CAR_Public/180221.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


           Wednesday, February 21, 2018, Vol. 20, No. 38



                            Headlines


21ST CENTURY: Patients Seek Court Nod on Data Breach Class Action
ABC LEGAL: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime, "Arellano" Suit Alleges
ADVANCE AUTO: April 9 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
AETNA INC: Sues KCC Following HIV Status Privacy Class Action
AIR CANADA: Loses Bid to Dismiss Flight Pass Expiry Class Action

ALLERGAN INC: KPH Healthcare Suit Alleges Antitrust Violations
APPLE INC: Johnson Files Suit in Calif. for Fraud
APPLE INC: "Munro" Suit Alleges Sabotage in OS Update for iPhones
APPLIED UNDERWRITERS: Faces Class Action Over Inflated Premiums
ASHLEY DIANA: ADBI Seeks Dismissal of Claims in "Elson" Suit

ASSOCIATED CREDIT: Court Denies Summary Judgment in "Halvorsen"
BANDAS LAW: Judge Tosses RICO Claims in Class Action
BBVA COMPASS: Lopez Sues Over Charging of Illegal Overdraft Fees
BCA FINANCIAL: Wins Final Approval of $10K Settlement in "Beneli"
BELLICUM PHARMA: April 9 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set

BIG CITY: Rosenberg & Estis Attorneys Discuss Class Action Ruling
BRISTOL-MYERS: Bradley Arant Attorney Discusses SCOTUS Ruling
CANADA: Attempts to Quash CAF Sexual Misconduct Class Action
CAPITALA FINANCE: Faces "Sandifer" Securities Suit in California
CIGNA CORP: Court Won't Strike Class Definitions in "DeJesus"

COLLECTION ASSOCIATES: Class Certification Sought in "Ozier" Suit
COLONIAL FREIGHT: Opposes Davis' Bid to Certify Contractors Class
CONDUENT EDUCATION: "Chery" Suit Alleges Business Law Violations
CONSERV FLAG: Accused by Bais Yaakov of Sending Illegal Fax Ads
CONTESTMEDIA INC: Court Certifies Class in "Griffith"

DAKOTA TRAVEL: Court Won't Stay Discovery in "Diaz" FLSA Suit
DANNYS ATHENS: Appeals Judgment in "Martinez" Suit to 2nd Circuit
DERMOTT JUVENILE: "Brown" Suit Alleges FLSA Violations
DLF LLC: Court Certifies Class of Hourly Workers in "Sango" Suit
ECLINICALWORKS LLC: Accused by "Goodson" Suit of Violating TCPA

EQUIFAX INC: Faces Sky Federal Suit in Georgia Over Data Breach
EQUIFAX INFORMATION: "De La Rosa" Suit Asserts FCRA Breach
ESTES EXPRESS: Fails to Pay Overtime, "De Jesus" Suit Claims
EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Fails to Pay Overtime, "Wesley" Suit Claims
FREE FLOW: Abreu Seeks to Recover Minimum and OT Wages Under FLSA

GC SERVICES: Court Certifies Class Under FDCPA in "Alderman" Suit
GEORGIA CHAMPIONSHIP: Hogan Seeks to Recover Minimum and OT Wages
GOOGLE LLC: Moves to Deny Class Certification Bid in "Woods" Suit
GOSPEL FOR ASIA: Class Certification Sought in "Murphy" Suit
GREENWICH INSURANCE: Farella Braun Attorney Discusses Ruling

HARMONY GOLD: SA Miners' Silicosis Class Action Nears Settlement
HCC MEDICAL: Faces "Aliquo" Suit Alleging RICO Act Violations
HONEST COMPANY: Tucker Appeals Settlement Order in Marketing Suit
HOTELS.COM LP: Overcharges Consumers for Tax & Fees, Church Says
HYUNDAI MOTORS: K&L Gates Attorneys Discuss Class Action Ruling

ICQ SEARCH: Gattoni Sues Over Fair Debt Collection Act Violations
IGNYTA INC: "Franchi" Class Suit Challenges Sale to Roche
INDEPENDENT ADOPTION: Faces Class Action Following Shutdown
INKAHOLIK TATTOOS: Accused by "Donayre" Suit of Violating TCPA
INMATE SERVICES: "Peters" Suit Transferred to Arkansas Court

INTEL CORPORATION: Accused by "Reis" of Selling Defective CPUs
INTEL CORPORATION: Sued by Jones Over Defective Core Processors
J. CREW: "Parker" Suit Remanded to Illinois State Court
JP MORGAN CHASE: Childress Seeks to Certify Class of Obligors
LEFT RIGHT LLC: Ednie Seeks to Recover Minimum and Overtime Wages

LEGACY LAND: Bradley Files Suit Over Bouncing Checks
LONG ISLAND GUTTERS: Peraza Seeks to Recover Overtime Under FLSA
LOS ANGELES MATTRESS: "Santos" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
LTD FINANCIAL: Seeks Third Circuit Review of Ruling in "Bordeaux"
MACA RESTAURANT: "Cabrera" Suit Alleges FLSA Violations

MARATHON PETROLEUM: Yates Appeals Order in ERISA Suit to 6th Cir.
MDL 2804: Lewis County to Join Opioid Crisis Class Action
MDL 2804: Marion County Taps Law Firms to Review Legal Options
MEARS DESTINATION: Rodriguez Moves to Certify Class Under FLSA
MERCK & CO: Faces FOP Antitrust Suit Over Zetia Price-fixing

MID-SOUTH MACHINE: "Burley" Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
MILLER ENERGY: Certification of Class Sought in "Gaynor" Suit
MONITECH INC: Fourth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Cottle" Class Suit
OLIVINA NAPA: Evans Files Suit Over False Ad
PARKWAY TROPICS: Misclassifies Exotic Dancers, "Cavazos" Alleges

PINNACLE ENTERTAINMENT: Allen Moves to Certify Three Collectives
PORT AUTHORITY: Sued for Illegally Videotaping Exams
RDX TRANSPORT: Pettigrew Sues Over Misclassification of Drivers
RENT-A-CENTER INC: "Williams" Class Suit Removed to E.D. Missouri
REPROS THERAPEUTICS: "Franchi" Suit Challenges Sale to Allergan

RUSHMORE LOAN: Leones Appeals S.D. Florida Ruling to 11th Circuit
RUTHERFORD COUNTY, TN: Probationers Set to Get Settlement Payout
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Consumers Sue Over Plasma TV Defect
SAN FRANCISCO, CA: Fails to Provide Timely Breaks, "Lam" Claims
SANDISK LLC: Class Certification Sought in Securities Litigation

STAPLES GROUP: Worsley Seeks to Certify Class of AS Managers
SWISSPORT SA: Faces Class Action Over Meal Break, FCRA Violations
TAYLOR, MI: Seeks Prelim. Approval of $31K Deal in "Garner" Suit
TD AMERITRADE: Sued by Gray Over Losses From Risky Trading Tactic
TIERRA LEASE: Court Certifies Class of Laborers in "Metting" Suit

TITLE SOURCE: Swamy Moves to Certify Real Estate Appraisers Class
TOKYO ELECTRIC: Ordered to Pay $10MM Over 2011 Nuclear Disaster
TOTAL PHARMACY: Court Denies Bobo's Drugs' Bid to Certify Class
TRADER JOE'S: Falsely Misrepresents Vitamin E Oil, Cesta Claims
TRANS UNION: Accused by "De La Rosa" Class Suit of Violating FCRA

TROY CAPITAL: "Cruz" Suit Seeks Damages Under FDCPA
TRUMP UNIVERSITY: 9th Cir. Upholds $25MM Class Action Settlement
TSU GLOBAL: "Williams" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
UNITED STATES: Fate of Indonesian Immigrants Still Uncertain
VILLAGE OF HOLLY: Gumbleton Appeals Oakland Cir. Ct. Ruling

VODAFONE GROUP: Sued by Ferrare for Violating Australian Law
WEST BLOOMFIELD, MI: Court Vacates Summary Dismissal in "Logan"
WHITE COUNTY, TN: Certification of Class Sought in "Stall" Suit
WHITE COUNTY, TN: Garrett Seeks to Certify Class of Ex-Inmates
XUNLEI LIMITED: Faces "Dookeran" Securities Suit Over OneCoin

YELP INC: "Azar" Suit Alleges Exchange Act Violations
ZWICKER & ASSOCIATES: Accused by "Espeleta" for Violating FDCPA

* Class Actions Over Robocalls Against Major Cruise Lines Pending





                            *********


21ST CENTURY: Patients Seek Court Nod on Data Breach Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Frank Gluck, writing for News-Press.com, reports that patients
suing 21st Century Oncology over a breach of 2.2 million medical
records in 2015 will ask a federal judge this month to allow
their case to proceed, now that the company has emerged from
bankruptcy.

Their lawsuit, which includes more than a dozen named plaintiffs
but could soon become a class-action, has been on hold since the
cancer-care giant sought Chapter 11 protection in May to erase
$500 million of its $1.1 billion in long-term debt.

The company announced earlier this month that it had successfully
concluded the bankruptcy proceedings and that its hedge-fund
owners had installed a new management team.

A hearing on the patients' motion to continue the case is
scheduled for Feb. 13.

"We're very much looking forward to coming back and litigating
this case," said Cari Campen Laufenberg, a Seattle-based attorney
leading the plaintiffs' case.  "We think our case is strong."

21st Century Oncology representatives did not comment on the
case.

Investigators say an "unauthorized third party" accessed about
2.2 million patient records in October 2015.  The computer files
included names, Social Security numbers, information about
diagnoses and treatment, and insurance documents.

It's also been alleged in recent legal filings that some of that
illegally obtained private information may have been sold on
largely hidden parts of the internet known as the "dark web."

The FBI notified the company about the breach the following
month. 21st Century Oncology officials waited to notify patients
until the following March, saying they did not want to interfere
in the federal investigation.

The company offered affected patients a free one-year membership
to a credit protection program and urged them to check their
health insurance documents for any signs of suspicious charges.
A number of patients later said they believed they were victims
of identity theft.

In December, 21st Century Oncology agreed to pay a $2.3 million
fine to the Department of Health and Human Services over the data
breach.

The department, which oversees U.S. medical regulations, sharply
criticized the company for not adequately protecting its
computerized records.  It also required the company to review and
revise its security procedures and to provide the government its
plan for corrective action.

"People need to trust that their private health information will
remain exactly that; private," said Roger Severino, director of
the department's Office for Civil Rights, in a statement at the
time.  "It's not just my hope that covered entities will learn
from this example and proactively find and address their security
risks, it's what the law requires."

As part of the company's bankruptcy case, the data breach
plaintiffs agreed to only seek damages from 21 Century Oncology's
insurers. Court filings show that there's up to $21.85 million
available from them.

21st Century Oncology operates 179 treatment centers, including
143 U.S. centers, in 17 states. [GN]


ABC LEGAL: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime, "Arellano" Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
LUIS M. ARELLANO, on behalf of himself, all others similarly
situated v. ABC LEGAL SERVICES, INC., a Washington corporation;
and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 3:18-cv-00073 (N.D.
Cal., January 4, 2018), alleges that the Defendants failed to
provide the Plaintiff and all other similarly situated
individuals with meal and rest periods, and to pay them overtime
wages at the correct rate, among other failures.

ABC LEGAL SERVICES, INC. is a Washington corporation doing
business in the state of California.  ABC provides commercial
services, and offers court filing, messenger and document
retrieval, investigation, and other related services.  The
Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names and capacities of the Doe
Defendants.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ADVANCE AUTO: April 9 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
--------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Feb. 6
announced the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of Advance Auto Parts, Inc. (NYSE:
AAP) from November 14, 2016 through August 15, 2017, inclusive
(the "Class Period").  The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for
Advance Auto investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the Advance Auto class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1283.htmlor call Phillip Kim,
Esq. or Daniel Sadeh, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email
pkim@rosenlegal.com or dsadeh@rosenlegal.com for information on
the class action.

NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A
CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU
RETAIN ONE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO
NOTHING AT THIS POINT. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE.

According to the lawsuit, defendants during the Class Period made
materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) integration issues surrounding Advance Auto's
Carquest acquisition resulted in systemic inefficiencies and
cannibalization of sales; (2) increased competition was
negatively impacting sales; and (3) as a result, defendants'
statements about Advance Auto's business, operations and
prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a
reasonable basis at all relevant times.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than
April 9, 2018.  A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting
on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If
you wish to join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1283.htmlor to discuss your
rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact
Phillip Kim, Esq. or Daniel Sadeh, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll
free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
dsadeh@rosenlegal.com

Rosen Law Firm -- http://www.rosenlegal.com-- represents
investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in
securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation.
Since 2014, Rosen Law Firm has been ranked #2 in the nation by
Institutional Shareholder Services for the number of securities
class action settlements annually obtained for investors. [GN]


AETNA INC: Sues KCC Following HIV Status Privacy Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Singer, writing for Hartford Courant, reports that
Aetna Inc. is suing a legal support firm for $20 million, blaming
it for breaching the privacy of thousands of customers with a
mailing that disclosed HIV information.

In a lawsuit filed on Feb. 5 in federal court in Pennsylvania,
Aetna said Kurtzman Carson Consultants LLC, an administrative
support company for legal and financial businesses, is
responsible for "errors, omissions and gross negligence" related
to a mailing to about 12,000 Aetna members.  The mailing
"potentially disclosed" protected health information, Aetna said.

Drake D. Foster, general counsel at KCC, said in an email on
Feb. 6 that the company denies the allegations, which he called
"demonstrably false."

"KCC deeply empathizes with people affected by this incident and
intends to respond to Aetna consistent with the rights and
responsibilities related to this matter," he said.

A spokesman for Aetna declined to comment.

Aetna reached a $17 million settlement last month in a federal
class-action lawsuit filed over the privacy breach that disclosed
where to purchase HIV medications.

In July, Aetna mailed a notice in envelopes with large, clear
windows that showed recipients had been prescribed HIV
medications.  The lawsuit alleged that the names of 13,487 Aetna
customers who had the medications were given to the vendor
sending the envelopes and 11,875 received the mailing.

If the proposed settlement is approved by the courts, all members
of the class-action will receive between $75 and $500.

The lawsuit began with a Pennsylvania man who said his sister
learned he was taking HIV medication when she saw the envelope.
The man did not have the virus that causes AIDS but was taking
medication as a preventative measure.

Aetna has promised to adopt measures to protect sensitive health
information and ensure something like this does not happen again.

In its lawsuit against KCC, Aetna asked a judge for a "hold
harmless" ruling, protecting the insurer from all liability,
damages, payments, claims and other obligations related to the
mailing.  It's also seeking damages of at least $20 million.

KCC is a class-action settlement administrator, responsible for
mailing documents and handling secure data.  Aetna said in its
lawsuit that KCC was the administrator for two class-action
lawsuits filed against Aetna in 2014 and 2015.  Its work included
mailing a settlement notice and processing claims, Aetna said.

KCC knew or should have known that it was handling confidential
protected health information, including HIV-related information,
Aetna said.  Specifically, it should have known that the words
"HIV Medications" were referenced in the notice below the
recipient's name and address, Aetna said.

KCC mailed the notice to members using envelopes with see-through
address windows without informing Aetna it would use the
envelopes, Aetna said. [GN]


AIR CANADA: Loses Bid to Dismiss Flight Pass Expiry Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Champlain Avocats (Montreal, Quebec), in collaboration with
Evolink Law Group (Burnaby, British Columbia), are counsel in a
proposed international class action against Air Canada before the
Superior Court of Quebec.

In a recent decision, the Superior Court dismissed Air Canada's
request to suspend this action (Benamor c. Air Canada, 2018 QCCS
144).  The authorization hearing is expected to take place in the
coming months.

This proposed class action is on behalf of consumers around the
world that purchased an Air Canada flight pass that had expiry
dates and extra fees.  The class action seeks compensatory and
punitive damages against Air Canada following the imposition of
said expiry dates and extra fees for the flight passes, in
violation of the Consumer Protection Act.

For more information please visit
http://paquetteavocats.com/aircanada/

Counsels for the envisioned class action for the plaintiff are:

   -- Me Jeremie John Martin of Champlain Avocats
info@champlainavocats.com
   -- Me Sebastien A. Paquette of Champlain Avocats
spaquette@champlainavocats.com)
   -- Mr. Simon Lin of Evolink Law Group info@evolinklaw.com
[GN]


ALLERGAN INC: KPH Healthcare Suit Alleges Antitrust Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
KPH Healthcare Services, Inc., aka Kinney Drugs, Inc.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Allergan, Inc., Case No. 2:18-cv-00013 (E.D. Tex., January 17,
2018), seeks to recover damages under the Sherman Act.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages incurred by itself and Members
of the Direct Purchaser Class due to Defendant's unlawful
monopolization, overarching scheme to monopolize, and conspiracy
to monopolize the market for Restasis.

Plaintiff KPH Healthcare Services, Inc. aka Kinney Drugs, Inc. is
a corporation organized under the laws of the state of New York,
with headquarters in Gouverneur, New York. KPH operates retail
and online pharmacies in the Northeast under the name Kinney
Drugs, Inc.

Defendant Allergan, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its
principal place of business located in Irvine, California, and
its corporate headquarters located in Parsippany, New Jersey.
Allergan is the holder of approved New Drug Application ("NDA")
No. 50-790 for Cyclosporine Ophthalmic Emulsion, 0.05%, sold
under the Restasis trademark.  [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Carl R. Roth, Esq.
      THE ROTH LAW FIRM, P.C.
      115 N. Wellington, Suite 200
      Marshall, TX 75670
      Tel: (903) 935-1665
      Fax: (903) 935- 1797
      E-mail: cr@rothfirm.com


APPLE INC: Johnson Files Suit in Calif. for Fraud
-------------------------------------------------
Patricia Johnson, Kent Harrison, and Christina Labajo, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Apple, Inc.,
Case No. 5:18-cv-00385 (N.D. Calif., January 17, 2018), seeks
damages and equitable relief under the Computer Fraud and Abuse
Act.

Plaintiffs are residents of California and are iPhone users.

Defendant Apple is a multinational technology company that
manufactures a wide range of computer and consumer electronics
products, including the iPhone smartphone. Apple has brought out
successive models of the best-selling iPhone, each with fanfare
and with marketing efforts designed to convince existing iPhone
owners to upgrade to the newest model. Among other things, the
newest iPhone model is generally advertised as faster than
previous models. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Gordon M. Fauth, Jr., Esq.
      FINKELSTEIN THOMPSON LLP
      100 Pine Street, Suite 1250
      San Francisco, CA 94111
      Tel: (510) 238-9610
      Fax: (415) 398-8704


APPLE INC: "Munro" Suit Alleges Sabotage in OS Update for iPhones
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MELODY MUNRO, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. APPLE INC., Case No. 5:18-cv-00128-HRL (N.D. Cal.,
January 5, 2018), arises from alleged unlawful sabotage of iPhone
6, 6S, SE, or 7 (the "Affected Device(s)") caused by a
purportedly beneficial update to the Affected Devices' iOS 10.2.1
or later operating systems.

On January 23, 2017, Apple released the iOS 10.2.1 operating
system update for iPhones.  Among other things, the update
purportedly addressed aging iPhone batteries.  Apple announced
that the purpose of the update was to fix bugs and other security
issues in the operating system.  Subsequently, in February 2017,
Apple announced that the update was intended to "reduce
occurrences of unexpected shutdowns that a small number of users
were experiencing with their iPhone."

Apple touted its software update as fixing software "bugs" or
providing knew benefits when, in fact, Apple deliberately
designed the updates to slow down the Affected Devices'
performance, Ms. Munro alleges.  She contends that Apple failed
to inform users of the Affected Devices that the update would
slow down their devices and also failed to inform consumers that
they could restore the performance of their devices simply by
replacing the battery.

Apple Inc. is a California corporation headquartered in
Cupertino, California.  Apple designs, manufacturers, and sells
throughout the world a wide range of products, including mobile
devices such as the iPhone.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Avi Wagner, Esq.
          THE WAGNER FIRM
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 491-7949
          Facsimile: (310) 491-7949
          E-mail: avi@thewagnerfirm.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey H. Squire, Esq.
          David J. Stone, Esq.
          Todd H. Henderson, Esq.
          BRAGAR EAGEL & SQUIRE, P.C.
          885 Third Avenue, Suite 3040
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 308-5858
          Facsimile: (212) 486-0462
          E-mail: squire@bespc.com
                  stone@bespc.com
                  henderson@bespc.com


APPLIED UNDERWRITERS: Faces Class Action Over Inflated Premiums
---------------------------------------------------------------
HarrisMartin Publishing reports that Top's Personnel Inc. has
asserted a class action counterclaim against Applied Underwriters
Inc., accusing it of fraudulently charging employer-insureds
drastically inflated premiums and costs for workers' compensation
insurance.

In its Feb. 2 amended answer and class action counterclaim filed
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska, Top's
alleges Applied has unlawfully collected sums from Top's and
other similarly situated insured-employers through various
promissory notes that are derived from unfair, deceptive, and
unlawful business practices in connection with the sale of
workers' compensation insurance programs. [GN]


ASHLEY DIANA: ADBI Seeks Dismissal of Claims in "Elson" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant ADBI Interests LLC asks the Court to dismiss the
Plaintiffs' 1st and 6th through 15th causes of action in the
lawsuit titled EMILY ELSON, STACY HAAVISTO, LORETTA OAKES,
MICHELLE LANUM, JULIA LEFEBVRE, SUE GRLICKY, TILLY DORENKAMP,
DINA SALAS, ARLENE RODRIGUEZ, JERRY GAINES, and all others
similarly situated v. ASHLEY BLACK, an individual, ASHLEY DIANA
BLACK INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS, LLC, a Delaware Corporation, ADB
INTERESTS LLC, a Texas Corporation, and DOES 1-100, Case No.
2:18-cv-00116-ODW-RAO (C.D. Cal.).

In their complaint, the Plaintiffs assert that the Defendants are
in violation of (1) the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, (2) the
False Advertising Law, and (3) the Unfair Competition Law.  The
Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants made false advertisements
and/or misrepresentations.

ADBI asserts that the Plaintiffs failed to allege that they
relied upon or in any way altered their position to their
detriment as a result of the alleged false statements.  ADBI
contends that the Plaintiffs fail to allege requisite reliance
and/or an injury in fact from the alleged false advertisements or
misrepresentations by the Defendants.  Without reliance on the
purported false statement, the Plaintiffs cannot maintain a claim
pursuant to CLRA, ADBI concludes.

ADBI has concurrently filed with this Motion a Motion to Strike
Plaintiffs' Putative Class Action Allegations pursuant to Rule
12(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

The Court will commence a hearing on February 26, 2018, at 1:30
p.m., to consider the Motion.[BN]

Defendant ADB INTERESTS LLC is represented by:

          Craig L. Winterman, Esq.
          HERZFELD & RUBIN, LLP
          10866 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 800
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Telephone: (310) 553-0451
          Facsimile: (310) 553-0648
          E-mail: cwinterman@hrllp-law.com


ASSOCIATED CREDIT: Court Denies Summary Judgment in "Halvorsen"
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Washington issued an Order denying Plaintiff's Motion for Summary
Judgment in the case captioned CORTNEY HALVORSEN, Plaintiff, v.
ASSOCIATED CREDIT SERVICE, INC., a Washington Corporation, and
PAUL J. WASSON AND MONICA WASSON, individually and the marital
community, Defendants, No. 2:16-CV-0103-TOR (E.D. Wash.).

This case concerns a claim against Defendant Associated Credit
Services, Inc., a Washington debt collection agency.  Plaintiff
Myron Hargreaves filed a putative class action, asserting
violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA).

The remaining FDCPA claim alleges that judgement creditor
Associated, and its attorney, Mr. Wasson, sent false and
misleading information in the Notice of Garnishment and Your
Rights form regarding the amount of Plaintiffs' entitled cash
exemption.

Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order against Mr. Wasson
finding that he violated the FDCPA by sending the Notice of
Garnishment and Your Rights form, stating that Plaintiff was only
entitled to $200 when Washington law allows her to claim up to
$500 cash exemption.  The Wasson Defendants agree that Plaintiff
is a consumer, Plaintiff had debts as defined by the FDCPA, and
that Mr. Wasson is a debt collector as defined by the FDCPA.

The Ninth Circuit has recognized vicarious liability under the
FDCPA. Clark v. Capital Credit & Collection Servs., Inc., 460
F.3d 1162, 1173 (9th Cir. 2006). Yet, the Ninth Circuit found
that there is no legal authority for the proposition that an
attorney is generally liable for the actions of his client.
General principles of agency form the basis of vicarious
liability under the FDCPA.

Here, Plaintiff merely asserts that Mr. Wasson was acting as an
agent of Associated by sending the forms.  Yet, beyond this mere
assertion, Plaintiff fails to state any of the principles of
agency and how they apply to this situation. Simply because Mr.
Wasson is the attorney for Associated does not mean he is
generally liable for Associated's actions. Similar to Clark,
Plaintiff fails to offer evidence upon which a reasonable trier
of fact could conclude that Mr. Wasson can be held liable for the
actions of Associated when Associated merely caused the forms to
be mailed through Mr. Wasson's legal assistant.

Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment is denied.

A full-text copy of the District Court's January 11, 2018 Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/yctljna5 from Leagle.com.

Myron Hargreaves, and all others similarly situated, Cortney
Halverson & Bonnie Freeman, Plaintiffs, represented by Kirk D.
Miller -- kmiller@millerlawspokane.com -- Kirk D. Miller PS.
Associated Credit Services Inc, a Washington Corporation,
Defendant, represented by John Gregory Lockwood --
jgregorylockwood@hotmail.com -- Law Office of J. Gregory Lockwood
PLLC.

Paul J Wasson, individually and the marital community, Defendant,
represented by Kevin James Curtis --
classaction@winstoncashatt.com -- Winston & Cashatt, Molly Marie
Winston -- classaction@winstoncashatt.com -- Winston & Cashatt &
Roger James Peven, Law Office of Roger J. Peven, 1403 W Broadway
Ave, Spokane, WA.

Monica Wasson, individually and the marital community, Defendant,
represented by Kevin James Curtis, Winston & Cashatt & Molly
Marie Winston, Winston & Cashatt.


BANDAS LAW: Judge Tosses RICO Claims in Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
Diana Novak Jones, writing for Law360, reports that although she
condemned so-called "serial objectors" and attorneys who would
extort money from plaintiffs' counsel through objections to
settlements, an Illinois federal judge said on Feb. 6 that the
behavior of a Texas attorney doesn't reach the requirements to
bring Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act claims.

In dismissing the RICO claims in a proposed class action filed by
plaintiffs' firm Edelson PC against Texas attorney Christopher
Bandas, U.S. District Judge Rebecca Pallmeyer said interpreting
the statute to cover the alleged scheme could chill legitimate
litigation activity.

