CAR_Public/180222.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


           Thursday, February 22, 2018, Vol. 20, No. 39



                            Headlines


ABERDEEN ENTERPRIZES II: Sued Over Debt-Collection Practices
ACCEL CAPITAL: Abante Rooter Suit Alleges TCPA Violations
ACG TEXAS: Chancellor" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
AETNA INC: Faces Another Suit Over HIV Patient Disclosures
AETNA INC: "Freedman" Suit Challenges CVS Merger Deal

ALLIED INTERSTATE: Truss Sues over Automated Calls
ALLTRAN FINANCIAL: "Reyes" Action Disputes Collection Letter
AMERICAN FAMILY: Fails to Pay Overtime Under FLSA, Robinson Says
AMERICAN INSURANCE: Vetter Sues over Unsolicited Text Messages
AMERICAN SPOTTING: "Perkins" Suit Seeks to Recover OT Under FLSA

AMERICAN SUGAR: Deccola Seeks OT Pay for Pre-shift Prepping
ANGLO AMERICAN: Court Postpones Silicosis Class Action Appeal
APPFOLIO INC: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss "Leo" FCRA Suit
APPLE INC: Sens Sues Over Defective iOS Updates for iPhones
APPLE INC: "Bilic" Suit Asserts Consumer Act Violations

APPLE INC: "Block" Suit Alleges Consumer Act Violations
ARS NATIONAL: Stewart Sues over Debt Collection
ASHLEY FURNITURE: Perisic Seeks to Certify Class of Consumers
ASHWOOD FINANCIAL: Wins Summary Judgment in "Spiegel" Suit
ASSET RECOVERY: "Brown" Suit Seeks Damages Under FDCPA

AVALON BAY: Watkins Sues in Massachusetts over Pet Charges
BANK OF AMERICA: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss "Dobbins"
BH MANAGEMENT: "Pagan" Suit Moved to Southern District of Florida
BIG CITY: Article by Plaintiffs' Firm on Class Action Criticized
BLEIER & COX: "Horn" Suit Moved to Southern Dist. of California

BOWLMOR CORPORATION: "Omland" Action Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay
CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT: Class Action Over Room Tax Fees Pending
CANADA: Sexual Assault Class Action Dismissal Motion Criticized
CANADA: Conservatives React to Move to Halt Sexual Assault Suit
CANADA: Sexual Assault Survivors React to Move to Halt Lawsuit

CANADA: MP O'Toole Reacts to Move to Halt Sexual Assault Case
CAVALRY PORTFOLIO: "Schurger" Suit Alleges FDCPA Violation
CDK GLOBAL: Faces Kenny Thomas Antitrust Class Suit in S.D. Ohio
CERTIFIED OF NY: "Calle" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
CHARLES FIERGOLA: Kitchner Moves to Certify FCRA & FDCPA Classes

CHEMOIL CORP: "Hall" Action Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay
CHRYSLER GROUP: Class Certification Sought in "Tomassini" Suit
CHS EMPLOYMENT: FLSA Class Certification Sought in "Smith" Suit
CIVEO CORP: "Suhr" Action Seeks to Halt Noralta Acquisition
COCA-COLA BOTTLING: "Connell" Suit Seeks Damages Under FLSA

CRST EXPEDITED: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss "Montoya" Suit
DELOITTE: Ont. Court Certifies Document Reviewers' Class Action
EAST SIDE BAGEL: Salgado Seeks to Recover Minimum and OT Wages
EMILY CORP: Must Face Camp Drugs' TCPA Class Action Over Fax Ads
EQUIFAX INC: Senator Warren Releases Report on 2017 Data Breach

ESTIA: Faces Class Action Threat Over 2017 Financial Guidance
EZ MED SUPPLIES: "Akmyradova" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
FACEBOOK INC: Investors Seek $129MM Fee in Non-Voting Stock Suit
FACEBOOK INC: Keller Attorney Discusses Class Action Ruling
FCA US LLC: Union Members Allege Bribery in Collective Bargaining

FEIN SUCH: "Lugo" Suit Disputes Collection Letter
FREDERIC WEINBERG: "Straley" Disputes Collection Letter
GLOSSINGER HOLDINGS: Ramirez Sues over OT Pay & Minimum Wage
GODADDY.COM LLC: Court Denies Bid to Certify Class in "Ventures"
GOOGLE INC: CEI Lawyer Ted Frank Seeks Review of Class Action

GOOGLE INC: Faces Class Action Over Defective Pixel Smartphones
GOPRO INC: Sued by Ladd for Issuing False & Misleading Statements
GREAT LAKES: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime, "Hill" Suit Alleges
HEALTHCARE REVENUE: "Byfield" Suit Seeks Damages Under FDCPA
HELVEY & ASSOCIATES: Violates FDCPA, "Irving" Suit Claims

HILLSTONE HEALTHCARE: Smith Moves for Certification of FLSA Class
HUDSON BUFFET: Marcial Seeks Overtime, Spread-of-Hours Pay
IHOP: More Than 60 Women File Sexual Harassment Complaints
IMS TRADING: Court Grants Leave to File TAC in "Dopico"
INTEGRIS HEALTH: Okla. High Ct. Reverses Dismissal of "Cates"

JIMMY JOHN'S: Claims Against Franchisor, Franchisees Can Proceed
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Rosen Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims
KENTUCKY: Faces Class Action Over Medicaid Requirements
LG ELECTRONICS: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss "Hudock" Suit
LIBERTY OILFIELD: Tenth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Harris" Suit

LYONS DOUGHTY: Saroza Appeals D.N.J. Decision to Third Circuit
MASTRIA INCORPORATED: De Leon Moves for FLSA Class Certification
MAZGANI SOCIAL: Ct. Denies Khosroabadi's Class Certification Bid
MDL 1869: Carter Appeals Order in Antitrust Case to D.C. Cir.
MDL 2624: Court Dismisses Section 369 Claim in Adware Litigation

MDL 2804: Lincoln County Commissioners Join Opioid Class Action
MDL 2804: Nitro City Has Yet to Decide on Joining Opioid Case
MEDIANEWS GROUP: Dickson Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls
MEDTRONIC INC: Court Certifies Class in Securities Suit
MERCK & CO: Cesar Castillo Suit Alleges Antitrust Violations

METROPOLITAN LIFE: Class Action Over Bait-and-Switch Tactics OK'd
MICHIGAN, USA: August Moves to Certify Class of WHV Inmates
MONSANTO COMPANY: Sued by Scott Over Roundup(R)-Related Injuries
NATIONAL COATINGS: "Weathers" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT under FLSA
NESTLE USA: Tomasella Sues over Child Labor Issues

NORTHLAND GROUP: Class Certification Sought in "Rossiter" Suit
OAK COMMERCIAL: "Dobaldo" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
OLD DOMINION FREIGHT: "Meyer" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay
ORACLE CORP: Court Certifies Class in "Troudt" ERISA Suit
PENSION BENEFIT: "Collins" Counsel Can't Compel Payment of Fees

PENNSYLVANIA INTERSCHOLASTIC: Ruslavage Seeks to Certify Class
PGA INC: Bids to Certify and Decertify Class Filed in "Sinclair"
REDBACK ENERGY: Laney's Bid to Certify Class Granted in Part
REHABCARE GROUP: Bid to Enjoin State Court Proceedings Denied
RICHMOND, VA: RRHA Settles Public Housing Tenants' Class Action

RITE AID: Accused by Josten of Overcharging for Generic Drugs
ROYAL BANK: Pension Fund Leads Foreign Currency Rigging Case
RUSHMORE LOAN: Sellers Appeals M.D. Florida Ruling to 11th Cir.
SAMAHA INVESTMENTS: "Lopez" Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay
SANTA CLARA COUNTY, CA: Class Certification Sought in "Cole" Suit

SARBANAND FARMS: Rosas Sues Over Hostile Work Environment
SOC LLC: Court Approves Class Notice in "Risinger" Suit
SPASIC & ASSOCIATES: Ordonez Sues for FLSA, Labor Code Violations
SPEEDSTER SERVICES: Fails to Pay OT Under FLSA, "O'Neill" Alleges
SRC INC: Gorman Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages and OT Under FLSA

STATE FARM: Caruso PA Suit Alleges Insurance Policy Breach
SYNDICATED OFFICE: Accused by "McBroom" Suit of Violating FDCPA
T.C. WOODLAND: "Cardona" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages, OT under FLSA
TEMPLE UNIVERSITY: Overstated Number of MBA Enrollees, Smith Says
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Judge Refuses to Approve Settlement

US BANKCARD: Denial of Arbitration Bid in "Vera" Affirmed
VILLAGE GREEN: "Corley" Suit Alleges FLSA Violations
WAL-MART ASSOCIATES: Seeks 9th Cir. Review of Ruling in "Magadia"
WARNER CHILCOTT: MSP Sues over Racketeering of Medical Expenses
WOLF FIRM: Faces "Manos" Suit in Central District California

WOLF PETROLEUM: Court Certifies Class of Employees in "Moss" Suit
WORLDWIDE FLIGHT: "Foster" Action Seeks Overtime Pay
WYNDHAM RESORT: Court Enters Final Judgment in "Mcgrath"
XTO ENERGY: "McCollum" Action Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay
XUNLEI LIMITED: Issued False Info on OneCoin ICO, "Li" Suit Says






                            *********


ABERDEEN ENTERPRIZES II: Sued Over Debt-Collection Practices
------------------------------------------------------------
Ziva Branstetter, writing for Reveal, reports that a newly
expanded federal lawsuit seeks class-action status for thousands
of Oklahoma residents it says are being extorted by a collections
company working for most of the state's sheriffs and courts.

If successful, the suit could impose sweeping changes on how the
state -- which ranks No. 1 in locking up women and No. 2 in
locking up men -- operates and pays for its justice system.

An investigation in September by Reveal from The Center for
Investigative Reporting and The Frontier, an Oklahoma-based news
site, examined the state's high female incarceration rate.

The federal lawsuit over court debt-collection practices,
originally filed late last year in the Northern District of
Oklahoma, took on new importance when attorneys filed a motion
for class-action status and two prominent legal groups joined the
case.

The suit names sheriffs in 54 counties, judges and court
officials along with Oklahoma-based Aberdeen Enterprizes II.  The
private, for-profit company contracts with the sheriffs to
collect unpaid court fines and fees owed by people charged with
traffic offenses, misdemeanors and felonies.

The suit claims that the company orders the arrest and jailing of
people too poor to pay their court debts, without legally
required court hearings into their ability to pay.

"If an individual explains that she is too poor to pay the lump
sum and offers to make periodic payments instead, Aberdeen, Inc.
refuses, as a matter of policy, to accept a lesser amount.
Aberdeen, Inc. does so because the threat of living under the
shadow of an arrest warrant coerces individuals owing debt to
sacrifice basic necessities, to beg others for money, and to
divert money from means-tested disability payments," the suit
claims.

The lawsuit alleges its seven plaintiffs have been harassed by
the company over unpaid court costs and face arrest and jail
because they failed to pay what the company requested.  The suit
claims civil rights violations as well as extortion under the
RICO Act.

The company, it says, plays up people's worst fears: being
separated from family.

A company training script referenced in the lawsuit instructs
Aberdeen employees to say: "I want to help you get this resolved.
I would not want you to get picked up on this warrant and not be
there for your kids."

The case was originally filed by Tulsa attorneys Daniel Smolen
and Jill Webb and joined by attorneys from Civil Rights Corps and
Georgetown University Law Center's Institute for Constitutional
Advocacy and Protection.  Civil Rights Corps has won dramatic
reforms in Tennessee, Missouri, Alabama and Mississippi after
suing over similar "debtors prison" collection practices and won
reforms in other states over bail practices.

Mr. Smolen, who has won key civil rights cases over the treatment
of incarcerated people, said he is challenging the practice
because "I don't like seeing my state reduced to a bad parody of
a Charles Dickens novel."

"We filed this lawsuit to fight back for those who have been
marginalized and exploited by these shameful debt-collection
practices. We hope to take away the shackles of debt and fear
that have plagued our clients for too long."

Officials at Aberdeen and the Oklahoma Sheriffs' Association did
not respond to requests for comment by Reveal.

Kendallia Killman, one of the plaintiffs in the case, is the
caretaker of her disabled adult son and lives on monthly
disability payments of $543.

Ms. Killman owes about $2,000 in court costs from a 2009
misdemeanor marijuana possession conviction.  When the courts
turned her case over to Aberdeen, a company employee told
Ms. Killman she had to pay a large lump sum to avoid arrest.

"I said, 'I will give you $25 a month.' He hung up on me."

Ms. Killman said she called again several months later, offering
to pay what she could afford, but that Aberdeen employee also
hung up on her when she made it clear she couldn't pay a larger
amount.

A failure-to-pay warrant remains outstanding and Ms. Killman said
she lives in constant fear of arrest, preventing her from caring
for her family.  In addition to her disabled son, she also has a
stepdaughter and cares for her mother.

"When these police departments sent this to Aberdeen, they took
out the humanity part of it. . . . They took out having to see
people and seeing the hurt and seeing the pain," she told Reveal.

In some cases, people arrested on failure-to-pay warrants are
left in jail to "sit out" their court debts, without a hearing or
legal counsel, the suit claims.  Ms. Killman said that's what
she'd have to do if arrested.

Tens of thousands of people in the state could be eligible for
damages and could have their warrants recalled if the judge
grants class-action status.  About 80 percent of the state's
criminal defendants are eligible for public defenders and, in one
county alone, 22,000 people are wanted for failure-to-pay court
costs.

Most of the state's court system is funded by criminal defendants
themselves through fines and a long list of fees tacked on to
even traffic offenses.

The Oklahoma Sheriffs' Association receives a cut of Aberdeen's
collections and earned more than $825,000 from the arrangement in
2016, the suit claims.  An investigation by The Oklahoman found
the association reaped millions from its Aberdeen deal, spending
funds on travel, a new building, advertising and paid lobbyists.
The association hosted Attorney General Jeff Sessions at its
meeting in October.

The executive director of the Sheriffs' Association called 2018
"probably one of the biggest defensive years that this
association has ever had.  We are going to have to stop a lot of
legislation.  There will be attempts on cutting fines, fees and
costs." [GN]


ACCEL CAPITAL: Abante Rooter Suit Alleges TCPA Violations
---------------------------------------------------------
Abante Rooter and Plumbing Inc., individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Accel Capital Inc. and Does 1
through 10, Case No. 3:18-cv-00473 (N.D. Calif., January 22,
2018), seeks damages under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant negligently, knowingly and
willfully contacted Plaintiff's cellular telephone in violation
of the TCPA and related regulations, specifically the National
Do-Not-Call provisions.

Plaintiff is a resident of Emeryville, California.

Defendant is a lending company.  [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ACG TEXAS: Chancellor" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
--------------------------------------------------
Lourie Chancellor, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. ACG Texas, LP, Case No. 4:18-cv-00062 (E.D.
Tex., January 23, 2018), is brought against the Defendant for
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff Lourie Chancellor is a resident of Texas and worked at
Defendant's IHOP breakfast restaurants in the three-year period
preceding the filing of this action.

Defendant ACG Texas, LP is the nation's largest IHOP Franchisee.
It operates 75 restaurants in Texas. Its markets include El Paso,
Amarillo, Austin, Houston, Dallas/Ft. Worth and Waco. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Chris R. Miltenberger, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICE OF CHRIS R.
      MILTENBERGER, PLLC
      1340 N. White Chapel, Suite 100
      Southlake, TX 76092
      Tel: (817) 416-5060
      Fax: (817) 416-5062
      E-mail: chris@crmlawpractice.com


AETNA INC: Faces Another Suit Over HIV Patient Disclosures
----------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Singer, writing for Hartford Courant, reports that Aetna
Inc. is being sued in yet another legal action over the
disclosure of HIV information of thousands of insured customers.

Kurtzman Carson Consultants LLC, an insurance and financial
services administrative business, on Feb. 6 sued Aetna, accusing
it of breach of contract and negligence.  It accuses the Hartford
health insurer and its law firm, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, of
causing the disclosure.

"Contrary to representations Aetna and Gibson have made about
their commitment to, and expertise in, health care privacy
matters, Aetna and Gibson caused the disclosure of the HIV/AIDS
status and HIV/AIDS drug prevention use of thousands of Aetna's
insureds throughout the country," KCC said in its lawsuit, filed
in Los Angeles.

The previous day, Aetna sued KCC.  The administrative support
company 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.

In its lawsuit, Aetna said KCC was 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, called the allegations
"demonstrably false."

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.

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.

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

That 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.

KCC said in its lawsuit that Aetna and Gibson failed to establish
"appropriate protective measures to maintain the safety and
security" of protected health information in the mailing.

It also accused Aetna and Gibson of failing to inform or warn KCC
that they failed to establish protective measures.

"KCC did not mail any notices that did not receive the prior
express approval of Gibson and/or Aetna," it said.

In its lawsuit, KCC said public documents show Aetna has faced as
many as 10 lawsuits over the disclosure of confidential health
information related to the mailing.

And it said Aetna has agreed to pay more than $1.1 million in
penalties to New York state to resolve an investigation initiated
by Attorney General.

"Instead of accepting responsibility for this unfortunate
incident, Aetna has demanded that KCC indemnify and reimburse
Aetna for any and all losses arising from the incident," KCC
said. [GN]


AETNA INC: "Freedman" Suit Challenges CVS Merger Deal
-----------------------------------------------------
Robert Freedman, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Aetna, Inc., Mark T. Bertolini,
Ellen M. Hancock, Betsy Z. Cohen, Frank M. Clark, Edward J.
Ludwig, Jeffrey E. Garten, Fernando Aguirre, Molly J. Coye,
Richard J. Harrington, Joseph P. Newhouse, Roger N. Farah and
Olympia J. Snowe, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-00323, (E.D. Pa.,
January 26, 2018), seeks to enjoin defendants and all persons
acting in concert with them from proceeding with, consummating or
closing the acquisition of Aetna by CVS Health Corporation,
rescinding it in the event defendants consummate the merger,
rescissory damages, costs of this action, including reasonable
allowance for plaintiff's attorneys' and experts' fees and such
other and further relief under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

Each stock of Aetna's public common stockholders will be
converted into the right to receive 0.8378 fully paid and non-
assessable shares of CVS Common Stock and $145.00 in cash. The
Merger would value Aetna at approximately $207.94 per share. The
proposed transaction is valued at approximately $77 billion.

Said intrinsic value of Aetna and its common stock is materially
in excess of the amount offered given its prospects for future
growth and earnings, notes the complaint. The discounted cash
flow analysis of Aetna's financial advisor, Lazard Freeres & Co.
LLC, indicated an Implied Per Share Equity Value as high as $233.

Aetna operates a diversified health care benefits companies
offering a broad range of traditional, voluntary and consumer-
directed health insurance products and related services,
including medical, pharmacy, dental, behavioral health, group
life and disability plans, medical management capabilities,
Medicaid health care management services, Medicare Advantage and
Medicare supplement plans, workers' compensation administrative
services and health information technology products and services.
[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jeffery W. Golan, Esq.
      Julie B. Palley
      BARACK, RODOS AND BACINE
      333 Two Commerce Square
      2001 Market St.
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Tel: (215) 963-0600
      Fax: (215) 963-0838


ALLIED INTERSTATE: Truss Sues over Automated Calls
--------------------------------------------------
Cat Truss, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Allied Interstate, Inc., the
Defendant, Case No. 6:18-cv-00213-GKS-DCI (M.D. Fla., Feb. 12,
2018), seeks to recover damages resulting from the illegal
actions of the Defendant in negligently placing automated calls
Plaintiff's cellular phone in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

According to the complaint, AI has inserted Plaintiff's telephone
number in an automated calling campaign to further its efforts to
contact and collect a debt from "Danielle Peterson", a person who
Plaintiff does not have any relationship with and does not know.
AI has bombarded the Plaintiff with multiple daily automated
calls beginning in March 2017.

Allied Interstate, LLC offers development and application of
automated information processing, long-distance data
transmission, massive data collection and storage, automated
high-speed telecommunications, and contributions to the
management professionalism in credit and collection.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ALLTRAN FINANCIAL: "Reyes" Action Disputes Collection Letter
------------------------------------------------------------
Icela Reyes, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Alltran Financial Limited Partnership
John Does 1-25, Defendant, Case No. 17-cv-00150 (D. Conn.,
January 25, 2018), seeks damages and declaratory and injunctive
relief pursuant to the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act.

Alltran Financial sent an initial collection letter attempting to
collect a consumer debt incurred by Reyes regarding collection of
a Capital One N.A. debt. It falsely states the identity of the
original creditor as Kohl's Department Stores Inc. who is neither
a bank nor a lender of credit, therefore cannot be the original
creditor, says the Plaintiff. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Yaakov Saks, Esq.
     RC LAW GROUP, PLLC
     285 Passaic Street
     Hackensack, NJ 07601
     Phone: (201) 282-6500
     Fax: (201) 282-6501


AMERICAN FAMILY: Fails to Pay Overtime Under FLSA, Robinson Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
ADRIAN ROBINSON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. American Family Care, Inc., Case No. 2:18-cv-00116-
SGC (N.D. Ala., January 23, 2018), is brought pursuant to Section
216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 claiming unpaid
overtime wages.

American Family Care, Inc., and its registered agent Dr. Bruce
Irwin maintain their primary offices in Birmingham, Alabama.
According to its Web site, AFC operates urgent care centers,
sometimes called walk-in clinics, which have become a very
popular medical solution for millions of Americans.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert J. Camp, Esq.
          WIGGINS, CHILDS, PANTAZIS, FISHER & GOLDFARB, LLC
          The Kress Building
          301 19th Street North
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: (205) 314-0500
          Facsimile: (205) 314-0539
          E-mail: rcamp@wigginschilds.com

               - and -

          Susan Han, Esq.
          NETTLES HAN LAW, LLC
          2100 First Avenue North, Suite 600
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: (205) 328-9445
          E-mail: susan@nettleshanlaw.com

               - and -

          Brice Johnston, Esq.
          JOHNSTON LAW FIRM, P.C.
          2100 First Avenue North, Suite 600
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: (205) 328-9445
          E-mail: brice@johnstonfirmpc.com


AMERICAN INSURANCE: Vetter Sues over Unsolicited Text Messages
--------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT VETTER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN INSURANCE AGENCIES DIRECT
HOLDING, INC., a Florida corporation, the Defendant, Case No.
(S.D. Fla., Feb. 12, 2018), seeks to stop Defendant of its
practice of sending unsolicited text messages to cellular
telephones without the recipient's prior express written consent,
and to obtain redress for all persons injured by its conduct,
including injunctive relief.

According to the complaint, by sending these text messages,
Defendant caused Plaintiff and others actual harm and cognizable
legal injury. This includes the aggravation and nuisance and
invasions of privacy that results from the recipient of such
messages, in addition to the wear and tear on their cellular
telephones, consumption of battery life, and lost cellular
minutes.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Stefan Coleman, Esq.
          201 S. Biscayne Blvd., 28th Floor
          Miami, FL 333131
          Telephone: (888) 333 9427
          Facsimile: (888) 498 8946


AMERICAN SPOTTING: "Perkins" Suit Seeks to Recover OT Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gerald Perkins, Richard Preston and Nehemyah Khari v. American
Spotting Company of Ohio, Inc., Case No. 2:18-cv-00054-MHW-CMV
(S.D. Ohio, January 22, 2018), is brought on behalf of the
Plaintiffs and other employees, who are "similarly situated," to
recover alleged unpaid overtime compensation under the Fair Labor
Standards Act, and for damages arising out of other wage and hour
violations.

American Spotting Company of Ohio, Inc., is a Missouri
Corporation licensed and registered to do business in the state
of Ohio as a foreign corporation.  The Company is in the business
of providing spotting services to various customers throughout
the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Sharon Cason-Adams, Esq.
          ADAMS & LIMING, L.L.C.
          Rivers Edge Corporate Center
          1335 Dublin Road, Suite 104D
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Telephone: (614) 488-2053
          Facsimile: (614) 488-2069
          E-mail: Sharon@adamsliming.com


AMERICAN SUGAR: Deccola Seeks OT Pay for Pre-shift Prepping
-----------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Deccola, individually and on behalf of all similarly
situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. American Sugar Refining,
Inc., Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-00216 (N.D. Ohio, January 26,
2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages
owed under the Fair Labor Standards Act, Ohio Minimum Fair Wage
Standards, Ohio Prompt Pay Act and the Ohio Wage Act.

American Sugar operates sugar refining, production,
manufacturing, packaging, and/or distribution facilities at
various locations throughout the United States, including in
Cleveland, Ohio where Deccola worked as an hourly, non-exempt
production employee. Deccola claims overtime pay for the 15-20
minutes it took donning their protective gear prior to clock-in.
[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kenneth P. Abbarno, Esq.
      Mark A. DiCello, Esq.
      DICELLO LEVITT AND CASEY
      7556 Mentor Ave.
      Mentor, OH 44060
      Telephone: (440) 953-8888
      Fax: (440) 953-9138
      Email: mabramowitz@dlcfirm.com
             kabbarno@dlcfirm.com


ANGLO AMERICAN: Court Postpones Silicosis Class Action Appeal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sunit Bagree, writing for The South African, reports that the
recent announcement that the Supreme Court of Appeal has granted
an indefinite postponement of the appeal in the silicosis and
tuberculosis class action litigation, as a result of lawyers
representing all parties entering advanced negotiations, appears
to be positive news.

The heroic lawyers working on behalf of the ex-mineworkers are
certainly doing all they can to ensure that any settlement is
truly comprehensive and fair.  The six mining companies, on the
other hand, are probably only concerned that the Johannesburg
Stock Exchange's gold index was up 2.35% on the back of the
announcement.

If that sounds harsh, read Action for Southern Africa's (ACTSA)
paper, Coughing Up, published last year.  The paper details the
gold mining industry's cosy relationship with the apartheid
government.  This allowed the mining companies to treat black
mineworkers as cheap, expendable labour.

These mineworkers worked in dreadful conditions, usually without
safety protection, even though the companies knew the likely
consequences of not limiting their exposure to silica dust and
other harmful agents.

Given derisory pay compared to their white counterparts and
housed in shockingly unhygienic hostels, black mineworkers were
simply discarded when ill.  Yet to this day the mining companies
refuse to accept responsibility for what they did to their
employees.

In March 2016, a settlement was reached on behalf of 4,365 ex-
mineworkers in relation to legal actions against Anglo American
and AngloGold Ashanti.  While welcome and important, this
settlement only applies to a very small proportion of all
Southern African gold mineworkers who developed silicosis and
tuberculosis.

Thus ACTSA's view has always been that this settlement should be
seen as a benchmark and not just a landmark.  It hardly seems
controversial to suggest that any settlement of the class action
-- which in theory would cover all affected ex-mineworkers --
needs to be at least as good as the terms of the March 2016
settlement.

If it is not, then the clear implication is that one set of ex-
mineworkers are more deserving than another (relatively larger)
set.  However, when questioned on this matter, the mining
companies consistently attempt to avoid the question.

In October, the six mining companies announced the amounts that
they had individually set aside in relation to a possible
settlement of the class action.  At the time, ACTSA calculated
that these amounts totalled approximately $371.2 million.  This
figure may look like a lot but in reality it is too low for two
main reasons.

Firstly, when weighed against the estimates of the numbers of ex-
mineworkers with silicosis and tuberculosis, it is insufficient.
Secondly, the $371.2 million figure is inclusive of all other
costs.

Under the March 2016 settlement, however, costs relating to
providing medical examinations, distributing funds and supporting
payment of statutory compensation to those who qualify were
treated separately and are borne by the mining companies.

As the class action is, by definition, such a large lawsuit,
these costs are likely to be high, not least because locating ex-
mineworkers with silicosis and tuberculosis across rural areas of
South Africa and surrounding countries is no straightforward
task.

It is true that perhaps as many as half of ill mineworkers have
already died -- without ever receiving any compensation for their
pain and suffering.  Will their families receive anything? In
particular, many women cared for sick mineworkers when they
returned home for good, unable to work any longer.

Relatives of deceased ex-mineworkers with silicosis and
tuberculosis were included in the March 2016 settlement.  Yet it
is unclear whether they will be eligible to receive compensation
under any settlement of the class action.  It would be a travesty
of justice if these women, who in many cases have been left with
virtually nothing, end up forgotten.

We wait to see the details of any final settlement.  It must give
ex-mineworkers with silicosis and tuberculosis, as well as the
relatives of deceased ex-mineworkers, the medical care, financial
compensation and support that they deserve.  If it does not, then
the mining companies should not be let off the hook.  Instead,
this long campaign for justice will have to continue for even
longer. [GN]




APPFOLIO INC: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss "Leo" FCRA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ANTHONY JAMES LEO, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. APPFOLIO, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 17-5771 RJB (W.D. Wash.), Judge Robert J.
Bryan of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Washington, Tacoma, denied the Defendant's Motion to: (1) Dismiss
or Strike Count I Class Claim and Class Allegations, and (2)
Dismiss Counts II, III, and IV of the Complaint.

Filed on Sept. 27, 2017, the putative class action alleges that
AppFolio, a consumer reporting agency, fails to: accurately
report consumer information, disclose the true source of its
public records information, and disclose the identity of each
person (including end-users) that have procured a consumer's
report, all contrary to the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA").

According to the Complaint, around Oct. 16, 2016, Leo applied to
rent an apartment with Aspen Real Estate & Property Management
Group NW, Inc.  As a part of his application, Leo provided his
full name, address, social security number, and date of birth.
The next day, Aspen ordered an AppFolio consumer tenant screening
report on Leo and sent AppFolio all the identifying information
that Leo provided.

The report AppFolio sold Aspen stated that Leo had an eviction
record from 2015, even though the eviction defendant was 'Tanya
Lee' and occurred in West Greenville, South Carolina.  The
Complaint asserts that the eviction record belongs to an
unrelated person and Leo does not have a civil judgment for an
eviction from 2015 in West Greenville, South Carolina.

In April 2017, Mr. Leo wrote AppFolio, and requested a copy of
his file.  The Complaint asserts that AppFolio did not obtain any
public record information about the Plaintiff or about any
consumer from a court in West Greenville, South Carolina, but,
instead, from a private vendor.  Leo maintains that pursuant to
its systematic practice, the Defendant failed to disclose to him
any information about its vendor, the Defendant's true source of
the public record at issue.  Leo asserts that, as a result of
AppFolio's conduct, he has suffered (a) a lost rental
opportunity, (b) harm to his reputation, and (c) emotional
distress.

Mr. Leo proposes the following classes:

     a. All persons residing in the United States (including all
Territories and other political subdivisions of the United
States), beginning five years prior to the filing of the
Complaint and continuing through the resolution of the action,
about whom AppFolio furnished a consumer report which included
one or more record(s) which did not pertain to the person who was
the subject of the report, as a result of AppFolio's matching
procedures;

     b. All persons residing in the United States (including all
Territories and other political subdivisions of the United
States), beginning five years prior to the filing of the
Complaint and continuing through the resolution of the action,
about whom AppFolio furnished a consumer report which included
one or more record(s) for which the first or last name on the
record was different from the first or last name of the consumer
who was the subject of the report.

     c. All persons residing in the United States (including all
Territories and other political subdivisions of the United
States), beginning five years prior to the filing of the
Complaint and continuing through the resolution of the action to
whom AppFolio provided a credit file disclosure which did not
identify the end-user(s) to whom AppFolio had sold a consumer
report within the previous 12 months.

     d. All persons residing in the United States (including all
Territories and other political subdivisions of the United
States), beginning five years prior to the filing of the
Complaint and continuing through the resolution of the action,
(a) who requested their consumer file from AppFolio or any of its
affiliated companies or subsidiaries, and (b) to whom AppFolio
provided a response that did not include any reference to its
public records vendor as the source of public records information
within the consumer's file disclosure.

He alleges that each of the requirements in Fed. R. Civ. P. 23
are met.

Mr. Leo brings the following claims for himself and for the
putative class members: (i) "Count I - 15 U.S.C. Section
1681e(b)," asserting that AppFolio is liable for failing to
follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy
of the consumer reports it sold; (ii) "Count II - 15 U.S.C.
Section 1681g(a)(2)," maintaining that AppFolio is liable for
failing to accurately and clearly disclose the true source of its
public record information in consumer file disclosures; (iii)
"Count III - 1681g(a)(1)," alleging that AppFolio is liable for
failing to clearly and accurately disclose all information in the
consumer's file at the time of a consumer's request; and (iv)
"Count IV - 15 U.S.C. Section 1681g(a)(3)(A)(ii)," asserting that
AppFolio is liable for failing to accurately and completely
disclose, upon the request of a consumer, the identity of each
person including end-users who have requested consumer file
disclosures.

Leo seeks an order certifying the class; actual, statutory and
punitive damages for himself and the class; and attorneys' fees
and costs.

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 (f), AppFolio now moves to strike
or dismiss all Count I class allegations and claims in the
Complaint because the Section 1681e (b) classes require fact
intensive inquiries, and so are not certifiable because they
cannot satisfy the predominance and superiority requirements of
Rule 23.   Pursuant to Rule 12 (b)(1), it moves to dismiss Leo's
remaining claims, all premised on Section 1681g, asserting that
he lacks standing to assert those claims.  Leo responded and
opposes the motion.  AppFolio filed a reply.

Judge Bryan finds that AppoFolio's motion to strike all Count I
class allegations and claims should be denied.  There is no
showing that the allegations or claims are "immaterial matter" --
that they have no essential or important relationship to the
claim for relief or the defenses being plead.  Moreover, there is
no showing that the Count I class allegations and claims are
"impertinent" under Rule 12 (f).  AppoFolio's motion is premature
and seeks to circumvent the more thorough review to be conducted
after the motion for certification is filed.

The Judge also finds that AppFolio's motion to dismiss Leo's
claims for violations of Section 1681g for lack of standing
should be denied.  Leo has asserted a harm sufficiently
"concrete" to satisfy the injury in fact requirement of Article
III in regard to his claims under Section 1681g.  While AppFolio
points out that some errors would not be actionable because they
did not harm the consumer, if Leo's allegations are to be
believed, the information it sent to him thwarted his ability to
monitor his file and correct inaccurate information about his
having been involved in eviction proceedings, an injury that
these FCTA procedural requirements were enacted to avoid.  This
is sufficient.

The Judge concludes that AppFolio's Motion to: (1) Dismiss or
Strike Count I Class Claim and Class Allegations, and (2) Dismiss
Counts II, III, and IV of the Complaint should be denied.
Nothing in the order should be construed as a ruling on any of
the elements required for Leo to obtain certification of the
class.  Such a ruling is premature.

Therefore, Judge Bryan denied the Defendant's Motion to: (1)
Dismiss or Strike Count I Class Claim and Class Allegations, and
(2) Dismiss Counts II, III, and IV of the Complaint.  He directed
the Clerkto send uncertified copies of the Order to all counsel
of record and to any party appearing pro se at said party's last
known address.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 30, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/8MysTY from Leagle.com.

Anthony James Leo, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Elizabeth Anne Adams --
eadams@terrellmarshall.com -- TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC,
Erika L. Nusser --  enusser@terrellmarshall.com -- TERRELL
MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC, James A. Francis --
jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com -- FRANCIS & MAILMAN PC, pro hac
vice, John Soumilas -- jsoumilas@consumerlawfirm.com -- FRANCIS &
MAILMAN PC, pro hac vice, Lauren K.W. Brennan, FRANCIS & MAILMAN
PC, pro hac vice & Beth E. Terrell --
bterrell@terrellmarshall.com -- TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC.

AppFolio, Inc., Defendant, represented by John W. Drury --
jdrury@seyfarth.com -- SEYFARTH SHAW, pro hac vice, Nicholas
Gillard-Byers -- nicholas@winterbauerdiamond.com -- WINTERBAUER &
DIAMOND, Pamela Q. Devata -- pdevata@seyfarth.com -- SEYFARTH
SHAW, pro hac vice, Steven H. Winterbauer --
steven@winterbauerdiamond.com -- WINTERBAUER & DIAMOND & Thomas
J. Wybenga -- twybenga@seyfarth.com -- SEYFARTH SHAW LLP.



APPLE INC: Sens Sues Over Defective iOS Updates for iPhones
-----------------------------------------------------------
ALEX SENS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. APPLE, INC., Case No. 0:18-cv-60128-WPD (S.D. Fla.,
January 22, 2018), accuses Apple of failure to disclose that it
has been purposely slowing down the processor of certain models
of its iPhone and iPad devices through its iOS 10 updates and iOS
11 updates that were released on January 23, 2017, through
December 13, 2017.

On December 20, 2017, Apple confirmed that the Company had in
fact been slowing the performance of these iPhone and iPad
devices.  The following iPhone models support and are compatible
with the iOS updates and have been affected by the iOS updates:
iPhone 5, iPhone 5c, iPhone 5s, iPhone 6, iPhone 6 Plus, iPhone
6s, iPhone 6s Plus, iPhone SE, iPhone 7 and iPhone 7 Plus.

Apple is a corporation that was created under the laws of the
state of California and has its principal place of business in
Cupertino, California.  Apple designs, manufactures, and markets
mobile communication and media devices, and personal computers to
consumers, and small and mid-sized businesses; and education,
enterprise, and government customers worldwide.  The Company also
sells related software, services, accessories, networking
solutions, and third-party digital content and applications.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joshua H. Eggnatz, Esq.
          Michael J. Pascucci, Esq.
          Steven Saul, Esq.
          EGGNATZ PASCUCCI
          5400 S. University Drive, Suite 417
          Davie, FL 33328
          Telephone: (954) 889-3359
          Facsimile: (954) 889-5913
          E-mail: JEggnatz@JusticeEarned.com
                  MPascucci@JusticeEarned.com
                  SSaul@JusticeEarned.com


APPLE INC: "Bilic" Suit Asserts Consumer Act Violations
-------------------------------------------------------
Kristin Bilic et al., on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated v. Apple, Inc., Case No. 5:18-cv-00449 (N.D.
Calif., January 19, 2018), is brought against the Defendant for
violations of the California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act,
California Unfair Competition, and the Song-Beverly Act- Breach
of Implied Warranty.

Plaintiffs bring this action to redress Apple's violations of
various states' consumer fraud statutes, and also seek recovery
for Apple's fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and unjust
enrichment.

This is a class action brought by Plaintiffs on behalf of
themselves and a class of current and former owners of Apple
iPhone 5, iPhone 6, iPhone 7, iPhone 7s, and older iPhone models,
as well as the iPad Airs and older iPad models, and 6th
generation iPod Touches, and older iPod Models. This class action
arises from Apple's purposefully and knowingly releasing iOS
operating system software updates to Subject Apple Devices that
slowed the performance speeds of the central processing units and
decreased the battery performance of these products.

Plaintiffs are owners of Apple Devices affected by the slowdown
function.

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:

      Mark A. Chavez, Esq.
      CHAVEZ & GERTLER LLP
      42 Miller Ave.
      Mill Valley, CA 94941
      Tel: (415) 381-5599
      E-mail: mark@chavezgertler.com

          - and -

      Bryan L. Clobes, Esq.
      CAFFERTY CLOBES
      MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP
      1101 Market St., Suite 2650
      Philadelphia, PA 19107
      Tel: (215) 864-2800
      E-Mail: bclobes@caffertyclobes.com


APPLE INC: "Block" Suit Alleges Consumer Act Violations
-------------------------------------------------------
Suzanne Block, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Apple, Inc., Case No. 5:18-cv-00481 (N.D. Calif.,
January 22, 2018), is brought against the Defendant for
violations of the California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act and
the Unfair Competition Law, breach of express warranty,
fraudulent misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation and
quantum meruit.

This is a consumer class action brought by Plaintiff on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated who acquired, in the
United States and its territories and its protectorates, Apple's
iPhone 6, 6 Plus, 6s, 6s Plus, SE, 7, 7 Plus, 8, and 8 Plus and
experienced reduced functionality on their devices due to Apple's
iOS updates.

Plaintiff Suzanne Block is a citizen and resident of the State of
Florida.  Plaintiff purchased her iPhone 7 Plus in or about May
2017 and believes that the slowdown of her iPhone 7 Plus occurred
in connection with the download of iOS 10 software.

Defendant Apple is a California corporation with its headquarters
and principal place of business in Cupertino, California.  Apple
is the designer and manufacturer of the iPhone and iOS software.
It maintains its headquarters and principal place of business in
Cupertino, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Shawn A. Williams, Esq.
      ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
      Post Montgomery Center
      One Montgomery Street, Ste 1800
      San Francisco, CA 94104
      Tel: (415) 288-4545
      Fax: (415) 288-4534
      E-mail: shawnw@rgrdlaw.com


ARS NATIONAL: Stewart Sues over Debt Collection
-----------------------------------------------
AMY L. STEWART, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. ARS NATIONAL SERVICES,
INC., and John Does 1-25, the Defendants, Case No. 6:18-cv-00041
(W.D. Tex., Feb. 12, 2018), seeks damages and declaratory and
injunctive relief under the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff incurred a financial
risk of harm as she was afraid to pay the debt for fear of tax
consequences which were coercively threatened to her. The
Defendant's statement invoking the Internal Revenue Service was,
further, misleading and deceptive in that it was materially
confusing to Plaintiff who was unaware of the many factors which
make the filing of a 1099-C necessary. As a result of Defendant's
deceptive, misleading and false debt collection practices,
Plaintiff has been damaged.

ARS offers accounts receivable management services. It caters to
financial services organizations; banks; and credit card
companies. The company is based in Escondido, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yaakov Saks, Esq.
          RC LAW GROUP, PLLC
          285 Passaic Street
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Telephone: (201) 282 6500
          Facsimile: (201) 282 6501
          E-mail: ysaks@rclawgroup.com


ASHLEY FURNITURE: Perisic Seeks to Certify Class of Consumers
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled SLADJANA PERISIC, on behalf
of herself and others similarly situated v. ASHLEY FURNITURE
INDUSTRIES, INC., a Wisconsin corporation, Case No. 8:16-cv-
03255-EAK-MAP (M.D. Fla.), seeks certification of a class defined
as:

     All individuals who purchased furniture with DuraBlend
     upholstery in the State of Florida on or after November 23,
     2012.

Ms. Perisic is a Florida consumer, who purchased a sofa, a
loveseat, and a recliner manufactured by the Defendant, each
upholstered with DuraBlend, a man-made fabric designed to look
and feel like leather.  She asserts that she purchased the
Furniture based on the Defendant's representations, repeated in
disclosures and marketing materials, that DuraBlend was a durable
mix of leather and synthetic materials.

Contrary to her expectation, however, she argues that the quality
of DuraBlend was much inferior to leather, having nothing more
than pulverized leather scraps attached to the back of denim
fabric and a thin layer of polyurethane laminated on the outside,
designed to serve as the leather-appearing face of the Furniture
but instead so flimsy that it soon bubbled, separated, and peeled
from the underlying denim to which it could not be reattached.

Ms. Perisic also asks that the Court appoint her to serve as
Class Representative and to appoint Matthew J. Matern, Esq., and
Mikael H. Stahle, Esq., of Matern Law Group, PC, and Julie Braman
Kane, Esq., and Stephanie A. Casey, Esq., of Colson Hicks Eidson,
P.A., to serve as Class Counsel.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Julie Braman Kane, Esq.
          Stephanie A. Casey, Esq.
          COLSON HICKS EIDSON, P.A.
          255 Alhambra Circle, Penthouse
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 476-7400
          Facsimile: (305) 476-7444
          E-mail: julie@colson.com
                  scasey@colson.com

               - and -

          Mike Arias, Esq.
          ARIAS SANGUINETTI WANG & TORRIJOS, LLP
          6701 Center Drive West, Suite 1400
          Los Angeles, CA 90045
          Telephone: (310) 844-9696
          Facsimile: (310) 861-0168
          E-mail: mike@aswtlawyers.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Mitchell E. Widom, Esq.
          Lori P. Lustrin, Esq.
          BILZIN SUMBERG BAENA PRICE & AXELROD, LLP
          1450 Brickell Avenue, Suite 2300
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 374-7580
          Facsimile: (305) 374-7593
          E-mail: mwidom@bilzn.com
                  llustrin@bilzn.com

               - and -

          Mark D. Campbell, Esq.
          Rachel A. Straus, Esq.
          SIDLEY AUSTIN, LLP
          555 West Fifth Street, 40th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90013
          Telephone: (213) 896-6000
          Facsimile: (213) 896-6600
          E-mail: mcampbell@sidley.com
                  rstraus@sidley.com


ASHWOOD FINANCIAL: Wins Summary Judgment in "Spiegel" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MIKE SPIEGEL, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ASHWOOD FINANCIAL, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-01998-SEB-DML (S.D. Ind.), Judge
Sarah Evans Barker of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, denied Spiegel's
Motion for Summary Judgment, and granted Ashwood's Cross Motion
for Summary Judgment.

On March 16, 2016, Spiegel received an initial form letter from
Ashwood, demanding payment of a delinquent consumer debt.
Spiegel filed his Complaint-Class Action on July 26, 2016,
alleging that the Letter violated the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act ("FDCPA"), because the Verification Notice failed
to state that any dispute of a debt or any request for the name
and address of the original creditor must be made in writing for
a debtor to obtain a verification of the debt or the name and
address of the original creditor, if different than the current
creditor.  He further argues that Ashwood's failure to notify
debtors that such disputes or requests must be in writing
constituted unfair and unconscionable collection actions in
violation of the FDCPA because whether a dispute could be made
orally or in writing could determine whether a consumer wishes to
dispute the debt.

Ashwood filed its Amended Answer on March 30, 2017, in which it
asserts that it cannot be held liable for violating the FDCPA
because any potential violation would have been caused by
typographical errors in the Letter and would be subject the bona
fide error affirmative defense under Section 1692k(c).  In
support of its bona fide error defense, Ashwood attached an
affidavit signed by Ashwood President, Dan Bailey, which
explained that the use of the word "information" instead of "in
writing" within the Verification Notice "was an unintentional
typographical error" that Bailey had missed when reviewing and
approving the Letter.

On June 21, 2017, Bailey was deposed regarding the errors within
the Letter's Verification Notice.  Bailey admitted that the
Letter as written did not conform to the standard text of the
FDCPA but testified that the errors in the Verification Notice
were typographical mistakes he failed to catch and correct before
the Letter was sent to debtors.  Although Bailey indicated that
changes are routinely made to Ashwood's form collection letters,
he acknowledged that Ashwood does not maintain any written log to
record the changes that are made.  Additionally, Ashwood is a
member of the American Collectors Association ("ACA") for debt
collectors, participates in FDCPA compliance seminars, and
receives online updates on FDCPA law and court rulings in an
effort to ensure its compliance with the FDCPA.

On July 24, 2017, Spiegel filed his Motion for Summary Judgment,
arguing that the undisputed evidence demonstrates that Ashwood
violated the requirements of Section 1692g(a)(4) & (5) of the
FDCPA and that Ashwood failed to adequately show an entitlement
to the bona fide error defense by a preponderance of the
evidence.

In addition to filing its response to Spiegel's Motion, Ashwood
filed its Cross Motion for Summary Judgment on July 26, 2017, in
which it asserts that the evidence of record sufficiently
establishes that it is excused from liability under the FDCPA
because the mistakes in the Letter were the result of bona fide
error.

Judge Barker concludes that Ashwood cannot be held liable under
the FDCPA in this instance because no reasonable jury could
determine that the typographical errors in the Letter's
Verification Notice were the result of anything other than a bona
fide error.  Despite Ashwood's intention that the Letter track
the language of the FDCPA, the errors found in the Letter's
Verification Notice were clearly genuine mistakes because the use
of the word "information" instead of "in writing" renders the
Verification Notice nonsensical.  No one would have intentionally
written the sentence that way.

Furthermore, Ashwood made clear that he takes -- and did take
here -- reasonable measures to prevent the kind of typographical,
clerical errors found in the Verification Notice including having
Bailey review the Letter before it went out.  Although Bailey
proofread the Letter after asking SourceHOV to make changes to it
that were unrelated to the Verification Notice, he inadvertently
failed to catch and correct the typographical errors within the
Verification Notice before the Letter was sent to debtors.
Moreover, Bailey made efforts to correct the errors in the
Verification Notice as soon as he became aware of them.

The Judge explains that the FDCPA does not require debt
collectors' written notifications to be perfect or that debt
collectors must take every possible precaution to avoid clerical
or factual errors.  As such, the undisputed evidence demonstrates
that the typographical errors found in the Letter's Verification
Notice were unintentional, bona fide errors, and Ashwood is
therefore entitled to summary judgment.

For the reasons she detailed, Judge Barker denied Spiegel's
Motion for Summary Judgment, and granted Ashwood's Cross Motion
for Summary Judgment.  The judgment will be entered accordingly.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 30, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/yW0DYG from Leagle.com.

MIKE SPIEGEL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Angie K. Robertson --
ntake@philippslegal.com. -- PHILIPPS AND PHILIPPS, LTD., Mary E.
Philipps, PHILIPPS AND PHILIPPS, LTD., Steven James Halbert &
David J. Philipps, PHILIPPS AND PHILIPPS, LTD.

ASHWOOD FINANCIAL, INC., an Indiana corporation, Defendant,
represented by Karen B. Neiswinger, ATTORNEY AT LAW.


ASSET RECOVERY: "Brown" Suit Seeks Damages Under FDCPA
------------------------------------------------------
Mary Brown, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Asset Recovery Solutions, LLC and John Does 1-25,
Case No. 3:18-cv-00140 (M.D. Fla., January 22, 2018), seeks
damages and declaratory and injunctive relief under the Fair Debt
Collections Practices Act.

Plaintiff Mary Brown is a resident of Florida.

Defendant Asset Recovery is a debt collector. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Justin Zeig, Esq.
      ZEIG LAW FIRM, LLC
      3475 Sheridan St., Ste. 310
      Hollywood, FL 33021
      Tel: (754) 217-3084
      Fax: (954) 272-7807
      E-mail: justin@zeiglawfirm.com


AVALON BAY: Watkins Sues in Massachusetts over Pet Charges
----------------------------------------------------------
BRENT WATKINS, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. AVALON BAY COMMUNITIES,
INC., and, AVALON OAKS WEST, INC., the Defendants, Case No.18-
0392 (Mass. Super. Ct., Feb. 12, 2018), seeks to recover damages
and relief stemming from Avalon's unlawful practice of requiring
tenants with pets to pay a monthly pet rent/fee, in violation of
M.G.L. c. 186, section 15B.

According to the complaint, on March 2, 2014, Plaintiff and
Defendants entered into a lease agreement. The Plaintiff's lease-
term at the Premises was March 1, 2014-February 28, 2015. Per the
terms of the Lease, Plaintiff's rent was $1,885.00 per month
($1,785 monthly base rent, plus $100 per month in "pet rent").
Prior to or at the inception of the tenancy, and pursuant to the
Lease, Defendant required Plaintiff to pay a security deposit in
the amount of $1,875.00, first month's rent in the amount of
$1,875.00, a Pet Charge in the amount of $100.00, and a key and
lock fee in the amount of $25.00. Per the terms of Defendants'
Community Policies, "when a pet is acquired, a non-refundable pet
charge or increased deposit and a monthly charge are required to
be paid by [the tenant]." From March 1, 2014-February 28, 2015,
Plaintiff paid Defendants a total of $1,200.00 in non-refundable
Pet Charges.

Avalon is a real estate investment trust.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael J. Bace, Esq.
          BACE LAW GROUP, LLC
          PO Box 9316 Boston, MA 02114
          Telephone: (508) 922 8328
          E-mail: mjb@bacelaw.com

               - and -

          Seena A. Pidani, Esq.
          PIDANI LAW, P.C.
          35 India Street, 3rd Fl
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (781) 773 8868
          E-mail: sap@pidanilaw.com


BANK OF AMERICA: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss "Dobbins"
------------------------------------------------------
Judge Richard D. Bennett of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Maryland granted the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss
the case, TRACE PARKER DOBBINS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. BANK OF
AMERICA, N.A., Defendant, Civil Action No. RDB-17-0540 (D. Md.).

In this purported class action, the Plaintiffs Dobbins and Parker
allege in one count that the Defendant, Bank of America, N.A.
("BANA") violated the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act
("RESPA") by entering into a kickback scheme whereby the
Defendant received unearned fees from Genuine Title, LLC for
referrals.

The alleged kickback scheme involves Genuine Title, which has an
extensive history with the Court.  In December 2013, Edward and
Vickie Fangman (represented by the same counsel involved in the
case) filed a complaint against Genuine Title involving
essentially identical allegations in the Circuit Court of
Baltimore County that was removed to this Court in January 2014.
The Fangmans alleged that Genuine Title, in exchange for the
referral of title services on their mortgage loan, paid kickbacks
to loan brokers and provided marketing materials for free or at a
drastically-reduced rate for various loan officers who were part
of the mortgage lending process.

Following discovery concerning Genuine Title's business practices
and relationship with other lenders, some Defendants (e.g., Wells
Fargo, JP Morgan Chase, and PNC) have struck class settlements
which have been the subject of public filings and class notices.

Meanwhile, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ("CFPB") and
the Maryland Attorney General initiated an enforcement action in
the Court on Jan. 22, 2015 against Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. and
JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. predicated on essentially the same
scheme involving Genuine Title.  The CFPB and Attorney General
also filed an enforcement action on April 29, 2015 directly
against Genuine Title, its principals, and affiliates arising out
of the same alleged scheme.

Plaintiffs Dobbins and Parker allege that they closed on their
mortgage loan from BANA on Dec. 23, 2010.  On Feb. 23, 2017, they
jointly filed a Class Action Complaint against BANA alleging a
kickback scheme between Genuine Title and BANA in violation of
RESPA.

On July 5, 2017, the Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint in
which they seek to represent the alleged class of all individuals
in the United States who were borrowers on a federally related
mortgage loan (as defined under the Real Estate Settlement
Procedures Act, 12 U.S.C. Section 2602) originated or brokered by
BANA, for which Genuine Title provided a settlement service, as
identified in Section 1100 on the HUD-1, between Jan. 1, 2009,
and Dec. 31, 2014.

Ultimately, Defendant BANA filed the currently pending Motion to
Dismiss.  The Plaintiffs concede that RESPA's one-year statute of
limitations would bar the lawsuit, which was filed more than six
years after the Plaintiffs closed on their loan and a year and a
half after their counsel processed Genuine Title's data.
However, the parties dispute whether equitable tolling saves the
Plaintiffs' claim.  The Defendant further argues that the
Plaintiffs fail to allege sufficient facts under 12 U.S.C.
Sections 2607(a) and (b) to maintain their RESPA claim.

Judge Bennett concludes that the Plaintiffs therefore fail to
fulfill the extraordinary circumstances element required to
equitably toll their claim.  The Plaintiffs proffer no amendment
to the pleadings that could overcome the conclusion, and no
amount of discovery would aid the Court's analysis of the
Plaintiffs' claim for equitable tolling.

As Plaintiffs have failed to establish the extraordinary
circumstances element, the Judge needs not determine whether the
Plaintiffs were diligently pursuing their rights.  While the
parties here earnestly contest the content of the due diligence
requirement in the wake of Menominee, the Judge finds no reason
to address those contentions.  The Judge Court also needs not
reach the Defendant's substantive arguments that the Plaintiffs
fail to allege sufficient facts under 12 U.S.C. Sections 2607(a)
and (b) to maintain their RESPA claim.

For these reasons, Judge Bennett granted the Defendant's Motion
to Dismiss.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 30, 2018 Memorandum Opinion
is available at https://is.gd/28sLcS from Leagle.com.

Tracie Parker Dobbins & Gladys Parker, Plaintiffs, represented by
Michael Paul Smith -- mpsmith@sgs-law.com -- Smith Gildea and
Schmidt LLC, Megan Aileen Benevento -- mbenevento@jgllaw.com --
Joseph Greenwald and Laake, P.A., Melissa Lynn English --
menglish@sgs-law.com -- Smith Gildea & Schmidt LLC, Sarah A.
Zadrozny -- szadrozny@sgs-law.com -- Smith, Gildea & Schmidt,
LLC, Timothy Francis Maloney -- tmaloney@jgllaw.com -- Joseph
Greenwald and Laake PA & Veronica Byam Nannis --
vnannis@jgllaw.com -- Joseph Greenwald and Laake PA.

Bank of America, N.A., Defendant, represented by Craig Robert
Haughton -- chaughton@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods LLP &
Bradley R. Kutrow -- bkutrow@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods
LLP, pro hac vice.


BH MANAGEMENT: "Pagan" Suit Moved to Southern District of Florida
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Tomas Pagan, and other similarly
situated non-exempt employees, the Plaintiff, v. BH Management
Services, LLC, a foreign limited liability company and Harry
Bookey, individually, Case No. CACE-17-023527, was removed from
the 17th Judicial Circuit of Florida, to U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Florida (Ft Lauderdale) on Feb. 12,
2018. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:18-cv-60324-
FAM to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge
Federico A. Moreno.

BH Management Services, LLC acquires, improves, and manages
multi-family apartment communities in Arizona, Florida, Georgia,
Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland,
Missouri, North Carolina, Nebraska, Ohio, Oklahoma, South
Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and Wisconsin.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

The Defendants are represented by:

          S. Jonathan Vine, Esq.
          Stefanie Silverman Copelow, Esq.
          COLE SCOTT & KISSANE
          222 Lakeview Avenue, Suite 120
          Esperante Building
          West Palm Beach, FL 33401
          Telephone: (561) 383 9200
          Facsimile: (561) 683 8977
          E-mail: Jonathan.Vine@csklegal.com
                  stefanie.copelow@csklegal.com


BIG CITY: Article by Plaintiffs' Firm on Class Action Criticized
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lucas A. Ferrara responded to an article published in the
New York Law Journal on February 7, 2018, titled "Putative Class
Actions For Rent Overcharges," written by Warren A. Estis and
Michael E. Feinstein.  The article described a recent decision by
Justice Erika M. Edwards in Maddicks v. Big City Realty,
dismissing the complaint, at the motion to dismiss stage for,
inter alia, failure to establish the CPLR 901(a) prerequisites of
commonality and superiority.  This firm represents the plaintiffs
in Maddicks.

Messrs. Estis' and Feinstein's article is misleading in several
respects.  Their firm, Rosenberg and Estis, represents landlords
in multiple class action matters raising similar claims to
Maddicks, many of which are currently sub judice.  In those
currently pending matters, they have put forth Justice Edward's
decision in Maddicks as supporting dismissal of class actions at
the threshold stage.  Far from being impartial writers, they have
a vested interest in how the Maddicks decision is perceived by
the members of the bench, many of whom are among your readers.
They conveniently fail to disclose that interest.

Second, the article selectively quotes from Justice Edwards'
opinion in Maddicks, apparently in an attempt to bolster the
decision's implications for class-action practice in the
landlord-tenant area.  For instance, the article fails to note
that Judge Edwards improvidently held that a class-action is not
superior because the analysis of class claims "could be onerous"-
a hypothetical determination that not only was premature at the
pre-class certification, motion to dismiss stage, but which is
unsupported in law, and is a standard that could be wrongfully
used to dismiss any class action.

Third, the article fails to disclose that Maddicks is on appeal
to the First Department, where it has been fully briefed, and
could be argued as early as the March 2018 term.  Mr. Ferrara
believes that the First Department will find that several grounds
exist for reversing Maddicks, including, but not limited to: that
the ruling was made sua sponte on grounds unaddressed by the
parties; that class actions may not be dismissed for failure to
meet the CPLR 901(a) requirements at the pre-class certification
stage; that holding a class action to be inappropriate because
tenants "may wish" to opt out ignored clear Court of Appeals
precedent in Borden v. 400 E. 55th Street, 24 NY3d 382 [2014];
and for holding that claims for un-performed and under-performed
individual apartment improvements could not be heard in the same
action as claims arising out of failures to register apartments
with DHCR, but that each of those claims must be brought as
separate cases. [GN]


BLEIER & COX: "Horn" Suit Moved to Southern Dist. of California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Tracy Horn, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Bleier
& Cox, APC; National Collegiate Student Loan Trust 2006-3; and
Does 1-10, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 37-02018-00000378-
CU-MC-CTL, was removed from the Sup. Ct. of the State of CA,
County of San Diego, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California (San Diego) on Feb. 12, 2018. The District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:18-cv-00335-MMA-NLS to the
proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Michael M.
Anello.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

Attorneys for Tracy Horn, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated:

          Andrew Paul Rundquist, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF ANDREW P RUNDQUIST
          501 W Broadway, Suite A144
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 992 9148
          E-mail: andrew@rundquistlaw.com

Bleier & Cox, APC appears pro se.

Attorneys for National Collegiate Student Loan Trust 2006-3:

          Damian P. Richard, Esq.
          SESSIONS FISHMAN NATHAN & ISRAEL, LLP
          1545 Hotel Circle South, Suite 150
          San Diego, CA 92108
          Telephone: (619) 758 1891
          Facsimile: (619) 296 2013
          E-mail: drichard@sessions.legal


BOWLMOR CORPORATION: "Omland" Action Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nathan Omland and Efrain Dagdag, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Bowlmor Corporation,
Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-00047 (M.D. Fla., January 25, 2018),
seeks to recover overtime compensation, unpaid wages, liquidated
damages, and attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Bowlmor operates approximately 295 bowling centers across the
United States under brand names Bowlmor AMF, Brunswick, Brunswick
Zone, Bowlero, Brunswick's and Brunswick Zone XL where Plaintiffs
worked as assistant managers. Bowlmor allegedly misclassified
them as exempt employees, denying them overtime for hours worked
over 40 in a workweek. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq.
      Camar R. Jones, Esq.
      SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
      1515 S. Federal Highway
      Boca Raton, FL 33432
      Telephone: (561) 447-8888
      Facsimile: (561) 447-8831
      Email: gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com
             cjones@shavitzlaw.com


CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT: Class Action Over Room Tax Fees Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mick Akers, writing for Vegas Inc., reports that the latest
report from the Las Vegas Stadium Authority indicates the Oct. 1
mass shooting could negatively affect expected room-tax revenue
for the future home of the Raiders and UNLV football.

Room tax fees brought in $20.3 million for stadium-related
expenses from July to November for fiscal year 2018, and were 0.4
percent below the budget, according to the authority.

But figures from October and November saw a bigger dip, according
to the report.  October's room tax revenue was $4.6 million,
which was 7.9 percent below projected totals.  November's
preliminary numbers saw $3.3 million accumulated, and that was
9.8 percent under projected numbers.  December's figures weren't
included.

It is unknown whether the trend will continue into 2018, the
report indicates.

"The answer is we do not know at this point," said Jeremy Aguero,
principal of Applied Analysis and the lead staff member for the
stadium authority.  "We are in the process of evaluating market
conditions and other factors with the county and its financial
advisers, as well as the Raiders and their financial advisers, in
the normal and expected course of preparing for the issuance of
stadium bonds."

Additionally, the report cautions that taxes on internet-access
fees collected by Strip properties is in flex because of multiple
class-action lawsuits against hotel operators.  That, too, could
cut into projections for the stadium.

The suit claims the taxes charged on the resort fee is a
violation of the Internet Tax Freedom Act, which states internet
access cannot be taxed by states and their political
subdivisions.  The suit claims that hotels along the Strip
charged a lodging tax, which included a tax on internet access.

"It could have an impact down the road, but at this point we have
no idea to what extent that might be," said Brian Haynes, Stadium
Authority spokesperson.  "We have to list it, because it is a
development that happened within the last quarter . . . and could
have an effect on the revenues of this authority."

The properties named in the lawsuits include: Caesars
Entertainment, MGM Resorts International, Sands Corp., Wynn
Resorts, Treasure Island, Tropicana and SLS Las Vegas, among
others.  More suits are possible, said local attorney Don
Springmeyer, who is one of three lawyers representing the
plaintiffs.

Court documents state that "tens of millions of dollars in
illegal and improper taxes on internet access in violation of the
[Internet Tax Freedom Act], and, upon information and belief,
retained 2 percent of the amount unlawfully collected."

The court document says more than 100 people are involved in the
class and the amount exceeds $5 million, allowing them to file
under the Class Action Fairness Act.

The room tax also supports the Nevada Department of
Transportation, state schools, state tourism and Clark County
Transportation, among others.

Mr. Springmeyer said it could be a couple of years before a
ruling is made, because of many factors, such as whether each
case will be heard by the same judge and motions to dismiss by
casino companies. [GN]


CANADA: Sexual Assault Class Action Dismissal Motion Criticized
---------------------------------------------------------------
Fatima Syed, writing for Toronto Star, reports that military
survivors of sexual assault are in shock after the federal
government filed a motion to strike their class action lawsuit,
claiming it did not owe a "duty of care . . . to provide a safe
and harassment-free environment."

The motion continues to say the government has no duty "to create
policies to prevent sexual harassment or sexual assault which are
already prohibited by the Canadian Human Rights Act . . ."

On Feb. 7, Prime Minister Trudeau put justice department lawyers
on notice, stating this argument was "of concern to me, and I've
asked (Justice Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould) to follow up with
the lawyers to make sure that we argue things that are consistent
with this government's philosophy."

"Obviously the lawyers' argument does not align with my beliefs
or what this government believes," said Me. Trudeau.  In January,
he expressed his "unequivocal" support for women who come forward
with allegations in his speech at the World Economic Forum in
Davos, Switzerland.

"It feels like a slap in the face," said Marie-Claude Gagnon,
founder of the military sexual trauma support group It's Just
700, who has worked to improve how the Canadian Armed Forces
addresses sexual assaults.  "They're trying to erase
(inappropriate sexual behaviour) and eradicate it, but they're
saying they don't have a responsibility.  It's completely
contradictory."

The motion was filed in response to a lawsuit that has been
making its way through federal court since late 2016.  A
certification hearing is set for July this year.

The lawsuit was brought forward by three former female service
members who allege they were harassed or assaulted while in
uniform.  They are seeking $800 million for themselves and
hundreds of others -- men and women -- with similar experiences.

Five class actions from across the country -- British Columbia,
Halifax, Ottawa, Toronto, and Quebec -- have been working
together.

"I'm just disgusted with their arguments," said Amy Graham, a
plaintiff in the lawsuit. "Whose duty is it if it's not the
government's duty?"

In an email statement, both Justice Minister Wilson-Raybould, and
Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan said they were committed to
creating safe workplaces.

Justice Minister Wilson-Raybould said the prime minister had
"instructed" her to look at the pleas filed in this case "to
ensure that we are proceeding on a basis that are consistent with
our values as a government."

The Canadian Forces, under Gen. Jonathan Vance's leadership,
created Operation Honour in August 2015 to "eliminate" any and
all inappropriate sexual behaviour.  This was after the Deschamps
report found an "underlying sexualized culture" in the Forces,
which needed to be addressed.

In 2016, nearly 1,000 military personnel told Statistics Canada
they had been sexually assaulted within the previous 12 months.
Fifty-five members "have been released" from the Canadian Armed
Forces due to the inappropriate sexual behavior since September
2015.

The government has recently settled similar class actions brought
by RCMP members and LGBTQ former employees, but has taken an
aggressive stance on this one, according to lawyers.

"Right now we feel like second-class citizens," said Ms. Graham.
"How dare you encourage more people to come forward when you're
fighting the people who already have?"

"It's pretty dishonourable that you have no duty to protect
people who have put their life on the line to protect the
country." [GN]


CANADA: Conservatives React to Move to Halt Sexual Assault Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
According to CTV News' Rachel Aiello and Mercedes Stephenson, the
Conservatives and NDP took aim at the Liberals on Feb. 7 in
question period after a CTV News report revealed the government's
attempts to quash a class action lawsuit alleging sexual
misconduct and discrimination within the Canadian Armed Forces.

"This Liberal government is arguing in court that they have no
duty to provide a safe place for women to work in the armed
forces," Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer said in question
period.

"That is shameful and it flies in the face of every phoney
statement the prime minister has ever said on this issue," he
added.

"And the prime minister cannot blame a government lawyer,"
Mr. Scheer went on.  "The prime minister actually instituted a
cabinet committee to oversee litigation, to put a political
screen on all of these types of arguments, and you know who sits
on that committee? The minister of justice."

Minister of Defence Harjit Sajjan responded, saying that 55
members "have been released" from the Canadian Armed Forces due
to the inappropriate sexual behavior since Sept. 2015.

Chief of Defence Staff Gen. Jonathan Vance said last April that
he planned to remove any military members found guilty of sexual
misconduct.  The military has made extensive efforts to stamp out
sexual misconduct, including through a plan called Operation
Honour.

"We are committed to making sure we have a harassment-free
workplace and (Operation) Honour is going to get that job done,"
Mr. Sajjan went on.

New Democrat House Leader Ruth Ellen Brosseau also blasted the
Liberals.

"By attempting to quash the lawsuit, the example the prime
minister is setting is completely irresponsible and
reprehensible," said the Quebec MP.  "Will the prime minister
withdraw the government's attempts to discredit these victims?"

Again, Mr. Sajjan stood to respond.  "We need to make sure we
have a harassment free work place, especially in the Canadian
Armed Forces and with our new defence policy and with Operation
Honour we are going to get the job done," he said.

Earlier on Feb. 7, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said that the
federal lawyer's views do "not align" with his, or his Liberal
government's beliefs.

Mr. Trudeau said he has asked Justice Minister and Attorney
General Jody Wilson-Raybould to follow up with the lawyers, "to
make sure that we argue things that are consistent with this
government's philosophy."

Ms.  Wilson-Raybould later told reporters that she "will look for
opportunities where we can ensure where matters are in the public
interest, that we will proceed on a less adversarial basis."

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."

Veteran Amy Graham, one of the lead plaintiffs in the case, told
CTV News that the Liberal government's attempts to stop the
lawsuit was contradictory to Mr. Trudeau's public support for
victims of sexual misconduct. [GN]


CANADA: Sexual Assault Survivors React to Move to Halt Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Koskie Minsky LLP on Feb. 7 disclosed that survivors of sexual
harassment and assault in the Canadian Armed Forces in two
proposed class action lawsuits against the Government of Canada
served their evidence responding to Canada's attempt to strike
their claims.  These class actions seek compensation for the
Government's failure to protect them from sexual assault, sexual
harassment, and gender-based discrimination during their service.

The Government of Canada has been the subject of a number of
similar class action lawsuits in recent years.  In 2016, it
reached a settlement with RCMP members who had been sexually
assaulted and harassed.  In 2017, the Government also reached a
settlement in a lawsuit brought by LGBTQ former employees who had
been investigated, discharged, terminated, sanctioned or faced
threat of sanction because of their sexual orientation, gender
identity or gender expression.

In contrast to its decision to settle these class actions, the
Government has taken an aggressive litigation strategy in
response to the claims made by members of the Canadian military.
In addition to seeking to personally cross-examine the
representative plaintiffs in these actions, the Government filed
a motion in the proposed class action lawsuit that takes a novel
position that it does not owe members of the Canadian Armed
Forces any duty to protect them from sexual harassment and
assault:

"It is plain and obvious that neither HMQ nor any individual
within the CAF owe a private law duty of care to individual
members within the CAF to provide a safe and harassment-free
environment, or to create policies to prevent any potential
sexual assault or sexual harassment . . ."

The Government's approach to this lawsuit runs counter to Prime
Minister Justin Trudeau's recent statements regarding the
obligations of Government.  Speaking in Davos, Switzerland, the
Prime Minister stated: "As leaders we need to recognize and to
act to show that truly time is up."  "Sexual harassment, for
example -- in business and in government -- is a systemic problem
and it is unacceptable."

The Prime Minister's public statements on sexual assault and
harassment echo the critical conclusions of former Supreme Court
of Canada Justice Marie Deschamps, who in an external review
completed in March 2015 concluded that "there is an undeniable
problem of sexual harassment and sexual assault in the CAF, which
requires direct and sustained action."  The external review also
found an "underlying sexualized culture" in the CAF that is
"conducive to more serious incidents of sexual harassment and
assault", and called for broad reforms to address sexual assault
and harassment in the CAF.

"It's frustrating to read Prime Minister Trudeau's comments given
that the Government is taking the opposite approach to our
litigation", said Amy Graham, a plaintiff in the proposed class
action.  "By trying to stop us from proceeding through a class
action, the Government wants to force each of us to go forward
alone, preventing us from resolving this issue and putting it
behind us."

Evidence unearthed in this class action lawsuit shows that
despite its promise to do so, the Government is refusing to
implement Justice Marie Deschamps's recommendations to improve
the conditions in the Canadian Armed Forces.

The motions for certification, which will decide if the cases can
proceed as class actions, will be heard in the Federal Court the
week of July 9, 2018. [GN]


CANADA: MP O'Toole Reacts to Move to Halt Sexual Assault Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rachel Gilmore, writing for iPolitics, reports that Conservative
MP Erin O'Toole said the government's efforts to stop a class-
action lawsuit, alleging sexual misconduct and gender
discrimination, run "contrary to Operation Honour."

Operation Honour is an effort on the part of the Canadian Armed
Forces (CAF) to "eliminate harmful and inappropriate sexual
behaviour in the Canadian military," according to the National
Defence website.  It aims to be victim focused and offers
resources as well as reporting mechanisms for those experiencing
sexual misconduct.

The government has argued 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," CTV reported late
last night.

"These lawsuits -- as I know from my time in cabinet -- they set
an example of what the government thinks," said Ms. O'Toole.

"I think the government is setting a very poor example,
especially at a time when we want to support people coming
forward," he said.

When asked about the lawsuit, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said
the news is "of concern" to him and assured reporters that he has
asked the Attorney General, Jody Wilson-Raybould, to "follow up
with the lawyers" to ensure the federal arguments in court are
"consistent with (the) government's philosophy."

Mr. Trudeau added that what the lawyers have been arguing to date
does not align with his personal beliefs nor those of the current
government.

While Ms. O'Toole said he supports Mr. Trudeau's efforts to
follow up on the issue, he laid blame on Trudeau.

"At the end of the day, the Prime Minister's responsible for all
the actions of this government, and suits like this at a time
like this are very inappropriate," said Ms. O'Toole. [GN]


CAVALRY PORTFOLIO: "Schurger" Suit Alleges FDCPA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------
Darren Schurger, Michael Blake, and all others similarly situated
v. Cavalry Portfolio Services, LLC, Case No. 2:18-cv-00028 (E.D.
Wash., January 23, 2018), is brought against the Defendant for
violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Plaintiffs bring this class action for damages for Defendants
actions of using unfair and unconscionable means to collect a
debt.

Plaintiffs are natural persons and residents of the state of
Washington, and are consumers.

Defendant Cavalry is a Delaware corporation engaged in the
business of collecting debts in Washington State. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Kirk D. Miller, Esq.
      KIRK D. MILLER, P.S.
      421 W. Riverside Avenue, Ste 660
      Spokane, WA 99201
      Tel: (509) 413-1494
      Fax: (509) 413-1724


CDK GLOBAL: Faces Kenny Thomas Antitrust Class Suit in S.D. Ohio
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kenny Thomas Enterprises, Inc. (d/b/a Olathe Toyota), on behalf
of itself and all those similarly situated v. CDK Global, LLC,
and The Reynolds and Reynolds Company, Case No. 3:18-cv-00029-WHR
(S.D. Ohio, January 24, 2018), concerns the alleged illegal and
anticompetitive practices of duopolists in the markets for data
management and integration systems sold to auto dealerships.

The brain of an auto dealer's operation is its data management
system, according to the complaint.  The DMS stores all data
relevant to the dealership, from payroll to inventory to customer
information.  There are two dominant players in the DMS market,
CDK and Reynolds, which together control 75% of the market.

Kenny Thomas Enterprises, Inc., an auto dealer in Kansas, brings
the lawsuit against CDK and Reynolds for allegedly violating
federal and state antitrust law.  The Plaintiff alleges that
CDK's and Reynolds' antitrust violations include that the "Big 2"
DMS providers signed an agreement not to compete with each other
in the data integration market; they unlawfully forced vendors to
sign agreements not to use third-party integrators; they created
an unlawful "tie" between their DMS service and their data
integration services -- forcing dealers who bought the former to
also pay for the latter; and they illegally monopolized the
market for data integration services, using improper means to
exclude their competitors from the market, rather than competing
with them in good faith, such as by offering a better price or
value.

CDK Global, LLC, is a publicly traded Delaware corporation with
its corporate headquarters and principal place of business
located in Hoffman Estates, Illinois.  Reynolds and Reynolds
Company is an Ohio corporation with its corporate headquarters
and principal place of business located in Kettering, Ohio.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark H. Troutman, Esq.
          Shawn K. Judge, Esq.
          Gregory M. Travalio, Esq.
          ISAAC WILES BURKHOLDER & TEETOR, LLC
          Two Miranova Place, Suite 700
          Columbus, OH 43215-5098
          Telephone: (614) 221-2121
          Facsimile: (614) 365-9516
          E-mail: mtroutman@isaacwiles.com
                  sjudge@isaacwiles.com
                  gtravalio@isaacwiles.com

               - and -

          Eric H. Gibbs, Esq.
          Michael L. Schrag, Esq.
          Aaron Blumenthal, Esq.
          GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP
          505 14th Street, Suite 1110
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 350-9700
          Facsimile: (510) 350-9701
          E-mail: ehg@classlawgroup.com
                  mls@classlawgroup.com
                  ab@classlawgroup.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey L. Wagoner, Esq.
          WM LAW
          15095 W. 116th Street
          Olathe, KS 66062
          Telephone: (913) 422-0909
          Facsimile: (913) 428-8549
          E-mail: jeffwagoner@wagonergroup.com

               - and -

          Daniel F.B. Peel, Esq.
          119 S. Main, Suite 500
          Memphis, TN 38103
          Telephone: (901) 322-8700
          Facsimile: (901) 322-8701
          E-mail: dpeel@me.com

               - and -

          Paul C. Peel, Esq.
          FARRIS BOBANGO BRANAN, PC
          999 South Shady Grove Road, Suite 500
          Memphis, TN 38120
          Telephone: (901) 259-7100
          Facsimile: (901) 259-7150
          E-mail: ppeel@farris-law.com


CERTIFIED OF NY: "Calle" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mauro Calle, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Certified of N.Y., Inc. dba Certified Construction,
CNY Construction Management Inc. dba Certified Construction, and
Michael Borrico, Case No. 1:18-cv-00511 (S.D. N.Y., January 19,
2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and for violations of the New
York Labor Law.

Plaintiff Mauro Calle was employed as a construction worker at
the construction corporation located in New York.

Defendants own, operate, or control a construction company,
located at 623 West 51st Street, New York, New York 10019 under
the name "Certified Construction."  [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael Faillace, Esq.
      MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
      New York, NY 10165
      Tel: (212) 317-1200
      Fax: (212) 317-1620


CHARLES FIERGOLA: Kitchner Moves to Certify FCRA & FDCPA Classes
----------------------------------------------------------------
Megan G. Kitchner asks the Court to enter an order determining
that the action entitled Megan G. Kitchner, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated v. Charles Fiergola, Esq.,
Joseph R. Johnson, Esq., Lucas P. Bennewitz, Esq., Tyler M.
Helsel, Esq., and John Does, Esqs., Case No. 2:18-cv-00133-NJ
(E.D. Wisc.), may proceed as a class action against Defendants
pursuant to the Fair Credit Reporting Act and the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

The FCRA class is defined as:

     All consumers in the State of Wisconsin that have had their
     consumer report published in various judicial court actions
     within two year of the date of the filing of this Complaint
     by Defendants.

The FDCPA class is defined as:

     All consumers in the State of Wisconsin that have had their
     consumer report/credit score published in various judicial
     court actions by Defendants within one year of the date of
     the filing of this Complaint.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=517uHawE

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas J. Lyons, Jr., Esq.
          CONSUMER JUSTICE CENTER, P.A.
          367 Commerce Court
          Vadnais Heights, MN 55127
          Telephone: (651) 770-9707
          Facsimile: (651) 704-0907
          E-mail: tommy@consumerjusticecenter.com

               - and -

          Thomas J. Lyons, Esq.
          LYONS LAW FIRM P.A.
          367 Commerce Court
          Vadnais Heights, MN 55127
          Telephone: (651) 770-9707
          Facsimile: (651) 770-5830
          E-mail: tlyons@lyonslawfirm.com

               - and -

          Joshua D. Christianson, Esq.
          CHRISTIANSON & FREUND, LLC
          920 So. Farwell St., Suite 1800
          P.O. Box 222
          Eau Claire, WI 54702-0222
          Telephone: (715) 832-1800
          Facsimile: (888) 979-8101
          E-mail: lawfirm@cf.legal


CHEMOIL CORP: "Hall" Action Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay
---------------------------------------------------------
Larry Hall, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Chemoil Corporation, Energy Division,
Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-00090, (W.D. Tex., January 26, 2018),
seeks unpaid overtime pay, liquidated damages, reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs for violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Plaintiff is employed by Defendant as a fueling operations
employee in connection with Chemoil's oilfield fracking
operations. Hall's job duties consisted of driving, loading
trucks, maintaining and repairing trucks, discharging fuel to
engines used on frac sites and cleaning fuel spills. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert R. Debes, Jr., Esq.
      Ricardo J. Prieto, Esq.
      SHELLIST LAZARZ SLOBIN LLP
      11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1515
      Houston, TX 77046
      Telephone: (713) 621-2277
      Facsimile: (713) 621-0993
      Email: bdebes@eeoc.net
             rprieto@eeoc.net


CHRYSLER GROUP: Class Certification Sought in "Tomassini" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled as ROBERT TOMASSINI, on
behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. CHRYSLER GROUP
LLC (n/k/a FCA US LLC), Case No. 3:14-cv-01226-MAD-DEP
(N.D.N.Y.), asks the Court to enter an order:

   (1) certifying a proposed class pursuant to Rules 23(b)(2) and
       (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and in the
       alternative Rule 23(c)(4):

       All persons who purchased and/or leased Chrysler and Dodge
       minivans that were manufactured from after June 10, 2009
       until May 25, 2010, in the State of New York.

   (2) appointing Robert Tomassini as Class Representative for
       the Class; and

   (3) appointing attorneys at the Law Offices of Elmer Robert
       Keach, III, P.C.; Migliaccio & Rathod LLP; Kantrowitz
       Goldhamer & Graifman, P.C; Whitfield Bryson & Mason LLP;
       and Parker Waichman LLP as Class Counsel.

The motion is returnable before the Court on March 6, 2018,
according to the Plaintiff.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Elmer Robert Keach, III, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF ELMER ROBERT KEACH III, P.C.
          1040 Riverfront Center
          P. O. Box 70
          Amsterdam, NY 12010
          Telephone: (518) 434-1718
          Facsimile: (518) 770-1558
          E-mail: bobkeach@keachlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Gary E. Mason, Esq.
          Jennifer Goldstein, Esq.
          WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON LLP
          1625 Massachusetts Ave. NW, Suite 605
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 429-2290
          Facsimile: (202) 429-2294
          E-mail: gmason@wbmllp.com
                  jgoldstein@wbmllp.com

               - and -

          Daniel C. Calvert, Esq.
          PARKER WAICHMAN LLP
          27300 Riverview Center Boulevard, Suite 103
          Bonita Springs, FL 34134
          Telephone: (239) 390-1000
          E-mail: dan@wbmllp.com

               - and -

          Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq.
          Jason Rathod, Esq.
          MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP
          412 H Street N.E., Ste. 302
          Washington, DC 20002
          Telephone: (202) 470-3520
          Facsimile: (202) 429-2294
          E-mail: nmigliaccio@wbmllp.com
                  jrathod@wbmllp.com

               - and -

          Gary S. Graifman, Esq.
          Jay Brody, Esq.
          KANTROWITZ GOLDHAMER & GRAIFMAN, P.C.
          747 Chestnut Ridge Rd., Ste. 200
          Chestnut Ridge, NY 10977
          Telephone: (845) 356-2570
          Facsimile: (845) 356-4335
          E-mail: ggraifman@kgglaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Stephen A. D'Aunoy, Esq.
          Kathy A. Wisniewski, Esq.
          THOMPSON COBURN LLP
          One US Bank Plaza
          St. Louis, MO 63101-1693
          Telephone: (314) 552-6000
          Facsimile: (314) 552-7000
          E-mail: SDAunoy@thompsoncoburn.com
                  KWisniewski@thompsoncoburn.com

               - and -

          Alan Pope, Esq.
          POPE, SCHRADER & POPE, LLP
          2 Court Street, 4th Floor
          P.O. Box 510
          Binghamton, NY 13902
          Telephone: (607) 584-4900
          Facsimile: (607) 584-4901
          E-mail: apope@psplawfirm.com


CHS EMPLOYMENT: FLSA Class Certification Sought in "Smith" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Doniele Smith, one of the Plaintiffs in the lawsuit styled Smith,
et al, On behalf of themselves and other members of the general
public similarly situated v. CHS Employment Services, LLC, Case
No. 2:17-cv-01077-GCS-KAJ (S.D. Ohio), filed with the Court a
pre-discovery motion for conditional class certification and
court-supervised notice to potential opt-in plaintiffs pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Ms. Smith asks the Court to implement a procedure whereby Court-
approved Notice of Plaintiff's FLSA claims is sent (via U.S. Mail
and e-mail) to:

     All current and former hourly, non-exempt employees of
     Defendant who received remuneration payments in addition to
     their normal hourly rate of pay during any workweek that
     they worked over 40 hours in any workweek beginning three
     years preceding the filing date of this Complaint and
     continuing through the date of final disposition of this
     case.

Ms. Smith further asks the Court to approve a Reminder Email to
be sent to Putative Class Members halfway through the 45-day
notice period, and to require the Defendant to, within 14 days of
this Court's order, identify all potential opt-in plaintiffs by
providing a list in electronic and importable format, of the
names, addresses, and e-mail addresses of all potential opt-in
plaintiffs, who worked for the Defendant at any time from three
years preceding the filing of this Motion through the present.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=4MbSoO4A

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq.
          COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC
          1457 S. High St.
          Columbus, OH 43207
          Telephone: (614) 949-1181
          Facsimile: (614) 386-9964
          E-mail: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com

               - and -

          Peter Contreras, Esq.
          CONTRERAS LAW, LLC
          PO Box 215
          Amlin, OH 43002
          Telephone: (614) 787-4878
          Facsimile: (614) 923-7369
          E-mail: peter.contreras@contrerasfirm.com


CIVEO CORP: "Suhr" Action Seeks to Halt Noralta Acquisition
-----------------------------------------------------------
Philip Suhr, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Civeo Corporation, Richard A. Navarre, C.
Ronald Blankenship, Bradley J. Dodson, Martin A. Lambert,
Constance B. Moore, Charles Szalkowski, and Timothy O. Wall,
Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-00259 (S.D. Tex., January 26, 2018),
seeks to enjoin defendants and all persons acting in concert with
them from proceeding with, consummating or closing the
acquisition of Noralta Lodge Ltd. by Civeo through a merger
transaction, rescinding it in the event defendants consummate the
merger, rescissory damages, costs of this action, including
reasonable allowance for plaintiff's attorneys' and experts' fees
and such other and further relief under the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.

The proposed transaction is valued at approximately $168,660,070
for 32.8 million Civeo common shares valued at $2.10 per share
issued to Noralta's equity holders.

The complaint says merger documents failed to provide complete
and full disclosure of the line item projections for the metrics
used to calculate non-GAAP metrics thus leaving Civeo
stockholders without the necessary, material information to reach
a fully informed decision concerning the company, the fairness of
the merger consideration and, ultimately, whether to vote in
favor of the Proposed Transaction.

Civeo is an integrated provider of workforce accommodations,
logistics and facility management services to the natural
resource industry including catering and food services,
housekeeping, laundry, facility management, water, and wastewater
treatment, power generation, communications and redeployment
logistics. Civeo operates in Canada, Australia and the U.S.

Noralta Lodge is a premier accommodations provider in the
Canadian Oil Sands Region. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Thomas E. Bilek, Esq.
      THE BILEK LAW FIRM, L.L.P.
      700 Louisiana, Suite 3950
      Houston, TX 77002
      Tel: (713) 227-7720

             - and -

      Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
      Miles D. Schreiner, Esq.
      MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
      The Empire State Building
      350 Fifth Avenue, 59th Floor
      New York, NY 10118
      Telephone: (212) 971-1341
      Email: jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com
             mschreiner@monteverdelaw.com


COCA-COLA BOTTLING: "Connell" Suit Seeks Damages Under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------
Bobby Connell, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Coca-Cola Bottling Company, Case No. 6:18-cv-00090
(N.D. Ala., January 19, 2018), seeks to recover damages for
unpaid wages, including overtime compensation, pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff Bobby Connell resides in Walker County, Alabama and
worked for the Defendant as a Route Salesperson out of its
Northwest Alabama location.

Defendant Coca-Cola Bottling Company is headquartered in
Birmingham, Alabama. In the United States, Defendant is the third
largest bottler of Coca-Cola products. Defendant produces and
distributes 750 kinds of beverages.  [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gregory O. Wiggins, Esq.
      Kevin W. Jent, Esq.
      WIGGINS, CHILDS, PANTAZIS,
      FISHER & GOLDFARB, LLC
      The Kress Building
      301 19th St. North
      Birmingham, AL 35203
      Tel: (205) 314-0500


CRST EXPEDITED: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss "Montoya" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Patti B. Saris of the U.S. District Court for the District
of Massachusetts denied the Defendants' motion to dismiss or
transfer the case, JUAN CARLOS MONTOYA, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated Plaintiff, v. CRST EXPEDITED, INC.,
and CRST INTERNATIONAL, INC., Defendants, Civil Action No. 16-
10095-PBS (D. Mass.).

The case involves a putative class of truck drivers who seek
redress for alleged unpaid wages and unlawful deductions from
their pay.  Named Plaintiff Montoya is a former employee of the
Defendants.  His complaint asserts causes of action under the
federal Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and various provisions
of Iowa law.

Montoya, a resident of Boston, Massachusetts, worked for CRST
from October to December 2014.  Both CRST entities are Iowa
corporations that ship goods in interstate commerce.  The
Defendants recruited drivers, including Montoya, by promising
sign-on bonuses and "free" commercial driver's license ("CDL")
training.  CRST requires new drivers to complete a training
program that consists of four phases.

The First Amended Complaint alleges that, as a result of the
practices, CRST drivers are often paid less than the federal
minimum wage.  It also alleges, among other things, that CRST
makes deductions from drivers' paychecks for improper purposes,
that certain deductions constitute unlawful kickbacks to the
Defendants, and that CRST charges an excessive interest rate.

In March 2016, the Defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) or to transfer to the Northern
District of Iowa under 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a).  They relied
primarily upon a forum-selection clause in one of Montoya's
employment contracts that fixes venue in Cedar Rapids, Iowa.

At a hearing in February 2017, the Court denied the motion
without prejudice, mainly due to concerns about whether Montoya,
whose native language is Spanish, was able to comprehend the
forum selection clause, which, like the rest of the contract, was
written in English.  The Court also expressed uncertainty over
what weight to afford a forum-selection clause in an FLSA action.
After discovery, the Defendants renewed their motion to dismiss
or transfer in September 2017, which the Plaintiff opposed.

After considering the initial record and the parties'
supplemental materials, Judge Saris declines to enforce the forum
selection clause against Montoya because to do so would be
unreasonable and unjust.  He further concludes that given the
considerable deference owed to the Plaintiffs' choice of forum in
an FLSA collective action, CRST -- in the absence of an
enforceable forum-selection clause -- has not met its substantial
burden to override the Plaintiff's choice of forum, as required
under Section 1404(a) when the parties are not bound by an
enforceable forum-selection clause.  Therefore, the Judge again
denied the Defendants' motion to dismiss or transfer.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 30, 2018 Memorandum and
Order is available at https://is.gd/DmyFSx from Leagle.com.

Juan Carlos Montoya, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Hillary A. Schwab -
- hillary@fairworklaw.com -- Fair Work, P.C., Andrew Schmidt,
Andrew Schmidt Law, PLLC, pro hac vice, Peter G. Mancuso, Andrew
Schmidt Law PLLC, pro hac vice & Rachel J. Smit --
rachel@fairworklaw.com -- Fair Work, P.C.

CRST Expedited, Inc., Defendant, represented by Elizabeth A.
Olivier -- eolivier@preti.com -- Preti, Flaherty, Beliveau &
Pachios, PLLP., pro hac vice, Gregory P. Hansel --
ghansel@preti.com -- Preti Flaherty Beliveau & Pachios, pro hac
vice, Wesley S. Chused -- wchused@preti.com -- Preti Flaherty
Beliveau & Pachios LLP, Daniel R. Sonneborn --
dsonneborn@preti.com -- Preti Flaherty & Randall B. Weill --
rweill@preti.com -- Preti Flaherty Beliveau & Pachios, LLP, pro
hac vice.

CRST International, Inc., Defendant, represented by Daniel R.
Sonneborn, Preti Flaherty & Randall B. Weill, Preti Flaherty
Beliveau & Pachios, LLP, pro hac vice.


DELOITTE: Ont. Court Certifies Document Reviewers' Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Monkhouse Law on Feb. 7 disclosed that a class action against
Deloitte involving document reviewers has been certified by the
Ontario Superior Court of Justice.  The claim seeks compensation
for unpaid vacation, unpaid statutory holiday pay and unpaid
overtime.  The claim alleges that the documents reviewers were
misclassified by Deloitte as independent contractors when in
reality they were employees.

The proposed class consists of at least 418 persons, all of whom
are lawyers.  The class members provided document review services
to a variety of Deloitte's clients.

In a decision rendered by Justice Belobaba on April 13, 2017 the
matter was certified, pending selection of a new representative
Plaintiff.  In his decision of April 13, 2017, Justice Belobaba
considered the changing employment landscape noting that
companies are increasingly labelling employees as self-employed
in an effort to reduce operating costs.  Justice Belobaba also
clarified that having two jobs does not mean that a worker is not
an employee.

The adjourned hearing proceeded before Justice Perell.  In his
decision, dated January 16, 2018, Justice Paul Perell found that
Mr. Tarrie Phillip was a suitable representative plaintiff and,
accordingly, he officially certified the proceeding as a class
action.  As a result, the matter will proceed against Deloitte.

"The decision from Justice Perell makes it clear that even if
some class members may not support the class action proceeding
class actions can still be certified" said Andrew Monkhouse.
Further he notes "The case is a reminder that even the largest
companies in Canada are subject to the same laws relating to the
treatment of their workers".

Sam Marr and David Fogel said that the decision "clarifies that
class representatives are not required to win a vote of everyone
involved prior to certification to start a class action."

The allegation that the class members in the case were
misclassified as independent contractors when they were actually
employees has not yet been proven in court.  Deloitte denies
liability. [GN]


EAST SIDE BAGEL: Salgado Seeks to Recover Minimum and OT Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
ARMANDO GOMEZ SALGADO, JOSE LUIS MANZANO ROMERO, and MARTIN LEAL,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. EAST
SIDE BAGEL CAFE, INC. (D/B/A EAST SIDE BAGEL), RATNAWATI LUBIS,
and HAIM HASSID, Case No. 1:18-cv-00602 (S.D.N.Y., January 23,
2018), seeks to recover alleged unpaid minimum and overtime wages
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

The Plaintiffs are current employees of the Defendants.  They
have been employed as deli workers, counter attendants, a cook
and cashier at the bagel shop.

East Side Bagel Cafe, Inc., doing business as East Side Bagel, is
a domestic corporation organized and existing under the laws of
the state of New York.  The Individual Defendants are owners,
managers, principals or agents of the Company.

The Defendants own, operate, or control a bagel shop, located at
1496 1st Avenue, in New York City, under the name "East Side
Bagel."[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


EMILY CORP: Must Face Camp Drugs' TCPA Class Action Over Fax Ads
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alan L. Friel, Esq. -- afriel@bakerlaw.com -- Linda Goldstein,
Esq. -- lgoldstein@bakerlaw.com -- and Holly A. Melton, Esq. --
hmelton@bakerlaw.com -- of BakerHostetler, in an article for
Mondaq, wrote that Camp Drug Stores has a number of chestnuts in
the legal fire -- in this case, the Illinois Southern District
Court.  Since May 2017, the company has filed seven TCPA class
actions there against various defendants working in or around the
pharmaceutical industry.

Each action alleges that the defendant sent Camp Drugs ads by fax
in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.  The facts
are the same across each filing and contain a litany familiar to
anyone who's become acquainted with TCPA lawsuits -- Camp Drugs
never asked to be sent anything by the named defendant, and there
was no clear opt-out option included in the fax as required under
the TCPA.

Lotsa Dockets
Each action seeks damages under the TCPA, of course, but also for
conversion, which effectively accuses the defendants of seizing
control of Camp Drug's fax machines and taking possession of its
ink, toner and paper (and employee time necessary to deal with
the faxes in the first place).

The actions have yet to meet with unvarnished success.  Three are
currently underway; a fourth is before the Seventh Circuit Court
of Appeals.  Three have been voluntarily dismissed by Camp Drugs.

The Takeaway
Before the latest self-dismissal, which took place on Jan. 11,
2018, one of the cases, Camp Drug Store, Inc. v. Emily
Corporation, took a strange turn.  Or two strange turns, to be
precise.

Emily moved to dismiss the second count-conversion -- arguing
that the claim duplicated the damages that Camp Drugs sought
through the first TCPA-related claim and should therefore be
dismissed.

The court rejected the argument, noting that, while a claim is a
set of facts that produces one injury, a count is the expression
of a legal theory on which a claim can be based.  "Since [the
conversion count] is premised on the same facts as Count I," the
court maintained, "it is not a distinct 'claim,' but an
alternative legal theory under which Camp Drug Stores might claim
entitlement to relief."

Emily marshalled a second argument, that the conversion count
should be dismissed because the damages Camp Drugs alleges are de
minimis, or trivial, and do not state a claim for conversion.
The court also disposed of this argument, noting a previous
decision that ruled that claims might be dismissed in this way,
"but [federal rules] do not provide a basis for striking
individual legal theories."

Regardless of the ultimate potential success of the cases, they
demonstrate the need for advertisers to exercise care in meeting
compliance obligations under the TCPA and state laws regarding
telemarketing by phone, text or fax.  The requirements are
complex and the TCPA's inclusion of statutory damages and a
private right of action make these kinds of cases a cottage
industry for the class action bar. [GN]


EQUIFAX INC: Senator Warren Releases Report on 2017 Data Breach
---------------------------------------------------------------
Emily Stewart, writing for Vox, reports that days after a report
emerged that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau might be
pulling back its probe into the Equifax data breach under acting
head Mick Mulvaney, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) is releasing a
new report on the incident that left the personal information of
more than 145 million Americans exposed.

In September 2017, the consumer credit reporting agency revealed
that millions of its US users had had their personal information,
including Social Security numbers, birthdates, and addresses,
compromised from mid-May through July 2017.  It took about six
weeks for Equifax to publicly announcing the breach, during which
time three executives sold nearly $2 million worth of the
company's shares.

Sen. Warren's report paints a damning portrait of Equifax's
handling of the data breach before, during, and after the
incident.  It highlights a number of findings already uncovered
in various reports on and inquiries into the Equifax data breach
as well as a handful of new details.

Among the findings: The data breach included the passport numbers
of an unidentified number of Equifax customers. The company
failed to follow its own internal procedures during the data
breach, and it hedged in its language around the hack, telling
consumers data was "accessed" and not openly saying it was
"exfiltrated" -- stolen. And Equifax took advantage of a federal
contracting loophole, the report alleges, to get a $7 million
contract with the IRS after the breach was revealed. The contract
was eventually reversed.

"For years, Equifax and other big credit reporting agencies have
been able to get away with profiting off using people's private
info and doing so without their explicit permission," Warren told
me in a phone interview.  "We need real consequences for when
they screw up."

Warren's office announced she would launch an investigation into
the data breach soon after it was revealed in September, sending
off letters to the CFPB, the Federal Trade Commission, the credit
bureaus Equifax, Transunion, and Experian, and the Government
Accountability Office demanding answers.

"Equifax makes it clear that if they get the chance, they're
going to wiggle off the hook for having put more than half of all
adult American at risk for fraud for years to come because of the
data that were stolen," she said.

An Equifax spokesperson said in an email that the company has
previously reported consumer data was stolen, which includes
access and exfiltration, and said the company found "no evidence"
that passport numbers were stolen.

As a reminder, the Equifax breach was really bad
Equifax in September 2017 revealed that 143 million of its US
users -- or about half of the country's population -- had their
personal information compromised in a data breach that spanned
several weeks in the spring and summer. (Equifax later revised up
its number of consumers affected to 145.5 million.) The company
waited about six weeks between discovering the data breach in
late July and publicly announcing it in early September.

When it announced the breach, Equifax offered affected customers
free credit monitoring and identity protection services -- as
long as they agreed to a forced arbitration clause that barred
them from joining forces with other wronged customers to sue the
company.  After public outcry, the company dropped the clause.

Equifax CEO Richard Smith stepped down in late September and in
October testified before the Senate Banking Committee and faced
questions about Equifax's handling of consumer data and the
breach, executive stock sales, and broader issues pertaining to
credit bureaus that handle the personal information of millions
of consumers.

The Equifax breach has presented myriad problems before, during,
and after Sen. Warren's report paints a damning portrait of
Equifax's handling of the data breach before, during, and after
the incident, drawing from a variety of sources.

It criticizes the company's flawed security system to prevent and
mitigate data security problems and notes that it was warned of
the vulnerability in the web application software, named Apache
Struts, that was used to breach the system but failed to ensure
the system was properly patched and updated.  It also points out
that Equifax received a specific warning from the Department of
Homeland Security about the specific vulnerability the hackers
took advantage of -- something Smith, the company's former CEO,
discussed in his Senate Banking Committee hearing in October.

Once Equifax did figure out what happened, it made a number of
missteps as well.  As mentioned, it attempted to force affected
customers into signing arbitration clauses.

The report characterizes Equifax's overall response to the breach
as "sorely inadequate," noting that customers faced long waits to
Equifax call centers and on the Equifax breach site were asked to
input the last six digits of their Social Security numbers -- the
exact information that was compromised.

It holds that Equifax used the breach as a moneymaking
opportunity by initially charting customers to freeze their
credit (after backlash, it reversed the practice).  LifeLock, an
identity theft protection tool, saw a tenfold increase in sign-
ups after the Equifax data breach was revealed.  During the
October Senate Banking Committee hearing, Smith in a back-and-
forth with Warren acknowledged LifeLock uses Equifax to monitor
its customers' credit and pays Equifax on a per-customer basis.

The Equifax spokesperson said the company is not currently
marketing any products directly to consumers and pointed out that
credit freeze fees are waived until the end of June.  The
spokesperson also pointed to a new app it launched that is
supposed to provide free credit report locking. Both the New York
Times and Ars Technica reported problems with the app's
functionality after its launch.

Equifax has been awarded hundreds of federal contracts worth
millions of dollars over the past decade, including one
especially eyebrow-raising one after the breach was revealed in
September of last year.  The IRS awarded Equifax a $7.2 million
no-bid contract to verify taxpayer identities, Politico first
reported, but later suspended the contract after public backlash.

Sen. Warren's report alleges that Equifax used loopholes in
federal procurements laws to get an extension on the contract
that was first awarded in 2015.  There is no indication that any
IRS data was exposed in the breach, but because of Equifax-caused
delays -- namely, its protests over losing the contract in the
summer, and its delay in reporting the breach in the first place
-- "the IRS was forced to give Equifax an expensive bridge
contract, and belatedly discovered . . . that Equifax was not
able to effectively protect taxpayer data to IRS standards," the
report says.

There are plenty of possible consequences for Equifax, but it's
not clear what, if anything, will stick Equifax confirmed in a
November regulatory filing with the Securities and Exchange
Commission that more than 240 class-action suits have already
been filed against it.  It is cooperating with multiple
investigations and probes, including by all 50 state attorneys
general, the FTC, the SEC, the Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority (FINRA), and various congressional committees, among
others.  It also said it is cooperating with a CFPB
investigation, though according to a Reuters report,
Mr. Mulvaney, the bureau's acting director, has pulled back its
probe.

"We're unveiling this report while Mick Mulvaney is killing the
consumer agency's probe into the Equifax breach.  Mick Mulvaney
shoots another middle finger at consumers," Warren said.

John Czwartacki, a senior adviser to Mr. Mulvaney, said in an
emailed statement that Mr. Mulvaney "takes data security issues
very seriously" and is working with partners across government on
the data breach.  "As a policy, we do not confirm or deny
enforcement or supervisory matters," he said, pointing out that
Equifax had "gone on the record" about a CFPB probe in its SEC
regulatory filing.  The bureau has said it is "looking into" the
Equifax matter and that "reports to the contrary" are incorrect.

Sen. Warren has proposed legislation related to the Equifax
breach.  In January, she and Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA) introduced
legislation meant to hold credit reporting agencies accountable
that would give the FTC more direct supervisory authority over
them and impose mandatory penalties for when they expose
consumers' data. Under the legislation, Warren and Warner
estimate Equifax would have paid at least $1.5 billion in the
2017 data breach.

In September 2017, Sen. Warren and Sen. Brian Schatz (D-HI) put
forth a bill that would force Equifax and its competitors to give
free credit freezing and unfreezing services and provide
customers with better fraud alert protections.

"Equifax may end up making money off of this deal, and that means
their incentives are not aligned properly to ensure that they
take care of the data they have," Sen. Warren said.

Beyond Sen. Warren's report, Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) has also
focused her attention on Equifax.  She wrote a letter to Federal
Reserve Inspector General Mark Bialek calling for an
investigation into the CFPB. Last year, she called for Equifax to
send a letter to every consumer impacted by the company's
failures informing them about what happened.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer criticized Mr. Mulvaney over
the Reuters Equifax report, saying he should "be bringing the
hammer down" on the company "instead of handing out get out of
jail free cards."

The Equifax spokesperson said the company is committed to
rebuilding trust with consumers and strengthening security, again
touting its new app.  "It will be a long journey, as regaining
confidence is not something that can be done overnight, and
cybersecurity is an immensely complex challenge that needs to be
faced as an industry," the spokesperson said. "We have committed
to working with a number of different groups to explore ideas to
better protect consumers from cybersecurity threats, and are
currently collaborating with regulators, legislators, and
government agencies."

Sen. Warren says that's not good enough. "There are two problems:
both what Equifax did wrong and how they failed to disclose it
once the breach had occurred," she said.  "That tells me this is
not a company that is working hard to regain the trust of the
American people.  It tells me that this is a company that still
is trying to maximize its return for its shareholders and ignore
consumers." [GN]


ESTIA: Faces Class Action Threat Over 2017 Financial Guidance
-------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Cranston and Nick Lenaghan, writing for Australian
Financial Review, report that residential aged care provider
Estia is facing the threat of a class action over its 2016
financial year results and the guidance it gave for the 2017
year.

Sydney litigation firm Phi Finney McDonald is gathering
shareholder support for a proposed class action that will be
funded by Investor Claim Partner.

Shareholders include Seven Network Holdings and Perpetual which
between the two own almost a quarter of the company.  Both
declined to comment on whether they would participate.  It is
understood that at least one institutional investor has formally
agreed to participate in a class action.

Despite the news, shares in Estia rose 1.53 per cent on Feb. 8.

The proposed action will allege that Estia failed to disclose to
the market the serious difficulties the business was experiencing
in the lead-up to the publishing of its 2016 financial year
results and its fiscal 2017 guidance.

The aged care operator slashed its guidance on October 6, 2016.

"We consider there are strong grounds to allege that Estia misled
investors between April 19 2016 and October 5 2016, concealing
its ongoing difficulties in integrating its recently acquired
aged care businesses, and providing profit guidance that it had
no reasonable prospects of achieving," said Tim Finney, principal
at PFM in a statement on Feb. 8.

"As a result, Estia shares traded at substantially inflated
prices, and then crashed when the market learned the truth."

An Estia representative denied the allegations.

"Estia has at all times complied with its continuous disclosure
obligations," the spokeswoman said.

"Estia has not been contacted by any class action litigants and
will not be commenting further at this time."

In the first half of the 2016 financial year, Estia announced the
purchase of a series of aged care facilities as part of an
acquisition-driven growth strategy.

That included the purchase of Kennedy Health Care Group for
$399.4 million in December 2015, the company's largest-ever
acquisition.

On December 7, 2015, Estia upgraded its fiscal 2016 guidance of
growth in underlying net profit after tax from more than 20 per
cent to more than 25 per cent, according to the law firm.

Estia further stated that the Kennedy acquisition would be
immediately earnings per share accretive.

But at Estia's financial year 2016 results on August 29 in 2016,
it revealed it had missed every forecast except revenue.

At the time the market's response led to a price fall of 29 per
cent, according to PFM.

Between December 7, 2015 and October 6, 2016, Estia consistently
maintained its position that the integration of acquired
businesses was on track, that it would increase its occupancy
rates, realise synergies through integration and meet market
guidance, according to the law firm.

On October 6, 2016, Estia announced a downgrade on its 2017
financial year guidance, causing a further price fall of about 15
per cent, according to the law firm.

In subsequent months, Estia's new chief executive Norah Barlow
conceded that the earnings margin generated from its acquired
sites had been significantly lower than previously expected and
that this had prompted the fiscal 2017 downgrade.

"It's not the role of publicly listed companies to sell optimism
to their shareholders," said John Walker, chief executive of
litigation funder, Investor Claim Partner.

"Their role and legal responsibility is to provide objective
information in a timely manner, good news or bad." [GN]


EZ MED SUPPLIES: "Akmyradova" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Maysa Akmyradova, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. EZ MED Supplies Group Inc. and Anastasiya Fedosova,
Case No. 1:18-cv-00386 (E.D. N.Y., January 19, 2018), seeks to
recover unpaid overtime and spread-of-hours wages pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

Plaintiff Maysa Akmyradova is a resident of the State of New York
and has worked for Defendants for approximately five months as a
Purchase Order Clerk.

Defendant EZ Med is a New York corporation with a principal place
of business at 1610 Richmond Terrace, Staten Island, New York
10310.

Defendant Anastasiya Fedosova is the owner of EZ Med. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brian A. Bodansky, Esq.
      BELL LAW GROUP, PLLC
      100 Quentin Roosevelt Blvd., Ste. 208
      Garden City, NY 11530
      Tel: (516) 280-3008
      Fax: (212) 656- 1845
      E-mail: bb@belllg.com


FACEBOOK INC: Investors Seek $129MM Fee in Non-Voting Stock Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jacob Rund, writing for Bloomberg BNA, reports that lawyers
representing Facebook Inc. stockholders who may have caused the
company to nix its plan to create a new, non-voting stock class
are asking for $129 million in fees.

The shareholders alleged Facebook directors breached their
fiduciary duties by backing new Class C shares.  Their suit,
filed in Delaware Chancery Court, claimed this move would have
improperly entrenched Facebook founder and controlling
stockholder Mark Zuckerberg.

The chancery court dismissed the case last September after
Zuckerberg -- days before he was scheduled to testify in court --
asked Facebook's board to drop its attempt at the share
reclassification.

A $129 million fee award would be uncommon, although not unheard
of, for a case this size when there is a definitive judgment or
settlement, business law professors told Bloomberg Law.  But
because the claims were rendered moot and dismissed, the question
of how much the investors' attorneys should be awarded -- if at
all -- becomes problematic.

Chancellor's Discretion
The fees requested are "very, very high," said Brian Fitzpatrick,
a Vanderbilt University law professor who specializes in class
litigation.

"A fee this large is unusual," said Geoffrey Miller, a New York
University law professor who co-authored a research paper on
attorneys' fees awarded in class actions.  "Unless there is
something really extraordinary about this case, it's at the
higher end of what you would expect to see."

The $129 million sought by Facebook investors wouldn't be the
largest granted by a Delaware court.  Jill Fisch, a business law
professor at the University of Pennsylvania, pointed to a $300
million fee granted by the Delaware Supreme Court in the 2012
shareholder derivative action against Southern Peru Copper Co.,
where $2 billion in damages were awarded.

For most class and derivative actions in federal court,
attorneys' fees are determined by one of two methods.

"One way is [the courts] give the lawyers a percentage of
whatever benefits they have obtained for the class members or
shareholders," said Brian Fitzpatrick, a Vanderbilt University
law professor who specializes in class litigation.

That percentage varies depending on the circumstances surrounding
the case and the total amount received in settlement or through
judgment, Mr. Fitzpatrick said.

Courts may also determine attorneys' fees using the "lodestar"
method, where the lawyers' hourly rates are multiplied by both
hours worked and what's known as a risk multiplier.

But in Delaware Chancery Court, the fees depend "pretty much on
what the chancellor, in his or her discretion, decides is
appropriate," Mr. Miller said.  "The chancellor has huge
discretion as to what to award, [and] a lot depends on the nature
and the circumstances of the case."

The Delaware courts mandate that each party to a lawsuit pay its
own attorneys' fees. However, there are some exceptions.

What Is Deserved?
Without a settlement fund to pull a percentage from, the
attorneys' argument "has to be that they have created a benefit"
for the class and deserve an award this large, Mr. Miller said.
"It's a complicated situation."

"Intrinsically it's not an unreasonable fee, but it would require
significant justification" to prove a benefit was provided, he
said.

The investors' attorneys' brief supporting the motion for a fee
award was filed Feb. 2 under seal.  But exhibits to the brief
include a Forbe's article highlighting that Zuckerberg pulled the
plug on the proposal prior to his scheduled testimony.

This could mean the attorneys will try to prove the class action
caused Facebook's board to abandon the new stock class.

"When you don't have a pot of cash" to take fees from, and you
don't have a court-ordered injunction or a settlement where the
defendant agrees to change their practices, "then you are kind of
in a land of speculation about why" the company changed its
intentions, Fitzpatrick said.

The lack of both clear causation and a pool of cash from either
judgment or settlement makes it "a little more complicated to get
money," he added.

Vice Chancellor J. Travis Laster presides over the Facebook class
action.

A Facebook representative declined to comment.

The case is In re Facebook Inc. Class C Reclassification Litig.,
Del. Ch., No. 12286-VCL, motion for attorneys' fees filed 2/2/18.
[GN]


FACEBOOK INC: Keller Attorney Discusses Class Action Ruling
-----------------------------------------------------------
Sheila A. Millar, Esq., Tracy P. Marshall, Esq. and Nathan A.
Cardon, Esq., of Keller and Heckman LLP, in an article for The
National Law Review, wrote that in the latest round of the
ongoing battle between Austrian privacy activist Max Schrems and
Facebook, the European Court of Justice (CJEU) ruled that Schrems
did not have standing to bring claims on behalf of Austrian
consumers over Facebook's alleged violations of users' privacy
rights.  The court did, however, allow for Mr. Schrems to
continue with the lawsuit as an individual.

In 2014, Mr. Schrems sued Facebook in local court in Vienna over
alleged consumer privacy violations.  He brought the complaint
both as an individual and as a collective action on behalf of
25,000 Facebook users worldwide.  Facebook's global headquarters
are based in Ireland, and the company argued against Mr. Schrems'
standing to sue on two grounds: (1) Schrems, who uses Facebook to
promote his books and events, has a professional interest in the
case therefore cannot be regarded as a "consumer" under European
consumer protection law; and (2) Facebook is not located in
Schrems' home country.  These questions were referred to the
European Court of Justice by the Supreme Court of Austria.

The CJEU's decision on the first issue follows the Advocate
General's opinion in November 2017.  On the second point,
however, the CJEU ruled that consumer privilege applies "only to
an action brought by a consumer against the other party to the
contract," so Facebook users cannot assign their claims to other
citizens outside their home countries.

Although the European Commission recommended in 2013 that member
states introduce a collective redress mechanism, nine countries
have yet to do so. However, this will change in May, when the new
General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) takes effect.  Article
80 of the GDPR states that data subjects "shall have the right to
mandate a not-for-profit body, organisation or association . . .
to lodge the complaint on his or her behalf." It is no surprise
that Max Schrems has already founded his own NGO specifically for
this purpose.  In addition, EU Justice Commissioner Vera Jourova
announced at a conference last September that the Commission will
be proposing new legislation in March 2018 (now expected in
April) to provide collective redress.

While the Schrems challenge now returns to the Supreme Court of
Austria, the EU data privacy landscape may soon become more
litigious. [GN]


FCA US LLC: Union Members Allege Bribery in Collective Bargaining
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Beverly L. Swanigan, Brian Lee Keller and Sheri Anolick,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, vs. FCA US, LLC, a foreign limited liability company,
and International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and
Agricultural Implement Workers of America, jointly and severally,
Defendant, Case No. 18-cv -10319 (E.D. Mich., January 26, 2018),
seeks redress for breaches of collectively bargained agreements
pursuant to the Labor Management Relations Act.

FCA allegedly bribed executives of the Union to take FCA friendly
positions during collecting bargaining negotiations, including
those in 2011 and 2015.

FCA US, LLC owns the Chrysler brand. International Union, United
Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of
America is a labor organization representing Chrysler and FCA
hourly workers.

Plaintiffs are FCA employees who were dues-paying Union members.
[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Raymond J. Sterling, Esq.
      James C. Baker, Esq.
      Brian J. Farrar, Esq.
      STERLING ATTORNEYS AT LAW, P.C.
      33 Bloomfield Hills Pkwy., Ste. 250
      Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304
      Tel. (248) 644-1500


FEIN SUCH: "Lugo" Suit Disputes Collection Letter
-------------------------------------------------
Wendy Lugo, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff(s), v. Fein, Such, Kahn & Shepard, P.C., LVNV
Funding, LLC, New Century Financial Services, Inc. and John Does
1-25, Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-01049 (D. N.J., January 25,
2018), seeks damages and declaratory relief arising from
violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Prior to December 27, 2017, Plaintiff allegedly incurred a
financial obligation to Citibank (South Dakota), N.A. where said
obligation was purchased by and/or sold to Fein, Such, Kahn &
Shepard. Defendants sent a collection letter that failed to
clearly specify the name of the creditor to whom the debt is
owed.[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph K. Jones, Esq.
      JONES, WOLF & KAPASI, LLC
      375 Passaic Avenue, Suite 100
      Fairfield, NJ 07004
      Tel: (973) 227-5900
      Fax: (973) 244-0019
      Email: jkj@legaljones.com


FREDERIC WEINBERG: "Straley" Disputes Collection Letter
-------------------------------------------------------
Kristie Straley, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Law Offices of Frederic I.
Weinberg & Associates, P.C. and John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case
No. 18-cv-00337 (E.D. Pa., January 26, 2018), seeks actual and
statutory damages, costs and attorneys' fees, declaratory and
injunctive relief under the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act.

Defendants sought to recover a debt incurred by Straley allegedly
to Barclays Bank for the amount of $5,799.04 via a collection
letter that fails to identify who the original or current
creditor is. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Antranig Garibian, Esq.
      GARIBIAN LAW OFFICES
      1800 JFK Blvd., Suite 300
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Tel: (215) 326-9179
      Email: ag@garibianlaw.com


GLOSSINGER HOLDINGS: Ramirez Sues over OT Pay & Minimum Wage
------------------------------------------------------------
GUADALUPE RAMIREZ, and other similarly situated non-exempt
employees, the Plaintiff, v. GLOSSINGER HOLDINGS INC., a Florida
Profit Corporation, PILAR GLOSSINGER and ELIZABETH GUZMAN,
Individually, the Defendants, Case No. CACE-18-003261 (Fla. Cir.,
17th Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County, Feb. 12, 2018),
seeks to recover damages exceeding $15,000 excluding attorneys'
fees or costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act to recover
unpaid overtime and/or minimum wage compensation, an additional
equal amount as liquidated damages, obtain declaratory relief,
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs.

According to the complaint, the Defendant knew and/or showed
reckless disregard of the provisions of the FLSA concerning the
payment of overtime wages as required by the Fair Labor Standards
Act and remain owing Plaintiff these unpaid wages since the
commencement of Plaintiffs employment with Defendant as set forth
above. As such, Plaintiff is entitled to recover double damages.
The Defendant never posted any notice, as required by the Fair
Labor Standards Act and Federal Law, to inform employees of their
federal rights to overtime and minimum wage payments.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


GODADDY.COM LLC: Court Denies Bid to Certify Class in "Ventures"
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Ventures Edge Legal PLLC, Plaintiff, v. GoDaddy.com
LLC, Defendant, Case No. CV-15-02291-PHX-GMS (D. Ariz.), Judge G.
Murray Snow of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Arizona denied the Plaintiff's Motion to Certify Class.

Microsoft sells an office-services product known as Office 365, a
software system that provides its buyers with various computer
programs and functionalities.  Consumers may purchase Office 365
directly from Microsoft, but Microsoft also authorizes other
retailers to sell the product.

In 2014, Microsoft and GoDaddy entered into a partnership that
allowed GoDaddy to sell Office 365.  GoDaddy's version of Office
365 aimed to serve the small business market.  In its version of
Office 365, GoDaddy consolidated setup, billing and support
processes to result in a simplified user interface specifically
intended for small business customers.  This simplified user
interface offers a different configuration of Office 365 than
that offered by Microsoft.

Despite bearing the same name, the Plaintiff alleges that
Microsoft and GoDaddy's Office 365 Business Premium plans contain
different functionalities.  Some of the Microsoft functionalities
are absent in GoDaddy's plan, and some functionalities are added
to GoDaddy's plan that do not exist in the Microsoft version.

In Plaintiff's own conversations with GoDaddy representatives
through the chat feature, GoDaddy representatives told the
Plaintiff that there were differences between the Microsoft and
GoDaddy product and discussed which functionalities were not
supported by GoDaddy.  In Plaintiff's case, however, these
conversations did not occur until after the Plaintiff had already
purchased GoDaddy's product.  Customers, however, may use the
chat function prior to purchasing the product through the website
or otherwise.

The Plaintiff argues that GoDaddy's alleged failure to disclose
these different functionalities on its website is an omission of
a material fact, and therefore a violation of the Arizona
Consumer Fraud Act ("ACFA").  It seeks to certify a class of all
individuals and entities who purchased the Office 365 Business
Premium plan through GoDaddy's website since Nov. 13, 2014.

In its Reply in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Class
Certification, the Plaintiff attaches three exhibits consisting
of expert reports.  Exhibit 3 of Dwight Duncan calculates
damages.  Exhibit 8 of Ilan Srendi sets forth the different
functionalities of Microsoft and GoDaddy's Office 365 Business
Premium products.  Exhibit 13 of Thomas Maronick discusses the
monetary value consumers place on the Microsoft functionalities
that are not present in the GoDaddy product.  The Plaintiff's
Motion for Class Certification contained declarations of all
three experts, each asserting their qualifications and the work
they sought to produce in their expert reports.

The Defendants move to strike the expert reports attached to Doc.
116 as consisting of new arguments and evidence, or for leave to
file a surreply.  In light of the Court's denial of the Motion to
Certify Class, Judge Snow holds that the Motion to Strike is
moot.

The Judge finds that individual questions predominate in the
putative class action.  In Arizona, reliance is an element of an
ACFA claim.  A private litigant bringing an ACFA claim is not
entitled to a presumption of reliance based on these facts.
Therefore, questions of whether a particular class member relied
on the omission are individualized questions that would
predominate.  The Plaintiff's motion to certify a class will be
denied.

Accordingly, Judge Snow denied the Plaintiff's Motion to Certify
Class but grated its Motion to Seal.  The Clerk of Court is
directed to file the lodged Exhibit (Doc. 118) under seal.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 30, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/gLC1bD from Leagle.com.

Ventures Edge Legal PLLC, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew S. Friedman
-- afriedman@bffb.com -- Bonnett Fairbourn Friedman & Balint PC,
Christopher M. Drury -- Cdrury@dkrpa.com -- Dimond Kaplan &
Rothstein PA, David A. Rothstein -- Drothstein@dkrpa.com --
Dimond Kaplan & Rothstein PA, Jared A. Levy -- Jlevy@dkrpa.com --
Dimond Kaplan & Rothstein PA, Lorenz Michel Pruss --
Lpruss@dkrpa.com -- Dimond Kaplan & Rothstein PA, James L.
Weintraub, James L. Weintraub PA & William G. Fairbourn --
gfairbourn@bffb.com -- Bonnett Fairbourn Friedman & Balint PC.

GoDaddy.com LLC, Defendant, represented by Jeffrey M. Monhait --
jmonhait@cozen.com -- Cozen OConnor & Paula L. Zecchini --
pzecchini@cozen.com -- Cozen OConnor PC.


GOOGLE INC: CEI Lawyer Ted Frank Seeks Review of Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ilya Shapiro, writing for CATO Institute, reports that when a
user clicks on a Google search result, the web browser transmits
a "referral header" to the destination website, unless a user has
disabled them.  The referral header contains the URL of the
search results page, which includes the user's search terms.
Websites use this information for editorial and marketing
purposes.

In 2010, Paloma Gaos filed a class action in the Northern
District of California, seeking damages for the disclosure of her
search terms to third-party websites through referral headers,
claiming fraud, invasion of privacy, and breach of contract,
among others.  She eventually settled with Google on behalf of an
estimated class of 129 million people in return for an $8.5
million settlement fund and an agreement from Google to revise
its FAQ webpage to explain referral headers.  Attorneys' fees of
$2.125 million were awarded out of the settlement fund, amounting
to 25 percent of the fund and more than double the amount
estimated based on class counsel's actual hours worked.

But no class members other than the named plaintiffs received any
money! Instead, the remainder of the settlement fund was awarded
to six organizations that "promote public awareness and
education, and/or . . . support research, development, and
initiatives, related to protecting privacy on the Internet."
Three of the recipients were alma maters of class counsel.

This diversion of settlement money from the victims to causes
chosen by the lawyers is referred to as cy pres.  "Cy pres" means
"as near as possible," and courts have typically used the cy pres
doctrine to reform the terms of a charitable trust when the
stated objective of the trust is impractical or unworkable.  The
use of cy pres in class action settlements--particularly those
that enable the defendant to control the funds--is an emerging
trend that violates the due process and free speech rights of
class members.

Accordingly, class members objected to the settlement, arguing
that the district court abused its discretion in approving the
agreement and failed to engage in the required rigorous analysis
to determine whether the settlement was "fair, reasonable, and
adequate."  The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
affirmed the settlement, so two objecting class members,
including Competitive Enterprise Institute lawyer Ted Frank, have
asked the Supreme Court to review the case.

Cato filed an amicus brief arguing that the use of cy pres awards
in this manner violates the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause
and the First Amendment's Free Speech Clause.  Specifically, due
process requires -- at a minimum -- an opportunity for an absent
plaintiff to remove himself, or "opt out," from the class.  Class
members have little incentive or opportunity to learn of the
existence of a class action in which they may have a legal
interest, while class counsel is able to make settlement
agreements that are unencumbered by an informed and participating
class.

In addition, when a court approves a cy pres award as part of a
class action settlement, it forces class members to endorse
certain ideas, which constitutes a speech compulsion.  The
defendants receive money -- essentially from themselves -- to
donate to a charity, and the victim class members surrender the
value of their legal claims.  Class members are left
uncompensated, while defendants are shielded from any future
claims of liability and even look better than they did before the
lawsuit given their display of "corporate social responsibility."

The Supreme Court will decide later this winter or spring whether
to take up the case of Frank v. Gaos. [GN]


GOOGLE INC: Faces Class Action Over Defective Pixel Smartphones
---------------------------------------------------------------
Samuel Gibbs, writing for The Guardian, reports that Google is
facing a class-action lawsuit over defects to its Pixel
smartphones.

The plaintiffs allege that Google knowingly sold defective Pixel
and Pixel XL smartphones, which suffered from problems with the
microphones that prevented them from being used for calling or
voice assistant functionality.

"It promoted the Pixel phones as premium products and priced them
from $649 to $869.  Yet, immediately after launching the phones,
customers complained directly to Google of 'severe microphone
issues'," the two plaintiffs, Patricia Weeks from Florida and
Waleed Anbar from California, said in the suit.  "Despite
receiving hundreds of complaints shortly after launch -- and
admitting the phones have a 'faulty microphone' -- Google
continues to sell the Pixel phones without telling purchasers
about the microphone defect."

Google's support agents acknowledged the defects with the
microphone, stating that the issues affected less than 1% of the
units sold at the time and that, according to the firm's vice
president of product management Brian Rakowski a "hairline crack
in the solder connection on the audio codec" was to blame. The
issue created an intermittent fault.

Google urged those with affected Pixel smartphones to claim under
warranty or to contact a service provider if out of warranty,
including Dixons Carphone Warehouse in the UK and uBreakiFix in
the US.

"Instead of fixing the defective Pixel phones, providing refunds,
or replacing the devices with non-defective phones, Google has
replaced defective phones with other defective phones, resulting
in many consumers repeatedly experiencing the microphone defect,"
the plaintiffs claim.

The Pixel smartphones were released in October 2016 and marked
the first time Google had produced a truly own-brand smartphone.
It was designed to be a direct challenge to Apple's iPhone
complete with premium price and features, and was followed by
other Pixel-brand devices, including the Pixel 2 and Pixelbook
laptop.

Google declined to comment on the lawsuit. [GN]


GOPRO INC: Sued by Ladd for Issuing False & Misleading Statements
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LARRY LADD, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. GOPRO, INC., NICHOLAS WOODMAN, and BRIAN MCGEE, Case
No. 5:18-cv-00533-EJD (N.D. Cal., January 24, 2018), is a federal
class action on behalf of persons, who purchased GoPro common
shares between August 4, 2017, and January 5, 2018, inclusive,
seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 over the Defendants' issuance of false and misleading
statements and information.

After touting the strong demand for the Company's products
throughout the Class Period, January 8, 2018, prior to the start
of trading, the Company announced that it would exit the camera
drone market after it sold the remaining inventory of its Karma
drone, which had been on the market for less than a year, the
Plaintiff states.  He adds that GoPro announced it was laying off
hundreds of employees, most of whom worked in its aerial
division.  He contends that the first day of trading after the
Company's January 8, 2018 pre-trading announcement, GoPro's
common shares opened at $6.69 per share, a decrease of over 43%
from the Class Period high.

GoPro is a Delaware corporation with its principal executive
offices located in San Mateo, California.  The Individual
Defendants are directors and officers of the Company.

GoPro, Inc. develops and sells mountable and wearable cameras,
and accessories in the United States and internationally.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Patrice L. Bishop, Esq.
          STULL, STULL & BRODY
          9430 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 400
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone: (310) 209-2468
          Facsimile: (310) 209-2087
          E-mail: pbishop@ssbla.com

               - and -

          Howard T. Longman, Esq.
          STULL, STULL & BRODY
          6 East 45th Street
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 687-7230
          Facsimile: (212) 490-2022
          E-mail: hlongman@ssbny.com


GREAT LAKES: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime, "Hill" Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
CALVIN HILL, and, MICHAEL DEY, and, NATE HATTER, and, RAY MAGERA,
and, TIM KLAUCK, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated v. GREAT LAKES CHEESE CO., INC., Case No. 1:18-cv-00172
(N.D. Ohio, January 23, 2018), alleges that the Plaintiffs and
other similarly-situated employees are not being paid for all
hours worked, including overtime compensation for all of the
hours they worked over 40 each workweek.

Great Lakes Cheese Co., Inc., is a for-profit Ohio corporation
with its principal place of business located in Geauga County,
Ohio.  The Company is a manufacturer and packer of natural and
process bulk, shredded, and sliced cheeses with facilities in
Ohio, Wisconsin, Tennessee, and New York, among other places.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


HEALTHCARE REVENUE: "Byfield" Suit Seeks Damages Under FDCPA
------------------------------------------------------------
Hermine Byfield, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated v. Healthcare Revenue Recovery Group, LLC, and Does 1
through 10, Case No. 2:18-cv-00243 (E.D. Pa., January 19, 2018),
seeks damages under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Plaintiff Hermine Byfield is an adult individual citizen of the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Plaintiff resides in Philadelphia
County.

Defendant Healthcare Revenue Recovery Group, LLC is a commercial
entity that regularly conducts business in the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania, is engaged in the business of debt collection
within the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Arkady "Eric" Rayz, Esq.
      Demetri A. Braynin, Esq.
      KALIKHMAN & RAYZ, LLC
      1051 County Line Road, Suite "A"
      Huntingdon Valley, PA 19006
      Tel: (215) 364-5030
      Fax: (215) 364-5029
      E-mail: erayz@kalraylaw.com
              dbraynin@kalraylaw.com

          - and -

      Gerald D. Wells, III, Esq.
      Robert J. Gray, Esq.
      CONNOLLY WELLS & GRAY, LLP
      2200 Renaissance Blvd., Suite 275
      King of Prussia, PA 19406
      Tel: (610) 822-3702
      Fax: (610) 822-3800
      E-mail: gwells@cwglaw.com
              rgray@cwglaw.com


HELVEY & ASSOCIATES: Violates FDCPA, "Irving" Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
Kamara Irving, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Helvey & Associates, Inc. and John Does 1-25, Case
No. 3:18-cv-00042-PPS-MGG (N.D Ind., January 23, 2018), is
brought on behalf of a class of Michigan consumers alleging
violations of the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act.

Helvey & Associates, Inc. is a "debt collector" with an office in
Warsaw, Indiana.  The Company uses mail, telephone, and facsimile
and regularly engages in business the principal purpose of which
is to attempt to collect debts alleged to be due another.  The
identities of the Doe Defendants are currently unknown.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Rachel B. Drake, Esq.
          RC LAW GROUP, PLLC
          285 Passaic Street
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Telephone: (201) 282-6500
          Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
          E-mail: rdrake@rclawgroup.com


HILLSTONE HEALTHCARE: Smith Moves for Certification of FLSA Class
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Doniele Smith, the Plaintiff in the lawsuit entitled Smith, On
behalf of herself and other members of the general public
similarly situated v. Hillstone Healthcare, Inc., et al., Case
No. 2:17-cv-01075-JLG-EPD (S.D. Ohio), filed with the Court pre-
discovery motion for conditional Class certification and court-
supervised notice to potential opt-in plaintiffs pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

The FLSA class is defined as:

     All current and former hourly, non-exempt employees of
     Defendants who received remuneration payments in addition to
     their normal hourly rate of pay during any workweek that
     they worked over 40 hours in any workweek beginning three
     years preceding the filing date of this Complaint and
     continuing through the date of final disposition of this
     case.

Ms. Smith asks the Court to implement a procedure whereby Court-
approved Notice of Plaintiff's FLSA claims is sent (via U.S. Mail
and e-mail) to the Class Members, and to approve a Reminder Email
to be sent to Putative Class Members halfway through the 45-day
notice period.  She further asks the Court to require the
Defendants to identify all potential opt-in plaintiffs by
providing a list in electronic and importable format, of the
names, addresses, and e-mail addresses of all potential opt-in
plaintiffs, who worked for Defendants at any time from three
years preceding the filing of this Motion through the present.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=tshRj2pp

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq.
          COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC
          1457 S. High St.
          Columbus, OH 43207
          Telephone: (614) 949-1181
          Facsimile: (614) 386-9964
          E-mail: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com

               - and -

          Peter Contreras, Esq.
          CONTRERAS LAW, LLC
          PO Box 215
          Amlin, OH 43002
          Telephone: (614) 787-4878
          Facsimile: (614) 923-7369
          E-mail: peter.contreras@contrerasfirm.com


HUDSON BUFFET: Marcial Seeks Overtime, Spread-of-Hours Pay
----------------------------------------------------------
Eleazar Marcial, on behalf of himself and all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ABC Corp. (d/b/a Hudson Buffet
and John Does #1-10), Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-00663 (S.D.
N.Y., January 25, 2018), seeks compensation for wages paid at
less than the statutory minimum wage, unpaid wages from
defendants for overtime work for which they did not receive
overtime premium pay as required by law, and liquidated damages
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law,
"spread of hours" requirements of New York Labor Law and
statutory damages for violation of the Wage Theft Prevention Act.

Defendant operates Hudson Buffet, a Chinese restaurant located at
10 Westage Business Center, Fishkill, New York where Marcial was
employed as a food preparer. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      David Stein, Esq.
      SAMUEL & STEIN
      38 West 32nd Street, Suite 1110
      New York, NY 10001
      Tel: (212) 563-9884
      Email: dstein@samuelandstein.com


IHOP: More Than 60 Women File Sexual Harassment Complaints
----------------------------------------------------------
Alexia Fernandez Campbell, writing for Vox, reports that in late
2011, a 16-year-old girl from suburban St. Louis landed her first
job as a waitress at a local IHOP restaurant.  She needed to work
there for at least a year to complete her high school co-op
program. At first, it made her uncomfortable when her boss
repeatedly complimented her appearance.  Within a few months, his
behavior made her terrified to go to work.

The Illinois teen's fear of getting fired -- and not graduating
on time -- led her to put up with escalating sexual harassment
from the restaurant's general manager, according to allegations
described in federal court documents filed in September.  At one
point, the manager allegedly threatened to "get violent" if she
didn't have sex with him.

Ten of the waitress's female co-workers described similar
experiences with two male cooks at the restaurant in a sexual
harassment lawsuit they filed together in September 2017 against
the IHOP franchise owner.  They all accused the general manager
and other supervisors of ignoring their complaints -- and even
condoning the behavior in some cases.

Those complaints were just a few of the nearly 7,000 sexual
harassment reports against employers that were reviewed in 2017
by the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), which
enforces federal civil rights laws.  Sexual harassment at work is
a form of illegal gender discrimination under Title VII of the
Civil Rights Act.  The women each filed a separate EEOC
complaint, and the EEOC decided to file a class-action lawsuit on
their behalf.

Sexual harassment is a particularly serious problem in restaurant
and hotel jobs.  From 2005 to 2015, hotel and restaurant workers
filed at least 5,000 sexual harassment complaints with the EEOC
-- more than any other industry, according to an analysis from
the Center for American Progress.  This number represents only a
fraction of all complaints filed by restaurant workers, as only
about half of the 85,000 sexual harassment complaints filed with
the EEOC in that time frame designated a specific industry.

In the wake of #MeToo, the restaurant industry has been forced to
grapple with the hostile work culture that has flourished in
American dining establishments, with high-profile chefs like
Mario Batali and John Besh brought down by allegations of sexual
misconduct.  But the movement has yet to sweep into the less
glamorous, lower-paid sectors of the restaurant industry --
family and chain restaurants that millions of Americans visit
each year.

Workers in these low-paying restaurant jobs are often teenagers
or adults struggling to pay their bills, making them easy targets
for abuse, says Laura Palumbo, communications director for the
National Sexual Violence Resource Center.

"It may be suggested that they are very replaceable; that because
of their status in the workplace, no one will care about their
claim or their claim won't make a difference," she says.

That's exactly what more than 60 workers at IHOP and Applebee's
restaurants in eight states have reported since 2010, according
to sexual harassment lawsuits filed in federal court.  These were
the two restaurant chains with the highest number of federal
sexual harassment lawsuits during that time -- four each.  Though
both restaurant brands are owned by the same company, the
lawsuits were filed against individual franchise owners.  Women
who worked at these restaurants described toxic work environments
where female servers said they are expected to tolerate
aggressive groping and sexual requests from their co-workers as
part of the job. When they complained, supervisors allegedly
ignored them or told them to put up with it.

Two federal lawsuits are pending against IHOP restaurants in New
York, Illinois, and Nevada.  Another lawsuit in New Mexico was
settled, and another -- against an Alabama IHOP -- was moved to
arbitration. Two lawsuits are pending against Applebee's
restaurants in South Carolina and New York.  Two others, in North
Dakota and Florida, were settled. There were more than 1,600 IHOP
restaurants in the United States as of 2016, and nearly 1,900
Applebee's restaurants as of 2015.

Restaurant workers -- like all private sector employees -- first
have to file a complaint with the EEOC to seek legal remedies in
federal court.

The details of these workplace complaints are confidential, and
are often mediated and settled privately with employers.  If both
parties can't reach an agreement, then victims can take their
cases to court (though very few do).  In particularly egregious
cases with well-documented evidence, the EEOC will file a lawsuit
on a worker's behalf.

Once a sexual harassment case goes to federal court, the records
become public.

Vox reviewed more than 450 gender discrimination lawsuits filed
since 2010 in federal courts across the United States.  The court
system does not break down the number of discrimination lawsuits
related to sexual harassment, or specifically against
restaurants.  But Vox found that IHOP and Applebee's were the
only restaurant chains sued at least four times for sexual
harassment.

(Our review does not include lawsuits that have been filed in
state courts for violations of state sexual harassment laws.  It
also doesn't include claims against restaurants that require
workers to sign mandatory arbitration agreements, which
essentially bars workers from suing their employers and instead
forces them to resolve disputes privately.  This is a common
practice at America's largest restaurant franchises, including
Waffle House, Hooters, Olive Garden, and Red Lobster.  That's one
reason why so few sexual harassment cases end up in federal
court.)

In September of last year, the EEOC sued the owners of two IHOP
restaurants in Illinois on behalf of 11 female employees and one
male employee.  One of the targets of the suit was the owner of
the IHOP where the high school student worked in Glen Carbon,
Illinois, a suburb of St. Louis, Missouri. (Vox is not naming the
teen because she was a minor when the harassment allegedly
happened, and because she declined to talk to Vox about her
case.)

A few months after she was hired in December 2011, the
restaurant's general manager, Rami Ramadan, allegedly began
telling her and other female servers "that they were sexy and
their pants looked good."  The teen claims that she asked him to
stop, but he didn't.  Instead, she says, he began pressuring her
to have sex with him. When she refused, he reportedly got angry.

"Don't make me get violent babe, and take what I want," he texted
her, according to court documents.  "Or we can meet and have sex
somewhere that would be fun"; "I wasn't asking, I was telling
your [sic]"; and "Your [sic] going to cooperate one way or the
other."

Around Thanksgiving in 2012, Ramadan allegedly grabbed the girl
from behind and put his arms around her.  When she told him to
stop and tried to get away, he allegedly put a steak knife to her
throat and told her that he didn't like to hear "no."  He then
released her.

Her co-workers reported similar experiences with two cooks at the
restaurant.  They said the cooks grabbed their buttocks and
breasts, and one tried to put his hand down one waitress's pants.
When they complained to Ramadan, they say, he did nothing.  In
one case, a waitress recalled that he told her, "That's just how
they play."  They also complained to another general manager, who
allegedly told one woman "to suck it up."  Several women decided
to quit.

At a nearby IHOP in Alton, Illinois, a male cook claims he was
also targeted.  He accused the general manager of grabbing his
buttocks and crotch multiple times.  He also claims that the
manager called and texted him and ignored the cook's pleas to
stop.

Both Illinois IHOP franchises are owned by Khalid Ramadan, the
brother of general manager Rami Ramadan.  The lawsuit is pending
in the US District Court for the Southern District of Illinois.

The Ramadans did not respond to requests for comment from Vox.
Philip Graham, an attorney representing Khalid Ramadan's
businesses, wrote in an email, "We do not comment on pending
litigation in the media, except to note that at this point the
claims made are only allegations, which the defendants intend to
defend vigorously in court."

Two days after filing the lawsuit against Ramadan's franchises,
the EEOC filed another complaint against the owners of seven IHOP
restaurants in New York and Las Vegas.  In the lawsuit, workers
described a restaurant environment in which managers condoned
sexual harassment of female servers and hosts and "frequently
laughed off complaints."  In most cases, women who complained say
they got fewer shifts.

One waitress at an IHOP in Las Vegas said managers and cooks
called her vulgar names, touched her buttocks, made comments
about her genitals, and asked her for sex.  She said the general
manager not only ignored her complaints but told her to have sex
with the cooks if she wanted them to treat her better. She claims
the manager then gave her fewer shifts.

Other waitresses at Las Vegas IHOP restaurants said cooks would
follow them into the restaurants' walk-in refrigerators and
pantries to grope them.  One woman, who struggled to get away,
was so distraught that she ran outside to her car and locked
herself inside. She said when she complained to her supervisor,
nothing happened.

Another target of EEOC action is Applebee's.  In May 2017, the
EEOC filed a lawsuit against the owners of a franchise in North
Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, on behalf of two waitresses.

Tracy Frye said that her supervisor repeatedly came up behind
her, grabbed both of her breasts, and rubbed his crotch against
her during the 10 months she worked with him.  She said he asked
her several times for sex and once straddled her head between his
legs when she was bent over cleaning. She said she complained to
another assistant manager, and their general manager, but nothing
happened.

Tracy's sister Cindy started working there too, and reported the
same behavior.  She asked the general manager not to assign her
to work the same shifts as the supervisor -- a request that the
manager denied.  It wasn't until Cindy Frye's husband found out
about the incidents and confronted the general manager that the
GM fired the supervisor, according to the plaintiffs' complaint.

The lawsuit is currently pending in the US District Court for the
Southern District of South Carolina. Amanda Nitto, a lawyer
representing New Apple Inc., which owns the Applebee's restaurant
in North Myrtle Beach, declined to comment on the case.  A
private lawyer representing the Frye sisters never responded to
Vox.

Vox also reached out to six of the women who filed charges
against the IHOP franchise owners. Four of them didn't respond,
and two of them declined to comment about their experiences.  The
EEOC attorneys representing them also declined to talk to Vox
because the cases are still pending in court.

All IHOP and Applebee's restaurants are independently owned, and
the California-based corporation that owns both brands is not a
defendant in the lawsuits.  A franchise company can still be held
liable for sexual harassment at its independently owned chains,
but those cases are harder to prove, says Kelly Armstrong, an
employment law attorney in San Francisco who specializes in
gender discrimination cases.  Plaintiffs would have to show that
the company was aware of the allegations and did nothing to stop
or prevent harassment.

Vox contacted DineEquity, the public corporation that owns the
Applebee's and IHOP franchises. Court records give no indication
that the company was aware of the complaints against its IHOP and
Applebee's franchisees.

A spokesperson for DineEquity, Thien Ho, did not answer questions
about whether the company knew of the allegations in the
lawsuits.  Instead, Ho released the following statement:

"Harassment of all nature has no place in any organization,
including those affiliated with DineEquity.  Our brands,
Applebee's Grill + Bar and IHOP, and each of their franchisees
are committed to a professional, safe and positive working
environment for all.  Both brands are 100% franchised and all
3,700 restaurants nationwide are owned and operated by
entrepreneurs dedicated to serving their communities. Each
franchisee establishes and adheres to their own strict policies
against harassment in the workplace. Our organization and
franchisees are fiercely committed to maintaining a safe and
empowering environment for all team members."

A persistent problem in the restaurant industry
The harassment described in these cases is hardly unique to IHOP
and Applebee's.  It's a persistent problem in low-paying,
customer-service-oriented jobs like restaurants and retail, says
Palumbo of the National Sexual Violence Resource Center.

It's impossible to know the exact number of sexual harassment
complaints filed against IHOP and Applebee's owners, because
cases that are mediated through the EEOC (and therefore never
make it to court) are never made public.

The cases that the EEOC does take to court, like the ones
detailed above, have a good chance of succeeding, according to
experts.  "Because the EEOC has limited resources, they want to
take the most egregious cases forward so they have the highest
chances of success," says Ms. Armstrong, the employment law
attorney in San Francisco.  They often result in back pay and
punitive damages for workers, and require employers to take steps
to prevent future harassment.

But even when the EEOC takes a case to federal court, it doesn't
always mean it will go before a jury. Research shows that
employers are more likely to settle charges than risk a lengthy
trial.

That's what happened in another Applebee's case.  The general
manager of a restaurant in Bismarck, North Dakota, allegedly
groped, asked for sex from, and exposed himself to 17 female
employees on a regular basis.  In at least one case, he forced a
woman to give him oral sex in exchange for a raise, according to
the complaint.  Even customers complained about his behavior, yet
nothing changed.

The EEOC filed a lawsuit in 2010, and in 2011 the restaurant
agreed to settle the case for $1 million, which went to the 17
victims.  As part of the deal, the company that owned the
restaurant had to implement a sexual harassment training and
reporting system.

"This case demonstrates in a rather emphatic way that sexual
harassment is still a challenge for women at some of our best-
known neighborhood businesses," said John Rowe, the EEOC lawyer
who investigated the case, in a statement at the time.

That was six years ago.  Based on the allegations in the most
recent lawsuits against IHOP and Applebee's restaurants, it
remains a challenge. [GN]


IMS TRADING: Court Grants Leave to File TAC in "Dopico"
-------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MARIE DOPICO, for Plaintiff and the class of Members
defined herein Plaintiff, v. IMS TRADING CORP., et al.,
Defendants, Civil No. 14-1874 (BRM)(DEA)(D. N.J.), Magistrate
Judge Douglas E. Arpert of the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey granted the Plaintiffs' motion for leave
to file a Third Amended Complaint ("TAC").

The Plaintiffs bring the putative class action against the
Defendant, alleging that dog treats marketed and sold to pet
owners by IMS caused illness and/or death to dogs that consumed
the product.  The matter was removed from the Superior Court of
New Jersey in March 2014, after which the Plaintiffs filed an
Amended Complaint containing the following Counts: (a) Count I,
breach of express warranty under the Uniform Commercial Code
("UCC"); (b) Count II, breach of implied warranty under the UCC;
(c) Count III, violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act
("NJCFA"); (d) Count IV, violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty
Act ("MMWA"); (e) Count V, unjust enrichment; (f) Count VI,
failure to warn (products liability); and (g) Count VII,
defective design or manufacture (products liability).

IMS moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint, and in April 2015,
Judge Sheridan dismissed Counts II, III and V with prejudice as
being subsumed by the New Jersey Products Liability Act
("NJPLA").  In September 2015, the Plaintiffs filed a Motion for
leave to file a Second Amended Complaint ("SAC") naming two
additional class representatives, one a resident of New Jersey
and the other a resident of Arizona.  The proposed SAC included
certain claims applicable to the Arizona Plaintiff only, which
are as follows: (a) breach of implied warranty under the UCC
(Count II); (b) violation of the NJCFA (Count III); (c) unjust
enrichment (Count V); and (d) violation of the Arizona Consumer
Fraud Act (Count VIII). Defendant opposed the motion on the
ground that Judge Sheridan previously dismissed with prejudice
the claims for breach of implied warranty, violation of the
NJCFA, and unjust enrichment.

In February 2016, the Court issued an Order granting the
Plaintiffs' Motion, finding that a New Jersey Plaintiff, to whom
New Jersey law applied, brought the claims which were previously
dismissed by Judge Sheridan as being subsumed by the NJPLA.  In
contrast, the out-of-state Plaintiff named in the SAC alleged
that he resided in Arizona, purchased the Defendant's dog treats
in Arizona, and, presumably, tended to his dog which allegedly
became ill in Arizona, where he incurred over $200 in veterinary
bills.  Therefore, the Court found that, before the question of
NJPLA subsumption is reached, it must first be established that
the NJPLA applies to the Arizona Plaintiff's claims, vis a vis a
choice of law analysis. Defendant subsequently filed an appeal
with the District Judge, who affirmed the Order.

Now, Plaintiffs move for leave to file a TAC, in order to name an
additional class representative, a resident of Oregon.  Like the
SAC, the proposed TAC includes certain claims applicable to the
Oregon Plaintiff only, which are as follows: (a) breach of
implied warranty under the UCC (Count II); (b) violation of the
NJCFA (Count III); (c) unjust enrichment (Count V); and (d)
violation of the Oregon Unlawful Trade Practices Act ("UTPA")
(Count IX).

The Defendant opposes the motion and, once again, argues that the
TAC attempts to re-plead claims which were previously dismissed
as subsumed by the NJPLA through Counts II, III, and V.  It also,
for the first time, challenges the Plaintiffs' claims under
Counts I and IV as futile, contending that the challenged
representations are inactionable under the applicable law.
Finally, the Defendant contests Count IX.  Moreover, in July
2017, the Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss also challenging
the Plaintiffs' claims as alleged under Counts I and IV.  That
Motion is currently pending.

Magistrate Judge Arpert finds that the Defendant raises an
identical argument on the Motion as to the proposed Oregon
Plaintiff, without demonstrating that New Jersey law governs her
claims.  Rather, it respectfully disagrees with the determination
that any analysis of subsumption under the NJPLA requires a
choice-of-law analysis and provides a contrasting interpretation
of the case law which this Court previously cited.  However, the
instant Motion is an improper vehicle for raising these
challenges -- indeed, the Defendant previously filed an appeal
with the District Judge, who affirmed the prior Order.  Moreover,
the Defendant has not identified any supervening law which merits
reconsideration.  Therefore, its arguments are rejected for the
reasons already provided in the Court's previous Order.

Because Rule 15(a) contemplates assessing the futility of a claim
which has not already been asserted in an operative Complaint,
the Magistrate Judge refrains from addressing the Plaintiffs'
MMWA and state law warranty claims on the Motion.  Rather, those
challenges are more appropriately considered on the Defendant's
pending Motion to Dismiss.  In an effort to avoid a duplicative
expenditure of judicial resources, he will allow the Plaintiffs'
MMWA and warranty claims to proceed, subject to their
consideration within the context of the Defendant's Motion to
Dismiss.

Finally, the Magistrate Judge finds that the Defendant has failed
to sufficiently demonstrate that a choice of law analysis is not
required.  The pleadings stage has yet to conclude and, in that
connection, discovery remains to be taken, particularly with
respect to the Oregon Plaintiff.  Accordingly, denial of the
Plaintiff's UTPA claim on this basis would be improper.  Indeed,
various courts within the district have raised choice of law
concerns at earlier stages of litigation, before addressing the
issue of NJPLA subsumption.

For the foregoing reasons, Magistrate Judge Arpert granted the
Plaintiffs' Motion for leave to file the TAC.  The Plaintiffs
will file the TAC within seven days thereof.  The Defendant's
Motion to Dismiss will be administratively terminated without
prejudice to refiling in response to the TAC.  An appropriate
Order accompanies the Opinion.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 30, 2018 Opinion is
available at https://is.gd/vHlLnn from Leagle.com.

MARIE DOPICO, for Plaintiff and the class of members defined
herein, Plaintiff, represented by BRUCE HELLER NAGEL --
nagel@nagelrice.com -- NAGEL RICE, LLP, MICHAEL J. EPSTEIN, THE
EPSTEIN LAW FIRM, P.A. & RANDEE M. MATLOFF --
rmatloff@nagelrice.com -- NAGEL RICE, LLP.

Carly Heron, Plaintiff, represented by RANDEE M. MATLOFF, NAGEL
RICE, LLP.

IMS TRADING CORP. & IMS PET INDUSTRIES, INC., (names fictitious
as presently unknown), Defendants, represented by MICHAEL J.
MARONE -- MMARONE@MDMC-LAW.COM -- MCELROY, DEUTSCH, MULVANEY &
CARPENTER, MICHAEL DAVID CELENTANO -- MCELENTANO@MDMC-LAW.COM --
MCELROY DEUTSCH MULVANEY & CARPENTER LLP & RICHARD J. WILLIAMS,
JR. -- RWILLIAMS@MDMC-LAW.COM -- MCELROY, DEUTSCH, MULVANEY &
CARPENTER, LLP.


INTEGRIS HEALTH: Okla. High Ct. Reverses Dismissal of "Cates"
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ELIZABETH CATES, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. INTEGRIS
HEALTH, INC., an Oklahoma corporation, Defendant/Appellee, Case
No. 114314 (Okla.), Judge Patrick Wyrick of the Supreme Court of
Oklahoma reversed the judgment of the trial court dismissing
Cates' claims.

Cates claims that Integris wrongfully billed her for services she
received after being admitted to one of Integris's facilities
following a car accident.  She also claims that Integris has
performed the same wrongful billing practice on other patients.

The case arises out of two agreements: one between Cates and
Integris, the other between Integris and Cates' health insurance
Participating Provider Organization ("PPO").  The agreement
between Cates and Integris is a hospital admission form she
signed that provides the promise of healthcare and services in
exchange for Cates' promise to comply with hospital rules.  It
also specifies that Cates is responsible for all charges that
remain after any third party payment unless the Hospital is
prohibited by contract between third party and Hospital from
billing Patient for these amounts.

The second agreement at issue, the one between Integris and the
PPO, is called a "Participating Hospital Agreement," and it
secures medical services for insurance-plan beneficiaries in
exchange for the hospital's promise to accept pre-arranged,
discounted prices.  According to Cates, it also specifies that
the hospital may not bill her except for a copay or deductible or
coinsurance, or, in cases where Integris has confirmed the
services are not covered, advised the patient the services are
not covered prior to delivering the services, and the patient
agreed to pay for those services.

Cates argues that these two agreements work in tandem to require
Integris first to submit all charges to her insurance provider
before billing her directly.  She alleges that following her
hospital visit, Integris did not submit the charges to her
insurer as required, but instead simply filed and asserted a lien
against her. She also alleges that Integris has employed the same
billing tactic with many of its patients.

Accordingly, Cates brought a class action against Integris
alleging the following four claims: (1) breach of contract, (2)
breach of contract to which Cates is a third-party beneficiary,
(3) violation of the Oklahoma Consumer Protection Act, and (4)
"deceit."

But Integris argues that Cates' claims are expressly preempted by
the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA") and
could be removed to federal court.  Upon removal, however, the
federal courts disagreed and remanded the case back to state
court for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

Integris now argues that Cates' state-law claims are "expressly"
preempted, meaning that they cannot be brought at all.  The
Oklahoma district court agreed and granted Integris' motion to
dismiss on that basis.  Cates then filed the appeal, which the
Court retained.

The question in the appeal is whether these patients may pursue
state-law remedies for their alleged harms.  Based on the
allegations in Cates' petition, Judge Wyrick holds that Cates has
stated claims for relief that do not "relate to" her ERISA plan
as that term has been interpreted by the federal courts.
Accordingly, Integris's motion to dismiss on the ground of
express preemption should have been denied.  The judgment of the
trial court is therefore reversed by the Judge, and he remanded
the case with instructions to proceed in a manner consistent with
the Opinion.

A full-text copy of the state Supreme Court's Jan. 30, 2018
Opinion is available at https://is.gd/FCEdbS from Leagle.com.

Terry W. West, Bradley C. West, Gregg W. Luther, and J. Shawn
Spencer, The West Law Firm, Shawnee, Oklahoma, for
Plaintiff/Appellant.

Kevin D. Gordon -- kevin.gordon@crowedunlevy.com -- and Alison M.
Howard -- alison.howard@crowedunlevy.com -- Crowe & Dunlevy,
P.C., Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for Defendant/Appellee.


JIMMY JOHN'S: Claims Against Franchisor, Franchisees Can Proceed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Philip M. Van Hoy, writing for Society for Human Resource
Management, reports that a case decided by the 7th U.S. Circuit
Court of Appeals potentially has opened new paths of liability
for employers.  The court ruled that claims against a franchisor
and its franchisees could proceed simultaneously in a
consolidated lawsuit.

Employees brought this lawsuit under the federal Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA), which regulates pay practices.  The
employees filed the case as a nationwide class action on behalf
of all assistant store managers of Jimmy John's corporate-owned
stores, contending that the managers were misclassified as
overtime-exempt under the FLSA.

Jimmy John's corporate is a national food franchisor that
contracts with franchisees to operate retail stores under its
brand.  Jimmy John's owns only 2 percent of its stores; the rest
are owned and operated by franchisees.  Even so, the employees
claim that Jimmy John's corporate and the franchisees are joint
employers.

This case is typical of efforts by plaintiffs' employment lawyers
to try to tie liability to a corporate parent; that is where the
big money is, since local stores have a limited number of
employees and financial assets.  The potential costs in
nationwide class actions pressure franchisors to settle.

In a regular class action, the time limits for filing FLSA
lawsuits stop running on the date the class action is filed.  In
contrast, in a collective action under the FLSA, limits on filing
individual claims continue to run for each potential plaintiff,
considered separately, until each plaintiff files written notice
that he or she consents to join the lawsuit.

Two years after suing Jimmy John's corporate, the employees filed
separate lawsuits against their respective franchisee employers
in federal trial courts across the country.  About 660
individuals joined in the FLSA collective action.  Approximately
600 people work for franchisees.  The other 60 work at corporate-
owned stores.

These lawsuits were based on the employees hedging their bets in
case it was determined that the parent corporation and the
franchisees were not joint employers.  The corporate parent
argued that it did not exercise sufficient control over its
franchisees' pay decisions to be considered a joint employer with
the individual stores.

The trial court agreed with Jimmy John's corporate and prohibited
the lawsuits against the franchisees from proceeding until the
claims against Jimmy John's corporate were resolved.  The 7th
U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed and decided that the
claims against the franchisor and its franchisees could advance
at the same time.

Cases from the 7th Circuit are only controlling in the states of
Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin, but federal appeals courts
around the country sometimes rely on decisions involving similar
issues from their fellow appeals courts.

In Re: Jimmy John's Overtime Litigation, 7th Cir., No. 17-1655
(Dec. 14, 2017).

Professional Pointer: This decision does not hold that
franchisors are liable for the employment practices of their
franchisees.  It remains to be seen whether this case will set
new precedent on the merits, that is, whether a franchisor has
sufficient employee relations control to be liable for the FLSA
practices of its franchisees.  In any event, this will be a fact-
intensive case.  The point is that a franchisor that assumes it
can have no liability for the HR practices of its franchisees may
be doing so at its peril.

Philip M. Van Hoy is an attorney with Van Hoy, Reutlinger, Adams
& Dunn, PLLC, the Worklaw(R) Network member firm in Charlotte,
N.C. [GN]


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Rosen Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Feb. 7
disclosed that it is investigating potential securities claims on
behalf of purchasers of the securities of Johnson & Johnson
(NYSE:JNJ) resulting from allegations that J&J may have issued
materially misleading business information to the investing
public.

On February 5, 2018, CNBC published an article stating that
"court proceedings could expose potentially damaging documents"
related to J&J's talc products, such as Johnson's Baby Powder.
On this news, shares of J&J fell $7.29 per share or over 5% from
its previous closing price to close at $130.39 per share on
February 5, 2018.

Then, on February 7, 2018, during aftermarket hours, the Beasley
Allen Law Firm issued a press release stating that "[l]awsuits
filed by ovarian cancer and mesothelioma victims are revealing
never-before-seen documents from Johnson & Johnson and talc
supplier, Imerys, that shed light on just how prevalent asbestos
and heavy metals are in the talc used in Baby Powder." The
release stated that "[i]nternal Johnson & Johnson documents from
1972 note that asbestos was found in 100 percent of talc samples
tested at the time, but this information was never released
publicly." It further stated that J&J stopped funding a project
designed to test talc samples for asbestos contamination once a
majority of the sample batches were found to be positive for
asbestos.  On this news, shares of J&J fell during aftermarket
hours.

Rosen Law Firm is preparing a class action lawsuit to recover
losses suffered by J&J investors.  If you purchased shares of J&J
at any time since February 6, 2013, please visit the firm's
website at http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1288.htmlto join the
class action.  You may also contact Phillip Kim or Daniel Sadeh
of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via email at
pkim@rosenlegal.com or dsadeh@rosenlegal.com

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


KENTUCKY: Faces Class Action Over Medicaid Requirements
-------------------------------------------------------
Sara E. Teller, writing for Legal Reader, reports that a class
action lawsuit was recently filed by 15 Kentucky residents who
receive Medicaid.  The recipients challenged the federal
government's approval of proposed work requirements for Medicaid
users in the state.  The filing states that the administration's
approval of the requirements has "effectively rewritten" the
nation's Medicaid status in violation of the law.  Medicaid is
the government healthcare initiative for low-income households
and the disabled.

The statute in question allows states to initiate pilot programs
that further the objectives of Medicaid.  However, some say
making recipients work or get on the job training does not
advance Medicaid's goal of providing insurance to those who
really need it.

"There is, in contrast, good evidence that such requirements add
enrollment hurdles that cause people to lose eligibility," said
Allison Hoffman, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania
Law School.

Republicans last year had attempted to cut funding for Medicaid,
but they failed to get enough votes.  The Trump administration is
now emphasizing changes designed to cut back on funding people
covered by government healthcare programs.  At least nine other
states have also proposed changes to Medicaid similar to
Kentucky's including Arizona, Arkansas, Indiana, Kansas, Maine,
New Hampshire, North Carolina, Utah and Wisconsin.  However, none
of these states have been successful in receiving approval at the
federal level.

The Medicaid statute allows the Department of Health and Human
Services (DHHS) to grant waivers to states so they can experiment
with pilot programs that deviate from the statute.  DHHS must
find these programs "likely to assist in promoting the
objectives" of the Medicaid program.  CMS, a division of HHS,
issued guidance earlier this year inviting states to design and
propose test programs that impose work or job training
requirements on Medicaid recipients.  States must propose such
changes through waivers and get sign off at the federal level.
Seema Verma, the head of CMS, said individuals who participate in
"activities that increase their education and training" enjoy a
better quality of life.

Kentucky's waiver was granted approval on January 12 and requires
able-bodied adult Medicaid recipients to participate in at least
80 hours per month of "employment activities".  Those challenged
with disabilities do not have to abide by the requirements.  It
also imposes new premiums and will deny any recipients coverage
for six months if they fail to pay the new fees.  Those who filed
the lawsuit said that the new objectives were an "abuse of
discretion" by DHHS.

"The question is whether the demonstration is so unsupported by
the evidence and veers so far from the federal Medicaid law that
as a substantive matter it doesn't fit under" the waiver
initiative said Sara Rosenbaum, a professor of health law and
policy at George Washington University.

The plaintiffs' legal argument rests strongly on the federal
Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and Rosenbaum points out that
courts have been willing to block other Trump administration
policies that have been challenged under the APA.  And, as far
back as 2011, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals invalidated a
waiver that would have authorized co-pays for Medicaid patients
in Arizona.  Therefore, the plaintiffs could very well receive
their desired outcome.  Only time will tell. [GN]


LG ELECTRONICS: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss "Hudock" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Judge John R. Turnheim of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Minnesota denied the Defendants' renewed motion to
dismiss the case, BENJAMIN HUDOCK, BREANN HUDOCK, and GERALD
DELOSS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. LG ELECTRONICS U.S.A., INC., BEST BUY
CO., INC., BEST BUY STORES, L.P., and BESTBUY.COM, LLC,
Defendants, Civil No. 16-1220 (JRT/FLN) (D. Minn.); and denied
the Defendants' motion dismiss all claims of newly added
Plaintiff DeLoss under Rules 8(a) and 9(b).

The case arises from the Plaintiffs' respective purchases of
televisions purporting to have a 120Hz refresh rate.  They allege
that the televisions, in fact, have a 60Hz refresh rate.  The
Plaintiffs filed the purported class action against LG and Best
Buy, alleging violations of Minnesota and New Jersey consumer-
fraud statutes, as well as a number of common-law claims.

In July 2016, LG and Best Buy filed motions to dismiss the
Complaint, in its entirety, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1)
and 12(b)(6).  On March 27, 2017, the Court granted the
Defendants' motion in part.  Relevant in the instant motion, the
Court dismissed without prejudice the Hudocks' claim under the
New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act ("NJCFA").  The Complaint was
amended.

The Defendants renew their motion to dismiss.  They ask the Court
to dismiss Plaintiffs' NJCFA claim with prejudice under Rule
12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim, arguing that the
Plaintiffs have failed to plead an ascertainable loss under the
loss-in-value theory.  They also ask the Court to dismiss all
claims of newly added Plaintiff DeLoss under Rules 8(a) and 9(b).

As to the Plaintiffs' NJCFA claim, Judge Turnheim finds that the
Plaintiffs do not plausibly allege ascertainable loss using price
differences, but they do plausibly allege ascertainable loss
using expert testimony and analysis.  The Plaintiffs allege two
plausible methods for quantifying their loss.  First, they allege
that an expert can perform a hedonic regression analysis using
sales data to isolate the exact value associated with the refresh
rate.  Second, they allege that an expert can conduct a conjoint
analysis to measure consumer preferences, which can isolate and
quantify the portion of the retail price attributable to refresh
rates.   Consistent with Dzielak v. Whirlpool Corp., these are
two valid methods for pleading ascertainable loss.  The Judge
will therefore deny the Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiffs'
NJCFA claim.

As to DeLoss' fraud-based claims, the Judge holds that DeLoss
alleges the "who, what, where, when, why, and how" of LG's
conduct.  Consequently, Rule 9(b) does not require dismissal of
DeLoss' fraud-based claims.  And as to the dismissal of DeLoss'
common-law claims for failure to satisfy Rule 8(a), the Judge
holds that because he has already held that it need not engage in
choice-of-law analysis at this early stage of the case, Rule 8(a)
does not require dismissal of DeLoss' common-law claims.

Because the Plaintiffs plausibly plead a method of ascertaining
damages using expert testimony and analysis, and because DeLoss'
claims comply with Rules 8(a) and 9(b), Judge Turnheim denied the
Defendants' motions.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 30, 2018 Memorandum Opinion
and Order is available at https://is.gd/K6AWFL from Leagle.com.

Benjamin Hudock, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Breann Hudock, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated & Gerald DeLoss, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
represented by Alyssa Leary -- alyssa.leary@zimmreed.com --
Zimmerman Reed, Daniel C. Hedlund -- dhedlund@gustafsongluek.com
-- Gustafson Gluek PLLC, David M. Cialkowski  --
david.cialkowski@zimmreed.com -- Zimmerman Reed, PLLP, Joseph C.
Bourne -- jbourne@gustafsongluek.com -- Gustafson Gluek PLLC &
Luke Hudock, Hudock Law Group, S.C., pro hac vice.

LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc., Best Buy Co., Inc., Best Buy Stores,
L.P. & BestBuy.com, LLC, Defendants, represented by A. Elizabeth
Korchin -- elizabeth.korchin@hoganlovells.com -- Alicia Paller --
alicia.paller@hoganlovells.com -- John C. Mitchell -- Mitchell
Zamoff -- mitch.zamoff@hoganlovells.com -- Phoebe A. Wilkinson --
phoebe.wilkinson@hoganlovells.com -- at Hogan Lovells US LLP, pro
hac vice.


LIBERTY OILFIELD: Tenth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Harris" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Phillip Harris filed an appeal from a court ruling in
the lawsuit entitled Harris v. Liberty Oilfield Services, LLC,
Case No. 1:16-CV-01116-CMA-STV, in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Colorado - Denver.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
seeks to recover the unpaid wages and other damages under the
Fair Labor Standards Act and North Dakota Law.

Liberty provides a variety of oilfield support services to
oilfields in Colorado, North Dakota and Wyoming.  Mr. Harris was
a field engineer at its Colorado site.  He claims to have been
denied overtime wages for hours in excess of 40 per workweek.

The appellate case is captioned as Harris v. Liberty Oilfield
Services, LLC, Case No. 18-1026, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.

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

   -- Docketing statement, transcript order form and notice of
      appearance were due February 6, 2018, for Phillip Harris;
      and

   -- Notice of appearance was due on February 6, 2018, for
      Liberty Oilfield Services, LLC.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant PHILLIP HARRIS, individually and for others
similarly situated, is represented by:

          Richard Jennings Burch, Esq.
          David Moulton, Esq.
          Matthew Scott Parmet, Esq.
          BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
          8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 877-8788
          E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com
                  dmoulton@brucknerburch.com
                  mparmet@brucknerburch.com

               - and -

          Michael Andrew Josephson, Esq.
          JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 352-1100
          E-mail: mjosephson@fibichlaw.com

Defendant-Appellee LIBERTY OILFIELD SERVICES, LLC, is represented
by:

          Michelle B. Muhleisen, Esq.
          Austin Evans Smith, Esq.
          Roger Glenn Trim, Esq.
          OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
          1700 Lincoln Street, Suite 4650
          Denver, CO 80203
          Telephone: (303) 764-6800
          Facsimile: (303) 831-9246
          E-mail: michelle.muhleisen@ogletreedeakins.com
                  austin.smith@ogletree.com
                  roger.trim@ogletreedeakins.com


LYONS DOUGHTY: Saroza Appeals D.N.J. Decision to Third Circuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Nestor Saroza filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in the lawsuit styled Nestor Saroza v. Lyons Doughty &
Veldhuis, Case No. 1-17-cv-00523, 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 granted the Defendant's motion to dismiss the
case.

The case is about $82 -- the value of a court filing fee and a
service fee connected to a credit card debt collection action.
Plaintiff Nestor Saroza has sued the Defendant, a law firm
representing a client seeking to recover a debt, on the theory of
a violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff alleges that collection letters, which do not
explain the filing fees of a related court proceeding to collect
on a debt, violate the FDCPA.  The Act provides that a debt
collector may not use any false, deceptive, or misleading
representation in connection with the collection of any debt.

The appellate case is captioned as Nestor Saroza v. Lyons Doughty
& Veldhuis, Case No. 18-1131, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant NESTOR SAROZA, on behalf of himself and all
other similarly situated, is represented by:

          Lawrence C. Hersh, Esq.
          LAWRENCE HERSH, ATTORNEY AT LAW
          17 Sylvan Street
          Rutherford, NJ 07070
          Telephone: (201) 507-6300
          Facsimile: (201) 507-6311
          E-mail: lh@hershlegal.com

Defendant-Appellee LYONS DOUGHTY & VELDHUIS PC is represented by:

          Stephen P. Doughty, Esq.
          LYONS DOUGHTY & VELDHUIS PC
          1288 Route 73 South, Suite 310
          Mount Laurel, NJ 08054
          Telephone: (856) 802-1488
          E-mail: s.doughty@ldvlaw.com


MASTRIA INCORPORATED: De Leon Moves for FLSA Class Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit captioned HECTOR DE LEON; CARLOS
CISNEROS, CESAR GALVEZ, on behalf of themselves and those
similarly situated individuals v. MASTRIA INCORPORATED; NELLO
MASTRIA, Case No. 5:17-cv-00626-EJD (N.D. Cal.), move the Court
for an order conditionally certifying the First Cause of Action
of their First Amended Complaint as a collective class action for
violations of the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

The Plaintiffs also want to send notice of the pending action and
consent to join forms to the proposed class of similarly situated
individuals defined as:

     The class of hourly painters employed by Mastria, Inc.
     within three years prior to filing the complaint in this
     matter, who were denied overtime compensation by Mastria,
     Inc. and Nello Mastria, through a plan and scheme by which
     overtime compensation was "banked," and subsequently paid to
     the painters by cash or check at their hourly rate.

The Court will commence a hearing on March 1, 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=D61RhoRm

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Robert David Baker, Esq.
          ROBERT DAVID BAKER, INC.
          80 South White Road
          San Jose, CA 95127
          Telephone: (408) 251-3400
          Facsimile: (408) 251-3401
          E-mail: rbaker@rdblaw.net


MAZGANI SOCIAL: Ct. Denies Khosroabadi's Class Certification Bid
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable Cormac J. Carney denied without prejudice the
Plaintiff's motion for class certification in the lawsuit
captioned IRAJ KHOSROABADI V. MAZGANI SOCIAL SERVICES, INC.,
MAHVASH MAZGANI, NAZANIN MAZGANI, NEYAZ MAZGANI, SHOHREH
SHARIFZADEH, AND MAHNAZ MOGHADDAM, Case No. 8:17-cv-00644-CJC-KES
(C.D. Cal.).

According to the Court's Civil Minutes, the Defendants removed
the action on the basis of federal question jurisdiction, as the
Plaintiff alleges the Defendants violated the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

Although Plaintiff's RICO claim survived a motion to dismiss, the
Court has serious concerns about whether the Plaintiff can
present sufficient evidence to support his RICO claim, Judge
Carney opines.

Thus, the Court denies the Plaintiff's motion for class
certification without prejudice and orders the Defendants to file
a motion for partial summary judgment as to the Plaintiff's RICO
claim.

The Court directed the Plaintiff to file his opposition by
February 15, 2018, and the Defendants to file their reply today,
February 22, 2018.

The hearing on the motion will be set for March 12, 2018, at 1:30
p.m.

A copy of the Civil Minutes is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Dmn2kSDz


MDL 1869: Carter Appeals Order in Antitrust Case to D.C. Cir.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Carter Distributing Company, et al., filed an appeal
from a court ruling in the multidistrict litigation titled In re:
Rail Freight Fuel Surcharge Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1869.

The Plaintiffs-Appellants are Carter Distributing Company, Dakota
Granite Company, Donnelly Commodities Incorporated, Dust Pro,
Inc., Nyrstar Taylor Chemicals, Inc., Olin Corporation, Strates
Shows, Inc., and US Magnesium, LLC.

One of the original cases is Case No. 1:07-mc-00489-PLF-GMH,
filed on November 14, 2007, in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Columbia.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the
antitrust case against four of the largest railroad companies
pits major businesses on both sides.  The case is also a rare
dispute among businesses to draw interest from the U.S. Chamber
of Commerce, which filed a brief in support of the Defendants.

The appellate case is captioned as In re: Rail Freight Fuel
Surcharge Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 18-7010, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.[BN]

The Plaintiffs-Appellees are McIntyre Group, Ltd.; GVL Pipe &
Demolition, Inc., On behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated; Ferraro Foods of North Carolina, LLC, On behlaf of
itself and all others similarly situated; Sublette Cooperative,
Inc., On behalf of itself and all others similarly situated; West
Alabama Sand & Gravel, Inc.; Cedar Farms Co., Inc., on behalf of
itself and all others similarly situated; Dad's Products Co.,
Inc.; Quality Refractories Installation, Inc.;
Nizhnekamskneftekhim USA, Inc.; RB Rubber Products, Inc.,
individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated; M.C.
Dixon Lumber Company, Inc.; Sterling Steel Co., LLC; Cedar Creek
Wholesale, Inc.; Fayus Enterprises, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated; Agway Liquidating Trust, on behalf of
itself and all others similarly situated; Stateline Bean
Producers Cooperative; Lancaster Foundry Supply Company, Inc.;
Somerset Industries, Inc.; Maroon Incorporated, on behalf of
itself and all others similarly situated; Complete Transportation
Systems, Inc., on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated; Blue Grass Tobacco Company, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated; United Co-operative Farmers, Inc., on
behalf of itself and all others similarly situated; Bar-Ale,
Inc., on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated; and
Issac Industries, Inc., on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated.

Plaintiffs-Appellants Carter Distributing Company, on behalf of
itself and all others similarly situated; Dakota Granite Company,
on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated; and
Donnelly Commodities Incorporated, On behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, are represented by:

          Michael P. Lehmann, Esq.
          HAUSFELD LLP
          44 Montgomery Street, Suite 3400
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 633-1908
          E-mail: mlehmann@hausfeldllp.com

               - and -

          Stephen R. Neuwirth, Esq.
          Kathleen M. Sullivan, Esq.
          QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
          51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor
          New York, NY 10010
          Telephone: (212) 849-7000
          E-mail: stephenneuwirth@quinnemanuel.com
                  kathleensullivan@quinnemanuel.com

Plaintiffs-Appellants Carter Distributing Company, on behalf of
itself and all others similarly situated; Dakota Granite Company,
on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated; Donnelly
Commodities Incorporated, On behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated; Dust Pro, Inc.; Nyrstar Taylor Chemicals,
Inc., formerly known as Zinifex Taylor Chemicals, Inc.; Olin
Corporation; Strates Shows, Inc.; and US Magnesium, LLC, are
represented by:

          Michael D. Hausfeld, Esq.
          HAUSFELD LLP
          1700 K Street, NW, Suite 650
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 540-7200
          E-mail: mhausfeld@hausfeld.com

Defendant-Appellee BNSF Railway Company is represented by:

          Joseph Guerra, Esq.
          Kathleen Moriarty Mueller, Esq.
          SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
          1501 K Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 736-8000
          E-mail: jguerra@sidley.com
                  kmueller@sidley.com

Defendants-Appellees BNSF Railway Company, CSX Transportation,
Inc., Norfolk Southern Railway Company and Union Pacific Railroad
Company are represented by:

          Carter Glasgow Phillips, Esq.
          SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
          1501 K Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 736-8000
          E-mail: cphillips@sidley.com


MDL 2624: Court Dismisses Section 369 Claim in Adware Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: LENOVO ADWARE LITIGATION. This Document
Relates to All Cases, Case No. 15-md-02624-HSG (N.D. Cal.), Judge
Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California granted the Defendant's motion to
dismiss the Plaintiffs' claim under New York General Business Law
Section 349.

The Plaintiffs bring the consumer class action against Defendants
Lenovo, Inc. and Superfish, Inc., asserting claims under federal,
California, and New York law.  They allege that Superfish's
VisualDiscovery software, which Lenovo had preinstalled on its
laptops, created performance, privacy, and security issues.

The Plaintiffs alleged several causes of action against Superfish
and Lenovo for violations of: (1) the Computer Fraud and Abuse
Act; (2) California's Unfair Competition Law; (3) California's
Consumer Legal Remedies Act; (4) California's Computer Crime Law;
(5) California's Invasion of Privacy Act; (6) trespass to
chattels under California law; (7) New York's Deceptive Acts and
Practices Statute; and (8) trespass to chattels under New York
law.  They also alleged a violation of the Wiretap Act against
Superfish.

On Jan. 1, 2016, Defendant Lenovo filed a motion to dismiss the
Plaintiffs' claims for lack of standing and failure to state a
claim.  On July 22, 2016, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification.  On Oct. 27, 2016, the Court granted the
Defendant's motion to dismiss in part, holding, as relevant in
the instant motion that the Plaintiffs failed to state a claim
for relief under New York's Deceptive Acts and Practices Statute.
The Court also granted the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification in part, certifying an indirect purchaser class and
California class.

The "Indirect Purchaser Class" includes all persons who purchased
one or more Lenovo computer models, on which VisualDiscovery was
installed, in the United States from someone other than Lenovo.
And the "California Class" includes all persons who purchased one
or more Lenovo computer models, on which VisualDiscovery was
installed in California.

The Court denied the Plaintiffs' motion to certify a direct
purchaser class because the Court had held that the Plaintiffs
have not demonstrated that class certification is appropriate for
any of their claims under New York or federal law.  In response,
the Plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended class action
complaint ("ACCAC") on Dec. 7, 2016.

Lenovo now moves to dismiss only the Plaintiffs' realleged claim
under New York's Deceptive Acts and Practices Statute.  It
contends that the named Plaintiffs lack standing to assert claims
under New York's Deceptive Acts and Practices Statute, New York
General Business Law Section 349 and, relatedly, that the
Plaintiffs fail to allege "actual damages" to support their
Section 349 claim.

Judge Gilliam finds that the Plaintiffs have failed to allege any
facts to support statutory standing under Section 349, and finds
dismissal is appropriate on this basis.  The Plaintiffs also do
not allege that they personally experienced any performance or
security issues with their computers.  Although they allege that
the VisualDiscovery software materially degrades computer
performance, the Plaintiffs do not allege that their laptop
performance was actually degraded as a result of the software.
Nor do they allege what their expectations were about the
computers' performance or specifications before they purchased
them.  Consequently, the Plaintiffs have failed to allege
sufficient facts to establish that they received less than what
they paid for when they purchased Lenovo computers preloaded with
VisualDiscovery software.

Accordingly, Judge Gilliam granted the motion to dismiss the
Section 349 claim.  Although the Plaintiffs have had an
opportunity to amend their Section 349 claim, they suggested at
the hearing that they could resolve these deficiencies.  The
Judge granted a final opportunity to do so.  The Plaintiffs
therefore have until Feb. 28, 2018, to file an amended complaint.
He further set a case management conference for March 12, 2018.
The parties will submit a joint case management statement by
March 5, 2018.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 30, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/0GA9zz from Leagle.com.

In re Lenovo Adware Litigation, Plaintiff, represented by
Jonathan Krasne Levine -- jkl@pritzkerlevine.com -- Pritzker
Levine, LLP.

Sterling International Consulting Group, Plaintiff, represented
by Elizabeth Cheryl Pritzker -- ecp@pritzkerlevine.com --
Pritzker Levine LLP & Jonathan Krasne Levine, Pritzker Levine,
LLP.

David Hunter, Plaintiff, represented by Amir Cheyenne Missaghi --
amissaghi@edelson.com -- Edelson PC, Benjamin Harris Richman --
brichman@edelson.com -- Edelson PC, Jay Edelson --
jedelson@edelson.com -- Edelson PC, Rafey Sarkis Balabanian --
rbalabanian@edelson.com -- Edelson PC, pro hac vice & Samuel
Lasser -- samlasser@hotmail.com -- Law Office of Samuel Lasser.

Marie Wilson, Plaintiff, represented by Adam M. Moskowitz --
amm@kttlaw.com -- Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton, Howard Mitchell
Bushman -- hbushman@harkeclasby.com -- Harke Clasby and Bushman
LLP, Jack Scarola -- JSX@searcylaw.com -- Searcy Denny Scarola
Barnhart & Shipley, Lance August Harke -- lharke@harkeclasby.com
-- Harke Clasby & Bushman LLP, Robert J. Neary -- rn@kttlaw.com -
- Kozyak Tropin Throckmorton LLP & Sarah Clasby Engel --
sengel@harkeclasby.com -- Harke Clasby and Bushman LLP.

Joel Foster, Plaintiff, represented by John S. Friend, Bishop
Friend, PSC, Robert W. Bishop, Bishop Friend, PSC & Tyler Z.
Korus, Bishop Friend, PSC.

Herbert Phillips & Susan Tam, Plaintiffs, represented by
Christopher Barton Dalbey, Weitz & Luxenberg, P.C., Robin Lynn
Greenwald, Weitz and Luxenberg, P.C., James Jackson Bilsborrow,
Weitz & Luxenberg P.C. & Robin Lynn Greenwald, Weitz and
Luxenberg, P.C., pro hac vice.

John Levenhagen, Plaintiff, represented by Steve Douglas Larson -
- slarson@stollberne.com -- Stoll Stoll Berne Lokting Shlachter
PC & Cornelius Pellman Dukelow -- cdukelow@abingtonlaw.com --
Abington Cole.

David Wood, Yudhisthir Bissoonnauth, Dan Onken, Richard Seedroff,
Sandra Allen, Sam Ellis, Ryan Tuckerman, Dien Phan, Gary Sherman,
Amanda Williams & Ricardo Alaniz, Plaintiffs, represented by Alan
W. Duncan -- aduncan@turningpointlit.com -- Van Laningham Duncan
PLLC, Jason M. Leviton -- jason@blockesq.com -- Cohen Milstein
Hausfeld & Toll PLLC, Joel A. Fleming -- joel@blockesq.com --
Block & Leviton LLP, Lesley Elizabeth Weaver --
lweaver@bfalaw.com -- Bleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP & Stephen
McDaniel Russell, Jr. -- srussell@turningpointlit.com -- Van
Laningham Duncan PLLC.

Lukas Pick, 15CV2783, Plaintiff, represented by Patrick J.
Coughlin -- patc@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP,
Carmen Anthony Medici -- cmedici@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller
Rudman Dowd LLP & Mark Dearman -- mdearman@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins
Geller Rudman and Dowd LLP.

Ross M. Babbitt, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Michael Purdy -
- apurdy@ggtriallaw.com -- Greenberg Gross LLP, pro hac vice,
Joseph R. Saveri -- jsaveri@saverilawfirm.com -- Joseph Saveri
Law Firm, Inc. & Kevin E. Rayhill -- krayhill@saverilawfirm.com -
- Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Inc.

Lenovo Inc., Defendant, represented by Daniel James Stephenson --
Dan.Stephenson@klgates.com -- K&L Gates, Amanda G. Ray, Womble
Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, PLLC, Betsy Cook Lanzen --
blanzen@wcsr.com -- Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, PLLC, Hayden
J. Silver, III -- jay.silver@wbd-us.com -- Womble Carlyle
Sandridge & Rice, PLLC, Matthew N. Lowe --
matthew.lowe@klgates.com -- KL Gates LLP, pro hac vice, Raymond
M. Bennett -- ray.bennett@wbd-us.com -- Womble Carlyle Sandridge
& Rice, PLLC & Rebecca Liu -- rebecca.liu@klgates.com -- KL Gates
LLP.

Superfish, Inc., defendant STAYED re Order, Defendant,
represented by Rodger R. Cole -- rcole@fenwick.com -- Fenwick &
West LLP, Annasara Guzzo Purcell -- apurcell@fenwick.com --
Fenwick and West LLP & Tyler Griffin Newby -- tnewby@fenwick.com
-- Fenwick & West LLP.


MDL 2804: Lincoln County Commissioners Join Opioid Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gina Hamilton, writing for Wiscasset Newspaper, reports that
Lincoln County Commissioners on Feb. 6 joined a class action
lawsuit against companies that manufacture and distribute opioid
drugs, to recoup the costs of law enforcement, emergency medical
response and medical treatment for people suffering from opioid
overdose or rehabilitation.

Commissioners agreed to authorize County Administrator Carrie
Kipfer to engage the services of Napoli Shkolnik and Trafton,
Matzen, Belleau, and Frenette to pursue the suit.  The county
joins Cumberland and Penobscot counties, and Biddeford, Saco,
Waterville and Bangor.

There is no financial risk to the county, according to James
Belleau.  There is a 25 percent contingency fee, plus expenses,
if the suit is successful, Belleau said.

The Wiscasset Area Chamber of Commerce has entered into a no-cost
lease agreement with Lincoln County to rent space in the lobby
area of the Lincoln County Regional Planning Commission building
on Route 1 across from Big Al's.  The Chamber will maintain its
summer presence on the Main Street Pier, but will be at the
Planning Commission building year round.  Although the Chamber
will pay no rent, it will do some of the renovation work to
improve the lobby.

The commission approved the request; the Chamber will take the
issue to its board Feb. 22, although Chair Monique McRae said the
board has been in favor of the move.  Currently, the Chamber has
no winter quarters.  The plan is to staff the new facility from 9
a.m. to 4 p.m. Monday through Friday.

The county agreed to go with The First National Bank for its tax
anticipation note.  The bank had provided the low bid at the last
meeting.

The Sheriff's Department announced the resignation of Special
Services Deputy Will Owen, who is moving to the Yarmouth Police
Department, but has agreed to stay on part time with the
Sheriff's Office.  Commissioners accepted three highway safety
grants totaling $24,620 for OUI, speed enforcement and distracted
driving. A fourth grant, for seatbelt enforcement, is
anticipated.

According to Communications Director Joseph Westrich, all 22 fire
departments in Lincoln County have signed up for the "I am
responding" system that provides people at an emergency scene
with information about who is coming to the scene, and provides
maps and information about fire hydrants, among other support
services.

According to Emergency Management Director Casey Stevens, all the
towns turned in their paperwork for the federal disaster
declaration.  The initial estimate was about $500,000 for public
agency costs, mostly in debris removal and overtime.
Mr. Stevens said the actual figure is somewhat lower.  He said
towns that are working toward mitigating future hazards may be
eligible for additional grants.  The Project Lifesaver program,
which could find people prone to wandering, such as adults with
dementia or children with autism, will be tested and training
will be offered May 7 and 8.

The fee for passport applications increases April 1, from $25 -
$35. [GN]


MDL 2804: Nitro City Has Yet to Decide on Joining Opioid Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mara Regling, writing for Charleston Gazette-Mail, reports that
Nitro City Council held its first meeting in its new council
chambers on Feb. 6.

The new council chambers, which are located on 1st Avenue in the
new city police department building, took three months to
remodel.  Mayor Dave Casebolt said Councilwoman Donna Boggs
organized and remodeled the chambers with the help of her husband
and a few volunteers.

"Our new council chambers is a direct reflection of what we are
accomplishing in town," Mr. Casebolt said.  "We've upgraded our
streets, sidewalks and parks.  We've got one of the best looking
around."

The city brought in engineers and interior decorators to get an
estimate on the new chambers and were told it would cost around
$250,000 to complete.  Ms. Boggs did the work for around $25,000,
Casebolt said.  She was able to get a lot donated for the
chambers and worked with citizens of Nitro to provide artwork to
fill the chambers that shows the history of Nitro, the mayor
said.

"I am so proud of this council chambers," Mr. Casebolt said.
"This was all made possible by Donna and Dennis Boggs."

Council also swore-in the new addition to the Nitro Police
Department.  Officer Christopher Gullion was previously serving
in Barboursville and has started the field training program.
After three months of training, he will be a fully authorized
Nitro police officer.  Two Nitro police officers, who are
currently at the West Virginia State Police Academy, in
Institute, will graduate around the end of April.  Those officers
will then begin the field training program before becoming fully
authorized.

Council also approved a resolution to join the United States Army
Donations Program to activate eligibility to receive any military
surplus that this program opens up to applicants.  The cities
must first be a part of the program before they can request any
donations.  Joining this program will put Nitro on a waiting list
for potential new items.

"One of the things we are trying to do in our city beautification
plan is to let people know when they come into Nitro that they
are coming into a military town," Mr. Casebolt said.  "We want to
create that military atmosphere."

When an item becomes on option for donation and is offered to a
city, the city has the right to accept or decline.  For example,
if a tank is found in France that is deemed to be surplus, the
city would be responsible for the $20,000 shipping fee.  Shipping
costs are a factor of what could help make the decision to accept
the equipment.

The city hopes to acquire World War I surplus items that could be
displayed on a piece of land or in the museum.  The city's
centennial celebration coincides with the ending of World War I
and council believes expanding on the birth of Nitro and the end
of World War I will increase the military city vibe they are
trying to create.

Council tabled the discussion regarding the possibility of
joining a class-action lawsuit along with other cities in the war
on the opioid epidemic.  More information will be given at the
next council meeting and council hopes to vote on a decision
whether to join or reject the class-action suit. [GN]


MEDIANEWS GROUP: Dickson Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lynn Dickson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Medianews Group, Inc., The Denver Post
Corporation and Sullivan Promotions Inc., Defendant, Case No. 18-
cv-00211 (D. Colo., January 26, 2018), seeks to obtain redress,
including injunctive relief under the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

Medianews Group, Inc. and The Denver Post Corporation
collectively operate "The Denver Post." Sullivan Promotions,
acting as the agent of the MediaNews Group and the Denver Post,
made multiple unsolicited promotional telephone calls to
Dickson's phone in order to sell subscriptions. Dickson's number
is on the national Do-Not-Call registry. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Steven L. Woodrow, Esq.
      Patrick H. Peluso
      WOODROW & PELUSO, LLC
      3900 East Mexico Avenue, Suite 300
      Denver, CO 80210
      Telephone: (720) 213-0675
      Facsimile: (303) 927-0809
      Email: swoodrow@woodrowpeluso.com
             ppeluso@woodrowpeluso.com

             - and -

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


MEDTRONIC INC: Court Certifies Class in Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
In the case, WEST VIRGINIA PIPE TRADES HEALTH & WELFARE FUND,
EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF THE STATE OF HAWAII, and UNION
ASSET MANAGEMENT HOLDING AG, Plaintiffs, v. MEDTRONIC, INC.,
WILLIAM A. HAWKINS, GARY L. ELLIS, RICHARD E. KUNTZ, JULIE
BEARCROFT, RICHARD W. TREHARNE, and MARTIN YAHIRO, Defendants,
Civil No. 13-1686 (JRT/FLN) (D. Minn.), Judge John R. Tunheim of
the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota granted the
Plaintiffs' motion to certify class but modified the class period
to end on June 28, 2011.

The Plaintiffs bring the consolidated class action against
Medtronic and several of its officers and employees, alleging
that Medtronic engaged in a scheme to defraud investors in
violation of federal securities laws.  The case centers on
Medtronic's INFUSE product. INFUSE is the "trade name of rhBMP-
2," which is a bone morphogenetic protein ("BMP") that induces
the body to develop new bone tissue.  INFUSE is a key part of
Medtronic's "spinal segment" of business, which generated more
than $3.5 billion in revenue in 2008, 2009, and 2010.  Relevant
to the case, Medtronic also sought FDA approval for AMPLIFY, a
second-generation BMP.  The Lead Plaintiffs in the case are
several institutional investors, all of which allege that they
purchased Medtronic common stock during the Class Period and were
damaged by the conduct alleged in the complaint.

The only remaining allegation is that before and during the Class
Period, Medtronic engaged in a scheme or course of conduct to
manipulate the early clinical studies, which propelled INFUSE to
success despite omitting many of INFUSE's adverse effects.  The
Plaintiffs allege that early INFUSE clinical studies revealed
safety risks that threatened Medtronic's goals for the product
and, as a result, Medtronic embarked on a scheme with physician
investigators and authors to conceal the significant safety risks
from the public and physician community.

The Plaintiffs have moved to certify class.  The proposed class
is defined as all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise
acquired the publicly traded common stock of Medtronic between
Sept. 8, 2010 and Aug. 3, 2011, and who were damaged by the
Defendants' alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Medtronic opposes class certification and also argues that, if
the Court grants the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class, the end
of the class period should be shortened from Aug. 3, 2011, to
June 28, 2011.

As to whether the end of the class period should be shortened
from Aug. 3, 2011, to June 28, 2011, Judge Tunheim finds that the
entire scheme at issue -- the decision to pay the authors
substantial funds to conceal their findings -- was fully revealed
to the public by The Spine Journal on June 28, 2011, and
therefore the omission of the scheme could not have been
reflected in the market price at the time of a transaction after
that date.  Any investor who purchased Medtronic securities
between June 28 and Aug. 3 cannot have relied on the omission
because they already knew the truth.

The Judge also finds that the proposed class meets the threshold
requirements of Rule 23(a).  Furthermore, he finds that common
issues of law and fact predominate and that a class action is
likely the superior way to adjudicate the claims.

Accordingly, Judge Tunheim certified the action as a class action
on behalf of the class defined as all persons or entities who
purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly traded common stock
of Medtronic between Sept. 8, 2010 and June 28, 2011, and who
were damaged by the Defendants' alleged violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

He finds and concludes pursuant to Rule 23 that the Lead
Plaintiffs Employees' Retirement System of the State of Hawaii,
Union Asset Management Holding AG, and West Virginia Pipe Trades
Health & Welfare Fund are the adequate class representatives and
certified these parties as the representatives for the class.
The Judge further finds and concludes pursuant to Rule 23(g) that
the law firms of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP and Motely Rice
LLC will fairly and adequately represent the interests of the
class and appointed Robbins Geller and Motely Rice as the Lead
Class Counsel for the class.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 30, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/zfRt30 from Leagle.com.

West Virginia Pipe Trades Health & Welfare Fund, Plaintiff,
represented by Brian C. Gudmundson --
brian.gudmundson@zimmreed.com -- Zimmerman Reed, PLLP, Carolyn G.
Anderson -- carolyn.anderson@zimmreed.com -- Zimmerman Reed,
PLLP, Christopher M. Wood -- cwood@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller
Rudman & Dowd LLP, Danielle S. Myers -- danim@rgrdlaw.com --
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, pro hac vice, Hillary Bryn
Stakem , Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, pro hac vice, Jonah H.
Goldstein -- jonahg@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd
LLP, pro hac vice, Robert R. Henssler, Jr. --
bhenssler@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, pro
hac vice, Shawn A. Williams -- shawnw@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins
Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP & Susannah R. Conn -- sconn@rgrdlaw.com
-- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP.

Employees' Retirement System of the State of Hawaii & Union Asset
Management Holding AG, Plaintiffs, represented by Arthur C. Leahy
-- artl@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, pro hac
vice, Brian C. Gudmundson, Zimmerman Reed, PLLP, Carolyn G.
Anderson, Zimmerman Reed, PLLP, Christopher F. Moriarty --
cmoriarty@motleyrice.com -- Motley Rice LLC, pro hac vice,
Christopher M. Wood, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, pro hac
vice, Danielle S. Myers, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP,
Hillary Bryn Stakem, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, pro hac
vice, James M. Hughes -- jhughes@motleyrice.com -- Motley Rice
LLC, pro hac vice, Jonah H. Goldstein, Robbins Geller Rudman &
Dowd LLP, pro hac vice, Meghan S.B. Oliver --
moliver@motleyrice.com -- Motley Rice LLC, pro hac vice, Robert
R. Henssler, Jr., Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, pro hac vice,
Shawn A. Williams, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, pro hac
vice, Susannah R. Conn, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, pro hac
vice, William Henry Narwold -- bnarwold@motleyrice.com -- Motley
Rice LLC, pro hac vice & William S. Norton --
bnorton@motleyrice.com -- Motley Rice LLC, pro hac vice.

Medtronic, Inc., Defendant, represented by Amanda Margaret
MacDonald -- amacdonald@wc.com -- Williams & Connolly LLP, pro
hac vice, Christopher W. Wasson -- wassonc@pepperlaw.com --
Pepper Hamilton LLP, pro hac vice, James K. Langdon --
langdon.jim@dorsey.com -- Dorsey & Whitney LLP, Janine Marie
Pierson -- jpierson@wc.com -- Williams & Connolly LLP, pro hac
vice, Joseph G. Petrosinelli -- jpetrosinelli@wc.com -- Williams
& Connolly LLP, pro hac vice, Sarah Lochner O'Connor --
soconnor@wc.com -- Williams & Connolly LLP, pro hac vice, Steven
M. Farina -- sfarina@wc.com -- Williams & Connolly LLP, pro hac
vice & Theresa M. Bevilacqua -- bevilacqua.theresa@dorsey.com --
Dorsey & Whitney LLP.

William A. Hawkins, Gary L. Ellis, Richard E. Kuntz, Julie
Bearcroft, Richard W Treharne & Martin Yahiro, Defendants,
represented by Amanda Margaret MacDonald, Williams & Connolly
LLP, James K. Langdon, Dorsey & Whitney LLP & Theresa M.
Bevilacqua, Dorsey & Whitney LLP.

Employees' Retirement System of the State of Hawaii & Union Asset
Management Holding AG, Movants, represented by Arthur C. Leahy,
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, pro hac vice, Christopher F.
Moriarty, Motley Rice LLC, pro hac vice, Christopher M. Wood,
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, pro hac vice, Danielle S.
Myers, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, pro hac vice, James M.
Hughes, Motley Rice LLC, pro hac vice, Shawn A. Williams, Robbins
Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, pro hac vice, Susannah R. Conn, Robbins
Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, pro hac vice & William S. Norton,
Motley Rice LLC, pro hac vice.


MERCK & CO: Cesar Castillo Suit Alleges Antitrust Violations
------------------------------------------------------------
Cesar Castillo, Inc., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Merck & Co., Inc. et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-
00039 (E.D. Va., January 22, 2018), seeks to recover treble
damages, interest, cost of suit, and reasonable attorneys' fees
under the Sherman Act and the Clayton Act.

The Plaintiff alleges that it sustained injuries resulting from
the Defendants' conspiracy to monopolize and restrain trade in
the United States market for Zetia and its generic equivalents.

Plaintiff Cesar Castillo, Inc. is a corporation organized under
the laws of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, with its principal
place of business and headquarters located in Rio Piedras, Puerto
Rico. During the relevant period, Plaintiff purchased Zetia
directly from Merck at supracompetitive prices, and therefore
suffered antitrust injury as a result of the anticompetitive
conduct alleged herein, says the comaplint.

Defendant Merck & Company, Inc. is a corporation organized and
existing under the laws of the state of New Jersey, with its
principal place of business at 2000 Galloping Hill Road,
Kenilworth, New Jersey 07033. It is or was the parent company of
defendants Merck Sharp & Dohme Corporation and MSP Singapore
Company LLC. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


METROPOLITAN LIFE: Class Action Over Bait-and-Switch Tactics OK'd
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Holland, writing for Cook County Record, reports that a
federal appeals panel has cleared an Illinois woman to continue a
class action complaint accusing Metropolitan Life Insurance
Company of bait-and-switch tactics.

Seventh Circuit Chief Judge Diane Wood and Circuit Judges Frank
Easterbrook and Ilana Rovner heard arguments Sept. 19 and issued
an opinion Feb. 6 in a dispute between Margery Newman and
MetLife.  Ms. Newman alleged she bought a long-term care
insurance plan at age 56, and although her payments were supposed
to be reduced at age 65, they doubled when she was 67.
Ms. Newman sued MetLife in federal court in Chicago, but U.S.
District Judge Thomas Durkin dismissed the complaint for failure
to state a claim.

Judge Wood wrote the opinion, noting two documents inform the
case: MetLife's "Long-Term Care Facts" brochure and Ms. Newman's
29-page policy.  The brochure described the payment option Newman
chose, "Reduced-Pay at 65," under which premiums would be cut in
half after her 65th birthday because she paid more than regular
premiums up to that point.  The policy includes only one
reference to the reduced-pay option, showing Ms. Newman's semi-
annual premium to be $3,231 up to age 65, and $1,615 thereafter.

Ms. Newman's premium did decrease when she turned 65, but it
spiked after her 67th birthday to $3,851.80.  MetLife said the
increase was imposed on all long-term care policyholders,
including those on her payment plan.  She accused MetLife of
breaching the policy terms and violating the Illinois Consumer
Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act.  Durkin said
MetLife's contract terms unambiguously gave it the right to
change premiums.

MetLife maintained that although Ms. Newman's premium did double,
she still was paying half the premium of a Reduced-Pay
policyholder who had not turned 65.  But the Seventh Circuit
judges said it was reasonable to see how Ms. Newman inferred from
her policy that her premiums were hers, and not those of an
entire class of long-term policyholders.

"Four times in the policy MetLife reserves its right to change
premiums," Judge Wood wrote.  "Three of those instances reserve
MetLife's right to do so on 'a class basis' or for a 'class as
yours.' These passages do not resolve the ambiguity, because the
word 'class' is undefined.  It might mean age, in which case
class membership is independent of payment arrangements.  But it
might refer to the payment arrangement, so that everyone in the
Reduced-Pay group comprises a single class and the effect of
class membership is defined by the terms of the reduced-pay
option."

With the policy's ambiguity in question, the panel said it is
appropriate to remand Newman's breach of contract claim for
further proceedings.

As to the fraud allegations, the panel also supported
Ms. Newman's position because the policy did not clarify any ways
the sales brochure might have misled a reasonable consumer.  That
situation satisfies the barrier to allege deception, the judges
said.

The panel also said she sufficiently alleged unfairness because
MetLife's options for her once the premium spiked -- accepting
reduced benefits, buying a different plan or letting the policy
lapse and relying on a contingent coverage rider -- did not
adequately account for her investment in choosing to pay elevated
premiums for eight years.  The same elements essentially
satisfied the panel's needs to determine her common law fraud and
fraudulent misrepresentation and concealment should sustain.

"She took the deal and spent nine years investing in a plan, only
to have MetLife pull the rug out from under her," Judge Wood
wrote. "Neither MetLife's brochure nor the terms of the policy
forecast this possibility.  These allegations were enough to
entitle her to prevail on the liability phase of her contract
claim, and they are enough to permit her to go forward on her
other theories."

The panel sent the case back to district court for further
proceedings.

Ms. Newman is represented in the action by attorneys from the
firm of Cronin & Co. Ltd, of Chicago and the Duncan Law Group
LLC, of Chicago, and attorney Frank H. Tomlinson, of Birmingham,
Ala.

MetLife is represented by the firm of Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP,
of Philadelphia, Los Angeles and Chicago. [GN]


MICHIGAN, USA: August Moves to Certify Class of WHV Inmates
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit entitled Tracy J. August, Melissa
Memmer, and April Hutchison on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated v. Michigan Department of Corrections, Heidi
E. Washington, in her individual and official capacity as
Director, Michigan Department of Corrections, Anthony Stewart in
his individual and official capacity as Warden, Huron Valley
Correctional Facility for Women, Case No. 2:16-cv-11224-SJM-RSW
(E.D. Mich.), ask the Court to certify the case to proceed as a
class action on behalf of a class that consists of:

     all individuals who have been incarcerated at WHV at any
     time from April 4, 2010 to the present.

The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to appoint them as class
representatives and to appoint Roy, Shecter & Vocht P.C. and
O'Mara Law Firm, P.C., as class counsel.

The Plaintiffs are present or former inmates of the Women's Huron
Valley Correctional Facility located in Pittsfield Township
(Washtenaw County), Michigan.  WHV is operated by Defendant
Michigan Department of Corrections.  Defendant Heidi Washington
is the director of MDOC.  Defendant Anthony Stewart was the
Warden of WHV at the time of filing of the complaint.

The case is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C.A. Section 1983, to
remedy violations of the Plaintiffs' right to be free from cruel
and unusual punishment as guaranteed by the Eighth Amendment to
the Constitution of the United States.  The Plaintiffs contend
that WHV is severely overcrowded.  As a result of the deprivation
of their rights, inmates incarcerated at WHV have experienced
physical injuries evidenced by a rise in suicides, assaults, Post
Traumatic Stress Disorder, panic disorder, Attention Deficit
Hyperactivity Disorder and stress levels, the Plaintiffs assert.

                          *     *     *

The Plaintiffs subsequently filed an amended motion and
memorandum for class certification.  They assert that amendment
is necessary because the original motion is incorrectly
formatted.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=IlhCC7hx

A copy of the Amended Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=SICXgR3c

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michelle E. Vocht, Esq.
          Lynn H. Shecter, Esq.
          William A. Roy, Esq.
          ROY, SHECTER & VOCHT, P.C.
          707 S. Eton St.
          Birmingham, MI 48304
          Telephone: (248) 540-7660
          Facsimile: (248) 540-0321
          E-mail: vocht@rsmv.com
                  shecter@rsmv.com
                  roy@rsmv.com

               - and -

          Sean R. O'Mara, Esq.
          O'MARA LAW FIRM P.C.
          21929 E. Nine Mile Road
          St. Clair Shores, MI 48080
          Telephone: (586) 200-6404
          Facsimile: (586) 445-2399
          E-mail: seanrob3@gmail.com


MONSANTO COMPANY: Sued by Scott Over Roundup(R)-Related Injuries
----------------------------------------------------------------
KEITH W. and REBECCA SCOTT v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Case No. 4:18-cv-
00100 (E.D. Mo., January 22, 2018), is an action for damages
allegedly suffered by the Plaintiffs as a direct and proximate
result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in
connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing,
packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution,
labeling and sale of the herbicide Roundup(R), containing the
active ingredient glyphosate.

Keith W. Scott is a resident and citizen of Dinwiddie County,
Virginia.   He brings this action for personal injuries sustained
by exposure to Roundup and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow
amine.  As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to
Roundup(R), he alleges that he developed Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma.
Plaintiff Rebecca Scott has a claim for loss of consortium
related to the injuries of her husband.

The Plaintiffs maintain that Roundup(R) and/or glyphosate is
defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be
marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and
directions as to the dangers associated with its use.

Monsanto Company is a Delaware corporation with a principal place
of business in St. Louis, Missouri.  Monsanto is a multinational
agricultural biotechnology corporation and is the world's leading
producer of glyphosate.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Seth S. Webb, Esq.
          BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C.
          211 North Broadway, Suite 1600
          St. Louis, MO 63102
          Telephone: (314) 222-2222
          Facsimile: (314) 421-0359
          E-mail: sethw@getbc.com


NATIONAL COATINGS: "Weathers" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
CASEY WEATHERS, DARAN PENNEY, JACOB VONBUSKIRK, JEFF KOPULOS, and
ROBERT A. YOUNG, individually on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. NATIONAL COATINGS
II INC. d/b/a NATIONAL COATINGS, INC., a Michigan corporation,
ROBERT FORSMAN an individual, and ZEBULON HADLEY, an individual,
the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-00151 (W.D. Mich., Feb. 12,
2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants required Plaintiffs,
and similarly situated employees, to not record all their hours
worked within the continuous workday, altered time records
without employee permission to avoid paying regular compensation
and overtime, and intentionally failed to maintain adequate and
accurate records for the hours worked by Plaintiffs to facilitate
the exploitation of the Plaintiffs' labor.

National Coatings is a supplier of high quality, peak performance
coatings for use on metal, plastic, tubular, paper & wood
surfaces.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Anders J. Gillis, Esq.
          PARKER HARVEY PLC
          901 S. Garfield Avenue, Suite 200
          Traverse City, MI 49686
          Telephone: (231) 929 4878
          E-mail: agillis@parkerharvey.com


NESTLE USA: Tomasella Sues over Child Labor Issues
--------------------------------------------------
Danell Tomasella, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. NESTLE USA, INC., a Delaware
corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-10269 (D. Mass.,
Feb. 12, 2018), seeks to enjoin Defendant from continuing unfair
and deceptive marketing and sale of their Chocolate Products.

According to the complaint, on September 2, 2015, the Fair Labor
Association released the results of its audit of Nestle, finding
continued evidence of children younger than 15 working on Ivory
Coast farms supplying the chocolate manufacturer. These children
"were expected to work in hazardous conditions and carry out
dangerous tasks, including using machetes and transporting heavy
loads."  The Fair Labor Association "found evidence of forced
labor, with a young worker not receiving any salary for a year's
work at a farm."

In response, a Nestle spokesperson stated that "no company
sourcing cocoa from Ivory Coast can guarantee that it has
completely removed the risk of child labor from its supply chain.
Much of the world's chocolate is thus quite literally brought to
us by the backbreaking labor of children, in many cases under
conditions of slavery. Notwithstanding its awareness of the Worst
Forms of Child Labor used to produce the cocoa beans used to make
its Chocolate Products, Nestle does not disclose this to
consumers at the point of purchase.

That the Worst Forms of Child Labor are in Nestle's supply chain
for its Chocolate Products is material to consumers not wishing
to support such labor with their purchasing power. In the course
of marketing and selling its Chocolate Products, however, Nestle
materially omits and does not disclose that its Chocolate
Products have child and slave labor in the supply chain.
Furthermore, Nestle does not disclose that despite its awareness
that child and slave labor is being used in its supply chains,
Nestle has not required its suppliers to remedy this human
tragedy. Nestle, as one of the largest companies in the world,
can dictate the terms by which cocoa beans are produced and
supplied to it, including the labor conditions in the supply
chain. But through its own inadequate efforts over the course of
decades Nestle is presently not able to trace all of the cocoa
beans that make up its Chocolate Products back to the cocoa
plantations on which they are grown, much less ensure that the
cocoa beans are not the product of child or slave labor. And
meanwhile Nestle continues to profit from the child and slave
labor that is used to make its Chocolate Products. This is
shameful. Had Plaintiff and Class Members known the truth, they
would not have purchased Nestle's Chocolate Products or paid as
much for them.

Nestle's material omissions and failure to disclose is all the
more appalling considering that Nestle has identified the
protection of human rights, including the abolition of child
labor and the elimination of all forms of forced or compulsory
labor as one of its Corporate Business Principals. But Nestle
does not live up to its own ideals. Accordingly, Nestle's conduct
described herein violates the Massachusetts Consumer Protection
Law, and results in its unjust enrichment. The Plaintiff brings
this action on behalf of a Massachusetts class for damages,
restitution, and injunctive relief, and any other relief deemed
appropriate by the court to which this case is assigned.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Proposed Class:

          Hannah W. Brennan, Esq.
          Steve W. Berman, Esq.
          Elaine T. Byszewski, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          55 Cambridge Parkway, Suite 301
          Cambridge, MA 02142
          Telephone: (617) 482 3700
          E-mail: hannahb@hbsslaw.com
                  steve@hbsslaw.com
                  elaine@hbsslaw.com


NORTHLAND GROUP: Class Certification Sought in "Rossiter" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Gloria Rossiter, Susan Sedlar and Mary Schneider ask the Court to
certify the class described in the complaint of their lawsuit
styled GLORIA ROSSITER, SUSAN SEDLAR, and MARY SCHNEIDER,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v.
NORTHLAND GROUP, INC., Case No. 2:18-cv-00134 (E.D. Wisc.), and
further ask that the Court both stay the motion for class
certification and to grant the Plaintiffs (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.").

The Plaintiffs assert that they are obligated to move for class
certification to protect the interests of the putative class.
More than one defendant has already attempted the scheme
contemplated in Campbell-Ewald.  See 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).  Judge Randa denied
the defendant's request to deposit funds on grounds that a class
certification motion was pending.

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 Plaintiffs contend.

The Plaintiffs also asks to be appointed as class
representatives, 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=lCV0FxPg

The Plaintiffs are 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


OAK COMMERCIAL: "Dobaldo" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Denis Dobaldo and Julio Ramos, individually and on behalf of all
similarly situated persons v. Oak Commercial Construction, LLC,
Aaron Zappas and Neal Beakey, Case No. 4:18-cv-00181 (S.D. Tex.,
January 23, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation,
liquidated damages, and attorney's fees under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Plaintiffs worked as construction workers and/or painters for the
Defendants.

Defendants own and operate a construction company. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Josef F. Buenker, Esq.
      THE BUENKER LAW FIRM
      2060 North Loop West, Suite 215
      Houston, TX 77018
      Tel: (713) 868-3388
      Fax: (713) 683-9940
      E-mail: jbuenker@buenkerlaw.com


OLD DOMINION FREIGHT: "Meyer" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay
----------------------------------------------------------------
Shenell Meyers, an individual, on her own behalf and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Old Dominion
Freight Line, Inc., a Virginia corporation, Defendants, Case No.
18-cv-00011 (N.D. Ga., January 25, 2018), seeks overtime
compensation, compensation for meal and rest periods,
compensation for miscalculation of overtime and straight time,
plus liquidated damages, interest and statutory costs under the
federal Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a dock worker for
approximately two and a half years with her employment ending on
August 1, 2017, working 10 to 12 hour shifts averaging between 45
to 55 hours a workweek without overtime. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Roger W. Orlando, Esq.
      The ORLANDO Firm, P.C.
      315 West Ponce De Leon Ave., Suite 400
      Decatur, GA 30030
      Phone: (404) 373-1800
             (678) LAW-FIRM
      Toll Free: (866) 373-1800
      Fax: (404) 373-6999


ORACLE CORP: Court Certifies Class in "Troudt" ERISA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DEBORAH TROUDT, et al., Plaintiffs, v. ORACLE
CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 16-cv-00175-
REB-CBS (D. Colo.), Judge Robert E. Blackburn of the U.S.
District Court for the District of Colorado granted in part the
Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification.

The lawsuit concerns the Oracle 401(k) Savings and Investment
Plan, a defined contribution retirement benefits plan sponsored
and maintained by Oracle for the benefit of its employees.
Oracle is the named fiduciary and administrator of the Plan.  The
Plan currently has more than 70,000 participants and manages over
$12 billion in assets.

Pursuant to the terms of a Trust Agreement, Oracle delegated to
the Oracle Corporation 401(k) Committee, inter alia, its
fiduciary responsibility for determining investment options for
the Plan.  It also delegated its duties to serve as recordkeeper
and trustee for the Plan to Fidelity Management Trust Co.  In
return for these services, Oracle agreed to pay Fidelity
reasonable administrative expenses.

By the lawsuit, the Named Plaintiffs seek to represent a class
consisting of all participants and beneficiaries of the Oracle
Corporation 401(k) Savings and Investment Plan from Jan. 1, 2009
through the date of judgment, excluding the Defendants.

The putative class asserts four claims based on two primary
allegations: (1) that the Defendants allowed Fidelity to collect
excessive and unreasonable recordkeeping and administrative fees
from the Plan; and (2) that the Defendants caused the Plan to
make certain imprudent investments.

The Defendants do not oppose class certification per se, but
argue the Plaintiffs' proposed class definition does not meet the
requirements of Rule 23.

Judge Blackburn will certify a class defined by the time frame
suggested by the Plaintiffs, subject to later modification if
discovery fails to bear out the truth of their allegations of
concealment.

Examining the requirements of Rule 23, Judge Blackburn agrees
with the Defendants that certification of more tightly defined
subclasses as to those claims is appropriate.  There is no
question here but that the proposed class, however defined or
subdivided, satisfies the requirement of numerosity.  Moreover,
with respect to the excessive administrative fees claim, the
Defendants do not argue that the proposed class fails to meet the
other requirements of Rule 23(a).  The interrelated requirements
of commonality and typicality are satisfied with respect to the
administrative fees claim.  For similar reasons, the final
requirement of Rule 23(a) -- adequacy -- likewise is easily met
with respect to the claim.

The Judge, however, finds that the analysis is rather more
complicated in considering the Plaintiffs' imprudent investment
claims.  Although the nature of the requested relief is
collective, that relief is measured by the extent of the injury
of the individual putative class members who suffered damages as
a result of their investment in a particular fund.  The
Plaintiffs who suffered no such injury are neither sufficiently
typical nor adequate to represent the class.

Thus, the Judge will approve subclasses of the imprudent
investment class defined, for now, as follows:

     a. Imprudent Investment Class A (Artisan Fund): All Plan
participants and beneficiaries, excluding the Defendants, who
invested in the Artisan Fund between Jan. 1, 2009, and June 22,
2015, and whose investment in the Fund underperformed relative to
the Russell 2000 Index.

     b. Imprudent Investment Class B (TCM Fund): All Plan
participants and beneficiaries, excluding the Defendants, who
invested in the TCM Fund between Jan. 1, 2009, and April 8, 2013,
and whose investment in the Fund underperformed the Russell 2500
Growth Index.

For similar reasons, because no named class representative
invested in the PIMCO Fund, Judge Blackburn will not certify an
imprudent investment class related to that fund at this time.

Next, as required by Rule 23(g), the Court must appoint class
counsel when a class is certified.  Based on the counsel's
extensive experience in the relevant area of law, and their
conduct thus far in the case, the Judge finds and concludes that
the Plaintiffs' counsel is amply qualified to act as the counsel
for the class and thus satisfies the requirements of Fed. R. Civ.
P. 23(g).

Finally, under Rule 23(c)(2)(A), because the parties have not
addressed the propriety of notice in their submissions, the Judge
will not direct notice at this time.  Should the parties feel
notice is required or advisable, they of course may submit
appropriate motions presenting evidence and arguments to guide
the exercise of my discretion in that regard.

For the reasons he stated, Judge Blackburn granted in part the
Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification.  He certified the
following Plaintiff classes and defined as follows:

     a. Excessive Fee Class: All participants and beneficiaries
of the Oracle Corporation 401(k) Savings and Investment Plan from
Jan. 1, 2009, through the date of judgment, excluding the
Defendants.

     b. Imprudent Investment Class A (Artisan Fund): All Plan
participants and beneficiaries, excluding the Defendants, who
invested in the Artisan Fund between Jan. 1, 2009, and June 22,
2015, and whose investment in the Fund underperformed relative to
the Russell 2000 Index.

     c. Imprudent Investment Class B (TCM Fund): All Plan
participants and beneficiaries, excluding the Defendants, who
invested in the TCM Fund between Jan. 1, 2009, and April 8, 2013,
and whose investment in the Fund underperformed the Russell 2500
Growth Index; and

Judge Blackburn appointed Schlicter Bogard and Denton, LLP as the
counsel for the Plaintiff class.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 30, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/bmKYYk from Leagle.com.

Deborah Troudt, Brad Stauf, Susan Cutsforth, Wayne Seltzer,
Michael Harkin, Miriam Wagner & Michael Foy, individually and as
representatives of a class of plan participants, on behalf of the
Oracle Corporation 401(k) Savings and Investment Plan,
Plaintiffs, represented by Ethan Dail Hatch -- sbd@uselaws.com --
Schlichter Bogard and Denton, LLP, Heather Lea, Schlichter Bogard
and Denton, LLP, James Redd, Schlichter Bogard and Denton, LLP,
Kurt Charles Struckhoff, Schlichter Bogard and Denton, LLP,
Michael Armin Wolff, Schlichter Bogard and Denton, LLP, Stephen
M. Hoeplinger, Schlichter Bogard and Denton, LLP, Troy Andrew
Doles, Schlichter Bogard and Denton, LLP & Jerome Joseph
Schlichter, Schlichter Bogard and Denton, LLP.

Oracle Corporation & Oracle Corporation 401(k) Committee,
Defendants, represented by Brian T. Ortelere --
brian.ortelere@morganlewis.com -- Morgan Lewis & Bockius, LLP,
Christopher Joseph Boran -- christopher.boran@morganlewis.com --
Morgan Lewis & Bockius, LLP, Jeremy P. Blumenfeld --
jeremy.blumenfeld@morganlewis.com -- Morgan Lewis & Bockius, LLP
& Richard B. Benenson -- rbenenson@bhfs.com -- Brownstein Hyatt
Farber Schreck, LLP.

Gayle Fitzpatrick, John Gawkowski, Dan Sharpley, Peter Shott,
Mark Sunday & Amit Zavery, Defendants, represented by Brian T.
Ortelere, Morgan Lewis & Bockius, LLP, Christopher Joseph Boran,
Morgan Lewis & Bockius, LLP & Richard B. Benenson, Brownstein
Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP.


PENSION BENEFIT: "Collins" Counsel Can't Compel Payment of Fees
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MARY E. COLLINS, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, ET AL., Appellants, v. PENSION BENEFIT
GUARANTY CORPORATION AND M & M TRANSPORTATION COMPANY PENSION
PLAN, Appellees, Case No. 16-5310, Consolidated with No. 16-5318
(D.C. App.), Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson of the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed the
district court denial of the class counsel's motion to compel
payment of fees that they say should have been but were not paid
as a result of the PBGC's alleged footdragging.

The class action in the case sought payments for pension
beneficiaries whose federally guaranteed pension plans had
collapsed in the years immediately following creation of the
PBGC.  The PBGC reached a settlement with the class whereby a
class action settlement board ("CASB") was created and a private
search firm retained to locate and make payments to class
members.

The plan succeeded beyond anyone's expectations, yielding over $1
billion in settlement payments -- more than 10 times the parties'
estimate at the time of the settlement.  The class counsel, as a
participant in the CASB, helped administer the settlement and
worked on its own and with the private search firm to identify
the class members.  In exchange, and as compensation for its work
preceding the creation of the CASB, the settlement agreement
entitled the class counsel to 8% of every settlement payment,
netting class counsel more than $85 million.

In 2001 the parties negotiated a "wrap-up agreement" to shut down
the CASB and transfer its remaining responsibilities to the PBGC,
which that year began an in-house pension search operation.
Under the wrap-up agreement, the PBGC was to continue paying
attorneys' fees of 8% on every settlement payment "for a 10-year
period" beginning with the transfer of payment liability to the
PBGC pension search program "after Aug. 31, 2002."

The parties' infighting prevented the timely effectuation of the
wrap-up agreement and the CASB continued in operation for several
years after the PBGC had taken over the settlement payments.
According to class counsel, the PBGC was preventing the full
payment of settlement benefits during this time and therefore
failed to pay class counsel their due.  The PBGC says it was
doing everything the wrap-up agreement required and at all events
continued paying class counsel an 8% cut of all settlement
payments.  Ten years after the wrap-up agreement took effect, the
PBGC stopped making payments to class counsel.

The class counsel went to court seeking continuation of the
payments, arguing that the running of the 10-year period was
subject to the PBGC's fully performing its end of the bargain,
which in class counsel's view the PBGC did not do.  On Oct. 3,
2016, the district court denied the class counsel's motion to
compel continued payment of attorneys' fees beyond the 10-year
wrap-up period.

The class counsel timely appealed, arguing that the wrap-up
agreement's 10-year period for payment of attorneys' fees is
ambiguous and therefore the Court must construe it based on
evidence beyond the four corners of the agreement.

Judge Henderson concludes that when they entered the wrap-up
agreement, the parties intended that the wrap-up would be
complete within 10 years -- indeed, they believed it would be
complete much sooner.  The class counsel assumed the risk that 10
more years of fees would not carry them through the end of the
case; the PBGC in return agreed to continue paying fees long
after the class counsel had stopped working on the case.  There
is no reason to relieve the class counsel of the bargain they
knowingly struck in the wrap-up agreement.  For the foregoing
reasons, the Judge affirmed the district court's denial of the
motion to compel payment of attorneys' fees.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 30, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/mI4Rs7 from Leagle.com.

John R. Ates, argued the cause for the appellants. Allison C.
Pienta, was with him on brief. Stephen R. Bruce, and Ann Curry
Thompson, entered an appearance.

Nicole Hagan, Deputy Assistant General Counsel, Pension Benefit
Guaranty Corporation, argued the cause for the appellee. Judith
R. Starr, General Counsel, Israel Goldowtiz, Deputy General
Counsel, Paula Connelly, Assistant General Counsel, Anna Lofton,
Attorney, Charles G. Cole -- ccole@steptoe.com -- Gwendolyn
Prothro-Renigar -- grenigar@steptoe.com -- and Molly B. Fox --
mbfox@steptoe.com -- were with her on brief.  Joseph J. Shelton -
- shelton.joseph@pbgc.gov -- Assistant General Counsel, Pension
Benefit Guaranty Corporation, entered an appearance.


PENNSYLVANIA INTERSCHOLASTIC: Ruslavage Seeks to Certify Class
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit titled CHARLES RUSLAVAGE, AND MARIO
SENECA individually and for others similarly situated v.
PENNSYLVANIA INTERSCHOLASTIC ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, INC., Case No.
2:17-cv-01598-DSC (W.D. Pa.), move for conditional certification
of this class:

     ALL CURRENT AND FORMER SPORTS OFFICIALS EMPLOYED BY, OR
     WORKING ON BEHALF OF THE PENNSYLVANIA INTERSCHOLASTIC
     ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION WHO WERE CLASSIFIED AS INDEPENDENT
     CONTRACTORS AND PAID ON A PER GAME BASIS DURING THE LAST
     THREE (3) YEARS.

Charles Ruslavage and Mario Seneca filed this class and
collective action on behalf of all sports officials, who were
misclassified as independent contractors and paid on a per game
basis by the Pennsylvania Interscholastic Athletic Association.
They contend that the Defendant paid the Putative Class Members a
game rate, but does not compensate them for numerous hours of
training, travel, and pre-and post-game work, which brings their
hourly rate to an amount below the required minimum wage.

The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to: (1) order that judicial
notice proposed by Plaintiffs be sent to all Putative Class
Members; (2) order the mailing and e-mailing of the proposed
notice, along with a reminder notice after 30 days; (3) order
PIAA to post the notice documents at PIAA's offices for the
entire opt-in period; (4) authorize follow up calls to ensure
returned notices are delivered to the Putative Class Members; (5)
order PIAA to produce to Plaintiffs' Counsel the contact
information for each Putative Class Member within 20 days of the
Court's order; and (6) authorize a 60-day notice period for
Putative Class Members to join the case.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=R16xSCZA

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
          Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
          JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 352-1100
          Facsimile: (713) 352-3300
          E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
                  adunlap@mybackwages.com

               - and -

          Joshua P. Geist, Esq.
          GOODRICH & GEIST, P.C.
          3634 California Ave.
          Pittsburgh, PA 15212
          Telephone: (412) 766-1455
          Facsimile: (412)766-0300
          E-mail: josh@goodrichandgeist.com

               - and -

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


PGA INC: Bids to Certify and Decertify Class Filed in "Sinclair"
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit titled Erik Sinclair and David
Krall, On Behalf of Themselves And all Others Similarly Situated
v. PGA Inc., Case No. 3:17-cv-00224-wmc (W.D. Wisc.), file with
Court their motion for class certification.

The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to certify Erik Sinclair and
Dale Mills as the class representatives of this opt-out class:

     All hourly employees who worked on a prevailing wage jobsite
     for PGA Inc. during the time period on or after February 17,
     2015.

In the alternative, and to the extent that the Court disallows
the proposed second amended complaint filed by the Plaintiffs so
that Dale Mills cannot serve as a class representative, the
Plaintiffs petition for the Court to certify Erik Sinclair and
David Krall as representatives of the Class.

                          *     *     *

In another motion, PGA asks the Court to decertify the class
conditionally certified in the lawsuit by stipulation on
September 21, 2017.

A copy of the Motion for Class Certification is available at no
charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=3kGytkGT

A copy of the Decertification Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=O1Kduq7Z

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Yingtao Ho, Esq.
          THE PREVIANT LAW FIRM, S.C.
          310 W. Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 100MW
          Milwaukee, WI 53203
          Telephone: (414) 271-4500
          Facsimile: (414) 271-6308
          E-mail: yh@previant.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          John H. Zawadsky, Esq.
          Robert S. Driscoll, Esq.
          Katherine M. O'Malley, Esq.
          REINHART BOERNER VAN DEUREN S.C.
          1000 North Water Street, Suite 1700
          Milwaukee, WI 53202
          Telephone: (414) 298-1000
          Facsimile: (414) 298-8097
          E-mail: jzawadsky@reinhartlaw.com
                  rdriscoll@reinhartlaw.com
                  komalley@reinhartlaw.com


REDBACK ENERGY: Laney's Bid to Certify Class Granted in Part
------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Magistrate Judge Henry J. Bemporad entered an order in the
lawsuit captioned DAVID LANEY, JEREMY ADAMS, KEVIN HOLMES, and
DOUGLAS MONEYPENNY, Individually and on Behalf of Others
Similarly Situated v. REDBACK ENERGY SERVICES, LLC; REDBACK COIL
TUBING, LLC; MIKE FERNANDEZ; PAUL J ACOBI, DANTE DOMENICHELLI;
PHIL LANCASTER; and MARK LAYTON, Case No. 5:17-cv-00650-FB-HJB
(W.D. Tex.):

   -- granting in part the Plaintiffs' Motion for Conditional
      Certification;

   -- holding in abeyance the Plaintiffs' Motion for Approval and
      Distribution of Notice and for Disclosure of Contact
      Information.

   -- ruling that the parties must confer on the specifics of the
      notice, including the form and contents of the notice, the
      delivery method, and the manner of consent;

   -- ruling that at or before this conference, the Defendants
      must provide the Plaintiffs with the potential class
      members' contact information, as discussed in the Order;
      and

   -- ruling that, within 21 days of the date of this Order, the
      parties submit to the Court for consideration either a
      joint proposed notice, or competing options for notice,
      including an indication as to which portions are agreed.

On July 18, 2017, Plaintiffs filed this collective action on
behalf of themselves and other Supervisors, who were not paid
"lawful overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of forty
(40) hours per week."  The Plaintiffs seek to recover alleged
unpaid overtime compensation and other damages under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs filed a motion to conditionally certify a putative
class consisting of "[a]ll current and former employees of
Defendants who were employed as salaried Supervisors at any time
since July 18, 2014."

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=rda93KgI


REHABCARE GROUP: Bid to Enjoin State Court Proceedings Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DAKOTA MEDICAL, INC., a California corporation doing
business as Glenoaks Convalescent Hospital, Plaintiff, v.
REHABCARE GROUP, INC., a Delaware corporation, and CANNON &
ASSOCIATES, LLC, a Delaware limited liability corporation doing
business as Polaris Group, Defendants, Case No. 1:14-cv-02081-
DAD-BAM (E.D. Cal.), Judge Dale A. Drozd of the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of California denied the class
counsel's a motion to enjoin Scott Zimmerman's state court
proceedings.

The underlying action is a putative class action filed under the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), alleging the
Defendants had sent a huge number of junk faxes to various
nursing homes and healthcare facilities.  Following substantial
litigation, the action was settled.  A motion for certification
of the settlement class and preliminary approval of a class
settlement was filed on March 21, 2017 and the motion was granted
on April 19, 2017.  After distribution of the class notice and an
objection period, a motion for final approval of the settlement
and certification of the settlement class was filed on Aug. 1,
2017.  This motion was granted by order on Sept. 21, 2017.

Of primary importance to this dispute, that order also granted
the class counsel's application for attorneys' fees, awarding
them one-third of the common fund, which in this case amounted to
$8,333,333.  The class counsel requested that the Court approves
the allocation of attorneys' fees amongst the three different
firms who comprised class counsel, and the Court did so.

Further, the class counsel sought to have the Court approve class
counsels' expressed intent to voluntarily pay attorney Frank
Owen, who was not class counsel, 3.33% of their respective shares
from the settlement.  At the final fairness hearing, the Court
commented that it was unsure of the need to approve this sharing
of funds, but given the counsel's representations regarding the
distribution of work in this case and the voluntarily nature of
the agreement, the Court could glean no reason to refuse the
counsels' request.

At no point during the approval process did class counsel advise
the Court of a potential dispute related to attorneys' fees with
another attorney who had previously represented the named
Plaintiff.  However, following entry of judgment on Oct. 11,
2017, the class counsel moved to enjoin a state court action
brought by attorney Zimmerman in which he sought to be paid for
his prior work in both this and another class action matter
pursuant to a state law claim of quantum meruit.

In their pending motion, the class counsel seek to enjoin
Zimmerman's lawsuit on the basis of the All Writs Act and the
Anti-Injunction Act because, they contend, doing so is necessary
"in aid of" the Court's jurisdiction in this class action and in
order to prevent relitigation of issues already decided by the
Court.  The class counsel also seeks the award of sanctions
against Zimmerman for filing such an action in state court.
Zimmerman, specially appearing in the matter, opposes the motion
to enjoin his pending action in state court, asserting that the
Court lacks jurisdiction over both him and his dispute with class
counsel.

Judge Drozd finds that the class counsel have failed to
demonstrate that the Court must enjoin the state court
proceedings under the "necessary in aid of jurisdiction"
exception to the Anti-Injunction Act.  The class counsel have not
demonstrated that two of the three elements of claim preclusion
are met.  Because the class counsel cannot meet the elements of
claim preclusion, they cannot demonstrate the applicability of
the relitigation exception, which is designed to implement well-
recognized concepts of claim and issue preclusion.  Therefore,
the relitigation exception provides no basis to enjoin the state
court action at issue.

The Judge concludes that the briefing submitted by the class
counsel in support of their motion to enjoin is thorough and well
done.  Based upon their performance in the action, the Court
would expect no less.  However, the Judge says, the law does not
support the position they have taken as to the issue now before
the Court.  Their dispute with attorney Zimmerman over fees in
this and an earlier case is a matter wholly separate from the
action as well as the settlement and award of attorneys' fees
which the Court approved.

Accordingly, for all of the reasons set forth, Judge Drozd denied
the class counsel's motion to enjoin Zimmerman's state court
proceeding.  Because the motion itself is denied, the sanctions
requested by the class counsel against Zimmerman are unwarranted
and is also denied.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 30, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/6ZXVN8 from Leagle.com.

Dakota Medical, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Mark D. Kruthers
-- mkruthers@dowlingaaron.com -- Dowling Aaron Incorporated,
Charles Darryl Cordero -- cdc@paynefears.com -- Payne & Fears,
Daniel Friedman Lula -- dfl@paynefears.com -- Payne & Fears, LLP,
Joel S. Magolnick -- magolnick@mm-pa.com -- Marko & Magolnick,
P.A., pro hac vice, Leilani Elizabeth Livingston --
llj@paynefears.com -- Payne & Fears, LLP, Matthew K. Brown --
mkb@paynefears.com -- Payne & Fears LLP & Scott Olin Luskin --
sol@paynefears.com -- Payne & Fears LLP.

RehabCare Group, Inc., Defendant, represented by Jon Wilson --
jwilson@broadandcassel.com -- Broad and Cassel, Kimberly Freedman
-- kfreedman@broadandcassel.com -- Broad and Cassel, pro hac
vice, Melissa Jill Gomberg -- mgomberg@broadandcassel.com --
Broad And Cassel, Oliver W. Wanger -- owanger@wjhattorneys.com --
Wanger Jones Helsley PC & Erin Kristen Kolmansberger --
ekolmansberger@broadandcassel.com -- Broad and Cassel, pro hac
vice.

Cannon & Associates, LLC, Defendant, represented by Daniel Scott
Kubasak -- dkubasak@gordonrees.com -- Gordon & Rees, David L.
Jordan -- dljordan@grsm.com -- Gordon & Rees LLP, Fletcher
Carlton Alford -- falford@grsm.com -- Gordon Rees LLP & Stephen
Albert Watkins -- WatkinsS@cmtlaw.com -- Carlson & Messer LLP.

Scott Zimmermann, Movant, represented by Frank Wynn Nemecek --
fnemecek@nemecek-cole.com -- Ness Di Poala and McEvilly &
Jonathan Martin Starre -- jstarre@nemecek-cole.com -- Nemecek and
Cole.


RICHMOND, VA: RRHA Settles Public Housing Tenants' Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gretchen Ross and Kirk Nawrotzky, writing for WRIC, report that
public housing tenants have reached a nearly $1 million
settlement with the Richmond Redevelopment and Housing Authority.

The lawsuit claims the RRHA overcharged residents for utilities.

The class-action lawsuit, filed in February of 2017, claims the
RRHA failed to properly set, implement, and charge utility
allowances, resulting in excessive charges to current and former
tenants from November 2012 through October 2016.

The proposed settlement agreement would distribute $951,835.45 to
current and former tenants with an additional $79, 590.23
returned through implementation of new utility allowances. RRHA
says that 6,000 residents were impacted.

"We essentially calculated the allowance incorrectly and that
resulted in an overcharge of utility allowance to residents in
public housing communities," RRHA Interim CEO Orlando Artze
explained, adding that the distributed money will take 3-4 months
to be implemented with some residents seeing it through a check
while others will receive credit.

Tenants told 8News they were pleased with the outcome.

"As tenants, we work hard to try to pay our bills, but our
utility bills were too high," plaintiff Cenquetta Harris said.
"This settlement shows that when we band together to stand up for
ourselves, we can make sure that everyone is treated fairly."

"The settlement is the result of hard work by both parties, and
we are very pleased that in addition to relief for past charges,
our clients will be billed fairly and in compliance with HUD
rules going forward," attorney Sylvia Jones added.

The proposed settlement must first be approved by Federal
District Court Judge John A. Gibney, Jr.

In addition to money, RRHA will set new higher utility allowances
for at least three years.  The Authority will also develop new
policies for elderly and disabled residents that may need
additional electric usage.

RRHA is making changes to its billing statements to give tenants
more information about utility charges. RRHA staff will also be
trained on utility billing procedures and handling tenants
requests.

"RRHA is glad to have reached an amicable result with the tenant
plaintiffs in this case, which promotes RRHA's goal of
transparency and fairness while providing affordable housing to
Richmond residents," Artze said. "It is important to note that
RRHA did not benefit financially from the billing of utility
charges to residents.  In fact, the administrative requirements
of the utility surcharge system and insufficient HUD subsidy
result in RRHA's provision of electric utility service to
residents at a financial loss to the agency." [GN]


RITE AID: Accused by Josten of Overcharging for Generic Drugs
-------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT JOSTEN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. RITE AID CORPORATION, Case No. 3:18-cv-00152-JLS-JLB
(S.D. Cal., January 23, 2018), seeks to recover for the harm
caused by Rite Aid's alleged unfair and deceptive price scheme to
artificially inflate the "usual and customary" prices reported
and used to charge the Plaintiff and members of the Class for
purchases of certain generic prescription drugs at Rite Aid
pharmacies.

The Plaintiff and members of the Class are paying much more for
certain generics than Rite Aid's cash-paying customers, who fill
their generic prescriptions through Rite Aid's discount generic
drug program, called the "Rx Savings Program" ("RSP"), without
using health insurance, Mr. Josten contends.  He argues that Rite
Aid has used its RSP as a mechanism to knowingly and
intentionally overcharge consumers like him and the Class, in
excess of Rite Aid's actual U&C prices for these generics.

Rite Aid is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Camp Hill,
Pennsylvania.  Rite Aid is the third largest retail pharmacy in
the United States with over 4,500 retail pharmacies in 31 states
and the District of Columbia.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Walter W. Noss, Esq.
          SCOTT+SCOTT, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP
          707 Broadway, Suite 1000
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 233-4565
          Facsimile: (619) 233-0508
          E-mail: wnoss@scott-scott.com

               - and -

          Joseph P. Guglielmo, Esq.
          Erin Green Comite, Esq.
          SCOTT+SCOTT, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP
          The Helmsley Building
          230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor
          New York, NY 10169
          Telephone: (212) 223-4478
          Facsimile: (212) 223-6334
          E-mail: jguglielmo@scott-scott.com
                  ecomite@scott-scott.com

               - and -

          Alfred G. Yates, Jr., Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF ALFRED G. YATES, JR., P.C.
          300 Mt. Lebanon Boulevard, Suite 206-B
          Pittsburgh, PA 15234-1507
          Telephone: (412) 391-5164
          Facsimile: (412) 471-1033
          E-mail: yateslaw@aol.com


ROYAL BANK: Pension Fund Leads Foreign Currency Rigging Case
------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Buist, writing for Hamilton Spectator, reports that LIUNA's
pension fund is leading a $1 billion court fight against some of
the world's largest financial institutions over an alleged
decade-long conspiracy to rig foreign currency markets.

The Labourers' Pension Fund is one of two lead plaintiffs in a
proposed class-action lawsuit that follows in the wake of similar
actions already settled in the U.S. and Europe.

The lawsuit has not yet been certified as a class action but the
judge in the case has already approved settlements totalling $107
million that have been reached by the plaintiffs with 13 of the
defendants, which include global banking giants such as Bank of
America, Citibank, BNP Paribas, Barclays, HSBC, UBS and Goldman
Sachs.

The settlements reached to date are reportedly the second-highest
amount ever recovered in a Canadian case related to price fixing.

Royal Bank of Canada, Credit Suisse, Morgan Stanley and Deutsche
Bank are the four defendants that have so far not agreed to
settle.

Tens of thousands of Canadians could be eligible to participate
in any eventual settlement, according to one of the lawyers
representing plaintiffs in the case.

Proposed members of the class action include anyone who
participated in a wide range of foreign exchange-related
transactions either directly or indirectly through mutual funds,
hedge funds, equity funds and pension funds between 2003 and the
2013.

The plaintiffs are seeking $1 billion in damages plus punitive
damages.

"LIUNA is not only standing up for its members, as they always
do, but they're standing up on behalf of everyone who's affected
by this misconduct," said Robert Gain, one of the lead lawyers
for the plaintiffs.

LIUNA's pension fund includes 20,000 pensioners and
beneficiaries.  The Hamilton-based union represents about 100,000
workers and retirees in Canada.

"This is a global conspiracy to fix the price of currencies,"
said Mr. Gain, who is with the Toronto-based Koskie Minsky law
firm.

"That goes to the heart of a lot of financial instruments, it
goes to the heart of the trust people have in the global banking
system."

The misconduct alleged in the Canadian lawsuit has already led to
massive settlements and fines against some of the defendants
elsewhere in the world.

Six of the major financial institutions were hit with a total of
$4.3 billion (U.S.) in fines in 2014 for the attempted
manipulation of foreign currency rates.  In just the U.S. alone,
Citibank reached a $402 million (U.S.) settlement with American
regulators as well as being hit with a $310 million (U.S.) fine.

Despite the massive fines levied against the banks around the
world, Mr. Gain said there are no similar investigations or
enforcement actions being taken by Canadian authorities.

The Canadian class action lawsuit alleges that the defendant
banks conspired with each other over an 11-year period to
manipulate more than two dozen currencies through a variety of
means, such as fixing the price of bid and ask spreads and
manipulating benchmark rates for currencies.

According to the allegations, the financial institutions used
multiple chat rooms with names such as "The Cartel," "The
Bandits' Club" and "The Mafia" to communicate with each other.

The lawsuit alleges the banks conspired to fix spot prices of the
futures market, as well as exchanged confidential customer
information that could be used to trigger certain trading
reactions.

None of the allegations have been proven in court.

Lawyers for the plaintiffs were unsuccessful last year in an
attempt to add TD Bank and BMO as defendants in the proposed
class action.  That decision is being appealed.

Bank of America, BNP Paribas and UBS were the first three banking
groups to reach settlements in the Canadian case and as part of
the settlement, they agreed to co-operate with the plaintiffs in
the prosecution of those banks that don't agree to settle.

A formula for paying out the current settlements has not been
finalized but payouts are expected to be roughly proportional to
the financial impact suffered by the affected parties.

LIUNA's pension fund does not gain any additional financial
benefit by virtue of its role as one of the lead plaintiffs.

It's not known how much LIUNA's pension fund can expect to
recover from the settlement.  A spokesperson for LIUNA did not
respond to a request for comment.

Information about the claims process and a notification to class
members about how to participate in the settlement already
reached is expected to receive court approval in the spring. [GN]


RUSHMORE LOAN: Sellers Appeals M.D. Florida Ruling to 11th Cir.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Randolph Sellers and Tabetha Sellers filed an appeal
from a court ruling in their lawsuit entitled Randolph Sellers,
et al. v. Rushmore Loan Management Services LLC, Case No. 3:15-
cv-01106-TJC-PDB, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Florida.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Jan. 23, 2018, the
Hon. Timothy J. Corrigan entered an order in the lawsuit:

   (1) denying Rushmore Loan Management Services, LLC's Motion
       for Reconsideration of Ruling on Summary Judgment;

   (2) denying the Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion for Class
       Certification;

   (3) dismissing with prejudice the putative class claims;

   (4) directing the parties to file a joint case management
       report by January 12, 2018.  The Court will enter a case
       management scheduling order for the remainder of the case.

The Plaintiffs filed the lawsuit on September 11, 2015, raising
claims under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, the Florida
Consumer Collection Practices Act and the Declaratory Judgment
Act, based on their receipt of numerous communications from
Rushmore.

The appellate case is captioned as Randolph Sellers, et al. v.
Rushmore Loan Management Services LLC, Case No. 18-90002, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Petitioners RANDOLPH SELLERS, individually and on
behalf of a class of persons similarly situated, and TABETHA
SELLERS, individually and on behalf of a class of persons
similarly situated, are represented by:

          Max H. Story, Esq.
          MAX STORY, ESQ.
          328 2nd Avenue N, Suite 100
          Jacksonville Beach, FL 32250
          Telephone: (904) 372-4109
          E-mail: max@maxstorylaw.com

               - and -

          Janet R. Varnell, Esq.
          Brian W. Warwick, Esq.
          VARNELL & WARWICK, PA
          PO Box 1870
          Lady Lake, FL 32158
          Telephone: (352) 753-8600
          E-mail: jvarnell@varnellandwarwick.com
                  bwarwick@varnellandwarwick.com

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

          Amy Lea Drushal, Esq.
          TRENAM LAW
          101 E Kennedy Blvd., Suite 2700
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 223-7474
          E-mail: adrushal@trenam.com

               - and -

          John C. Lynch, Esq.
          TROUTMAN SANDERS, LLP
          222 Central Park Ave., Suite 2000
          Virginia Beach, VA 23462
          Telephone: (757) 687-7765
          E-mail: john.lynch@troutmansanders.com

               - and -

          Justin Tinshung Wong, Esq.
          TROUTMAN SANDERS, LLP
          600 Peachtree St. NE, Suite 5200
          Atlanta, GA 30308
          Telephone: (404) 885-3719
          E-mail: justin.wong@troutmansanders.com


SAMAHA INVESTMENTS: "Lopez" Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alfredo Lopez, on behalf of himself and all other employees
similarly situated, known and unknown, Plaintiff, v. Samaha
Investments, Inc., an Illinois corporation, Sam & H, Inc., an
Illinois corporation, Samih Hejja, individually, and Maha
Khashan, individually, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-00568 (N.D.
Ill., January 25, 2018), seeks damages in an amount equal to the
unpaid overtime compensation due and owing, statutory punitive
damages, interest on all amounts awarded, attorneys' fees,
together with costs of suit and collection and such further
relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act and Illinois Minimum
Wage Law.

Defendants owed/own and operated/operate automotive repair shops
doing business under the name "Tuffy Auto" where Lopez worked at
their locations at 23846 W. 135th Street, Plainfield, IL 60544
and 1555 U.S. Route 34, Oswego, IL 60543. Plaintiff typically
worked more than 63 hours per week without overtime pay, says the
complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Paul Luka, Esq.
      MENDOZA LAW, P.C.
      120 S. State Street, Suite 400
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Tel: (312) 508-6010
      Email: paul@alexmendozalaw.com


SANTA CLARA COUNTY, CA: Class Certification Sought in "Cole" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in the lawsuit titled DAVID COLE, LEROY BENJAMIN,
ERASMO FLORES, JR., ROBERT PHILLIPS and BRANDON WILLIAMS, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. COUNTY
OF SANTA CLARA, a public entity, COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA DEPARTMENT
OF CORRECTION, a public entity under the control of the County of
Santa Clara, the COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA OFFICE OF THE SHERIFF, a
public entity under the control of the County of Santa Clara, and
DOES 1 to 20, inclusive, Case No. 5:16-cv-06594-LHK (N.D. Cal.),
moves for an order certifying a Plaintiff Class of:

     "all individuals with mobility disabilities who are now, or
      will be in the future, incarcerated in the County Jails"

The Parties also ask the Court to certify the named Plaintiffs as
representatives of the Plaintiff Class and their counsel of
record as class counsel for the Plaintiff Class.

The Complaint alleges that the Defendants have systemically
failed to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act, the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and California Government Code
Section 11135.  Specifically, the Complaint alleges, and the
Parties stipulate, that no housing areas in the Santa Clara
County Jail system ("County Jails") were fully compliant with
federal or state accessibility standards at the time the
litigation was filed, including standards under the ADA.

As a result of these non-compliant physical facilities, the
Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants cannot provide inmates with
mobility disabilities equal and meaningful access to all of the
programs, services, and activities of the County Jails.

The parties stipulate, among other things, that Custody Staff and
Custody Health Services Staff are subject to centralized and
standard policies and practices regarding intake procedures,
housing assignments, tracking processes, grievance procedures,
programming, classification, and the provision and/or denial of
disability-related accommodations, a central chain of command,
standard training, and standard accountability and disciplinary
policies.

The Court will commence a hearing on May 10, 2018, at 1:30 p.m.,
to consider the Motion.

A copy of the Joint Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=qYtJKWW8

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Gay Crosthwait Grunfeld, Esq.
          Lisa Ells, Esq.
          Kara J. Janssen, Esq.
          ROSEN BIEN GALVAN & GRUNFELD LLP
          50 Fremont Street, 19th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 433-6830
          Facsimile: (415) 433-7104
          E-mail: ggrunfeld@rbgg.com
                  lells@rbgg.com
                  kjanssen@rbgg.com

               - and -

          Michelle Iorio, Esq.
          DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES
          2001 Center Street, Fourth Floor
          Berkeley, CA 94704
          Telephone: (510) 665-8644
          Facsimile: (510) 665-8511
          E-mail: miorio@dralegal.org

The Defendants are represented by:

          James R. Williams, Esq.
          Aryn Paige Harris, Esq.
          COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
          70 W Hedding Street, 9th Floor, East Wing
          San Jose, CA 95110-1705
          Telephone: (408) 299-5900
          Facsimile: (408) 292-7240
          E-mail: james.williams@cco.sccgov.org
                  aryn.harris@cco.sccgov.org


SARBANAND FARMS: Rosas Sues Over Hostile Work Environment
---------------------------------------------------------
Barbaro Rosas and Guadalupe Tapia, as individuals and on behalf
of all other similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs, v. Sarbanand
Farms, LLC, Munger Bros., LLC, and CSI VISA Processing, USA, LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-00112 (W.D. Wash., January 25, 2018),
seeks permanent injunction against Defendants from threatening H-
2A foreign workers with deportation to coerce them to continue
providing labor to the company; injunction from the imposition of
illegal production standards, pursuant to Washington contract
law; punitive and actual damages or $500 per person per
violation; recovery of sums deducted from their paychecks for
three meals per day pursuant to Washington contract law; and
attorney fees and costs and other further relief.

Sarbanand Farms, and its parent company Munger Bros. allegedly
violated federal anti-trafficking laws through threats and
intimidation that caused its H-2A workforce to believe they would
suffer serious harm unless they fully submitted to
Sarbanand's labor demands, thereby creating a hostile work
environment and discrimination.

CSI Visa Processing, an unlicensed and unbonded farm labor
contractor, failed to disclose unlawful hourly production
standards and failed to inform Plaintiffs they would have to pay
for meals above and beyond the $12 a day. Plaintiffs are Mexican
nationals who worked for Munger Bros. and Sarbanand Farms as
foreign H-2A agricultural workers during the 2017 blueberry
harvest. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Joachim Morrison, Esq.
     Tony Gonzalez, Esq.
     Lori Jordan Isley, Esq.
     Bernardo Cruz, Esq.
     COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES
     300 Okanogan Ave., Ste. 2A
     Wenatchee, WA 98801
     Tel: (509) 662-9681, ext. 125
     Email: joe.morrison@columbialegal.org
            tony.gonzalez@columbialegal.org
            lori.isley@columbialegal.org
            bernardo.cruz@columbialegal.org

            - and -

     Adam Berger, Esq.
     Lindsay Halm, Esq.
     810 Third Avenue, Suite 500
     Seattle, WA 98104
     Tel: (206) 622-8000
     Email: berger@sgb-law.com
            halm@sgb-law.com


SOC LLC: Court Approves Class Notice in "Risinger" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
In the case, KARL E. RISINGER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. SOC LLC, et
al., Defendants, Case No. 2:12-cv-00063-MMD-PAL (D. Nev.),
Magistrate Judge Peggy A. Leen of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Nevada granted the parties' Joint Motion for Approval
of Class Notice and Notice.

The case involves a class action dispute over the terms of
employment for armed guards hired to work in Iraq.  In September
2015, Judge Miranda M. Du granted in part and denied granted in
part the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, denied the
Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, and granted the
Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification pursuant to Rule 23 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.  The Ninth Circuit recently
affirmed her decision.

Judge Du set the case for trial in January 2018.  The Defendants
filed a Motion to Continue the Trial, Joint Pretrial Order
Deadline, and to Reopen Discovery.  Judge Du granted the portion
of the motion regarding the trial, vacating the upcoming trial
date.  She then referred the portion of the motion seeking to
extend the joint pretrial deadline, adopt proposed schedule, and
reopen discovery is referred to the Magistrate Judge.  A trial
date will be reset after the discovery issues are addressed.

On Dec. 21, 2017, the Court held a hearing on the discovery and
scheduling issues raised in the Defendants' motion.  On Dec. 29,
2017, the Court held a second hearing during which it adopted the
Defendants' position regarding the two contested issues in the
class notice.  It further ruled that notice be given by Jan. 5,
2018 as requested by the parties, with a 60-day opt out period.
The Court also addressed the remaining discovery issues and case
management schedule.

On Jan. 5, 2018, the parties filed a Stipulation to Extend
Deadline for Class Notice which the Court granted.  The parties
timely filed the Joint Motion asking the Court to approve notice
to the class.


The parties propose notice to putative class members by: (1) an
official website containing long-form notice and other litigation
documents; (2) physical mail notice to mailing addresses of known
potential class members; (3) email notice to e-mail addresses of
known potential class members; (4) social media notice
advertisements targeted to Facebook users with military and law
enforcement "interests" on the Facebook social network; (5) short
form notice as internet ads calculated to reach potential class
members; and (6) a toll-free helpline available 24-hours a day,
seven days a week to assist potential class members and allow
them to leave a message to speak with a notice administrator.

Magistrate Judge Leen finds that the proposed notice clearly and
concisely states the information required by Rule 23(c)(2)(B).
She finds that the parties have shown the methods proposed
provide the best notice practicable under the circumstances of
the case.
  Accordingly, she granted the parties' Joint Motion for Approval
of Class Notice and Notice.  She directed that the Notice will be
physically mailed to potential class members within two business
days of the entry of the Order, consistent with the parties'
post-class certification scheduling order.  The potential class
members will have 60 days to opt out of the class.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 30, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/IknnmW from Leagle.com.

Karl E. Risinger, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher I. Ritter
-- critter@earlysullivan.com -- Early Sullivan Wright Gizer &
McRae -- dmcrae@earlysullivan.com -- LLP, Devin A. McRae, Early
Sullivan Wright Gizer & McRae LLP, Erik C. Alberts --
erik.alberts@ea-lawfirm.com -- Law Offices of Erik C. Alberts &
Scott E. Gizer -- sgizer@earlysullivan.com -- Early Sullivan
Wright Gizer & McRae LLP.

SOC LLC, doing business as SOC Nevada LLC, SOC-SMG, Inc. & Day &
Zimmerman, Inc., Defendants, represented by Daniel P. Mach --
danielmach@quinnemanuel.com -- Quinn Emanuel, Keith H. Forst --
keithforst@quinnemanuel.com -- Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan,
LLP, pro hac vice, Kristen L. Martini -- kmartini@lrrc.com --
Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP, Tara Melissa Lee --
taralee@quinnemanuel.com -- Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan,
LLP, pro hac vice & E. Leif Reid -- lreid@lrrc.com -- Lewis Roca
Rothgerber LLP.


SPASIC & ASSOCIATES: Ordonez Sues for FLSA, Labor Code Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------------
KEVIN ORDONEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. SPASIC & ASSOCIATES, INC; and JOHN DOES 1-5, Case No.
3:18-cv-156 (N.D. Tex., January 22, 2018), is brought for alleged
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Texas Labor
Code.

Spasic is incorporated under the laws of the state of Florida and
has its principal place of business in Doral, Florida.  Spasic
maintains a service contract with a third party to provide
telecommunication services and repairs.  The true names and
capacities of the Doe Defendants are currently unknown to the
Plaintiff.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jay D. Ellwanger, Esq.
          ELLWANGER LAW LLLP
          400 South Zang Blvd., Suite 1015
          Dallas, TX 75208
          Telephone: (737) 808-2260
          Facsimile: (737) 808-2262
          E-mail: jellwanger@equalrights.law

               - and -

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


SPEEDSTER SERVICES: Fails to Pay OT Under FLSA, "O'Neill" Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JAKE O'NEILL And all others similarly situated v. SPEEDSTER
SERVICES, LLC, d/b/a THE UPS STORE # 6269, a Florida Limited
Liability Company, SHAILESH C. PATEL, Individually and MAMTA S.
PATEL, Individually, Case No. 6:18-cv-00120-RBD-GJK (M.D. Fla.,
January 24, 2018), alleges that the Defendants failed to pay
overtime for each hour worked in excess of 40 during a workweek,
in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

Speedster Services, LLC, doing business as THE UPS STORE # 6269,
is a Florida Limited Liability Company, conducting business in
Brevard County, Florida.  The Defendants operate a UPS Store
Franchise having its principal place of business located at 2263
W New Haven Ave., in Melbourne, Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Maurice Arcadier, Esq.
          Stephen Biggie, Esq.
          Joseph C. Wood, Esq.
          Ethan B. Babb, Esq.
          ARCADIER, BIGGIE AND WOOD, PLLC
          2815 W. New Haven, Suite 304
          Melbourne, FL 32904
          Telephone: (321) 953-5998
          Facsimile: (321) 953-6075
          E-mail: arcadier@wamalaw.com
                  biggie@wamalaw.com
                  wood@wamalaw.com
                  babb@wamalaw.com


SRC INC: Gorman Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages and OT Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
RICHARD GORMAN, JR., ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED v. SRC, INC., Case No. 5:18-cv-00073 (W.D.
Tex., January 23, 2018), seeks to recover alleged unpaid wages,
unpaid overtime, statutory liquidated damages, and reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

SRC is a foreign corporation in the state of New York.  SRC
provides customers with engineering and analysis support,
software development, database design and development, signatures
analysis and parametric data analysis.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Melissa Morales Fletcher, Esq.
          THE MORALES FIRM, P.C.
          6243 IH-10 West, Suite 132
          San Antonio, TX 78201
          Telephone: (210) 225-0811
          Facsimile: (210) 225-0821
          E-mail: Melissa@themoralesfirm.com


STATE FARM: Caruso PA Suit Alleges Insurance Policy Breach
----------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Anthony Caruso, P.A., aao Christena L. Butala, on behalf of
itself and all others similarly situated, v. State Farm Mutual
Automobile Insurance Company, Case No. 9:18-cv-80081 (S.D. Tex.,
January 23, 2018), seeks monetary, declaratory and injunctive
relief for Defendant's breach of insurance policy by failure to
pay the proper amount of reimbursements.

The Plaintiff, Caruso PA, is a Florida corporation providing
chiropractic services with its principal place of business in
Palm Springs, Palm Beach County, Florida, where Caruso PA
provided medical services to Christena L. Butala.

Defendants State Farm is an Illinois corporation, doing business
under the laws of the State of Florida, and at all material
times, sold automobile insurance coverage subject to the "Florida
Motor Vehicle No-Fault Law" or the "PIP Statute". [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Tod Aronovitz, Esq.
      Barbara Perez, Esq.
      ARONOVITZ LAW
      2 South Biscayne Boulevard
      One Biscayne Tower, Suite 3700
      Miami, FL 33131
      Tel: (305) 372-2772
      Fax: (305) 397-1886
      E-mail: ta@aonovitzlaw.com
              bp@aronovitzlaw.com

          - and -

      Theophilos Poulopoulos, Esq.
      SCHILLER, KESSLER & GOMEZ, PLC
      7501 W. Oakland Park Boulevard Suite 201
      Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33319
      Tel: (954) 933-3000
      Fax: (954) 667-5805
      E-mail: theo@injuredinflorida.com


SYNDICATED OFFICE: Accused by "McBroom" Suit of Violating FDCPA
---------------------------------------------------------------
CHARLES MCBROOM, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. SYNDICATED OFFICE SYSTEMS, LLC DBA CENTRAL FINANCIAL
CONTROL, Case No. 2:18-cv-00102 (W.D. Wash., January 24, 2018),
alleges violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Syndicated Office Systems is a "debt collector" as defined by the
FDCPA.  The Company uses mails and telephone to collect or to
attempt to collect debts owed or due, or asserted to be owed or
due, another.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Amorette Rinkleib, Esq.
          THOMPSON CONSUMER LAW GROUP, PLLC
          5235 E. Southern Ave., D106-618
          Mesa, AZ 85206
          Telephone (602) 899-9189
          Facsimile: (866) 317-2674
          E-mail: arinkleib@thompsonconsumerlaw.com


T.C. WOODLAND: "Cardona" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages, OT under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
SENOVIA TURCIOS CARDONA, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. THE T.C. WOODLAND, INC.;
THAI COTTAGE II, INC.; THAI COTTAGE IV, INC.; THE THAI COTTAGE
GROUP COMPANY; THE T.C. PEARLAND, INC.; THAI COTTAGE IX, INC.;
THAI COTTAGE VI, INC.; and THAI COTTAGE, INC., Case No. 4:18-cv-
00427 (S.D. Tex., Feb. 12, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid wages
and unpaid overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

The Defendants violated the FLSA by employing Plaintiff and other
similarly situated nonexempt employees "for a workweek longer
than forty hours [but refusing to compensate them] for [their]
employment in excess of [40] hours at a rate not less than one
and one-half times the regular rate at which [they are or were]
employed. The Defendants violated the FLSA by failing to maintain
accurate time and pay records for Plaintiff and other similarly
situated nonexempt employees as required by 29 U.S.C. section
211(c) and 29 C.F.R. pt. 516.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Melissa Moore, Esq.
          Curt Hesse, Esq.
          Bridget Davidson, Esq.
          MOORE & ASSOCIATES
          Lyric Centre
          440 Louisiana Street, Suite 675
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (713) 222 6775
          Facsimile: (713) 222 6739
          E-mail: melissa@mooreandassociates.net
                  curt@mooreandassociates.net
                  bridget@mooreandassociates.net


TEMPLE UNIVERSITY: Overstated Number of MBA Enrollees, Smith Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
KYLE SMITH, Individually and On Behalf Of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. TEMPLE UNIVERSITY, the Defendant,
Case No. 2:18-cv-00590-PBT (E.D. Pa., Feb. 12, 2018), seeks
injunctive relief, compensatory, consequential, punitive damages,
costs and reasonable attorney's fees for Temple's deceptive and
unfair business practices under the Unfair Trade and Consumer
Protection Law Act.

According to the complaint, on Jan. 24, 2018, U.S. News removed
TEMPLES's Fox School of Business No. 1 ranked online MBA program
of its newest ranking [2018] after finding out that TEMPLE has
misreported critical data on its program. Shortly after the
release of the 2018 Best Online MBA Programs rankings, TEMPLE
notified U.S. News that it had misreported data that were used to
calculate the Best Online MBA Programs. TEMPLE significantly
overstated the number of new entrants for its 2016-2017 entering
class who submitted Graduate Management Admission Test (GMAT)
scores, Temple has reported that all 255 [100%] of the program's
latest incoming class submitted GMAT scores to get into the
program, with an average GMAT score of 619.

Temple is a public research university located in the Cecil B.
Moore neighborhood of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jason T, Brown, Esq.
          JTB LAW GROUP, LLC
          155 2ND St., Suite 4
          Jersey City, NJ 07302
          Telephone: (877) 561 0000
          Facsimile: (855) 582 5297
          E-mail: jtb@jtblawgroup.com

               - and -

          Steven Bennett Blau, Esq.
          BLAU, LEON LAW GROUP, LLC
          Shelly A. Leonard
          23 Green Street, Suite
          Huntington, NY 11743
          Telephone: (631) 458 1010
          E-mail: Sblau@blauleonardlaw.com
                  sleonard@blauleonardlaw.com


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Judge Refuses to Approve Settlement
------------------------------------------------------
Dorothy Atkins, writing for Law360, reports that a California
judge on Feb. 7 refused to preliminarily approve Uber's
settlement that would provide drivers with occupational accident
insurance in exchange for ending putative class claims that the
ride-hailing company improperly denied them workers'
compensation, saying the contract terms between the drivers and
the insurance company are unclear.

During a hearing in San Francisco, Superior Court Judge Curtis
Karnow took issue with the fact that Uber had essentially agreed
to set up a contract between its drivers and a third-party
insurance company using insurance broker Aon. [GN]


US BANKCARD: Denial of Arbitration Bid in "Vera" Affirmed
---------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DAVID VERA et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. US
BANKCARD SERVICES, INC., Defendant and Appellant, Case No.
B283187 (Cal. App.), Judge Audrey B. Collins of the Court of
Appeals of California for the Second District, Division Four,
affirmed the trial court's order denying US Bankcard's petition
to compel arbitration.

Vera signed an agreement with US Bankcard for services relating
to processing credit card transactions for Vera's small
businesses.  US Bankcard itself did not provide credit card
processing services; instead, another company, Elavon, Inc.
provided those services.  US Bankcard recruited merchants such as
Vera who wanted credit card processing services, and sold
Elavon's services to those merchants.

In the context of the parties' transaction, Vera signed a
"Merchant Application," which included a reference to Elavon's
"Terms of Service" located on the Elavon website.  Vera was never
provided a copy of the Terms of Service.  In that document, there
was an arbitration provision stating that all controversies were
to be submitted to arbitration in Georgia and would be subject to
Georgia law.

Vera filed a putative class action complaint in July 2016 naming
US Bankcard and Elavon as the Defendants.  The operative
complaint at issue on appeal is the first amended complaint,
filed in October 2016.  Vera sued US Bankcard, asserting that the
contract included improper liquidated damages in the form of
fees, US Bankcard engaged in unlawful business practices under
the Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), and for declaratory relief.

In December 2016, US Bankcard moved to stay the case and compel
arbitration of Vera's claims in Atlanta, Georgia.  US Bankcard
argues that the arbitration provision in Elavon's Terms of
Service required the parties to arbitrate their claims.  The
trial court denied the motion, finding that the arbitration
provision in the Terms of Service was procedurally and
substantively unconscionable.

US Bankcard appealed, contending that the trial court should have
stayed or dismissed the case to allow the action to proceed in
Georgia.  US Bankcard asserts that the trial court erred by
finding the arbitration provision in the Terms of Service
unconscionable.  It contends the trial court erred in finding
that the Terms of Service was procedurally unconscionable, and
asserts that the court impermissibly shifted the burden to US
Bankcard to show available market alternatives to US Bankcard.
US Bankcard also contends the court erred by finding there was an
element of surprise in the Terms of Service.

Judge Collins finds no authority suggesting that the trial court
was obligated to stay the case under the circumstances, before
the parties had established in any court that an enforceable
arbitration provision governed the action.  She says California
law provides that a court may stay a pending action after a court
of competent jurisdiction has ordered arbitration of a
controversy which is an issue involved in an action or proceeding
pending before a court of this State.  Here, no court had found
that the parties had an enforceable arbitration agreement, and
indeed the trial court eventually held that the arbitration
provision in the Terms of Service was unconscionable.

The Judge also finds that US Bankcard's failure to identify or
attach the applicable rules contributed to the unconscionability
of the arbitration provision.  Vera was never provided with the
Terms of Service or the applicable arbitration rules, and the
Terms of Service failed to identify which set of AAA rules
applied.  These failures, standing alone, may not be sufficient
to render the arbitration provision unconscionable, but because
there were multiple factors present indicating oppression and
surprise, the court correctly held that the arbitration provision
in the Terms of Service was procedurally unconscionable.

Judge Collins further finds that given the lack of a logical
nexus to Georgia, the lack of arms-length negotiations leading to
the forum selection clause, the nature of Vera's businesses, and
the difficulty inherent in requiring a small business owner to
travel across the country for an arbitration, the trial court did
not err in holding that the forum selection clause was
substantively unconscionable.

In sum, the Judge concludes that arbitration provision in the
Terms of Service was procedurally and substantively
unconscionable, and therefore unenforceable.  Hence, US
Bankcard's motion to compel arbitration was properly denied.
Accordingly, Judge Collins affirmed the trial court's order
denying US Bankcard's petition to compel arbitration.  Vera is
entitled to costs on appeal.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 30, 2018 Opinion is
available at https://is.gd/xOJTxd from Leagle.com.

Bryan Cave, Jennifer A. Jackson -- jjackson@bryancave.com --
David Harford -- david.harford@bryancave.com -- Christopher P.
Galanek -- chris.galanek@bryancave.com -- and Aiten M. McPherson
-- aiten.mcpherson@bryancave.com -- for Defendant and Appellant.

Carpenter Law, Gretchen Carpenter -- gretchen@gcarpenterlaw.com;
Law Offices of Michele L. Jackson --
mjackson@michelejacksonlaw.com -- and Michele L. Jackson for
Plaintiffs and Respondents.


VILLAGE GREEN: "Corley" Suit Alleges FLSA Violations
----------------------------------------------------
John Corley, individually and on behalf of those similarly
situated v. Village Green Holding, LLC, Case No. 3:18-cv-00157
(N.D. Tex., January 22, 2018), is brought against the Defendant
for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

Plaintiff John Corley worked as a service manager at various
residential multi-family properties managed by the Defendant from
August 2015 through December 2017.

Defendant Village Green Holding, LLC manages properties in states
throughout the nation, including, but not limited to: Texas,
Georgia, Minnesota, Missouri, Indiana, Kentucky, Ohio,
Pennsylvania, Maryland, Illinois, North Carolina, and South
Carolina. [BN]

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
      Tel: (214) 722-5990
      Fax: (214) 722-5991
      E-mail: tbranham@dobllp.com
              rmoussa@dobllp.com


WAL-MART ASSOCIATES: Seeks 9th Cir. Review of Ruling in "Magadia"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Wal-Mart Associates, Inc., and Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.,
filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit styled
Roderick Magadia v. Wal-Mart Associates, Inc., et al., Case No.
5:17-cv-00062-LHK, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, San Jose.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the
Plaintiff brings the lawsuit on behalf of three Classes:

   * Meal Period Regular Rate Class:

     "all current and former California non-exempt retail store
      employees of Defendants who received non-discretionary
      remuneration, including "MYSHARE INCT," and was paid any
      meal period premium payments in the same period that the
      non-discretionary remuneration was earned, at any time
      between December 2, 2012, through the present";

   * Overtime/INCT Wage Statement Class:

     "all current and former California non-exempt employees of
      Defendants who received "OVERTIME/INCT," at any time
      between December 2, 2015, through the present"; and

   * Final Wage Statement Class:

     "all former non-exempt employees who worked for Defendants
      in the State of California and whose employment terminated
      (whether voluntarily or involuntarily) at any time from
      December 2, 2015 to the present."

The appellate case is captioned as Roderick Magadia v. Wal-Mart
Associates, Inc., et al., Case No. 18-80010, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Respondent RODERICK MAGADIA, individually and on behalf
of all those similarly situated, is represented by:

          Dennis S. Hyun, Esq.
          HYUN LEGAL APC
          550 S. Hope St.
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 488-6555
          Facsimile: (213) 488-6554
          E-mail: dhyun@hyunlegal.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

          William Lucas Marder, Esq.
          POLARIS LAW GROUP, LLP
          501 San Benito Street
          Hollister, CA 95023
          Telephone: (831) 531-4214
          Facsimile: (831) 634-0333
          E-mail: bill@polarislawgroup.com

Defendants-Petitioners WAL-MART ASSOCIATES, INC., a Delaware
corporation, and WAL-MART STORES, INC., a Delaware corporation,
are represented by:

          Roman David Hernandez, Esq.
          K&L GATES LLP
          One SW Columbia Street, Suite 1900
          Portland, OR 97258
          Telephone: (503) 228-3200
          E-mail: roman.hernandez@klgates.com

               - and -

          Matthew G. Ball, Esq.
          K&L GATES LLP
          Four Embarcadero Center, Suite 1200
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 249-1014
          E-mail: matthew.ball@klgates.com

               - and -

          Patrick Michael Madden, Esq.
          K&L GATES LLP
          925 Fourth Avenue
          Seattle, WA 98104
          Telephone: (206) 623-7580
          E-mail: patrick.madden@klgates.com


WARNER CHILCOTT: MSP Sues over Racketeering of Medical Expenses
---------------------------------------------------------------
MSP RECOVERY CLAIMS, SERIES, LLC, a Delaware entity, MAO-MSO
RECOVERY, LLC, a Delaware entity, MSPA CLAIMS 1, LLC, a Florida
entity, MAO-MSO RECOVERY II, LLC, a Delaware entity, the
Plaintiffs, v. WARNER CHILCOTT PLC, WARNER CHILCOTT CORPORATION,
WARNER CHILCOTT (US), LLC, WARNER CHILCOTT SALES (U.S.) LLC,
ACTAVIS PLC, ACTAVIS PHARMA, INC., ALLERGAN PLC, and JOHN DOES
No. 1-100, FICTICIOUS NAMES, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-
10274 (D. Mass., Feb. 12, 2018), seeks to redress Plaintiffs'
injuries due to Defendants' false or fraudulent acts constituting
patterns of racketeering, which have caused Plaintiffs to provide
payment for medical expenses that would have otherwise been
denied, causing substantial benefit of the Defendants.

According to the complaint, Warner Chilcott in April 2016 entered
a plea of guilty to one charge of healthcare fraud against the
government and its Medicare program in the United States Federal
Court for the District of Massachusetts. The criminal plea came
about in concert with a False Claims Act civil suit brought in
2011 by insider whisteblowers against Warner Chilcottt that was
unsealed on January 3, 2013. Warner Chilcott's guilty plea
admitted to a scheme of fraud comprised of three general patterns
of conduct: 1) the fraudulent use of "Medical Education" speaker
events to pump up prescriptions from doctors of its entire line
of prescription drugs and engage in illegal kickbacks; 2) the
fraudulent use of a "Prior Authorization" scheme to pump up
prescriptions for its osteoporosis drug Atelvia; and 3) the
fraudulent use of false efficacy claims and studies to pump up
prescriptions for another osteoporosis drug, Actonel. The other
drugs intertwined with the Warner Chilcott's fraudulent MedEd
events were Asacol (400 mg), Asacol HD, Doryx, Enablex, Estrace
Cream, Loestrin, and Lo Loestrin.  These fraudulent practices
illegally induced health care professionals to prescribe, and
patients to use, its drug products, to the detriment and injury
of Plaintiffs and the underlying Medicare Advantage Organizations
that assigned their claims to Plaintiffs.

Warner Chilcott is a pharmaceutical company based in Rockaway,
New Jersey, United States. It has production and research
facilities in Fajardo, Puerto Rico, Larne, Northern Ireland,
Dundalk, Republic of Ireland and Weiterstadt, Germany.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Marilyn McGoldrick, Esq.
          THORNTON LAW FIRM LLP
          100 Summer Street, 30th Floor
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617) 720 1333
          Facsimile: (617) 720 2445
          E-mail: mmcgoldrick@tenlaw.com

               - and -

          Christopher L. Coffin, Esq.
          Tracy L. Turner, Esq.
          PENDLEY, BAUDIN & COFFIN, LLP
          1515 Poydras St., Suite 1400
          New Orleans, LA 70112
          Telephone: 504 355 0086
          Facsimile: 504 523 0699
          E-mail: ccoffin@pbclawfirm.com
          tturner@pbclawfirm.com

               - and -

          Enrique G. Serna, Esq.
          Serna & Associates PLLC
          10999 IH10 W, Suite 305
          San Antonio, TX 78230
          Telephone: (210) 472 2222
          Facsimile: (210) 228 0839
          E-mail: enrique@serna-associates.com


WOLF FIRM: Faces "Manos" Suit in Central District California
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Wolf Firm, A
Law Corporation. The case is styled as John C. Manos,
individually and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals,
Plaintiff v. The Wolf Firm, A Law Corporation, a Law Corporation,
RCO Legal, P.S. fka Routh, Crabtree & Olsen, P.S., Northwest
Trustee Services Inc., JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A. for itself and
as successor by merger to Chase Home Finance, LLC (sued
incorrectly as "Chase Home Finance - TX"), Wamu Asset Acceptance
Corp., Select Portfolio Servicing Inc. and Does 2-10, Defendants,
Case No. 8:18-cv-00138 (C.D. Cal., January 24, 2018).

The Wolf Firm, A Law Corporation, is a full service law firm. For
over 25 years the Firm has provided a broad array of legal and
related services throughout California and nationally to
businesses in general and to members of certain specific industry
segments.[BN]


WOLF PETROLEUM: Court Certifies Class of Employees in "Moss" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Magistrate Judge Mark L. Hornsby entered a memorandum order
in the lawsuit captioned MICHAEL MOSS, ET AL. v. WOLF PETROLEUM
SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 5:16-cv-01435-SMH-MLH (W.D. La.),
granting the Plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification.

Judge Hornsby ruled that notice shall be issued to Wolf
employees, who were employed in any capacity performing rig
services at its North Dakota operations within the three years
prior to the Court's final approval of the form of notice.

Within 14 days of this order, the Defendants shall disclose to
the Plaintiffs' counsel the names, last known addresses, e-mail
addresses, phone numbers, and dates of employment of the
potentially similarly situated employees within the scope of the
notice.

Judge Hornsby also ruled that counsel promptly begin to confer
about the final version of the notice and consent forms and,
within 14 days, submit a motion for approval.  The motion for
approval should note any areas of disagreement that require
resolution by the Court.

A copy of the Memorandum Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=4eAe2ybo


WORLDWIDE FLIGHT: "Foster" Action Seeks Overtime Pay
----------------------------------------------------
Albert Foster and Victor Okpechi, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Worldwide Flight
Services, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-00215 (N.D. Tex.,
January 26, 2018), seeks all damages including back wages,
liquidated damages, legal fees, costs and post-judgment interest
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendant provides cargo, passenger, ramp, baggage, and technical
services at numerous airports and other locations in the United
States. Plaintiffs worked for Worldwide as ramp agents, claiming
overtime for hour rendered in excess of 40 hours per work week.
[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:


      Allen R. Vaught, Esq.
      Melinda Arbuckle, Esq.
      Farsheed Fozouni, Esq.
      BARON & BUDD, P.C.
      3102 Oak Lawn Avenue, Suite 1100
      Dallas, TX 75219
      Tel: (214) 521-3605
      Fax: (214) 520-1181
      Email: avaught@baronbudd.com
             marbuckl@baronbudd.com
             ffozouni@baronbudd.com


WYNDHAM RESORT: Court Enters Final Judgment in "Mcgrath"
--------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MICHELLE RENEE McGRATH and VERONICA O'BOY, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
WYNDHAM RESORT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, an Oregon corporation;
WYNDHAM VACATION OWNERSHIP, INC., a Delaware corporation; WYNDHAM
VACATION RESORTS, INC., a Delaware corporation; WYNDHAM WORLDWIDE
OPERATIONS, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 10,
inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 15cv1631 JM (KSC) (S.D. Cal.),
Judge Jeffrey T. Miller of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California granted the Plaintiffs' motions
for final approval of class settlement and attorneys' fees, and
entered final judgment in the matter in accordance with the terms
of the Settlement Agreement.

Wyndham sells interests in timeshare properties throughout the
world.  McGrath worked as a sales representative for Wyndham from
February 2013 until July 2013 and as a sales administrative
coordinator from August 2013 to March 2015.  O'Boy worked as a
sales representative for Wyndham from March to September 2014.

After completing a 60-day training period, Wyndham's sales
representatives worked on commission.  However, the compensation
plan is characterized: First, when no sales were made, Wyndham
provided representatives a minimum hourly wage to cover all time
worked, whether that time was spent on tours (sales activities)
or other duties (which the Plaintiffs argue were non-sales
activities).  Second, when sales were made, and sufficient
commissions earned, Wyndham used those commissions to pay its
representatives for all time worked -- again, whether it was
spent on tours or other duties.  And if the commissions exceeded
the minimum wage multiplied by the number of hours worked during
the period, Wyndham recovered the hourly wage payments it had
previously provided, up to the amount of that excess.

On June 16, 2015, McGrath filed a class action complaint in San
Diego Superior Court alleging five causes of action: (1) failure
to pay minimum wage pursuant to California Labor Code section
1194; (2) failure to timely pay wages at separation pursuant to
California Labor Code sections 201 through 203; (3) failure to
reimburse reasonable business expenses pursuant to California
Labor Code section 2802; (4) failure to provide accurate itemized
wage statements pursuant to California Labor Code section 226;
and (5) violation of California's Unfair Competition Law,
Business & Professions Code section 17200.

On July 22, 2015, Wyndham removed the case to the Court under the
Class Action Fairness Act.  After a number of extensions to
pretrial deadlines, Wyndham moved for summary judgment on Feb. 1,
2017, and the Plaintiff moved for class certification nine days
later.  Prior to the Court ruling on those motions, the parties
notified the Court of their plan to participate in private
mediation.

Although the parties did not resolve the case at the conclusion
of a full-day mediation session, the parties continued to work
with each other and the mediator to settle the matter.  On May
16, 2017, in a joint status report, the parties informed the
Court of the existence of a related action against the
Defendants.

Separate from the McGrath Action, on March 8, 2017, O'Boy filed a
class action complaint in Orange County Superior Court.
Approximately a month thereafter, Wyndham removed the case to the
U.S. District Court, Central District of California, Southern
Division, O'Boy v. Wyndham Vacation Ownership, Inc., et al.  The
parties to the McGrath Action invited O'Boy and her counsel to
attend mediation, and the counsel for both Plaintiffs agreed to
pursue settlement of the two cases jointly.

On July 3, 2017, McGrath moved, unopposed, for preliminary
approval of a class settlement.  The Court granted the motion on
Aug. 7, 2017, and issued an order preliminarily approving the
settlement, preliminarily certifying the class for settlement
purposes, approving the class notice program, appointing the
class counsel, and allowing the filing of the Amended
Consolidated Complaint.

The Amended Consolidated Complaint combined the McGrath Action
and the O'Boy Action, asserting a total of seven causes of
action: (1) failure to pay minimum wage pursuant to California
Labor Code section 1194; (2) failure to timely pay wages at
separation pursuant to California Labor Code sections 201 through
203; (3) failure to reimburse reasonable business expenses
pursuant to California Labor Code section 2802; (4) failure to
provide accurate itemized wage statements pursuant to California
Labor Code section 226; (5) failure to authorize and permit paid
rest periods pursuant to California Labor Code section 226.7; (6)
failure to provide meal periods pursuant to California Labor Code
sections 226.7 and 512; and (7) violation of California's Unfair
Competition Law, Business & Professions Code section 17200.

Pursuant to the Court's order, the settlement administrator took
a number of actions to provide notice of the settlement to the
proposed class.  After the Defendants provided a mailing list for
the class members, the settlement administrator processed and
updated that list.  The settlement administrator then mailed
notice packets to the 2,083 class members via First Class mail.
As of the filing of the Plaintiffs' motion for final approval,
only 51 notice packets remain truly undeliverable.  The
settlement administrator has received six timely requests for
exclusion and zero objections.

The Plaintiffs now move, again unopposed, for final approval of
the class settlement, and for attorneys' fees and costs, class
representative service payments, and settlement administration
expenses.  The Court held a fairness hearing on the Plaintiffs'
motion on Jan. 22, 2018.

The parties' Joint Stipulation of Class Action Settlement
establishes a class defined as all current and former California
Sales Representatives of Wyndham paid commissions, at any time
during the period from June 16, 2011 through July 11, 2017.
Wyndham agreed to pay a non-reversionary Gross Settlement Amount
of $7,250,000 in full satisfaction of the claims as more
specifically described in the Settlement Agreement.

The Net Settlement Amount is the maximum amount available for
distribution to the class members, after deduction of the
attorneys' fees and costs, the class representative service
payments, and the settlement administration expenses.  Any
uncollected amounts attributable to settlement checks returned as
undeliverable or remaining uncashed for more than 120 calendar
days, will be sent to the State of California, Department of
Industrial Relations Unclaimed Wage Division.

The Settlement Agreement allows the Plaintiffs' counsel to
request attorneys' fees of up to $2,416,666.67, litigation costs
and expenses of up to $20,000, a class representative service
payment of $10,000 to McGrath and $7,500 to O'Boy, and Wyndham
agrees not to oppose any of those requests.  Under the Settlement
Agreement, the Settlement Administrator, Rust Consulting, Inc.,
will be paid for the reasonable fees and costs of administering
the settlement up to $30,000.  These amounts will be deducted
from the Gross Settlement Amount, and the remaining Net
Settlement Amount will be distributed among the class members.

Because the settlement is fundamentally fair, reasonable, and
adequate, and the fee request is reasonable and well supported,
Judge Miller granted the Plaintiffs' motions for final approval
of the class settlement and attorneys' fees, and entered the
final judgment in this matter in accordance with the terms of the
Settlement Agreement, but retains jurisdiction.

Based on the preceding, the Judge ordered that the Class Members
are defined as all current and former California Sales
Representatives of Wyndham paid commissions, at any time during
the period from June 16, 2011 through July 11, 2017.

Wyndham will deposit the Gross Settlement Amount into a Qualified
Settlement Account, from which the Settlement Administrator will
issue Individual Settlement Payments to Participating Class
Members according to the terms and timeline stated in the
Settlement Agreement.

Class Counsel, Cohelan Khoury & Singer and Farnaes & Lucio APC,
is awarded $2,416,666.67 in attorneys' fees and $10,575.13 in
costs.  McGrath is awarded $10,000 and O'Boy is awarded $7,500 as
the class representative enhancement payments.  The Settlement
Administrator, Rust Consulting, Inc., will receive payment of
$27,927.96 for services rendered and to be rendered in connection
with the completion of its administrative duties pursuant to the
Settlement Agreement.  These payments will be made pursuant to
the timeline stated in the Settlement Agreement.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 30, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/jeRizU from Leagle.com.

Michelle Renee McGrath, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Christina Marie
Lucio -- clucio@farnaeslaw.com -- Law Office of Malte L.L.
Farnaes APC, Jeff Geraci -- jgeraci@ckslaw.com -- Cohelan Khoury
& Singer, Malte L.L. Farnaes -- malte@farnaeslaw.com -- Farnaes &
Lucio, APC, Mitchell J. Murray -- mitch@farnaeslaw.com -- Farnaes
& Lucio, APC, Diana M. Khoury -- dkhoury@ckslaw.com -- Cohelan
Khoury & Singer, Isam C. Khoury -- ikhoury@ckslaw.com -- Cohelan
Khoury & Singer & Michael D. Singer -- msinger@ckslaw.com --
Cohelan, Khoury & Singer.

Wyndham Resort Development Corporation, an Oregon Corporation,
Wyndham Vacation Ownership, Inc., a Delaware Corporation &
Wyndham Worldwide Operations, Inc., Defendants, represented by
Sabrina Layne Shadi -- sshadi@bakerlaw.com -- Baker & Hostetler
LLP & Shareef Farag -- sfarag@bakerlaw.com -- Baker & Hosteler,
LLP.


XTO ENERGY: "McCollum" Action Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay
-----------------------------------------------------------
Gary McCollum, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. XTO Energy, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 18-
cv-00080, (W.D. Okla., January 25, 2018), seeks unpaid overtime
pay, liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs for
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

XTO is a natural gas and oil producer operating throughout the
United States and Western Canada where McCollum worked as a
Drilling Consultant/Foreman from approximately 2011 through May
2015. McCollum did not receive overtime compensation at the
required rate of time-and-one-half for all hours worked over
forty (40) each workweek, says the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Noble K. McIntyre, Esq.
      MCINTYRE LAW PC
      8601 S. Western Avenue
      Oklahoma City, OK 73139
      Telephone: (405) 917-5250
      Facsimile: (405) 917-5405
      Email: noble@mcintyrelaw.com

             - and -

      Clif Alexander, Esq.
      Lauren Braddy, Esq.
      ANDERSON2X, PLLC
      819 N. Upper Broadway
      Corpus Christi, TX 78401
      Telephone: (361) 452-1279
      Facsimile: (361) 452-1284
      Email: clif@a2xlaw.com


XUNLEI LIMITED: Issued False Info on OneCoin ICO, "Li" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
PENG LI, 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-00646 (S.D.N.Y., January 24, 2018), alleges
that throughout the proposed class period, the Defendants made
materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operational and compliance policies.

Specifically, the Plaintiff argues, the Defendants failed to
disclose that: (i) Xunlei had engaged into an unlawful financial
activity; (ii) OneCoin was a form of disguised initial coin
offering ("ICO"); (iii) Xunlei was engaged into the promotion of
an Initial Miner Offering ("IMO"); and (iv) as a result of the
foregoing, Defendants' statements about Xunlei's business,
operations, and prospects, were false and misleading and/or
lacked a reasonable basis.

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.  The
Company's main product is OneCloud, a network linked storage
device allowing multiple users to share online storage remotely
and a "mining machine" for users to share their idle bandwidth
with Xunlei's content delivery networks.  Founded in 2003, the
Company is incorporated in the Cayman Islands and is
headquartered in Shenzhen, the People's Republic of China.  The
Individual Defendants are directors and officers of the
Company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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




                            *********


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  * * *