challenges shifting to federal court
from Delaware Chancery Court after Delaware's crackdown on fees
for shareholder lawyers -- it's tougher than ever to win old-
school fraud class actions.  A record-setting 116 securities
fraud cases were dismissed in 2017, according to NERA.  Only 80
class actions settled, a near-low -- and the average value those
settlements, NERA found, was less than $25 million, the lowest in
a decade.

Good securities fraud class actions, in other words, are hard to
come by.  Harder still is winning the right to control the cases
as lead counsel.  The competition to be named lead counsel in
promising securities fraud class actions does not always cast
shareholder lawyers in their most flattering light.  The latest
example -- in a class action alleging that the real estate
investment trust Omega Healthcare Investors misled shareholders
about the deteriorating finances of some of its long-term care
facilities -- exposes some of the tricks of the shareholder
lawyers' trade.

The most important revelation from the Omega lead plaintiff
competition is that investors don't always know what their
lawyers are up to.  I know, cynics among you will say that's not
a revelation at all.  But rarely will you see facts as these.

Glenn Fausz was an Omega shareholder.  He lost nearly $50,000
when the REIT's share price dipped last fall.  In late November,
as Fausz explained in a declaration, he signed a retainer
agreement with the Law Offices of Howard G. Smith.  Then, after
signing the retainer and submitting a sworn certification of his
losses to Smith, Mr. Fausz also signed up with a different
plaintiffs' firm, Faruqi & Faruqi.

That's understandable.  When Congress changed the rules for
securities class actions back in 1995, lawmakers wanted to
discourage shareholder firms from seizing control of cases by
racing to file suits in the name of investors with only a small
stake. Under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act
(PSLRA), plaintiffs must issue a notice when they file a
securities class action to allow other investors to vie to lead
the cases.  Nowadays, some law firms specialize in issuing press
releases about new securities class actions -- even if other
firms filed the cases -- and screening the investors who respond.
In the Omega case, according to a brief filed on Jan. 30 by
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd, plaintiffs' firms issued no fewer
than 24 press releases inviting Omega investors to contact them.

Though it's not clear from his declaration, Mr. Fausz probably
responded to more than one press release, which is how he ended
up hiring two different plaintiffs' firms. Like I said, an
understandable development.

But what's not so understandable is that two different sets of
plaintiffs' lawyers both filed lead plaintiff motions purportedly
on Mr. Fausz's behalf.

Pomerantz and Glancy Prongay & Murray asked U.S. District Judge
Naomi Reice Buchwald of Manhattan to appoint a group of five
Omega shareholders, including Mr. Fausz, as lead plaintiffs in
the case (with Pomerantz and Glancy Prongay as their lawyers, of
course).  On the same day, Faruqi & Faruqi moved for Mr. Fausz to
lead the case on his own.

Pomerantz and Glancy Prongay withdrew their lead plaintiff motion
on Jan. 25, but the withdrawal didn't stop Faruqi and Robbins
Geller from questioning how the firms came to claim Mr. Fausz as
a client.   "Pomerantz and Glancy filed (their lead plaintiff)
motion in bad faith," Faruqi said in a Jan. 30 brief. Citing
Fausz's declaration, Faruqi said the investor had no agreement
with the Pomerantz or Glancy firm and did not know they planned
to include him as part of a group seeking appointment as lead
plaintiff. He wasn't even aware the group existed.

Faruqi said Pomerantz and Glancy had deliberately redacted the
name of referring counsel Howard Smith from Mr. Fausz's
certification to make it look like Fausz had signed up to be part
of their "cobbled-together," "lawyer-driven" investor group.
Robbins Geller's brief said the Fausz fracas strongly suggested
that neither Pomerantz nor Glancy Prongay had actually spoken
with their purported client before enlisting him as part of a
"menagerie of previously unaffiliated individuals" requesting to
be appointed lead plaintiff.

Faruqi and Robbins Geller raised the prospect of undisclosed fee-
sharing agreements between Pomerantz, Glancy and Brower Piven,
which represents a different lead plaintiff candidate in the
Omega case.  When Pomerantz and Glancy withdrew their motion,
they said Brower Piven's client seemed to be the best alternative
lead plaintiff.  Robbins Geller's brief pointed out that in a
different securities class action in Manhattan federal court,
DeSmet v. Intercept Pharmaceuticals, the Pomerantz firm recently
admitted in response to an order from U.S. District Judge Lewis
Kaplan that it had entered into an undisclosed co-counsel
agreement with another firm representing a lead plaintiff
candidate. "In light of DeSmet," the Robbins Geller brief told
Judge Buchwald, "this court should inquire as to whether any such
agreements exist in this case, whether the clients are aware of
and consented to the agreements before counsel agreed to them and
what the terms of any such agreements are."

Faruqi's brief said Judge Buchwald should flat-out refuse to
allow Pomerantz or Glancy Prongay to receive any fees from the
Omega case.  "If the PSLRA's goal of ending lawyer-driven
litigation is to have any hope of succeeding, (Pomerantz and
Glancy) should not be permitted to profit from their bad
behavior," the Faruqi brief said, "particularly where the worst
of this behavior is outsourced by the firms listed on the papers
to a tiny firm whose identity and role is intentionally concealed
from the court and other movants."

For what it's worth, Faruqi dropped its bid for Mr. Fausz to be
appointed lead plaintiff so it no longer has a dog in the Omega
hunt.  Robbins Geller is continuing to push for its client, the
Carpenters Pension Fund of Illinois, to be named lead, although
its losses appear to be smaller than those of Brower Piven's
client. So it has a motive to throw shade at Brower Piven's
competing candidacy.

In the bigger context, plaintiffs' lawyers who manipulate the
existing system to win lead counsel appointments are contributing
to the possible demise of their entire business model.  The Trump
administration is thinking about allowing corporations to force
shareholders to arbitrate their claims instead of suing in class
actions. It's a lot harder to insist investors must have a right
to sue when it looks as though plaintiffs' lawyers are driving
cases.

Jeremy Lieberman of Pomerantz declined to comment.  Lionel Glancy
and Robert Prongay did not respond to an email seeking comment.
Howard Smith and David Brower did not respond to my phone
messages. [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  * * *