The case is Edelson PC v. The Bandas Law Firm PC et al
Case No. 1:16-cv-11057 (N.D. Ill.).  The case is assigned to
Judge Honorable Rebecca R. Pallmeyer.  The case was filed
December 5, 2016. [GN]


BBVA COMPASS: Lopez Sues Over Charging of Illegal Overdraft Fees
----------------------------------------------------------------
PETRA LOPEZ and COLEA WRIGHT, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. BBVA COMPASS BANK, N.A., Case No.
2:18-cv-00031-TLN-EFB (E.D. Cal., January 6, 2018), arises from
BBVA Bank's alleged routine practice of:

   (a) assessing overdraft fees ("OD Fees") on transactions that
       did not overdraw checking account available balances; and

   (b) wrongfully assessing its customers so-called "Extended
       Overdraft Fees."

The Plaintiffs seek redress for these unlawful practices that
BBVA Bank perpetrates on its checking customers.  Besides being
deceptive, unfair and unconscionable, the first practice breaches
promises made in BBVA BANK's contracts -- specifically, the
promise to charge OD Fees only on transactions which actually
overdraw an account -- and are deceptive, the Plaintiffs contend.

BBVA Compass Bank is a national bank with its U.S. headquarters
and principal place of business located in Birmingham, Alabama.
BBVA Bank operates numerous retail banking centers nationwide and
throughout California.  Among other things, BBVA Bank provides
retail banking services to consumers, including the Plaintiffs
and members of the putative classes, which includes the issuance
of checks and debit cards for use by customers in conjunction
with their checking accounts.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq.
          KALIEL PLLC
          1875 Connecticut Ave., NW, 10th Floor
          Washington, DC 20009
          Telephone: (202) 350-4783
          E-mail: jkaliel@kalielpllc.com


BCA FINANCIAL: Wins Final Approval of $10K Settlement in "Beneli"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable Freda L. Wolson entered a final approval of the
$10,000 Class Settlement Agreement between the parties of the
lawsuit captioned DAVID BENELI, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. BCA FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC. and
JOFIN DOES 1-25, Case No. 3:16-cv-02737-FLW-LHG (D.N.J.).

The certified Settlement Class is defined as:

     All New Jersey consumers who were sent a collection letter
     from BCA, during the time period of May 13, 2015 to May 13,
     2016, in an envelope with a glassine window, in which the
     consumer's reference number assigned by BCA was visible
     through the glassine window of the enclosing envelope.

The Court approved a form of notice for mailing to the Settlement
Class.  The Court is informed that actual notice was sent by
first class mail to approximately 2,612 Settlement Class members
by First Class, Inc., the third-party settlement administrator.
A total of 2,612 Settlement Class members are entitled to a share
of the monetary benefits of the settlement.

Upon the Effective Date, as that term is defined in the
Agreement, BCA shall make these payments:

   (a) BCA shall create a class settlement fund of $10,000
       ("Class Recovery"), which the Class Administrator shall
       distribute pro rata among those Settlement Class Members
       who did not exclude themselves ("Claimants").  Claimants
       will receive a pro rata share of the Class Recovery by
       check;

   (b) BCA shall pay Plaintiff $1,500; and

   (c) BCA shall pay Class Counsel their attorneys' fees and
       costs incurred in the action, in an amount of $15,000.

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


BELLICUM PHARMA: April 9 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
-----------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on
Feb. announced the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of Bellicum Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
(NASDAQ: BLCM) from May 8, 2017 through January 30, 2018,
inclusive (the "Class Period").  The lawsuit seeks to recover
damages for Bellicum investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the Bellicum class action, go to
http://rosenlegal.com/cases-1286.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq.
or Daniel Sadeh, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email
pkim@rosenlegal.com or dsadeh@rosenlegal.com for information on
the class action.

NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A
CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU
RETAIN ONE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO
NOTHING AT THIS POINT. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE.

According to the lawsuit, defendants during the Class Period made
materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) a substantial undisclosed risk of
encephalopathy was associated with Bellicum's lead product
candidate, BPX-501; and (2) as a result, Bellicum's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit
claims that investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed.  If you wish to
serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than
April 9, 2018. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting
on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation.  If
you wish to join the litigation, go to
http://rosenlegal.com/cases-1286.htmlor to discuss your rights
or interests regarding this class action, please contact Phillip
Kim, Esq. or Daniel Sadeh, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
dsadeh@rosenlegal.com

Rosen Law Firm -- http://www.rosenlegal.com-- represents
investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in
securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation.
Since 2014, Rosen Law Firm has been ranked #2 in the nation by
Institutional Shareholder Services for the number of securities
class action settlements annually obtained for investors. [GN]


BIG CITY: Rosenberg & Estis Attorneys Discuss Class Action Ruling
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Warren A. Estis, Esq. -- westis@rosenbergestis.com -- and
Michael E. Feinstein, Esq. -- mfeinstein@rosenbergestis.com -- of
Rosenberg & Estis, in an article for Law.com, wrote that as
practitioners in this area of the law are surely aware, there
have in recent years been a spate of putative class action
lawsuits commenced by residential tenants against their
landlords, typically on behalf of both themselves and a proposed
class of current and former tenants, claiming that their
apartments were improperly deregulated and seeking rent
overcharge damages.  There are, however, certain standards that
must be met in order for a court to "certify" a class under CPLR
Article 9. In a recent decision of Justice Erika M. Edwards of
Supreme Court, New York County in Maddicks v. Big City Prop.,
2017 N.Y. Slip Op. 32385(U) (Sup. Ct. N.Y. County Nov. 16, 2017),
the court, in dismissing the tenants' putative class action,
explained the standards which must be complied with and found
that in the case before it, the tenants had not satisfied them.

'Maddicks'
The facts as explained by the court in Maddicks were as follows.
The plaintiffs were the tenants of apartments in 20 different
buildings, each owned by different limited liability companies
which were named as defendants.  The class action complaint
alleged that the buildings were part of a portfolio -- the "Big
City Portfolio" -- managed by the same company.  The complaint
requested both declaratory and injunctive relief claiming that
the subject apartments were improperly deregulated, and also
sought damages for alleged rent overcharges. The proposed class
included the current and former tenants of the 20 buildings owned
by the various defendants.

The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint under CPLR 3211.
They argued that the plaintiffs' attempt to bring the action as a
class action failed as a matter of law because, among other
reasons: (1) the defendants were all unrelated, separate entities
and that the plaintiffs were improperly attempting to impute the
alleged wrongful acts of one defendant against another without
demonstrating how the entities are affiliated or legally
intertwined; (2) the buildings had different property owners; and
(3) the claims were improper for a class action because they were
fact-specific and required individual case-specific analysis.

The court granted the motion and dismissed the complaint.

No Basis for Class Action Relief
The court observed that under First Department precedent, a
motion to dismiss may be made prior to a motion to determine the
propriety of the class under CPLR 902 "where it appears
conclusively from the complaint and from the affidavits that
there was as a matter of law no basis for the class action
relief."

The court further observed that it has "broad discretion" to
determine whether the putative class meets the standards for
class certification based on a review of the criteria set forth
in CPLR 901(a).  The court stated that under the statute, the
prerequisites for class certification are "1) the class is so
numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable; 2) there
are questions of law or fact common to the class which
predominate over any questions affecting only individual members;
3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are
typical of the class; 4) the representative parties will fairly
and adequately protect the interests of the class; and 5) a class
action is superior to other available methods for the fair and
efficient adjudication of the controversy."

The court then went on to explain why the complaint did not
satisfy the standards for class certification.  First, the court
found that "the questions of law or fact common to the class do
not predominate over questions affecting only individual
members."  In this regard, the court explained the plaintiffs
"failed to properly assert how the defendants are factually or
legally related or bound in this action" and that the allegations
that all the properties were part of the "Big City Portfolio" was
insufficient.  The court further observed:

Here, plaintiffs attempt to join former and current tenants of
several different properties, owned by separate and distinct
companies, which are based on different theories of recovery,
involving separate and distinct law and facts.  Such claims are
inappropriate for a class action.

The court also found that each of the plaintiffs' claims
"requires fact-specific analysis which precludes class
certification."  In so finding, the court observed that "[t]here
are different buildings involved, different owners, different
dates when the owners acquired the property, different prior
owners, different registration periods and since there are
different theories of recovery, each theory requires different
defenses and evidence."  As such, the court concluded that:

Therefore, each theory of recovery or each owner may require
different questions of law or fact which affect the individual
members of the class associated with that owner and/or theory.
Furthermore, since there are so many different entities and
theories, each claim or defense may not be typical of the class
which is necessary for class certification.

Finally, the court found that in the case before it, "a class
action cannot be determined to be superior to other available
methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the
controversy."  The court explained:

to proceed as a class, plaintiffs must waive their right to seek
treble damages, since treble damages are penalties which are
precluded in class actions, or exercise their right to opt out.
Therefore, individual class members may wish to pursue
administrative remedies under the Rent Stabilization Code in a
Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR) proceeding or
individual suit.  Since the class representatives may not reflect
the interests of the class based on the different theories a
class action may not be the superior manner in which to bring
plaintiffs' claims.

Conclusion
Justice Edwards' decision in Maddicks provides an excellent
primer as to which types of rent overcharge matters may be
appropriate for bringing as a class action, and certainly not all
such matters will qualify.  As the decision makes clear, the
question of whether a matter will satisfy the above-described
standards for class certification is a fact intensive analysis
and will depend on the circumstances presented in each case.

Warren A. Estis is a founding member at Rosenberg & Estis.
Michael E. Feinstein is a member at the firm. [GN]


BRISTOL-MYERS: Bradley Arant Attorney Discusses SCOTUS Ruling
-------------------------------------------------------------
J. Thomas Richie, Esq., of Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP, in
an article for JDSupra, report that the Supreme Court's decision
last summer in Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of
California, 137 S. Ct. 1773 (2017), is my pick for "2017 Class
Action Practitioners' Case of the Year" -- and it's not even a
class case.

One of the most exciting areas in the class action arena is
personal jurisdiction.  Stifle that yawn.  The Supreme Court's
recent decisions in this area could have a major effect on the
scope of class actions where the claims sound in state law.
Plaintiffs' lawyers have long sought to bring class actions in
the most plaintiff-friendly venues.  As a general proposition, a
plaintiff would prefer to cram a big nationwide class of claims
into the most favorable venue instead of having to bring either
several single-state class actions in several venues or a
nationwide class in a less-favorable venue.  Where plaintiffs are
successful, this kind of forum shopping makes class cases all the
more difficult for defendants: Not only do defendants have to
face the high stakes of a large number of aggregated claims in
one action, they also have to fight all those claims in a hostile
venue.

The Supreme Court's recent decision in Bristol-Myers Squibb, has
given defendants a powerful new argument against this tactic.
Bristol-Myers Squibb involved a mass action in which nearly 600
plaintiffs who did not live in California joined their claims
with California residents' claims.  The defendant challenged
personal jurisdiction, but the California courts found specific
jurisdiction to exist. By an 8-1 vote, the United States Supreme
Court reversed, holding that the California courts could not
exercise personal jurisdiction over the defendant as to claims of
non-resident defendants who could not satisfy the well-settled
test for specific jurisdiction.  As a result, the plaintiffs face
the choice of either bringing their nationwide class in a forum
where the defendant is subject to general jurisdiction (i.e.,
state of incorporation of principal place of business, thanks to
the Supreme Court's recent Daimler decision) or limiting the
class to those plaintiffs whose claims involve the kind of
minimum contacts necessary to support the exercise of specific
jurisdiction.

As mentioned above, Bristol-Myers Squibb is not a class action
case--but that is likely of no consequence.  The decision rests
on the constitutional due process rights of defendants, and,
under the Rules Enabling Act, the purely procedural class action
rules cannot abrogate those rights. (Mr. Richie addresses this
point further in a future post, along with looking at how lower
courts have applied Bristol-Myers Squibb in the class context.)

Practically speaking, Bristol-Myers Squibb should curb the most
blatant forum shopping in diversity cases.  Defendants should use
it to channel more litigation to the jurisdictions where
defendants are incorporated or headquartered or where the
plaintiffs reside.  The case may also lead to an increase in
single-state class cases, which is a potential downside--but
defendants can waive personal jurisdiction as a defense to permit
consolidation where appropriate.  The increase in state-specific
suits may also make removal under diversity or CAFA easier, as
plaintiffs will be less free to use joinder to defeat diversity
jurisdiction and will likely run afoul of the no-similar-case
rule of 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1332(d)(4)(A)(ii).  Mr. Richie also
predicts an uptick in multidistrict-litigation petitions, which
both plaintiffs and defendants can perceive as an advantageous
way of consolidating geographically dispersed litigation. [GN]


CANADA: Attempts to Quash CAF Sexual Misconduct Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Mercedes Stephenson, writing for CTVNews.ca, reports that the
Trudeau government is trying to quash a class-action lawsuit that
alleges rampant sexual misconduct and gender discrimination
within the Canadian Armed Forces, CTV News has learned.

Plaintiffs in the case allege systemic sexual harassment, sexual
assault and discrimination.

Veteran Amy Graham, one of the lead plaintiffs in the case, said
the Liberal government's attempts to stop the lawsuit contradicts
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's public support for victims of
sexual misconduct.

In a recent speech at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Trudeau
said he was "unequivocal" in his support for women who come
forward with allegations.

"He was on the international stage coming across as a feminist,
coming across as supporting women's rights, saying how courageous
it was for these women to come out, and how difficult it was. And
behind the scenes nobody knows that he's trying to dismiss our
case," Ms. Graham told CTV's Mercedes Stephenson.

"I'm very disappointed -- actually disgusted is probably a more
accurate term."

The military has made extensive efforts to stamp out sexual
misconduct. Chief of Defence Staff Gen. Jonathan Vance said last
April that he planned to remove any military members found guilty
of sexual misconduct.  In 2017, more than two dozen service
members were kicked out.

Despite those efforts, the federal government argued in court
filings that it does not "owe a private law duty of care to
individual members within the CAF to provide a safe and
harassment-free work environment, or to create policies to
prevent sexual harassment or sexual assault."

The Prime Minister's Office would not comment on the lawsuit.

However, Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan insisted the government
supports victims.

"We want to encourage people to actually come forward if they
have any allegations or any type of concern, and that's very
important," Mr. Sajjan said.

Conservative Defence critic James Bezan says the prime minister's
words don't match his government's actions.

NDP MP Niki Ashton echoed similar criticism, calling the move
"deeply hypocritical." [GN]


CAPITALA FINANCE: Faces "Sandifer" Securities Suit in California
----------------------------------------------------------------
STEPHANIE SANDIFER, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. CAPITALA FINANCE CORP., JOSEPH B. ALALA
III, and STEPHEN A. ARNALL, Case No. 2:18-cv-00052 (C.D. Cal.,
January 3, 2018), is a federal securities class action brought on
behalf of a class consisting of all persons other than the
Defendants, who purchased or otherwise acquired common shares of
Capitala between January 4, 2016, and August 7, 2017, both dates
inclusive.

The Plaintiff seeks to recover compensable damages caused by the
Defendants' alleged violations of the federal securities laws and
to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Capitala Finance Corp. is a business development company that
invests primarily in first and second liens, subordinated debt
and, to a lesser extent, equity securities issued by lower and
traditional middle-market companies.  Founded in 2013, the
Company is headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.

Capitala Investment Advisors, LLC manages the Company's
investment activities.  The Company's Board of Directors
supervises the Company's investment activities.  The Company's
executive officers are part of Capitala Investment Advisors'
management team.

Throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and
misleading statements regarding the Company's business,
operational and compliance policies, including their failure to
disclose that Capitala Investment Advisors had been losing
professional talent in both underwriting and portfolio management
due to the waiving of its incentive fee, according to the
complaint.

Capitala is incorporated in Maryland, and the Company's principal
executive office is located in Charlotte, North Carolina.  The
Individual Defendants are directors and officers of the
Company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          Ten South La Salle Street, Suite 3505
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 377-1181
          Facsimile: (312) 377-1184
          E-mail: 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


CIGNA CORP: Court Won't Strike Class Definitions in "DeJesus"
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Middle District of
Florida, Orlando Division, in the case captioned CRYSTAL DEJESUS,
Plaintiff, v. CIGNA CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 6:17-cv-
1208-Orl-41TBS (M.D. Fla.), denied the Motion to Strike
Plaintiff's Improper Class Definition and Defendant's Motion to
Stay Discovery.

Plaintiff complains that Defendant Cigna Corporation violated the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) by making numerous
prerecorded, automated telephone calls to her cell phone She
alleges that she did not consent to receive these calls and that
she was not the intended recipient of the calls. Plaintiff also
alleges that Defendant's practice of placing prerecorded voice
calls to wrong numbers' is both pervasive and long standing.

She brings this action on behalf of the following classes:

   No Consent Class: All persons in the United States whose (1)
cellular telephone number has been called by Defendant; (2) more
than once; (3) with an artificial or prerecorded voice and/or an
automatic telephone dialing system; and (4) such calls were made
without the prior express consent of the person subscribing to
the number called, (5) from four years preceding the filing of
this complaint to the date that the class is certified.

   Wrong Number Subclass: All persons in the United States whose
(I) cellular telephone number has been called by Defendant; (2)
more than once; (3) with an artificial or prerecorded voice
and/or an automatic telephone dialing system; and (4) such calls
were wrong numbers where the person subscribing to the number
called was not the same person Defendant's records show it
intended to call, (5) from four years preceding the filing of
this complaint to the date that the class is certified.

Defendant is asking the Court to strike the definitions of the No
Consent Class and the Wrong Number Subclass from Plaintiff's
complaint pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 23(c)(1)(A) and/or
(d)(1)(D) .

The Defendant argues that the No Consent Class: (1) violates the
typicality requirement of Rule 23(a)(3); (2) is an improper fail-
safe-class; and (3) individual issues predominate over questions
common to the members of the No Consent Class  Defendant contends
that the Wrong Number Class should be stricken because it fails
to satisfy the ascertainability and predominance requirements for
class certification.

Rule 23(c)(1)(C) provides that an order that grants or denies
class certification may be altered or amended before final
judgment. Under Rule 23(c)(1)(C), the district court "retains the
flexibility to change its position on a motion for class
certification, [and] orders on motions for class certification
are usually not appealable as of right.

Citing Microsoft Corp. v. Baker, 137 S.Ct. 170, Judge Rosenbaum
explains: "Striking Plaintiff's class-action allegations from her
Complaint would prevent the Court from reconsidering the
certification issue at a later date absent amendment of the
Complaint. This differs from an order on a motion for class
certification, in which the class-action allegations remain
intact, if dormant, in the complaint for the court to reconsider
at a later date. Thus, an order on a motion to strike class-
action allegations would, by its very nature, carry more finality
and less prospective flexibility than the typical order on a
motion for class certification. This lack of flexibility weighs
against the general directive for expeditious consideration of
certification and supports the notion that motions to strike
should be viewed under a stricter standard than the typical Rule
23 motion."

Following this reasoning, the Court has examined Plaintiff's
class definitions from the perspective of Rule 12(f) and finds
that they are not redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or
scandalous.

Accordingly, the motion to strike is denied.

Defendant asks the Court to stay discovery until it rules on
Defendant's motion to strike.  The Court having denied the motion
to strike, the motion for stay is also denied.

A full-text copy of the District Court's January 11, 2018 Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/y98wlhxx from Leagle.com.

Crystal Dejesus, individually, and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Eric Kem --
ekem@kemlawfirm.com -- The Law Offices of Eric W. Kem, P.A.,
Scott David Owens scott@ScottDOwens.com -- Scott D. Owens, P.A.,
Patrick Christopher Crotty -- Patrick@ScottDOwens.com -- Scott D.
Owens, P.A. & Sean Martin Holas, Scott D. Owens, P.A, 3800 S
Ocean Dr Ste 235. Hollywood, FL, 33019-2930.

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


COLLECTION ASSOCIATES: Class Certification Sought in "Ozier" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Allie Ozier moves the Court to certify the class described in the
complaint of the lawsuit entitled ALLIE OZIER, Individually and
on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. COLLECTION
ASSOCIATES, LTD., Case No. 2:18-cv-00100-NJ (E.D. Wisc.), and
further asks that the Court both stay the motion for class
certification and to grant the Plaintiff (and the Defendant)
relief from the Local Rules setting automatic briefing schedules
and requiring briefs and supporting material to be filed with the
Motion.

Dicta in the Supreme Court's decision in Campbell-Ewald Co. v.
Gomez, left open the possibility that a defendant facing a class
action complaint could moot a class representative's case by
depositing funds equal to or in excess of the maximum value of
the plaintiff's individual claim with the court and having the
court enter judgment in the plaintiff's favor prior to the filing
of a class certification motion, the Plaintiff asserts, citing
Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 672 (2016).

To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class
representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh
Circuit instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with
the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the
certification motion.  Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891,
896 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled on other grounds, Chapman v. First
Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015) ("The pendency of
that motion [for class certification] protects a putative class
from attempts to buy off the named plaintiffs.").

While the Seventh Circuit has held that the specific procedure
described in Campbell-Ewald cannot force the individual
settlement of a class representative's claims, the same decision
cautions that other methods may prevent a plaintiff from
representing a class, the Plaintiff tells the Court, citing
Fulton Dental, LLC v. Bisco, Inc., No. 16-3574, 2017 U.S. App.
LEXIS 10839 *9-10 (7th Cir. June 20, 2017).  The Plaintiff
asserts that one defendant has attempted a similar tactic by
sending a certified check to the proposed class representative.
Bonin v. CBS Radio, Inc., No. 16-cv-674-CNC (E.D. Wis.); see also
Severns v. Eastern Account Systems of Connecticut, Inc., Case No.
15-cv-1168, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23164 (E.D. Wis. Feb. 24,
2016).

The Plaintiff is obligated to move for class certification to
protect the interests of the putative class, the Plaintiff
contends.

As the Motion to certify a class is a placeholder motion as
described in Damasco, the parties and the Court should not be
burdened with unnecessary paperwork and the resulting expense
when short motion to certify and stay should suffice until an
amended motion is filed, the Plaintiff contends.

The Plaintiff also asks to be appointed as class representative,
and for the appointment of Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP, as class
counsel.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=jFQXo7sw

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John D. Blythin, Esq.
          Mark A. Eldridge, Esq.
          Jesse Fruchter, Esq.
          Ben J. Slatky, Esq.
          ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP
          3620 East Layton Avenue
          Cudahy, WI 53110
          Telephone: (414) 482-8000
          Facsimile: (414) 482-8001
          E-mail: jblythin@ademilaw.com
                  meldridge@ademilaw.com
                  jfruchter@ademilaw.com
                  bslatky@ademilaw.com


COLONIAL FREIGHT: Opposes Davis' Bid to Certify Contractors Class
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Defendants in the lawsuit titled THEODUS DAVIS, on behalf of
himself and those similarly situated v. COLONIAL FREIGHT SYSTEMS,
INC., PHOENIX LEASING OF TENNESSEE, INC., RUBY MCBRIDE, and JOHN
DOES 1-10, Case No. 3:16-cv-00674-TRM-HBG (E.D. Tenn.), file with
the Court their opposition to the Plaintiff's motion for
conditional and class certification.

The Plaintiff asks the Court to certify a Fair Labor Standards
Act collective action class comprised of any individual, who
leased a truck from Phoenix and contracted with Colonial from
October 2013 to the present ("Phoenix Contractors").

The Defendants contend that the Plaintiff ignores the fact that,
during the same period, these same individuals also used non-
Phoenix trucks, worked under different conditions, worked
different hours, were paid under different compensation systems,
and elected different deductions.  Therefore, the Defendants say,
to determine whether each individual Phoenix Contractor was an
independent contractor or employee, the Court (or jury) would
have to analyze evidence unique to each Phoenix Contractor.

Likewise, the Defendants argue, adjudicating liability on each
class member's claim would require individual analysis of each
driver's loads, deductions, and pay for each workweek.
Consequently, the Plaintiff failed to show he was similarly
situated to the Phoenix Contractors, the Defendants tell the
Court.

The Court should also deny the Plaintiff's motion to certify his
claims alleging violations of the Federal Leasing Regulations, 49
C.F.R. Part 376, the Defendants further contend.  The Defendants
assert that certification of the Federal Leasing Regulations
claims is improper because the claims do not present issues with
common answers that will drive the resolution of the case.

A copy of the Opposition is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=aYwMok67

Defendant Colonial Freight Systems, Inc., Phoenix Leasing of
Tennessee, Inc., and Ruby McBride are represented by:

          Richard L. Hollow, Esq.
          HOLLOW & HOLLOW, LLC
          P.O. Box 11166
          Knoxville, TN 37939-1166
          Telephone: (865) 769-1715

               - and -

          Christopher J. Eckhart, Esq.
          SCOPELITIS, GARVIN, LIGHT, HANSON & FEARY, P.C.
          10 West Market Street, Suite 1400
          Indianapolis, IN 46204
          Telephone: (317) 637-1777
          Facsimile: (317) 687-2414
          E-mail: ceckhart@scopelitis.com


CONDUENT EDUCATION: "Chery" Suit Alleges Business Law Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey Chery, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Conduent Education Services, LLC, fka ACS, Access
Group, Inc., and Access Funding 2015-1, LLC, Case No. 1:18-cv-
00075 (N.D. N.Y., January 18, 2018), is a class action against
Defendants for violations of New York General Business Law,
negligence, and breach of contract.

The class consists of borrowers of student loans whose Federal
Direct Consolidation Loan Applications were improperly and
wrongfully denied, delayed, or had loans removed because ACS
failed to return a timely or complete Loan Verification
Certificate (LVC).  Plaintiff Jeffrey Chery had nine FFELP
student loan accounts that were serviced by ACS from in or around
April 2012 until December 2016.

Defendant ACS is a Delaware limited liability company. ACS is
registered to do business in the State of New York. The ACS
office responsible for student loan servicing operations and
correspondence with Plaintiff is located in Utica, New York. On
January 1, 2017, ACS Education Services became part of Conduent
Business Services, LLC. As a subsidiary of Conduent Business
Services, ACS became Conduent Education Services, LLC.

Defendant Access Group is a Delaware corporation. Access Group is
registered to do business in the State of New York. Access Group
was the owner of seven of the Loans.

Defendant Access Funding is a Delaware limited liability company.
Access Funding was the owner of two of the Loans. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Justin A. Kuehn, Esq.
      MOORE KUEHN, PLLC
      30 Wall Street, 8th Floor
      New York, NY 10005
      Tel: (212) 709-8245
      E-mail: jkuehn@moorekuehn.com

          - and -

      Lawrence P. Eagel, Esq.
      BRAGAR EAGEL & SQUIRE, P.C.
      885 Third Avenue, Suite 3040
      New York, NY 10022
      Tel: (212) 308-5858
      E-mail: eagel@bespc.com


CONSERV FLAG: Accused by Bais Yaakov of Sending Illegal Fax Ads
---------------------------------------------------------------
BAIS YAAKOV OF SPRING VALLEY, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated v. CONSERV FLAG COMPANY, LLC and EMIL ASSAD,
Case No. 7:18-cv-00061-NSR (S.D.N.Y., January 3, 2018), accuses
the Defendants of violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
and New York General Business Law.

Bais Yaakov is a New York religious corporation, with its
principal place of business located in Monsey, New York.  The
Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants, without its express
invitation or permission, arranged for and/or caused a telephone
facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send unsolicited
fax advertisements advertising the commercial availability or
quality of any property, goods, or services, to the Plaintiff's
fax machine.

Conserv is a Nebraska limited liability company, with its
principal place of business located in Sidney, Nebraska.  The
Company sells mats, flags and banners.  Emil Assad is the Chief
Executive Officer of Conserv and resides in the state of
Nebraska.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Aytan Y. Bellin, Esq.
          BELLIN & ASSOCIATES LLC
          85 Miles Avenue
          White Plains, NY 10606
          Telephone: (914) 358-5345
          Facsimile: (212) 571-0284
          E-mail: aytan.bellin@bellinlaw.com


CONTESTMEDIA INC: Court Certifies Class in "Griffith"
-----------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division, issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order
granting Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification in the case
captioned Christy Griffith, Plaintiff, v. ContextMedia, Inc.
Defendant, Case No. 16 C 2900 (N.D.. Ill.).

In this action, plaintiff alleges on behalf of herself and a
class that defendant violated the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act (TCPA) by sending unwanted automated text messages.
Griffith's allegations are straightforward.  She claims that
after signing up to receive daily automated Healthy Tips via text
message and receiving such messages for a period of time, she
attempted to unsubscribe from the service by replying to them
with the word STOP and similar messages indicating that she no
longer wished to subscribe to the service. Despite her efforts,
the texts continued for many months.

Plaintiff's motion seeks to certify the following class:

     Plaintiff and all persons within the United States to whose
cellular telephone number Defendant ContextMedia Health, LLC
sent, between July 28, 2015, and March 31, 2016, a text message,
other than an opt-out confirmation text message, as part of its
Healthy Tips campaign, after Defendant's records or the records
of any entity with whom Defendant contracted to provide text
messaging services, indicate that the telephone number to which
the text messages were sent had previously sent a text message
with the single word STOP or the single phrase STOP CMH TIPS,
regardless of capitalization.

It is undisputed that the proposed class meets the numerosity
requirement, as defendant's discovery indicates that it contains
more than 2,200 individuals. Defendant does not dispute that the
proposed class is sufficiently numerous.

Nor does defendant meaningfully contest commonality, as it
focuses on perceived evidentiary inadequacies without tethering
them to a reasoned discussion of what commonality requires.

The central analytical issue is whether common questions bearing
on defendants' liability yield answers that are common to the
class.

Defendant's principal objections to class certification are: 1)
that plaintiff's motion articulates a different class than the
one proposed in her complaint; 2) that the proposed class is not
ascertainable and is fail-safe; and 3) that the proposed class
fails Rule 23(b)'s predominance and superiority requirements.
None of these objections requires extended analysis.

On the issue of ascertainability, the law of this circuit is
clear: a class that is defined clearly and based on objective
criteria is ascertainable, even if its members may be difficult
to identify.

This leaves only the issues of predominance and superiority.

Defendants' central theory is that because plaintiff's individual
recovery is potentially significant as much as $124,000 if she
proves willful violations of the TCPA it is not appropriate for
class treatment. It is true that if a class member has a large
enough stake to be able to litigate on his own, the case for
class-action treatment is weakened. In the absence of any
evidence to suggest that all or many of the absent class members
have claims as substantial as plaintiff's, the Court decline to
deny certification on that ground.

Plaintiff's class certification motion is granted. The class is
certified as defined above.

A full-text copy of the District Court's January 11, 2018
Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/ycu7wqft from Leagle.com.

Christy Griffith, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Jonathan
Silver -- asilver@tzlegal.com -- Tycko & Zavareei LLP, Jeffrey
Grant Brown, Jeffrey Grant Brown, P.C., 260 Wohlers Hall, 1206 S.
Sixth Street, Champaign, IL 61820, Kristen Law Sagafi --
ksagafi@tzlegal.com --  Tycko & Zavareei LLP & Jeremy Glapion --
jmg@glapionlaw.com -- Glapion Law Firm.

ContextMedia Health, LLC, doing business as Outcome Health,
Defendant, represented by Erin L. Hoffman --
erin.hoffman@FaegreBD.com -- Faegre Baker Daniels LLP, Colby Anne
Kingsbury -- colby.kingsbury@FaegreBD.com -- Faegre Baker Daniels
LLP & Larry Eugene LaTarte, Jr. -- larry.latarte@FaegreBD.com  --
Faegre Baker Daniels LLP.


DAKOTA TRAVEL: Court Won't Stay Discovery in "Diaz" FLSA Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of North Dakota
issued an Order denying Defendant's Motion to Stay Discovery in
the case captioned Jasmine Diaz, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Dakota Travel Nurse,
Inc., and Jamie Fleck, Defendants, Case No. 1-17-cv-12 (D.N.D.).

Dakota Travel provides medical staff to various health care
facilities.  The Plaintiff sets forth five claims for relief
based upon this payment scheme.  Diaz alleges Dakota Travel's
all-inclusive payment system violates the Fair Labor Standards
Act (FLSA) by not providing proper compensation for overtime.
She brings this claim as a collective action under the FLSA and
Chief Judge Hovland has already conditionally certified the claim
as such.  Diaz also brings four other claims, all arising under
North Dakota law, as a class action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23.

In the motion currently before the court, Dakota Travel seeks a
stay of all discovery pending this court's ruling on forthcoming
motions for summary judgment concerning whether Dakota Travel's
payment scheme violated the FLSA or North Dakota law as to
overtime pay.  According to Dakota Travel, any such ruling could
significantly limit the scope of this case moving forward, if the
case is to move forward at all, and avoid unnecessary litigation
expenses.

In response, Diaz argues any stay in discovery is inappropriate
because some discovery regarding Dakota Travel's payment scheme
is necessary before either party can make a properly supported
motion for summary judgment.

While the court recognizes whether Dakota Travel's pay scheme
violated state and federal overtime law is the central question
of this litigation, it does not resolve all of the claims in this
case. Contrary to Dakota Travel's characterization, the legality
of its payment scheme does not control whether that same scheme
violated its employment contracts, with Diaz's first two claims
concerning the former and her final three claims concerning the
latter.

For instance, Dakota Travel may have still have breached its
contracts with its employees whether those contracts be actual or
quasi by improperly deducting reimbursable expenses
notwithstanding a conclusion that that same deducting complied
with state and federal overtime law, or vice versa. The common
payment scheme at issue in each of Diaz's claims gives rise to
uncommon legal theories that Dakota Travel's anticipated
forthcoming motion for summary judgment would not resolve.

Accordingly, Dakota Travel's forthcoming motion for summary
judgment on the overtime wage issues does not, standing alone,
warrant a complete stay in discovery for this case.

The court denies, without prejudice, Dakota Travel's motion.

A full-text copy of the District Court's January 11, 2018 Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/ycm7vfhf from Leagle.com.

Jasmine Diaz, On behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Ryan A. Winters --
rwinters@ohiowagelawyers.com -- Scott & Winters Law Firm, LLC,
Joseph F. Scott -- jscott@ohiowagelawyers.com -- Scott & Winters
Law Firm, LLC & Kevin M. McDermott, II, McDermott Law LLC,  415
West Richardson Avenue : and 310.78(b). Langhhorne, PA 19047

Dakota Travel Nurse, Inc. & Jamie Fleck, Defendants, represented
by Joseph M. Sokolowski -- jsokolowski@fredlaw.com -- Fredrikson
& Byron, PA & Kristy L. Albrecht --  kalbrecht@fredlaw.com --
FREDRIKSON & BYRON P.A.


DANNYS ATHENS: Appeals Judgment in "Martinez" Suit to 2nd Circuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Dannys Athens Diner Inc., Daniel Martinez and Kristina
Martinez filed an appeal from the District Court Clerk's judgment
dated December 12, 2017, issued in the lawsuit entitled Martinez
v. Dannys Athens Diner Inc., et al., Case No. 16-cv-7468, in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (New
York City).

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
was filed against the Defendants on September 23, 2016.

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Dannys Athens is a restaurant located at Westchester Avenue, in
Bronx, New York.

The appellate case is captioned as Martinez v. Dannys Athens
Diner Inc., et al., Case No. 18-80, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellee Alejandro Barragan Martinez, individually, on
behalf of others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Joshua S. Androphy, Esq.
          MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          60 East 42nd Street
          New York, NY 10165
          Telephone: (212) 317-1200
          E-mail: jandrophy@faillacelaw.com

Defendants-Appellants Dannys Athens Diner Inc., DBA Danny's
Athens Restaurant, Kristina Martinez and Daniel Martinez are
represented by:

          Scott Michael Druker, Esq.
          KASE & DRUKER
          1325 Franklin Avenue
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Telephone: (914) 980-3389


DERMOTT JUVENILE: "Brown" Suit Alleges FLSA Violations
------------------------------------------------------
Andrea Brown, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. State of Arkansas - Arkansas Department of Human
Services aka Dermott Juvenile Treatment Center and Dermott
Juvenile Correctional Facility, Case No. 5:18-cv-00017 (E.D.
Ark., January 18, 2018), is brought against the Defendant for
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Arkansas
Minimum Wage Act.

Plaintiff Andrea Brown worked for Defendant as a direct care
staff member within the three years preceding the filing of this
Complaint, particularly from February 27, 2017, until
December 11, 2017. Plaintiff is a resident of Desha County.

Defendant State of Arkansas - Arkansas Department of Human
Services is the government entity or branch that operates and
manages Dermott Juvenile Treatment Center and Dermott Juvenile
Correctional Facility and the five other Arkansas juvenile
treatment and correctional facilities through its Division of
Youth Services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


DLF LLC: Court Certifies Class of Hourly Workers in "Sango" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Lee R. West entered an order in the lawsuit entitled
RICHARD SANGO, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. DLF LLC d/b/a THE SUSHI BAR and HSLS. LLC d/b/a THE
SUSHI BAR, Case No. 5:17-cv-00165-W (W.D. Okla.):

   (1) granting the Plaintiff's Opposed Motion for Conditional
       Certification filed on November 21, 2017, but only to the
       limited extent stated herein -- that is, the Court
       conditionally certifies this class:

       All current and former hourly employees of DLF . . .
       and/or HSLS . . .  who were employed as assistant
       managers at any time from three (3) years from the date of
       mailing of the Notice of Collective Action Lawsuit and who
       were not paid overtime for all hours worked over forty
       (40) in a workweek;

   (2) directing the parties to confer in good faith and submit
       within 14 days a proposed notice, consent and schedule;

   (3) directing the Defendants to produce within 14 days after
       the Court has approved the parties' proposed notice and
       consent the names, addresses, telephone numbers and e-mail
       addresses for each member of the modified putative class;

   (4) advising the parties that a 60-day opt-in period to
       participate in this action is appropriate; and

   (5) ordering the parties to mediate this action not later than
       May 15, 2018, pursuant to the parties' request in the
       Revised Joint Status Report and Discovery Plan that this
       matter be referred to mediation pursuant to Rule 16.3,
       Rules of the United States District Court for the Western
       District of Oklahoma, and their Joint Advisory to the
       Court Regarding Mediation Deadline.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=mILjM9ox


ECLINICALWORKS LLC: Accused by "Goodson" Suit of Violating TCPA
---------------------------------------------------------------
GOODSON & COMPANY, LTD. ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW, an Ohio
corporation, individually and as the representative of a class of
similarly-situated persons v. ECLINICALWORKS, LLC, Case No. 1:18-
cv-00034-TSB (S.D. Ohio, January 19, 2018), asserts that the
Defendant sends unsolicited advertisements via facsimile, in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, which was
modified and renamed the Junk Fax Prevention Act in 2005.

Goodson & Company is a corporation registered in the state of
Ohio that operates a law practice in Cincinnati, Ohio.

EClinicalWorks, LLC, is a Massachusetts corporation that sells
practice management software from its principal place of business
in Westborough, Massachusetts.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          George D. Jonson, Esq.
          Matthew W. Stubbs, Esq.
          MONTGOMERY, RENNIE & JONSON
          36 E. Seventh Street, Suite 2100
          Cincinnati, OH 45202
          Telephone: (513) 241-4722
          Facsimile: (513) 241-8775
          E-mail: gjonson@mrjlaw.com
                  mstubbs@mrjlaw.com


EQUIFAX INC: Faces Sky Federal Suit in Georgia Over Data Breach
---------------------------------------------------------------
SKY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION and UNIVERSITY OF LOUISIANA FEDERAL
CREDIT UNION, individually and on behalf of a class of all
similarly situated financial institutions, and MD/DC CREDIT UNION
ASSOCIATION, as an association on behalf of its members v.
EQUIFAX INC., Case No. 1:18-cv-00094-TWT (N.D. Ga., January 5,
2018), is brought on behalf of financial institutions that
suffered, and continue to suffer, financial losses and increased
data security risks that are a direct result of Equifax's
egregious failure to safeguard the financial institutions'
customers' highly sensitive, personally identifiable information,
including names, Social Security numbers and driver's license
numbers, and payment card data.

Specifically, between at least May 2017 and July 2017, Equifax
was subject to one of the largest data breaches in this country's
history when intruders gained access to the highly sensitive PII
of over 145.5 million U.S. consumers -- roughly 44% of the United
States population -- as well as the Payment Card Data for an
untold number of credit and debit cards.

Equifax Inc. is a publicly traded corporation with its principal
place of business located in Atlanta, Georgia.  Equifax is the
oldest and second-largest consumer credit reporting agency in the
United States.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are 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


EQUIFAX INFORMATION: "De La Rosa" Suit Asserts FCRA Breach
----------------------------------------------------------
Juan De La Rosa, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Equifax Information Services, LLC, Case No.
1:18-cv-00078-AT (S.D.N.Y., January 5, 2018), is brought over
alleged violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

Equifax Information collects and reports consumer information to
financial institutions.  The company was formerly known as
Equifax Credit Information Services Inc.  The Company was
incorporated in 1937 and is based in Atlanta, Georgia.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kevin Christopher Mallon, Esq.
          MALLON CONSUMER LAW GROUP, PLLC
          One Liberty Plaza, Suite 2301
          New York, NY 10006
          Telephone: (646) 759-3663
          Facsimile: (646) 759-3663
          E-mail: consumer.esq@outlook.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Alicia Bliss Gilbert, Esq.
          KING & SPALDING LLP (NYC)
          1185 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 556-2253
          E-mail: agilbert@kslaw.com


ESTES EXPRESS: Fails to Pay Overtime, "De Jesus" Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
GABRIEL DE JESUS, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated persons v. ESTES EXPRESS LINES, ABC CORPS. 1-10 and JANE
& JOHN DOES 1-10, Case No. MID-L-000367-18 (N.J. Super. Ct.,
Middlesex Cty., January 18, 2018), alleges that the Plaintiff and
the proposed class members routinely worked far in excess of 40
hours per week for Estes and were not paid an appropriate or
lawful premium overtime rate under the New Jersey Wage and Hour
Law when they worked over 40 hours per week.

Estes Express Lines is a for-profit corporation, organized and
existing under the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia, with its
principal office located in Richmond, Virginia.  Estes is in the
business of shipping and providing supply chain management
services internationally.

Defendants ABC CORPS. 1-10 and/or JANE and JOHN DOES 1-10 are
business entities and/or individuals, who may or may not also be
liable to Plaintiffs and the other similarly situated employees
in this matter.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          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


EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Fails to Pay Overtime, "Wesley" Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
RICKEY WESLEY, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED v. EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC., Case No. 4:18-
cv-00005-ALM (E.D. Tex., January 3, 2018), alleges that the
Plaintiff has routinely worked in excess of 40 weekly hours for
the Defendant but was not paid overtime for all of his overtime
hours worked.

Experian Information Solutions, Inc., is an information services
company that provides information, analytical, and marketing
services to organizations and consumers to manage risk and reward
of commercial and financial decisions.  The Company offers data
and analytical tools that assist businesses to manage credit
risk, prevent fraud, target marketing offers, and automate
decision making; and enables people to check their credit report
and credit score, and protect against identity theft.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J. Forester, Esq.
          FORESTER LAW PC
          1701 N. Market Street, Suite 210
          Dallas, TX 75202
          Telephone: (214) 288-8519
          Facsimile: (214) 346-5909
          E-mail: jforester.law@gmail.com

               - and -

          Jill J. Weinberg, Esq.
          WEINBERG LAW FIRM, PLLC
          6425 Willow Creek Drive
          Plano, TX 75093
          Telephone: (972) 403-3330
          E-mail: jillwlfirm@gmail.com


FREE FLOW: Abreu Seeks to Recover Minimum and OT Wages Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JORGE L. ABREU and other similarly-situated individuals v. FREE
FLOW CONSTRUCTION, INC., And FELIPE A. RODRIGUEZ JR.,
Individually, Case No. 1:18-cv-20244-KMW (S.D. Fla., January 19,
2018), seeks to recover money damages for alleged unpaid minimum
and overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Free Flow Construction, Inc., is a Florida corporation, having a
place of business in Miami-Dade County, Florida, where the
Plaintiff worked for the Defendant.  Felipe A. Rodriguez, Jr., is
the owner and president of Free Flow.

Free Flow is a general residential and commercial construction
company specialized in the installation of water and sewer
lines.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
          ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
          9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
          Miami, FL 33156
          Telephone: (305) 446-1500
          Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
          E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com


GC SERVICES: Court Certifies Class Under FDCPA in "Alderman" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Robin L. Rosenberg grants the Plaintiff's Motion for
Class Certification filed in the lawsuit entitled JAMES ALDERMAN,
on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. GC
SERVICES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, a Delaware Limited Partnership,
Case No. 2:16-cv-14508-RLR (S.D. Fla.).

On November 14, 2016, Plaintiff James Alderman filed his initial
Class Action Complaint against Defendant GC Services Limited
Partnership.  The Plaintiff's First Amended Class Action
Complaint contains three counts for violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

In his Motion for Class Certification, the Plaintiff asked that
the Court certify a class defined as: (i) all persons with
addresses in the State of Florida (ii) to whom initial
communication letters that contained the language: "If you
dispute this balance or the validity of this debt, please let us
know in writing. If you do not dispute this debt in writing
within 30 days after you receive this letter, we will assume this
debt is valid." (iii) were mailed, delivered or caused to be
served by the Defendant (iv) that were not returned undeliverable
by the U.S. Post Office (v) in an attempt to collect a debt
incurred for personal, family, or household purposes owing to
Synchrony Bank (vi) during the one-year period prior to the
filing of the original Complaint in this action through the date
of certification (the "Class").

Judge Rosenberg also appoints James Alderman as class
representative, and appoints Leo W. Desmond, Esq., and Scott D.
Owens, Esq., as class counsel.

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


GEORGIA CHAMPIONSHIP: Hogan Seeks to Recover Minimum and OT Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
AMELLIA HOGAN, JAN EPHRIAM, and OLIVIA HAYNES, Individually and
on Behalf of All Those Similarly Situated v. GEORGIA CHAMPIONSHIP
BARBEQUE COMPANY, and ARICK WHITSON, Jointly and Severally, Case
No. 1:18-cv-00099-ELR (N.D. Ga., January 7, 2018), seeks to
recover alleged unpaid minimum wages and overtime wages, owed to
the Plaintiffs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Georgia Championship Barbecue Company is an active Georgia
corporation with its principal place of business located in
Stockbridge, Georgia, which is in Henry County.  Arick Whitson is
an owner, officer, director or managing agent of Georgia
Championship.  The Defendants are in the restaurant industry.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Brandon A. Thomas, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF BRANDON A. THOMAS, PC
          1800 Peachtree Street, N.W., Suite 300
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Telephone: (404) 343-2441
          Facsimile: (404) 352-5636
          E-mail: brandon@brandonthomaslaw.com


GOOGLE LLC: Moves to Deny Class Certification Bid in "Woods" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Google LLC asks the Court to deny with prejudice the motion for
class certification filed in the lawsuit styled RICK WOODS,
Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v.
GOOGLE LLC, Case No. 5:11-cv-01263-EJD (N.D. Cal.).

The Defendant contends that Rick Woods and his lawyers are
ineligible to represent any class in the lawsuit pursuant to Rule
23(a)(4) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.  After he
agreed to serve as named plaintiff in this case, Mr. Woods's
original lawyers, Taylor Law Partners, hired him as a partner and
gave him a substantial share in the firm, the Defendant points
out.

Rule 23(a)(4) mandates that a class representative and his
counsel be free of potential conflicts in order to adequately
represent the interests of the absent members of the putative
class.

Through this back-scratching arrangement, Mr. Woods himself
developed close relationships and financial entanglements with
his current lawyers, the Defendant contends.  The financial
benefits and incentives from those relationships put Mr. Woods at
odds with the absent members of the prospective class here, the
Defendant adds.

The Court will commence a hearing on June 28, 2018 at 9:00 a.m.,
to consider the Motion.

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

The Defendant is represented by:

          Edward D. Johnson, Esq.
          Donald M. Falk, Esq.
          Eric B. Evans, Esq.
          Sarah E. Reynolds, Esq.
          MAYER BROWN LLP
          Two Palo Alto Square, Suite 300
          3000 El Camino Real
          Palo Alto, CA 94306-2112
          Telephone: (650) 331-2000
          E-mail: wjohnson@mayerbrown.com
                  dfalk@mayerbrown.com
                  eevans@mayerbrown.com
                  sreynolds@mayerbrown.com

               - and -

          Daniel E. Jones, Esq.
          MAYER BROWN LLP
          1999 K Street N.W.
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 263-3000
          E-mail: djones@mayerbrown.com


GOSPEL FOR ASIA: Class Certification Sought in "Murphy" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit entitled Garland D. Murphy, III,
M.D. and Phyllis Murphy, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Gospel for Asia, Inc., Gospel for Asia-
International, K.P. Yohannan, Gisela Punnose, Daniel Punnose,
David Carroll, and Pat Emerick, Case No. 5:17-cv-05035-TLB (W.D.
Ark.), ask the Court to grant class certification pursuant to
Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Marc R. Stanley, Esq.
          Martin Woodward, Esq.
          STANLEY LAW GROUP
          6116 N. Central Expressway, Suite 1500
          Dallas, TX 75206
          Telephone: (214) 443-4300
          Facsimile: (214) 443-0358
          E-mail: marcstanley@mac.com
                  mwoodward@stanleylawgroup.com

               - and -

          Woodson W. Bassett III, Esq.
          James Graves, Esq.
          BASSETT LAW FIRM LLP
          221 North College Avenue
          P.O. Box 3618
          Fayetteville, AR 72702
          Telephone: (479) 521-9996
          Facsimile: (479) 521-9600
          E-mail: wbassett@bassettlawfirm.com
                  jgraves@bassettlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Tom Mills, Esq.
          MILLS AND WILLIAMS, LLP
          5910 N. Central Expressway, Suite 980
          Dallas, TX 75206
          Telephone: (214) 265-9265
          Facsimile: (214) 361-3167
          E-mail: tmills@millsandwilliams.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Harriet E. Miers, Esq.
          Robert T. Mowrey, Esq.
          Paul F. Schuster, Esq.
          Cynthia K. Timms, Esq.
          Matt Davis, Esq.
          LOCKE LORD LLP
          2200 Ross Avenue, Suite 2800
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: (214) 740-8000
          Facsimile: (214) 740-8800
          E-mail: hmiers@lockelord.com
                  rmowrey@lockelord.com
                  pschuster@lockelord.com
                  ctimms@lockelord.com
                  mdavis@lockelord.com

               - and -

          Steven Shults, Esq.
          John T. Adams, Esq.
          SHULTS & ADAMS LLP
          200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 1600
          Little Rock, AR 72201
          Telephone: (501) 375-2301
          Facsimile: (501) 375-6861
          E-mail: sshults@shultslaw.com
                  jadams@shultslaw.com


GREENWICH INSURANCE: Farella Braun Attorney Discusses Ruling
------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Hairston, Esq. -- ahairston@fbm.com -- of Farella Braun +
Martel LLP, in an article for JDSupra, report that fewer and
fewer companies in California have insurance coverage for "wage
and hour" claims, i.e. claims for failure to pay overtime,
failure to provide meal and rest periods, and failure to provide
accurate itemized wage statements.  Many times such coverage is
prohibitively expensive or simply unavailable.  Accordingly, if a
company in California has an Employment Practices Liability
policy, it may have a very broad "wage and hour" exclusion.

Even if your policy has such an exclusion, there still may be
hope. A recent unpublished decision by the Ninth Circuit in PHP
Insurance Services, Inc. v. Greenwich Insurance Company, Case No.
16-15083, is a reminder that a mere allegation of a covered
Employment Practices Wrongful Act may trigger a carrier's duty to
defend even if not asserted as a cause of action.

In PHP, plaintiffs filed a putative class action.  The gravamen
of the suit was misclassification, specifically the failure to
pay overtime because plaintiffs were misclassified as exempt
employees.  However, the complaint also included allegations that
defendant "purposefully [hired] recent immigrant workers to
improperly take advantage of their lack of knowledge regarding
labor and employment rights" and "required that some employees
change their Vietnamese names to American names."  The complaint
also alleged that defendant ran its business "as a taskmaster"
and that "employees who were not available to assist customers
were later berated by management for neglecting their duties."

On summary judgment, the trial court found that these allegations
reflected potential claims of discrimination and harassment, both
of which were expressly included within the policy's definition
of Employment Practices Wrongful Act.  The policy at issue stated
that the insurer had a duty to defend its insured against "any
covered Claim, even if the allegations in such Claim are
groundless, false or fraudulent."  Accordingly, the Court held
that it was "not concerned" with the merits of any claim based on
the covered allegations, but only that the insured had shown a
potential for coverage.  The carrier was unable to identify any
exclusion which would conclusive eliminate that potential.  As a
result, the trial court determined that the carrier had breached
its duty to defend and entered judgment in favor of the insured.

This case serves as a good reminder to always review complaints
carefully and not to assume there is no coverage just because the
formal causes of action fall within an exclusion.  A detailed
analysis of the allegations at issue can pay off in the form of a
complete defense of the action. [GN]


HARMONY GOLD: SA Miners' Silicosis Class Action Nears Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ed Stoddard, writing for Reuters, reports that a 9 billion rand
($755 million) class action suit brought against gold producers
in South Africa by miners suffering from fatal lung disease is
likely to be settled "within months", the chair of an industry
group said on Feb. 7.

The suit was launched almost six years ago on behalf of miners
suffering from silicosis, a fatal lung disease contacted by
inhaling silica dust in gold mines.

Almost all of the claimants are black miners from South Africa
and neighbouring countries such as Lesotho, whom critics say were
not provided with adequate protection during and even after
apartheid rule ended in 1994.

""Within a few months we should have a deal . . . There's been
great progress," Graham Briggs, chair of the Working Group on
Occupational Lung Disease, told Reuters ahead of a presentation
on the topic he was to give at the Mining Indaba 2018 conference
in Cape Town.

"The faster we settle, the faster we can pay compensation to
those who are entitled to it," he said.

The six companies involved are Harmony Gold, Gold Fields, African
Rainbow Minerals, Sibanye-Stillwater, AngloGold Ashanti and Anglo
American.

Anglo American no longer has gold assets but historically was a
bullion producer.

The six companies said late last year they were making provisions
for about 5 billion rand and Briggs said there was close to 4
billion rand in a compensation fund which companies have been
contributing to for years.

"Close to 9 billion rand will be paid to sufferers of silicosis
and occupational tuberculosis," he said.  Silicosis causes
shortness of breath, a persistent cough and chest pains, and
makes people highly susceptible to tuberculosis.

Mr. Graham said the looming settlement was a "compromise".

Gold companies have said there are limits to what they can pay in
the face of rising costs and often thin margins.

The logistics of the payouts will not be easy as many of the
affected miners are in remote rural regions.

"The biggest issue is finding these people so they can be paid,"
said Briggs, a former chief executive of Harmony.

He said the industry still not know exactly how many claimants
were entitled to compensation and estimates have run from tens of
thousands to hundreds of thousands. [GN]


HCC MEDICAL: Faces "Aliquo" Suit Alleging RICO Act Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------
MARK ALIQUO, KEVIN BRYANT and TIMOTHY LACY, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. HCC MEDICAL
INSURANCE SERVICES, LLC, HCC LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY and HEALTH
INSURANCE INNOVATIONS, INC., Case No. 1:18-cv-00018-TWP-MPB (S.D.
Ind., January 3, 2018), arises from alleged violations of the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

The lawsuit is assigned to Judge Tanya Walton Pratt and referred
to Magistrate Judge Matthew P. Brookman.

HCC Medical Insurance Services, LLC, offers a portfolio of
international group health, and domestic short-term and travel
medical insurance products to address the insurance needs of
travelers worldwide.  HCC Life Insurance Company provides
insurance solutions for the self-insured industry to protect
self-funded employers from potentially catastrophic losses.

Health Insurance Innovations, Inc., operates as a developer,
distributor, and administrator of cloud-based individual health
and family insurance plans, and supplemental products in the
United States.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          David F. Slade, Esq.
          CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM, PLLC
          519 W. 7th Street
          Little Rock, AR 72201
          Telephone: (501) 312-8500
          Facsimile: (501) 312-5805
          E-mail: hbates@cbplaw.com

               - and -

          Irwin B. Levin, Esq.
          Lynn A. Toops, Esq.
          Richard E. Shevitz, Esq.
          Vess Allen Miller, Esq.
          COHEN & MALAD LLP
          One Indiana Square, Suite 1400
          Indianapolis, IN 46204
          Telephone: (317) 636-6481
          Facsimile: (317) 636-2593
          E-mail: ilevin@cohenandmalad.com
                  ltoops@cohenandmalad.com
                  rshevitz@cohenandmalad.com
                  vmiller@cohenandmalad.com


HONEST COMPANY: Tucker Appeals Settlement Order in Marketing Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Objector Caroline Tucker filed an appeal from a District Court
order granting final approval of class settlement entered on
December 8, 2017, in the consolidated lawsuit titled In Re:
Honest Marketing Litigation, Case No. 16-cv-1125, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York (New York
City).

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuits
allege that Honest "falsely" and "deceptively" labeled its
products as natural and plant-based.  The lawsuits contend that
Honest's products actually contained synthetic and toxic
ingredients, even though advertising copy claimed "no harsh
chemicals, ever!"

The appellate case is captioned as In Re: Honest Marketing
Litigation, Case No. 18-57, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellees Manon Buonasera, On Behalf of Themselves and
all Others Similarly Situated, and Brad Buonasera, On Behalf of
Themselves and all Others Similarly Situated, are represented by:

          Adrienne D. McEntee, Esq.
          TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC
          936 North 34th Street
          Seattle, WA 98103
          Telephone: (206) 816-6603
          E-mail: amcentee@terrellmarshall.com

Plaintiff-Appellee Rose Marcotrigiano, On Behalf of Themselves
and all Others Similarly Situated, is represented by:

          Todd S. Garber, Esq.
          FINKELSTEIN, BLANKINSHIP, FREI-PEARSON & GARBER, LLP
          445 Hamilton Avenue
          White Plains, NY 10601
          Telephone: (914) 298-3283
          E-mail: tgarber@fbfglaw.com

Defendant-Appellee The Honest Company, Inc., is represented by:

          Jonathan P. Bach, Esq.
          COOLEY LLP
          1114 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 479-6470
          E-mail: jbach@cooley.com

Objector-Appellant Caroline Tucker is represented by:

          Stephen D. Field, Esq.
          STEPHEN D. FIELD, P.A.
          102 East 49th Street
          Hialeah, FL 33013
          Telephone: (305) 798-1335
          E-mail: sfield@field-law.com


HOTELS.COM LP: Overcharges Consumers for Tax & Fees, Church Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Church, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Hotels.com LP, Expedia, Inc., Travelscape, LLC,
Reservations Technologies, Inc., d/b/a Reservations.com, Case No.
2:18-cv-00018-RMG (D.S.C., January 3, 2018), alleges that the
Defendants are illegally overcharging "Tax & Fees."

According to the complaint, the Defendants charge consumers a
$14.99 service fee for each booking made on Reservations.com Web
site and illegally over-charge for taxes and local government
fees and retain the overcharge as additional revenue.

Reservations.com is a Delaware corporation with its principal
place of business located in Orlando, Florida.  Reservations.com
operates a booking Web site at http://www.reservations.com/that
sells hotel room reservations.

Expedia, Inc., is a publicly traded company headquartered in
Bellevue, Washington.  Hotels.com, LP, is a Texas limited
partnership, headquartered in Dallas, Texas.  Hotels.com is a
subsidiary of Expedia.  Travelscape, LLC does business as Expedia
Travel, and is headquartered in Las Vegas, Nevada.  Travelscape
is a subsidiary of Expedia.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ian W. Freeman, Esq.
          John P. Linton, Jr., Esq.
          WALKER, GRESSETTE, FREEMAN LINTON, LLC
          PO. Drawer 22167
          Charleston, SC 29413
          Telephone: (843) 727-2200
          E-mail: freeman@wgfllaw.com
                  linton@wgfllaw.com

               - and -

          James L. Ward, Jr., Esq.
          Ranee Saunders, Esq.
          MCGOWAN, HOOD & FELDER, LLC
          321 Wingo Way, Suite 103
          Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464
          Telephone: (843) 388-7202
          E-mail: jward@mcgowanhood.com
                  rsaunders@mcgowanhood.com


HYUNDAI MOTORS: K&L Gates Attorneys Discuss Class Action Ruling
---------------------------------------------------------------
David D. Christensen, Esq., and Matthew N. Lowe, Esq., of K&L
Gates, in an article for The National Law Review, wrote that the
Ninth Circuit recently clarified in In re Hyundai and Kia Fuel
Economy Litigation that district courts must carefully scrutinize
class settlements to ensure that they satisfy each of the
prerequisites of Rule 23, especially for Rule 23(b)(3) classes,
and that courts cannot substitute the fairness of a settlement
for the proper certification analysis.  Of particular note, the
court emphasized the need to analyze whether potential material
differences in the applicable states' laws preclude certification
of a nationwide settlement class.

The Hyundai decision arose from multidistrict litigation where
the plaintiffs brought state law claims based upon the advertised
fuel efficiency of the defendants' automobiles.  Defendants and
most plaintiffs agreed to settle the litigation by means of a
nationwide settlement class.  One group of plaintiffs, however,
opposed certification of the settlement class and argued, among
other things, that material differences in the applicable states'
laws precluded certification.  The district court nonetheless
certified the settlement class holding that even if the
variations in state law posed an issue if the case were to go to
trial, "such an analysis was not warranted in the settlement
context."

On appeal, the Ninth Circuit reversed, finding that the district
court was "wrong as a matter of law" by not conducting a choice
of law analysis and by not "rigorously analyz[ing] potential
differences in state consumer protection laws" before certifying
the nationwide settlement class.  Specifically, the Ninth Circuit
held that analyzing material variations in applicable states'
laws was necessary to assess Rule 23(b)(3)'s requirement that
common questions predominate over individual ones and that this
requirement "preexists any settlement."  Stated differently, the
potential impact of material variations in states' laws was not
simply a trial "management issue[]" that could be ignored for
purposes of a settlement class but instead is an issue that could
directly impact the predominance requirement, which must be met
before certifying any class, in the settlement context or
otherwise.

To determine whether "predominance is defeated by variations in
state law," the Ninth Circuit set forth a multistep process,
namely: (1) the "proponent must establish that the forum state's
substantive law may be constitutionally applied to the claims of
a nationwide class"; (2) "[i]f the forum state's law meets this
requirement, the district court must use the forum state's choice
of law rules to determine whether the forum state's law or the
law of multiple states apply to the claims"; and (3) "if class
claims will require adjudication under the laws of multiple
states, then the court must determine whether common questions
will predominate over individual issues and whether litigation of
a nationwide class may be managed fairly and efficiently."  The
Ninth Circuit confirmed that the proponent of class certification
-- typically the plaintiff -- bears that burden of "demonstrating
through evidentiary proof that the laws of the affected states do
not vary in material ways that preclude a finding that common
legal issues predominate."

The Ninth Circuit also rejected the "mistaken assumption that the
standard for certification [i]s lessened in the settlement
context" and admonished district courts that they "must give
'undiluted, even heightened, attention in the settlement
context.'"  The court further noted that the test for
certification of a settlement class is not whether the settlement
is "fair."   Rather, the test is whether, after conducting a
rigorous analysis, the requirements of Rule 23(a) and (b) are
met.   This can be a difficult burden to satisfy, especially in a
multistate class action. Indeed, as the dissent writes, "the
majority . . . deals a major blow to multistate class actions."

The Ninth Circuit's Hyundai decision may act as a double-edged
sword for companies defending nationwide class actions.  On the
one hand, Hyundai imposes a heightened burden on plaintiffs to
obtain certification of a nationwide class.  On the other hand,
the decision may create an obstacle to obtaining final approval
of nationwide class settlements (and also encourage and empower
objectors), thereby impeding a defendant's ability to reach a
global resolution of claims.

The settling parties in Hyundai have indicated that they intend
to petition for en banc review, and thus, the impact of the
panel's split decision is uncertain.  The National Law Review
will continue to monitor the case and report on additional
developments. [GN]


ICQ SEARCH: Gattoni Sues Over Fair Debt Collection Act Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Brittani Gattoni, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. I.C.Q. Search and Recovery, Case No. 5:18-
cv-00031-JGB-KK (C.D. Cal., January 5, 2018), alleges violations
of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

I.C.Q. Search and Recovery is a third party debt collection and
full service skip tracing agency providing service with the
latest technology and collection strategy.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan Aaron Stieglitz, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JONATHAN A. STIEGLITZ
          11845 West Olympic Boulevard, Suite 800
          Los Angeles, CA 90064
          Telephone: (323) 979-2063
          Facsimile: (323) 488-6748
          E-mail: jonathan.a.stieglitz@gmail.com

               - and -

          Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
          MARCUS AND ZELMAN LLC
          1500 Allaire Avenue, Suite 101
          Ocean, NJ 07712
          Telephone: (845) 367-7146
          Facsimile: (732) 298-6256
          E-mail: yzelman@marcuszelman.com


IGNYTA INC: "Franchi" Class Suit Challenges Sale to Roche
---------------------------------------------------------
ANTHONY FRANCHI, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. IGNYTA, INC., JONATHAN E. LIM, JAMES
BRISTOL, ALEX CASDIN, HEINER DREISMANN, JAMES FREDDO, STEVE
HOERTER, ROCHE HOLDINGS, INC., and ABINGDON ACQUISITION CORP.,
Case No. 3:18-cv-00131-DMS-JLB (S.D. Cal., January 19, 2018),
stems from a proposed transaction, pursuant to which Ignyta will
be acquired by Roche and its wholly-owned subsidiary, Abingdon.

On December 21, 2017, Ignyta's Board of Directors caused the
Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with Roche.
Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, Merger Sub
commenced a tender offer, currently set to expire at midnight,
Eastern Time, on February 7, 2018, to acquire all of Ignyta's
outstanding common stock for $27 in cash for each share of Ignyta
common stock.

If the Tender Offer is completed, Merger Sub will be merged with
and into the Company, and the Company will continue as the
surviving corporation as a wholly owned subsidiary of Parent.

Ignyta is a Delaware corporation and maintains its principal
executive offices in San Diego, California.  The Individual
Defendants are directors and officers of the Company.

Ignyta is a biotechnology company focused on precision medicine
in oncology.  The Company's goal is not just to shrink tumors,
but to eradicate residual disease in precisely defined patient
populations through their integrated therapeutic ("Rx") and
companion diagnostic ("Dx") strategy for treating cancer
patients.

Roche Holdings, Inc., Parent is a Delaware corporation and a
party to the Merger Agreement.  Abingdon Acquisition Corp. is a
Delaware corporation, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Parent, and a
party to the Merger Agreement.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joel E. Elkins, Esq.
          WEISSLAW LLP
          9107 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 450
          Beverly Hills, CA 90210
          Telephone: (310) 208-2800
          Facsimile: (310) 209-2348
          E-mail: jelkins@weisslawllp.com

               - and -

          Brian D. Long, Esq.
          Gina M. Serra, Esq.
          RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
          300 Delaware Ave., Suite 1220
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 295-5310
          Facsimile: (302) 654-7530
          E-mail: bdl@rigrodskylong.com
                  gms@rl-legal.com


INDEPENDENT ADOPTION: Faces Class Action Following Shutdown
-----------------------------------------------------------
Adam Winer, writing for ABC Action News, reports that today,
Wyatt is teething and learning to walk; normal activities for a
9-month old boy.

But it wasn't that long ago that his future was in doubt: the
Independent Adoption Center, a national organization that had
coordinated hundreds of adoptions over three decades, had
suddenly, without warning, closed in January of 2017.

Rebecca LeClair of Wimauma was scheduled to adopt Wyatt in May of
2017.

"The stress of all this, the birth mom started having
contractions in mid-January," explains Ms. LeClair.  "It was very
serious.  In the two weeks leading up to his birth she was in the
hospital about 3 times."

"We were basically told from our medical staff that reviewed her
medical records to be prepared for a baby born as early as 28
weeks," adds Ms. LeClair.

Thankfully baby Wyatt was born healthy, and the LeClairs were
still able to jump through all the legal hoops to adopt him
thanks in part to a local adoption counselor.

"To have an agency close unexpectedly can really be devastating
and leave families unsure of what to do next," says Audra Coons,
a social worker and co-founder of Foundations for Growth.

Knowing that Rebecca and Corey LeClair were scrambling to get
their paperwork in order after the sudden closing of IAC, Coons
jumped in to help, helping conduct legally-required "home
studies" and promising to do family counseling, as well as
helping with legal paperwork.

"With Rebecca and Corey they were just, from the time that I met
them, they were go-getters.  They knew what they wanted.  You
could tell their main motivation was to build their family,"
Ms. Coons tells ABC Action News.

"We're here to guide them, hold their hand through the process,"
adds Ms.  Coons.

Thanks to Foundations for Growth, the LeClairs were able to bring
Wyatt into their Wimauma home on Mother's Day, 2017, and
officially adopted him in time for Thanksgiving.

As nice as it all sounds today, Ms. LeClair says she would
definitely do things differently if she could have.

For starters, the LeClairs are now part of a multi-million dollar
class-action lawsuit against IAC and their insurance company to
get back the cost of their fees they paid.

They also think it might have been better just to do the work
themselves.

"If we knew what we know now we would have never signed with an
agency," Ms. LeClair says to ABC Action News.  "You don't need an
agency.  It's just some agencies pack everything together so you
have one go-to person."

Instead, says Ms. Leclair, she would have done what she ended up
having to do in the first place: find a birth mother on their
own, find an adoption attorney on their own, and find an adoption
counselor, like Ms. Coons, on their own. [GN]


INKAHOLIK TATTOOS: Accused by "Donayre" Suit of Violating TCPA
--------------------------------------------------------------
JULIANA C. DONAYRE, individually, and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. INKAHOLIK TATTOOS, INC., a Florida
corporation, Case No. 0:18-cv-60106-CMA (S.D. Fla., January 18,
2018), arises, in part, from the Defendant's alleged willful and
knowing violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The TCPA prohibits the use of an automatic telephone dialing
system to send text messages to cell phones and other mobile
services subject to two exceptions: (1) calls made for emergency
purposes; and (2) calls made with the prior express consent of
the called party.

Inkaholik Tattoos, Inc., is a Florida corporation whose principal
address is at 8367 SW 40th St., in Miami, Florida.  The Defendant
operates tattoo parlors.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Karl C. Gonzalez, Esq.
          KARL C. GONZALEZ, PLLC
          17113 Miramar Parkway, Suite #152
          Miramar, FL 33027
          Telephone: (833) 527-5529
          E-mail: karl@karlgonzalez.com

               - and -

          Scott D. Owens, Esq.
          SCOTT D. OWENS, P.A.
          3800 S. Ocean Dr., Suite 235
          Hollywood, FL 33019
          Telephone: (954) 589-0588
          Facsimile: (954) 337-0666
          E-mail: scott@scottdowens.com


INMATE SERVICES: "Peters" Suit Transferred to Arkansas Court
------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Ohio issued an Opinion and Order granting Defendant's Motion to
Transfer the case captioned MICHAEL PETERS, Plaintiff, v. INMATE
SERVICES CORP., Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-1660 (N.D. Ohio), to
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Arkansas (Jonesboro).

Plaintiff Peters alleges that Defendant Inmate Services took
custody of him pursuant to an extradition order and then
circuitously transported him handcuffed for five straight days
through several states. During that time, Defendant allegedly
failed to provide Peters a shower, a bed, adequate physical
exercise, sufficient breaks, medical care, or opportunities to
attend to basic hygiene. Peters brings claims for negligence and
negligent infliction of emotional distress.

The first-to-file rule is a well-established doctrine that
encourages comity among federal courts of equal rank. The rule
provides that when actions involving nearly identical parties and
issues have been filed in two different district courts, the
court in which the first suit was filed should generally proceed
to judgment.

A similar case, the Stearns case, was filed on November 15, 2016.
The instant case was filed in state court on July 5, 2017, and
then removed to the Ohio District Court on August 8, 2017.

Plaintiff Peters is likely to be a member of at least one of the
Stearns putative subclasses.  Peters alleges that Defendant
Inmate Services held him for five straight days between July 4
and July 9, 2015 under the relevant poor conditions. Stearns is
also likely to be a member of a putative class in this case.
Stearns alleges that Defendant took custody of him and
transported him continuously for more than 200 hours.

While this case's proposed class would include additional
members, those transported between 24 and 48 hours, who are not
plaintiffs in the Stearns action, what matters for the Court's
purposes is that Peters and Stearns would be parties to both
actions.

While the claims in both cases are not identical, both set of
claims are predicated on similar facts. In particular, the
negligence claims in this case and the constitutional claims in
Stearnsboth depend on the severity of the conditions in which
Defendant Inmate Services transported Stearns and Peters, and the
putative class members. Both cases seek declaratory and
injunctive relief, in addition to damages. Thus, the issues in
both cases are substantially similar.

Lastly, the Court finds no equitable considerations that would
stop it from applying the first-to-file rule.  Deviations from
the first-to-file rule should be the exception, rather than the
norm.

It is true that Plaintiff Peters, an Ohio resident, may be
inconvenienced by having to litigate this case in Arkansas.
However, Defendant has offered to mitigate this inconvenience by
agreeing to depose Peters in the Northern District of Ohio.
Given this offer and the judicial resources that will be saved by
not litigating substantially similar cases in two different
courts, the Court finds the equities weigh more in favor of
transfer.

Plaintiff Peters' report does not change the Court's conclusion.
First, it is unclear how Plaintiff's requested discovery would
affect analysis of the first-to-file factors. Analysis of those
factors here primarily relies on the pleadings. Second, Peters
does not explain how the requested discovery concerns any of the
equitable considerations.

A full-text copy of the District Court's January 11, 2018 Opinion
and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/ydxxrbaq from
Leagle.com.

Michael Peters, Plaintiff, represented by John P. Hurst --
pwf@pwfco.com -- Bashein & Bashein, John J. Spellacy ,Paul W.
Flowers & W. Craig Bashein -- cbashein@basheinlaw.com -- Bashein
& Bashein.

Inmate Services Corp., Defendant, represented by David J.
Fagnilli djfagnilli@mdwcg.com, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner,
Coleman & Goggin, John T. McLandrich -- jtm@mrrlaw.com --
Mazanec, Raskin & Ryder, Terence L. Williams --
twilliams@mrrlaw.com -- Mazanec, Raskin & Ryder, Todd M. Raskin -
- traskin@mrrlaw.com -- Mazanec, Raskin & Ryder & Andrew M. Wargo
-- amwargo@mdwcg.com -- Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman &
Goggin.


INTEL CORPORATION: Accused by "Reis" of Selling Defective CPUs
--------------------------------------------------------------
RICHARD REIS and ZACHARY FINER, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. INTEL CORPORATION, Case No. 5:18-cv-
00074-SVK (N.D. Cal., January 4, 2018), alleges that Intel
breached its implied warranties by selling the Plaintiffs and
Class members defective Intel central processing units.

The Defect renders the Intel CPUs unmerchantable and unfit for
their ordinary or particular use or purpose, the Plaintiffs
contend.  They assert that Intel has refused to recall, repair or
replace, free of charge, all Intel CPUs or any of their defective
component parts or refund the prices paid for such CPUs.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Mark M. Abramowitz, Esq.
          DICELLO LEVITT & CASEY LLC
          7556 Mentor Avenue
          Mentor, OH 44060
          Telephone: (440) 953-8888
          Facsimile: (440) 953-9138
          E-mail: mabramowitz@dlcfirm.com

               - and -

          W. Daniel "Dee" Miles, III, Esq.
          Leslie Pescia, Esq.
          BEASLEY ALLEN CROW METHVIN
          PORTIS & MILES, P.C.
          218 Commerce Street
          Montgomery, AL 36103
          Telephone: (334) 269-2343
          E-mail: Dee.Miles@beasleyallen.com
                  Leslie.Pescia@beasleyallen.com


INTEL CORPORATION: Sued by Jones Over Defective Core Processors
---------------------------------------------------------------
JASON JONES, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. INTEL CORPORATION, Case No. 1:18-cv-00029-TWP-MPB
(S.D. Ind., January 4, 2018), is brought on behalf of all persons
in the state of Indiana, who purchased a defective Intel core
processor ("CPUs").

Intel's x86-64x CPUs suffer from a security defect, which causes
the CPUs to be exposed to troubling security vulnerabilities by
allowing potential access to extremely secure kernel data (the
"Defect"), Mr. Jones alleges.  He contends that the only way to
"patch" this vulnerability requires extensive changes to the root
levels of the Operating System, which will dramatically reduce
performance of the CPU.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Irwin B. Levin, Esq.
          Richard E. Shevitz, Esq.
          Vess A. Miller, Esq.
          Lynn A. Toops, Esq.
          COHEN & MALAD, LLP
          One Indiana Square, Suite 1400
          Indianapolis, IN 46204
          Telephone: (317) 636-6481
          Facsimile: (317) 636-2495
          E-mail: ilevin@cohenandmalad.com
                  rshevitz@cohenandmalad.com
                  vmiller@cohenandmalad.com
                  ltoops@cohenandmalad.com


J. CREW: "Parker" Suit Remanded to Illinois State Court
-------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
issued an Order granting Defendant's Motion to Transfer the case
captioned ANITA PARKER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. J. CREW GRP., INC., J. CREW
LLC, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Civ. No.
2:17-cv-1214 (D.N.J.), to the Circuit Court of Cook County,
Illinois, Chancery Division.

Plaintiff sought remand while Defendants filed a motion to
dismiss or alternatively to transfer the case here under 28
U.S.C. Section 1404(a).

Plaintiff filed this putative class action in an Illinois state
court asserting violations of the Fair and Accurate Credit
Transactions Act (FACTA) amendment to the Fair Credit Reporting
Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 168, when J. Crew Group, Inc., and J. Crew
LLC (Defendants) printed more than the last five digits of
Plaintiff's credit card number on transaction receipts. Defendant
J. Crew Group, Inc., removed this action to an Illinois federal
district court.

This case presents a unique circumstance since the Court would
remand the matter to a state court outside its jurisdiction.
Nevertheless, there is persuasive Third Circuit case law showing
that a transferee court is deemed to inherit all the authority of
a transferor court. Now exercising the equivalent powers of the
transferor Northern District of Illinois Court where removal took
place, the Court remands the case to where it originated -- the
Illinois state court.  Thus, the Court remands the case to the
Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, Chancery Division.

A full-text copy of the District Court's January 11, 2018 Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/yb3cz9mc from Leagle.com.

ANITA PARKER, Plaintiff, represented by WILLIAM CLAWGES MORLOK --
wmorlok@swartzcampbell.com -- SWARTZ CAMPBELL LLC & ROBERT A.
CLIFFORD, CLIFFORD LAW OFFICES, 120 North LaSalle Street, 31st
floor, Chicago, IL 60602

J. CREW GROUP, INC., Defendant, represented by STEVEN ROBERT
MARINO  -- steven.marino@dlapiper.com -- DLA PIPER LLP, ANDREW O.
BUNN -- andrew.bunn@dlapiper.com -- DLA PIPER, LLP, pro hac vice
& Steven R. Marino -- steven.marino@dlapiper.com -- DLA Piper
LLP, pro hac vice.


JP MORGAN CHASE: Childress Seeks to Certify Class of Obligors
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit titled GARY AND ANNE CHILDRESS,
RUSSELL AND SUZANNAH HO, and MICHAEL CLIFFORD, on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated v. JP MORGAN CHASE &
CO., JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., CHASE BANK USA, N.A. and CHASE
BANKCARD SERVICES, INC., Case No. 5:16-cv-00298-BO (E.D.N.C.),
move the Court for an order certifying this class:

     All persons identified in Defendants' records as obligors or
     guarantors on an obligation or account (excluding home
     loans) who, at any time on or after September 11, 2001,
     received and/or may have been eligible to receive additional
     compensation related to military reduced interest rate
     benefits from Defendants, but excluding persons who have
     executed a release of the rights claimed in this action.

The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to designate them as
Representative Plaintiffs for the Class, and to appoint Smith &
Lowney, PLLC, as Class Counsel and Shanahan McDougal, PLLC, as
Local Class Counsel.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=ESc3Zh8D

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Kieran J. Shanahan, Esq.
          Brandon S. Neuman, Esq.
          Christopher S. Battles, Esq.
          SHANAHAN MCDOUGAL, PLLC
          128 E. Hargett Street, Third Floor
          Raleigh, NC 27601
          Telephone: (919) 856-9494
          Facsimile: (919) 856-9499
          E-mail: kieran@shanahanmcdougal.com
                  bneuman@shanahanmcdougal.com
                  cbattles@shanahanmcdougal.com

               - and -

          Knoll D. Lowney, Esq.
          SMITH & LOWNEY PLLC
          2317 E. John Street
          Seattle, WA 98112
          Telephone: (206) 860-2883
          Facsimile: (206) 860-4187
          E-mail: knoll@smithandlowney.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Nathan B. Atkinson, Esq.
          SPILMAN THOMAS & BATTLE, PLLC
          110 Oakwood Drive, Suite 500
          Winston-Salem, NC 27103
          Telephone: (336) 725-4710
          Facsimile: (336) 725-4476
          E-mail: natkinson@spilmanlaw.com

               - and -

          Alan E. Schoenfeld, Esq.
          Fiona J. Kaye, Esq.
          WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP
          7 World Trade Center
          250 Greenwich Street
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 937-7294
          Facsimile: (212) 230-8888
          E-mail: alan.schoenfeld@wilmerhale.com
                  fiona.kaye@wilmerhale.com


LEFT RIGHT LLC: Ednie Seeks to Recover Minimum and Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
D. EDNIE AND A. FLORES, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. LEFT RIGHT, LLC, a Delaware Limited
Liability Company, BANKS TARVER, an individual, KEN DRUCKERMAN,
an individual, and DOE ONE through and including DOE TEN, Case
No. 2:18-cv-00519 (C.D. Cal., January 19, 2018), seeks to recover
alleged unpaid minimum wages and overtime compensation under the
California Labor Code.

Left Right, LLC, is a Delaware Limited Liability Company, which
conducted business within the County of Los Angeles, California.
Left/Right creates television and film projects that illuminate
the drama and comedy of real life.

Left Right employed Ednie and Flores for the production History
of Science Fiction - LR (the "Production").  The Individual
Defendants are the co-presidents of Left Right.  The Plaintiffs
are unaware of the true names, identities or capacities of the
Doe Defendants.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


LEGACY LAND: Bradley Files Suit Over Bouncing Checks
----------------------------------------------------
JAMES T. BRADLEY and GARRET LAMBERT, In their own right and on
behalf of others Similarly situated v. LEGACY LAND MANAGEMENT,
INC., Case No. 2:18-cv-00007 (S.D.W. Va., January 3, 2018), is
brought on behalf of a class of all West Virginia residents
against whom wages were due under the West Virginia Wage Payment
and Collection Act and Fair Labor Standards Act, who were paid by
a check drawn on an account that, at the time the checks were
written, did not have sufficient funds to cover all of the checks
written on the account.

Legacy Land Management, Inc., is a West Virginia Corporation
licensed to do business in West Virginia and doing business as
business in West Virginia.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Anthony J. Majestro, Esq.
          POWELL & MAJESTRO, PLLC
          405 Capitol Street, Suite P1200
          Charleston, WV 25301
          Telephone: (304) 346-2889
          Facsimile: (304) 346-2895
          E-mail: amajestro@powellmajestro.com

               - and -

          Anthony M. Salvatore, Esq.
          HEWITT & SALVATORE, PLLC
          204 North Court Street
          Fayetteville, WV 25840
          Telephone: (304) 574-0272
          Facsimile: (304) 574-0273
          E-mail: asalvatore@hewittsalvatore.com


LONG ISLAND GUTTERS: Peraza Seeks to Recover Overtime Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE PERAZA, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. GEORGE DIMOU, KEVIN (last name unknown) and ABC CORP. d/b/a
LONG ISLAND GUTTERS, and GUTTERS OF LONG ISLAND, INC., Case No.
2:18-cv-00042-JS-ARL (E.D.N.Y., January 3, 2018), seeks to
recover from the Defendants alleged unpaid wages for overtime
work performed, and damages, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the New York Labor Law.

ABC CORP. d/b/a LONG ISLAND GUTTERS is a New York Corporation
whose principal place of business is located in Deer Park, New
York.  GUTTERS OF LONG ISLAND, INC., is a New York Corporation
headquartered in Deer Park.  The Defendant is a manufacturer,
distributor, and installer of residential and commercial gutter
systems who also do construction, siding and roofing work.
George Dimou is the Chief Executive Officer or a corporate
officer of the Corporate Defendants, while Kevin is the
Manager.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Marcus Monteiro, Esq.
          MONTEIRO & FISHMAN LLP
          91 N. Franklin Street, Suite 108
          Hempstead, NY 11550
          Telephone: (516) 280-4600
          Facsimile: (516) 280-4530
          E-mail: mmonteiro@mflawny.com


LOS ANGELES MATTRESS: "Santos" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JENNIFER CASTILLO SANTOS, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. LOS ANGELES MATTRESS PLUS, INC., a
California corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case
No. BC689084 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., January 4,
2018), seeks to recover unpaid wages, compensatory damages and
related relief arising from the Defendants' alleged violations of
the California Labor Code, Industrial Welfare Commission Order
No. 7-2001, and the Business and Professions Code.

Los Angeles Mattress is a corporation organized and existing
under the laws of California and a citizen of California.  Los
Angeles Mattress does business in the furniture stores industry.
The Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names, capacities,
relationships, and extents of participation in the conduct
alleged herein, of the Doe Defendants.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David G. Spivak, Esq.
          Sehyung "Logan" Park, Esq.
          THE SPIVAK LAW FIRM
          16530 Ventura Blvd., Suite 312
          Encino, CA 91436
          Telephone (818) 582-3086
          Facsimile (818) 582-2561
          E-mail: david@spivaklaw.com
                  logan@spivaklaw.com

               - and -

          Afshin Mozaffari, Esq.
          MOZAFFARI LAW
          1101 Montana Avenue, Suite D
          Santa Monica, CA 90403
          Telephone: (323) 696-0702
          Facsimile: (323) 546-3466
          E-mail: amozaffari@mozaffarilaw.com


LTD FINANCIAL: Seeks Third Circuit Review of Ruling in "Bordeaux"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Advantage Assets II Inc. and LTD Financial Services LP
filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit styled Roberta
Bordeaux v. LTD Financial Services LP, et al., Case No. 2-16-cv-
0243, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Jan. 31, 2018, the
District Court issued an Opinion granting Class Certification in
the case.

Ms. Bordeaux, a New Jersey resident, owed Citibank a past-due
credit card debt on her account, which it then sold to Advantage
Assets.  LTD Financial, the debt collecting branch of Advantage
Assets, mailed Bordeaux a letter stating the amount due, offering
three different settlement options with payment plans.  The
letter cautioned that discharge of the debt might have tax
consequences.  The Plaintiff alleged violations of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

The appellate case is captioned as Roberta Bordeaux v. LTD
Financial Services LP, et al., Case No. 18-8005, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Respondent ROBERTA BORDEAUX, on behalf of herself and
those similarly situated, is represented by:

          Yongmoon Kim, Esq.
          KIM LAW FIRM
          411 Hackensack Avenue
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Telephone: (201) 273-7117
          E-mail: ykim@kimlf.com

               - and -

          Philip D. Stern, Esq.
          Andrew T. Thomasson, Esq.
          STERN THOMASSON LLP
          150 Morris Avenue, 2nd Floor
          Springfield, NJ 07081
          Telephone: (973) 379-7500
          Facsimile: (973) 532-0866
          E-mail: philip@sternthomasson.com
                  andrew@sternthomasson.com

Defendants-Petitioners LTD FINANCIAL SERVICES LP and ADVANTAGE
ASSETS II INC. are represented by:

          Monica M. Littman, Esq.
          Richard J. Perr, Esq.
          FINEMAN KREKSTEIN & HARRIS P.C.
          Ten Penn Center
          1801 Market Street, Suite 1100
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 893-8749
          Facsimile: (215) 893-8719
          E-mail: mlittman@finemanlawfirm.com
                  rperr@finemanlawfirm.com


MACA RESTAURANT: "Cabrera" Suit Alleges FLSA Violations
-------------------------------------------------------
Adrian Cabrera, Eligio Santiago, and Luswing Hernan Maldonado,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
MACA Restaurant, Corp. dba Firenze Ristorante, EMDC 2nd Avenue
Corp. dba Firenze Ristorante, and Manuel Caisaguano, Case No.
1:18-cv-00433 (S.D. N.Y., January 17, 2018), seeks to recover
unpaid minimum wage and overtime premiums pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiffs are former bussers, runners, porters, food preps,
line cooks, and delivery employees at Defendants' Italian
restaurant located in the Yorkville neighborhood of Manhattan.

Defendant MACA Restaurant Corp. is an active New York Corporation
doing business as "Firenze Ristorante" with its principal place
of business at 1555 Second Avenue, New York, NY 10028. Defendants
have been in the food service business.

The Individual Defendant has owned, operated, and managed Firenze
Ristorante since it opened in its prior location in or around
1981 through the present in its current location at 1555 Second
Avenue, New York, New York 10028. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Brent E. Pelton, Esq.
      Taylor B. Graham, Esq.
      PELTON GRAHAM LLC
      111 Broadway, Suite 1503
      New York, NY 10006
      Tel: (212) 385-9700
      Fax: (212) 385-0800
      E-mail: pelton@peltongraham.com


MARATHON PETROLEUM: Yates Appeals Order in ERISA Suit to 6th Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Jefferey Yates filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in his lawsuit titled Jefferey Yates v. Rodney Nichols,
et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-01389, in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Ohio at Toledo.

The appellate case is captioned as Jefferey Yates v. Rodney
Nichols, et al., Case No. 18-3075, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter, the District Court
granted the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the case for Mr. Yates'
failure to state a claim.

The breach-of-fiduciary-duty and putative class-action case
arises under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

Marathon Petroleum spun off from its parent company, Marathon
Oil.  When Marathon Petroleum established its employee-retirement
plan, Defendants plan administrator Rodney Nichols, the plan's
investment committee, and members of that committee allegedly
placed $88 million in plan assets into a fund holding only
Marathon Oil common stock.  Participants could then hold the
stock or sell it and invest the proceeds in a different fund, but
they could not purchase additional Marathon Oil stock.

At the time of the plan's creation, Marathon Oil stock traded at
$33.28 per share.  Within months of the spin-off, shares had
dropped below $20; by mid-June 2017, Marathon Oil's stock was
worth less than $13 per share.

Plaintiff Jefferey Yates, a former Marathon Petroleum employee
and plan participant, brought this suit in June 2017, on behalf
of himself, the Marathon Petroleum Thrift Plan, and all similarly
situated plan participants.  He raises essentially three claims
for breaches of the defendants' fiduciary duties and a claim of
co-fiduciary liability.

The Plaintiff first alleges that the Defendants breached their
duty of prudence by permitting participants to invest in Marathon
Oil common stock.  According to the Plaintiff, the Marathon Oil
stock was excessively risky and thus an imprudent option for an
employee-retirement plan.

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

   -- Appellant brief is due on February 28, 2018;

   -- Appellee brief is due on March 30, 2018; and

   -- A Telephone Mediation conference was scheduled for
      February 13, 2018, at 10:00 a.m. (ET) with Rod McFaull.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant JEFFEREY YATES, On behalf of the Marathon
Petroleum Thrift Plan and a class of others similarly situated,
is represented by:

          Robert A. Izard, Jr.
          IZARD, KINDALL & RAABE
          29 S. Main Street, Suite 215
          West Hartford, CT 06107
          Telephone: (860) 493-6292
          E-mail: rizard@ikrlaw.com

Defendants-Appellees RODNEY P. NICHOLS, Administrator for
Marathon Petroleum Thrift Plan, MARATHON PETROLEUM CORPORATION
SAVINGS PLAN INVESTMENT COMMITTEE, TIMOTHY GRIFFITH, TOM
KACZYNSKI and JOHN DOES, 1-10, are represented by:

          Thomas P. Dillon, Esq.
          SHUMAKER, LOOP & KENDRICK
          1000 Jackson Street
          Toledo, OH 43604-5573
          Telephone: (419) 241-9000
          E-mail: tdillon@slk-law.com

               - and -

          Eric S. Mattson, Esq.
          SIDLEY AUSTIN
          1 S. Dearborn Street
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 853-7000
          E-mail: emattson@sidley.com


MDL 2804: Lewis County to Join Opioid Crisis Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
WWNYTV.com reports that Lewis County is the latest to join a
class-action lawsuit against major manufacturers of opioid drugs.

It's a change in direction for lawmakers who had previously
declined to participate.

More than a dozen New York counties, including St. Lawrence
County, are working with law firm Simmons, Hanly, Conroy, P.C.

Lewis County Legislature Chair Larry Dolhof says the county wants
"to try to recover some of the costs that the county incurs with
the expense of the opioid addiction problem."

While lawmakers say there isn't one specific cause of the drug
problem, they believe pharmaceutical companies deliberately push
for the overuse of these highly addictive drugs.

"I don't see it as the manufacturers in a position of taking full
blame," Mr. Dolhof said, "but they certainly do share in the
responsibility."

Legislator Jerry King wants to make sure if the counties win the
lawsuit, the money won't just be put into the general fund, but
go directly towards combating the opioid crisis.

"We need to make sure we get the money where it's going to help
the people," Mr. King said.

The lawsuit won't cost the counties anything unless there's a
settlement.  The law firm will get 25 percent of any winnings.
[GN]


MDL 2804: Marion County Taps Law Firms to Review Legal Options
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Ross, writing for Ocala, reports that the Marion County
Commission on Feb. 6 retained a collection of law firms to review
county government's potential courses of action concerning the
opioids crisis.

States and municipalities nationwide have been filing lawsuits
against pharmaceutical companies, doctors and other health care
players.  The goal, in general, is for governments to recoup
losses incurred because of improper actions that led to drug
addiction, abuse, injury and death.

The commission unanimously accepted County Attorney Guy Minter's
recommendation to retain West Palm Beach-based The Romano Law
Group; Maryland-based Schochor, Federico and Staton, P.A.;
Washington, D.C.-based Pires Cooley; and Cleveland-based
Spangenberg, Shibley & Liber, LLP.

This doesn't mean a lawsuit or suits definitely will be filed; it
just means the firms will review Marion County's legal position
and represent its interests.

Another firm that was courting the county's business had
emphasized multi-district litigation in federal court.  That
would make Marion County one of hundreds or thousands of
plaintiffs in class-action suits.  Also, that firm has targeted
opioid manufacturers and distributors.

Romano is more inclined to take action in state court and
consider local defendants, such as pharmacy retailers or medical
providers who engaged in improper activities.

"If we've got people creating this problem right here in Marion
County, we should do something that is going to impact those
people," Minter told commissioners.  "We're trying to deter the
continuation of this."

For any number of legal reasons, Marion County might find itself
in federal court, anyway. If that happens, Romano's affiliated
counsel are positioned to handle such matters.  Also, Minter
noted, Gainesville attorney Rod Smith is working with Romano, "so
we would have somebody close by who we could deal with."

As for the finances: The Romano team has a contingent fee
arrangement.  The team pays all costs, and thus Marion County has
no exposure.  The team has a tiered fee system that entitles it
to a percentage (as little as 10 percent and as much as 25
percent) of any judgment or settlement.

Such a structure "is in the ballpark of any of these firms" that
handle such work, and in many cases is better, Minter said.

Marion County has been hit hard by the opioids crisis. Local law
officers are equipped with Narcan for emergency use.  Ocala's
mayor has established a task force to study the problem.  On
Feb. 6, the Ocala Police Department announced a program where
officers will transport people seeking help to The Centers or
Perspectives, another treatment facility. (See story, page A1.)

Resident Jack Stackman, a regular attendee and speaker at
commission meetings, objected to Minter's discussion being a
"walk-on" item at the Feb. 6 commission meeting.  In other words,
it wasn't specifically noted on the meeting agenda, and thus the
public did not have prior notice that the issue was going to be
discussed.

"There was no reason for this to be a walk-on," he told
commissioners. [GN]


MEARS DESTINATION: Rodriguez Moves to Certify Class Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit captioned VICTOR RODRIGUEZ et al.
v. MEARS DESTINATION SERVICES, INC. et al., Case No. 6:17-cv-
01113-PGB-DCI (M.D. Fla.), move for an order granting conditional
certification of the action as a Fair Labor Standards Act
representative action on behalf of:

    "All individuals in the State of Florida who have signed a
     contract with Defendants purportedly working as an
     independent contractor in Mears's Luxury Fleet Division at
     any time on or after June 19, 2014 through and including the
     date of entry of judgment in this case, who were not paid a
     minimum wage, or at their regular rate of pay, for time
     worked on or off-the-clock and/or one and one-half times the
     regular rate of pay for all work performed in excess of
     forty (40) hours per work week."

The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to:

   1. direct the Defendants to provide to the Plaintiffs' counsel
      necessary information (to the extent available in
      Defendants' records), including each class member's full
      name, and last known address and telephone number; and

   2. approve their proposed notice to be given to each Class
      Member.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=EHcgAg2z

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Thomas R. Bundy III, Esq.
          LAWRENCE & BUNDY LLC
          8115 Maple Lawn Blvd., Suite 350
          Fulton, MD 20759
          Telephone: (240) 786-4512
          Facsimile: (240) 786-4998
          E-mail: thomas.bundy@lawrencebundy.com

               - and -

          Leslie J. Bryan, Esq.
          Lisa M. Haldar, Esq.
          LAWRENCE & BUNDY LLC
          1180 W. Peachtree St., N.W., Suite 1650
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Telephone: (404) 400-3350
          E-mail: leslie.bryan@lawrencebundy.com
                  lisa.haldar@lawrencebundy.com

               - and -

          Carlos J. Burruezo, Esq.
          Bertha L. Burruezo, Esq.
          BURRUEZO & BURRUEZO, PLLC
          941 Lake Baldwin Lane, Suite 102
          Orlando (Baldwin Park), FL 32814
          Telephone: (407) 754-2904
          E-mail: carlos@burruezolaw.com
                  bertha@burruezolaw.com


MERCK & CO: Faces FOP Antitrust Suit Over Zetia Price-fixing
------------------------------------------------------------
FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE, MIAMI LODGE 20, INSURANCE TRUST FUND
on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated 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., Case No. 2:18-cv-00035-
RAJ-RJK (E.D. Va., January 18, 2018), alleges that FOP paid and
reimbursed more for Zetia and its AB-rated generic equivalents
than it would have absent the Defendants' anticompetitive conduct
to fix, raise, maintain, and stabilize the prices and allocate
markets and customers.

FOP brings the action under the Clayton Act for injunctive relief
and costs of suit, including reasonable attorneys' fees, against
the Defendants for the injuries sustained by the Plaintiff and
the Class Members by reason of violations of Sections 1 and 3 of
the Sherman Act.

Plaintiff FOP is a governmental plan established and funded
through contributions from the City of Miami and the plan's
members, who are current and retired sworn officers from the City
of Miami Police Department and their dependents.  FOP was
established pursuant to a duly executed Trust Agreement for the
purpose of providing medical, surgical and hospital care or
benefits, including prescription drug benefits, to its members.

Merck & Company, Inc. is a corporation organized and existing
under the laws of the state of New Jersey, with its principal
place of business in Kenilworth, New Jersey.  Merck & Company is
or was the parent company of Defendants Merck Sharp & Dohme
Corporation and MSP Singapore Company LLC.

Merck Sharp & Dohme Corporation is a corporation organized and
existing under the laws of the state of New Jersey, with its
principal place of business in Kenilworth.  Schering-Plough
Corporation was a corporation organized and existing under the
laws of the state of New Jersey, with its principal place of
business in Kenilworth.  Schering Corporation was a corporation
organized and existing under the laws of the state of New Jersey,
with its principal place of business in Kenilworth.

In 2009, as part of Merck & Company, Inc.'s acquisition of
Schering-Plough Corporation, Merck & Company, Inc. merged into
Schering-Plough Corporation.  Schering-Plough Corporation
subsequently changed its name to Merck & Company, Inc., and the
company originally known as Merck & Company, Inc. changed its
named to Merck Sharp & Dohme Corporation.  MSP Singapore Company
LLC is a company organized and existing under the laws of the
state of Delaware, with its principal place of business in
Kenilworth.

Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Limited is a company organized and
existing under the laws of India, with its corporate office in
Mumbai, India.  Glenmark Generics Inc., U.S.A., formerly known as
Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Inc., U.S.A., is a corporation organized
and existing under the laws of the state of Delaware and having
its principal place of business in Mahwah, New Jersey.  It is a
wholly owned subsidiary of Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Limited.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Wyatt B. Durrette, Jr., Esq.
          Christine A. Williams, Esq.
          Kevin J. Funk, Esq.
          DURRETTE, ARKEMA & GILL PC
          1111 East Main Street, 16th Floor
          Richmond, VA 23219
          Telephone: (804) 775-6900
          Facsimile: (804) 775-6911
          E-mail: wdurrette@daglawrva.com
                  cwilliams@daglawrva.com
                  kfunk@daglawrva.com

               - and -

          Jayne A. Goldstein, Esq.
          SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLP
          1625 North Commerce Parkway, Suite 320
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33326
          Telephone: (954) 515-0123
          Facsimile: (866) 300-7367
          E-mail: jgoldstein@sfmslaw.com

               - and -

          Natalie Finkelman Bennett, Esq.
          SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLP
          35 E. State Street
          Media, PA 19063
          Telephone: (610) 891-9880
          Facsimile: (866) 300-7367
          E-mail: nfinkelman@sfmslaw.com


MID-SOUTH MACHINE: "Burley" Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Scott M. Burley, individually and on behalf of all similarly-
situated persons v. Mid-South Machine and Maintenance, Inc., and
Ricky Butler and Donna Butler, Case No. 3:18-cv-00059 (M.D.
Tenn., January 18, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid hourly and
overtime compensation pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of
1938.

Plaintiff Scott M. Burley currently resides in Murfreesboro,
Tennessee and is a citizen of the United States. Within the last
three-year period, Plaintiff Burley was employed by Defendants as
a machinist and machinist's helper from approximately February of
2016 through March of 2017.

Defendant Mid-South Machine and Maintenance, Inc. is a privately
owned company which provides precision machining, fabrication,
welding, maintenance and other services in Tennessee.

Defendants Ricky and Donna Butler were owners and co-owners of
Mid-South Machine and Maintenance, Inc. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Trevor Howell, Esq.
      HOWELL LAW, PLLC
      Customs House, 701 Broadway
      Suite 401, Box 17
      Nashville, TN 37203
      E-mail: trevor@howelllawfirmllc.com

          - and -

      Peter F. Klett, Esq.
      R. Cameron Caldwell, Esq.
      DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC
      Fifth Third Center
      424 Church Street, Suite 800
      Nashville, TN 37219-2392
      Tel: (615) 244-6538
      E-mail: pklett@dickinsonwright.com
              ccaldwell@dickinsonwright.com


MILLER ENERGY: Certification of Class Sought in "Gaynor" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kenneth Gaynor, Marcia Goldberg, Gabriel R. Hull and Christopher
R. Vorrath, Lead Plaintiffs in the consolidated lawsuit styled
KENNETH GAYNOR, et al., Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. DELOY MILLER, et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-
00545-TAV-CCS (E.D. Tenn.), move the Court for an order
certifying a class consisting of:

     All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
     Miller Energy preferred shares pursuant and/or traceable to
     the public offerings on February 13, 2013, May 8, 2013,
     and/or June 28, 2013 Final Prospectus Supplements for the
     10.75% Series C Cumulative Redeemable Preferred Stock
     ("Series C") and/or the public offerings on September 26,
     2013, October 17, 2013, and/or August 21, 2014 Final
     Prospectus Supplements for the 10.5% Series D Fixed
     Rate/Floating Cumulative Redeemable Preferred Stock ("Series
     D") filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
     ("SEC") (collectively, "Offerings") and who were damaged
     thereby ("Class").  Excluded from the Class are Defendants
     and their families, the officers and directors and
     affiliates of Defendants, at all relevant times, members of
     their immediate families and their legal representatives,
     heirs, successors or assigns, and any entity in which
     Defendants have or had a controlling interest.

The Lead Plaintiffs also seek an order: (i) appointing themselves
as Class Representatives; and (ii) appointing Robbins Geller
Rudman & Dowd LLP as Class Counsel and Barrett Johnston Martin &
Garrison, LLC as Local Class Counsel.

The same Motion is also filed in Case Nos. 3:15-cv-00546-TAV-CCS
and 3:16-cv-00232-TAV-CCS.

Copies of the Motions are available at no charge at:

   * http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=7JaXm77Y
   * http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=4WVGMP9B
   * http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=litW06Yz

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jack Reise, Esq.
          Stephen R. Astley, 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: JReise@rgrdlaw.com
                  sastley@csgrr.com

               - and -

          Christopher M. Wood, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          414 Union Street, Suite 900
          Nashville, TN 37219
          Telephone: (615) 244-2203
          Facsimile: (615) 252-3798
          E-mail: cwood@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Douglas S. Johnston, Jr., Esq.
          Jerry E. Martin, Esq.
          Timothy L. Miles, Esq.
          BARRETT JOHNSTON MARTIN & GARRISON, LLC
          Bank of America Plaza
          414 Union Street, Suite 900
          Nashville, TN 37219
          Telephone: (615) 244-2202
          Facsimile: (615) 252-3798
          E-mail: djohnston@barrettjohnston.com
                  jmartin@barrettjohnston.com
                  tmiles@barrettjohnston.com

               - and -

          Curtis V. Trinko, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF CURTIS V. TRINKO, LLP
          16 West 46th Street, 7th Floor
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 490-9550
          Facsimile: (212) 986-0158
          E-mail: ctrinko@trinko.com

               - and -

          Werner R. Kranenburg, Esq.
          KRANENBURG
          80-83 Long Lane
          London EC1A 9ET
          United Kingdom
          Telephone: +44 20 3174 0365
          E-mail: werner@kranenburgesq.com


MONITECH INC: Fourth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Cottle" Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Jessica Cottle filed an appeal from a court ruling in
the lawsuit entitled Jessica Cottle v. Monitech, Inc., Case No.
7:17-cv-00137-BO, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina at Wilmington.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
seeks award, reasonable costs and attorneys' fees incurred in
this action, including expert fees, pursuant to the Consumer
Leasing Act.

The Defendant offers "a fully integrated ignition interlock
device program including manufacturing, installation, service and
comprehensive monitoring and reporting".

According to the complaint, the Defendant's lease agreements with
the Plaintiff and all putative class members are defective for
the same exact reasons: they do not provide the segregated
disclosures required by the CLA and Regulation M in a manner
substantially similar to that prescribed by the Board of
Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board) -- the government
agency charged with oversight of the Consumer Leasing Act until
the creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau in 2011.

The Defendant engineers, manufactures, and installs ignition
interlock devices, which "prevent a vehicle from operating if
[one's] blood alcohol content exceeds the legal limit established
by the state.  The Defendant leases its ignition interlock
devices to drivers throughout the state of North Carolina through
use of "consumer leases" as defined under the CLA.

The appellate case is captioned as Jessica Cottle v. Monitech,
Inc., Case No. 18-1080, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Fourth Circuit.

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

   -- Fee or application to proceed as indigent was due
      February 20, 2018;

   -- Case Initial forms are due within 14 days;

   -- Opening Brief and Appendix are due on February 28, 2018;
      and

   -- Response Brief is due on March 30, 2018.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant JESSICA COTTLE, on behalf of herself and
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Jesse S. Johnson, Esq.
          GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC
          5550 Glades Road
          Boca Raton, FL 33431
          Telephone: (561) 826 5477
          Facsimile: (561) 961 5684
          E-mail: jjohnson@gdrlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Wesley S. White, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF WESLEY S. WHITE
          2300 East 7th Street
          Charlotte, NC 28204
          Telephone: (702) 824-1695
          E-mail: wes@weswhitelaw.com

Defendant-Appellee MONITECH, INC., is represented by:

          Clifton L. Brinson, Esq.
          Irene Oberman Khagi, Esq.
          Carl Norris Patterson, Jr., Esq.
          SMITH, ANDERSON, BLOUNT, DORSETT, MITCHELL
          & JERNIGAN, LLP
          P. O. Box 2611
          Raleigh, NC 27602-2611
          Telephone: (919) 821-6605
          Facsimile: (919) 821-6800
          E-mail: cbrinson@smithlaw.com
                  ikhagi@smithlaw.com
                  cpatterson@smithlaw.com


OLIVINA NAPA: Evans Files Suit Over False Ad
--------------------------------------------
Patrick Evans, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Olivina Napa Valley LLC, Case No. 3:18-cv-00055 (M.D.
Tenn., January 17, 2018), is brought against the Defendant for
violation of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act, the New York
General Business Law and the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.

The action seeks to remedy the deceptive and misleading business
practices of Olivina Napa Valley LLC with respect to the
marketing and sales of Olivina Men products throughout the
country.

The Plaintiff says Defendant manufactures, sells, and distributes
the Products using a marketing and advertising campaign claiming
that its Products are "NaturallyPure."  However, Defendant's
advertising and marketing campaign is false, deceptive, and
misleading because the Products contain synthetic ingredients.

Plaintiff Patrick Evans is an individual consumer and was a
citizen of Bronx, New York.

Defendant Olivina Napa Valley LLC is a corporation with its
principal place of business in Franklin, Tennessee. Defendant
manufactures, markets, advertises and distributes the Products
throughout the United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq.
      Benjamin A. Gastel, Esq.
      BRANSTETTER, STRANCH &
      JENNINGS, PLLC
      The Freedom Center
      223 Rosa L. Parks Blvd., Suite 200
      Nashville, TN 37203
      Tel: (615) 254-8801
      Fax: (615) 255-5419
      E-mail: gerards@bsjfirm.com


PARKWAY TROPICS: Misclassifies Exotic Dancers, "Cavazos" Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ashley Cavazos, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. PARKWAY TROPICS, a Domestic Profit
Corporation and EDWARD SAYFIE a/k/a JR, an individual jointly and
severally, Case No. 1:18-cv-00011 (W.D. Mich., January 5, 2018),
alleges that the Defendants misclassified the Plaintiff and
others as independent contractors, as opposed to employees, at
all times in which they worked as exotic dancers or entertainer
dancers at the Defendants' adult nightclub.

Parkway Tropics is a Michigan Corporation with a registered
address in Grand Rapids, Michigan.  Parkway Tropics operates a
nightclub.  Edward Sayfie is a manager, employee or agent of
Parkway Tropics.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert Anthony Alvarez, Esq.
          AVANTI LAW GROUP, P.C.
          600 28th St. SW
          Wyoming, MI 49509
          Telephone: (616) 257-6807
          E-mail: ralvarez@avantilaw.com


PINNACLE ENTERTAINMENT: Allen Moves to Certify Three Collectives
----------------------------------------------------------------
Richard L. Allen, Valery S. Sanchez, Lisa Mesplay and Katherine
Kobermann, Plaintiffs in the lawsuit styled RICHARD L. ALLEN, et
al. v. PINNACLE ENTERTAINMENT, INC., et al., Case No. 4:17-cv-
00374-GAF (W.D. Mo.), moves for conditional class certification
of these collectives:

   a. Nationwide Timekeeping Policy Collective:

      All hourly employees who worked at Pinnacle or Pinnacle's
      subsidiary properties or casinos in the United States at
      any time from three years prior to the filing of the
      Complaint, who clocked-in and clocked-out on an automated
      timeclock;

   b. Nationwide Tip Credit Notice Policy Collective:

      All hourly employees who worked at Pinnacle or Pinnacle's
      subsidiary properties or casinos in the United States at
      any time from three years prior to the filing of the
      Complaint, and who were paid a direct hourly wage that was
      less than the federal minimum wage at that time; and

   c. Nationwide Table Games Supervisor Collective:

      All Table Games Supervisors, or others with the same or
      similar job titles, duties, and compensation structures,
      who worked at Pinnacle or Pinnacle's subsidiary properties
      or casinos in the United States at any time from three
      years prior to the filing of the Complaint, and who were
      classified as exempt from the FLSA's overtime requirements.

The Plaintiffs filed suit against Pinnacle Entertainment, Inc.,
PNK (River City), LLC d/b/a River City Casino & Hotel, and
Ameristar Casino Kansas City, LLC, alleging that the Defendants
had a policy and practice of failing to properly pay Plaintiffs
Allen and Sanchez, and other similarly situated employees,
overtime and/or minimum wage in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and Missouri law.  The Defendants also allegedly
misclassified Plaintiffs Mesplay and Kobermann, and other
similarly situated employees, as exempt under the FLSA, and
denied them compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours
in a workweek.

The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to:

   -- appoint Plaintiffs Richard L. Allen and Valery S. Sanchez
      as class representatives for the Nationwide Timekeeping
      Policy Collective and Nationwide Tip Credit Notice Policy
      Collective;

   -- appoint Plaintiffs Lisa Mesplay and Katherine Kobermann as
      class representatives for the Nationwide Table Games
      Supervisor Collective;

   -- appoint Osman & Smay LLP and McClelland Law Firm, P.C., as
      class counsel for each collective;

   -- order the Defendants to produce necessary information for
      each member of each collective;

   -- approve the proposed FLSA Collective Notice to Class
      Members and Consent Form;

   -- order that the Notice be mailed via first-class mail and
      electronic mail to such persons within 45 days of the order
      granting Plaintiffs' motion for conditional class
      certification;

   -- order the posting of the Notice of the pending suit in
      conspicuous locations at Defendants' subsidiary casinos and
      properties where putative class members are employed
      (including break room bulletin boards or bulletin boards
      where job notices are posted) during the opt-in period;

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

   -- order that all Consent Forms of the putative class members
      be received and filed with the Court within 120 days of the
      order granting Plaintiffs' motion for conditional class
      certification.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=CkBhdg8j

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Matthew E. Osman, Esq.
          Kathryn S. Rickley, Esq.
          OSMAN & SMAY LLP
          8500 W. 110th Street, Suite 330
          Overland Park, KS 66210
          Telephone: (913) 667-9243
          Facsimile: (866) 470-9243
          E-mail: mosman@workerwagerights.com
                  krickley@workerwagerights.com

               - and -

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


PORT AUTHORITY: Sued for Illegally Videotaping Exams
----------------------------------------------------
Colby Hamilton, writing for Law.com, reports that in-house
medical personnel at the Port Authority of New York and
New Jersey are secretly video recording interactions between its
employees and doctors, a new class action complaint filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
alleges.

Charlene Talarico, a senior administrative secretary, stated
that, after a physical "altercation" with a senior employee in
August 2016, she visited the Port Authority's Office of Medical
Services in Manhattan to have an injured hand examined.

According to the complaint, Ms. Talarico was seen by Dr. Pascale
Kerlegrand, a Port Authority physician who diagnosed her with a
sprain.

Ms. Talarico went on to file a complaint against the employee in
New Jersey municipal court.  As part of the discovery in that
case, Talarico said she obtained video security footage connected
to the fight. One of those videos, she said, "reflected her
entire medical exam by Dr. Kerlegrand."

The video appeared to come from a stationary security camera in
the closed exam room, according to the complaint.  While she
"remained fully clothed during her medical exam," Ms. Talarico
said the room contained a privacy curtain typical of an area
where "patients undress in order to receive medical care."

Ms. Talarico said she did not consent to the filming.  The
complaint -- which alleges 14th Amendment search and seizure
violations, and parallel state privacy claims -- seeks class
status for the "hundreds or thousands" of Port Authority
employees "who may have been examined and covertly surveilled"
during medical exams.

Weissman & Mintz's William Schimmel represents Ms. Talarico and
declined to comment.

In an emailed statement from a Port Authority spokesman, the
authority denied the allegations at the heart of the suit.

"We do not comment on pending litigation. But the Port
Authority's employees should be reassured that the Port Authority
emphatically does not, and did not, have video cameras in private
medical examination rooms," the statement said. [GN]


RDX TRANSPORT: Pettigrew Sues Over Misclassification of Drivers
---------------------------------------------------------------
JACK PETTIGREW II, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. RDX TRANSPORT, INC., a California
Corporation; and DOES 1 -20, Case No. BC689083 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
Los Angeles Cty., January 4, 2018), is brought against the
Defendants for their alleged willful misclassification of the
Plaintiff and other Class Members as independent contractors, and
their failure to properly pay current and former truck drivers.

RDX is a California corporation with its principal place of
business in Fresno, California.  RDX is a trucking and logistics
company that transacts millions of dollars of business
transporting general freight and dried foods in California to
destinations across California, including to Oakland and Long
Beach (in Los Angeles County).  The Plaintiff is ignorant of the
true names and capacities of the Doe Defendants.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Craig J. Ackermann, Esq.
          Sam Vahedi, Esq.
          ACKERMANN & TILAJEF, P.C.
          1180 South Beverly Drive, Suite 610
          Los Angeles, CA 90035
          Telephone: (310) 277-0614
          Facsimile: (310) 277-0635
          E-mail: cja@ackermanntilajef.com
                  sv@ackermanntilajef.com

               - and -

          Jonathan Melmed, Esq.
          MELMED LAW GROUP P.C.
          1180 South Beverly Drive, Suite 610
          Los Angeles, CA 90035
          Telephone: (310) 824-3828
          Facsimile: (310) 862-6851
          E-mail: jm@melmedlaw.com


RENT-A-CENTER INC: "Williams" Class Suit Removed to E.D. Missouri
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit captioned Williams, et al. v. Rent-A-Center, Inc.,
Case No. 1722-CC11893, was removed on January 5, 2018, from the
Circuit Court of St. Louis City, Missouri, to the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Missouri (St. Louis).  The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:18-cv-00026-JAR to the
proceeding.[BN]

Plaintiffs Myra Williams and Sade Beaton, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by:

          Christopher E. Roberts, Esq.
          David T. Butsch, Esq.
          BUTSCH ROBERTS & ASSOCIATES, LLC
          231 S. Bemiston, Suite 260
          Clayton, MO 63105
          Telephone: (314) 863-5700
          Facsimile: (314) 863-5711
          E-mail: roberts@butschroberts.com
                  butsch@butschroberts.com

Defendant Rent-A-Center, Inc., is represented by:

          Jocelyn A. Villanueva, Esq.
          Nicholas L. DiVita, Esq.
          Timothy R. West, Esq.
          BERKOWITZ OLIVER, LLP
          2600 Grand Boulevard, Suite 1200
          Kansas City, MO 64108
          Telephone: (816) 561-7007
          Facsimile: (816) 561-1888
          E-mail: jvillanueva@berkowitzoliver.com
                  ndivita@berkowitzoliver.com
                  twest@berkowitzoliver.com


REPROS THERAPEUTICS: "Franchi" Suit Challenges Sale to Allergan
---------------------------------------------------------------
ADAM FRANCHI, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. REPROS THERAPEUTICS INC., PATRICK FOURTEAU, KATHERINE
A. ANDERSON, DANIEL F. CAIN, LARRY DILLAHA, NOLA E. MASTERSON,
SAIRA RAMASASTRY, MICHAEL G. WYLLIE, ALLERGAN SALES, LLC, and
CELESTIAL MERGER SUB, INC., Case No. 1:18-cv-00053-UNA (D. Del.,
January 3, 2018), stems from a proposed transaction, pursuant to
which Repros will be acquired by Allergan and Celestial Merger
Sub, Inc.

On December 11, 2017, Repros' Board of Directors caused the
Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with
Allergan.  Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, Merger
Sub commenced a tender offer, set to expire on January 29, 2018,
and shareholders of Repros will receive $0.67 in cash for each
share of Repros common stock.

Repros is a Delaware corporation and maintains its principal
executive offices in Woodlands, Texas.  The Company is a
development stage biopharmaceutical company focused on the
development of new drugs to treat hormonal and reproductive
system disorders.  The Individual Defendants are directors and
officers of the Company.

Allergan is a Delaware limited liability company and a party to
the Merger Agreement.  Merger Sub is a Delaware corporation, a
wholly-owned subsidiary of the Parent, and a party to the Merger
Agreement.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian D. Long, Esq.
          Gina M. Serra, Esq.
          RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
          300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 295-5310
          Facsimile: (302) 654-7530
          E-mail: bdl@rl-legal.com
                  gms@rl-legal.com

               - and -

          Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
          RM LAW, P.C.
          1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 300
          Berwyn, PA 19312
          Telephone: (484) 324-6800
          E-mail: rmaniskas@rmclasslaw.com


RUSHMORE LOAN: Leones Appeals S.D. Florida Ruling to 11th Circuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Silvia Leones filed an appeal from a court ruling in
the lawsuit titled Silvia Leones v. Rushmore Loan Management
Services LLC, Case No. 0:17-cv-61266-WPD, in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Florida.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
was filed against Rushmore Loan on June 27, 2017, and assigned to
the Hon. Judge William P. Dimitrouleas.

The nature of suit is stated as consumer credit.

Rushmore Loan provides residential mortgage loan servicing and
customer support.

The appellate case is captioned as Silvia Leones v. Rushmore Loan
Management Services LLC, Case No. 18-10137, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.

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

   -- The appellant's brief was due February 20, 2018;

   -- The appendix is due no later than 7 days from the filing of
      the appellant's brief; and

   -- Appellee's Certificate of Interested Persons was due on or
      before February 7, 2018, as to Appellee Rushmore Loan
      Management Services LLC.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant SILVIA LEONES, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Jonathan Harris Kline, Esq.
          JONATHAN KLINE, P.A.
          2761 Executive Pk. Dr.
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33331
          Telephone: (954) 888-4646
          Facsimile: (954) 888-4647
          E-mail: Jonathan.Kline@JKLawFL.com

Defendant-Appellee RUSHMORE LOAN MANAGEMENT SERVICES LLC is
represented by:

          Dale A. Evans, Jr., Esq.
          Douglas A. Goldin, Esq.
          LOCKE LORD, LLP
          525 Okeechobee Blvd., Suite 1600
          West Palm Beach, FL 33401
          Telephone: (561) 833-7700
          Facsimile: (561) 655-8719
          E-mail: dale.evans@lockelord.com
                  Doug.Goldin@lockelord.com


RUTHERFORD COUNTY, TN: Probationers Set to Get Settlement Payout
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sam Stockard, writing for Murfreesboro Post, reports that tens of
thousands of former probationers who could be eligible for awards
through a class-action lawsuit settlement with Rutherford County
and Providence Community Corrections have been mailed forms to
claim their money.

The final step in the case is to make sure as many people as
possible can obtain the money they're entitled to receive through
a federal judge's preliminary approval of the $14.3 million
settlement, according to Alec Karakatsanis, an attorney with
Civil Rights Corps who brought the lawsuit.

"This settlement is an important one not only because it will pay
a fund of $14.3 million to some of Rutherford County's poorest
people whose constitutional rights were violated, but also
because it ensures that the legal system will protect their
rights going forward," Mr. Karakatsanis said.

Anyone required to pay fines, fees or costs stemming from a
misdemeanor or traffic case in Rutherford County from Oct. 1,
2011 to Oct. 5, 2017 and was under the supervision of PCC or
Rutherford County's probation department could be a member of the
settlement class, according to the website
www.pccrutherfordsettlement.com. Anyone with questions also can
call (888) 805-9210.

People who owed or paid money to PCC could be eligible to receive
cash awards from a settlement fund based on the amount they paid
or owed to PCC and the length of time they were on probation,
according to the web site.

The site enables people to click on a claim form to seek payment
from the fund, a step they must take by April 27, 2018.  A
settlement administrator will determine the amount they will
receive based on the information they provide.  Those who file
claims by that date will give up their right to be part of
another lawsuit arbitration or proceeding against the defendants
for the same legal claims resolved this settlement.

People also could remain in the settlement but object to its
terms by writing the court and explaining their dissatisfactions
by April 27.  In addition, people could go to a fairness hearing
June 25 and ask to speak to the court about the settlement's
fairness.

A group of residents filed the federal class-action lawsuit in
October 2015 contending they were the "victims of an extortion
scheme" in which the county and PCC "conspired to extract as much
money as possible from misdemeanor probationers through a pattern
of illegal and shocking behavior."

Rutherford County began contracting with PCC several years ago
because it had a large number of outstanding fees it couldn't
collect from people convicted of misdemeanors in General Sessions
Court.

But when PCC took over Rutherford County's probation system,
rather than receiving a fee from the county, it earned millions
in profits annually by requiring payments from low-income people
under its supervision.  Often this meant having probationers sent
to jail because they couldn't afford to pay its private fees and
trapping them in a cycle of debt, endless probation extensions
and more jail time, the plaintiffs' attorneys said.

PCC and Rutherford County admitted no wrongdoing as part of the
settlement in the lawsuit.

"There are some things we're going to have to change going
forward and how we manage misdemeanors coming through the court
system, etc.," Rutherford County Mayor Ernest Burgess said after
the lawsuit settlement.

Burgess also said the county made substantial progress in serving
probationers differently through its government-run department
than PCC did.  Rutherford County set up its own probation service
in April 2016 after PCC was acquired by a California-based
company and dropped probation services.

Washington, D.C.-based Equal Justice Under Law filed the lawsuit
Oct. 1, 2015, and the law firm Baker Donelson filed a landmark
RICO and constitutional class action lawsuit, Rodriguez v.
Providence, in federal court in Nashville.  Mr. Karakatsanis set
up Civil Rights Corps and continued handling the case after a
split with Equal Justice. [GN]


SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Consumers Sue Over Plasma TV Defect
--------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Boysen, writing for Law360, reports that a disgruntled
consumer slapped Samsung and Sears with a proposed class action
in Utah federal court on Feb. 5, alleging the pair manufactured
and sold faulty plasma televisions prone to quick deaths through
overheating.

Charles D. McCallon says Samsung knowingly outfitted several
models of its plasma TVs with inferior component parts in a bid
to make its televisions more affordable, "at least at the
outset." The televisions routinely burn out long before the
eight-year lifespan any "reasonable" consumer would expect,
Mr. McCallon says.

The case is McCallon v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al,
Case No., 2:18-cv-00114 (D. Utah.).  The case is assigned to
Judge Magistrate Judge Evelyn J. Furse.  The case was filed
February 5, 2018. [GN]


SAN FRANCISCO, CA: Fails to Provide Timely Breaks, "Lam" Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
ALFRED LAM, an individual, on his own behalf and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, a
public entity, and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. CGC-18-563516
(Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., January 4, 2018), accuses
the Defendants of violating the California Labor Code by failing
to provide the Plaintiff and members of the putative class with
timely meal and rest breaks, and proper wage statements.

The Plaintiff is a current employee in the Juvenile Probation
Department for San Francisco.

The City and County of San Francisco is a governmental entity,
and/or a municipal body, duly organized and existing under the
laws of the state of California and situated in the City and
County of San Francisco.  The City and County operate the
Juvenile Probation Department (Youth Guidance Center), which is
administered by the Juvenile Probation Commission.  The
Commission consists of seven members appointed by the Mayor of
the City and County of San Francisco.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Marcus J. Bradley, Esq.
          Kiley L. Grombacher, Esq.
          Taylor L. Emerson, Esq.
          BRADLEY/GROMBACHER, LLP
          2815 Townsgate Road, Suite 130
          Westlake Village, CA 91361
          Telephone: (805) 270-7100
          Facsimile: (805) 270-7589
          E-mail: mbradley@bradleygrombacher.com
                  kgrombacher@bradleygrombacher.com
                  TEmerson@bradleygrombacher.com


SANDISK LLC: Class Certification Sought in Securities Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
City of Bristol Pension Fund, City of Milford, Connecticut
Pension & Retirement Board, Pavers and Road Builders Pension,
Annuity and Welfare Funds, the City of Newport News Employees'
Retirement Fund, and Massachusetts Laborers' Pension Fund, Lead
Plaintiffs in the lawsuit titled IN RE: SANDISK LLC SECURITIES
LITIGATION, Case No. 3:15-cv-01455-VC (N.D. Cal.), move the Court
for an order:

     (i) certifying the case as a class action;

    (ii) appointing the Lead Plaintiffs as class representatives;
         and

   (iii) appointing Scott+Scott, Attorneys at Law, LLP, as class
         counsel.

The securities fraud claims at issue present the quintessential
candidates for class certification under Rule 23 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, the Lead Plaintiffs contend.

Lead Plaintiffs, five large institutional investors who
collectively manage billions of dollars, allege that the
Defendants misled the market regarding the financial and
operational performance of SanDisk's critical Enterprise business
and Fusion-io segment.  This artificially propped up or inflated
SanDisk's stock price and caused investors substantial losses
when the truth was revealed, the Lead Plaintiffs argue.

The Court will commence a hearing on March 29, 2018, at 10:00
a.m., to consider the Motion.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=lWRk1HLa

The Lead Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Deborah Clark-Weintraub, Esq.
          Max Schwartz, 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: dweintraub@scott-scott.com
                  mschwartz@scott-scott.com

               - and -

          Jonathan Gardner, Esq.
          Carol C. Villegas, Esq.
          Ross M. Kamhi, Esq.
          LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
          140 Broadway
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 907-0700
          Facsimile: (212) 818-0477
          E-mail: jgardner@labaton.com
                  cvillegas@labaton.com
                  rkamhi@labaton.com

               - and -

          Steven J. Toll, Esq.
          Elizabeth Aniskevich, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
          1100 New York Avenue, NW, Suite 500
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 408-4600
          Facsimile: (202) 408-4699
          E-mail: stoll@cohenmilstein.com
                  eaniskevich@cohenmilstein.com

               - and -

          Christopher Lometti, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
          88 Pine Street, 14th Floor
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 838-7797
          Facsimile: (212) 838-7745
          E-mail: clometti@cohenmilstein.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Keith E. Eggleton, Esq.
          Boris Feldman, Esq.
          Catherine Moreno, Esq.
          Michael Roland Petrocelli, Esq.
          WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
          650 Page Mill Road
          Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050
          Telephone: (650) 493-9300
          Facsimile: (650) 493-6811
          E-mail: keggleton@wsgr.com
                  boris.feldman@wsgr.com
                  cmoreno@wsgr.com
                  mpetrocelli@wsgr.com


STAPLES GROUP: Worsley Seeks to Certify Class of AS Managers
------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled JEANIE WORSLEY, On behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. THE STAPLES GROUP,
INC, and STAPLES CONTRACT & COMMERCIAL, INC., Case No. 2:17-cv-
02254-CM-JPO (D. Kan.), moves the Court for an order:

   1) finding that the Plaintiff has met her burden under
      29 U.S.C. Section 216(b) with regards to her Fair Labor
      Standards Act claim and conditionally certifying the
      Plaintiff's claims as a collective action;

   2) authorizing a notice to be mailed to all members of the
      class consisting of Account Services Manager, and other
      persons with similar job duties and compensation
      structures, employed by Staples Contract & Commercial, Inc.
      at any time within the past three (3) years;

   3) requiring the Defendant to provide to the Plaintiff a list
      of the first and last names, last-known addresses,
      telephone numbers, e-mail addresses, dates of employment,
      date of birth, location of employment, and the last four
      digits of the individual's social security number of all
      members of the putative class;

   4) requiring the Defendant to post the Notice of this lawsuit
      in conspicuous locations where it employs its Account
      Services Managers and others with similar job titles,
      duties and compensation structures;

   5) tolling the statute of limitations from the date of the
      filing of the Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional Class
      Certification until the close of the opt-in period;

   6) designating Jeanie Worsley as class representative; and

   7) approving of the Plaintiff's counsel to act as class
      counsel in this matter.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=q0t97mtw

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew E. Osman, Esq.
          Kathryn S. Rickley, Esq.
          OSMAN & SMAY LLP
          8500 W. 110th Street, Suite 330
          Overland Park, KS 66204
          Telephone: (913) 667-9243
          Facsimile: (866) 470-9243
          E-mail: mosman@workerwagerights.com
                  krickley@workerwagerights.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Daniel B. Boatright, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
          1201 Walnut, Suite 1450
          Kansas City, MO 64106
          Telephone: (816) 627-4400
          Facsimile: (816) 627-4444
          E-mail: dboatright@littler.com


SWISSPORT SA: Faces Class Action Over Meal Break, FCRA Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Los Angeles employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug
Bhowmik De Blouw LLP, lodged a putative class action lawsuit
against Swissport SA, LLC for allegedly failing to provide their
workers in California with the legally required thirty minute
uninterrupted meal periods and rest periods.  The class action
also alleges that Swissport failed to properly reimburse their
California employees for necessary business expenses they
incurred on the company's behalf.

The Swissport SA, LLC class action is currently pending in the
Los Angeles County Superior Court for the State of California,
Case No. BC691058.

The lawsuit filed against Swissport SA, LLC alleges that the
aviation services company failed to provide their California
employees with the legal required thirty (30) minute
uninterrupted meal break prior to their fifth hour of work.  The
complaint alleges "DEFENDANT was aware that PLAINTIFF and other
CALIFORNIA CLASS Members did not take their meal and rest periods
because of the workload and time constraints imposed upon them by
DEFENDANT but DEFENDANT refused to remit premium payments to
these employees for their missed meal and rest breaks."

The Class action lawsuit also alleges that the company violated
the Fair Credit Reporting Act by unlawfully, unfairly and/or
deceptively having in place company policies, practices and
procedures that uniformly obtained credit reports on prospective
employees without first obtaining valid authorization consent
forms.

For more information about the class action lawsuit filed against
Swissport SA, LLC, please call Attorney Nicholas De Blouw at
(858) 999-1118.

Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP, is a Northern
California employment law firm that dedicates its practice to
helping employees, fight back against unfair business practices,
including violations of the California Labor Code and Fair Labor
Standards Act.  The firm has offices located in San Diego, Los
Angeles, Riverside, San Francisco, Sacramento and Chicago. [GN]


TAYLOR, MI: Seeks Prelim. Approval of $31K Deal in "Garner" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in the lawsuit titled LAWRENCE M. GARNER, on behalf
of himself and others similarly situated v. CITY OF TAYLOR, a
Municipal Corporation, JOHN DOE BUILDING INSPECTORS; JANE DOE
BUILDING INSPECTORS, Case No. 2:16-cv-13374-VAR-RSW (E.D. Mich.),
jointly ask the Court to preliminarily approve their Class Action
Settlement Agreement.

The Plaintiff filed a Class Action Complaint on September 16,
2016.  The Plaintiff alleges that the City improperly
administered its Building and Building Regulations Ordinance in
violation of due process rights under the International Property
Maintenance Code and in Violation of Fifth and Fourteenth
Amendments.

The proposed Settlement Class is comprised of:

     All persons and entities who currently own or at one time
     owned any parcel of real property located within the City of
     Taylor who or which has been issued civil infractions for
     failing to obtain a Certificate of Compliance for a
     Residential Dwelling or Residential Unit, and subsequently
     paid them, stemming from an inspection under the IPMC and
     the City Code, at any time since September 16, 2009 and
     through October 31, 2017.

The City of Taylor has agreed to establish a settlement fund in
an amount up to $31,000, which will be used in significant part
to pay the claims of the Settlement Class Members, who are
entitled to participate in the distribution of the settlement
proceeds pursuant to the Settlement Agreement.

Class counsel shall apply to the Court for an award of
attorney's, fees in the amount of $10,333, which represents one-
third of the settlement fund, plus reasonable out-of-pocket
expenses.  The Defendant will pay attorney fees and reasonable
out-of-pocket expenses before any other deduction from the fund.
The Defendant will pay the Named Plaintiff $1,500 from the
Settlement Fund for representing the Settlement Class.  The cost
of administering the claims through a third-party administrator
will also be paid from the Settlement Fund.

A copy of the Joint Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=lOaIsw5z

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Aaron D. Cox, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF AARON D. COX, PLLC
          23380 Goddard Rd.
          Taylor, MI 48180
          Telephone: (734) 287-3664
          E-mail: aaron@aaroncoxlaw.com

               - and -

          Mark K. Wasvary, Esq.
          MARK K. WASVARY, P.C.
          2401 W. Big Beaver Rd., Suite 100
          Troy, MI 48084
          Telephone: (248) 649-5667
          E-mail: markwasvary@hotmail.com

Defendant City of Taylor is represented by:

          Gustaf R. Andreason, Esq.
          Michael F. Wais, Esq.
          Jonathan F. Karmo, Esq.
          HOWARD & HOWARD ATTORNEYS PLLC
          450 W. Fourth St.
          Royal Oak, MI 48067-2557
          Telephone: (248) 645-1483
          E-mail: mwais@howardandhoward.com


TD AMERITRADE: Sued by Gray Over Losses From Risky Trading Tactic
-----------------------------------------------------------------
THACKERY S. GRAY, and YELENA F. GRAY, On Behalf Of Themselves And
All Others Similarly Situated v. TD AMERITRADE, INC., and SHEAFF
BROCK INVESTMENT ADVISORS, LLC, Case No. 1:18-cv-00419 (N.D.
Ill., January 19, 2018), alleges that the Defendants breached
their fiduciary duties, as well as their contractual duties, to
the Plaintiffs and proposed class members.

The Plaintiffs and the putative Class members were TD Ameritrade
customers and participants in TD Ameritrade's AdvisorDirect
program.  The Plaintiffs and the putative Classes participated in
a "put options income" trading strategy recommended by TD
Ameritrade and Sheaff Brock.

The Plaintiffs contend that TD Ameritrade was obligated to
monitor the trades to ensure they were consistent with the
parties' relationship.  The Plaintiffs allege that the "put
options income" trading strategy that Sheaff Brock executed, and
that TD Ameritrade effected and should have monitored,
contradicted the strategy the Defendants described in writing and
orally, and agreed to execute on behalf of Plaintiffs and the
putative Classes.

Not only was the trading strategy different and considerably
riskier than the agreed upon strategy, it was also regularly
unsuccessful and generated significant losses, the Plaintiffs
tell the Court.  The Plaintiffs add that they and the putative
Classes have lost significant amounts of money as a direct result
of the Defendants' conduct and breaches of their contractual
fiduciary duties and other contractual duties.

TD Ameritrade, Inc., is incorporated in New York and has its
principal place of business in Nebraska.  TD Ameritrade provides
its customers with an online trading platform and typically
receives a commission for each trade executed in its customers'
accounts.

TD Ameritrade also operates what it calls an "AdvisorDirect"
program.  Through its AdvisorDirect program, TD Ameritrade
introduces its customers to Registered Investment Advisors, who
can manage customers' accounts on their behalves.  One of the
RIAs that TD Ameritrade introduces its customers to is Sheaff
Brock.

Sheaff Brock Investment Advisors, LLC, is an Indiana limited
liability company.  Sheaff Brock is a privately-held corporation
that provides investment advisory services.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Edward Wallace, Esq.
          Andrew D. Welker, Esq.
          WEXLER WALLACE LLP
          55 W Monroe Street, Suite 3300
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 346-2222
          Facsimile: (312) 346-0022
          E-mail: eaw@wexlerwallace.com
                  adw@wexlerwallace.com

               - and -

          Charles J. Crueger, Esq.
          CRUEGER DICKINSON, LLC
          4532 N. Oakland Ave.
          Whitefish Bay, WI 53211
          Telephone: (414) 210-3900
          E-mail: cjc@cruegerdickinson.com

               - and -

          Sean M. Sweeney, Esq.
          Patrick O'Neill, Esq.
          HALLING & CAYO, S.C.
          320 E. Buffalo Street, Suite 700
          Milwaukee, WI 53202
          Telephone: (414) 271-3400
          Facsimile: (414) 271-3841
          E-mail: sms@hallingcayo.com
                  pto@hallingcayo.com


TIERRA LEASE: Court Certifies Class of Laborers in "Metting" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Magistrate Judge Henry J. Bemporad granted a joint motion
for conditional class certification filed by the parties in the
lawsuit captioned RUSSELL METTING, on behalf of himself and
others similarly-situated v. TIERRA LEASE SERVICE, LLC, JOSEPH
NEWBERRY, LESLIE NEWBERRY, FRANK STABLER, JUAN CHAPA, JOHN CHAPA
and TOMMY TISE, Case No. 5:17-cv-00044-DAE (W.D. Tex.).

This class is conditionally certified:

     Current and former roustabouts, operators, foremen and
     skilled laborers employed since December 1, 2014, who were
     not compensated for travel time and/or work performed at
     Defendant's yard prior to or after each shift at the
     assigned job site;

     Or

     Current and former roustabouts, operators, foremen and
     skilled laborers employed since December 1, 2014, who
     received less than minimum wage on paychecks during their
     last month of employment with Defendant.

Judge Bemporad directs the Defendants to provide Plaintiff with
the names, addresses, and phone numbers (if available), of all
putative class members.  The Defendant need not provide the
Plaintiff with known e-mail addresses for all putative class
members at this time.

The Court also approves the Proposed Notice to Potential Class
members, both the English and Spanish versions.  The Court also
approves the Proposed Consent to Sue Form.  The Plaintiff may
publish one notice in two South-Texas based newspapers.  The
Defendant must post both the English and Spanish versions of the
notice in a conspicuous place, regularly visited by employees at
the Defendant's storage yard, for the duration of the opt-in
period.

The opt-in period will expire 70 days from the entry of this
Order.  The Plaintiff's lead counsel shall be responsible for and
bear all costs associated with publishing the notice to all
putative class members.

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Charles W. Branham, III, Esq.
          Rachel C. Moussa, Esq.
          DEAN, OMAR & BRANHAM, LLP
          302 N. Market Street, Suite 300
          Dallas, TX 75202
          Telephone: (214) 722-5990
          Facsimile: (214) 722-5991
          E-mail: tbranham@dobllp.com
                  rmoussa@dobllp.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Rachel Steely, Esq.
          Michael F. Ryan, Esq.
          GARDERE WYNNE SEWELL LLP
          1000 Louisiana, Suite 2000
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (713) 276-5500
          Facsimile: (713) 276-5555
          E-mail: rsteely@gardere.com
                  mryan@gardere.com


TITLE SOURCE: Swamy Moves to Certify Real Estate Appraisers Class
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned SOM SWAMY, on Behalf of
Himself and on Behalf of All Other Similarly Situated v. TITLE
SOURCE, INC., Case No. 3:17-cv-01175-WHA (N.D. Cal.), seeks class
certification of a class consisting of:

     all persons who are or have been employed by Defendant Title
     Source, Inc. as a real estate appraiser for Defendant within
     the State of California at any time from March 7, 2013
     (i.e., within four years prior to the date on which this
     action was filed) to the final disposition of this case (the
     "California Class").

Title Source is in the business of providing appraisal reports to
customers, primarily banks and lenders, during the evaluation of
mortgage applications.  The proposed Class Members constitute a
group of workers, who perform the same primary duty -- the
production of appraisal reports for Title Source to sell to these
customers.

The case mainly concerns one question: whether the completion of
appraisal reports constitutes work that is exempt from the
overtime requirements, Mr. Swamy contends.  Citing In McKeen-
Chaplin v. Provident Savings Bank, 862 F.3d 847 (9th Cir. 2017),
Mr. Swamy asserts that the Ninth Circuit addressed a very similar
question and held that this type of work does not constitute
exempt work.

Mr. Swamy also asks the Court to appoint him as the Class
Representative and his counsel as Class Counsel.

The Court will commence a hearing on February 22, 2018, at 8:00
a.m., to consider the Motion.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Iws0lxv2

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lorrie T. Peeters, Esq.
          CAFFARELLI & ASSOCIATES LTD.
          10265 Beardon Dr.
          Cupertino, CA 95014
          Telephone: (408) 216-0599
          Facsimile: (312) 577-0720
          E-mail: lpeeters@caffarelli.com

               - and -

          Don Foty, Esq.
          Galvin Kennedy, Esq.
          KENNEDY HODGES, LLP
          4409 Montrose Blvd., Suite 200
          Houston, TX 77006
          Telephone: (713) 523-0001
          Facsimile: (713) 523-1116
          E-mail: gkennedy@kennedyhodges.com
                  dfoty@kennedyhodges.com


TOKYO ELECTRIC: Ordered to Pay $10MM Over 2011 Nuclear Disaster
---------------------------------------------------------------
Minami Funakoshi, writing for Reuters, reports that a Tokyo court
on Feb. 7 ordered Tokyo Electric Power (Tepco) to pay around 1.1
billion yen ($10 million) to a group of Fukushima residents,
local media reported, nearly seven years after the company's
reactor meltdowns in northeastern Japan.

A group of 321 people residents from Minami-soma in Fukushima
prefecture had sought around 11 billion yen in damages in a class
action suit, according to the reports.

Minami-soma is a city about 30 km (19 miles) from Tepco's
Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant, where reactors melted
down after being hit by a massive tsunami in March 2011.  After
the disaster, some areas near the plant became no-gone zones,
forcing many residents to flee their homes.

A Tepco spokesman said a ruling was made by the Tokyo court on
Feb. 7, but declined to comment further.

Tepco has long been criticized for ignoring the threat posed by
natural disasters to the Fukushima plant, and the company and
government were lambasted for their handling of the crisis.

Last year, a district court in Fukushima ruled in the largest
class action lawsuit brought over the 2011 nuclear disaster that
the company and the Japanese government were liable for damages
totaling about 500 million yen.

A group of about 3,800 people, mostly in Fukushima prefecture,
filed the earlier class action suit, the biggest number of
plaintiffs out of about 30 similar class action lawsuits filed
across the nation. [GN]


TOTAL PHARMACY: Court Denies Bobo's Drugs' Bid to Certify Class
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. James S. Moody, Jr., denied the Plaintiff's motion to
certify class filed in the lawsuit entitled BOBO'S DRUGS, INC. v.
TOTAL PHARMACY SUPPLY, INC. and LEXMARK INTERNATIONAL, INC., Case
No. 8:17-cv-02553-JSM-AAS (M.D. Fla.).

The Plaintiff filed both its Complaint and Motion to Certify
Class on October 30, 2017.  The Motion does not include a
memorandum of law in support as required by Local Rule 3.01(a).
Instead, the Plaintiff writes conclusory statements such as that
the prerequisites of Rule 23(a) are met in part "[u]pon
information and belief," according to the Order.

The Court agrees with the Defendants in their response that at
this time, the Plaintiff's Motion must be denied because its
allegations lack factual support.

"The Plaintiff should keep in mind the specifics of Local Rule
4.04 if it wishes to file another motion for class certification
in the future," Judge Moody notes.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Xr0QVzZt


TRADER JOE'S: Falsely Misrepresents Vitamin E Oil, Cesta Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
JESSICA CESTA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. TRADER JOE'S COMPANY, and DOES 1 15 through 10,
inclusive, Case No. BC689087 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty.,
January 5, 2018), accuses the Defendants of misrepresenting
Trader Joe's "Vitamin E Oil" product.

The proposed class action lawsuit is brought on behalf of all
purchasers of Trader Joe's Vitamin E Oil (the "Product"), sold at
retail outlets throughout California and the United States.  The
Plaintiff contends that despite the label, Trader Joe's "Vitamin
E Oil" is made mostly of soybean oil -- a cheaper, filler oil.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants intentionally mislead
and shortchange consumers by falsely and deceptively
misrepresenting the Product as a vitamin E oil, when in reality,
the Product is a blend of oils, including soybean oil, vitamin E
oil, and coconut oil.

Trader Joe's Company is a corporation headquartered in Monrovia,
California.  Trader Joe's is the one of the owners,
manufacturers, and distributors of the Product, and is one of the
companies that created and/or authorized the false, misleading,
and deceptive packaging for the Product.  The true names and
capacities of the Doe Defendants are presently unknown to the
Plaintiff.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ryan J. Clarkson, Esq.
          Shireen M. Clarkson, Esq.
          Bahar Sodaify, Esq.
          CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C. FILED
          9255 Sunset Blvd., Suite 804
          Los Angeles, CA 90069
          Telephone: (213) 788-4050
          Facsimile: (213)788-4070
          E-mail: rclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com
                  sclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com
                  bsodaify@clarksonlawfirm.com


TRANS UNION: Accused by "De La Rosa" Class Suit of Violating FCRA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Juan De La Rosa, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Trans Union, LLC, Case No. 1:18-cv-00073-
RJS (S.D.N.Y., January 4, 2018), alleges violations of the Fair
Credit Reporting Act.

Trans Union LLC develops and delivers information and risk
management solutions.  The Company offers various credit
monitoring products, risk management solutions, marketing
services, and other related solutions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kevin Christopher Mallon, Esq.
          MALLON CONSUMER LAW GROUP, PLLC
          One Liberty Plaza, Suite 2301
          New York, NY 10006
          Telephone: (646) 759-3663
          Facsimile: (646) 759-3663
          E-mail: consumer.esq@outlook.com


TROY CAPITAL: "Cruz" Suit Seeks Damages Under FDCPA
---------------------------------------------------
Braian Cruz, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Troy Capital, LLC and John Does 1-25, Case No. 1:18-
cv-00717 (D. N.J., January 17, 2018), seeks damages, and
declaratory and injunctive relief under the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

Plaintiff Braian Cruz is a resident of the State of New Jersey,
County of Camden

Defendant Troy Capital, LLC is a debt collector. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Yaakov Saks, Esq.
      RC LAW GROUP, PLLC
      285 Passaic Street
      Hackensack, NJ 07601
      E-mail: ysaks@rclawgroup.com


TRUMP UNIVERSITY: 9th Cir. Upholds $25MM Class Action Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Marivic Cabural Summers, writing for USA Herald, reports that a
federal appeals court upheld the $25 million settlement agreement
in the class action lawsuit against Trump University.  Students
accused the now defunct for-profit education company of fraud for
using misleading marketing practices.

On Feb. 6, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Trump
University can now move forward with the settlement agreement.
The appeals court denied the petition of Sherri Simpson, the lone
objector to the deal.

Simpson, a bankruptcy lawyer in Florida, wanted to opt out of the
agreement and pursue her own lawsuit against President Donald
Trump. Simpson paid $19,000 for classes and a mentorship program
offered by Trump University.

The lawyers representing Simpson argued that the earlier notice
sent to Trump University participants indicated that they have
the right to drop out of the class action lawsuits immediately or
after any settlement proposal.

The court of appeals disagreed and stated that the notice to
class action participants promised only one opportunity to opt
out. The district court did not abuse its discretion in approving
the settlement.

District court acted well by approving Trump University
settlement

In its ruling, the court of appeals stated, "Both classes of
plaintiffs would have faced significant hurdles had they
proceeded to trial, including the difficulty of prevailing in a
jury trial against either the president-elect (if the trial had
proceeded as scheduled) or the sitting president.  Under these
challenging circumstances, the district court acted well within
its discretion by approving the settlement."

During the 2016 presidential election, New York Attorney General
Eric Schneiderman filed a lawsuit against Trump University and
Mr. Trump.  Two class action lawsuits were also filed against
them in the Southern District of California.

On December 19, 2016, the defendants reached a settlement
agreement with the plaintiffs, but did admit wrongdoing.  Trump
University agreed to pay $21 million to class action participants
and $4 million to New York Attorney General's Office.

At the time, a spokesperson for The Trump Organization explained
that settling the lawsuits was necessary to allow the president
to focus on the needs of the country.

New York AG's comment
In a statement, Mr. Schneiderman said, the court of appeal's
approval of the settlement "means that victims of Donald Trump's
fraudulent university will soon receive the $25 million in relief
they deserve."

He added that the final settlement ensures that class members
"will receive an even higher settlement than anyone originally
anticipated."

Furthermore, Mr. Schneiderman said, "For years, President Trump
refused to compensate the victims of his sham university.  His
reversal in 2016 -- and the large-scale settlement that resulted
-- opened the door for student victims to finally obtain the
restitution they deserve." [GN]


TSU GLOBAL: "Williams" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
DEQUAN WILLIAMS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. TSU GLOBAL SERVICES INC. d/b/a CENTER CITY
TRANSPORTATION INC. and CENTER CITY LIMO, Case No. 1:18-cv-00072-
RRM-ST (E.D.N.Y., January 5, 2018), seeks to recover alleged
unpaid overtime and misappropriated tips for the Plaintiff and
his similarly situated co-workers, who have worked for the
Defendant in the state of New York as "Drivers."

TSU Global Services Inc. is a domestic corporation, authorized to
do business pursuant to the laws of the state of New York.  TSU
maintains its principal place of business in Long Island City,
New York.

TSU describes itself as a company that "has been leading the way
in corporate and personal transportation in New York City for the
past twenty years."  TSU touts its "diverse team of professional
drivers are the best in the business, bringing with them dozens
of years of experience in the field."  Drivers transport TSU's
customers in its buses, vans, and other vehicles.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Troy L. Kessler, Esq.
          Garrett Kaske, Esq.
          SHULMAN KESSLER LLP
          534 Broadhollow Road, Suite 275
          Melville, NY 11747
          Telephone: (631) 499-9100
          E-mail: tk@shulmankessler.com
                  gkaske@shulmankessler.com


UNITED STATES: Fate of Indonesian Immigrants Still Uncertain
------------------------------------------------------------
Steph Solis, writing for Asbury Park Press, reports that a
federal judge's ruling that temporarily blocked the deportations
of Indonesian Christians without legal status in New Jersey
offers them a lifeline, but it's unclear whether they ultimately
will be allowed to stay in the U.S.

U.S. District Judge Esther Salas in Newark blocked the removal of
dozens of Indonesian Christians in New Jersey on Feb. 2 while she
reviews a class-action lawsuit that would grant them a second
chance to apply for asylum, based on an uptick in religious
attacks in Indonesia.  It may be weeks, even months, before the
judge issues a final decision on their request.

The ruling benefits several Indonesian Christian families who
entered sanctuary at the Reformed Church of Highland Park. The
group included Harry Pangemanan, 47, a church member who led a
team of volunteers in rebuilding some 209 Shore homes damaged
during Superstorm Sandy, and also traveled to other states to
help victims of other natural disasters.

"It's good to hear the good news.  We don't want to be overly
optimistic, particularly out of sensitivity to the families and
children who are affected," said Matthew Hersh, a councilman in
Highland Park who has supported the church's sanctuary
initiative.  "Everything is still up in the air."

Mr. Pangemanan, whose tale of volunteerism and sanctuary went
viral, said he and his family of four left the church on Feb. 4.
Yohanes Tasik, another Indonesian Christian, said he planned to
leave sanctuary on Feb. 5.  Two others, Silfia Tobing and Arthur
Jemmy, an Indonesian couple living in Edison, were aiming to
return home on Feb. 6.

The ruling doesn't stop agents from U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement from detaining them, but it stops them from deporting
them or moving current detainees to a facility in another
district while the class-action lawsuit is reviewed.  The Rev.
Seth Kaper-Dale said he's not too concerned that ICE would make
more arrests.

"ICE could choose to detain everybody in this class, put them in
Elizabeth Detention Center," Rev.  Kaper-Dale said on Feb. 3
during a prayer service at the church.  "That would be really
dumb."

ICE officials did not respond to multiple requests for comment.

The local men are among dozens of ethnic Chinese Christians in
New Jersey who fled persecution in Indonesia, a Muslim-majority
nation, and overstayed their visas.  They repeatedly requested
asylum, but immigration courts denied their petitions because
they applied after a one-year deadline imposed by Congress in a
1996 immigration law.

Congressional critics of illegal immigration in the U.S. are
pushing for changes that would criminalize visa overstays and
curtail family-based migration.

The story of the local families unfolds as the White House and
Congress are considering a replacement to the expiring Deferred
Action for Childhood Arrivals program, which has protected
hundreds of thousands of unauthorized immigrants from
deportation.

Republicans are pushing for a budget deal that would reauthorize
DACA and grant a path to citizenship for some 1.8 million
immigrants who entered the country as children, in exchange for a
$25 billion "trust fund" for a wall along the southwestern border
and sharply restricting legal immigration.

The new restrictions could include prosecuting people who
overstayed their visas.  Rep. Jim Banks, R-Ind., endorsed the
changes.

"Any DACA agreement should strengthen border security, improve
enforcement technology, increase interior enforcement and address
visa overstays," he wrote in a recent tweet.

Rev. Kaper-Dale said the negotiations over DACA largely ignore
the estimated 4.2 million children with immigrant parents who
lack legal status. He wonders what will happen to them if their
parents are deported.

Mr. Pangemanan and his wife raised two U.S.-born daughters, ages
11 and 15, in Highland Park. He said he overstayed his visa
because he feared religious persecution in his home country.

During his time in New Jersey, Mr. Pangemanan went on several
disaster relief missions with the church.  He led a team of
volunteers to rebuild 209 Jersey Shore homes hit by Sandy.

He also joined volunteers in other states providing relief during
Hurricane Irene in New York, the drinking water crisis in Flint,
Mich., and Hurricane Harvey in Texas.

"He forgot about his own life. He worried about everyone else,"
Laura Traynor, one of dozens of Union Beach homeowners helped by
Mr. Pangemanan, told the Asbury Park Press.

Although these Indonesians Christians failed to obtain asylum,
ICE allowed them to remain in the country.  The agency granted
them "orders of supervision" if the agreed to come out of the
shadows in 2009.  But they remained unauthorized immigrants.

The New Jersey case follows a similar case in New England where a
federal judge ruled in favor of Indonesian Christians without
legal status.

Indonesian Christians in New Hampshire entered a similar
agreement with an ICE field office known as "Operation Indonesian
Surrender."  They reportedly learned last year that ICE agents
were ordered to discontinue the orders of supervision.

While those in sanctuary and their relatives celebrated Judge
Salas' ruling, they asked the community not to forget about
immigrants without legal status detained or already deported by
ICE.

Roby Sanger, a Metuchen resident, was arrested Jan. 25 after
taking his two daughters at school.  So was Gunawan Liem of
Franklin Park after he dropped off his daughter at a school bus
stop.

Parlin Sinaga, a father of three from Woodbridge, was detained by
ICE in October.  Feb. 3 marked his 111th day in detention.

ICE Acting Director Thomas Homan told CNN in an interview that
the unauthorized immigrants had no one to blame but themselves.

"When someone enters this country illegally or someone overstays
their visa, they know they're in this country illegally," Homan
said.  "If they take it upon themselves to have a child in this
country and becomes a U.S. citizen by birth, he put his family in
that position, not ICE, not border patrol." [GN]


VILLAGE OF HOLLY: Gumbleton Appeals Oakland Cir. Ct. Ruling
-----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Heidi Marie Gumbleton filed an appeal from a court
ruling entered in the lawsuit styled HEIDI MARIE GUMBLETON v.
VILLAGE OF HOLLY, Case No. 2017-157734-CZ, in the Oakland County
Circuit Court.

The appellate case is captioned as HEIDI MARIE GUMBLETON v.
VILLAGE OF HOLLY, Case No. 342025, in the Michigan Court of
Appeals.[BN]

Plaintiff HEIDI MARIE GUMBLETON/ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED is
represented by:

          Dale M. Smith, Esq.
          808 E Maple St.
          Holly, MI 48442
          Telephone: (248) 634-7831
          Facsimile: (248) 634-0096
          E-mail: catydal@aol.com

Defendant-Appellee VILLAGE OF HOLLY is represented by:

          Caroline Brooks Giordano, Esq.
          MILLER, CANFIELD, PADDOCK AND STONE, P.L.C.
          101 North Main Street, 7th Floor
          Ann Arbor, MI 48104
          Telephone: (734) 668-7732
          Facsimile: (734) 747-7147
          E-mail: giordano@millercanfield.com


VODAFONE GROUP: Sued by Ferrare for Violating Australian Law
------------------------------------------------------------
CHARLES FERRARE, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. VODAFONE GROUP PUBLIC LIMITED COMPANY,
VITTORIO COLAO and NICK READ, Case No. 1:18-cv-00466 (S.D.N.Y.,
January 18, 2018), alleges that the Defendants made false and
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that Vodafone had
contravened Australian law by permitting customers to purchase
pre-paid mobile phones without first verifying their identities.

Vodafone is a London company with principal offices located in
Berkshire, England.  The Company also maintains an American
regional headquarter in New York City.  The Individual Defendants
are directors and officers of the Company.

Vodafone is one of the world's largest telecommunications
companies and provides a range of services, including voice,
messaging, data and fixed communications.  The Company has mobile
operations in 26 countries, partners with mobile networks in 50
more, and fixed broadband operations in 19 markets.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          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


WEST BLOOMFIELD, MI: Court Vacates Summary Dismissal in "Logan"
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Michigan issued an Opinion vacating the
judgment of the Circuit Court granting Defendant's Summary
Judgment in the case captioned KEVIN LOGAN, Individually and on
Behalf of All others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v. CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF WEST BLOOMFIELD, Defendant-Appellee, No.
333452 (Mich App.).

Plaintiffs brought a self-styled class-action suit against West
Bloomfield Charter Township, challenging fees levied by the
township's building division. Their complaint asserted equitable
and legal claims.

The circuit court summarily dismissed plaintiffs' complaint in
part upon the township's motion. The court dismissed the class
plaintiffs' and Logan's individual Headlee Amendment claims
arising before September 16, 2014, on statute of limitations
grounds pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(7).

The Mich. App. granted leave to appeal limited to the issue of
whether the circuit court erred when it dismissed plaintiffs'
unjust enrichment claim premised on the township's alleged
violation of the CCA.  Plaintiffs' unjust enrichment claim
premised on the township's alleged violation of the CCA (not the
Headlee Amendment as incorrectly posited in the circuit court's
opinion) pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(8).

Plaintiffs contend that the circuit court erred because: (1) they
were permitted to plead alternative and inconsistent causes of
action, and (2) the circuit court incorrectly ruled that
plaintiffs were precluded from raising a claim of unjust
enrichment premised on MCL 125.1522(1) where that statute did not
expressly provide a legal remedy for violations of its
provisions.

In their CCA claim, plaintiffs assert that the township's
building division fees were unreasonable and misappropriated for
non-building division purposes in violation of MCL 125.1522(1).
In the Headlee Amendment claim, plaintiffs contended that the
township's fees were actually an illegal tax. There is no bright-
line test for distinguishing between a valid user fee and a tax
that violates the Headlee Amendment. Generally, a fee is
`exchanged for a service rendered or a benefit conferred, and
some reasonable relationship exists between the amount of the fee
and the value of the service or benefit. A tax, on the other
hand, is designed to raise revenue.

Three primary criteria guide a court's determination: (1) a user
fee must serve a regulatory purpose rather than a revenue-raising
purpose, (2) user fees must be proportionate to the necessary
costs of the service, and (3) a fee is voluntary. While the
factual considerations are similar and interrelated, plaintiffs
were not required to exclusively allege one claim over the other.
Moreover, given that there is no bright-line test for a Headlee
Amendment claim, it is entirely possible that plaintiffs' Headlee
Amendment claim might fail, leaving them without an adequate
legal remedy absent their unjust enrichment claim. Therefore, it
was appropriate for plaintiffs to raise both claims in their
complaint.

The Mich. App. vacates the summary disposition judgment in
relation to plaintiffs' unjust enrichment claim and remanded for
further proceedings.  The Mich. App. does not retain
jurisdiction.

A full-text copy of the Court of Appeals' January 11, 2018,
Opinion  is available at https://tinyurl.com/y9448wdh from
Leagle.com.

LESLIE ANNE LOGAN, 3080 Orchard Lake Rd., Ste C, Keego, Harbor,
MI, 48320 for KEVIN W. LOGAN, Plaintiff-Appellant.

VAHAN C. VANERIAN, 2600 Troy Center Dr. PO Box 5025. Troy, MI
48084-4770, for CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF WEST BLOOMFIELD, Defendant-
Appellee.


WHITE COUNTY, TN: Certification of Class Sought in "Stall" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit entitled DAVID STALL v. SHERIFF
ODDIE SHOUPE, et al., Case No. 2:17-cv-00060 (M.D. Tenn.), moves
to certify a class consisting of:

     all persons 1) who were free at the time of filing this
     action, 2) who were offered of a thirty-day reduction in
     jail time in exchange for receiving a vasectomy, 3) who were
     incarcerated at the White County Jail at any time during the
     period beginning October 9, 2016 and ending July 27, 2017,
     and 4) who did not sign up for an actual vasectomy.

Oddie Shoupe is the Sheriff of White County, Tennessee.

The Defendants instituted a planned eugenics program, coercing
Plaintiff and other inmates under their care and custody to trade
30 days in reduced jail time, for at least temporary
sterilization in the form of vasectomies, the Plaintiff asserts.

The Plaintiff argues that the Defendants' modern-day Eugenics
program has violated the Equal Protection rights of the class,
and that is why he seeks to enjoin the Defendants' alleged
unlawful conduct and obtain declaratory relief, as well as all
allowable class damages.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=kunI5ZnE

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William H. Stover, Esq.
          STOVER LAW GROUP
          222 2nd Ave. North, Suite 326
          Nashville, TN 37201
          Telephone: (615) 613-0541
          Facsimile: (615) 613-0546
          E-mail: ws@Wstoverlaw.com

               - and -

          Mario B. Williams, Esq.
          NEXUS CARIDADES ATTORNEYS, INC.
          44 Broad Street, NW, Suite 200
          Atlanta, GA 30303
          Telephone: (404) 654-0288
          Facsimile: (703) 935-2453
          E-mail: mwilliams@nexuscaridades.com


WHITE COUNTY, TN: Garrett Seeks to Certify Class of Ex-Inmates
--------------------------------------------------------------
Clara Molly Garrett, Cheyene Paige Mabe and Tonya Gail Qualls,
Plaintiffs in the lawsuit captioned CLARA MOLLY GARRETT v.
SHERIFF ODDIE SHOUPE, et al., Case No. 2:17-cv-00059 (M.D.
Tenn.), file with the Court their consolidated motion to certify
a class defined as:

     All persons 1) who were free at the time of filing this
     action, 2) who received a Nexplanon Implant in exchange for
     the offer of a thirty-day reduction in jail time, and 3) who
     received said Nexplanon implant while incarcerated at the
     White County Jail at any time during the period beginning
     October 9, 2016 and ending July 27, 2017.

Oddie Shoupe is the Sheriff of White County, Tennessee.

The Defendants instituted a planned eugenics program, coercing
the Plaintiffs and other inmates under their care and custody to
trade 30 days in reduced jail time, for at least temporary
sterilization in the form of Nexplanon injections, according to
the Plaintiffs.

The Defendants' modern-day Eugenics program has violated the
Fourteenth Amendment Substantive and Procedural Due Process
rights of the class, the Plaintiffs contend.  That is why the
Plaintiffs say they seek to enjoin the Defendants' unlawful
conduct and obtain declaratory relief, as well as all allowable
class damages.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          William H. Stover, Esq.
          STOVER LAW GROUP
          222 2nd Ave. North, Suite 326
          Nashville, TN 37201
          Telephone: (615) 613-0541
          Facsimile: (615) 613-0546
          E-mail: ws@Wstoverlaw.com

               - and -

          Mario B. Williams, Esq.
          NEXUS CARIDADES ATTORNEYS, INC.
          44 Broad Street, NW, Suite 200
          Atlanta, GA 30303
          Telephone: (404) 654-0288
          Facsimile: (703) 935-2453
          E-mail: mwilliams@nexuscaridades.com


XUNLEI LIMITED: Faces "Dookeran" Securities Suit Over OneCoin
-------------------------------------------------------------
RUNCIE DOOKERAN, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. XUNLEI LIMITED, LEI CHEN, ERIC ZHOU and TAO
THOMAS WU, Case No. 1:18-cv-00467 (S.D.N.Y., January 18, 2018),
is a federal securities class action on behalf of all investors,
who purchased or otherwise acquired Xunlei American Depositary
Shares seeking remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

The Class Period begins on October 10, 2017, when Xunlei issued a
press release announcing the introduction of "OneCoin" to the
market on October 12, 2017, a blockchain-based product with no
central bank endorsed value.

Mr. Dookeran accuses the Defendants of failing to disclose that:
(1) Xunlei had engaged into an unlawful financial activity; (2)
OneCoin was a form of disguised Initial Coin Offering; (3) Xunlei
was engaged into the promotion of an Initial Miner Offering; and
(4) as a result of the foregoing, the Defendants' statements
about Xunlei's business, operations, and prospects, were false
and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

Xunlei is incorporated in the Cayman Islands with its principal
offices located in Shenzhen, China.  The Individual Defendants
are directors and officers of the Company.  Xunlei is a cloud-
based acceleration technology company operating an Internet
platform in China based on cloud technology to enable users to
access, manage, and consume digital media content.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          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


YELP INC: "Azar" Suit Alleges Exchange Act Violations
-----------------------------------------------------
Roei Azar, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Yelp, Inc., Jeremy Stoppelman and Lanny Baker, Case
No. 3:18-cv-00400 (N.D. Calif., January 18, 2018), is a
securities class action on behalf of all purchasers of common
stock of Yelp between February 10, 2017 and May 9, 2017,
inclusive, alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

The complaint asserts that the Defendants made false and
misleading statements which caused Yelp common stock to trade at
an artificially inflated prices during the class period.
Plaintiff Roei Azar purchased Yelp common stock during the Class
Period and suffered damages.

Defendant Yelp is a California corporation with its principal
executive offices located in San Francisco, California. Yelp's
stock trades on the New York Stock Exchange under the ticker
YELP. Yelp is an online review company to seek to provide a
platform for businesses and consumers to interact regarding goods
and services. Yelp provides business with both free and
paid services and derives most of its revenue though the sale of
advertising products.

Defendant Jeremy Stoppelman is, and was at all relevant times,
the Chief Executive Officer of Yelp and a member of its Board of
Directors.

Defendant Lanny Baker is, and was at all relevant times, the
Chief Financial Officer of Yelp. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
      Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
      Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq.
      Charles H. Linehan, Esq.
      GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
      1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
      Los Angeles, CA 90067
      Tel: (310) 201-9150
      Fax: (310) 201-9160
      E-mail: lportnoy@glancylaw.com

          - and -

      Corey D. Holzer, Esq.
      Marshall P. Dees, Esq.
      Alexandria P. Rankin, Esq.
      HOLZER & HOLZER, LLC
      1200 Ashwood Parkway, Suite 410
      Atlanta, GA 30338
      Tel: (770) 392-0090
      Fax: (770) 392-0029


ZWICKER & ASSOCIATES: Accused by "Espeleta" for Violating FDCPA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gladys Espeleta, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Zwicker & Associates, P.C., Case No. 2:18-cv-00021-
JMA-GRB (E.D.N.Y., January 3, 2018), alleges violations of the
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The lawsuit is assigned to Judge Joan M. Azrack and referred to
Magistrate Judge Gary R. Brown.

Zwicker & Associates, P.C., operates as a law firm.  The Company
offers debt collection and other legal services to various
sectors.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ryan L. Gentile, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF GUS MICHAEL FARINELLA
          110 Jericho Turnpike, Suite 100
          Floral Park, NY 11001
          Telephone: (516) 326-2333
          Facsimile: (516) 305-5566
          E-mail: rlg@lawgmf.com


* Class Actions Over Robocalls Against Major Cruise Lines Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Chabeli Herrera, writing for Miami Herald, reports that nearly
everyone is familiar with the call: A too-good-to-be-true offer
for a "free" cruise, promising a stress-free Caribbean getaway --
as long as you BUY NOW.

But it's when would-be travelers actually start to look at the
details of their "free" vacation that things can get messy.

Available dates may be severely limited. The seller may try to
add on a hotel stay -- for a price.  Travelers may find out
they'll need to first sit through a timeshare presentation or pay
government taxes or port fees -- despite the prohibition by
Florida law that the only allowable charge for a prize is the
cost of delivery.

And those who cancel may find getting a refund to be nearly
impossible.

"When you start asking those questions and thinking about the
hoops you have to jump through, the hassle might outweigh the
'free' cruise part," said Colleen McDaniel, senior executive
editor at Cruise Critic, a cruise review website that has seen
numerous complaints about "free" cruise offers.

Still, many travelers bite, lured by a steeply marked-down
vacation.  All too often, such "free" travel offers can be
deceptive schemes perpetrated by Florida-based companies trying
to piggyback on South Florida's status as the Cruise Capital of
the World.

And, granted, some discounted voyages have yielded positive
experiences.

Facebook user Kelly Faust Ray said on Cruise Critic in the summer
of 2017 that she had a "great time" on her "free" cruise.
According to her post, she paid $29 a night plus taxes for a
hotel stay in Fort Lauderdale, $15 for three daily buffets for
two at the hotel, plus tax and gratuities, and government taxes
and fees on the cruise.

"We did have to go to a [90-minute] timeshare presentation -- we
were out in [90 minutes].  How we figure it is this: We don't
make $300 at our jobs in [90 minutes], you don't get something
for nothing," she commented.  "[Ninety minutes] out of our day is
doable."

But in many instances, such "free" travel deals turn into trouble
for consumers: Last year, the Florida Department of Agriculture
and Consumer Services received 1,028 complaints about travel or
vacation plans, making it the No. 8 most common complaint. The
department characterizes "free" cruise deals that require
travelers to pay additional fees as travel scams.

Online message boards, forums and social media sites are also
rife with consumer posts complaining about "free" cruise schemes
or seeking answers about offers they received.

A 2010 post on maritime lawyer Jim Walker's Cruise Law News blog
about Caribbean Cruise Line, a travel agency that allegedly sells
"free" cruises and has been sued in a class action lawsuit,
spawned a 72-comment spree that spanned six years, through August
2016.  The company, not related to major line Royal Caribbean
Cruises, has an "F" rating from the Better Business Bureau.

The majority of the complaints on Walker's site referred to the
business practices of Caribbean and similar firms.  An editorial
post about Caribbean's practices on the popular site Cruise
Critic drew 84 comments.  Facebook is home to a number of
complaints about "free" cruise deals.  As is Twitter.

"Got a phone call telling me I won a free cruise today.  Was
cautiously optimistic for a few moments. Obviously a scam. Can't
answer unknown numbers," tweeted user @Jamie_Thompson in
November.

How it works
The scheme typically begins with a phone call telling the
listener that he or she has won a "free" cruise, or asking the
consumer to participate in a political survey. Some start with a
post shared on Facebook, a text message or a mailer.

Some travelers take the deal -- often only to rethink it when
they can't book a date that matches their schedules or when they
find out about additional fees.

When they try to cancel for a refund, they find themselves
trapped in a complex web of companies working together to market
the "free" cruise, handle the booking and charge consumers --
making it difficult, if not impossible, to secure reimbursement.
In most cases, none of those companies is the actual cruise line.

While the issue is not new, several consumers recently reached
out to the Miami Herald about problems with "free" or discounted
cruise deals.  Among them was Rebecca Wood, a retail worker from
Port Wentworth, Georgia, who was planning to sail on an early
October voyage on Bahamas Paradise Cruise Line.  The one-ship
(soon to be two) Fort Lauderdale-based line operates two-night
voyages between the Port of Palm Beach and Grand Bahama Island.

Wood and her boyfriend, Spencer Brown, said they received
multiple unsolicited calls for a discounted cruise vacation --
with the caveat that they'd have to sit through a timeshare
presentation.  The callers said they were representatives of
Bahamas Paradise Cruise Line, Wood said.  But the phone numbers
were actually associated with a Tampa-based travel agency called
Blue Star Cruises. (Wood has filed a complaint with the state of
Florida.)

During the booking process, in December 2016, agents at Blue Star
gave the couple a different number to call if they had questions,
Wood said.  It belonged to Orlando-based Grand Celebration
Cruises.

1,028 Number of complaints about travel or vacation plans to the
Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services in 2017

Grand Celebration Cruises' name was similar to the name of the
ship the couple was booking -- the 1,900-passenger Grand
Celebration, owned by Bahamas Paradise Cruise Line. But the
firm's name actually belonged to an inactive company y in
Florida.  Grand Celebration Cruises was in operation for only
four months in early 2017, according to state records.

Thinking they were being contacted by the cruise line, Bahamas
Paradise, Wood and Brown went ahead with the $428 reservation.

Then, shortly before the couple's sailing, the trip was canceled.
Bahamas Paradise Cruise Line's ship was chartered by the Federal
Emergency Management Agency to house hurricane relief workers in
St. Thomas from Sept. 23 to Dec. 23.  As a result, all the
voyages in that time frame were canceled.

The cruise line promised via a news release to refund affected
travelers, so why were Wood and Brown struggling to get their
refund?

Although they didn't know it when they booked, they were dealing
with four marketing companies at once.  None of them was the
actual cruise line, Bahamas Paradise.

Blue Star Cruises called offering the discounted cruise. Fort
Lauderdale-based Reservation and Fulfillment Services, Inc.,
emailed the itinerary.  Fort Lauderdale-based Royal Seas Cruises
emailed the notice that the cruise was canceled.  And the now-
defunct Grand Celebration Cruises billed them.

"This whole time we thought we had booked directly through the
cruise line," Wood said.  "It was extremely misleading."

She said she spoke to multiple representatives at Reservation and
Fulfillment Services, for which she had contact numbers from
email correspondence regarding her itinerary.  The options
offered: to take an all-land vacation in Florida, take a ferry to
the Bahamas, or reschedule the cruise for another date within the
next six months -- but pay the port fees again.

"We said, 'None of these options are going to work for us, we
want our money back.' And [the representative] said, 'Well that's
not going to happen,'" Wood recalled.  "They said, 'You paid a
discounted rate.' I said, 'What I paid shouldn't matter. I'm not
the one that is canceling the trip.' "

Wood was caught in what experts allege is a tactic that is tried
on hundreds, if not thousands, of travelers every year.  The
players involved in this complicated scheme may change, but the
strategy remains the same.

"It's all about plausible deniability," said Christopher Elliott,
a consumer advocacy expert who has helped many travelers unravel
these kinds of schemes across the travel industry.  "You have
entity A, the cruise line; entity B, the travel agency; and
entity C, the fulfillment company. If something goes wrong with
the trip, there is some finger pointing, some shoulder shrugging,
but nobody is going to get a refund."

In Wood's case, every company involved in the couple's
reservation had behind it a string of complaints and
unsatisfactory ratings from the Better Business Bureau.  The
exception is the cruise line itself, Bahamas Paradise Cruise
Line, which has no rating with the Better Business Bureau but
three stars on Yelp.

Blue Star Cruises, a nearly 2-1/2-year-old company, has an "F"
rating from the bureau and 46 complaints.  Reservations and
Fulfillment Services, Inc., established in December 2014, has
scored a "C-".  Royal Seas Cruises, also established in December
2014, has an "F" rating and 207 complaints filed against it in
what the Better Business Bureau has identified as a pattern of
similar grievances.  Grand Celebration Cruises, in operation from
February to June 2017, has a flunking grade with the bureau, too,
an "F," and 35 complaints.

But like most consumers, Wood didn't check the companies out
before she booked, because she had no reason to know they were
involved -- until later.

When asked about Wood's reservation, Royal Seas Cruises vice
president Melissa Hanson said via email that Wood and Brown, who
made the reservation, "is not and has never been a customer of
Royal Seas Cruises, so we have no information relating to them."

Emails provided by the couple to the Herald tell a different
story.  One, from Royal Seas Cruises, the marketing firm, cited
the couple's reservation number and was signed by the company
with a street address matching the one for Royal Seas documented
in state records.  The server address from which the email was
sent, royalseascs.com, re-directs to royalseascruises.com.

"I see that the customer received an email that referenced Royal
Seas, but that does not mean that it was sent by Royal Seas,"
Hanson said.  "I am confused as well, but as I said earlier, this
is not our customer."

The other companies involved in Wood and Brown's reservation --
Blue Star Cruises, Reservations and Fulfillment Services, Inc.,
and Grand Celebration Cruises -- did not respond to several
requests by the Miami Herald for comment.

In October 2017, Wood and Brown filed a complaint with the
Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services against
Reservations and Fulfillment Services, Inc., according to records
from the department.

But the agency pursued a case against the cruise line, Bahamas
Paradise, instead. After multiple attempts to reach the cruise
line with no response, the case was closed Jan. 26, state
documents show.

The case was reopened this month, the department said, but
against the company with which Wood originally lodged her
complaint: Reservations and Fulfillment Services, Inc.

She has yet to secure a refund.

Fighting 'free' cruise offers
Wood's next step: Consider filing a lawsuit. But she and other
victims face challenges there, too.

Most maritime lawyers don't take on "free" cruise deal cases
because the amount of money involved doesn't justify the legal
costs of hiring an attorney, said three Miami-based maritime
attorneys.

"Unless you're dealing with a case on a class-action basis, it's
hard to justify the time and tremendous expense of litigation,"
said Michel Winkleman, a maritime lawyer with Miami-based Lipcon,
Margulies, Alsina and Winkleman.  "That's part of a broader
problem with corporations in general where they are taking
advantage of individual consumers on such a small basis and it
makes it difficult for lawyers to seek recourse for them."

Major cruise lines allegedly have been involved, too.  A 2012
class action lawsuit that claimed Carnival Cruise Line, Royal
Caribbean International and Norwegian Cruise Line authorized
Resort Marketing Group and related companies to make recorded
robocalls offering "free" cruises, reached a settlement of up to
$12.5 million in 2017.

Because the defendants were major corporations, Chicago-based
Burke Law Offices and Massachusetts-based Broderick Law and Law
Office of Matthew P. McCue stand to share as much as nearly $4.4
million in fees and costs, although the court has yet to award
legal fees.

Also as part of the settlement, consumers who received
unwarranted phone calls could be awarded up to $900 for the calls
if they filed a claim.

Some other class action lawsuits dealing with similar issues also
have been successful.  A 2012 case against Caribbean Cruise Line,
the Fort-Lauderdale based travel agency, claiming the company was
robocalling an estimated 900,000 people with political surveys
and then offering them a "free" cruise, ended in a settlement of
up to $76 million.  People affected were entitled to $500 per
call.

A similar case against Caribbean brought on in 2015 by the
Federal Trade Commission and attorneys general in 10 states,
including Florida, ended in a permanent injunction for some of
the companies that assisted Caribbean Cruise Line in running an
illegal telemarketing campaign.  According to the complaint,
consumers were flooded by literally billions of robocalls -- and
"free" cruise offers.

A class action suit brought by two other consumers, Leshia Baxter
of Arkansas and Arthur Keshishyan of California, on behalf of
others who have claimed they received unsolicited calls was filed
in July 2017, initially against Grand Celebration Cruises and
Blue Star Cruises for allegedly making the calls and offering a
"free" cruise package in exchange for taking a political survey.

"This is a scam," the complaint alleges, "which, as the
Washington Attorney General's Office has described, involves 'the
patent illegality of commercial robo-calling and
misrepresentations that it's a political poll.' Not only is the
'free' cruise not free, the survey is simply a marketing tool
with no legitimate political basis."

The lawsuit has yet to be resolved.  Also still unresolved are
three class action lawsuits against Royal Seas Cruises, all filed
between May 2017 and January 2018, which include similar
allegations of unsolicited calls for "free" cruises.

In these seven cases and others that draw consumer complaints,
patterns arise: Some of the companies, whether cruise line or
travel agency, are represented by attorneys in a single law firm;
some have common management.

Case in point: In a September 2016 deposition for a personal
injury case, Edward Norman Levitan, former executive vice
president and chief financial officer at Bahamas Paradise Cruise
Line, highlighted the relationship between some of South
Florida's small cruise lines that offer quick trips to the
Bahamas.

According to Levitan, some of the same individuals who owned
cruise company Imperial Majesty Cruise Line also later held
ownership in Celebration Cruise Line -- a cruise line with an "F"
Better Business Bureau rating -- before both companies closed
after issues with their ships.

Some of those same individuals then started Bahamas Paradise
Cruise Line, bringing with them 50 to 60 percent of the former
employees of Celebration Cruise Line, Levitan said. Bahamas
Paradise retained the reservation-processing software used by
Celebration.

Cruise lines typically work with many agents or wholesalers to
market their sailings.  At the time of the 2016 deposition,
Bahamas Paradise had contracts with approximately 70 wholesalers
to market its cruises.  Glenn Ryerson, former executive vice
president for sales and marketing at Bahamas Paradise Cruise
Line, put that number at more than 100 in a November 2017 Miami
Herald interview. Among them, Ryerson said, was Royal Seas
Cruises.

But with major cruise lines, consumers generally pay the same
price, whether they book directly with the company or with a
travel agent, and prices are widely advertised.  The cruise line
pays the travel agent a preset commission, typically 15 percent.

Like some other smaller lines, Bahamas Paradise allows the
booking entity to set the price -- and choose what commission it
gets -- as long as the cruise line gets its share.

"So we quote them a specific net rate and they sell it for
whatever they can sell it for and, you know, included in packages
that they promote as travel packages and/or some of them just
sell just the cruise itself," Levitan explained in the
deposition, taken by maritime attorney Winkleman.

Why this persists
So if such practices are known to occur, creating problems for
many consumers, why do these companies persist?

In part, it's because the lawsuits that are filed generally name
only the companies involved, and not the individuals who own or
run them.  Most businesses are registered as a corporation,
partnership or limited liability company for tax purposes and to
protect the owners against personal liability in case of legal
proceedings.

"Part of the reason you set up a corporation is to insulate
yourself from personal liability," Winkleman said.  "If there is
nothing to go after in terms of insurance and assets, then no
lawyer is going to take your case. These small little fly-by-
night companies, they are [sometimes] nothing more than office
space and a phone, so when they are committing wrongdoing, there
is essentially nothing to go after."

Most of the class action suits target companies for breaching the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act, which restricts telemarketing
calls and requires telemarketers to get written consent from
consumers before robocalling them.  As a result, the company may
be shut down, but "the individuals can take all their assets and
move them to a new company," said Elliott, the consumer advocate.

All they need to do is file the new company name and articles of
incorporation or organization online at sunbiz.org. The cost:
between $70 and $160.

The government's powers are also limited.

The Florida Attorney General's Office's Consumer Protection
Division, which gets many of the complaints, has only civil
enforcement duty and can't press criminal charges against
individuals.

And though the state attorney's office may be able to pursue
criminal charges, there isn't much incentive for them to do so.

"Think about how low in the totem pole this is for them,"
Winkleman said.  "If they are dealing with murders and rapes,
this is really at the bottom of the totem pole for them."

"Free" cruise deal cases involve relatively small amounts of
money, too, so they are rarely brought by police to the attention
of the state attorney's offices, said Jeff Marcus, chief
assistant state attorney in Broward County, home to several of
the companies involved in Wood's case.

"I don't know that it's ever been presented to us as an
investigation being done by police," Marcus said.

If the amount of money involved is small, a single incident may
not be severe enough to be a criminal action, he said. [GN]


                            *********


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

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

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

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

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

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



                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *