CAR_Public/180219.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


            Monday, February 19, 2018, Vol. 20, No. 36



                            Headlines


2.7 AUGUST: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, "Gheem" Suit Claims
A.B. GENERAL: "Lopez" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime under FLSA
AAMES SECURITY: Fails to Pay OT & Minimum Wages, Hernandez Says
ABM AVIATION: Fails to Pay Wages & Overtime under Labor Code
ABS FINANCIAL: Faces "Carrasco" Suit over Club Membership Fees

ACCO ENGINEERED: Products Have Asbestos, "Barnhart" Suit Claims
ADVANCED MICRO: Sued over Selling of Defective Core Processor
ADVANCED MICRO: Hauck Sues over Sale of Defective CPUs
AFLAC INCORPORATED: Martin Sues over Drop in Share Price
AMENDOLA PIZZA: Fails to Pay Minimum Wage & OT, Eustate Says

AMERICAN FINANCE: Clair-Hibbard Balks at AR Global Merger Deal
ARIES WORLDWIDE: "Miciak" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA
ARGENTINA: Defaulted on Exchange Bonds, Draw Capital Suit Says
AVIATION PORT: Faces "Hernandez" Suit in California
BALLARD POWER: Porwal Sues over Drop in Share Price

BIG HEART: Dog Food Contains Pentobarbital, Mullins Claims
BIOTELEMETRY INC: "Matthews" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA
CBRE GROUP: "Romo" Suit Moved to Central District of California
COLETTA SPURLING: "Ornelas" Suit Moved to District of Arizona
COMERICA BANK: Faces "Prince" Suit over Woodbridge Collapse

CREDIT SUISSE: Refuses to Pay Deferred Compensation, Laver Says
CYPRESS COMMUNICATIONS: Fails to Pay Overtime, "Bruton" Claims
DALLAS INTERNATIONAL: "Patterson" Suit Seeks OT Pay under FLSA
DELTA AIR: "Schofield" Suit Removed to N.D. California
DEZIGNS CONSTRUCTION: Garcia Sues over Wage and Hour Laws

DIGNITY HEALTH: Ruiz Calls Debt Collection "Wrongful"
DIN TAI: "Ortiz" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code
DIVINE MIRACLES: "Hohensee" Suit Seeks Minimum Pay, OT under FLSA
DOCTOR'S MEDICAL: "Valencia" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA
E.J.'S NORTH: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, "Sandoval" Suit Claims

EASTWESTPROTO INC: Parties Agree to Remand "Mason" Suit
ENVISION HEALTHCARE: Quitly Sues over ER Physician Services
EPSI INC: Underpays Pizza Delivery Drivers, "Gentry" Suit Says
EQUIFAX INC: Directors Face Derivative Suit in N.D. Georgia
EQUIFAX INC: Credit Unions Sue over Security Breach

EQUIFAX INC: Faces "Bank" Suit over Security Breach
EQUINOX FITNESS: Fails to Pay OT & Minimum Wages, Wesley Says
EQUITY RESIDENTIAL: Fails to Pay All Overtime Wages, Vizza Says
FITZSIMMONS SURGICAL: Fails to Pay Overtime, "Lott" Suit Claims
FORESTRY MANAGEMENT: Faces "Montford" Suit over Failure to Pay OT

FU FU CAFE: "Quema" Suit Seeks Minimum Wages, OT under FLSA
FUNKO INC: "Lowinger" Suit Moved to W.D. Washington
GC SERVICE: Faces "Galli" Suit in New York Supreme Court
GEORGIA-PACIFIC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, "Pulido" Claims
GLOBAL TRAVEL: Roberts Sues over "Reward Redemption" Scam

GOVAN RD: "Galindo" Suit Seeks Minimum Wage & OT Pay
GRAN CAFFE: Faces "Prazdnik" Suit in Eastern District of Penn.
HEMANI CAPITAL: "Wilson" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages under FLSA
HERSCHELL GOLDMAN: Faces "Carter" Suit over EFTA Violations
HURON CLINTON: "Livingston" Suit Seeks unpaid OT Wages under FLSA

HYDRO-AIRE INC: Fails to Pay OT & Minimum Wages, McDowell Says
HYUNDAI MOTOR: Sued by Brogan over Defective GDI Engines
IGNYTA INC: Faces "Diaz" Suit over Proposed Roche Merger
JASON NATURAL: Zeng Sues over "All Natural" Products Claims
JZANUS LTD: Faces "Kim" Suit in Eastern District New York

KINDRED HEALTHCARE: Sehrgosha Enjoins Merger with Consortium
KINDRED HEALTHCARE: Tompkins Balks at TPG Global Merger Deal
KOMEN USA: "Santoyo" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages under FLSA
LEE KUM KEE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, "Leon" Suit Claims
LJM FUNDS: Sokolow Sues over Plunge in LJMIX Share Price

LTI TRUCKING: "Kennedy" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages under FLSA
MANHATTAN ACADEMY: Soghn Seeks Minimum Wage & OT under Labor Code
MENARD INC: Violates Wage and Hour Laws, "Raisor" Suit Says
MERCK & CO: Rochester Drug Sues over Monopoly of Zetia Drug
METROPCS TEXAS: "Silguero" Suit Seeks Overtime Wages under FLSA

MGB INC: "Oliver" Suit Seeks Minimum Wage & OT under FLSA
MIDLAND FUNDING: McCoy Sues over Debt Collection Practices
MOOOI USA: Faces "Bishop" Suit in Southern District New York
MOTION PICTURE: Fails to Pay OT, "Maravilla" Suit Claims
MRK FINE: Faces "Bishop" Suit in Southern District New York

NATIONWIDE PROTECTIVE: Fails to Pay OT, "Ramessar" Suit Claims
NAVIENT SOLUTIONS: Obeleagu Sues over Collection of Student Loan
NIKOLAIS GALANOPOULOS: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT, Amastal Says
NORTHSTAR LOCATION: Faces "Selwyn" Suit in E.D. New York
NUDGE LLC: Faces Just Us Realtors Suit in District of Utah

O'REILLY AUTO: Fails to Reimburse Gift Cards, Micallef Claims
OFFICINE PANERAI: Faces "Thorne" Suit in S.D. New York
OIL CAN: "Sarduy" Suit Seeks OT & Minimum Wages under FLSA
OZARK PIZZA: "Paul" Suit Seeks Unpaid Minimum Wages under FLSA
PARLIER CITY, CA: "Jimenez" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime under FLSA

PATHWAY LEASING: "Fisher" Suit Seeks Minimum Wages under FLSA
PATHWAY LEASING: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages, Fisher Says
PAX ASSIST: Fails to Pay for Overtime Work, Stewart Claims
PETORE ASSOCIATES: Par Plumbing Sues over Unpaid Services
PRISHA COSMETICS: Fails to Pay OT & Minimum Wages, Garcia Says

PROFESSIONAL WATER: Garners Sue over Water Softening System
RANGER READY: Refuses to Pay Overtime Premium, Thompson Says
REJUVENATING CONCEPTS: Fails to Pay Minimum Wage, Hohensee Says
ROCKROSE DEVELOPMENT: Faces "Bishop" Suit in S.D. New York
ROOTER HERO: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Yearian Says

RUSTY'S PIZZA: Faces "May" Suit in California Superior Court
SAW ENTERPRISES: "Velez" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages under FLSA
SHERRY FRONTENAC: "Chera" Suit Moved to Southern Dist. of Florida
SOBE MIAMI: "Ortega" Suit Seeks Minimum Wages & OT under FLSA
SOCAL JIB: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, "Bonola" Suit Claims

SOY SAUCE: Fails to Pay Overtime Pay, "Feng" Suit Claims
STAMPS.COM INC: "Lopez" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages under FLSA
STANLEY STEEMER: "Bradley" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA
STORCK USA: Mislabels Caramel Candy Packs, Kpakpoe-Awei Claims
SUMAIDA & KHURANA: Faces "Bishop" Suit in S.D. New York

SUPER MICRO COMPUTER: Roofers Union Files Securities Class Suit
SYNERGY PHARMACEUTICALS: CRG Loan Has Deceptive Terms, Lee Says
SYNERMED INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, "Estrada" Suit Claims
TASTEBUDS CATERING: "Ramirez" Suit Moved to S.D. Florida
TD BANK: "Chavez" Sues over Recording of Telephone Conversations

TRB LLC: Fails to Pay for Overtime Work, "Lorenzo" Suit Claims
TURNER BROADCASTING: Faces "Byrd" Suit over Race Discrimination
ULTIMATE FITNESS: Secure Sues over Telemarketing Messages
ULYSSE NARDIN: Website No Accessible to Blind People, Thorne Says
UNIVAR INC: "Jones" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA

WAVEDIVISION HOLDINGS: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Sanchez Says
WHITELOCKE & ASSOCIATES: Martinez Sues over Collection Calls
WIRELESS LIFESTYLE: Lillie Sues over Labor Code Violations





                            *********


2.7 AUGUST: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, "Gheem" Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
ALICE GHEEM, an individual and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, 2.7 AUGUST APPAREL, INC., and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. BC690985 (Cal. Super., Los
Angeles Cty., Jan. 19, 2018) is an action alleging Defendant's
policies, practices, and customs deprived the Plaintiff's rights
guaranteed to her by the California Labor Code.

Ms. Gheem worked for the Defendants from July 2016 to October 31,
2017.

2.7 August Apparel, Inc. is engaged in the Uniforms and Work
Clothing business. According to Company's website --
https://27augustapparel.com/ -- it is a digital shopping
destination where people can discover diverse brands and be able
to shop an assortment of products directly in a single-cart
experience. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Larry W. Lee, Esq.
          Nick Rosenthal, Esq.
          DIVERSITY LAW GROUP, P.C.
          515 S. Figueroa St., Suite 1250
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213)488-6555
          Facsimile: (213) 488-6554
          E-mail: lwlee@diversitylaw.com

               - and -

          Edward W. Choi, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF CHOI & ASSOCIATES
          515 S. Figueroa St., Suite 1250
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213)381-1515
          Facsimile: (213) 465-4885
          E-mail: edward.choi@choiandassociates.com

               - and -

          Alex M. Cha, Esq.
          J. Edward Kim, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF ALEX CHA
          1055 W 7th St., FI. 28
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 351-3513
          Facsimile: (213) 351-3514


A.B. GENERAL: "Lopez" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------
VICTOR LOPEZ, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. A.B. GENERAL CONSTRUCTION AND
REPAIRS, LLC and JEM CONSTRUCTION GROUP, LLC, the Defendants,
Case No. 4:18-cv-00386 (S.D. Tex., Feb. 9, 2018), seeks to
recover unpaid overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act of
1938.

According to the complaint, the Defendants violated the FLSA by
employing Lopez and other similarly situated nonexempt employees
"for a workweek longer than forty hours [but refusing to
compensate them] for [their] employment in excess of [forty]
hours at a rate not less than one and one-half times the regular
rate at which [they are or were] employed." The Defendants
violated the FLSA by failing to maintain accurate time and pay
records for Lopez and other similarly situated nonexempt
employees as required by 29 U.S.C. section 211(c) and 29 C.F.R.
pt. 516.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Melissa Moore, Esq.
          Curt Hesse, Esq.
          Bridget Davidson, Esq.
          MOORE & ASSOCIATES
          Lyric Center
          440 Louisiana Street, Suite 675
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (713) 222 6775
          Facsimile: (713) 222 6739


AAMES SECURITY: Fails to Pay OT & Minimum Wages, Hernandez Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
JORGE HERNANDEZ, as an individual and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. RSG/AAMES SECURITY INC., a
California corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, the Defendants,
Case No. BC693466 (Cal. Super. Ct., Feb. 9, 2018), seeks to
recover overtime wages and minimum wages under the California
Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was employed by
Defendants as a non-exempt employee from October 2013 through
September 2015. Defendants maintained and maintain one
manufacturing location in Signal Hill, California, with various
primary departments, including: (i) diecast; (ii) sheet metal
work; (iii) paint; (iv) research and development; (v)
soldering; (vi) assembly; and (vii) consulting. At various times
throughout his employment, Plaintiff worked in one or more of
Defendants' primary departments. During his employment with
Defendants, Plaintiff was usually scheduled from anywhere from
around 5:00-6:00 a.m. to around 5:00-5:30 p.m. However, Plaintiff
would often commence work before his scheduled start time and
would also often work beyond the scheduled end of his shift.

Throughout Plaintiffs employment with Defendants, Defendants
would keep track of Plaintiffs actual time worked on an
electronic timekeeping system. However, the timekeeping system
would unlawfully round/shave Plaintiffs work time down to the
quarter hour such that Plaintiff would not be fully paid for all
time worked. This time shaving/rounding practice utilized by
Defendants was not-even handed over time and would round/shave in
Defendants' favor such that Plaintiff was routinely underpaid for
his time worked. For example, on May 1, 2015, Plaintiff clocked-
in and commenced work at 4:51 a.m., and then clocked out for
a meal period at 12:00 p.m. Thus, for that period of his shift
that day, Plaintiff worked a total of 7 hours and 9 minutes, but
the timekeeping system rounded/shaved that work period down to 7
hours thereby causing Plaintiff to lose 9 minutes of work time
credit. Plaintiff then clocked back in at 12:24 p.m. and worked
until 3:11 p.m. when he clocked out for the day. Thus, for this
second work period of Plaintiffs day, he worked 2 hours and 47
minutes, but was only given credit for 2 hours and 45 minutes due
to Defendants' timekeeping rounding/shaving practices. As a
result of Defendants' practices, Plaintiff was only given credit
and paid for 9 hours and 45 minutes of work time on May 1, 2015
despite the fact he was clocked-in and worked for 9 hours and 56
minutes. This timekeeping shaving practice by Defendants was
habitual, and there are numerous other instances in Plaintiffs
time records showing how his actual work time was rounded down
in favor of Defendants, causing Plaintiff to be underpaid minimum
wages for such time.

RSG, Inc. is a manufacturer and has been in the fire safety
business for over twenty years.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott M. Lidman, Esq.
          Elizabeth Nguyen, Esq.
          LIDMAN LAW, APC
          222 N. Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 1550
          El Segundo, CA 90245
          Telephone: (424) 322 4772
          Facsimile: (424) 322 4775
          E-mail: slidman@lidmanlaw.com
                  enguyen@lidmanlaw.com

               - and -

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


ABM AVIATION: Fails to Pay Wages & Overtime under Labor Code
------------------------------------------------------------
LAURA PETITT, an individual, on behalf of herself and others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. ABM AVIATION, INC.; and
DOES 1 thru 50, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. BC693422 (Cal.
Super. Ct., Feb. 8, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid wages and/or
overtime under California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, from at least four years prior to the
filing of this action continuing to the present, Defendant has
had a consistent policy of failing to pay wages and/or overtime
to all Proposed Class Members when they work more than eight
hours in a day or forty hours in a week. Plaintiff and other
Proposed Class Members were not properly compensated for wages
and overtime because Defendant required work to be performed off
the clock; failed to pay for compensable activities, including
waiting for and riding a mandatory shuttle to and from the time
clock facility; altered timesheets to make it appear that
employees worked less than they actually did, and issued
paychecks that compensated for less than the total hours worked.

ABM supports commercial aviation. The Company offers an array of
services such as cargo, cleaning, ground transportation,
passenger services, ramp handling, security, and outsource
business solution. Air Serv provides solutions throughout the
United States and United Kingdom.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and all aggrieved employees:

          Eric B. Kingsley, Esq.
          Liane Katzenstein Ly., Esq.
          Ari J. Stiller, Esq.
          KINGSLEY & KINGSLEY, APC
          16133 Ventura Blvd., Suite 1200
          Encino, CA 91436
          Telephone: (818) 990 8300
          Facsimile: (818) 990 2903
          E-mail: eric@kingsleykingsley.com
                  liane@kingsleykingsley.com
                  ari@kingsleykingsley.com


ABS FINANCIAL: Faces "Carrasco" Suit over Club Membership Fees
--------------------------------------------------------------
Calvin Carrasco, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ABS Financial Services Inc., and Blast
Fitness Group, LLC, Case No. 18-115D (Mass. Cmmw., Jan. 22,
2018), is a class action suit against the Defendants for
charging, collecting and retaining impermissible fees for health
club services.

ABS Financial Services Inc. is an Arkansas Corporation which
maintains a principal office located in Sherwood Arkansas and
registered agent located in Boston, MA. The Company is in the
business of servicing multiple Massachusetts health club
contracts and in the business of billing and collecting funds
from residents throughout the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

Blast Fitness Group, LLC is a Massachusetts limited liability
company which maintains a principal office located in Auburndale,
MA and registered agent located in Westborough, Massachusetts.
The Company was engaged in the business of maintaining health
clubs throughout the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael C. Forrest, Esq.
          Robert E. Mazow, Esq.
          Brian P. McNiff, Esq.
          David J. Relethford, Esq.
          FORREST LAMOTHE MAZOW
          MCCULLOUGH YASI & YASI, P.C.
          2 Salem Green, Suite 2
          Salem, MA 01970
          Telephone: (617) 231-7829
          E-mail: mforrest@forrestlamothe.com
                  rmazow@forrestlamothe.com
                  bmcniff@forrestlamothe.com
                  drelethford@forrestlamothe.com


ACCO ENGINEERED: Products Have Asbestos, "Barnhart" Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against ACCO ENGINEERED
SYSTEMS, INC. The case is captioned as RONALD BARNHART and SUSAN
BARNHART, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ACCO ENGINEERED SYSTEMS, INC., et al.,
Case No. BC690950 (Cal. Super., Jan. 19, 2018).

According to the complaint, Plaintiffs have used, handled, and
exposed to asbestos and asbestos-containing products and
equipment. Plaintiffs suffer from malignant mesothelioma, caused
by and exposure to asbestos and asbestos-containing products and
equipment.

ACCO Engineered Systems, Inc. designs, manufactures, and installs
industrial, commercial, high-rise, residential, and institutional
heating, ventilating, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems. ACCO
Engineered Systems, Inc. was formerly known as Air Conditioning
Company. The company was founded in 1934 and is based in
Glendale, California with general offices in Glendale,
California; and principal offices in San Leandro, Sacramento,
Orange County, Azusa, San Diego, Bakersfield, Fresno, Petaluma,
Redding, Vacaville, California; Boise, Idaho; Las Vegas, Nevada;
and Seattle, Washington.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kevin M. Loew, Esq.
          Andrew Seitz, Esq.
          WATERS KRAUS & PAUL
          222 N. Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 1900
          El Segundo, CA 90245
          Telephone: (310) 414-8146
          Facsimile: (310) 414-8156
          E-mail: kloew@waterskraus.com
                  aseitz@waterskraus.com


ADVANCED MICRO: Sued over Selling of Defective Core Processor
-------------------------------------------------------------
NATHAN BARNES and JONATHAN CASKEYMEDINA, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v.
ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, INC., the Defendant Case No. 5:18-cv-
00883-HRL (N.D. Cal., Feb. 9, 2018), seeks an order awarding
declaratory relief and enjoining Defendant from continuing the
unlawful, deceptive, harmful, and unfair business conduct and
practices.

The Plaintiffs bring this action against Defendant, individually,
and on behalf of all persons who purchased or leased a defective
AMD core processor. Founded in 1969, Defendant AMD is a global
semiconductor company, with facilities around the world. As part
of its business operations, AMD designs, manufactures, sells,
and/or distributes electronic computer products, including the
defective CPUs challenged herein. In particular, AMD's CPUs
suffer from a critical security defect, discussed in further
detail below, which causes the CPUs to be exposed to significant
security vulnerabilities by allowing potential access to integral
kernel data (the "Spectre Defect"). This access, in turn, can
compromise highly confidential personal and corporate
information, such as that related to passwords, social security
numbers, and credit card numbers.  The CPUs Defendant AMD
designed, manufactured, distributed, and/or sold to Plaintiffs
and Class members were not merchantable and were unfit for the
ordinary and particular purposes for which such goods are used
due to the Spectre Defect.

Had Plaintiffs and the other Class members known of the Spectre
Defect, they would not have purchased or leased, or would have
paid substantially less for AMD's CPUs, or the respective devices
they purchased or leased that contained AMD's CPUs. Having
purchased or leased a CPU that suffers from the Spectre Defect,
Plaintiffs and Class members suffered injury in fact and a loss
of money or property as a result of Defendant's conduct in
designing, manufacturing, distributing, and/or selling defective
CPUs. Defendant AMD has failed to remedy this harm, and has
earned and continues to earn substantial profit from selling
defective CPUs.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the proposed class:

          Alison Chase, Esq.
          KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
          801 Garden Street, Suite 301
          Santa Barbara, CA 93101
          Telephone: (805) 456 1496
          Facsimile: (805) 456 1497
          E-mail: achase@kellerrohrback.com

               - and -

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


ADVANCED MICRO: Hauck Sues over Sale of Defective CPUs
------------------------------------------------------
DIANA HAUCK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 5:18-cv-00447-SVK (N.D. Cal., Jan. 19, 2018), alleges
that Defendant breached its implied warranties by selling to the
Plaintiffs and Class members defective AMD central processing
units.

Defendant's defective processors are incapable of operating at
represented processing speeds without exposing users to at least
one security vulnerability known as "Spectre" -- which allows
programs to steal data which is currently processed on the
computer. Specifically, the Spectre defect steals data from the
memory of other applications running on a machine.

Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. operates as a semiconductor company
worldwide. Its primarily offers x86 microprocessors as an
accelerated processing unit (APU), chipsets, discrete graphics
processing units (GPUs), and professional graphics; and server
and embedded processors, and semi-custom System-on-Chip (SoC)
products and technology for game consoles. The company sells its
products through its direct sales force, independent
distributors, and sales representatives. It primarily serves
original equipment manufacturers, original design manufacturers,
system builders, and independent distributors. Advanced Micro
Devices, Inc. was founded in 1969 and is headquartered in
Sunnyvale, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Eli R. Greenstein, Esq.
          Jennifer L. Joost, Esq.
          Stacey M. Kaplan, Esq.
          KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
          One Sansome Street, Suite 1850
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 400-3000
          Facsimile: (415) 400-3001
          E-mail: egreenstein@ktmc.com
                  jjoost@ktmc.com
                  skaplan@ktmc.com

               - and -

          Joseph H. Meltzer, Esq.
          Samantha Holbrook, Esq.
          KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, PA 19087
          Telephone: (610) 667-7706
          Facsimile: (610) 667-7056
          E-mail: jmeltzer@ktmc.com
                  sholbrook@ktmc.com

               - and -

          Stuart A. Davidson, Esq.
          Christopher C. Gold, Esq.
          Ricardo J. Marenco, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          120 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500
          Boca Raton, FL 33432
          Telephone: (561) 750-3000
          Facsimile: (561) 750-3364
          E-mail: sdavidson@rgrdlaw.com
                  cgold@rgrdlaw.com
                  rmarenco@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          James E. Cecchi, Esq.
          CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI OLSTEIN BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.
          5 Becker Farm Road
          Roseland, NJ 07068
          Telephone: (973) 994-1700
          Facsimile: (973) 994-1744
          E-mail: jcecchi@carellabyme.com

               - and -

          Christopher A. Seeger, Esq.
          SEEGER WEISS LLP
          55 Challenger Road, 6 th Floor
          Ridgefield Park, NJ 07660
          Telephone: (973) 639-9100
          Facsimile: (973) 639-9393
          E-mail: cseeger@seegerweiss.com


AFLAC INCORPORATED: Martin Sues over Drop in Share Price
--------------------------------------------------------
JAHMEL MARTIN, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. AFLAC INCORPORATED, DANIEL P. AMOS
and FREDERICK J. CRAWFORD, the Defendants, Case No. 4:18-cv-
00031-CDL (M.D. Ga., Feb. 9, 2018), seeks to recover compensable
damages caused by Defendants' violations of federal securities
laws and pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

The case is a federal securities class action on behalf of a
class consisting of all persons and entities, other than
Defendants and their affiliates, who purchased or otherwise
acquired Aflac common stock from February 27, 2013 through
January 11, 2018, both dates inclusive.

The Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or
failed to disclose that: (i) Aflac hired its sales associates
under false promises of high compensation packages and worklife-
balance; (ii) Aflac misclassified its employees as independent
contractors to reduce costs associated with unemployment
insurance taxes and employment benefits; (iii) Aflac manipulated
its average weekly producer equivalent metric to fabricate
growth; (iv) consequently, Aflac violated its Code of Conduct and
corporate social responsibility standards, and (v) as a result of
the foregoing, Aflac's public statements were materially false
and misleading at all relevant times.

On January 11, 2018, post-market, the news publication The
Intercept released a report revealing undisclosed lawsuits
against Aflac for exploitation of workers, manipulation of
accounting, and insider trading. On this news, Aflac's stock
declined from a close price of $91.69 on January 11, 2018, to a
close price of $84.94 on January 12, 2018, a drop of
approximately - 7.36%.

As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
decline in the market value of the Company's securities,
Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant
losses and damages.

Aflac Inc. is an American insurance company and is the largest
provider of supplemental insurance in the United States. The
company was founded in 1955 and is based in Columbus,
Georgia.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David A. Bain, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF DAVID A. BAIN, LLC
          1230 Peachtree Street, NE
          Suite 1050
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Telephone: (404) 724 9990
          Facsimile: (404) 724 9986
          E-mail: dbain@bain-law.com

               - and -

          Eduard Korsinsky, Esq.
          LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
          30 Broad Street, 24th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 363 7500
          Facsimile: (212) 363 7171
          E-mail: ek@zlk.com


AMENDOLA PIZZA: Fails to Pay Minimum Wage & OT, Eustate Says
------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE AGUSTIN ORTEGA EUSTATE, JULIO CESAR LARA, and VICTOR
CASTILLO HIDALGO, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. AMENDOLA PIZZA TRATTORIA INC.
(D/B/A AMENDOLA PIZZA), AMENDOLA'S PIZZARIA, INC. (D/B/A
AMENDOLA PIZZA), MATTEO AMENDOLA, MATTHEW AMENDOLA, and SEVERIO
AMENDOLA, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-01142 (S.D.N.Y., Feb.
8, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the New York
Labor Law.

The Plaintiffs are both current and former employees of
Defendants Amendola Pizza Trattoria Inc. the Defendants own,
operate, or control an Italian restaurant, located at 203 E
Hartsdale Ave., Hartsdale, NY 10530 under the name "Amendola
Pizza. The Plaintiffs have been employed as delivery workers at
the restaurant located at 203 E Hartsdale Ave., Hartsdale, NY
10530. The Plaintiffs have ostensibly been employed as delivery
workers. However, they have been required to spend a considerable
part of their work day performing non-tipped duties, including
but not limited to putting tables and chairs away at night,
sweeping, assembling pizza boxes, cleaning the floor, cleaning
the windows, folding cardboard boxes, cleaning the tables,
placing the chairs on the tables when they mop the floor and
placing them back on the floor, and shopping for supplies.

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

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

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



AMERICAN FINANCE: Clair-Hibbard Balks at AR Global Merger Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
CAROLYN ST. CLAIR-HIBBARD, Individually and on behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN FINANCE
TRUST, INC., AMERICAN FINANCE ADVISORS, LLC, AR GLOBAL
INVESTMENTS, LLC, NICHOLAS S. SCHORSCH and WILLIAM M. KAHANE, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-01148 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 8, 2018),
seeks to recover damages sustained as a result of AFIN's breaches
of fiduciary duties and Defendants aiding and abetting of those
breaches of fiduciary duty.

The action is brought as a class action by Plaintiff and all
other stock holders of common stock of American Finance Trust,
Inc., against the Company and its controlling persons, for their
violations of Section 14(a) and 20(b) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 in connection with the issuance of materially
defective proxy materials which resulted in the approval of a new
Advisory Agreement between the Company and the Advisor which
appropriated value from Plaintiff and shareholders and enriched
the Advisor and other Defendants (except AFIN) unfairly,
illegally, and inequitably, as part of merger between AFIN and
other AR Global affiliate, Retail Centers of America.

AFIN is designed to protect shareholder capital and provide
attractive, stable cash distributions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Olimpio Lee Squitieri, Esq.
          SQUITIERI & FEARSON, LLP
          32 East 57th Street, 12th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 421 6492
          Facsimile: (212) 421 6553


ARIES WORLDWIDE: "Miciak" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------
KELLY MICIAK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. ARIES WORLDWIDE LOGISTICS, LLC, the
Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-0039 (S.D. Tex., Feb. 9, 2018), seeks
to recover unpaid overtime pay and other damages under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, Miciak worked nights for Aries, 48
hours per week, tracking shipments and notifying customers of
deliveries. Aries paid Miciak about $42,000 per year. Aries did
not pay the additional time a half required by the FLSA for hours
worked in excess of forty hours per week. Aries knew Miciak
worked over forty hours per week. Aries knew Miciak was not paid
overtime at time and one-half her regular rate of pay. Aries knew
or showed reckless disregard for whether its payroll practices
violated the minimum wage and overtime provisions of the FLSA.
Accordingly, Aries willfully violated the FLSA's minimum wage and
overtime provisions.[BN]

Aries Worldwide, Inc. provides logistics services. The company
offers freight, ocean shipping, cargo, brokerage, trade
compliance, carting, packing, and warehousing services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David I. Moulton, Esq.
          Matthew S. Parmet, Esq.
          BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
          8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 877 8788
          Telecopier: (713) 877 8065
          E-mail: dmoulton@brucknerburch.com
                  mparmet@brucknerburch.com


ARGENTINA: Defaulted on Exchange Bonds, Draw Capital Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
DRAW Capital Partners, LLC, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. The Republic of Argentina,
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-00548-JGK (S.D.N.Y., Jan 22, 2018),
is a class action sought against the Defendant's failure to make
contractually-mandated interest payments on certain bonds issued
that are currently owned and held by Plaintiff.

The Republic of Argentina is an independent state and a republic
which occupies much of the southern part of South America.
Argentina is bordered by the Andes mountain range and Chile in
west, by Bolivia and Paraguay in north and by Brazil and Uruguay
in north east and it borders the South Atlantic Ocean in east.
Argentina has a population of 43.5 million people (in 2016);
capital and largest city is Buenos Aires. Spoken language is
Spanish. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan S. Sack, Esq.
          SACK & SACK, LLP
          70 East 55th Street, 10 th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 702-9000
          Facsimile: (212) 702-9702


AVIATION PORT: Faces "Hernandez" Suit in California
---------------------------------------------------
Marcos Hernandez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Aviation Port Services LLC, Defendant,
Case No. BCV-18-100141 (Cal. Super., Kern Cty., Jan. 19, 2018)
The case is assigned to Hon. Judge David R. Lampe.

Aviation Port Services L.L.C was founded in 2007. The company's
line of business includes operating and maintaining airports and
flying fields. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by Matthew E. Crawford, Esq.


BALLARD POWER: Porwal Sues over Drop in Share Price
---------------------------------------------------
ANUPAMA PORWAL, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. BALLARD POWER SYSTEMS INC.,
R. RANDALL MACEWEN and ANTHONY ROBERT GUGLIELMIN, the Defendants,
Case No. 1:18-cv-01137 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 8, 2018), seeks to recover
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.

The case is a federal securities class action on behalf of a
class consisting of all persons other than Defendants who
purchased or otherwise acquired Ballard's securities between
September 30, 2016 and January 25, 2018, both dates inclusive,

Throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and
misleading statements regarding the Company's business,
operational and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (i) the Company had overstated the operations of its China-
based partners Broad Ocean and Synergy JV; (ii) Ballard's
technologies had not been deployed in China to the extent the
Company had represented; and (iii) as a result of the foregoing,
Ballard shares traded at artificially inflated prices during the
Class Period, and class members suffered significant losses and
damages.

On January 25, 2018, Spruce Point Capital Management reported
that Ballard overstated the operations of its China-based
partners Broad Ocean and Synergy JV and said that conflicting to
Ballard's public statements, "there are no demonstration lines
operating in Guangdong and that no bus lines are in service in
Sanshui or Yunfu." The report continued to state that "Ballard
and local press releases indicate that [Broad Ocean customer]
Foshan has produced 114 FCV buses, [but] a Foshan employee
claimed that far fewer buses have been produced to date and only
11 are licensed."

Following this news, Ballard's share price fell $0.52, or over
13%, to close at $3.27 on January 25, 2018. As a result of
Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous
decline in the market value of the Company's securities,
Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant
losses and damages.

Ballard designs, develops, manufactures, sells and service
hydrogen fuel cells for a range of applications. The Company's
products and services are used in many industries such as
materials handling, residential cogeneration, backup power and
transportation. Ballard has represented to investors that the
Company has been deploying its technologies in various parts of
China, in conjunction with local partners Broad Ocean and Synergy
JV. Founded in 1979, the Company is based in Burnaby, Canada, and
its stock trades on the NASDAQ Global Market under the ticker
symbol "BLDP."[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

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


BIG HEART: Dog Food Contains Pentobarbital, Mullins Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
MACLAIN MULLINS, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. BIG HEART PET BRANDS, INC.,
a Delaware corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-00861
(N.D. Cal., Feb. 9, 2018), seeks an order enjoining Defendant
from selling contaminated dog food until Pentobarbital is
removed.

The Defendant manufactures, markets, advertises, labels,
distributes, and sells Gravy Train Chunks in Gravy with Beef
Chunks, Gravy Train Chunks in Gravy with TBone Flavor Chunks,
Gravy Train Chunks in Gravy with Chicken Chunks, Gravy Train
Strips in Gravy Beef Strips and Gravy Train With Lamb & Rice
Chunks.  The Contaminated Dog Foods contain pentobarbital, a
barbiturate drug used as a sedative and anesthetic for animals.
Pentobarbital is now most commonly used to euthanizing dogs and
cats.

Pentobarbital residue from euthanized animals will continue to be
present in pet food, even if it is rendered or canned at high
temperature or pressure. Pentobarbital is routinely used to
euthanize animals, and the most likely way it could get into dog
food would be in rendered animal products. Rendered products come
from a process that converts animal tissues to feed ingredients,
including tissues from animals that have been euthanized,
decomposed or were diseased. Pentobarbital from euthanized
animals survives the rendering process and could be present in
the rendered feed ingredients used in pet food. The FDA's testing
of dry dog food confirmed some samples contained pentobarbital.
The FDA concluded that pentobarbital was entering pet foods from
euthanized, rendered cattle or horses because of the lack of dog
and cat DNA.

Despite its findings, the FDA has not aggressively taken action
under FDCA, 342 (a)(1) or (5), against the pet food companies
that it found to have used nonslaughtered animals and contain
pentobarbital in their pet foods. Therefore, manufacturers
in the pet food industry, including Defendant, have continued
their illegal practice of using non-slaughtered animals that may
contain poisonous substances, like pentobarbital, in their
pet foods.8It is not acceptable to use animals euthanized with a
chemical substance in pet food, and the detection of
pentobarbital in pet food renders the product adulterated.

According to the Plaintiff, Defendant is also knowingly,
recklessly and/or negligently selling contaminated dog food
containing pentobarbital, a substance largely used to euthanize
animals. On February 8, 2018, it was reported on WJLA that an
independent investigation determined that the Contaminated Dog
Foods contained pentobarbital. The independent investigation
utilized two independent labs and both showed the inclusion of
pentobarbital the Contaminated Dog Foods.

Defendant knew the real risk that pentobarbital may appear in the
Contaminated Dog Foods if the manufacturing and sourcing were not
properly monitored. Indeed, this is not the first time that the
Gravy Train line of food has been determined to include
pentobarbital: "Back in 2001, analyses by the FDA found residue
of the sedative in popular brands like Nutro, Gravy Train and
Kibbles 'n Bits.

Consumers have increasingly become more aware and cautious about
the products they purchase. Additionally, Defendant knew that a
consumer would be feeding the Contaminated Dog Foods multiple
times each day to his or her dog. This leads to repeated exposure
of the barbiturate to the dog. Defendant wrongfully advertised
and sold the Contaminated Dog Foods without any label or warning
indicating to consumers that these products contained any level
of Pentobarbital or that Defendant utilized animals that have
been euthanized as a protein or meat by-product source. Instead,
the advertising and labels intentionally omit any reference to
the food being adulterated.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Rebecca A. Peterson, Esq.
          Robert K. Shelquist, Esq.
          LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
          100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
          Minneapolis, MN 55401
          Telephone: (612) 339 6900
          Facsimile: (612) 339 0981
          E-mail: rkshelquist@locklaw.com
                  rapeterson@locklaw.com

               - and -

          Kevin A. Seely, Esq.
          Steven M. Mckany, Esq.
          ROBBINS ARROYO LLP
          600 B Street, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 525 3990
          Facsimile: (619) 525 3991
          E-mail: kseely@robbinsarroyo.com
                  smckany@robbinsarroyo.com

               - and -

          Kevin A. Seely, Esq.
          Steven M. Mckany, Esq.
          ROBBINS ARROYO LLP
          600 B Street, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 525-3990
          Facsimile: (619) 525-3991
          E-mail: kseely@robbinsarroyo.com
          smckany@robbinsarroyo.com

               - and -

          Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq.
          Karla M. Gluek, Esq.
          Joseph C. Bourne, Esq.
          Raina C. Borrelli
          GUSTAFSON GLUEK, PLLC
          Canadian Pacific Plaza
          120 South 6th Street, Suite 2600
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 333 8844
          Facsimile: (612) 339 6622
          E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com
                  kgluek@gustafsongluek.com
                  jbourne@gustafsongluek.com
                  rborrelli@gustafsongluek.com

               - and -

          Charles Laduca, Esq.
          Katherine Van Dyck, Esq.
          CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
          4725 Wisconsin Ave NW, Suite 200
          Washington, DC 20016
          Telephone: (202) 789 3960
          Facsimile: (202) 789 1813
          E-mail: kvandyck@cuneolaw.com
                  charles@cuneolaw.com

               - and -

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


BIOTELEMETRY INC: "Matthews" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM MATTHEWS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. BIOTELEMETRY, INC., d/b/a
CARDIONET, the Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-00561-MMB (E.D. Pa.,
Feb. 9, 2018), seeks to recover overtime wages pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and Class Plaintiffs
regularly work more than 40 hours per week, but are not properly
compensated for their work in that Plaintiff are not paid
overtime premium at 4.5 times their regular rate of pay for each
hour worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek.

BioTelemetry provides cardiac monitoring, cardiac monitoring
device manufacturing, and centralized cardiac core laboratory
services. The company operates in three segments: Healthcare,
Research, and Technology.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Murphy, Esq.
          Michael Groh, Esq.
          MURPHY LAW GROUP
          Eight Penn Center, Suite 1803
          1628 John F. Kennedy Blvd.
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: 267 273 1054
          Facsimile: 215 525 021
          E-mail: murphy@phillyempoymentlawyer.com


CBRE GROUP: "Romo" Suit Moved to Central District of California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Ricardo Romo, on behalf of
himself and on behalf of a Class of all other persons similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. CBRE Group, Inc., a Delaware
Corporation, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, the Defendants,
Case No. 30-02017-00945702, was removed from the Orange County
Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California (Southern Division - Santa Ana) on Feb. 9.
2018. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:18-cv-00237 to
the proceeding.

CBRE Group, Inc. is the largest commercial real estate services
and investment firm in the world. It is based in Los Angeles,
California and operates more than 450 offices worldwide and has
clients in more than 100 countries.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

Attorneys for CBRE Group, Inc.:

          Limore Torbati, Esq.
          SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER AND HAMPTON LLP
          333 S Hope Street 43rd Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 617 4110
          Facsimile: (213) 443 2802
          E-mail: ltorbati@sheppardmullin.com


COLETTA SPURLING: "Ornelas" Suit Moved to District of Arizona
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Jose Alonzo Pacheco Ornelas, Jose
Del Carmen Camacho Jimenez, Leonardo Cax Perez, Victorino
Castaneda Martinez, and single man, and a class of others
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Coletta Spurling
Incorporated, doing business as: Los Olivos Hand Car Wash an
Arizona corporation; Coletta Spurling, a single woman; and
Unknown Parties John Does 1-5, the Defendants, Case No. CV2018-
000185, was removed from the Maricopa County Superior Court, to
the U.S. District Court for the District Of Arizona (Phoenix
Division) on Feb. 9. 2018. The District Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 2:18-cv-00465-DGC to the proceeding. The case is assigned to
the Hon. Judge David G Campbell.

Coletta Spurling Inc is in the New and Used Car Dealers
business.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jarrett Joshua Haskovec, Esq.
          Nicholas Jason Enoch, Esq.
          Stanley Lubin, Esq.
          LUBIN & ENOCH PC
          349 N 4th Ave
          Phoenix, AZ 85003
          Telephone: (602) 234 0008
          Facsimile: (602) 626 3586
          E-mail: jarrett@lubinandenoch.com
                  nicholas.enoch@azbar.org
                  stan@lubinandenoch.com

Attorneys for Defendants:

          Cory G Walker, Esq.
          Robert Shawn Oller, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON PC
          2425 E Camelback Rd., Ste. 900
          Phoenix, AZ 85016-2907
          Telephone: (602) 474 3616
          Facsimile: (602) 957 1801
          E-mail: cgwalker@littler.com
                  soller@littler.com


COMERICA BANK: Faces "Prince" Suit over Woodbridge Collapse
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Comerica Bank. The
case is captioned as Robert J. Prince, Lilly Shirley, and Joseph
C. Hull, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs v. Comerica Bank, the Defendant, Case
No. 2:18-CV-00430-JFW-JC (C.D. Cal., Jan. 17, 2018).

Plaintiffs purchased investments from the Woodridge Group of
Companies. Unknown to Plaintiffs, Woodridge was a fraud made
possible by Comerica having aided and abetted the Ponzi scheme
that collapsed when Woodridge and most of its affiliated
companies filed for bankruptcy in December 2017, causing
staggering losses for Plaintiffs. Comerica maintained Woodridge's
bank accounts throughout the fraud and helped facilitate and
substantially assist and had knowledge of Woodridge's fraudulent
activities.

Comerica Bank provides personal and business banking products and
services. Comerica Bank was formerly known as Comerica Bank-
Detroit and changed its name to Comerica Bank in May 1991. The
company was founded in 1849 and is based in Dallas, Texas with
locations in Arizona, California, Florida, Michigan, and other
states in the United States. Comerica Bank operates as a
subsidiary of Comerica Incorporated. [BN]

The Plaintiffs is represented by:

          Adam Wolf, Esq.
          PEIFFER ROSCA WOLF ABDULLAH CARR & KANE.
          A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION
          9696 Culver Blvd, Suite 301
          Culver City, CA 90232
          Telephone: (415)766-3534
          E-mail: awolf@prwlegal.com
                  arosca@prwlegal.com

               - and -

          Alan A. Rosca, Esq.
          PEIFFER ROSCA WOLF ABDULLAH CARR & KANE.
          A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION
          1422 Euclid Avenue, Suite 1610
          Cleveland, OH 90232
          Telephone: (216)589-9280
          E-mail: arosca@prwlegal.com

               - and -

          Michael C. Dell'Angelo, Esq.
          Barbara A. Podell, Esq.
          BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
          1622 Locust Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215)875-3000
          Facsimile: (215)875-4604
          E-mail: mdellangelo@bm.net
                  bpodell@bm.net


CREDIT SUISSE: Refuses to Pay Deferred Compensation, Laver Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTOPHER M. LAVER, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. CREDIT SUISSE SECURITIES (USA),
LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, the Defendant, Case
No. 3:18-cv-00828 (N.D. Cal., Feb. 7, 2018), seeks to recover
damages, restitution, disgorgement, specific performance, and
other appropriate equitable and injunctive relief caused by
Credit Suisse's refusal to pay many millions of dollars in owed
"deferred compensation" to its financial adviser employees
following Credit Suisse's decision to shutter its financial
advisory operations in late 2015.

According to the complaint, for many years, Credit Suisse
provided financial advisory services to clients throughout the
United States, providing these services through a team of
financial advisers in Credit Suisse's "Private Banking Division."

The compensation that Credit Suisse agreed to pay the advisers
consisted of multiple components. One of the primary components
was "deferred compensation," whereby a significant portion of the
advisers' compensation for a given year is paid on a deferred
basis in subsequent years pursuant to the terms of Credit
Suisse's form contracts. Under the contracts, the deferred
compensation vests and is paid under a specified schedule, and is
necessarily owed by Credit Suisse to the adviser except under
limited, specified circumstances that are set forth in the
contract -- specifically, if the adviser voluntarily "resigns"
from Credit Suisse or the adviser is terminated by Credit Suisse
for cause, neither of which occurred here.

In October 2015, Credit Suisse announced that it was completely
shuttering its financial advisory operations effective within a
few months, leaving hundreds of Credit Suisse financial advisers
out of a job. Even though Credit Suisse's advisory operations
ceased operating altogether leaving advisors with no choice but
to find new jobs, and even though Credit Suisse made clear to the
advisers that they needed to find new jobs, when Plaintiff and
other advisers joined new firms following the closure
announcement, Credit Suisse took the erroneous position that the
advisors voluntarily "resigned" from Credit Suisse and their
remaining deferred compensation was thus forfeited under the
contract. The lone exception that Credit Suisse made to this
policy was if an adviser was hired by Wells Fargo, with whom
Credit Suisse had entered into a "recruiting agreement," in which
case they were permitted to retain some of their deferred
compensation entitlements. Otherwise, all outstanding earned
deferred compensation was cancelled and denied entirely by Credit
Suisse.

Through this "resignation" faƔade, Credit Suisse is reported to
have improperly retained as much as $300 million in deferred
compensation owed to the advisers. Credit Suisse reaped the
benefits of Plaintiff's and the Class' work over many years,
including through substantial revenues Credit Suisse generated
through their work. The deferred compensation at issue here was
earned and is owed. Credit Suisse should not be able to avoid its
obligation to compensate the advisers fully and fairly by
claiming they "resigned" when, in fact, Credit Suisse simply
ceased operating this business. Nor should Plaintiff and the
Class be deprived of their earned deferred compensation because
of Credit Suisse's unilateral business decision to exit the
market and eliminate their jobs.[BN]

Attorneys for Christopher M. Laver:

          Robert J. Nelson, Esq.
          Roger N. Heller, Esq.
          LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
          275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
          Telephone: (415) 956 1000
          Facsimile: (415) 956 1008
          E-mail: rnelson@lchb.com
                  rheller@lchb.com

               - and -

          Taras Kick, Esq.
          THE KICK LAW FIRM, APC
          815 Moraga Drive
          Los Angeles, CA 90049
          Telephone: (310) 395 2988
          Facsimile: (310) 395 2088
          E-mail: taras@kicklawfirm.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey K. Riffer, Esq.
          Julie Z. Kimball, Esq.
          ELKINS KALT WEINTRAUB REUBEN
          GARTSIDE LLP
          2049 Century Park East, Suite 2700
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-3202
          Telephone: (310) 746 4400
          Facsimile: (310) 746 4499
          E-mail: jriffer@elkinskalt.com
                  jkimball@elkinskalt.com



CYPRESS COMMUNICATIONS: Fails to Pay Overtime, "Bruton" Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
LEROY BRUTON, JR., on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CYPRESS COMMUNICATIONS, INC.; CYPRESS
COMMUNICATIONS OF S. FLORIDA, INC.; and DEAN R. PEZZA,
Defendants, Case No. CACE-18-001577 (Fla. Cir., Broward Cty., Jan
19, 2018) seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated
damages, declaratory relief, and attorney's fees and costs.

Plaintiff alleged that from July 2016 to June 2017, Defendants
failed to pay Plaintiff at a rate of one and one-half times of
the regular rate for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a
single work week.

Mr. Pezza is the owner and manager of the Defendants.

Mr. Bruton was hired by the Defendants on July 2016 and work as a
piece rate cable technician.

Cypress Communications, Inc. provides data, voice, and video
communications services to businesses located in commercial
office buildings in metropolitan markets in the United States.
The company was incorporated in 1995 and is based in Atlanta,
Georgia. As of February 21, 2002, Cypress Communications, Inc.
operates as a subsidiary of U.S. RealTel, Inc.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Noah E. Storch, Esq.
          RICHARD CELLER LEGAL, P.A.
          7450 Griffin Road, Suite 230
          Davie, FL 33314
          Telephone: (866) 344-9243
          Facsimile: (954) 337-2771


DALLAS INTERNATIONAL: "Patterson" Suit Seeks OT Pay under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
DOUGLAS PATTERSON, Individually, and ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED UNDER 29 USC 216(b), the Plaintiffs, v.
DALLAS/FORT WORTH INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT BOARD , the Defendant,
Case No. 3:18-cv-00307-N (N.D. Tex., Feb. 7, 2018), seeks to
recover overtime pay pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of
1938.

The Plaintiff and Class Members are those persons who are current
and former non-exempt Emergency Medical Technicians or Paramedics
who worked for Defendant and were paid hourly but were not paid
time-and-one-half for all hours worked over 40 in each workweek.
They routinely worked more than 40 hours in a single workweek and
were not paid overtime at a rate of one and one-half times their
regular rate for all hours worked over 40 in a single workweek.

The Defendants knowingly and deliberately failed to compensate
Plaintiff and Class Members for all hours worked in excess of 40
hours per workweek.

The DFW Airport Board of Directors is a semi-autonomous body
charged with governing DFW International Airport.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Drew N. Herrmann, Esq.
          Pamela G. Herrmann, Esq.
          HERRMANN LAW, PLLC
          777 Main St., Suite 600
          Fort Worth, TX 76102
          Telephone: (817) 479 9229
          Facsimile: (817) 260 0801
          E-mail: drew@herrmannlaw.com
                  pamela@herrmannlaw.com


DELTA AIR: "Schofield" Suit Removed to N.D. California
------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Joseph L. Schofield, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Delta Air
Lines, Inc., was removed from the San Francisco Superior Court
(Case No. CGC-17-12032149), to the Northern District of
California, Case No. 3:18-cv-00382-EMC, on Jan. 17, 2018. The
case is assigned to Judge Edward M. Chen.

Delta Air Lines, Inc. provides scheduled air transportation for
passengers and cargo in the United States and internationally.
The company operates through two segments, Airline and Refinery.
Its route network is centered around a system of hubs,
international gateways, and airports in Amsterdam, Atlanta,
Boston, Detroit, London-Heathrow, Los Angeles, Minneapolis-St.
Paul, New York-LaGuardia, New York-JFK, Paris-Charles de Gaulle,
Salt Lake City, Seattle, and Tokyo-Narita. The company sells its
tickets through various distribution channels, including
delta.com and mobile applications/Web, telephone reservations,
online travel agencies, traditional brick and mortar, and other
agencies. It also provides aircraft maintenance, repair, and
overhaul services; staffing, and professional security and
training services, as well as aviation solutions to third
parties; vacation packages to third-party consumers; and aircraft
charters, and aircraft management and programs. As of February 2,
2017, the company operated a fleet of approximately 800 aircraft.
Delta Air Lines, Inc. was founded in 1924 and is headquartered in
Atlanta, Georgia. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Chaim Shaun Setareh, Esq.
          SETAREH LAW GROUP
          9454 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 907
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212-2937
          Telephone: (310) 888-7771
          Facsimile: (310) 888-0109
          E-mail: shaun@setarehlaw.com

               - and -

          Thomas Alistair Segal, Esq.
          SETAREH LAW GROUP
          9454 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 907
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone: (310) 888-7771
          Facsimile: (310) 888-0109
          E-mail: thomas@setarehlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Andrew Paul Frederick, Esq.
          MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          1400 Page Mill Road
          Palo Alto, CA 94304
          Telephone: (650) 843-7565
          Facsimile: (650) 843-4001
          E-mail: andrew.frederick@morganlewis.com

               - and -

          Maureen Nicole Beckley, Esq.
          MORGAN LEWIS AND BOCKIUS LLP
          One Market Spear Street Tower
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 442-1470
          E-mail: maureen.beckley@morganlewis.com

               - and -

          Robert Jon Hendricks, Esq.
          MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          One Market Spear Street Tower
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone (415) 442-1000
          Facsimile: (415) 442-1001
          E-mail: rj.hendricks@morganlewis.com


DEZIGNS CONSTRUCTION: Garcia Sues over Wage and Hour Laws
---------------------------------------------------------
SERGIO GARCIA, On behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated persons, the Plaintiffs, v. DEZIGNS CONSTRUCTION, INC.,
ROSEANNE HARTLEY, and ABC CORPS. 1-10 & JANE & JOHN DOES 1-10,
the Defendants, Case No. CAM-L-000559-18 (N.J. Super. Ct.,
Middlesex County, Feb. 9, 2018), seeks to recover overtime pay
under New Jersey Wage and Hour Law.

The Plaintiff Sergio has resided in the City of Camden in the
County of Camden in the State of New Jersey at all times relevant
to this matter and was employed by Defendant Dezigns
Construction, Inc. from March of 2007 through January 26, 2018.
The Defendant is a commercial roofing contractor that provides
commercial and industrial roofing maintenance, restoration,
repair and replacement services.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and the Class Members
routinely worked far in excess of 40 hours per week for Defendant
DCI and were not paid the appropriate or lawful overtime rate
under the NJWHL when they worked over 40 hours per week. The
Defendant DCIs ongoing illegal policy of failing to pay Plaintiff
and the Class Members for time worked has resulted in Plaintiff
and the Class Members being denied substantial legally required
compensation and/or overtime payments given that the Plaintiff
and the Class Members routinely worked in excess of 40 hours per
week.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and All Other Similarly Situated Persons:

          Ravi Sattiraju, Esq.
          THE SATTIRAJU LAW FIRM, P.C.
          116 Village Boulevard, Suite 200
          Princeton, NJ 08540
          Telephone: (609) 799 1266
          Facsimile: (609) 228 5649
          E-mail: rsattiraju@sattirajulawfirm.com


DIGNITY HEALTH: Ruiz Calls Debt Collection "Wrongful"
-----------------------------------------------------
Pedro Ruiz, individually and on behalf of a similarly situated
Class v. Dignity Health and Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Case
No. CGC-18-563863 (Cal. Super., Jan. 17, 2018), seeks to stop the
Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

According to the complaint, Plaintiff received emergency and
medical care at one of the Defendant's hospitals. After
Defendant's managed "care plans" paid an amount for that care
accepted by Dignity, said patients have been personally charged
and pursued wrongfully for recovery of amounts in excess of that
reimbursed by the patients' care plans.

Dignity Health owns and operates healthcare facilities in
California, Arizona, and Nevada. The company provides inpatient,
outpatient, sub-acute, and home healthcare services, as well as
physician services through Dignity Health Medical Foundation and
other affiliated medical groups. It also offers occupational
health and urgent care services. The company was formerly known
as Catholic Healthcare West and changed its name to Dignity
Health in January 2012. Dignity Health was founded in 1986 and is
headquartered in San Francisco, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kirk J. Wolden, Esq.
          CARTER WOLDEN CURTIS LLP
          1111 Exposition Blvd., Suite 602
          Sacramento, CA 95815
          Telephone: (916) 567-1111
          Facsimile: (916) 567-1112


DIN TAI: "Ortiz" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code
---------------------------------------------------------
JOSE ORTIZ, as an individual and on behalf of others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. DIN TAI FUNG RESTAURANT, INC., a
California Corporation; DIN TAI FUNG (DEL AMO) RESTAURANT, LLC; a
California Limited Liability Corporation; DIN TAI FUNG (GLENDALE)
RESTAURANT, LLC; a California Limited Liability Corporation;
DIN TAI FUNG (SF) RESTAURANT, LLC; a California Limited Liability
Corporation; DIN TAI FUNG (SANTA ANITA) RESTAURANT, LLC; a
California Limited Liability Corporation; DIN TAI FUNG (SOUTH
COAST) RESTAURANT, LLC; a California Limited Liability
Corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, Inclusive, the Defendants,
Case No. BC693150 (Cal. Super. Ct., Feb. 7, 2018), seeks to
recover unpaid wages caused by systemic illegal employment
practices of Defendants resulting in violations of the California
Labor Code.

The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants, joint and severally, have
acted intentionally and with deliberate indifference and
conscious disregard to the rights of all employees in receiving
all lawful wages, gratuities, and meal and rest periods. The
policies, practices and customs of Defendants resulted in unjust
enrichment of Defendants and an unfair business advantage over
businesses that routinely adhere to the strictures of the
California Labor Code, Business & Professions Code and applicable
IWC wage orders.

Din Tai Fung is a restaurant originating in Taiwan, specializing
in xiao long bao (soup dumplings).[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jennifer Kramer, Esq.
          JENNIFER KRAMER LEGAL, APC
          5015 Eagle Rock Blvd., Suite 202
          Los Angeles, CA 90041
          Telephone: (213) 955 0200
          Facsimile: (213) 226 4358
          E-mail: iennifer@laborlex.com

               - and -

          Omar Anorga, Esq.
          THE ANORGA LAW FIRM, INC.
          155 N Lake Ave Ste 800
          Pasadena, CA 91101
          Telephone: (213) 489 1271
          Facsimile: (213) 223 6811
          E-mail: Omar@Anorgalaw.com


DIVINE MIRACLES: "Hohensee" Suit Seeks Minimum Pay, OT under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LYDIA HOHENSEE, on behalf of herself and other persons similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. DIVINE MIRACLES, INC. AND DONYETTE
WILLIAMS, the Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-01287 (E.D. La., Feb.
8, 2018), seeks to recover minimum wages and overtime wages,
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, Divine Miracles operates a home
health agency. Defendants have engaged and continue to engage in
a centralized, widespread pattern and practice of FLSA
violations, violations of Louisiana law, and intentional schemes
designed to undermine and avoid the minimum wage and overtime pay
provisions of the FLSA on a systemic, corporate-wide basis.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          George B. Recile, Esq.
          Preston L. Hayes, Esq.
          Ryan P. Monsour, Esq.
          Matthew A. Sherman, Esq.
          Barry W. Sartin, Esq.
          Patrick R. Follette, Esq.
          CHEHARDY, SHERMAN, WILLIAMS, MURRAY,
             RECILE, STAKELUM & HAYES, L.L.P.
          One Galleria Boulevard, Suite 1100
          Metairie, LA 70001
          Telephone: (504) 833 5600
          Facsimile: (504) 613 4528


DOCTOR'S MEDICAL: "Valencia" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
EDGAR VALENCIA and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C.
216(b), the Plaintiff, v. DOCTOR'S MEDICAL CENTER, INC., and
VENTURA DE PAZ, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-20524-KMW (S.D.
Fla., Feb. 9, 2018), seeks to recover overtime pay pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, it is believed that the Defendants
have employed several other similarly situated employees like
Plaintiff who have not been paid overtime and/or minimum wages
for work performed in excess of 40 hours weekly from the filing
of this complaint back three years. The Plaintiff worked for
Defendants as a patient transport driver from on or about October
5, 2014 through on or about September 30, 2016. Defendant's
business activities involve those to which the Fair Labor
Standards Act applies.

Doctor's Medical Centers is a primary care provider company that
offers an innovative and integrated approach of care to
patients.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


E.J.'S NORTH: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, "Sandoval" Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
FRANCISCO SANDOVAL, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. E.J.'S NORTH, L.L.C.; E.J.
MALLOY'S NORTH, LLC; E.J. MALLOY'S SOUTH, LLC; EJ MALLOY'S EAST,
LLC; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
BC690979 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Jan. 19, 2018) is an
action against the Defendants for unpaid regular hours, overtime
hours, minimum wages, wages for missed meal and rest periods.

Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants in the year 2000 to
July 2017, as an hourly, non-exempt employee in the position of
general laborer and cook providing food preparation services at
E.J. Malloy's restaurant and bar.

E.J.'S NORTH, L.L.C., is a limited liability company organized
and existing under the laws of the State of California and
registered to do business in the state of California.

E.J. MALLOY'S NORTH, LLC, is a limited liability company
organized and existing under the laws of the State of California
and registered to do business in the state of California.

E.J. MALLOY'S SOUTH, LLC, is a limited liability company
organized and existing under the laws of the State of California
and registered to do business in the state of California.

EJ MALLOY'S EAST, LLC, is a limited liability company organized
and existing under the laws of the State of California and
registered to do business in the state of California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Rob Hennig, Esq., Esq.
          HENNIG RUIZ P.C.
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 1960
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 843-0020
          Facsimile: (310) 843-9150
          E-mail: rob@emplovmentattomevla.com

               - and -

          Pouya B. Chami, Esq.
          CHAMI LAW, PC
          11845 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 1000
          Los Angeles, CA 90064
          Telephone: (310) 484-5001
          Facsimile: (310) 484-5002
          E-mail: pchami@chamilaw.com


EASTWESTPROTO INC: Parties Agree to Remand "Mason" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
The parties in the case, Michelle Mason, individually and on
behalf of all employees similarly situated v. EastWestProto,
Inc., doing business as Lifeline Ambulance, A California
Corporation, Case No. 2:18-cv-00415 (C.D. Cal.), have entered a
Joint Stipulation to remand the case to California state court.
Plaintiff filed the Joint Stipulation on Feb. 15.

The case was removed from the Los Angeles Superior Court, Case
No. BC679520, to the to the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California, Case No. 2:18-CV-00415-JFW-JEM (C.D.
Cal.), on Jan. 17, 2018, and assigned to Judge John F. Walter,
and referred to Magistrate Judge John E. McDermott.

EastWestProto, Inc. doing business business as Lifeline
Ambulance, A California Corporation, was founded in 2002. The
company's line of business includes providing local passenger
transportation services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:

          George Andrew Aloupas, Esq.
          Richard E. Quintilone II, Esq.
          QUINTILONE AND ASSOCIATES
          22974 El Toro Road Suite 100
          Lake Forest, CA 92630
          Telephone: (949) 458-9675
          Facsimile: (949) 458-9679
          E-mail: gaa@quintlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Maxim Vaynerov, Esq.
          BARNHILL AND VAYNEROV LLP
          11400 West Olympic Boulevard
          Suite 200
          Los Angeles, CA 90064
          Telephone: (310) 943-8989
          Facsimile: (310) 943-8998
          E-mail: vaynerov@bv-llp.com

               - and -

          Lewis Richard Walton, Jr.
          WALTON AND WALTON LLP
          4640 Admiralty Way 5th Floor
          Marina del Rey, CA 90292
          Telephone: (310) 496-5835
          Facsimile: (310) 464-3057
          E-mail: rwalton@taxtriallawyers.com


ENVISION HEALTHCARE: Quitly Sues over ER Physician Services
-----------------------------------------------------------
STEPHEN M. QUILTY, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. ENVISION HEALTCARE CORP., EMCARE
HOLDINGS INC., and BAXLEY EMERGENCY PHYSICIANS, LLC, the
Defendants, Case No. 8:18-cv-00341-VMC-CPT (M.D. Fla., Feb. 8,
2018), seeks to recover damages and injunctive relief arising
from Defendants' unlawful and deceptive acts and practices in the
Florida healthcare market for emergency room physician services.

Plaintiff and the proposed Class are commercially insured
consumers of ED healthcare services who sought emergency medical
care from physicians employed by, or affiliated with, Defendants.

According to the complaint, since at least 2011, Defendants have
engaged in a deliberate corporate scheme to raise revenue and
profits by refusing to contract with many commercial payors
throughout Florida. Without network contracts, Defendants may set
any price for services rendered. Defendants initially seek
reimbursement for services from the patient's insurance company.
Some payors may offer Defendants the "usual and customary" rates
-- i.e. the rates typically paid by that insurer to in-network
providers in that geography for similarly services rendered --
while other payors may refuse to reimburse Defendants for any
costs because there was no network contract.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Marc A. Wites, Esq.
          Thomas B. Rogers, Esq.
          WITES LAW FIRM
          4400 N. Federal Highway
          Lighthouse Point, FL 33064
          Telephone: (954) 933 4400
          E-mail: mwites@witeslaw.com

               - and --

          Laurence D. King, Esq.
          Matthew George, Esq.
          Frederic S. Fox, Esq.
          Donald R. Hall, Jr., Esq.
          Aaron Schwartz, Esq.
          KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
          350 Sansome Street, Suite 400
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 772 4700
          Facsimile: (415) 772 4707
          E-mail: lking@kalanfox.com
                  mgeorge@kalanfox.com
                  ffox@kalanfox.com
                  dhall@kalanfox.com
                  aschwartz@kalanfox.com


EPSI INC: Underpays Pizza Delivery Drivers, "Gentry" Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
BRUCE GENTRY, the Plaintiff, v. EPSI, INC., the Defendant, Case
No. 5:18-cv-00020-RWS (E.D. Tex., Feb. 7, 2018), seeks to recover
unpaid wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendant operates approximately 27 Domino's Pizza franchise
stores in Texas and one Domino's Pizza store in Arkansas. The
Defendant employs delivery drivers who spend at least 20% of
their work time performing non-tipped duties. But, Defendant pays
its delivery drivers a sub-minimum tipped wage for all of their
work time in violation of the U.S. Department of Labor's "20%
rule."

The Defendant's delivery drivers drive their own automobiles to
deliver pizza and other food items to Defendant's customers.
Instead of reimbursing its delivery drivers for the reasonably
approximate costs of the business use of their vehicles,
Defendant utilizes a flawed method to determine reimbursement
rates that provides such an unreasonably low rate beneath any
reasonable approximation of the expenses they incur that the
drivers' unreimbursed expenses cause their wages to fall below
the federal minimum wage during some or all workweeks.

EPSI Inc. was founded in 1989. The company's line of business
includes the retail sale of prepared foods and drinks for on-
premise consumption.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jesse Forester, Esq.
          Forester Haynie PLLC
          1701 N. Market St. #210
          Dallas, TX 75202
          Telephone: (214) 210 2100
          E-mail: jay@foresterhaynie.com

               - and -

          Richard M Paul III, Esq.
          PAUL LLP
          601 Walnut Street, Suite 300
          Kansas City, MO 64106
          Telephone: (816) 984 8100
          E-mail: Rick@PaulLLP.com

               - and -

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


EQUIFAX INC: Directors Face Derivative Suit in N.D. Georgia
-----------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT L. BAX, derivatively on behalf of EQUIFAX, INC., the
Plaintiff v. RICHARD F. SMITH, JOHN W. GAMBLE, JR., JOHN J.
KELLEY, III, RODOLFO O. PLODER, JOSEPH M. LOUGHRAN, III, ROBERT
D. DALEO, WALTER W. DRIVER, JR., MARK L. FEIDLER, G. THOMAS
HOUGH, L. PHILLIP HUMANN, ROBERT D. MARCUS, SIRI S. MARSHALL,
JOHN A. MCKINLEY, ELANE B. STOCK, MARK B. TEMPLETON, and EQUIFAX,
INC., the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-00317-TWT (N.D. Ga., Jan.
22, 2018) is a derivative action filed against the Individual
Defendants for their failure to prevent or protect data breaches.

Through this derivative action, Plaintiff brings claims against
the Individual Defendants and seeks to remedy the harm suffered
by Equifax and its shareholders in connection with the Data
Breach, the most damaging and far-reaching compromise of consumer
financial data in known history. Holding executives such as the
Individual Defendants personally liable for the harm inflicted on
Equifax and its shareholders would incentivize others to enact
adequate measures to protect personal identifying information
going forward, including investing in staffing and technology
sufficient to safeguard the critically sensitive information
they've accepted responsibility for protecting.

The Individual Defendants knowingly and completely failed to
undertake their responsibilities by consciously failing to
oversee their data security oversight systems and controls.
Despite knowing these systems were inadequate at detecting,
preventing, and resolving data breaches, the Individual
Defendants demonstrated a complete disregard for securing the
very sensitive consumer data that drives their core businesses.

Equifax Inc. provides information solutions and human resources
business process outsourcing services for businesses,
governments, and consumers. It operates in the United States,
Canada, Argentina, Brazil, Australia, New Zealand, Chile, Costa
Rica, Ecuador, El Salvador, Honduras, Mexico, Paraguay, Uruguay,
Peru, Portugal, the Republic of Ireland, Spain, the United
Kingdom, Cambodia, Malaysia, India, Russia, and Singapore.
Equifax Inc. was founded in 1899 and is headquartered in Atlanta,
Georgia. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael I. Fistel, Jr., Esq.
          William W. Stone, Esq.
          David A. Weisz, Esq.
          JOHNSON FISTEL, LLP
          40 Powder Springs Street
          Marietta, GA 30064
          Telephone: (770) 200-3104
          Facsimile: (770) 200-3101
          E-mail: michaelf@johnsonfistel.com
                  williams@johnsonfistel.com
                  davidw@johnsonfistel.com


EQUIFAX INC: Credit Unions Sue over Security Breach
---------------------------------------------------
FIRST FINANCIAL CREDIT UNION, HALLIBURTON EMPLOYEES' FEDERAL
CREDIT UNION, SEVEN SEVENTEEN CREDIT UNION, individually and on
behalf of a class of all similarly situated financial
institutions, and CREDIT UNION LEAGUE OF CONNECTICUT, each as an
association on behalf of its members, Plaintiffs v. Equifax Inc.,
the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-00315 (N.D. Ga., Jan. 22, 2018),
is a class action brought against the Defendant's failure to
safeguard the financial institutions' customers' highly
sensitive, personally identifiable information, including, but
not limited to, names, Social Security numbers, birth dates,
addresses, and driver's license numbers and payment card data,
including, but not limited to, credit and debit card numbers,
primary account numbers, card verification value numbers,
expiration dates and zip codes.

Equifax Inc. provides information solutions and human resources
business process outsourcing services for businesses,
governments, and consumers. It operates in the United States,
Canada, Argentina, Brazil, Australia, New Zealand, Chile, Costa
Rica, Ecuador, El Salvador, Honduras, Mexico, Paraguay, Uruguay,
Peru, Portugal, the Republic of Ireland, Spain, the United
Kingdom, Cambodia, Malaysia, India, Russia, and Singapore.
Equifax Inc. was founded in 1899 and is headquartered in Atlanta,
Georgia. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas A. Withers, Esq.
          GILLEN WITHERS & LAKE, LLC
          8 E. Liberty Street
          Savannah, GA 31401
          Telephone: (912) 447-8400
          Facsimile: (912) 629-6347
          E-mail: twithers@gwllawfirm.com

               - and -

          Anthony C. Lake, Esq.
          Craig A. Gillen, Esq.
          GILLEN WITHERS & LAKE, LLC
          3490 Piedmont Road, N.E.
          Atlanta, GA 30305
          Telephone: (404) 842-9700
          Facsimile: (404) 842-9750
          E-mail: aclake@gwllawfirm.com

               - and -

          Joseph P. Guglielmo, Esq.
          Erin Green Comite, Esq.
          SCOTT+SCOTT, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP
          230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor
          New York, NY 10169
          Telephone: (212) 223-6444
          Facsimile: (212) 223-6334
          E-mail: jguglielmo@scott-scott.com
                  ecomite@ scott-scott.com

               - and -

          Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
          Jamisen A. Etzel, Esq.
          Bryan A. Fox, Esq.
          CARLSON LYNCH SWEET KILPELA
          & CARPENTER, LLP
          1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Telephone: (412) 322-9243
          Facsimile: (412) 231-0246
          E-mail: glynch@carlsonlynch.com
                  jetzel@carlsonlynch.com
                  bfox@carlsonlynch.com

               - and -

           Karen Hanson Riebel, Esq.
           Kate M. Baxter-Kauf, Esq.
           LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
           100 Washington Ave. S., Suite 2200
           Minneapolis, MN 55401
           Telephone: (612) 339-6900
           Facsimile: (612-339-0981)
           E-mail: khriebel@locklaw.com
                   kmbaxter-kauf@locklaw.com

               - and -

           Bryan L. Bleichner, Esq.
           CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE
           17 Washington Avenue North, Suite 300
           Minneapolis, MN 55401
           Telephone: (612) 339-7300
           Facsimile: (612) 336-2940
           E-mail: bbleichner@chestnutcambronne.com

               - and -

           Arthur M. Murray, Esq.
           Stephen B. Murray, Sr., Esq.
           Caroline W. Thomas, Esq.
           MURRAY LAW FIRM
           650 Poydras Street, Suite 2150
           New Orleans, LA 70130
           Telephone: (504) 525-8100
           Facsimile: (504) 584-5249
           E-mail: amurray@murray-lawfirm.com
                   smurray@murray-lawfirm.com
                   cthomas@murray-lawfirm.com

               - and -

           Brian C. Gudmundson, Esq.
           ZIMMERMAN REED LLP
           1100 IDS Center, 80 South 8th Street
           Minneapolis, MN 55402
           Telephone: (612) 341-0400
           Facsimile: (612) 341-0844
           E-mail: brian.gudmundson@zimmreed.com

               - and -

           Charles H. Van Horn
           BERMAN FINK VANHORN P.C.
           3475 Piedmont Road, Suite 1100
           Atlanta, GA 30305
           Telephone: (404) 261-7711
           Facsimile: (404) 233-1943
           E-mail: cvanhorn@bfvlaw.com


EQUIFAX INC: Faces "Bank" Suit over Security Breach
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Equifax Inc. The
case is captioned as Jonah Bank of Wyoming, individually and on
behalf of a class of all similarly situated financial lending,
deposit acceptance and payment card issuing institutions,
Plaintiff v. Equifax Inc., Defendant, Case No. Case 1:18-cv-
00316-TWT (N.D. Ga., Jan. 22, 2018).

Plaintiff alleged that Defendant failed to safeguard the
financial institutions' customers' highly sensitive, personally
identifiable information, including, but not limited to, names,
Social Security numbers, birth dates, addresses, and driver's
license numbers and payment card data, including, but not limited
to, credit and debit card numbers, primary account numbers, card
verification value numbers, expiration dates and zip codes.

Equifax Inc. provides information solutions and human resources
business process outsourcing services for businesses,
governments, and consumers. It operates in the United States,
Canada, Argentina, Brazil, Australia, New Zealand, Chile, Costa
Rica, Ecuador, El Salvador, Honduras, Mexico, Paraguay, Uruguay,
Peru, Portugal, the Republic of Ireland, Spain, the United
Kingdom, Cambodia, Malaysia, India, Russia, and Singapore.
Equifax Inc. was founded in 1899 and is headquartered in Atlanta,
Georgia. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas A. Withers, Esq.
          GILLEN WITHERS & LAKE, LLC
          8 E. Liberty Street
          Savannah, GA 31401
          Telephone: (912) 447-8400
          Facsimile: (912) 629-6347
          E-mail: twithers@gwllawfirm.com

               - and -

          Anthony C. Lake, Esq.
          Craig A. Gillen, Esq.
          GILLEN WITHERS & LAKE, LLC
          3490 Piedmont Road, N.E.
          Atlanta, GA 30305
          Telephone: (404) 842-9700
          Facsimile: (404) 842-9750
          E-mail: aclake@gwllawfirm.com

               - and -

          Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
          Jamisen A. Etzel, Esq.
          Bryan A. Fox, Esq.
          CARLSON LYNCH SWEET KILPELA
          & CARPENTER, LLP
          1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Telephone: (412) 322-9243
          Facsimile: (412) 231-0246
          E-mail: glynch@carlsonlynch.com
                  jetzel@carlsonlynch.com
                  bfox@carlsonlynch.com

               - and -

          Joseph P. Guglielmo, Esq.
          Erin Green Comite, Esq.
          SCOTT+SCOTT, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP
          230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor
          New York, NY 10169
          Telephone: (212) 223-6444
          Facsimile: (212) 223-6334
          E-mail: jguglielmo@scott-scott.com
                  ecomite@ scott-scott.com

               - and -

           Arthur M. Murray, Esq.
           Stephen B. Murray, Sr., Esq.
           Caroline W. Thomas, Esq.
           MURRAY LAW FIRM
           650 Poydras Street, Suite 2150
           New Orleans, LA 70130
           Telephone: (504) 525-8100
           Facsimile: (504) 584-5249
           E-mail: amurray@murray-lawfirm.com
                   smurray@murray-lawfirm.com
                   cthomas@murray-lawfirm.com

               - and -

           Karen Hanson Riebel, Esq.
           Kate M. Baxter-Kauf, Esq.
           LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
           100 Washington Ave. S., Suite 2200
           Minneapolis, MN 55401
           Telephone: (612) 339-6900
           Facsimile: (612-339-0981)
           E-mail: khriebel@locklaw.com
                   kmbaxter-kauf@locklaw.com

               - and -

           Brian C. Gudmundson, Esq.
           ZIMMERMAN REED LLP
           1100 IDS Center, 80 South 8th Street
           Minneapolis, MN 55402
           Telephone: (612) 341-0400
           Facsimile: (612) 341-0844
           E-mail: brian.gudmundson@zimmreed.com

               - and -

           Bryan L. Bleichner, Esq.
           CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE
           17 Washington Avenue North, Suite 300
           Minneapolis, MN 55401
           Telephone: (612) 339-7300
           Facsimile: (612) 336-2940
           E-mail: bbleichner@chestnutcambronne.com

               - and -

           Charles H. Van Horn
           BERMAN FINK VANHORN P.C.
           3475 Piedmont Road, Suite 1100
           Atlanta, GA 30305
           Telephone: (404) 261-7711
           Facsimile: (404) 233-1943
           E-mail: cvanhorn@bfvlaw.com


EQUINOX FITNESS: Fails to Pay OT & Minimum Wages, Wesley Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
RONALD EDWARD WESLEY, an individual, the Plaintiff, v. EQUINOX
FITNESS BEVERLY HILLS, INC., a California Corporation; EQUINOX
FITNESS GLENDALE, INC., a California Corporation; EQUINOX
HOLDINGS, INC., a Delaware Corporation; DOES 1-10, business
entities, forms unknown; DOES 11-20, individuals; and DOES 21-30,
inclusive, Case No. BC 693601 (Cal. Super. Ct., Feb. 9, 2018),
seeks to recover overtime wages and minimum wages under the
California labor Code.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff regularly work/worked
more than 40 hours per week and/or eight hours per day, but was
not paid overtime wages.  Plaintiff regularly work/worked more
than 12 hours per pay period, but was not paid twice the regular
rate for any work in excess of 12 hours. The Defendants have
failed and refused to pay overtime compensation to Plaintiff.

While working as a Trainer throughout his employment, Plaintiff
performed various ancillary and administrative duties in addition
to the hours spent in training sessions with clients.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Cody D. Knight, Esq.
          Chantal R. Mccoy, Esq.
          KNIGHT EMPLOYMENT LAW
          11500 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 400
          Los Angeles, CA 90064
          Telephone: (310) 444 3039
          Facsimile: (310) 870 7207
          E-mail: CodvKnight@KnightEmplovmentLaw.com
                  ChantalMcCov@KnightEmplovmentLaw.com


EQUITY RESIDENTIAL: Fails to Pay All Overtime Wages, Vizza Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
PETER VIZZA, as an individual and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. EQUITY RESIDENTIAL SERVICES
II, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; EQUITY RESIDENTIAL
SERVICES, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; and DOES 1
through 100, the Defendants, Case No. BC693215 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
Feb. 7, 2018), seeks to recover all overtime wages under
California Labor Code.

The Defendants acquire, develop and manage apartment complexes
throughout the United States, including operating over 50 in the
greater Los Angeles area. Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as
a non-exempt employee from 1996 through the present; although his
last day actually worked was in or around June 2017 when he
commenced a medical leave of absence.

The Plaintiff's most recent position held was at Defendants'
Valencia apartment complex as a non-exempt Service Manager, with
responsibility for leading all aspects of the property's hands-on
maintenance, including overall inspection, repairs and scheduled
maintenance of apartments and other interior/exterior areas.

Throughout Plaintiff's employment with Defendants, Plaintiff and
other nonexempt employees would receive an annual, non-
discretionary bonus as well as other nondiscretionary monetary
awards from Defendants, and other forms of non-discretionary pay.
For example, for the pay period beginning February 5 and ending
February 18, 2017, Plaintiff received Incentive Pay in the form
of a "Performance Bonus."  During his employment with Defendants,
Plaintiff often worked shifts in excess of 8.0 hours in a day and
40.0 hours in a week. Furthermore, the Incentive Pay Plaintiff
received during his employment was earned over pay periods during
which Plaintiff worked these shifts in excess of 8.0 hours in a
day and 40.0 hours in a week. However, Defendants failed to
properly include the Incentive Pay in their calculation of the
regular rate of pay for purposes of paying Plaintiff overtime
wages. As a result, Plaintiff was not properly paid all of his
required overtime wages.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott M. Lidman, Esq.
          Elizabeth Nguyen, Esq.
          LIDMAN LAW, APC
          222 N. Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 1550
          El Segundo, CA 90245
          Telephone: (424) 322 4772
          Facsimile: (424) 322 4775
          E-mail: slidman@lidmanlaw.com
                  enguyen@lidmanlaw.com

               - and -

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


FITZSIMMONS SURGICAL: Fails to Pay Overtime, "Lott" Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courtney E. Lott, on behalf of herself, and all other plaintiffs
similarly situated v. Fitzsimmons Surgical Supply, Inc., Case No.
1:18-cv-00335 (N.D. Ill., Jan. 17, 2018), is brought against the
Defendant to recover unpaid back wages earned on or before the
date three years prior to the filing of this action.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was required to work in
excess of 40 hours in a workweek, without pay for those hours
over 40 at a rate of time and one-half her regular hourly rate,
pursuant to the requirements of the federal and states statutes
herein relied upon. Plaintiff was at times required to perform
work "on call" without pay for that work time.

Fitzsimmons Surgical Supply, Inc., Fitzsimmons Surgical Supply,
Inc. provides home medical equipment and products. It offers aids
to daily living, bariatric equipment, batteries, canes/crutches,
collection devices, CPAP products, CPAP masks, diagnostics,
hospital beds, humidifiers, lift chairs, mattresses/low air loss
systems, nebulizers/compressors, patient lifts, pulse oximeters,
stethoscopes, support backs, support stockings, walkers/
rollators, and wheelchairs. The company also provides assisted
living, bathroom safety, body muscle care, disposable
respiratory, enteral nutrition, exercise/rehab, incontinence,
lymphedema, orthopedics, oxygen miscellaneous, pain management,
patient safety, respiratory miscellaneous, skin care,
tracheostomy care, and wound care products; and oxygen and
respiratory equipment, including oxygen concentrators, bilevel
PAP products, and suction equipment. It serves patients home,
nursing, assisted living, and rehabilitation facilities. The
company was founded in 1931 and is based in Aurora, Illinois with
locations in Illinois and Indiana. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


FORESTRY MANAGEMENT: Faces "Montford" Suit over Failure to Pay OT
-----------------------------------------------------------------
John M. Montford, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Forestry Management Service, LLC, and Brand Spiller,
Case No. 5:18-cv-00019-MTT (M.D. Ga., Jan. 18, 2018), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff was employed by Defendants and for 3 years as truck
drivers.

According to the complaint, the Defendants paid Plaintiff
straight time pay of $17 per hour but never paid Plaintiff time-
and-a-half overtime pay for the hours worked in excess of 40
hours in the work week as required by the FLSA. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          McNeill Stokes, Esq.
          1075 Heathcliff Lane
          Marietta, GA 30067
          Telephone: (404) 352-2144
          E-mail: mcstokes@bellsouth.net


FU FU CAFE: "Quema" Suit Seeks Minimum Wages, OT under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------
ALONZO QUEMA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. FU FU CAFE, INC., the Defendant, Case
No. 4:18-cv-00371 (S.D. Tex., Feb. 8, 2018), seeks to recover
unpaid minimum wages, overtime pay, and other damages under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to pay minimum
wage and overtime compensation to their kitchen workers,
including Plaintiff Alonzo Quema, as required by the FLSA.
Instead, Fu Fu paid Quema and his coworkers a salary so low that
their weekly pay did not cover the minimum wage and overtime pay
required by the FLSA. Further, Fu Fu paid Quema and his coworkers
less than the minimum wage required under the Texas Minimum Wage
Act.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David I. Moulton, Esq.
          Matthew S. Parmet, Esq.
          BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
          8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
          Houston, Texas 77046
          Telephone: (713) 877 8788
          Telecopier: (713) 877 8065
          E-mail: dmoulton@brucknerburch.com
                  mparmet@brucknerburch.com


FUNKO INC: "Lowinger" Suit Moved to W.D. Washington
---------------------------------------------------
ROBERT LOWINGER, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. FUNKO, INC.; BRIAN
MARIOTTI; RUSSELL NICKEL; KEN BROTMAN; GINO DELLOMO; CHARLES
DENSON; DIANE IRVINE; ADAM KRIGER; RICHARD MCNALLY; GOLDMAN,
SACHS & CO.; J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC; MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE,
FENNER & SMITH INCORPORATED; PIPER JAFFRAY & CO.; JEFFERIES LLC;
STIFFEL, NICOLAUS & COMPANY, INCORPORATED; BMO CAPITAL MARKETS
CORP.; SUNTRUST ROBINSON HUMPHREY, INC.; and JOHN DOES 1 THROUGH
25, the Defendants, Case No. 17-2-29838-7 SEA, was removed from
the Superior Court of Washington in and for King County, to the
United States District Court Western District of Washington at
Seattle on Feb. 7, 2018. The Western District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 2:18-cv-00201 to the proceeding.

Funko is an American company that manufactures licensed pop
culture toys. Funko is most known for producing licensed vinyl
figures and bobbleheads.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          T. David Copley, Esq.
          Juli E. Farris, Esq.
          Elizabeth A. Leland, Esq.
          KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
          1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 623 1900
          Facsimile: (206) 623 3384
          E-mail: dcopley@kellerrorhback.com
                  jfarris@kellerrohrlback.com
                  bleland@kellerrohrback.com

               - and -

          Aaron L. Brody, Esq.
          Michael J. Klein, Esq.
          6 East 45th Street
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 687-7230
          Fax: (212) 490-2022
          E-mail: abrody@ssbny.com
          mklein@ssbny.com

Attorneys for Defendants Funko, Inc.; Brian Mariotti; Russell
Nickel; Ken Brotman; Gino Dellomo; Charles Denson; Diane Irvine;
Adam Kriger; and Richard McNally:

          Benjamin Naftalis, Esq.
          Kevin McDonough, Esq.
          LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
          885 Third Avenue
          New York, NY 10022-4834
          Telephone: (212) 906 1246
          Facsimile: (212) 751 4864
          E-mail: benjamin.naftalis@lw.com
                  kevin.mcdonough@lw.com


GC SERVICE: Faces "Galli" Suit in New York Supreme Court
--------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Brian Galli, o/b/o of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GC Service Limited Partnership,
Defendant, Case No. 611109/2017 was brought before the New York
Supreme Court on February 9, 2018.

GC Services is the largest privately-held outsourcing provider of
call center management and collection agency services in North
America.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   MITCHELL L. PASHKIN, ESQ.
   775 PARK AVE, SUITE 255
   HUNTINGTON, NY 11743
   Tel: (631) 629-7709


GEORGIA-PACIFIC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, "Pulido" Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
RAYMOND PULIDO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. GEORGIA-PACIFIC CORRUGATED III
LLC,; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 18CECG00265
(Cal. Super., Fresno Cty., Jan. 19, 2018) is brought against the
Defendants for their failure to provide proper wage statements
and failure to pay wages in a timely manner, in violation of the
California Labor Code.

Plaintiff was hired by Defendants on November 1997, to work as
machine operator at Defendants' location in Fresno, California.
On December 6, 2017, Plaintiff was terminated by Defendants.

Georgia Pacific Corrugated LLC manufactures corrugated packaging.
The company is based in Denton, Texas.  Georgia Pacific
Corrugated LLC operates as a subsidiary of Georgia-Pacific
LLC.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Larry W. Lee, Esq.
          Kristen M. Agnew, Esq.
          Nicholas Rosenthal, Esq.
          Mai Tulyathan, Esq.
          DIVERSITY LAW GROUP, P.C.
          515 S. Figueroa St., Suite 1250
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 488-6555
          Facsimile: (213) 488-6554

               - and -

          William L. Marder, Esq.
          POLARIS LAW GROUP LLP
          501 San Benito Street, Suite 200
          Hollister, CA 95023
          Telephone: (831) 531-4214
          Facsimile: (831) 634-0333


GLOBAL TRAVEL: Roberts Sues over "Reward Redemption" Scam
---------------------------------------------------------
PATRICK ROBERTS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, GLOBAL TRAVEL INTERNATIONAL INC.,
RANDALL J. WARREN, and MICHAEL GROSS, the Defendants, Case No.
2:18-at-00149 (E.D. Cal., Feb. 7, 2018), seeks to recover damages
under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and California
Consumers Legal Remedies Act.

According to the complaint, The Defendants operate a nationwide
telemarketing scam called "Reward Redemption" which has sparked
numerous complaints by consumers, lawsuits and at least one
government investigation. The "Reward Redemption" scam starts
with an unsolicited prerecorded message sent en mass to
telephones. If a consumer stays on the line or returns the call,
he or she will be connected to a live sales representative who
tells the consumer that the promised "$100 Rebate Card" is not
free, but instead requires an initial "processing fee" or
"shipping and handling" fee. The representative then tries to get
the consumer to pay an additional monthly fee for a membership in
discount buying clubs with names like Journey Pass, Valu-Pass and
Go Shop & Save. The Better Business Bureau reports a "pattern of
complaints" about GTI's "lack of transparency" about what the
monthly charge is for, and ignoring later requests by consumers
to stop charging the monthly fee. The Defendants do not take "no"
for an answer when pressuring call recipients to participate in
the scam. If a consumer declines to answer a call or tells a
sales representative he or she is not interested, Defendants
engage in a campaign of persistent calls to wear that consumer
down. Defendants also call from numerous different phone numbers,
making it difficult for consumers to recognize repeated incoming
calls. In the last six years alone, Defendants' scam has prompted
at least eight federal lawsuits against GTI alleging claims under
the TCPA.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
          Joel D. Smith, Esq.
          Yeremey O. Krivoshey, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
          Walnut Creek, CA 94596
          Telephone: (925) 300 4455
          Facsimile: (925) 407 2700
          E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com
                  jsmith@bursor.com
                  ykrivoshey@bursor.com


GOVAN RD: "Galindo" Suit Seeks Minimum Wage & OT Pay
----------------------------------------------------
JAVIER GALINDO and PIFIANO MARTINEZ GALINDO, individually and on
behalf of all other employees similarly situated, the Plaintiffs,
v. GOVAN RD INC. f/k/a HONKY TONK TAVERN, and JOHN CAVANAGH, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-01113 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 7, 2018),
seeks to recover compensation for all hours worked, minimum wage,
and overtime compensation for all hours worked over 40 each
workweek under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York
Labor Law.

According to the complaint, from August of 2000 until September
17, 2016, Plaintiff Javier Galindo was hired by Defendants to
work as work as a cook and food preparer for Defendants'
restaurant located at 1154 1st Avenue, New York, NY 10065.

During his employment, Plaintiff regularly worked 11 to 12 hours
per day and over 40 hours per week. Specifically, Plaintiff
worked six days a week with Tuesdays off. His daily schedule ran
from around 11:00am to around 10:00pm each day. Plaintiff did not
have any uninterrupted break during each of his work day, as
such, Plaintiff worked approximately 66 hours per week. The
Plaintiff remained with this schedule for the duration of his
employment with Defendants. Plaintiff received his compensation
by check and a salary basis. In an attempt to make it appear as
Defendants are paying an overtime rate, Plaintiff's checks show
an hourly rate of $9 and an overtime rate of $13.50. However,
Plaintiff received an additional fixed weekly salary of $200 in
cash. The checks Plaintiff received do not reflect the proper
hourly rate because they do not show the cash salary Plaintiff
received, nor do they reflect all the hours actually worked.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

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


GRAN CAFFE: Faces "Prazdnik" Suit in Eastern District of Penn.
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Gran Caffe Group
LLC. The case is styled as Leonid Prazdnik, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Gran Caffe Group
LLC doing business as: Gran Caffe L'Aquila, Defendant, Case No.
2:18-cv-00565-RBS (E.D. Penn., February 9, 2018).

Gran Caffe L'Aquila is an Italian cafe in America opened on
December 24, 2014. The 1st floor is an authentic Italian bar and
the second floor features the restaurant, wine bar, cultural and
language school, as well as the coffee and gelato labs.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


HEMANI CAPITAL: "Wilson" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------
CHRIS WILSON Individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated under 29 USC section 216(b), the Plaintiff, v. HEMANI
CAPITAL GROUP, INC. d/b/a PAPA JOHNS and AL AMIN HEMANI, the
Defendants, Case No. 4:18-cv-00102-Y (N.D. Tex., Feb. 8, 2018),
seeks to recover unpaid wages, unpaid overtime, liquidated
damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938.

The Plaintiff and Team Leader Class Members are those persons who
are current and former non-exempt employees who worked for
Defendants as "Team Leaders" and were paid a salary, but no
overtime for the hours worked over 40 in each workweek.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and Team Leader Class
Members routinely worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek. The
Plaintiff and Team Leader Class Members were not paid overtime at
the rate of one-and-one-half their regular rates for all hours
worked in excess of 40 per workweek. The Defendants knowingly and
deliberately failed to compensate Plaintiff, Team Leader Class
Members, and Class Members in accordance with the FLSA. The
Plaintiff and Team Leader Class Members did not (and do not)
perform work that meets the definition of exempt work under the
FLSA.

Hemani Capital is an investor located in Irving, Texas.[BN]

Attorneys For Plaintiff and Class Members:

          Drew N. Herrmann, Esq.
          HERRMANN LAW, PLLC
          777 Main St., Suite 600
          Fort Worth, Texas 76102
          Telephone: (817) 479 9229
          Facsimile: (817) 887 1878
          E-mail: drew@herrmannlaw.com

               - and -

          Jerry Murad, Jr.
          LAW OFFICE OF JERRY MURAD
          6300 Ridglea Place, Suite 1010
          Fort Worth, TX 76116
          Telephone: (817) 335 5691
          Facsimile: (817) 870 1162
          E-mail: jerrymurad@mac.com


HERSCHELL GOLDMAN: Faces "Carter" Suit over EFTA Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------
Darrell Carter, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Herschell Goldman & Associates,
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-00294-JS (E.D. Pa., Jan. 22,
2018), is a class action lawsuit alleging violation of the
Electronic Funds Transfer Act.

Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC focuses on the distribution of Goldman
Sachs Funds. The company provides services that include
securities brokerage, dealership, and underwriting; investment
banking; commodity trading; and investment consulting. The
company was founded in 1999 and is based in New York, New York.
Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC operates as a subsidiary of The Goldman
Sachs Group, Inc.

P&b Capital Group, LLC was founded in 2004. The company's line of
business includes collection and adjustment services on claims
and other insurance related issues.

DeVille Asset Management specializes in the acquisition of
defaulted account receivable portfolios from consumer credit
originators such as major banks, retailers, credit unions,
utility providers, and municipalities. DeVille generates revenues
primarily through the purchase, collection and sale of performing
and non-performing consumer receivables that have typically been
delinquent 90 days by the credit grantors or not considered to be
prime receivables. These receivables include MasterCard, Visa and
other credit card accounts issued by banks. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Ari Marcus, Esq.
     MARCUS & ZELMAN LLC
     1500 Allaire Ave., Suite 101
     Ocean, NJ 07712
     Telephone: (732) 695-3282
     E-mail: ari@marcuszelman.com


HURON CLINTON: "Livingston" Suit Seeks unpaid OT Wages under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BRETT LIVINGSTON, on behalf of himself and all other persons
similarly situated, known and unknown, the Plaintiff, v. HURON
CLINTON METROPOLITAN AUTHORITY, a municipal park district, the
Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-10467-SJM-DRG (E.D. Mich., Feb. 8,
2018), seeks to recover unpaid regular and overtime wages plus an
equal amount of liquidated damages, and an award of reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs, under the Fair Labor Standards Act

The Plaintiff brings this class action suit to compensate him for
the damages suffered and to ensure that he and other employees of
Defendant HC Metro Authority will not suffer from similar
unlawful conduct in the future. The Plaintiff was an employee of
Defendant HC Metro Authority whose rights under these statutes
have been violated. He now seeks to recover the benefits owed to
him under the FLSA due to Defendant HC Metro Authority's failure
to pay Plaintiff minimum wage for all hours worked, failure to
pay overtime wages for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per
workweek, and failure to maintain accurate records.

The Huron-Clinton Metropolitan Authority (Metroparks) is a
regional park system serving Livingston, Macomb, Oakland,.
Washtenaw and Wayne Counties.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Bryan Yaldou, Esq.
          Leah Seliger, Esq.
          Omar Badr, Esq.
          BRYAN YALDOU, PLLC
          23000 Telegraph, Suite 5
          Brownstown, MI 48134
          Telephone: (734) 692 9200
          Facsimile: (734) 692 9201
          E-mail: Bryan@yaldoulaw.com


HYDRO-AIRE INC: Fails to Pay OT & Minimum Wages, McDowell Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
DARREN MCDOWELL, individually, and on behalf of other members of
the general public similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. HYDRO-
AIRE, INC., a California corporation; CRANE AEROSPACE AND
ELECTRONICS CO., an unknown business entity; and DOES 1 through
100, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. BC693305 (Cal. Super.
Ct., Feb. 7, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime, unpaid meal
period premiums, unpaid rest period, and premiums, and unpaid
minimum wages under the California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the Defendants directly hired and
paid wages and benefits to Plaintiff and the other class members.
The Defendants continue to employ hourly-paid or non-exempt
employees within the State of California. The Plaintiff and the
other class members worked over eight 8 hours in a day, and/or
forty 40 hours in a week during their employment with Defendants.
The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants engaged in a pattern and
practice of wage abuse against their hourly-paid or non-exempt
employees within the State of California. This pattern and
practice involved, inter alia, failing to pay them for all
regular and/or overtime wages earned and for missed meal periods
and rest breaks in violation of California law.

Hydro-Aire, Inc. designs, develops, and manufactures aerospace
components. It provides aircraft antiskid, brake control, and
autobrake systems, as well as centrifugal fuel pumps and
hydraulic components. The company also offers repair and overhaul
services.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Edwin Aiwazian, Esq.
          LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC
          410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (818) 265 1020
          Facsimile: (818) 265 1021


HYUNDAI MOTOR: Sued by Brogan over Defective GDI Engines
--------------------------------------------------------
MARYANNE BROGAN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff v. HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA; KIA MOTORS
AMERICA, INC.; HYUNDAI MOTOR COMPANY; and KIA MOTORS CORPORATION,
the Defendants, Case No. 7:18-cv-00525-VB (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 22,
2018), is a class action against the Defendants' defective design
of 2.0-liter GDI turbo-charged engines and 2.4-liter GDI engines
found in certain model year 2011 through 2016 Kia and Hyundai
vehicles.

Hyundai Motor America manufactures and retails automobiles. The
Company offers compacts, sedans, hybrids, crossovers, passenger
cars, spare parts, tools, and equipments, including maintenance,
repair, and auto finance. Hyundai Motor America serves customers
throughout the United States.

Kia Motors America, Inc. markets and distributes vehicles. It
offers mid-size and luxury sedans, crossovers and minivans,
compact vehicles, hybrid and electric vehicles, special edition
vehicles, and concept cars. The company offers vehicles through
dealers in the United States. The company was incorporated in
1992 and is based in Irvine, California with an additional office
in Dallas, Texas. Kia Motors America, Inc. operates as a
subsidiary of Kia Motors Corp.

Hyundai Motor Company, together with its subsidiaries,
manufactures and distributes motor vehicles and parts worldwide.
It operates in Vehicle, Finance, and Other segments. The company
offers cars under the Centennial/Equus, Genesis, Azera, Sonata,
Sonata Turbo, i40, i40 Sedan, Elantra, Elantra Sport, i30, i30
Wagon, i30 3DR, Veloster, Veloster Turbo, Accent, Accent 5DR,
ix20, i20, i20 Coupe, Elite i20, HB20, Xcent, i10, Grand i10, and
Eon names, as well as IONIQ ELECTRIC, IONIQ-Hybrid, Grand Santa
Fe, and ix20 names. It also provides SUVs under the Grand Santa
Fe, Santa Fe, Tucson, and Creta names; and commercial vehicles
comprising trucks, buses, special vehicles, and bare chassis
products, as well as Eco vehicles, including Sonata-Plug-in-
Hybrid, ix35 Fuel Cell, and Sonata-Hybrid vehicles. In addition,
the company provides vehicle financing, credit card processing,
marketing, engineering, and insurance services; manufactures
trains; and operates a football club. Further, it is involved in
real estate development; and investment activities. Hyundai Motor
Company was founded in 1967 and is headquartered in Seoul, South
Korea.

Kia Motors Corporation, together with its subsidiaries,
manufactures and sells vehicles in South Korea, North America,
Europe, and internationally. The company offers passenger cars,
recreational vehicles, and commercial vehicles, as well as hybrid
and plug-in hybrid, and electric vehicles. The company sells its
products primarily through a network of distributors and dealers.
Kia Motors Corporation was founded in 1944 and is based in Seoul,
South Korea. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey L. Koenig, Esq.
          HECHT KLEEGER & DAMASHEK, PC
          19 West 44th Street, Suite 1500
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 490-5700
          Facsimile: (212) 490-4800

               - and -

          Austin B. Cohen, Esq.
          Daniel C. Levin, Esq.
          Charles E. Schaffer, Esq.
          Keith Verrier, Esq.
          LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN
          510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
          Philadelphia, PA 19106
          Telephone: (215) 592-1500
          Facsimile: (215) 592-4663


IGNYTA INC: Faces "Diaz" Suit over Proposed Roche Merger
--------------------------------------------------------
EDILBERTO DIAZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. IGNYTA, INC., JONATHAN E. LIM, JAMES
BRISTOL, HEINRICH DREISMANN, JAMES L. FREDDO, ALEX CASDIN and
STEVEN HOERTER, Case No. 3:18-cv-00157-JM-MDD (S.D. Cal., Jan.
22, 2018) is brought as a class action by Plaintiff on behalf of
himself and the other public holders of the common stock of
Ignyta, Inc. to enjoin the expiration of a tender offer on a
proposed transaction in which Ignyta will be acquired by Roche
Holdings, Inc. through its wholly-owned indirect subsidiary
Abingdon Acquisition Corp. through a flawed process and
inadequate consideration.

Ignyta, Inc., a precision oncology biotechnology company, engages
in discovering, in-licensing or acquiring, developing, and
commercializing molecularly targeted therapies for eradicating
residual diseases. The company was founded in 2011 and is
headquartered in San Diego, California. As of February 7, 2018,
Ignyta, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of Roche Holdings, Inc.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David E. Bower, Esq.
          MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
          600 Corporate Pointe, Suite 1170
          Culver City, CA 90230
          Telephone: (213) 446-6652
          Facsmile: (212) 202-7880


JASON NATURAL: Zeng Sues over "All Natural" Products Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Zeng Jin Li, an individual, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated , the Plaintiff, v. JASON NATURAL PRODUCTS,
INC., a California Corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-
01127 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 8, 2018), seeks order requiring Defendant
to immediately remove all advertisements, packaging and labeling
of the Products that the same are all natural or gentle.

This class action arises out of the fraudulent, deceptive and
misleading conduct of Defendant Jason Natural Products, Inc.
Specifically, for many years Defendant has represented that it
"live[s] by a simple Code of Honor," and that the first of four
tenets of that Code of Honor is that Jason "select[s] safe,
gentle and effective ingredients." The claim of "gentle" ("Gentle
Claim") is repeatedly reinforced in advertising and marketing
materials appurtenant to each of Jason's personal care
products. For example, Jason represents that it "select[s] only
the purest, gentlest ingredients." In fact, however, Jason's
products (including three of those purchased by Plaintiff)
contain a startling number of harsh and unsafe ingredients that
are not disclosed to -- and, in fact, are concealed from -- the
online customer at the time of purchase. Playing on its
overarching claim to utilize only "safe, gentle and effective
ingredients," Jason further advertises many of its products as
being "all natural," meaning, to the reasonable consumer (and the
FTC), that such products contain natural ingredients only, i.e.
devoid of any synthetic chemicals ("All Natural Claim"). But
Jason's purportedly "all natural" products, including those that
Plaintiff purchased, contain numerous synthetic chemicals,
including many that are toxic, some of which are known
carcinogens or otherwise carry a high risk of harm to product
users. Not only are such products not "all natural" and not
"gentle" but, moreover, they are potentially harmful to consumers
with no warning of the danger posed.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark Schlachet, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF MARK SCHLACHET
          3515 Severn Road
          Cleveland, Ohio 44118
          Telephone: (216) 225 7559
          Facsimile: (216) 932 5390
          E-mail: markschlachet@me.com


JZANUS LTD: Faces "Kim" Suit in Eastern District New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Jzanus Ltd. The
case is styled as Victor Kim, a/k/a Viktor Kim, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Jzanus
Ltd. and John Does l-25, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-00897 (E.D.
N.Y., February 9, 2018).

Jzanus Ltd is located in Floral Park, New York. This organization
primarily operates in the Business Consulting, nec business /
industry within the Engineering, Accounting, Research, and
Management Services sector.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


KINDRED HEALTHCARE: Sehrgosha Enjoins Merger with Consortium
------------------------------------------------------------
MAZY SEHRGOSHA, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. KINDRED HEALTHCARE, INC.,
PHYLLIS R. YALE, BENJAMIN A. BREIER, JOEL ACKERMAN, JONATHAN
D. BLUM, PAUL J. DIAZ, HEYWARD R. DONIGAN, RICHARD GOODMAN,
CHRISTOPHER T. HJELM FRED J. KLEISNER, SHARAD MANSUKANI,
M.D., and LYNN SIMON, M.D., the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-
00230-UNA (D. Del., Feb. 8, 2018), seeks to enjoin Defendants
from holding shareholder vote on a Proposed Merger and taking any
steps to consummate the Proposed Merger unless and until material
information disclosed to Kindred shareholders, or, in the event
the Proposed Merger is consummated, to recover damages resulting
from the Defendants' violations of the Securities Exchange Act.

On December 19, 2017, the Board caused the Company to enter into
an agreement and plan of merger with The Consortium, pursuant to
which, Kindred shareholders will receive $9.00 in cash for each
share of common stock they own.  On February 5, 2018, the Board
authorized the filing of a materially incomplete and misleading
preliminary proxy statement with the Securities and Exchange
Commission, in violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act.

While Defendants are touting the fairness of the Merger
Consideration to the Company's stockholders in the Proxy, they
have failed to disclose material information that is necessary
for stockholders to properly assess the fairness of the Proposed
Merger, thereby rendering certain statements in the Proxy
incomplete and misleading. Specifically, the Proxy contains
materially incomplete and misleading information concerning: (i)
the Company's financial projections; and (ii) the valuation
analyses performed by the Company's financial advisors, Barclays
Capital Inc. and Guggenheim Securities, LLC, in support of their
fairness opinions.

The special meeting of Kindred shareholders to vote on the
Proposed Merger is forthcoming. It is imperative that the
material information omitted from the Proxy is disclosed to the
Company's shareholders prior to the forthcoming shareholder vote
so that they can properly exercise their corporate suffrage
rights. For these reasons as set forth in detail herein,
Plaintiff asserts claims against Defendants for violations of
Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

Kindred Healthcare Incorporated is a healthcare services company
that operates hospitals, nursing centers, and contract
rehabilitation services across the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
          MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
          The Empire State Building
          350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4405
          New York, NY 10118
          Telephone: (212) 971 1341
          Facsimile: (212) 202 7880
          E-mail: jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com

               - and -

          Blake A. Bennett, Esq.
          COOCH AND TAYLOR, P.A.
          The Brandywine Building
          1000 West Street, 10th Floor
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 984 3800


KINDRED HEALTHCARE: Tompkins Balks at TPG Global Merger Deal
------------------------------------------------------------
DALE TOMPKINS, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. KINDRED HEALTHCARE, INC., BENJAMIN A.
BREIER, JOEL ACKERMAN, JONATHAN D. BLUM, PAUL J. DIAZ, HEYWARD R.
DONIGAN, RICHARD GOODMAN, CHRISTOPHER T. HJELM, FREDERICK J.
KLEISNER, SHARAD MANSUKANI, LYNN SIMON, PHYLLIS R. YALE, KENTUCKY
HOSPITAL HOLDINGS, LLC, KENTUCKY HOMECARE HOLDINGS, INC.,
KENTUCKY HOMECARE MERGER SUB, INC., TPG GLOBAL, LLC, WELSH,
CARSON, ANDERSON & STOWE and HUMANA INC., the Defendants, Case
No. 3:18-cv-00086-DJH (W.D. Ky., Feb. 9, 2018), seeks to enjoin
Defendants from taking any steps to consummate a proposed merger
transaction, including filing a definitive proxy statement with
the Securities Exchange Commission or otherwise causing a
Definitive Proxy to be disseminated to Kindred's shareholders,
unless and until the material information is included in the
Definitive Proxy or otherwise disseminated to Kindred's
shareholders, and in the event the Proposed Transaction is
consummated without the material omissions being remedied,
Plaintiff seeks to recover damages resulting from the Defendants'
violations.

The Plaintiff brings this class action on behalf of the public
stockholders of Kindred Healthcare, Inc. against Kindred's Board
of Directors for their violations of Section 14(a) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15.U.S.C. sections 78n(a),
78t(a), and SEC Rule 14a-9, 17 C.F.R. 240.14a-9, arising out of
the Board's attempt to sell the Company to TPG Global, LLC,
Welsh, Carson, Anderson & Stowe, and Humana Inc. through TPG
Global, LLC's affiliates Kentucky Hospital Holdings, LLC,
Kentucky Homecare Holdings, Inc. and Kentucky Homecare Merger
Sub, Inc.

According to the lawsuit, the Defendants have violated the
Securities Exchange Act by causing a materially incomplete and
misleading preliminary proxy statement to be filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 5, 2018. The Proxy
recommends that Kindred shareholders vote in favor of a proposed
transaction whereby Kindred is acquired by the Consortium. The
Proposed Transaction was first disclosed on December 19, 2017,
when Kindred and the Consortium announced that they had entered
into a definitive merger agreement pursuant to which Kentucky
Homecare Holdings, Inc. will acquire all of the outstanding
shares of common stock of Kindred for $9.00 per share in cash.
After the Proposed Transaction closes, Kindred's home health,
hospice and community care businesses will be separated from the
rest of the Company and acquired by Kentucky Hospital Holdings,
LLC. The deal is valued at approximately $4.1 billion and is
expected to close in the summer of 2018.

The Board agreed to sell the Company right at the point where
Kindred was beginning to come out of a rocky period after a large
acquisition, a repositioning plan and political uncertainty. Just
as the Company was beginning to see positive results from its
repositioning plan, and at a time when the stock price was
deflated, the Board sold to the Consortium for a price that was
less than other offers. Indeed, a large Kindred stockholder has
expressed its belief that the Proposed Transaction is not in the
stockholders' best interests and does not maximize stockholder
value. Furthermore, the Proxy is materially incomplete and
contains misleading representations and information in violation
of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. Specifically,
the Proxy contains materially incomplete and misleading
information concerning the sales process, financial projections
prepared by Kindred management, as well as the financial analyses
conducted by Barclays Capital Inc. and Guggenheim Securities,
LLC, Kindred's financial advisors.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jamie K. Neal, Esq.
          BURKE NEAL PLLC
          2200 Dundee Road, Suite C
          Louisville, Kentucky 40205
          Telephone: (502) 709 9992

               - and -

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


KOMEN USA: "Santoyo" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Teresa Santoyo, Individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Komen USA Inc. Building Maintenance
& Consulting, a Colorado corporation, Jason Choi, Individually,
and Bruce Choi, Individually, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-
00331-KMT (D. Colo., Feb. 9, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages pursuant to the federal Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked for Defendants,
Jason and Brue Choi, and their corporation, Komen USA Inc.
Building Maintenance & Consulting ("Komen"), as a Custodian.

Komen is a Colorado corporation incorporated by Mr. Jason Choi.
Komen provides custodial and cleaning services to third party
clients. In particular, Komen provides cleaning services to El
Paso County, including the El Paso County Judicial Building,
Centennial Hall, the Citizens Service Center, and other El Paso
County properties.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bradley J. Sherman, Esq.
          CORNISH & DELL'OLIO, P.C.
          431 N. Cascade Avenue, Ste. 1
          Colorado Springs, CO 80903
          Telephone: (719) 475 1204
          Facsimile: (719) 475 1264
          E-mail: bsherman@cornishanddellolio.com


LEE KUM KEE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, "Leon" Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
Agustin Leon, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated, and as an aggrieved employee on behalf of all aggrieved
employees v. LEE KUM KEE (U.S.A.) INC., LEE KUM KEE (USA)FOODS
INC., and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. BC690608 (Cal.
Super., Jan. 17, 2018), is brought against the Defendants to
recover wages and penalties from unpaid wages earned and due,
unpaid minimum wages, unpaid and illegally calculated overtime
compensation, and unpaid premiums related to Defendants' illegal
meal and rest period policies, in violation of the California
Labor Code.

Plaintiff worked for Defendants as a non-exempt, hourly paid
employee from on or about September 2013 until August 2017.
Plaintiff were employed by Defendants under employment agreements
that were partly written, partly oral, and partly implied.

Lee Kum Kee (U.S.A.), Inc. produces sauces. It offers cooking and
dipping, chili, convenience, shrimp, oyster, soy, ready, recipe,
Chinese cooking, and xo-sauces; and dry-condiments. The company
serves restaurants and food manufacturers. It offers its products
through supermarkets and stores in California, Washington,
Arizona, Oregon, Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio, Illinois, Indiana,
New York, New Jersey, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island,
Florida, North Carolina, Virginia, and Georgia; and Internet
retailers. The company was incorporated in 1983 and is based in
City of Industry, California. Lee Kum Kee (U.S.A.), Inc. operates
as a subsidiary of Lee Kum Kee (Hong Kong) Foods Ltd.

Lee Kum Kee (USA) Foods Inc. provides packages food. The Company
offers foods and miscellaneous food specialties. Lee Kum Kee
serves customers worldwide. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew J. Matern, Esq.
          Andrew J. Sokolowski, Esq.
          MATERN LAW GROUP, PC
          1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 200
          Manhattan Beach,CA 90266
          Telephone: (310) 531-1900
          Facsimile: (310) 531-1901
          E-mail: mmatern@maternlawgroup.com


LJM FUNDS: Sokolow Sues over Plunge in LJMIX Share Price
--------------------------------------------------------
LEONARD SOKOLOW, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. LJM FUNDS MANAGEMENT, LTD., TWO ROADS
SHARED TRUST, NORTHERN LIGHTS DISTRIBUTORS, LLC, ANDREW ROGERS,
MARK GERTSEN, MARK GARBIN, NEIL KAUFMAN, ANITA KRUG, JAMES
COLANTINO, ANISH PARVATANENI, and ANTHONY CAINE, the Defendants,
Case No. 1:18-cv-01039 (N.D. Ill., Feb. 9, 2018), seeks to
recover compensatory damages against all Defendants, jointly and
severally, for all damages suffered in connection with their
purchases of LJMIX to the maximum extent permitted under section
11(e) of the Securities Act, and any other applicable law, in an
amount to be proven at trial, plus interest.

The case is a securities fraud class action on behalf of persons
who purchased shares of the LJM Preservation and Growth Fund
(ticker: LJMIX) between February 28, 2015 and February 7, 2018,
inclusive. LJMIX is a mutual fund that purports to invest
primarily in purchased and sold call and put options on Standard
& Poor's 500 Futures Index. The Defendants represented in LJMIX's
Registration Statements and Prospectuses that "[t]he Fund aims to
preserve capital, particularly in down markets (including major
market drawdowns), through using put option spreads as a form of
mitigation risk." In truth, however, LJMIX was not focused on
capital preservation and left investors exposed to an
unacceptably high risk of catastrophic losses. The truth emerged
on February 5, 2018, when the S&P fell approximately 4.6%. In the
wake of this drop, LJMIX plunged from $9.82 on February 2, to
$1.94 on February 7, a massive loss of approximately 80%.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael J. Freed, Esq.
          William H. London, Esq.
          Brian M. Hogan, Esq.
          FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC
          2201 Waukegan Road, Suite 130
          Bannockburn, IL 60015
          Telephone: (224) 632 4500
          Facsimile: (224) 632 4521
          E-mail: blondon@fklmlaw.com
                  mfreed@fklmlaw.com
                  bhogan@fklmlaw.com

               - and -

          Thomas L. Laughlin, IV, Esq.
          Rhiana S. Swartz, Esq.
          SCOTT+SCOTT, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP
          The Helmsley Building
          230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor
          New York, NY 10169
          Telephone: (212) 223 6444
          Facsimile: (212) 223 6334
          E-mail: tlaughlin@scott-scott.com
                  rswartz@scott-scott.com

               - and -

          Michael E. Criden, Esq.
          Lindsey C. Grossman, Esq.
          CRIDEN & LOVE, P.A.
          7301 SW 57th Court, Suite 515
          South Miami, FL 33143
          Telephone: (305) 357 9000
          Facsimile: (305) 357 9050
          E-mail: mcriden@cridenlove.com
                  lgrossman@cridenlove.com


LTI TRUCKING: "Kennedy" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------
JOANN L. KENNEDY, on Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. LTI TRUCKING SERVICES, INC.. the
Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-00230 (E.D. Mo., Feb. 9, 2018), seeks
to recover unpaid wages, liquidated damages, interest, costs and
attorneys' fees as well as declaratory relief under the Fair
labor Standards Act.

LTI is owned and operated for the purpose of moving freight
interstate for its customers at the lowest cost possible. The
Defendant controls Plaintiff's work and by law employs Plaintiff
to transport goods by truck for LTI customers. Defendant controls
when, where, and how Plaintiff delivers freight. It controls
virtually every aspect of the way truckers work is performed,
including routes taken and the equipment used, along with its
maintenance and condition. Everything about Plaintiff's work is
controlled by Defendant.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Carson C. Menges, Esq.
          MENGES LAW, LLC
          6400 W. Main St., Ste 1G
          Belleville, IL 62223
          Telephone: (618) 277 6646
          E-mail: cmenges@mengesfirm.com


MANHATTAN ACADEMY: Soghn Seeks Minimum Wage & OT under Labor Code
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Adrienne Soghn, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Manhattan Academy, Inc.,
and Doe One through and including Doe Ten, the Defendants, Case
No. BC693358 (Cal. Super. Ct., Feb. 7, 2018), seeks to recover
minimum wage and overtime under California Labor Code.

The Plaintiff was not paid at the rate of one and one-half times
the regular rate of pay for all hours worked over 40 hours per
week and for all hours worked over eight hours per day. Plaintiff
also seeks damages for Defendant's failure to provide meal and
rest periods. This class action lawsuit asserts claims against
Defendant for violations of California Labor Code sections 201,
202, 203, 226, 226.7, 510, 512, 1194, and 1198, violations of the
Industrial Welfare Commission wage order, and violations of
section 17200 et seq. of the California Business and Professions
Code.

Manhattan Academy is a privately held company in Manhattan Beach,
California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan Ricasa, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JONATHAN RICASA
          15760 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 700
          Encino, CA 91436
          Telephone: (818) 650 8077
          Facsimile: (818) 301 5151
          E-mail: jricasa@ricasalaw.com

               - and -

          Briana M. Kim, Esq.
          BRIANA KIM, PC
          249 East Ocean Boulevard, Suite 814
          Long Beach, CA 90802
          Telephone: (714) 482 6301
          Facsimile: (714) 482 6302
          E-mail: briana@brianakim.com


MENARD INC: Violates Wage and Hour Laws, "Raisor" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTEN RAISOR, LAURISA LAROSE MOWERY, AND CONRAD SMITH on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. MENARD, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-00314
(N.D. Ohio, Feb. 8, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid wage under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

This case challenges policies and practices of Defendant that
violate the FLSA, as well as Ohio, Missouri, and Wisconsin wage
payment acts and wage and hour laws. The Plaintiffs and the
putative class and collective action members are not subject to
any arbitration agreement with a class or collective action
waiver. The Plaintiffs bring this case as an FLSA "collective
action" pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b), which provides that
"[a]n action to recover the liability" prescribed by the FLSA
"may be maintained against any employer . . . by any one or more
employees for and on behalf of [herself] and other employees
similarly situated."

The Plaintiffs bring their FLSA collective action claims on
behalf of all other similarly situated current and former hourly
employees of Defendant's more than 300 retail home improvement
stores, manufacturing facilities, and distribution centers
throughout the United States during the preceding three years and
through the conclusion of this Action.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Hans A. Nilges, Esq.
          Shannon M. Draher, Esq.
          Michaela M. Calhoun, Esq.
          NILGES DRAHER, LLC
          7266 Portage Street, N.W., Suite D
          Massillon, OH 44646
          Telephone: (330) 470 4428
          Facsimile: (330) 754 1430
          E-mail: hans@ohlaborlaw.com
                  sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com
                  calhoun@ohlaborlaw.com

               - and -

          Robert J. Hunt, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT J. HUNT, LLC
          3091 E. 98th Street, Ste. 280
          Indianapolis, IN 46280
          Telephone: (317) 706 1100
          Facsimile: (317) 623 8503
          E-mail: rob@indianawagelaw.com


MERCK & CO: Rochester Drug Sues over Monopoly of Zetia Drug
-----------------------------------------------------------
ROCHESTER DRUG COOPERATIVE, INC., on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. MERCK & CO., INC.;
MERCK SHARP & DOHME CORP.; SCHERING-PLOUGH CORP.; SCHERING CORP.;
MSP SINGAPORE CO. LLC; GLENMARK PHARMACEUTICALS, LTD.; and
GLENMARK GENERICS INC., U.S.A., the Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-
00071-RAJ-RJK (E.D. Va., Feb. 7, 2018), seeks to recover
threefold damages, costs of suit and reasonable attorneys' fees
for the injuries sustained by plaintiff and members of the Class
resulting from defendants' unlawful impairment of generic
competition.

In the early 1990s, following its success with statins, Merck
sought to identify new compounds that could reduce cholesterol
and prevent the buildup of plaques in arteries. Merck turned to a
class of drugs first developed forty years earlier: ACAT
inhibitors. Merck quickly identified an initial lead compound,
SCH48461, and then focused on its metabolites and metabolite-like
analogues, including SCH58235 or ezetimibe. Merck used
conventional techniques to develop these compounds into
pharmaceutical compositions. Merck obtained three patents for
these discoveries (one reissued as U.S. Patent No. RE37,721 (the
"RE'721 patent")).

Ezetimibe became the active ingredient in the blockbuster drug
Zetia. In 2006, Merck sued Glenmark -- the first generic
manufacturer to seek FDA approval to market generic Zetia --
alleging infringement of the RE'721 patent. Glenmark argued the
RE'721 patent was unenforceable for inequitable conduct: Merck
intentionally (and deceptively) failed to tell the PTO that
compounds claimed in the RE'721 patent were inherent metabolites
of compounds Merck publicly disclosed years earlier. Merck also
withheld references that would have, at minimum, caused the
examiner to ask questions about metabolites and inherency.

Glenmark also argued that -- separate and apart from inequitable
conduct -- this inherency rendered the RE'721 patent invalid for
anticipation. Had the case resulted in a decision on the ultimate
merits, Glenmark would have prevailed. Indeed, Merck later
conceded the invalidity of the RE'721 patent. But rather than
proceed to trial with Glenmark, Merck decided to settle. The
Supreme Court holds that resolving patent infringement litigation
by having the plaintiff (here, Merck) make a large and
unjustified payment to the allegedly infringing defendant (here,
Glenmark) violates federal antitrust law (assuming the other
elements are satisfied). Nevertheless, Merck paid Glenmark to
stay out of the market for almost five years. Merck's payment
took the form of an agreement not to launch its own generic
version of Zetia (called an "authorized generic"). Merck's no
authorized generic ("no-AG") promise was worth approximately $800
million in sales to Glenmark.

As first filer, Glenmark earned the right to keep other generic
companies off the market for 180 days; this was its statutory
reward. But Glenmark could not keep Merck from selling an
authorized generic. Brand companies launch authorized generics,
particularly during a first filer's so-called 180-day exclusivity
period, in an effort to staunch the massive loss of revenue
attending generic entry. The brand's authorized generic takes up
to 50% of generic sales away from the first filer. So even though
the authorized generic is selling at a lower price point than the
brand, authorized generics let the brand hold on to sales that it
otherwise would lose.

In the absence of Merck's large and unjustified payment, Glenmark
and Merck would have each launched a generic version of Zetia as
early as December 6, 2011 and, in any event, well before December
12, 2016. Additional generics would have launched six months
later. The presence of so many generics would have driven prices
down to competitive levels.

RDC and the direct purchaser class have been injured by Merck and
Glenmark's conduct. In the absence of their unlawful agreement,
class members would have been able to buy less-expensive generic
instead of branded Zetia from as early as December 6, 2011
through the present. The proposed direct purchaser class has
likely paid hundreds of millions in overcharges as a result of
Merck and Glenmark's unlawful agreement.

Merck & Company, Inc., d.b.a. Merck Sharp & Dohme outside the
United States and Canada, is an American pharmaceutical company
and one of the largest pharmaceutical companies in the world.[BN]

Counsel for Rochester Drug Cooperative, Inc. and the Proposed
Direct Purchaser Class:

          William H. Monroe, Jr., Esq.
          Marc C. Greco., Esq.
          Kip A. Harbison, Esq.
          Richard S. Glasser, Esq.
          Michael S. Glasser, Esq.
          GLASSER & GLASSER, P.L.C.
          Crown Center, Suite 600
          580 East Main Street
          Norfolk, VA 23510
          Telephone: (757) 625 6787
          Facsimile: (757) 652 5959
          E-mail: bill@glasserlaw.com
                  marcg@glasserlaw.com
                  kip@glasserlaw.com
                  richardg@glasserlaw.com
                  michael@glasserlaw.com

               - and -

          David F. Sorensen, Esq.
          Zachary D. Caplan, Esq.
          BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
          1622 Locust Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 875 3000
          Facsimile: (215) 875 4604
          E-mail: dsorensen@bm.net
                  zcaplan@bm.net

               - and -

          Peter R. Kohn, Esq.
          Joseph T. Lukens, Esq.
          Bradley J. Demuth, Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI LLP
          101 Greenwood Ave, Suite 600
          Jenkintown, PA 19046
          Telephone: (215) 277 5770
          Facsimile: (215) 277 5771
          E-mail: pkohn@faruqilaw.com
                  jlukens@faruqilaw.com
                  bdemuth@faruqilaw.com

               - and -

          Barry Taus, Esq.
          Archana Tamoshunas, Esq.
          Kevin Landau, Esq.
          TAUS, CEBULASH & LANDAU, LLP
          80 Maiden Lane, Suite 1204
          New York, NY10038
          Telephone: (646) 873 7654
          E-mail: btaus@tcllaw.com
                  atamoshunas@tcllaw.com
                  klandau@tcllaw.com


METROPCS TEXAS: "Silguero" Suit Seeks Overtime Wages under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
DEE DEE SILGUERO, Individually and on behalf of all other
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. METROPCS TEXAS, LLC, HBCC
INVESTMENTS INC. d/b/a DF WIRELESS, BKCR INC. d/b/a DF WIRELESS,
WIRELESS DF TEXAS LLC, GSWAC INC. d/b/a DF WIRELESS, KJCC INC.
d/b/a DF WIRELESS, PCSKK INC. d/b/a DF WIRELESS, and BONG KIM,
the Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-00039 (S.D. Tex., Feb. 8, 2018),
seeks all available relief, including overtime wages,
compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs,
pursuant to the provisions of Section 216(b) of the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938.

The Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members are those similarly
situated persons who worked for Defendants at any time since
February 8, 2015 through the final disposition of this matter,
and were paid by the hour, but did not receive: (a) compensation
for all hours worked, (b) all earned commissions and (c) overtime
for all hours worked over 40 in each workweek. The Plaintiff and
the Putative Class Members routinely work (and worked) in excess
of 40 hours per workweek; however, Plaintiff and the Putative
Class Members were not paid overtime for any hours worked in
excess of 40 hours per workweek.

The Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members were not compensated
for all hours worked. Specifically, Defendants automatically
deducted one hour meal periods from Plaintiff and the Putative
Class Members' daily hours worked, despite knowing that Plaintiff
and the Putative Class Members routinely worked (and continue to
work) throughout their designated one-hour meal period each day.

MetroPCS is a prepaid wireless service in the United States that
is part of T-Mobile US, Inc. MetroPCS provides nationwide talk,
text, and data depending on the plan services using GSM, HSPA,
HSPA+ and 4G LTE networks.[BN]

Attorneys in Charge for Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members:

          Clif Alexander, Esq.
          Austin W. Anderson, Esq.
          Lauren E. Braddy, Esq.
          Alan Clifton Gordon, Esq.
          Carter T. Hastings, Esq.
          George Schimmel, Esq.
          ANDERSON2X, PLLC
          819 N. Upper Broadway
          Corpus Christi, TX 78401
          Telephone: (361) 452 1279
          Facsimile: (361) 452 1284
          E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com
                  austin@a2xlaw.com
                  lauren@a2xlaw.com
                  cgordon@a2xlaw.com
                  carter@a2xlaw.com
                  geordie@a2xlaw.com


MGB INC: "Oliver" Suit Seeks Minimum Wage & OT under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------
VALERIE OLIVER, an individual, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. MGB, INC., a
Virginia corporation, d/b/a PURE PLEASURE, and WILLIAM PYLIARIS,
an individual, the Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-00096-HEH (E.D.
Va., Feb. 9, 2018), seeks to recover minimum and overtime wages,
liquidated damages, interest, and attorneys' fees and costs
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

The Defendants operate a strip club in Richmond, Virginia,
commonly known as Pure Pleasure, that has failed to pay Plaintiff
and all others similarly situated the applicable minimum wage and
substantial overtime for hours worked. Indeed, not only have they
fail to pay a single penny in wages, they tricked the Plaintiff
and all others similarly situated into paying to work at the
club. Defendants' failure to pay the minimum wage and overtime
wages to Plaintiff and all others similarly situated violated
Sections 6 and 7 of the FLSA, because Defendants' employment of
Plaintiff and all other similarly situated employees does not
meet the requirements for any applicable exemption under the
FLSA.[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiff:

          Stephen B. Pershing, Esq.
          PERSHING LAW PLLC
          1416 E Street, N.E.
          Washington, D.C. 20002
          Telephone: (202) 642 1431
          E-mail: sbpershing@gmail.com

               - and -

          Harlan S. Miller, III, Esq.
          MILLER LEGAL, P.C.
          6868 Leslie Lane
          Macon, Ga. 31220
          Telephone: (404) 931 6490
          Facsimile: (866) 704 3161
          E-mail: hmiller@millerlegalpc.com


MIDLAND FUNDING: McCoy Sues over Debt Collection Practices
----------------------------------------------------------
CHERYL MCCOY, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly
situated individuals, the PLAINTIFF, v. MIDLAND FUNDING, LLC;
MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC; and ENCORE CAPITAL GROUP, INC.,
the DEFENDANTS, Case No. 1:18-cv-01035 (N.D. Ill., Feb. 9, 2018),
seeks statutory damages pursuant to 15 U.S.C. section
1692k(a)(2)(B).

According to Defendants, Plaintiff incurred an alleged debt for
goods and services used for personal purposes, originally for a
FIA Card Services, N.A. consumer credit card account ("alleged
debt"). The alleged debt is a "debt" as that term is defined at
section 1692a(5) of the FDCPA. Due to her financial
circumstances, Plaintiff could not pay any debts, and the alleged
debt went into default. Midland subsequently purchased the
alleged debt, and retained MCM to assist with collection.

Midland sued Plaintiff in the Circuit Court of Cook County in an
attempt to collect the alleged debt. Plaintiff at the time was
unable to afford an attorney and did not understand her rights
and obligations with respect to the lawsuit, and Midland obtained
a default judgment against her on November 17, 2017.

Shortly thereafter, MCM sent a letter directly to Plaintiff
regarding the alleged debt. The Letter conveys information
regarding the alleged debt, including an account number, the
identity of the original creditor and a current balance.

Defendants falsely represented a voluntary financial disclosure
form as legal process, in violation of 15 U.S.C. section
1692e(13), in an attempt to coerce Plaintiff into disclosing her
income and assets. Defendants used unconscionable means to
collect a debt, in violation of 15 U.S.C. section 1692f, when
they communicated to Plaintiff that she must fill out a Financial
Disclosure Form as a result of a judgment obtained against
her.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Wood, Esq.
          Celetha Chatman, Esq.
          Holly McCurdy, Esq.
          Sarah Barnes, Esq.
          COMMUNITY LAWYERS GROUP, LTD.
          73 W. Monroe Street, Suite 514
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 757 1880
          Facsimile: (312) 265 3227
          E-mail: cchatman@communitylawyersgroup.com


MOOOI USA: Faces "Bishop" Suit in Southern District New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Moooi USA, Inc. The
case is styled as Cedric Bishop, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Moooi USA, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-01208 (S.D. N.Y., February 11, 2018).

Moooi USA Inc. offers a wide collection of chandeliers, table
lamps and wall lights.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MOTION PICTURE: Fails to Pay OT, "Maravilla" Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------
Maria T. Maravilla and Maria A. Vasquez, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Motion Picture and
Television Fund, DOES 1 through DOES 25, Case No. BC690494 (Cal.
Super., Jan. 17, 2018), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to correctly pay Plaintiffs and the rest of premium wages
for overtime hours. Defendant also failed to provide Plaintiffs
with the legally compliant meal breaks and rest breaks.

Ms. Maravilla was employed by Motion Picture and Television Fund
at its location in Woodland Hills, California from 1987 until
November 2017.

Motion Picture and Television Fund is a California Nonprofit
Public Benefit Corporation organized under the laws of the state
of California.  Motion Picture and Television Fund, doing
business as MPTF, provides programs and services for life and
well-being of the entertainment industry community in Southern
California. The company offers services ranging from elder care
to social work, community outreach, financial support, child
care, and beyond. Its programs and services include emotional and
financial relief, a residential community, health care centers,
health insurance options, and more. Motion Picture and Television
Fund was formerly known as Motion Picture Relief Fund. The
company was founded in 1921 and is based in Woodland Hills,
California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Aaron C. Gundzik, Esq.
          GARTENBERG GELFAND AND HAYTON LLP
          15260 Ventura Blvd., Suite 1920
          Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
          Telephone: (213) 542-2100
          Facsimile: (213) 542-2101
          E-mail: agundzik@gghslaw.com


MRK FINE: Faces "Bishop" Suit in Southern District New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against MRK Fine Arts, LLC.
The case is styled as Cedric Bishop, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MRK Fine Arts, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-01207 (S.D. N.Y., February 11, 2018).

Mrk Fine Arts, LLC is in the Precious Metal Cases business.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


NATIONWIDE PROTECTIVE: Fails to Pay OT, "Ramessar" Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ronald Ramessar, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Nationwide Protective Services, Inc., et
al., Case No. BC690781 (Cal. Super., Jan. 17, 2018), is an action
against the Defendant to recover unpaid regular and overtime
wages, including unpaid compensation for meal and/or rest period
violations, liquidated damages, and injunctive relief.

Mr. Ramessar worked as a Security Officer of the Defendant.

Nationwide Protective Services was founded in 1999. The company's
line of business includes providing detective, guard, and armored
car services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott Edward Cole, Esq.
          Andrew Weaver, Esq.
          SCOTT COLE & ASSOCIATES, APC
          1970 Broadway, Ninth Floor
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 891-9800
          Facsimile: (510) 891-7030
          E-mail: scole@scalaw.com


NAVIENT SOLUTIONS: Obeleagu Sues over Collection of Student Loan
----------------------------------------------------------------
PRISCA O. OBELEAGU, Individually and on behalf of all similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. NAVIENT SOLUTIONS, LLC, and NAVIENT
CORPORATION, the Defendants, Case No. 8:18-cv-00392-PX (Md. Cir.,
Prince George's County, Feb. 7, 2018), seeks to recover damages
due to illegal and systematic abuse of Maryland residents by
Defendants and SLM 2005 Trust, relative to engaging in collection
and collection related student loan suits, without adherence to
Maryland collection agency licensing and consumer protection
laws.

According to the complaint, for the period beginning not earlier
than three years prior to the date of the filing of this lawsuit,
Navient has been involved in the business of initiating and/or
maintaining consumer collection actions on behalf of consumer
student loan dent owner SLM 2005 Trust.

In October 2014, Plaintiff while still in graduate school full
time, began receiving collection letters and phone calls from
Navient regarding her student loans account. Plaintiff became
confused in regard to receiving debt communications because at
all times relevant she was full-time student and thus her loan
payments should have been deferred.

Navient is a U.S. corporation based in Wilmington, Delaware,
whose operations include servicing and collecting on student
loans.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Douglas N. Gottron, Esq.
          Terry E. Morris, Esq.
          MORRIS PALERM, LLC
          2 Barrister's Place
          751 Rockville Pike
          Rockville, MD 20852
          Telephone: dgottron@morrispalerm.com
                     Tmorris@morrispalerm.com


NIKOLAIS GALANOPOULOS: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT, Amastal Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
ENRIQUE LOPEZ AMASTAL and JOSE LUIS GUZMAN RAMIREZ, individually
and on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v.
NIKOLAIS GALANOPOULOS, the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-01133
(S.D.N.Y., Feb. 8, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid minimum and
overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of
1938 and New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiffs are former employees of Defendant. The Defendant
owned, operated, or controlled a diner/pizzeria, located at 70
West 71st Street, New York, New York 10023 under the name "Big
Nick's Pizza Joint". The Plaintiffs were employed as a griller
and a food preparer at the restaurant located at 70 West 71st
Street, New York, New York 10023. The Plaintiffs worked for
Defendant in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate
minimum wage, overtime, and "spread of hours" compensation for
the hours that they worked. Rather, Defendant failed to maintain
accurate recordkeeping of the hours worked, failed to pay
Plaintiffs appropriately for any hours worked, either at the
straight rate of pay or for any additional overtime premium.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

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


NORTHSTAR LOCATION: Faces "Selwyn" Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against NorthStar Location
Services, LLC. The case is styled as Yisroel Selwyn, on behalf of
himself and all other similarly situated consumers, Plaintiff v.
NorthStar Location Services, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-
00891 (E.D. N.Y., February 9, 2018).

Northstar Location Services is a debt collection agency.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


NUDGE LLC: Faces Just Us Realtors Suit in District of Utah
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nudge LLC. The case
is styled as Just Us Realtors, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Nudge LLC, BuyPD, Income
Property USA, Insiders Cash, Ryan Poelman, Guardian Law, American
Legal & Escrow, Invictus Law and Blair R. Jackson, Defendants,
Case No. 2:18-cv-00128-TC (D. Utah, February 9, 2018).

Nudge, LLC provides a digital health coaching software solution
for providers, coaches, and other health professionals to access
healthcare data.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Jon V. Harper, Esq.
   HARPER LAW PLC
   68 S MAIN ST 8TH FL
   SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84101
   Tel: (801) 910-4357
   Email: jharper@jonharperlaw.com

      - and -

   M. Denise Dalton, Esq.
   HARPER LAW PLC
   68 S MAIN ST STE 800
   SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84101
   Tel: (801) 910-4358


O'REILLY AUTO: Fails to Reimburse Gift Cards, Micallef Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Alfred Micallef, individually, and on behalf of other members of
the general public similarly situated v. O'Reilly Automotive
Stores, Inc., Case No. BC690610 (Cal. Super., Jan. 17, 2018), is
brought to stop the Defendant's practice of illegally withholding
the cash value of gift cards. Defendant also failed to reimburse
the Plaintiff on gift cards with an amount of $10 or less.

On November 1, 2017, Plaintiff used his gift card to purchase an
Air Filter that totaled $8.20, including taxes and fees. After
Plaintiff's purchase, Plaintiff had a remaining balance of $5.94
on the gift card. Plaintiff then requested from the store manager
that Defendant provide a cash value redemption for the remaining
balance of $5.94, but Defendant refused. Defendant stated that it
was company policy not to provide gift card redemptions for any
value.

O'Reilly Automotive Stores Inc. supplies automobile equipment.
The Company offers replacements parts, fluids and chemicals,
performance, accessories, and tools. O'Reilly Automotive Stores
serves customers in the State of Missouri. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


OFFICINE PANERAI: Faces "Thorne" Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Officine Panerai
A.G. The case is styled as Braulio Thorne, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Officine Panerai
A.G., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-01209 (S.D. N.Y., February 11,
2018).

Officine Panerai is a luxury Italian watch manufacturer, and a
wholly owned subsidiary of Compagnie Financiere Richemont
S.A.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


OIL CAN: "Sarduy" Suit Seeks OT & Minimum Wages under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT SARDUY and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C.
216(b), the Plaintiff, v. OIL CAN MAN INC., EUGENE GARGIULO, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-20512-FAM (S.D. Fla., Feb. 8, 2018),
seeks to recover overtime and/or minimum wages under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

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

The Plaintiff worked for Defendants as a handyman and maintenance
worker from on or about December 22, 2015 through on or about
January 13, 2018. Defendant's business activities involve those
to which the Fair Labor Standards Act applies. Both the
Defendant's business and the Plaintiff's work for the Defendant
affected interstate commerce for the relevant time period.
Plaintiff's work for the Defendant affected interstate commerce
for the relevant time period because the materials and goods that
Plaintiff used on a constant and/or continual basis and/or that
were supplied to him by the Defendant to use on the job moved
through interstate commerce prior to and/or subsequent to
Plaintiff's use of the same. The Plaintiff's work for the
Defendant was actually in and/or so closely related to the
movement of commerce while he worked for the Defendant that the
Fair Labor Standards Act applies to Plaintiff's work for the
Defendant.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


OZARK PIZZA: "Paul" Suit Seeks Unpaid Minimum Wages under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
ALICIA PAUL, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
persons, the Plaintiff, v. OZARK PIZZA COMPANY, LLC, the
Defendant, Case No. 6:18-cv-03042-MDH (W.D. Mo., Feb. 7, 2018),
seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant has operated
approximately 50 Papa John's franchise stores in Missouri,
Illinois, Arkansas, Colorado and Oklahoma during times relevant.
Defendant employs delivery drivers who use their own automobiles
to deliver pizzas and other food items to its customers. Instead
of reimbursing its delivery drivers for the reasonably
approximate costs of the business use of their vehicles,
Defendant uses a flawed method to determine reimbursement rates
that provides such an unreasonably low rate beneath any
reasonable approximation of the expenses they incur that the
drivers' unreimbursed expenses cause their net wages to fall
below the federal and Missouri minimum wages during some or all
workweeks (nominal wages -- unreimbursed vehicle costs =
subminimum wages).[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard M. Paul III, Esq.
          Sean R. Cooper, Esq.
          PAUL LLP
          601 Walnut Street, Suite 300
          Kansas City, MO 64106
          Telephone: (816) 984 8100
          E-mail: Rick@PaulLLP.com
                  Sean@PaulLLP.com

               - and -

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


PARLIER CITY, CA: "Jimenez" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ADOLFO MARTINEZ JIMENEZ, on behalf of himself and all similarly
situated individuals, the Plaintiff, v. CITY OF PARLIER, the
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-00210-DAD-EPG (E.D. Cal., Feb. 8,
2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime and other compensation,
interest, liquidated damages, costs of suit and reasonable
attorney fees, and other relief under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Defendant implemented an illegal compensation computation method
which undercounted Plaintiff's "regular rate" of pay. Defendant's
method of calculating Plaintiff's "regular rate" of pay resulted
in under-payment for overtime hours worked. The Defendant
permitted Plaintiff to perform overtime work without proper
compensation. On October 25, 2017, the City and Plaintiff entered
into a tolling agreement which preserved the Parties' respective
statute of limitations defense existing as of the effective date
of the tolling agreement.

From October of 2014 through March of 2015 and from the beginning
of January 2017 to early January of 2017, when the canine died,
the City did not pay Plaintiff for his time spent transporting,
boarding, training, grooming, feeding, or otherwise caring for
the dog while off duty. The City was never exempt under the FLSA
from compensating Plaintiff for transporting, boarding, training,
grooming, feeding, or otherwise caring for the dog while off
duty. The City's failure to compensate Plaintiff for
transporting, boarding, training, grooming, feeding, or otherwise
caring for the canine while off duty impermissibly reduced the
amount paid to Plaintiff both in his minimum wages as well as his
overtime.

The Defendant is a political subdivision of the State of
California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gary M. Messing, Esq.
          Jason H Jasmine, Esq.
          D. Paul Bird II, Esq.
          MESSING ADAM & JASMINE LLP
          235 Montgomery St., Suite 828
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 266 1800
          Facsimile: (415) 266 1128
          E-mail: gary@majlabor.com
                  jason@majlabor.com
                  paul@majlabor.com


PATHWAY LEASING: "Fisher" Suit Seeks Minimum Wages under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
JESSE FISHER and ANTHONY DENNIS; both individuals, the
Plaintiffs, v. PATHWAY LEASING LLC, a Colorado limited liability
company; MATTHEW HARRIS, an individual; and BOOKER TRANSPORTATION
SERVICES, INC., a Texas corporation, the Defendants, Case No.
1:18-cv-00307-CMA (D. Colo., Feb. 7, 2018), seeks to recover
minimum wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants billed themselves as
lessor of trucks for independent contractors, when in fact,
Defendants sought to employ truckers to move goods in commerce
without paying the cost of hiring and retaining employees. More
specifically, the Carrier Defendant acted as joint employers with
the Pathway Defendants in employing Plaintiffs to move goods in
commerce. The Plaintiffs were duped into signing lease agreements
for trucks believing they could operate those trucks as
independent contractors and improve their lives through the
exercise of entrepreneurial spirit. In reality, after signing
these lease agreements, and other ancillary agreements,
Defendants controlled every aspect of Plaintiffs' work, including
who they could drive for, how and when they could repair or
maintain their trucks, and incredulously, Defendants even
required the companies that Plaintiffs drove for to remit
Plaintiffs' pay to Defendants so that Defendants could make
deductions from Plaintiffs' pay and issue them paychecks. These
deductions never included payroll deductions mandated by state
and federal law governing the payment of wages, but rather,
included improper and unlawful deductions that resulted in
Plaintiffs being paid less than minimum wage on many occasions.
Some Plaintiffs were paid what equated to just a few dollars per
hour despite working an average of 70 hours per pay period. The
Defendants engaged in this behavior willfully and without regard
for the economic welfare of their employees and with full
knowledge that Plaintiffs were conferring benefits upon
Defendants that were improperly procured.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          John R. Crone, Esq.
          ANDRUS WAGSTAFF PC
          7171 West Alaska Drive
          Lakewood, CO 80226
          Telephone: (303) 376 6360
          E-mail: John.Crone@andruswagstaff.com


PATHWAY LEASING: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages, Fisher Says
--------------------------------------------------------
JESSE FISHER, an individual, the Plaintiff, v. PATHWAY LEASING
LLC, a Colorado limited liability company; MATTHEW HARRIS, an
individual; and INTERSTATE DISTRIBUTOR CO., a Washington
corporation registered to conduct business in Colorado, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-00309 (D. Colo., Feb. 7, 2018),
seeks to recover minimum wages pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants billed themselves as
lessor of trucks for independent contractors, when in fact,
Defendants sought to employ truckers to move goods in commerce
without paying the cost of hiring and retaining employees. More
specifically, the Carrier Defendant acted as joint employers with
the Pathway Defendants in employing Plaintiffs to move goods in
commerce. The Plaintiffs were duped into signing lease agreements
for trucks believing they could operate those trucks as
independent contractors and improve their lives through the
exercise of entrepreneurial spirit. In reality, after signing
these lease agreements, and other ancillary agreements,
Defendants controlled every aspect of Plaintiffs' work, including
who they could drive for, how and when they could repair or
maintain their trucks, and incredulously, Defendants even
required the companies that Plaintiffs drove for to remit
Plaintiffs' pay to Defendants so that Defendants could make
deductions from Plaintiffs' pay and issue them paychecks. These
deductions never included payroll deductions mandated by state
and federal law governing the payment of wages, but rather,
included improper and unlawful deductions that resulted in
Plaintiffs being paid less than minimum wage on many occasions.
Some Plaintiffs were paid what equated to just a few dollars per
hour despite working an average of 70 hours per pay period. The
Defendants engaged in this behavior willfully and without regard
for the economic welfare of their employees and with full
knowledge that Plaintiffs were conferring benefits upon
Defendants that were improperly procured.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          John R. Crone, Esq.
          ANDRUS WAGSTAFF PC
          7171 West Alaska Drive
          Lakewood, CO 80226
          Telephone: (303) 376 6360
          E-mail: John.Crone@andruswagstaff.com


PAX ASSIST: Fails to Pay for Overtime Work, Stewart Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
Samantha Stewart, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Pax Assist, Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 700960-2018 (N.Y. Sup., Jan 19, 2018) seeks to recover
unpaid overtime wages, maximum liquidated damages and attorney's
fees, pursuant to the New York Labor Law.

Ms. Stewart was employed by the Defendant on June 2016 as
wheelchair assistant performing manual task such as handling and
pushing wheelchairs with passengers throughout her workday.

According to the complaint, Plaintiff was an hourly employee at a
regular rate of pay of $11 per hour; worked 30-35 or more hours
per week; paid on a bi-weekly basis; and was not provided with
the notice required by the New York Labor Law.

Pax Assist, Inc. is a New York corporation with business address
located in Queens County, New York. The Company began operations
in 2007 as a wheelchair ONLY company. The Company currently
provide wheelchair services to JFK Terminals 4 & 5.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PETORE ASSOCIATES: Par Plumbing Sues over Unpaid Services
---------------------------------------------------------
PAR PLUMBING CO. INC. on behalf of itself and on behalf of all
others entitled to share in the funds received by PETORE
ASSOCIATES, INC., as Trustee, in connection with the improvement
of real property known as 200 Fifth Avenue, New York, New York,
Block: 825; Lot: 31, the Plaintiff, v. PETORE ASSOCIATES, INC.,
TED G. VITALE, NATIONWIDE MUTUTAL INSURANCE COMPANY, PIER HEAD
ASSOCIATES, LTD., ANDREW JAMES INTERIORS, INC., A & F FIRE
PROTECTION CO., INC., LIBERTY CONTRACTING CORP., ISLAND PAINTING,
INC., UNITED AIRCONDITIONING CORP., and "JOHN DOE No. 1" Through
"JOHN DOE No. 100," said names being fictitious, true names being
those unknown individuals and/or entities liable for the
diversion of trust funds pursuant to Article 3-A of the Lien Law
of the State of New York, in connection with the construction
project at 200 Fifth Avenue, New York, New York, Block: 825; Lot:
31, the Defendants, Case No. 650641/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Feb. 8,
2018), seeks to recover trust funds as defined by Article 3-A of
New York Lien Law, in connection with a plumbing work
project.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Constantine T. Tzifas, Esq.
          ARTHUR J. SEMIMS, P.C.
          286 Madison Avenue - Suite 1801
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 557 5055


PRISHA COSMETICS: Fails to Pay OT & Minimum Wages, Garcia Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
MIRNA GARCIA, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. PRISHA COSMETICS, INC., a Delaware
corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, the Defendant,
Case No.BC693273 (Cal. Super. Ct., Feb. 7, 2018), seeks to
recover overtime wages and minimum wages under California Labor
Code.

According to the complaint, for at least four years prior to the
filing of this action and continuing to the present, the
Defendants have had a consistent policy of failing to pay
overtime wages to Plaintiff and other non-exempt employees in the
State of California in violation of California state wage and
hour laws as a result of, without limitation, Plaintiff and
similarly situated employees routinely working over eight hours
per day or 40 hours per week by, among other things, failing to
accurately track all hours worked and failing to pay for all
hours worked at the proper overtime rate of pay.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David D. Bibiyan, Esq.
          Diego Aviles, Esq.
          BIBIYAN LAW GROUP
          1801 Century Park East, Suite 2600
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 438 5555
          E-mail: david@tomorrowlaw.com
                  diego@tomorrowlaw.com


PROFESSIONAL WATER: Garners Sue over Water Softening System
-----------------------------------------------------------
LLOYD GARNER and REBECCA GARNER, on behalf of themselves and
those similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. PROFESSIONAL WATER
SERVICES, INC.; AQUION, INC d/b/a RAINSOFT; KEITH BOROCHANER;
JOHN DOE BUSINESSES 1-30; and JOHN DOES 1-30, the Defendants,
Case No. MID-L-000823-18 (N.J. Super., Middlesex County, Feb. 7,
2018), seeks statutory damages of $100 for themselves and a class
of other customers similarly situated under the Truth-in-Consumer
Contract Warranty and Notice Act.

This action raises both putative class action claims and
individual claims against the Defendants, a home improvement
contractor and its owner, based on their violations of the
Consumer Fraud Act, N.J.S.A. 56:8-1, et seq., Home Improvement
Contractor Registration Act, the Home Improvement Contractor
Registration Act Regulations, and the New Jersey Home Improvement
Regulations (HIP), N.J.A.C. 13:45A-16.1 et seq. The Plaintiffs
also seek treble damages for themselves and Classes of others
similarly situated under the CFA, along with declaratory and
injunctive relief, for ascertainable losses suffered from
Defendants' unconscionable and deceptive practices in providing a
lifetime warranty for a home water softening system and promising
to provide a lifetime supply of free soap and cleaning products
and failing to honor same.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and those similarly situated:

          Bharati Sharma Patel, Esq.
          THE WOLF LAW FIRM, LLC
          1520 U.S. Highway 130, Suite 101
          North Brunswick, NJ 08902
          Telephone: (732) 545 7900
          Facsimile: (732) 545 1030


RANGER READY: Refuses to Pay Overtime Premium, Thompson Says
------------------------------------------------------------
TONY THOMPSON, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, the PLAINTIFF, v. RANGER READY MIX, LLC, AND AN
MCBRIDE, INDIVIDUALLY, the DEFENDANTS, Case No. 1:18-cv-00123
(W.D. Tex., Feb. 7, 2018), seeks to recover overtime
compensation, liquidated damages, attorney's fees, litigation
costs, costs of court, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest
under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

According to the complaint, Defendants produce and deliver
concrete within the State of Texas. Plaintiff and the collective
class worked for Defendants as mechanics. In order to avoid
responsibility for payment of overtime under the Fair Labor
Standards Act, Defendants improperly classified Plaintiff and the
collective class as independent contractors. The Plaintiff and
all others similarly situated were/are hourly, non-exempt, full
time employees. Throughout their employment, Defendants
repeatedly refused to pay Plaintiff and all others similarly
situated overtime premiums for any hours worked over forty per
week.

For at least three years prior to the filing of this complaint,
the Defendants willfully committed violations of the FLSA by
classifying their mechanics as independent contractors and
failing to pay them overtime premiums for any hours worked over
forty per week.

Ranger Ready Mix is a licensed and bonded freight shipping and
trucking company running freight hauling business from Austin,
Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Douglas B. Welmaker, Esq.
          DUNHAM & JONES, P.C.
          1800 Guadalupe Street
          Austin, TX 78701
          Telephone: (512) 777 7777
          Facsimile: (512) 340 4051
          E-mail: doug@dunhamlaw.com


REJUVENATING CONCEPTS: Fails to Pay Minimum Wage, Hohensee Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
LYDIA HOHENSEE, on behalf of herself and other persons similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. REJUVENATING CONCEPTS, INC., and
DELISA ROWE, the Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-01290 (E.D. La, Feb.
8, 2018), seeks to recover minimum wage and overtime pay,
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs worked hours while
employed by Defendants for which they either received no
compensation, for which they were improperly paid at a rate less
than one-and-one times their normal hourly rates, and/or for
which they were paid below minimum wage.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          George B. Recile, Esq.
          Preston L. Hayes, Esq.
          Ryan P. Monsour, Esq.
          Matthew A. Sherman, Esq.
          Barry W. Sartin, Esq.
          Patrick R. Follette, Esq.
          CHEHARDY, SHERMAN, WILLIAMS, MURRAY,
            RECILE, STAKELUM & HAYES, L.L.P.
          One Galleria Boulevard, Suite 1100
          Metairie, LA 70001
          Telephone: (504) 833 5600
          Facsimile: (504) 613 4528


ROCKROSE DEVELOPMENT: Faces "Bishop" Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rockrose
Development LLC. The case is styled as Cedric Bishop, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Rockrose Development LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-01204 (S.D.
N.Y., February 11, 2018).

Rockrose is known as a neighborhood pioneer and is respected as
one of New York's premier luxury real estate owner-manager-
developers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ROOTER HERO: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Yearian Says
------------------------------------------------------
JAMES YEARIAN, as an individual and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. ROOTER HERO PLUMBING, INC.,
a California corporation; RHSFND, INC., a California corporation;
ROOTER HERO SAN GABRIEL, INC., a California corporation; ROOTER
HERO 9, INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 100,
the Defendants, Case No. BC693216 (Cal. Super. Ct., Feb. 7,
2018), seeks to recover all overtime wages and minimum wages
under California Labor Code.

The Defendants provide residential and commercial plumbing
services throughout, among other areas, Southern California,
including in Los Angeles, Orange and Ventura Counties.
Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a non-exempt employee
from approximately June 5, 2017 through approximately June 15,
2017 when Plaintiff was injured and commenced a medical leave of
absence. Plaintiff performed various duties throughout his
employment including, without limitation, providing plumbing
services in the field at locations of Defendants' customers.
During his employment with Defendants, Plaintiff was typically
scheduled to commence work at approximately 7:00 a.m. by checking
in with Defendants, and would work until approximately between
4:00 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. when he had to check-in again, depending
on when the requisite work was completed for the day.

Defendants kept track of Plaintiffs work time by using electronic
tablets. However, Plaintiff was not actually compensated for the
hours he worked each week. By way of example, on June 11, 2017,
Plaintiffs "Start" and "First Arrival Time" is listed on his
timesheet as 7:53 a.m. For that same day, Plaintiffs "End" time
on his timesheet is listed as 16:01 p.m. Thus, Plaintiff worked
for 8 hours and 8 minutes on June 11, 2017. Yet, Plaintiff was
only given credit for working 3 hours and 47 minutes for that
day. This was because Defendants refused to pay Plaintiff for
what it considered down time during his shift despite the fact
that Plaintiff remained under Defendants' direction and control
for all time between his start and end times worked and recorded.

Furthermore, Defendants would only agree to pay Plaintiff for
time he actually was at customers' locations to perform services,
but would not pay for his other work time during the day when he
was otherwise still under Defendants' direction and control.
There were several days Plaintiff worked that similarly had
Defendants fail to pay him for all time worked, therefore
resulting in Plaintiff being underpaid minimum, agreed-upon and
overtime wages.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Scott M. Lidman, Esq.
          Elizabeth Nguyen, Esq.
          LIDMAN LAW, APC
          222 N. Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 1550
          El Segundo, CA 90245
          Telephone: (424) 322 4772
          Facsimile: (424) 322 4775
          E-mail: slidman@lidmanlaw.com
                  enguyen@lidmanlaw.com

               - and -

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


RUSTY'S PIZZA: Faces "May" Suit in California Superior Court
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rusty's Pizza
Parlors, Inc. The case is styled as Douglas May on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Rusty's
Pizza Parlors, Inc., Defendant, Case No. BCV-18-100304 (Cal.
Super. Ct., February 9, 2018).

Rusty's Pizza Parlors, Inc. is a low-key pizza hub and a
fantastic spot for families to dine together.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Amit Peery, Esq.
   The Peery Law Firm
   27200 Agoura Rd Ste 101
   Calabasas, CA 91301
   Tel: (818) 995-4079
   Fax: (818) 995-6514
   Email: ap@peerylaw.com


SAW ENTERPRISES: "Velez" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
WILSON VELEZ, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND THOSE SIMILARLY SITUATED,
the Plaintiff, v. SAW ENTERPRISES INC., A NEW YORK CORPORATION,
the Defendant, Case No. 8:18-cv-00315-SDM-CPT (M.D. Fla., Feb. 7,
2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated,
declaratory relief, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff has worked for
Defendants as a Home Service Technician since May 2017. The
Plaintiff primarily works in the St. Petersburg/Clearwater area
for Defendant, but may travel to different parts of the state of
Florida for his work for Defendant. Upon arriving at the first
customer's job. Plaintiff would clock out to end his work day.
However, Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff and the other In Home
Service Technicians for all hours worked during the day by
claiming that the "variance" time shows the work should have been
completed in less hours.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          C. Ryan Morgan, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
          20 N. Orange Ave., 14th Floor
          P.O. Box 4979
          Orlando, FL 32802 4979
          Telephone: (407) 420 1414
          Facsimile: (407) 245 3401
          E-mail: RMorgan@forthepeople.com


SHERRY FRONTENAC: "Chera" Suit Moved to Southern Dist. of Florida
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Smadar Chera, and other similarly
situated non-exempt employees, the Plaintiff, v. Sherry Frontenac
Resorts, Inc., a Florida profit corporation and Joel Sussman,
individually, the Defendants, Case No. 17-029565 CA 01, was
removed from the 11th Judicial Circuit of Florida, to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Miami) on
Feb. 9. 2018. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:18-cv-
20514-UU to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon.
Judge Ursula Ungaro.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jason Saul Remer, Esq.
          REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
          Court House Tower
          44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200
          Miami, FL 33130
          Telephone: (305) 416 5000
          Facsimile: (305) 416 5005
          E-mail: jremer@rgpattorneys.com

Attorneys for Sherry Frontenac Resorts, Inc.:

          Valerie Lorraine Hooker, Esq.
          Mendy Halberstam, Esq.
          JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
          2 South Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 3500
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 577 7600
          Facsimile: (305) 373 4466
          E-mail: valerie.hooker@jacksonlewis.com

               - and -

          Mendy Halberstam, Esq.
          JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
          One Biscayne Tower
          Two South Biscayne Blvd.
          Suite 3500
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 577 7600
          Facsimile: (305) 373 4466
          E-mail: mendy.halberstam@jacksonlewis.com


SOBE MIAMI: "Ortega" Suit Seeks Minimum Wages & OT under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
RAYMOND ORTEGA, individually, and on behalf of all other
employees of Defendants similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
SOBE MIAMI, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, d/b/a
THE PALACE SOUTH BEACH, and THOMAS J. DONALL, an individual, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-20489-UU (S.D. Fla., Feb. 7, 2018),
seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages and overtime compensation,
liquidated damages, attorney's fees and costs pursuant to the
provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the
Florida Minimum Wage Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and other employees
similarly situated were required by Defendants to perform non-
tipped work for which Plaintiff was paid at the reduced tip
credit rate. Examples of such non-tipped generating labor, which
the Plaintiff performed include: (1) bar set up assignments; (2)
table set up, break downs, and cleaning projects; and (3)
maintenance and janitorial undertakings in all areas of
Defendants' establishment, including the bathroom. The non-tipped
work for which Plaintiff was paid at a reduced rate exceeded 20%
of Plaintiff's time at work.

The Plaintiff and other employees similarly situated did not have
a clear understanding as to how they were to be compensated with
respect to their work. Despite the fact that Plaintiff was a
timed employee, Plaintiff and other employees similarly situated
were required to give a percentage of their tips to the managers.
The Plaintiff was never provided notice that he would be paid
pursuant to the "tip credit" exception.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Santiago J. Padilla, Esq.
          FOWLER RODRIGUEZ LLP
          355 Alhambra Circle, Suite 801
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: (786) 364 8400
          Facsimile: (786) 364 8401
          E-mail: spadilla@frfirm.com


SOCAL JIB: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, "Bonola" Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
FERNANDO BONOLA, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SOCAL JIB FOOD MANAGEMENT, INC., doing
business as JACK IN THE BOX; SB FOOD EXPRESS, INC., doing
business as JACK IN THE BOX; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. BC690994 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty.,
Jan. 19, 2018) is an action against the Defendants for unpaid
regular hours, overtime hours, minimum wages, wages for missed
meal and rest periods.

Mr. Bonola was employed by SB FOOD from January 21, 2014 to
January 12, 2015. He was employed by SOCAL JIB from January 13,
2015 to February 16, 2017. He worked at the Jack in the Box
restaurant located at 820 N. Harbor Drive, Santa Ana, California
92703. His job duties included taking orders, preparing food, and
cleaning the restaurant.

Socal Jib Food Management, Inc. is a privately held company in
Azusa, CA and is a Single Location business. It is categorized
under Management Services.

SB Food Express, Inc. is an active Californian business entity
incorporated on July 18 1991.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ronald H. Bae, Esq.
          Olivia D. Scharrer, Esq.
          AEQUITAS LEGAL GROUP
          1156 E. Green Street, Suite 200
          Pasadena, CA 91106
          Telephone: (213) 674-6080
          Facsimile: (213) 674-6081


SOY SAUCE: Fails to Pay Overtime Pay, "Feng" Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------
HANMING FENG, TIAN FU ZENG, XIN HUI ZHANG, and PO MAN YAM, on
behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
SOY SAUCE LLC, d/b/a Soy Sauce LLC; GAVRIEL BORENSTEIN, ELIE
KATZ, and KONG SANG WONG, a/k/a Peter Wong, Defendants, Case No.
700975/2018 (N.Y. Sup., Jan. 21, 2018) seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages, liquidated damages and attorneys' fees, pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law.

According to the complaint, Plaintiffs' hours worked per week
were always given as 30, rather than the true 62.5 hours; pay
checks would always be for $262.50 before taxes were withheld,
and $242.02 after taxes; an additional $264.98 was paid in cash
per week, receiving a net pay of $506 per week. Plaintiff was
paid a flat salary of $506 per week no matter how many hours he
actually worked.

Mr. Feng was employed by Defendants to work as miscellaneous
kitchen workder. Mr. Feng was employed by Defendants to work as
an oil wok. Mr. Zhang and Mr. Yam was employed by Defendants to
work as a chef.

Soy Sauce LLC, d/b/a Soy Sauce LLC is a domestic limited
liability company organized under the laws of the State of New
York.

Mr. Borenstein is the owner and manager of Soy Sauce LLC, d/b/a
Soy Sauce LLC.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John Troy, Esq.
          Kibum Byun, Esq.
          TROY LAW, PLLC
          41-25 Kissena Boulevard, Suite 119
          Flushing, NY 11355
          Telephone: (718) 762-1324
          E-mail: johntroy@troypllc.com


STAMPS.COM INC: "Lopez" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------
JUAN LOPEZ and NICHOLAS DIXON, individually and on behalf of all
other similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiffs, v.
STAMPS.COM, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-01101 (C.D.
Cal., Feb. 8, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid wages, award of
liquidated damages, injunctive and declaratory relief, attendant
penalties, and award of attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

The Defendant provides call center services to their customers
primarily from a "brick-and-mortar" all center facility in El
Segundo, California. The Defendant employed Plaintiffs as non-
exempt hourly call center employees in the El Segundo, California
call center. Some CSRs were permitted to occasionally work from
home via a remote virtual private network ("VPN").

According to the complaint, the U.S. Department of Labor
recognizes that call center jobs, like those held by Defendant's
CSRs, are homogenous; in July 2008, it issued Fact Sheet No. 64
to alert call center employees to some of the abuses which are
prevalent in the industry. One of those abuses, which is at issue
in this case, is the employer's refusal to pay for work "from the
beginning of the first principal activity of the workday to the
end of the last principal activity of the workday." More
specifically, Fact Sheet No. 64 condemns an employer's non-
payment of an employee's necessary pre-shift activities: "An
example of the first principal activity of the day for
agents/specialists/representatives working in call centers
includes starting the computer to download work instructions,
computer applications and work-related emails." Additionally, the
FLSA requires that "[a] daily or weekly record of all hours
worked, including time spent in pre-shift and post-shift job-
related activities, must be kept."

Defendant requires their hourly CSRs to work a full-time
schedule, plus overtime. However, Defendant does not compensate
the CSRs for all work performed; instead, Defendant only pays the
CSRs after they have loaded several essential software programs
on their computers and are available to accept calls. This policy
results in CSRs not being paid for all time worked, including
overtime. Defendant's CSRs use multiple computer programs,
software programs, and applications in the course of performing
their responsibilities. These programs and applications are an
integral, indispensable, and important part of the CSRs' work as
they cannot perform their jobs effectively without them.

Defendant's CSRs perform the same basic job duties and are
required to use the same or similar computer programs, software
programs, applications, and phone systems. Defendant also
required or permitted CSRs to perform off-the-clock work at the
end of their shifts when they were required to shut-down and log-
out of the essential computer software used to perform their
jobs. Additionally, Defendant maintained a common policy which
required Plaintiffs to assist other CSRs at the beginning and end
of their shifts while they were off-the-clock when there was a
surplus of "calls in the que."[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiffs and Proposed Class and Collective Members:

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

               - and -

          Kevin J. Stoops, Esq.
          Charles R. Ash IV, Esq.
          SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
          One Towne Square, Suite 1700
          Southfield, MI 48076
          Telephone: (248) 355 0300
          Facsimile: (248) 436 8453
          E-mail: kstoops@sommerspc.com
                  crash@sommerspc.com


STANLEY STEEMER: "Bradley" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL BRADLEY, on behalf of himself, and all other plaintiffs
similarly situated, known and unknown, the Plaintiff, v. STANLEY
STEEMER INTERNATIONAL, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-
01017 (N.D. Ill., Feb. 8, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid wages
and overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Portal-to-
Portal Act, and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law.

The Plaintiff is a former employee who performed cleaning
services for Defendant and was compensated at varying hourly
rates of pay and worked over 40 hours per week, including work
that was not recorded or accounted for by Defendant's time
keeping system. All other unnamed Plaintiffs known and unknown,
are past or present employees who work or worked for Defendant
and were paid hourly and also performed work off the clock. As an
employee performing duties for an enterprise engaged in commerce,
the named Plaintiff and all members of the Plaintiff Class were
also engaged in commerce as defined by the FLSA.

The total amount of hours worked by Plaintiff and members of the
Plaintiff Class, and therefore the total number of regular and or
overtime hours for which additional compensation is owed, is
information that is substantially, if not completely, within the
control and possession of Defendant, in that Defendant recorded
or should have recorded such hours pursuant to the record keeping
requirements found in Title 29 CFR, Part 516.[BN]

Attorney for Plaintiff, and all other Plaintiffs similarly
situated, known or unknown:

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


STORCK USA: Mislabels Caramel Candy Packs, Kpakpoe-Awei Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
JEFFREY KPAKPOE-AWEI, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. STORCK USA, L.P., the Defendant, Case No.
7:18-cv-01086 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 7, 2018), seeks all recoverable
compensatory and other damages sustained by Plaintiff and the
Class as a result of deceptive and otherwise improper business
practices that Defendant engages in with respect to the packaging
of its 2.75 ounce bag of Werther's Original Sugar Free Chew
Caramels candy product, which is regularly sold at brick-and-
mortar stores, such was Walgreens, and online.

The Product packaging misrepresents two things: a) the amount of
candy in each Product bag, and b) the effect the Product has on
blood glucose levels. The Product is mass produced and packaged
in non-transparent plastic bags of standardized size, with a
standardized quantity of candy in each bag.

Plaintiff brings this proposed consumer class action on behalf of
herself and all other persons who, from the applicable
limitations period up to and including the present, purchased the
Product for consumption and not for resale.

The Defendant manufactured, marketed and sold the Product
throughout the United States and the State of New York. Defendant
purposefully sold the Product with non-functional slack-fill as
part of a systematic practice and misrepresented the effect the
Product has on blood glucose levels. Defendant violated statutes
enacted in each of the fifty states and the District of Columbia
that are designed to protect consumers against unfair, deceptive,
fraudulent and unconscionable trade and business practices and
false advertising.

Storck USA, L.P. produces and markets confectionery products. It
offers various candies, chocolates, chewy caramels, and sugar-
free hard candy products through a network of stores in the
United States. The company was founded in 1975 and is based in
Chicago, Illinois.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Class:

          Anne Seelig, Esq.
          LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
          30 East 39th Street, Second Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: 212 465 1180
          Facsimile: 212 465 1181


SUMAIDA & KHURANA: Faces "Bishop" Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sumaida & Khurana,
LLC. The case is styled as Cedric Bishop, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Sumaida &
Khurana, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-01205 (S.D. N.Y.,
February 11, 2018).

Sumaida & Khurana, LLC is a New York-based development firm
founded by Saif Sumaida and Amit Khurana, establishing a new
paradigm in global luxury real estate development.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SUPER MICRO COMPUTER: Roofers Union Files Securities Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
UNITED UNION OF ROOFERS, WATERPROOFERS & ALLIED WORKERS LOCAL
UNION NO. 8 WBPA FUND, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. SUPER MICRO COMPUTER, INC.,
CHARLES LIANG, and HOWARD HIDESHIMA, the Defendants, Case No.
3:18-cv-00850 (N.D. Cal., Feb. 8, 2018), seeks to pursue remedies
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

This case is a class action on behalf of persons and entities
that acquired Super Micro securities between August 5, 2016 and
January 30, 2018, inclusive, against the Defendants Super Micro,
its Chief Executive Officer Charles Liang, and its Chief
Financial Officer Howard Hideshima.

Super Micro, headquartered in San Jose, California, designs,
develops, manufactures and sells server solutions. The Company's
products include servers, motherboards, SPU Systems, chassis and
other accessories. Beginning on August 29, 2017, Super Micro's
stock price began to significantly decline after the Company
revealed that it would need to delay releasing its 2017 Annual
Report on Form 10-K pending an internal investigation into its
accounting practices. That internal investigation, undertaken by
the Company's Audit Committee, was focused on the illicit timing
of revenue recognition of certain sales transactions that were
improperly booked. The Audit Committee completed its
investigation in late January 2018, but has yet to release its
findings.

On January 30, 2018, at the same time that the Company
announced the completion of the investigation, it also announced
that Defendant Hideshima, along with Super Micro's Senior VP of
International Sales and Senior VP of Worldwide Sales, had
"resigned," effective immediately. Additionally, Super Micro has
yet to file its 2017 Annual Report, informing investors that the
Company was "unable to provide a date as to when the Form 10-K
will be filed or to determine whether the Company's historical
financial statements will be adjusted or, if so, the amount of
any such adjustment(s) and what periods any such adjustments may
impact."

Investors were shocked to learn that Super Micro was improperly
recognizing revenue and as a result, would not be able to timely
file its 2017 Annual Report. In all, after Super Micro first
announced the delayed filing of its Annual Report on August 29,
2017 through early February 2018, the Company's stock price has
fallen nearly 30% wiping out hundreds of millions in market
capitalization.

Throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false
and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose
material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations,
and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose: (1)
that Super Micro was improperly and illicitly recognizing revenue
on certain sales transactions; (2) that the Company failed to
implement and maintain the proper internal controls to prevent
improper and illicit recognition of revenue (3) Super Micro's
financial results were not calculated in accordance with U.S.
Generally Accepted Accounting Principles; (4) Super Micro's
revenues and income were artificially inflated as a result of its
illicit business practices; (5) that these practices caused the
Company to be vulnerable to potential civil and criminal
liability, and adverse regulatory action; and (6) that, as a
result of the foregoing, Defendants' statements about Super
Micro's business, operations, and prospects, were materially
false and/or misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. As a
result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Richard M. Heimann, Esq.
          Katherine C. Lubin, Esq.
          LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
          275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
          Telephone: (415) 956 1000
          Facsimile: (415) 956 1008
          E-mail: rheimann@lchb.com
                  kbenson@lchb.com


SYNERGY PHARMACEUTICALS: CRG Loan Has Deceptive Terms, Lee Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID LEE, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. SYNERGY PHARMACEUTICALS INC., GARY S.
JACOB, and GARY GEMIGNANI, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-00873
(E.D.N.Y., Feb. 8, 2018), seeks to recover damages in favor of
Plaintiff and the other Class Members against all Defendants,
jointly and severally, for all damages sustained as a result of
Defendants' wrongdoing relating to CRG Loan deceptive statement.

The case is a securities class action on behalf of all persons
who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of Synergy
between September 5, 2017 and November 14, 2017, inclusive.
The Action is brought against Synergy, Gary S. Jacob, the
Company's Chairman of the Board of Directors, President and Chief
Executive Officer during the Class Period, and Gary Gemignani,
the Company's Executive Vice President and Chief Financial
Officer, for their dissemination of materially false and
misleading statements and concealment of material adverse facts
in violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Synergy, throughout the Class Period, had only one FDA-approved
commercial product, TRULANCE (TM) (plecanatide), a drug for the
once-daily treatment of chronic idiopathic constipation ("CIC).
Trulance was approved by the FDA on January 19, 2017 and became
available for purchase at the end of the first quarter of 2017.
Prior to and during the Class Period, Synergy had an internal
staff of researchers and positioned itself as a go-it-alone
inventor, manufacturer and seller of its own products. It
eschewed licensing partnerships with established drug
manufacturers and distributors to disseminate Trulance; instead,
choosing to manufacture and distribute Trulance through third
party contract manufacturers and a cadre of 250 sales
representatives. By foregoing partnering with an established drug
manufacturer, Synergy sought to retain the profits generated by
Trulance, even though that would increase the initial costs to
the Company and set back the timeline for achieving
profitability.

The Company's go-it-alone strategy also meant that it needed to
fund its operations through equity offerings and/or loans. To
that end, on September 5, 2017, the beginning of the Class
Period, Synergy announced that it closed on a $300 million senior
secured loan from CRG Partners III L.P., providing an immediate
cash infusion of $100 million with a second $100 million tranche
of CRG Loan financing less than six months later, on or before
February 28, 2018, and a third tranche of up to $100 million in
the following 13 months. Defendant Gemignani extolled the newly-
secured loan as "non-dilutive". All emphasis within this Class
Action Complaint for Violation of the Federal Securities Laws is
added unless otherwise stated. to the equity interests of the
Company's shareholders while providing a material boost to
Synergy's "cash position." Gemignani represented that the CRG
Loan gave Synergy the "financial flexibility to continue to
execute on the launch of Trulance and achieve our business
objectives, which we are confident will ultimately maximize long-
term shareholder value" by providing the Company "with access to
capital for support of our commercialization of Trulance and
funds our current plans for the Company through 2019 when, based
on our current assumptions, we expect to be cash flow breakeven."

As a result of these and further assurances that Synergy had: (i)
arranged ample debt financing to keep its operations running
through 2019; (ii) maintained a large capital cushion to achieve
its business objectives; and (iii) had a manageable cash burn
rate, the investing public was led to believe that Synergy could
and would successfully develop and profit from Trulance without
needing to raise additional capital through additional equity
offerings and without diluting stockholders' outstanding equity
interests.

The CRG Loan was, however, subject to various significant onerous
terms and conditions undisclosed by the Defendants that rendered
materially false and misleading their statements regarding the
CRG Loan, its non-dilutive effect, its availability "if and when
needed," and its sufficiency to fund the Company's operations
through 2019 and permit it to achieve its business objectives.
When Defendants disclosed Synergy's entry into the CRG Loan, they
were required to speak truthfully and provide all material
information necessary to ensure that their statements were
neither false nor misleading. This duty was heightened since the
Defendants did not, at that time, file the CRG Loan document with
the SEC or otherwise make it publicly available.

On November 14, 2017, the end of the Class Period, the truth
finally came out. The CRG Loan had critical undisclosed terms and
conditions that prevented the Company from accessing funds "when
needed," and that all but assured that Synergy would be required
to conduct a dilutive secondary equity offering or offerings to
fund its operations through 2019 and achieve its business
objectives and secure the second $100 million tranche of the CRG
Loan. Indeed, on November 14, 2017, Synergy conducted a secondary
offering of approximately 22 million shares at $2.58 per share
with warrants to purchase shares in the future at $2.86 per
share, for net proceeds of $52.4 million. The offering was
materially dilutive of current shareholders' equity interests,
contrary to Defendants' representations. The 10% dilution of the
outstanding equity (and 20% dilution if the warrants are
exercised), resulted in an immediate 10% drop in the Company's
stock price, to the detriment of those persons and entities who
purchased Synergy stock during the Class Period. This dilutive
capital increase was described by investors as "unexpected,"
"blindsiding," "reducing confidence in management," stoking
"fears about further unexpected dilution," "sending the stock
into a tailspin," and supposedly "unnecessary given current cash
reserves and access to [the CRG Loan] non-dilutive debt
financing."

As the market digested the news and the full extent of
Defendants' materially false and misleading statements was made
apparent, Synergy's share price continued its downward spiral;
trading as low as $1.68 per share on the following day, November
15, 2017.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph H. Weiss, Esq.
          Mark D. Smilow, Esq.
          Joshua M. Rubin, Esq.
          WEISSLAW LLP
          1500 Broadway
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 682 3025


SYNERMED INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, "Estrada" Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
DELMY ESTRADA, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SYNERMED INC., and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. BC690949 (Cal. Super., Los
Angeles Cty., Jan. 19, 2018) is an action against the Defendants
for non-payment of wages for all hours worked and missed meal
periods or rest breaks.

Ms. Estrada was employed by the Defendants as an hourly-paid,
non-exempt employee, from March 2015 to November 2016, in the
State of California, County of Los Angeles.

SynerMed, Inc. develops customized information technology and
business management solutions for independent physicians. The
company offers cloud based SynerMed CONNECT portal that provides
an array of clinical information, practice enhancement and
management tools; and comprehensive online practice and patient
management by allowing administrators and physicians to access,
store, and process information. It also provides CAREGIVER portal
that offers features to assist in-home supportive service
consumers and providers; nurse lines; Medicaid and Medicare
programs; ambulatory ICU; a platform that allows health plans to
access claims, authorizations, and healthcare transactions in
real-time; MEMBER portal that puts patients in control of their
healthcare by communicating with physicians and healthcare
providers through a Web portal; and advocacy for independent
physicians at local, state, and federal levels. SynerMed, Inc.
was founded in 1995 and is based in Monterey Park,
California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edwin Aiwazian, Esq.
          LAWYERS FOR JUSTICE, PC
          410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (818) 265-1020
          Facsimile: (818) 265-1021


TASTEBUDS CATERING: "Ramirez" Suit Moved to S.D. Florida
--------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Ruben Ramirez, and other
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Tastebuds Catering, LLC, a
Florida limited liability company and Rachel Gebaide,
individually, the Defendants, Case No. 18-000918, was removed
from the 17th Judicial Circuit for Broward County, Florida, to
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Ft
Lauderdale) on Feb. 7, 2018. The District Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 0:18-cv-60277-WPD to the proceeding. The case is
assigned to the Hon. Judge William P. Dimitrouleas.

Tastebuds Catering specialize in off premise catering.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edilberto O. Marban, Esq.
          2655 S. LeJeune Road, Suite 804
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 448 9292
          Facsimile: (305) 448 9477
          E-mail: marbanlaw@gmail.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Rachel D Gebaide, Esq.
          215 North Eola Drive
          Orlando, FL 32802
          Telephone: (407) 843 4600
          E-mail: rachel.gebaide@lowndes-law.com


TD BANK: "Chavez" Sues over Recording of Telephone Conversations
----------------------------------------------------------------
ADRIAN CHAVEZ, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiff, v. TD BANK USA, N.A., the
Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-00294-DMS-BLM (S.D. Cal., Feb. 7,
2018), alleges that Defendant continues to violate the California
Penal Code section 632.7 by impermissibly recording its telephone
conversations with California residents while the residents are
on cellular telephones.

TD Bank USA, N.A. provides personal, retail, small business, and
commercial banking products and services. Its personal banking
services include checking accounts, savings/money market
accounts, cross-border banking (United States and Canada), debit
cards, prepaid cards, and digital payments.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Joshua B. Swigart, Esq.
          HYDE & SWIGART
          2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101
          San Diego, CA 92108
          Telephone: (619) 233-7770
          Facsimile: (619) 297-1022
          E-mail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com

               - and -

          Daniel G. Shay, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL G. SHAY
          409 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101B
          San Diego, CA 92108
          Telephone: (619) 222 7249
          Facsimile: (866) 431 3292
          E-mail: danielshay@tcpafdcpa.com


TRB LLC: Fails to Pay for Overtime Work, "Lorenzo" Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE LORENZO, individually on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TRB, LLC; TIN ROOF BISTRO; TRB;
and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Case No. BC691293 (Cal. Super., Los
Angeles Cty., Jan. 19, 2018) is an action against the Defendants'
failure to provide Plaintiff and his fellow employees with
legally compliant 30-minute meal periods and 10-minute rest
periods. Defendants also failed to pay Plaintiff and his fellow
employees an extra hour of pay for each day in which Defendants
failed to provide them with a legally-compliant meal period and
for each day in which Defendants failed to provide them with a
legally-compliant rest period.

TRB, LLC is a California limited liability company with address
at El Segundo, California.

Tin Roof Bistro -- http://www.tinroofbistro.com/-- is a Casual
Wine Country Bistro. Tin Roof Bistro is located in the Northwest
corner of the Manhattan Village Mall at 3500 N. Sepulveda Blvd in
Manhattan Beach, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William A. Kershaw, Esq.
          Ian J. Barlow, Esq.
          KERSHAW COOK & TALLEY PC
          401 Watt Avenue
          Sacramento, CA 95864
          Telephone: (916) 779-7000
          Facsimile: (916) 721-2501
          E-mail: bill@kctlegal.com
                  ian@kctlegal.com

               - and -

          Steven S. Elster, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF STEVEN ELSTER
          785 E2 Oak Grove Road, Suite 201
          Concord, CA 94518-3617
          Telephone: (925) 324-2159
          E-mail: steve.elster.law@gmail.com


TURNER BROADCASTING: Faces "Byrd" Suit over Race Discrimination
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Turner Broadcasting
System, Inc. The case is captioned as Wanda Byrd, on behalf of
herself and other similarly situated individuals v. Turner
Broadcasting Systems, Inc., Time Warner, Inc., Cable News Network
Inc., and Turner Services, Inc., Case No. 1:18-CV-00271-MHC-CMS
(N.D. Ga., Jan. 18, 2018).

The Plaintiff alleged that Defendants discriminated a member of a
class of African-American employees in violation of Title VII of
the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended by the Civil Rights Act
of 1991.

Ms. Byrd worked for Turner Broadcasting System, Inc., for 13
years, with initially serving as a Quality Assurance Analyst and
was later promoted to a Quality Assurance Consultant. Prior to
becoming employed with Defendants, Ms. Byrd had completed a
series of Project Management classes at Villanova University and
gained extensive managerial experience managing projects,
caseloads, and fellow employees at all prior employments.

Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. creates and broadcasts news,
entertainment, kids and young adult, animation, and sports media
environments on television and other platforms for consumers
worldwide. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. was formerly known as
Turner Communications Company and changed its name to Turner
Broadcasting System, Inc. in 1979. The company was incorporated
in 1965 and is based in Atlanta, Georgia. It has locations in
North America, the Asia Pacific, Europe, the Middle East, Africa,
and Latin America. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. operates as a
subsidiary of Historic TW Inc.

Time Warner Inc. operates as a media and entertainment company in
the United States and internationally. It operates through three
segments: Turner, Home Box Office, and Warner Bros. The company
was formerly known as AOL Time Warner, Inc. and changed its name
to Time Warner Inc. in 2003. Time Warner Inc. was founded in 1985
and is headquartered in New York, New York.

Cable News Network, Inc. is an online news and information
delivery company. It offers news in the areas of money,
entertainment, tech, sport, travel, style, features, video, and
more in Africa, the Americas, Asia, Europe, the Middle East, and
internationally. The company's CNN.com features multimedia
technologies that range from live video streaming to audio
packages to searchable archives of news features and background
information. Cable News Network, Inc. was founded in 1980 and is
headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia. It has bureaus worldwide.
Cable News Network, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of Turner
Broadcasting System, Inc. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel R. Meachum, Esq.
          DANIEL R. MEACHUM & ASSOCIATES
          The Grant Building
          44 Broad Street, NW, Suite 805
          Atlanta, GA 30303
          Telephone: (404) 521-0029
          Facsimile: (404) 521-0030
          E-mail: dmeachum@dmeachumlaw.com


ULTIMATE FITNESS: Secure Sues over Telemarketing Messages
---------------------------------------------------------
JOAN SECURE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. ULTIMATE FITNESS GROUP, LLC d/b/a
ORANGETHEORY FITNESS, a Florida limited liability company, the
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-20483-FAM (S.D. Fla., Feb. 7, 2018),
seeks injunctive relief to halt Defendant's illegal conduct which
has resulted in the invasion of privacy, harassment, aggravation,
and disruption of the daily lives of thousands of individuals,
and seeks statutory damages and any other available legal or
equitable remedies.

The case is a putative class action under the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act, arising from Defendant's knowing and willful
violations of the TCPA. Defendant owns and operates a chain of
fitness facilities throughout South Florida. Despite having been
previously sued for violating the TCPA, Defendant continues to
engage in unsolicited telemarketing directed towards prospective
customers, with no regard for consumers' privacy rights.

This case arises from the transmission of a telemarketing text
message to Plaintiff's cellular telephone promoting Defendant's
fitness facilities.[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiff:

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


ULYSSE NARDIN: Website No Accessible to Blind People, Thorne Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BRAULIO THORNE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. ULYSSE NARDIN, INC., the Defendant,
Case No. 1:18-cv-01110 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 7, 2018), seeks permanent
injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies,
practices, and procedures so that Defendant's website will become
and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff is a visually-impaired
and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to
read website content using his computer. Plaintiff uses the terms
"blind" or "visually-impaired" to refer to all people with visual
impairments who meet the legal definition of blindness in that
they have a visual acuity with correction of less than or equal
to 20 x 200. Some blind people who meet this definition have
limited vision. Others have no vision.

Based on a 2010 U.S. Census Bureau report, approximately 8.1
million people in the United States are visually impaired,
including 2.0 million who are blind, and according to the
American Foundation for the Blind's 2015 report, approximately
400,000 visually impaired persons live in the State of New York.

The Plaintiff brings this civil rights action against Defendant
for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its
website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by
Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people. The
Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and
therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby and
in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of
Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act.[BN]

Ulysse Nardin is a luxury Swiss watch manufacturer founded in
1846 in Le Locle, Switzerland, which has remained in continuous
production since. Ulysse Nardin has operated out of the same
building headquartered in Le Locle, Switzerland since 1865.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel C. Cohen, Esq.
          DANIEL COHEN, PLLC
          300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Fl.
          Brooklyn, New York 11201
          Telephone: (646) 645 8482
          Facsimile: (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
          Telephone: (212) 228 9795
          Facsimile: (212) 982 6284
          E-mail: nyjg@aol.com
                  danalgottlieb@aol.com


UNIVAR INC: "Jones" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------
YVONNE JONES, NAOMI MOORE, PEACE NJOKU, SHAKEYA SCOTT,
SEAN SMITH, and INDY WILLIAMS, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. UNIVAR INC. and
UNIVAR USA INC., the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-00596-ELR (N.D.
Ga., Feb. 8, 2018), seeks to recover damages and other legal and
equitable relief including overtime pay from Defendants for
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs bring this action due to Defendants' regular
failure to pay CSRs the statutorily required overtime rate of
time-and-a-half for hours worked beyond 40 in a work week which
violates the FLSA and any other cause(s) of action that can be
inferred from the facts set forth herein. Defendants violated the
FLSA by engaging in a systematic nationwide scheme of providing
CSRs with "comp time" rather than overtime pay. Pursuant to this
scheme, Defendants did not pay CSRs with an overtime premium for
all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per work week. Instead,
Defendants issued CSRs time off the following work week in the
same amount of hours they had worked in excess of 40.

Univar is a global chemical and ingredients distributor and
provider of value-added services who works with leading suppliers
worldwide.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Beth A. Moeller, Esq.
          Tracey T. Barbaree, Esq.
          MOELLER BARBAREE LLP
          1100 Peachtree Street, N.E., Suite 200
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Telephone: (404) 692 5543
          E-mail: bmoeller@moellerbarbaree.com
                  tbarbaree@moellerbarbaree.com

               - and -

          Robert J. Valli, Jr., Esq.
          Sara Wyn Kane, Esq.
          James A. Vagnini, Esq.
          VALLI KANE & VAGNINI LLP
          600 Old Country Road, Suite 519
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Telephone: (516) 203 7180
          Facsimile: (516) 706 0248
          E-mail: rvalli@vkvlawyers.com
                  skane@vkvlawyers.com
                  jvagnini@vkvlawyers.com

               - and -

          Jay D. Ellwanger, Esq.
          ELLWANGER LAW LLLP
          8310-1 N. Capital of Texas Hwy, Suite 190
          Austin, TX 78731
          Telephone: (737) 808 2262
          E-mail: jellwanger@equalrights.law


WAVEDIVISION HOLDINGS: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Sanchez Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE SANCHEZ, an individual, on behalf of himself and on behalf
of all persons similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. WAVEDIVISION
HOLDINGS, LLC, a Limited Liability Company; and Does 1 through
50, Inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 18CIV00684 (Cal. Super.
Ct., Feb. 9, 2018), seeks to recover overtime pay under the
California Labor Code.

The Defendant provides Video, Internet, and phone services to
customers in Washington, Oregon, and California. The company
offers cable television, Internet, phone, and bundle services to
residential customers. Defendant also offers business class,
enterprise, and carrier/wholesale services to businesses ranging
from small and mid-sized companies to government agencies to
Fortune 100 brands in banking, carrier/cellular backhaul,
education, hospitality, manufacturing, medical/pharmaceuticals,
public sector/ government, retail, services, and technology
industries. In addition, the company provides television
advertising opportunities. Wave DiVision Holdings, LLC was
founded in 2002.

The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant in California as a
Technician classified as a non-exempt employee entitled to
overtime pay and meal and rest periods from March of 2012 to
September 14, 2017. Plaintiff was at all times relevant
classified by defendant as a non-exempt employee paid in whole or
in part on an hourly basis and received additional compensation
from Defendant in the form of non-discretionary incentive wages.

In violation of the applicable sections of the California Labor
Code and the requirements of the Industrial Welfare Commission
Wage Order, Defendant as a matter of company policy, practice and
procedure, intentionally and knowingly failed to compensate
Plaintiff and the other members of the California class at the
correct rate of pay for all overtime worked. This uniform policy
and practice of Defendant is intended to purposefully avoid the
payment of the correct overtime compensation as required
by California law which allowed Defendant to illegally profit and
gain an unfair advantage over competitors who complied with the
law. To the extent equitable tolling operates to toll claims by
the California Class against Defendant, the California Class
Period should be adjusted accordingly.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Norman B. Blumenthal, Esq.
          Kyle R. Nordrehaug, Esq.
          Aarajit Bhowmik, Esq.
          BLUMENTHAL NORDREHAUG
          BHOWMIK DE BLOUW LLP
          22515) Calle Clara
          La Jolla, CA 92037
          Telephone: (858) 551 1223
          Facsimile: (858) 551 1232
          Website: www.bamlawca.com


WHITELOCKE & ASSOCIATES: Martinez Sues over Collection Calls
------------------------------------------------------------
STEVEN MARTINEZ, individually, and on all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. WHITELOCKE & ASSOCIATES LLC, the
Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-01096 (C.D. Cal., Feb. 8, 2018),
seeks to recover from Defendant $1,000 in statutory damages in
addition to actual damages and reasonable attorneys' fees and
costs.

This case is a class action brought on behalf of all individuals
in California who received collection calls from Defendant
wherein Defendant failed to meaningfully disclose its identify
and purpose of its call to Plaintiff, in violation of the Federal
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act

According to the complaint, beginning in or around August of
2017, Defendant began contacting Plaintiff in an attempt to
collect an alleged outstanding debt. During this process,
Defendant, in its ordinary course of business, began placing
collection calls to Plaintiff in an attempt to collect the
alleged debt owed. Defendant placed its collection calls to
Plaintiff's telephone ending in -5195.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

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


WIRELESS LIFESTYLE: Lillie Sues over Labor Code Violations
----------------------------------------------------------
IYANI LILLIE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. WIRELESS LIFESTYLE, INC., a Kansas
corporation; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Case No. BC693433
(Cal. Sup. Ct., Feb. 8, 2018), seeks to recover monetary damages,
including full restitution from Defendants as a result of
Defendants' unlawful, fraudulent and/or unfair business
practices.

According to the complaint, the acts complained of occurred,
occur and will occur, at least in part, within the time period
from 4 years preceding the filing of the original Complaint, up
to and through the time of trial for this matter although this
should not automatically be considered the statute of limitations
for any cause of action.

With regard to Defendants' hourly-paid/commissioned employees,
the Plaintiff alleges that Defendants failed to provide all
legally-requisite meal periods; filed to authorize and permit all
paid legally-requisite rest periods; independently failed to
timely furnish accurate itemized wage statements; derivatively
failed to timely furnish accurate itemized wage statements;
violated Labor Code; violated Labor Code; incurred penalties
pursuant to Labor Code; and conducted unfair business
practices.[BN]

Attorneys for Iyani Lillie, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated:

          Kevin T. Bames, Esq.
          Gregg Lander, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF KEVIN T. BARNES
          5670 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1460
          Los Angeles, CA 90036-5664
          Telephone: (323) 549 9100
          Facsimile: (323) 549 0101
          E-mail: Bames@kbames.com




                            *********


S U B S C R I P T I O N  I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills,
Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.
Marion Alcestis A. Castillon, Jessenius Pulido, Noemi Irene A.
Adala, Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche
Maricon Castillon-Lopez, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G.
Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2018.  All rights reserved.  ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail.  Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each.  For subscription information, contact Peter A.
Chapman at 215-945-7000.



                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *