CAR_Public/180223.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


            Friday, February 23, 2018, Vol. 20, No. 40



                            Headlines


ABACUS INTERNATIONAL: Faces "Duncan" Suit in E.D. New York
ABC FINANCIAL: "Coulter" Suit Seeks Moved to E.D. Pennsylvania
ADVANCE AUTO: Brower Piven Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
ALLIANCEONE RECEIVABLES: Faces "Early-Riley" Suit in S.D. Ca.
AMALGAMATED BANK: Faces "Duncan" Suit in E.D. of New York

AMERICAN WEB: Faces "Hengle" Suit in E.D. Virginia
AMERICOLOR LLC: "Woldman" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages, OT under FLSA
AMY SCHERBER INC: Faces "Conner" Suit in S.D. New York
APPLE INC: Lankford, et al. Sue over iOS 11 Software Updates
APPLIED MACHINERY: "Remond" Suit Seeks overtime pay under FLSA

AQUENT INC: "Segal" Suit Moved to Southern Dist. of California
ARIZONA BOARD: Sued in Arizona Over Alleged Gender Discrimination
ARRO CORPORATION: Bolds Alleges Misuse of Biometric Information
AT&T MOBILITY: Day Appeals N.D. Ga. Ruling to Eleventh Circuit
BAIO ENTERPRISES: "Hunter" Suit Seeks Minimum Wage under FLSA

BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA: Richards & Belardo Sue over Hurricane Costs
BARNSCO INC: "Nichols" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages under FLSA
BELLICUM PHARMA: Brower Piven Files Securities Class Action Suit
BEST & CO: Faces "Carranza" Class Suit in New York
BILLIONAIRE BOYS: Faces "Lopez" Suit in S.D. New York

BITCONNECT: Stull, Stull Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
BRAVURA INFORMATION: "Miller" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages under FLSA
CANADA GOOSE: Faces "Crosson" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
CASCADIAN THERAPEUTICS: Jaso Balks at Seattle Genetics Merger
CHERNE CONTRACTING: Parker Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code

CLIENT SERVICES: Faces "Alvarez" Class Suit Over Automated Calls
COLUMBIA GOURMET: Faces "Cortes" Suit in S.D. of New York
CREDIT SUISSE: Former Broker Files Class-Action
CRST INTERNATIONAL: "Perez" Suit Transferred to N.D. Iowa
DALEY'S MEDICAL: Ramsey Sues over Misuse of Biometric Data

DEALS ON BROADWAY: Doesn't Pay Staff Overtime, Monica Claims
DIVINE ANJU: "Labata" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Law
DONALD J. TRUMP: Kersey Appeals D. Mass. Ruling to First Circuit
EQUINOX HOLDINGS: "Rosales" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA
FARMERS GROUP: Fails to Pay Wages, Pham Says

FEDEX GROUND: "Anderson" Suit Moved to N.D. California
FIRST BANCTRUST: Rigrodsky & Long Files Securities Class Suit
FITBIT INC: Pomerantz, Glancy Prongay Inks $33MM Settlement
FLEXICORPS INC: Thome Sues over Misuse of Biometric Data
FUYAO GLASS: Judge Gives Workers Class-Action Status

G.E.C. RESTAURANT: Faces "Conner" Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
GC SERVICES: Faces "Savage" Suit in New York Supreme Court
GC SERVICES: "Reyes" Suit Seek Damages for Conn. Consumers
GCB SERVICES: "Wren" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages under FLSA
GENERAL MOTORS: "Won" Suit Moved to Eastern District of Michigan

GENERAL MOTORS: Jenkins, et al. Sue over AC System Defect
GLOBAL EAGLE: M&M Hart Trust Appeals Decision to Ninth Circuit
GOOGLE INC: Class-Action Lawsuit Over Pixel Mic Drops
GRAND CAMPUS: Weiss Sues over Spam Advertisements
HEALTH INSURANCE: Accused by "Hicks" Class Suit of Violating TCPA

HERITAGE HOME: Faces "Kiler" Suit in Eastern District New York
INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL BANK: Faces "Duncan" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
INTEL CORPORATION: Faces "Ali" Suit Over Misleading Fin'l Reports
JAKE'S FRANCHISING: Faces "Crosson" Suit in E.D. New York
JAMES PERSE: Fails to Pay OT for All Hours Worked, Diaz Says

JAMES PERSE: "Marett" Suit Voluntarily Dismissed
JEFFERSON CAPITAL: Faces "Jones" Suit in N.D. California
JING WAH CHINESE RESTAURANT: Faces "Lin" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
JULLIARD SCHOOL: Faces "Bishop" Suit in S.D. New York
JUNO THERAPEUTICS: Sembhi Balks at Celgene Merger Deal

K&D HOME: Fails to Pay Minimum Wage and Overtime, "Kidd" Alleges
KADLEC REGIONAL: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Grego" Class Suit
LAW OFFICE OF PERRI: Faces "Maximov" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
MATTY & MERK: Faces "Prazdnik" Suit in E.D. of Pennsylvania
MDA CITY: Hamilton, et al. Sue over Deceptive Rental Terms

MDL 2741: "Joffe" Class Suit Transferred to N.D. Calif.
MDL 2741: "Mayo" Class Suit Transferred to N.D. Calif.
MDL 2741: "Nahler" Class Suit Transferred to N.D. Calif.
MDL 2741: "Ragland" Class Suit Transferred to N.D. Calif.
MDL 2741: "Beams" Suit Transferred to N.D. Calif.

METLIFE INC: Brower Piven Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
MICHIGAN, USA: 6th Cir. Appeal Filed in Fowler v. State Secretary
MUTUAL OF OMAHA: Lechner Files ERISA Class Suit in Nebraska
NATIONWIDE MUTUAL: Eleventh Cir. Appeal Filed in "Majesko" Suit
NEW ALBERTSON'S: Bruhn Sues over Collection of Biometric Data

NORMAN NOBLE: "Hill" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA
NORTHFIELD BANK: Faces "Duncan" Suit in E.D. California
OBALON THERAPEUTICS: Hustig Sues over Securities Law Violations
OSI SYSTEMS: Bragar Eagel Files Securities Class Action
PENTAGON FEDERAL: Neal Files Suit Over Property Damage

PENTAGON FEDERAL: Neal Files Suit Under Truth in Lending Act
PERFECT PASTA: "McConnell" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
PHILADELPHIA, PA: Third Circuit Appeal Filed in "J. C." Suit
PHILLIPS & COHEN: Steffek Sues over Debt Collection Practices
PHILLIPS & COHEN: Faces "Dennis" Suit in N.D. Georgia

PHILIPS BRYANT PARK: Faces "Fischler" Suit in S.D. New York
POINTER TELOCATION: Applicant Seeks Withdrawal of Class Claim
PURDUE PHARMA: New Castle City Sues over Prescription Opioids
RED LOBSTER: "Demarest" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Law
RISTORANTE NUMERO: Fails to Pay Florida's Mandated Minimum Wages

SAN JOSE: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Hernandez" Action Claims
SANTA MONICA AMUSEMENTS: White Seeks OT & Minimum Wages
SEARS HOLDINGS: Smith & Alberton Sue over Defective Dryer Covers
SEATTLE, WA: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Hooper" Class Suit
SELIP & STYLIANOU: Faces "Natela" Suit in District of New Jersey

SHERWIN-WILLIAMS: Elastomeric Coating Ads Deceptive, Sluder Says
SOUTHCROSS ENERGY: Sued in N.D. Tex. Over American Merger Plan
SPARK OF HOPE: "Gayle" Suit Moved to Southern District of Florida
SUNNY JEWANEE: "Qureshi" Suit Seeks Overtime Wages under FLSA
SUPER MICRO: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Securities Class Action

SUPER MICRO: Saxena White Files Securities Class Action
SUPER MICRO: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
TJD TRANSPORTATION: "Gaye" Suit Seeks to Recoup Unpaid Back Wages
TOLL GLOBAL: Marquez Seeks Minimum Wage, OT under Labor Code
TOWN SPORTS: Faces "Kolomiichuk" Suit in S.D. New York

TRIANGLE CAPITAL: Transferred "Dagher" Class Suit to E.D.N.C.
TWIN KITTY: "Saavedra" Suit Seeks Unpaid Minimum & OT under FLSA
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Meyer Appeals Order Compelling Arbitration
UNITED PARCEL: Faces "Castro" Suit in S.D. New York
UNIVERSAL HANDICRAFT: Transferred "Mollicone" Suit to S.D. Fla.

UPA LLC: Carpenter Wants Rent Payments Returned
VERIPRO SOLUTIONS: Faces "Doest" Suit in Northern District Texas
VICE MEDIA: "Rose" Suit Seeks Monetary Damages under FLSA
VODAFONE GROUP: Korry Sues over Drop in ADR Price
WELLS FARGO: Purple Mountain Trust Sues over Share Price Drop

WILLIAMS SONOMA: Fails to Pay All Overtime Wages, Arellano Says
ZOCO PRODUCTIONS: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Burbon Alleges


                         Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Denial of Claims vs. Wetzel in "Brown" Affirmed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Budd Co. Can't Add Expert Witness in "Little"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Can Appeal Ruling in "Terwilliger"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rohr Witness to be Deposed After Discovery
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Expert Witness Depositions Stipulations Entered






                            *********


ABACUS INTERNATIONAL: Faces "Duncan" Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Abacus
International Capital Corp. The case is styled as Eugene Duncan,
on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff
v. Abacus International Capital Corp. d/b/a Abacus Federal
Savings Bank, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-00961 (E.D. N.Y.,
February 13, 2018).

Abacus International Capital Corp. is a bank in the United States
founded in December 1984 by a group of business leaders from the
Chinese American community in New York City.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ABC FINANCIAL: "Coulter" Suit Seeks Moved to E.D. Pennsylvania
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled RAMSEY COULTER and EMILY COULTER,
ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, the
Plaintiffs, v. ABC FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC., the Defendant, Case
No. CI-18-00252, was removed from the Court of Common Pleas of
Lancaster County, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania (Allentown) of on Feb. 14, 2018. The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:18-cv-00650-LS to the
proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Chief Judge Lawrence
F. Stengel.

ABC Financial provides health club software and billing services
to the fitness industry primarily in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Nicholas J. Linker, Esq.
     ZEMEL LAW LLC
     78 John Miller Way, Suite 430
     Kearny, NJ 07032
     Telephone: (862) 2273106
     E-mail: nl@zemellawllc.com

Attorneys for Defendant:

     Carl Engel, Esq.
     COHEN SEGLIALS PALLAS REENHALL & FURMAN PC
     30 South 17th Street, 19th Fl
     Philadelphia, PA 19103
     Telephone: (215) 564 1700
     E-mail: cengel@cohenseglias.com


ADVANCE AUTO: Brower Piven Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The securities litigation law firm of Brower Piven, A
Professional Corporation, announces that a class action lawsuit
has been commenced in the United States District Court for the
District of Delaware on behalf of purchasers of Advance Auto
Parts, Inc. securities during the period between November 14,
2016 through August 15, 2017, inclusive.  Investors who wish to
become proactively involved in the litigation have until April 9,
2018 to seek appointment as lead plaintiff.

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

The complaint accuses the defendants of violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by virtue of the defendants'
failure to disclose during the Class Period that integration
issues surrounding Advance Auto's Carquest acquisition resulted
in systemic inefficiencies and cannibalization of sales and
increased competition was negatively impacting sales.

According to the complaint, following a May 24, 2017 report of
disappointing first quarter fiscal 2017 financial and operational
results, including a quarterly sales decrease of 3.0% and
quarterly decrease in gross profit, and an August 15, 2017 report
of disappointing second quarter fiscal 2017 financial and
operational results and lowering of its guidance, the value of
Advance Auto shares declined significantly.

If you have suffered a loss in excess of $100,000 from investment
in Advance Auto Parts securities purchased on or after November
14, 2016 and held through the revelation of negative information
during and/or at the end of the Class Period and would like to
learn more about this lawsuit and your ability to participate as
a lead plaintiff, without cost or obligation to you, please
contact Brower Piven either by email at hoffman@browerpiven.com
or by telephone at (410) 415-6616.

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

         Charles J. Piven, Esq.
         Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation
         1925 Old Valley Road
         Stevenson, Maryland 21153
         Telephone: 410-415-6616
         Email: hoffman@browerpiven.com


ALLIANCEONE RECEIVABLES: Faces "Early-Riley" Suit in S.D. Ca.
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against AllianceOne
Receivables Management, Inc. The case is styled as D'Anthony
Early-Riley, on behalf of himself, and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AllianceOne Receivables Management, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-00345-DMS-AGS (S.D. Cal., February
13, 2018).

AllianceOne Receivables Management, Inc. operates as a debt
collection agency in the United States. It offers online payment
services. It serves financial services institutions, public
utilities, governmental entities, telecommunications carriers,
retailers, and healthcare providers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Ronald Marron, Esq.
   Law Office of Ronald Marron
   651 Arroyo Drive
   San Diego, CA 92103
   Tel: (619) 696-9006
   Fax: (619) 564-6665
   Email: ron@consumersadvocates.com


AMALGAMATED BANK: Faces "Duncan" Suit in E.D. of New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Amalgamated Bank.
The case is styled as Eugene Duncan, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Amalgamated Bank,
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-00962 (E.D. N.Y., February 13, 2018).

Amalgamated Bank provides personal and commercial banking
products and services to working families, unions, commercial
real estate industries, healthcare markets, institutional
investors, law firms, non-profits, and political organizations in
the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


AMERICAN WEB: Faces "Hengle" Suit in E.D. Virginia
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against American Web Loan,
Inc. The case is styled as George Hengle and Lula Williams, on
behalf of themselves and all individuals similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. Mark Curry, American Web Loan, Inc., AWL, Inc., Red
Stone, Medley Opportunity Fund II LP and Medley Capital
Corporation, Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-00100-REP (E.D. Va.,
February 13, 2018).

AWL is an online direct short-term loan lender.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

   Kristi Cahoon Kelly, Esq.
   Kelly & Crandall PLC
   3925 Chain Bridge Rd, Suite 202
   Fairfax, VA 22030
   Tel: (703) 424-7570
   Fax: (703) 591-9285
   Email: kkelly@kellyandcrandall.com

      - and -

   Andrew Joseph Guzzo, Esq.
   Kelly & Crandall PLC
   3925 Chain Bridge Rd, Suite 202
   Fairfax, VA 22030
   Tel: (703) 424-7576
   Fax: (703) 591-0167
   Email: aguzzo@kellyandcrandall.com

      - and -

   Casey Shannon Nash, Esq.
   Kelly & Crandall PLC
   3925 Chain Bridge Rd, Suite 202
   Fairfax, VA 22030
   Tel: (703) 640-3334
   Fax: (703) 591-0167
   Email: casey@kellyandcrandall.com

      - and -

   James Wilson Speer, Esq.
   Virginia Proverty Law Center
   919 E Main Street, Suite 610
   Richmond, VA 23219
   Tel: (804) 782-9430
   Fax: (804) 649-0974
   Email: jay@vplc.org


AMERICOLOR LLC: "Woldman" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages, OT under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
NEIL WOLDMAN, individually and on behalf of all similarly-
situated persons, the Plaintiffs, v. AMERICOLOR, LLC and PAUL
HERSCHKOWITZ, MATTHEW HERSCHKOWITZ, and KORY HERSCHKOWITZ,
individually, the Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-00151 (M.D. Tenn.,
Feb. 14, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid wages and overtime
compensation, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, Defendants committed violations of
the FLSA by requiring and/or suffering or permitting their non-
exempt employees, including Plaintiff, to routinely work more
than 40 hours per week without payment of overtime compensation.

Americolor is in the printers' services including folding and
collating.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Trevor Howell, Esq.
          HOWELL LAW, PLLC
          Custom House
          701 Broadway, Suite 401
          Box 1
          Nashville, TN 372203
          E-mail: Trevor@howelllawfirm.com

               - and -

          Peter F. Klett, Esq.
          R. Cameron Caldwell, Esq.
          Fifth Third Center
          424 Church Street, Suite 800
          Nashville, TN 37219-2392
          Telephone: (615) 244 6538
          E-mail: pllett@dickinson.com
                  ccaldwell@dickinson.com


AMY SCHERBER INC: Faces "Conner" Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Amy Scherber, Inc.
The case is styled as Mary Conner, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons,
Plaintiff v. Amy Scherber, Inc. doing business as: Amy's Bread,
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-01250 (S.D. N.Y., February 13, 2018).

Amy's Bread is one of NYC's best bakeries, serving handmade
artisanal breads, cookies, cakes and pastries.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Dan Shaked, Esq.
   Shaked Law Group P.C.
   44 Court Street, Suite 1217
   Brooklyn, NY 11201
   Tel: (917) 373-9128
   Fax: (718) 504-7555
   Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com


APPLE INC: Lankford, et al. Sue over iOS 11 Software Updates
------------------------------------------------------------
BRADY LANKFORD, TRENT CLINTON GO, and JODIE L. KASUN, the
Plaintiffs, v. APPLE, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 5:18-cv-
00257-HNJ (N.D. Ala., Feb. 14, 2018), seeks to recover damages
against Defendant for pushing a software "upgrade" onto existing
iPhone device owners which seriously degraded the battery life of
the device, dramatically reducing its use as a mobile device.

This class action lawsuit is brought on behalf of owners of Apple
iPhone devices who accepted Apple's invitation to download one or
more iOS 11 Software Updates onto their existing iPhone device
which had the effect of seriously degrading the battery life on
their device. As a result of the deleterious effect of the iOS 11
"upgrade," many such owners, like Plaintiff Jodie L. Kasun,
junked their existing iPhone and purchased newly available iPhone
8 or X series devices in order to have a reliable mobile device.

Others, like Plaintiffs Brady Lankford and Trent Clinton Go, are
still suffering from the inconvenience of an unreliable phone.

Apple knew or should have known of the serious negative impact
iOS 11 would have on the battery life of existing iPhones, yet
the company took no action to warn owners against downloading the
software update, nor to provide a fix such as allowing a
downgrade to purge the offending iOS 11 software from affected
devices.

Apple Inc. is an American multinational technology company
headquartered in Cupertino, California that designs, develops,
and sells consumer electronics, computer software, and online
services.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Eric J. Artrip, Esq.
          D. Anthony Mastando, Esq.
          MASTANDO & ARTRIP, LLC
          301 Washington St., Suite 302
          Huntsville, Alabama, 35801
          Telephone: (256) 532 2222
          Facsimile: (256) 513 7489
          E-mail: artrip@mastandoartrip.com
                  tony@mastandoartrip.com


APPLIED MACHINERY: "Remond" Suit Seeks overtime pay under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
RICHMOND REMOND on behalf of himself individually, and ALL OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiffs, v. APPLIED MACHINERY
CORPORATION, NABORS CORPORATE SERVICES INC., and NABORS
INDUSTRIES INC., the Defendants, Case No. 4:18-cv-00460 (S.D.
Tex., Feb. 14, 2018), seeks to recover overtime pay under Fair
Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants do not pay their
Welders overtime as required by the FLSA. Instead, Defendants pay
its Welders straight time, not time and a half for overtime hours
worked. Because these workers are employees under the FLSA,
Richmond Remond, and the other Welders are entitled to recover
unpaid overtime as well as other damages, including damages for
unlawful retaliation.

The Defendants provide drilling services for its customers
throughout the oil and gas industry.[BN]

Attorney for Plaintiffs:

          Angel S. Brown Reveles, Esq.
          BROWN REVELES LAW GROUP
          3102 Maple Ave., Suite 400
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: (469) 249 2239
          Facsimile: (469) 442 0124
          E-mail: angel@brownreveleslawgroup.com


AQUENT INC: "Segal" Suit Moved to Southern Dist. of California
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Elizabeth Segal, individually,
and on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. Aquent, Inc., a Massachusetts corporation; Scout
Exchange, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; Vitamin T,
an unknown entity; John Chuang, an individual; Doug Kaplan, an
individual; Cheryl King, an individual; and Ken Lazarus, an
individual; DOES 1 through 50 inclusive, Case No. 37-2017-
00043402-CU-OE-CTL, was removed from the Superior Court of the
State of California for the County of San Diego, to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California (San
Diego) on Feb. 13, 2018. The District Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 3:18-cv-00346-LAB-JLB to the proceeding. The case is assigned
to the Hon. Judge Larry Alan Burns.

Aquent is a staffing company specializing in placing temporary
employees in marketing and creative industries. According to
Staffing Industry Analysts, it is among the "largest
marketing/creative staffing firms in the United States".[BN]

Attorneys for Elizabeth Segal:

          Thomas D Rutledge, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF THOMAS D RUTLEDGE
          500 West Harbor Drive, Suite 1113
          San Diego, CA 92102
          Telephone: (619) 886 7224
          Facsimile: (619) 259 5455
          E-mail: thomasrutledgelaw@gmail.com

Attorneys for Aquent, Inc. and Scout Exchange, LLC:

          Elizabeth Mary Levy, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW
          2029 Century Park East, Suite 3500
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 277 7200
          Facsimile: (310) 201 5219
          E-mail: elevy@seyfarth.com


ARIZONA BOARD: Sued in Arizona Over Alleged Gender Discrimination
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Patricia MacCorquodale, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. Arizona Board of Regents, Case No. 4:18-cv-
00028-RCC (D. Ariz., January 22, 2018), seeks redress for
systematic gender discrimination in employment.

Arizona Board of Regents is a corporate entity created by state
law for the purpose of administering Arizona's public
universities. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Merle Joy Turchik, Esq.
      TURCHIK LAW FIRM, P.C.
      2205 E. Speedway Blvd.
      Tucson, AZ 85719
      Telephone: (520) 882-7070
      Facsimile: (520) 203-0175
      E-mail: merle@turchiklawfirm.com

         - and -

      David Sanford, Esq.
      SANFORD HEISLER SHARP, LLP
      1666 Connecticut Avenue NW, Suite 300
      Washington, DC 20009
      Telephone: (202) 499-5201
      Facsimile: (202) 499-5199
      E-mail: dsanford@sanfordheisler.com


ARRO CORPORATION: Bolds Alleges Misuse of Biometric Information
---------------------------------------------------------------
ALEA BOLDS, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly
situated individuals, the Plaintiff v. ARRO CORPORATION, an
Illinois corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 2018CH01811 (Ill.
Cir., Cook County, Feb. 13, 2018), seeks to stop Defendant's
unlawful collection, use, and storage of individuals' biometric
identifiers and/or biometric information in violation of the
Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act, and to obtain redress
for all persons injured by its conduct.

This case concerns the misuse of individuals' biometric
identifiers and/or biometric information by recruitment and
staffing agency which is capturing, converting, transferring,
storing and using its workers' biometric information without
lawful consent. The Defendant does this through the use of
biometric scanning devices and associated software technology
which captures a person's fingerprint information derived from
their fingerprints to authenticate the identity of such persons
in the future.

New technology has allowed consumers to pay their bills, secure
financial accounts, and purchase physical goods, all with their
biometric information, which is often a fingerprint.
Unfortunately, along with the increased utility of biometric
technology, so too has come grave privacy risks associated with
the dissemination and unregulated collection of biometric
information. Indeed, the permanent and irreplaceable nature of
one's biometrics makes the illegal collection of the biometrics a
significant public problem with far-reaching consequences,
including irreversible identify theft and potential financial
ruin.

According to the lawsuit, so substantial is the risk from the
wide collection of biometric information by private companies
that numerous state legislatures, including Alaska, Connecticut,
Montana, Michigan, Texas, New Hampshire, and Washington, have
introduced legislation to regulate the collection and use of such
sensitive information in an effort to stem the unique problems
created by the irreplaceable nature and unique identifying
characteristics of biometrics. The Illinois Legislature was the
first to pass such legislation into law. In 2007, after a company
specializing in the collection of biometric information filed for
bankruptcy protection, effectively putting consumers' biometrics
up for sale to the highest bidder, the Illinois Legislature knew
that the liquidation proceedings created a serious risk that
millions of fingerprint records would be sold as an asset or
otherwise distributed without the consent, or even knowledge, of
the persons to whom such fingerprints belonged.

Recognizing the serious, irreversible harm that can come from the
unregulated collection and use of biometric information, Illinois
passed detailed regulations addressing the collection, use,
retention, and transmission of biometric identifiers and
biometric information by private entities, such as Defendant. A
"biometric identifier" is any personal feature that is unique to
an individual and includes fingerprints, iris scans, and palm
scans, among others. "Biometric information" is any information
captured, converted, stored, or shared based on a person's
biometric identifier which is used to identify an individual.

Arro Corporation provides contract manufacturing, processing,
logistics, and warehousing services for food and food ingredient
companies.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Putative Class:

          Myles McGuire William, Esq.
          P.N. Kingston, Esq.
          Jad Sheikali, Esq.
          MCGUIRE LAW, P.C.
          55 W. Wacker Drive, 9th FL
          Chicago, IL 6060
          Telephone: (312) 893 7002
          Facsimile: (312) 275 7895
          E-mail: mmcguire@mcgpc.com
                  wkingston@mcgpc.com
                  jsheikali@mcgpc.com

AT&T MOBILITY: Day Appeals N.D. Ga. Ruling to Eleventh Circuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Roy A. Day filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit entitled Roy Day v. AT&T Mobility, LLC, et al., Case No.
1:17-cv-03294-RWS, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the case was
filed in the State Court of Fulton County, Georgia (Case No.
16EV005512), and was removed on December 1, 2016, to the District
Court.

The complaint alleges violation of federal and state antitrust
laws by coercing the Plaintiff to purchase a new mobile device to
obtain an "authentic" Microsoft Windows Phone operating system
software update, thus preventing Day from having his mobile phone
"unlocked."

The appellate case is captioned as Roy Day v. AT&T Mobility, LLC,
et al., Case No. 18-10307, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Eleventh Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that the
Appellee's Certificate of Interested Persons is due on or before
February 23, 2018, as to Appellee AT&T Inc.

Plaintiff-Appellant ROY A. DAY, on behalf of himself and as Class
Action on behalf of others similarly situated, in Tarpon Springs,
Florida, appears pro se.[BN]

Defendants-Appellees AT&T MOBILITY, LLC, AT&T INC. and RANDALL L.
STEPHENSON are represented by:

          Joshua Cole Hess, Esq.
          John P. Jett, Esq.
          KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON, LLP
          1100 Peachtree St., Suite 2800
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Telephone: (404) 815-6500
          E-mail: jjett@kilpatricktownsend.com
                  jchess@kilpatricktownsend.com


BAIO ENTERPRISES: "Hunter" Suit Seeks Minimum Wage under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
Hunter, the Plaintiff, v. Baio Enterprises, Inc., an Arizona
corporation, and Martha A. Baio, the Defendants, Case No. 2:18-
cv-00503-DGC (D. Ariz., Feb. 14, 2018), seeks to recover
equitable relief, minimum wage, overtime pay, liquidated damages,
attorneys' fees, costs, and interest under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of herself and all
similarly-situated current and former Case Aides of Defendants.
The Defendants failed to compensate Plaintiffs overtime under the
FLSA, and who were therefore not paid one-and-one-half times
their regular rates of pay for all time worked in excess of 40
hours in a given workweek.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          Clifford P. Bendau, II, Esq.
          Christopher J. Bendau, Esq.
          THE BENDAU LAW FIRM PLLC
          P.O. Box 97066
          Phoenix, AZ 85060
          Telephone: (480) 382 5176
          Facsimile: (602) 956 1409
          E-mail: cliffordbendau@bendaulaw.com
                  chris@bendaulaw.com


BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA: Richards & Belardo Sue over Hurricane Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------
DARYL RICHARDS and LORETTA S. BELARDO, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. BANK OF
NOVA SCOTIA, the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-00004 (D.V.I., Feb.
14, 2018), seeks to damages caused by Defendant violations of the
Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, breach of contract, and
breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing
arising out of Scotiabank's unlawful conduct.

This is a class action on behalf of Virgin Islands homeowners who
have mortgages with the Bank of Nova Scotia and have been denied
insurance coverage for hurricane damage under Scotiabank's force-
placed insurance policy.

Scotiabank purchases force-placed insurance for a borrower's
property when a borrower fails to maintain or renew his or her
own coverage. After Hurricanes Irma and Maria struck the Virgin
Islands in September 2017, Scotiabank's borrowers with force-
placed insurance contacted Scotiabank to make property damage
claims under the force-placed policy. Scotiabank is the named
insured under the policy, so the borrowers could not file their
claims directly with the insurer. However, Scotiabank has a
contractual duty to file claims under its force placed policy.
That is because Scotiabank's mortgage agreement obligates
Scotiabank to use the proceeds of the policy to repair the
borrower's home or to reduce the borrower's loan balance.

Scotiabank has refused to file or process the claims and
stonewalled borrowers' attempts to get information about their
claims. As a result, the borrowers cannot repair their hurricane-
damaged homes. On information and belief, Scotiabank has
implemented a company-wide policy of refusing to file force-
placed claims, either because there is no applicable insurance
coverage or because it has a reinsurance obligation or other
financial motive for preventing claims from being paid.

The Bank of Nova Scotia, operating as Scotiabank, is a Canadian
multinational bank. It is the third largest bank in Canada by
deposits and market capitalization.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Vincent Colianni, II, Esq.
          Vincent A. Colianni, Esq.
          COLIANNI & COLIANNI LLC
          1138 King Street
          Christiansted, VI 00820
          Telephone: (340) 719 1766
          Facsimile: (340) 719 1770
          E-mail: mailbox@colianni.com


BARNSCO INC: "Nichols" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------
ERNEST NICHOLS on Behalf of Himself and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. BARNSCO, INC., the
Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-00366-M (N.D. Tex., Feb. 14, 2018),
seeks to recover unpaid wages, pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

This case implicates the longstanding pay policy of Barnsco,
Inc., which fails to properly compensate its non-exempt employees
for all the work they performed. Employers are not required to
pay employees for meal periods if the meal period is completely
uninterrupted. However, Defendant automatically deducted thirty
minutes to one hour from each shift worked by its employees,
regardless of whether the employee actually took the meal break,
or attempted to take a meal break but was continuously
interrupted due to the demands of the job. As such, Defendant
denied wages for on-duty meal periods under an illegal pay policy
and practice. Under this policy, non-exempt employees were not
completely relieved of duties during meal periods and were denied
pay for those on-duty meal periods.

Defendant violated the FLSA and state law by knowingly and
willfully permitting Plaintiff and Class Members to perform work
and/or remain on duty during their meal breaks but subjecting
them to an automatic one-hour meal break deduction from their
wages. Defendant had notice that Plaintiff and Class Members
expected to be paid for their work on an hourly basis. Defendant
received the value of Plaintiff's and Class Members' work during
the automatically deducted 30-minute meal periods without
compensating them for their services. Defendant willfully,
deliberately, and voluntarily failed to pay Plaintiff and Class
Members compensation for work performed.

Defendant's conduct violates the FLSA because of the mandate that
non-exempt employees, such as Plaintiff and the Class Members, be
paid at one and one half their regular rate of pay for all hours
worked in excess of 40 within a single week. See 29 U.S.C.
section 207(a).

Defendant's conduct violates state law because Defendant and
Plaintiff had an enforceable agreement whereby Plaintiff agreed
to perform work for Defendant, and in return Defendant was to pay
Plaintiff and Class Members at an agreed hourly rate for all time
in which they performed compensable work. Even if no enforceable
agreement exists, Defendant received and accepted valuable
services from Plaintiff and Class Members with notice that they
expected to be paid hourly for these services, yet Defendant
failed to pay Plaintiff and Class Members for services performed
on Defendant's behalf during the automatically-deducted meal
periods.

Barnsco sells, and services concrete construction materials and
equipment for concrete contractors. It offers bagged materials,
bits and adapters, blades, chemicals, erosion and sediment
control, fasteners and anchors, forming material, hand tools,
heavy equipment, light equipment, and moisture protection
product.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Beatriz Sosa-Morris, Esq.
          SOSA-MORRIS NEUMAN, PLLC
          5612 Chaucer Drive
          Houston, TX 77005
          Telephone: (281) 885 8844
          Facsimile: (281) 885 8813
          E-mail: BSosaMorris@smnlawfirm.com

               - and -

          John Neuman, Esq.
          SOSA-MORRIS NEUMAN, PLLC
          5612 Chaucer Drive
          Houston, TX 77005
          Telephone: (281) 885 8630
          Facsimile: (281) 885 8813
          E-mail: JNeuman@smnlawfirm.com


BELLICUM PHARMA: Brower Piven Files Securities Class Action Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The securities litigation law firm of Brower Piven, A
Professional Corporation, disclosed that a class action lawsuit
has been commenced in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Texas on behalf of purchasers of Bellicum
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. securities during the period between May 8,
2017 and January 30, 2018, inclusive.  Investors who wish to
become proactively involved in the litigation have until April 9,
2018 to seek appointment as lead plaintiff.

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

The complaint accuses the defendants of violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by virtue of the defendants'
failure to disclose during the Class Period that a substantial
undisclosed risk of encephalopathy was associated with the
Company's lead product candidate BPX-501.

According to the complaint, following a January 30, 2018 press
release announcing that the Company had received notice from the
U.S. Food and Drug Administration that U.S. studies of BPX-501
have been placed on a clinical hold following three cases of
encephalopathy deemed as possibly related to BPX-501, the value
of Bellicum shares declined significantly.

If you have suffered a loss in excess of $100,000 from investment
in Bellicum securities purchased on or after May 8, 2017 and held
through the revelation of negative information during and/or at
the end of the Class Period and would like to learn more about
this lawsuit and your ability to participate as a lead plaintiff,
without cost or obligation to you, please contact Brower Piven
either by email at hoffman@browerpiven.com or by telephone at
(410) 415-6616.

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

         Charles J. Piven, Esq.
         Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation
         1925 Old Valley Road
         Stevenson, Maryland 21153
         Telephone: 410-415-6616
         Email: hoffman@browerpiven.com [GN]


BEST & CO: Faces "Carranza" Class Suit in New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Best & Co. Hair
Cutters Ltd., Nubest Personal Fitness Salon, Inc., and Michael
Mazzei.

The case is captioned Washington Carranza, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Best & Co. Hair
Cutters Ltd., Nubest Personal Fitness Salon, Inc., and Michael
Mazzei, Case No. 716200/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., January 23, 2018).

The Defendants own and operate a hair salon in New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

BILLIONAIRE BOYS: Faces "Lopez" Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Billionaire Boys
Club, LLC. The case is styled as Victor Lopez and on behalf of
all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Billionaire
Boys Club, LLC and Billionaire Boys Club and Ice Cream Retail
Operations, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-01216 (S.D. N.Y.,
February 12, 2018).

Billionaire Boys Club and Ice Cream is an American and Japanese
clothing retailer featuring two lines of clothing established by
Pharrell Williams and Nigo, founder of clothing label BAPE.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Bradly Gurion Marks, Esq.
   The Law Offices of Bradly G. Marks
   280 Park Avenue South
   New York, NY 10010
   Tel: (646) 770-3775
   Fax: (212) 254-4202
   Email: bmarkslaw@gmail.com


BITCONNECT: Stull, Stull Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Stull, Stull & Brody disclosed that it and Eggnatz | Pascucci
have filed a lawsuit against BitConnect, BitConnect LTD,
BitConnect International PLC and BitConnect Trading LTD
(collectively "BitConnect"), and others, alleging violations of
federal securities laws, and other violations of state law,
relating to the BitConnect lending and staking programs.

The case alleges that BitConnect held itself out as "the
cryptocurrency revolution" purported to "[b]uild trust and
reputation in [a] bitcoin and cryptocurrency ecosystem with [an
o]pen-source platform."  BitConnect stated that "Investing on
BitConnect platform . . . is a safe way to earn a high rate of
return on your investment without having to undergo a significant
amount of risk." The case further alleges that BitConnect
willfully and fraudulently failed to disclose material facts when
offering the BitConnect investments, which caused its price to
plummet drastically.

If you invested with BitConnect and you have questions about your
legal rights or interests with respect to these matters, please
contact Michael Klein, Esq. at Stull, Stull & Brody by e-mail at
BitConnect@ssbny.com, by calling toll-free 1-212-687-7230 x147,
by fax to 1-212-490-2022, or by writing to Stull, Stull & Brody,
6 East 45th Street, New York, NY 10017. You can also visit our
website at www.ssbny.com.

You may retain Stull, Stull & Brody, or other counsel of your
choice, to represent you. Stull, Stull & Brody has litigated many
class actions for violations of securities laws in federal courts
over the past 40 years and has obtained court approval of
substantial settlements on numerous occasions. Stull, Stull &
Brody maintains offices in New York and Beverly Hills. [GN]


BRAVURA INFORMATION: "Miller" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
DUSTIN MILLER, GEORGE MUNN, RAMIRO GARRIDO, and DENNIS COHEN, On
Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated, the
Plaintiffs, v. BRAVURA INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SYSTEMS, INC., and
CLAUDINE ADAMS, the Defendants, Case No. 7:18-cv-00041 (S.D.
Tex., Feb. 14, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid wages, unpaid
overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and
costs under the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs and all other
similarly situated persons are current and former Aerostat
Operators who were/are not paid full wages for all hours worked
or overtime compensation at a rate not less than 1.5 times the
regular rate at which they were/are employed for work performed
in excess of 40 hours per workweek, as required by federal law,
for the three year period immediately preceding the filing of
this action.[BN]

Attorney-In-Charge For Named Plaintiffs, Individually And On
Behalf Of All Others Similarly Situated:

          Cynthia R. Levin Moulton, Esq.
          Lance C. Arney, Esq.
          Moulton, WILSON & Arney, L.L.P.
          800 Taft Street
          Houston, TX 77019
          Telephone: (713) 353 6699
          Telecopier: (713) 353 6698
          E-mail: cmoulton@moultonwilsonarney.com
                  larney@moultonwilsonarney.com

               - and -

          Peter R. Rosenzweig, Esq.
          Kleinbard LLC
          One Liberty Place, 46th Floor
          1650 Market Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (267) 443 4120
          Facsimile: (215) 568 0140


CANADA GOOSE: Faces "Crosson" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Canada Goose USA,
Inc. The case is styled as Aretha Crosson, individually and as
the representative of a class of similarly situated persons,
Plaintiff v. Canada Goose USA, Inc. doing business as: Canada
Goose, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-00910 (E.D. N.Y., February 12,
2018).

Canadian Goose Inc. is a Canadian manufacturer of winter
clothing.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


CASCADIAN THERAPEUTICS: Jaso Balks at Seattle Genetics Merger
-------------------------------------------------------------
JEFF JASO, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. CASCADIAN THERAPEUTICS, INC.,
CHRISTOPHER S. HENNEY, ROBERT W. AZELBY, GWEN A. FYFE, STEVEN P.
JAMES, TED W. LOVE, SCOTT D. MYERS, DANIEL K. SPIEGELMAN SEATTLE
GENETICS, INC., and VALLEY ACQUISITION SUB, INC., the Defendants,
Case No. 2:18-cv-00241 (W.D. Wash., Feb. 14, 2018), seeks to
recover damages caused by Defendants violations of Sections
14(e), 14(d), and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in
connection with the Solicitation Statement.

This action stems from a proposed transaction announced on
January 31, 2018, pursuant to which Cascadian Therapeutics
Inc. will be acquired by Seattle Genetics, Inc. and Valley
Acquisition Sub, Inc.

On January 30, 2018, Cascadian's Board of Directors caused the
Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with
Seattle Genetics. Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement,
Merger Sub commenced a tender offer, scheduled to expire on March
9, 2018, and shareholders of Cascadian will receive $10.00 in
cash for each share of Cascadian common stock that they own.

On February 8, 2018, Defendants filed a Schedule 14D-9
Solicitation/Recommendation Statement with the United States
Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with the
Proposed Transaction. The Solicitation Statement omits material
information with respect to the Proposed Transaction, which
renders the Solicitation Statement false and misleading.

Cascadian Therapeutics is a biotechnology company dedicated to
the development of oncology products that can improve the lives
and outcomes of cancer patients.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Roger Townsend, Esq.
          BRESKIN JOHNSON & TOWNSEND, PLLC
          1000 Second Avenue, Suite 3670
          Seattle, WA 98104
          Telephone: (206) 652 8660
          Facsimile: (206) 652 8290
          E-mail: rtownsend@bjtlegal.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

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


CHERNE CONTRACTING: Parker Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code
--------------------------------------------------------------
EATRICE PARKER on behalf of herself, and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. CHERNE CONTRACTING CORPORATION, and
DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. RG18892816
(Cal. Super. Ct., Feb. 13, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid wages
under California Labor Code.

The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of a proposed state-
wide class of hourly non- exempt on-site employees who worked at
Cherne locations in California to challenge Defendants':

     (a) policy and practice of failing to pay any wages
         whatsoever, including the minimum wage, to employees for
         compensable travel time, including time spent traveling
         and/or waiting for and/or operating company-provided
         transportation to, from and/or within the refineries and
         other facilities;

     (b) policy and practice of violating California Labor Code
         section 510 and IWC Wage Order 16-2001 by failing to pay
         overtime wages to employees who worked more than eight
         hours in a day or 40 hours in a week;

     (c) policy and practice of violating California Labor Code
         sections 226.7 and 512, and IWC Wage Order 16-2001 by
         failing to provide meal periods to employees, including
         second meal periods to employees who worked more than
         10 hours in a day;

     (d) policy and practice of violating California Labor Code
         Sec. 226.7 and IWC Wage Order 16- 2001 by failing to
         authorize and permit third rest periods to employee who
         worked more than 10 hours in a day;

     (e) policy and practice of violating California Labor Code
         section 226 by failing to, provide complete and accurate
         itemized wage statements; and

     (f) policy and practice of violating California Labor Code
         sections 201-203 by failing to pay former employees all
         wages due and owing at the time of discharge or
         voluntary quit.

The Plaintiff is an adult who worked for Defendants as a non-
exempt hourly employee. She worked for Defendants as a driver
from approximately June 30, 2015 through February 20, 2017 at the
Tesoro refinery located in Martinez, California.

Cherne Contracting Corporation operates as a general, heavy
industrial, and mechanical contractor. It offers construction
services in equipment, civil/structural, electrical,
instrumentation, and insulation work; and mechanical
services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Eric A. Grover, Esq.
          Robert W. Spencer, Esq.
          KELLER GROVER LLP
          1965 Market Street
          San Francisco, CA 94103
          Telephone: (415) 543 1305
          Facsimile: (415) 543 7861
          E-mail: eagrover@kellergrover.com
                  rspencer@kellergrover.com

               - and -

          Scot Bernstein, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF SCOT D. BERNSTEIN
          Parkshore Drive, Suite 100
          Folsom, CA 95630
          Telephone: (916) 447 0100
          Facsimile: (916) 933 5533
          E-mail: swampadero@sbernsteinlaw.com


CLIENT SERVICES: Faces "Alvarez" Class Suit Over Automated Calls
----------------------------------------------------------------
Linda Alvarez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Client Services, Inc., Case No. 3:18-cv-00151-BEN-BLM
(S.D. Cal., January 23, 2018), seeks to stop the Defendants'
practice of using an artificial and prerecorded voice to deliver
a message without prior express consent of the called party.

Client Services, Inc. operates a business that offers mortgage
modifications and credit card rate reductions. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

        - and -

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

         - and -

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


COLUMBIA GOURMET: Faces "Cortes" Suit in S.D. of New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Columbia Gourmet
Deli Corp. The case is styled as Aurelio Cortes and Mateo de la
Cruz Casarrubias, on behalf of others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. Columbia Gourmet Deli Corp. doing business as:
Columbia Gourmet Deli, Rodolfo Ovalles and Azeez Ali, Defendants,
Case No. 1:18-cv-01263 (S.D. N.Y., February 13, 2018).

Defendants own, operate, or control a gourmet deli, located at
3905 Broadway, New York, New York 10032 under the name "Columbia
Gourmet Deli".[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Michael Antonio 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
   Email: michael@faillacelaw.com


CREDIT SUISSE: Former Broker Files Class-Action
-----------------------------------------------
Jed Horowitz, writing for Advisor Hub, reports that a former
Credit Suisse broker in San Francisco has brought a class-action
lawsuit against the bank seeking hundreds of millions of dollars
of deferred stock he claims was withheld from him and other
brokers who did not move to Wells Fargo Advisors after the Swiss
bank shuttered its U.S. broker-dealer operations.

Christopher Laver, who joined UBS Financial Services in 2015
after working for 13 years at Credit Suisse Securities (USA),
alleges that Credit Suisse deliberately arranged a recruiting
deal with Wells rather than an outright sale to avoid triggering
a change-of-control in brokers' employment agreements that would
have accelerated deferred compensation payments. Brokers who
joined Wells collected their deferred shares.

The lawsuit, filed February 7 in federal district court in San
Francisco, also alleges that many brokers turned down offers from
Wells Fargo out of concern over its ability to serve their
customers.

"Wells Fargo was incapable of and/or ill-suited to handle certain
significant portions of Credit Suisse advisers' business, and
Wells Fargo maintained a different type of client base than
Credit Suisse advisers," the lawsuit says. "At the time it
entered into the 'recruiting agreement' with Wells Fargo, Credit
Suisse knew and expected that many of the Credit Suisse financial
advisers would not and/or could not work for Wells Fargo."

The case supplements dozens of arbitration claims that former
Credit Suisse brokers have filed to collect back pay, and to
avoid repaying balances on promissory notes that the bank is
demanding.

Credit Suisse has asserted that it is entitled to keep the
deferred compensation, which the lawsuit says may be as much as
$300 million, because the brokers "resigned" rather than join
Wells Fargo.

Karina Byrne, a Credit Suisse spokeswoman, said that if they had
accepted Wells purported offers they would have received all
their deferred pay. She also contested the lawsuit's allegation
that a change of control would have triggered accelerated awards
of the deferred shares.

"Those who chose not to accept those offers had negotiated
equally or more lucrative compensation packages from competing
institutions that also covered the same contingent deferred
compensation at issue here, consistent with standard industry
practice," she wrote in an e-mail. "Simply put, the plaintiff
here is looking to be paid the same money twice."

About one-third of Credit Suisse's 336 U.S. brokers joined Wells
Fargo in late 2015 and early 2016, with another 101 joining UBS,
according to documents reviewed by AdvisorHub.  Wells Fargo
officials said during the recruiting period that it was not
interested in hiring all of the Credit Suisse brokers. (Credit
Suisse, meanwhile, has filed a raiding complaint against UBS.)

The putative class-action lawsuit was made on behalf of brokers
with unvested compensation awards who were effectively
"terminated" between Oct. 20, 2015 and March 31, 2016, because
their "private bank" went out of business, according to the
lawsuit.

Robert Nelson, Esq. a lawyer representing Laver, said the class
likely includes more than 200 people.

Byrne said Credit Suisse will "vigorously defend" itself against
the lawsuit.

Separately, dozens of Credit Suisse brokers who have joined Wells
Fargo are grousing that the bank has reneged on promises of
getting near-exclusive access to Credit Suisse retail syndicate
deals for their clients. [GN]


CRST INTERNATIONAL: "Perez" Suit Transferred to N.D. Iowa
---------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Jesus Perez, as an individual, on
behalf of himself, all others similarly situated, and the general
public, the Plaintiff, v. CRST International, Inc., an Iowan
corporation; CRST Expedited, Inc., an Iowan corporation; and
Does 1-100, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 5:17-cv-01081,
was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Iowa (Cedar Rapids) on Feb. 14, 2018. The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:18-cv-00023-LRR to the
proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Linda R Reade.

CRST International is a freight company based in Cedar Rapids,
Iowa. Founded in 1955 by Herald and Miriam Smith, it is a
privately held company with a current fleet of about 4,500 trucks
and annual revenues of $1.5 billion.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael S Morrison, Esq.
          Jessica Sun Choi, Esq.
          ALEXANDER KRAKOW AND GLICK LLP
          401 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 1000
          Santa Monica, CA 90401
          Telephone: (310) 394 0888
          Facsimile: (310) 394 0811

               - and -

          Nicolas Orihuela, Esq.
          HURWITZ ORIHUELA AND HAYES LLP
          5757 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 503
          Los Angeles, CA 90036
          Telephone: (323) 965 2103
          Facsimile: (323) 965 2146

Attorneys for Defendants:

          Megan Emslie Ross, Esq.
          Adam J Eakman, Esq.
          Charles Andrewscavage, Esq.
          Christopher Chad McNatt, Jr., Esq.
          R Jay Taylor, Jr., Esq.
          SCOPELITIS GARVIN LIGHT HANSON AND FEARY LLP
          2 North Lake Avenue Suite 560
          Pasadena, CA 91101
          Telephone: (626) 795 4700
          Facsimile: (626) 795 4790


DALEY'S MEDICAL: Ramsey Sues over Misuse of Biometric Data
----------------------------------------------------------
AQUEELA RAMSEY, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiff, v. DALEY'S MEDICAL
TRANSPORTATION, INC. d/b/a BUD'S AMBULANCE, the Defendant, Case
No. 2018-CH-01935 (Ill. Cir., Cook County, Feb. 14, 2018), seeks
to stop Defendant's unlawful collection, use, storage, and
disclosure of Plaintiffs and the proposed Class' sensitive,
private, and personal biometric data.

The Plaintiff has worked for Defendant in Illinois, including in
Cook County, Illinois. While most employers use conventional
methods for tracking time worked (such as ID badge swipes or
punch clocks), Defendant mandated and required that its employees
have their hand and/ or fingerprints scanned by a biometric
timekeeping device.

Unlike ID badges or time cards -- which can be changed or
replaced if stolen or compromised -- hand and/ or fingerprint
biometrics are unique, permanent biometric identifiers associated
with each employee. This exposes Defendant's employees to serious
and irreversible privacy risks. For example, if a biometric
database is hacked, breached, or otherwise exposed -- such as in
the recent Equifax data breach -- employees have no means by
which to prevent identity theft, unauthorized tracking, and other
improper or unlawful use of this information. As an employee of
Defendant, Plaintiff has been required to "clock in" and "clock
out" of work shifts by having her hand and/ or fingerprint
scanned by a biometric timeclock which then identified each
employee, including Plaintiff.

The Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act expressly
obligates Defendant to obtain an executed, written release from
an individual, as a condition of employment, in order to capture,
collect, and store an individual's biometric identifiers or
biometric information, especially a fingerprint, handprint, or
hand geometry scan, and biometric information derived from it.

Founded in 2001, Daley's Medical Transportation is a mid-sized
organization in the miscellaneous retail stores industry located
in Dolton, IL. It has 120 full-time employees and generates an
estimated $16.3 million in annual revenue.[BN]

Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Putative Class:

          Brandon M. Wise, Esq.
          Paul A. Lesko, Esq.
          PEIFFER ROSCA WOLF ABDULLAH CARR & KANE, APLC
          818 Lafayette Ave., Floor 2 St.
          Louis, MO 63104
          Telephone: 314 833 4825
          E-mail: bwise@prwlegal.com
                  plesko@gmail.com


DEALS ON BROADWAY: Doesn't Pay Staff Overtime, Monica Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
ANTONINA "MONICA" MONICA, Individually And On Behalf Of All Other
Employees Similarly Situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Deals On
Broadway Corp. d/b/a Deals On Broadway, and Jalal Saab, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-01342 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 14, 2018),
seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime wages,
liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest; and
attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act and
the New York Labor Law.

The Defendants have willfully and intentionally committed
widespread violations of the FLSA and NYLL by engaging in a
pattern and practice of failing to pay their employees, including
Plaintiff, overtime compensation for all hours worked over 40
each workweek.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

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


DIVINE ANJU: "Labata" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Law
-------------------------------------------------------------
AMY LABATA, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. DIVINE ANJU, LLC and DIVINE
INVESTORS LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 151295/2018 (N.Y. Sup.
Ct., Feb. 13, 2018), seeks to recover wages and benefits pursuant
to New York Labor Law.

This action is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and a putative
class of individuals who are presently or were formerly employed
at KFC restaurants in New York by Divine Anju, LLC and Divine
Investors, LLC from February 2012 to the present. The Plaintiff's
duties included but were not limited to: operating the cash
register, stocking shelves, assisting customers, and sweeping the
floor.

According to the complaint, beginning in approximately February
2012 and, upon information and belief, continuing through the
present, Defendants required Plaintiffs to wear uniforms but did
not offer to launder them or to provide the uniform maintenance
pay.

The Plaintiff normally worked more than 20 and sometimes more
than 30 hours per week. As a condition of employment, Plaintiff
was required to wear a uniform. The Plaintiff was provided with
one red uniform with KFC's logo on it. Defendants did not launder
or otherwise maintain the uniforms of Plaintiff and members of
the putative class. Defendants also did not provide Plaintiff
with the weekly uniform maintenance stipend set forth in 12 NYCRR
146-1.7. There are more than eleven employees that are employed
by Defendants that are required to wear uniforms, like
Plaintiff.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff and the Putative Class

          Lloyd R. Ambinder, Esq.
          VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP
          Jack L. Newhouse
          40 Broad Street, 7th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 943 9080
          E-mail: lambinder@vandallp.com


DONALD J. TRUMP: Kersey Appeals D. Mass. Ruling to First Circuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff George E. Kersey filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in his lawsuit titled Kersey v. Trump, Case No. 1:17-cv-
11635-ADB, in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts, Boston.

The appellate case is captioned as Kersey v. Trump, Case No. 18-
1056, in the United States Court of Appeals for the First
Circuit.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Jan. 25, 2018, the
District Court dismissed the lawsuit for lack of standing.

Mr. Kersey filed a self-prepared, class action complaint naming
Donald J. Trump, individually, as the sole defendant.  With the
complaint, Kersey also filed an Application to Proceed in
District Court without Prepaying Fees or Costs.

Mr. Kersey alleges that he participated in the Second World War
against Nazism and now files the action "to defend the
Constitution and to remove the Defendant from office."  He seeks
to bring the suit as a class action on behalf of more than 100
proposed class members pursuant to the Tenth Amendment of the
United States Constitution.

Plaintiff-Appellant GEORGE E. KERSEY, Individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, appears pro se.[BN]


EQUINOX HOLDINGS: "Rosales" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
STEPHANIE ROSALES, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. EQUINOX HOLDINGS, INC., the
Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-00356-B (N.D. Tex., Feb. 13, 2018),
seeks to recover overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act
of 1938.

The case is a collective action brought pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act of 1938, by Plaintiff, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated, who were formerly or are
currently employed by Equinox as personal trainers. The Plaintiff
Rosales is one of a number of personal trainers who are or were
formerly employed by Defendant and whose compensation was
improper under the FLSA because Defendant failed and refused to
compensate Plaintiffs for all hours worked and for their overtime
hours worked. As their employer, the Defendant required and/or
permitted Plaintiff and the other personal trainers to routinely
work in excess of 40 hours per week, many of which were off-the-
clock hours, but failed or refused to compensate them for all
hours worked and for their overtime hours worked in accordance
with the FLSA. Specifically, Equinox misclassifies personal
trainers as exempt from the FLSA, and fails to pay them one and
one-half times their regular rate for all hours worked over forty
in a workweek. Additionally, Equinox requires personal trainers
to work off-the-clock in addition to their clock time hours, and
fails to pay them for all hours worked, resulting in a failure to
pay the personal trainers at a rate of at least the minimum wage
for all hours worked. Such conduct by Equinox is a violation of
the FLSA which requires non-exempt employees to be compensated at
a rate of at least the federal minimum wage for all hours worked
and for their overtime work at a rate of at least one and one-
half times their regular hourly rate.

Because the Plaintiff and similarly situated employees are non-
exempt covered employees pursuant to the FLSA and have not been
paid by Equinox pursuant to the wage and hour provisions of the
FLSA, Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of herself and all
other similarly situated employees, seeking legal and equitable
relief provided under the FLSA.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Corinna Chandler, Esq.
          CHANDLER LAW, P.C.
          3419 Westminster Ave. No 343G
          Dallas, TX 75205
          Telephone: (972) 342 8793
          Facsimile: (972) 692 5220
          E-mail: chandler@chandlerlawpc.com


FARMERS GROUP: Fails to Pay Wages, Pham Says
--------------------------------------------
LANI PHAM, an individual; on behalf of herself, all others
similarly situated, and the general public, the Plaintiff, v.
FARMERS GROUP, INC., FARMERS INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., FARMERS
INSURANCE EXCHANGE, FARMERS SPECIALITY INSURANCE COMPANY, INC,
and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No.
BC693777 (Cal. Super. Ct., Feb. 14, 2018), seeks to recover
unpaid wages under the California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff often worked more than
8 hours in a day and/or 40 hours in a week. The Plaintiff was not
paid for all hours worked. The Plaintiff was not also paid
overtime premium pay due for the overtime hours worked. The
Defendants did not provide rest periods. Defendants did not also
provide meal periods. The Defendants knowingly failed to pay all
wages due to Plaintiff and those similarly situated.

Farmers Insurance Group is an American insurer group of
automobiles, homes and small businesses and also provides other
insurance and financial services products. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey M. Schwartz, Esq.
          SCHWARTZ LAW, P.C. FILED
          629 Camino de los Mares, Suite 203
          San Clemente, CA 92673
          Telephone: (888) 730 0529
          E-mail: jeff@JeffSchwartzLaw.com

               - and -

          J.D. Henderson, Esq.
          Law Offices of J.D. Henderson
          215 North Marengo Avenue, Suite 322
          Pasadena, CA 91101
          Telephone: (626) 529 5891
          E-mail: JDLAW@charter.net


FEDEX GROUND: "Anderson" Suit Moved to N.D. California
------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Robert Anderson and Marques T.
Sutton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Fedex Ground Package System Inc., a
Delaware Corporation and Does 1-10, inclusive, the Defendants,
Case No. BC677625, was removed from the Los Angeles Superior
Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California (Oakland) on Feb. 13, 2018. The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 4:18-cv-00907-DMR to the proceeding. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu.

FedEx Ground Package System, Inc. provides business-to-business
package shipping and ground delivery services. The company
provides day-certain service to every business address in the
United States and Canada, as well as residential delivery to
through its FedEx Home Delivery service.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Scott Bradley Cooper, Esq.
          THE COOPER LAW FIRM, P.C.
          4000 Barranca Ave., Suite 250
          Irvine, CA 92604
          Telephone; (949) 724 9200
          Facsimile: (949) 724 9255
          E-mail: scott@cooper-firm.com

               - and -

          Alreen Haeggquist, Esq.
          Amber L. Eck, Esq.
          Kathleen Ann Herkenhoff, Esq.
          Samantha A Smith, Esq.
          HAEGGQUIST & ECK, LLP
          225 Broadway, Suite 2050
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 342 8000
          Facsimile: (619) 342 7878
          E-mail: alreenh@haelaw.com
                  ambere@haelaw.com
                  kathleenh@haelaw.com
                  samanthas@haelaw.com

Attorneys for Defendant:

          Alexander Miller Chemers, Esq.
          Betsy Johnson, Esq.
          Evan Reed Moses, Esq.
          OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
          400 South Hope Street, Suite 1200
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 239 9800
          Facsimile: (213) 239 9045
          E-mail: alexander.chemers@ogletreedeakins.com
                  betsy.johnson@ogletreedeakins.com
                  evan.moses@ogletreedeakins.com


FIRST BANCTRUST: Rigrodsky & Long Files Securities Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., has filed a class action complaint in the
United States District Court for the District of Delaware on
behalf of holders of First BancTrust Corporation common stock in
connection with the proposed acquisition of First Bank by First
Mid-Illinois Bancshares, Inc. and its affiliate ("First Mid")
announced on December 11, 2017 (the "Complaint"). The Complaint,
which alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
against First Bank, its Board of Directors (the "Board"), and
First Mid, is captioned Parshall v. First BancTrust Corporation,
Case No. 1:18-cv-00218 (D. Del.).

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions
concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please
contact plaintiff's counsel, Seth D. Rigrodsky or Gina M. Serra
at Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., 300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220,
Wilmington, DE 19801, by telephone at (888) 969-4242, by e-mail
at info@rl-legal.com, or at http://rigrodskylong.com/contact-us/.

On December 11, 2017, First Bank entered into an agreement and
plan of merger (the "Merger Agreement") with First Mid. Pursuant
to the terms of the Merger Agreement, shareholders of First Bank
will receive 0.80 shares of First Mid common stock and $5.00 in
cash for each share of First Bank they own (the "Proposed
Transaction").

Among other things, the Complaint alleges that, in an attempt to
secure shareholder support for the Proposed Transaction,
defendants issued materially incomplete disclosures in a Form S-4
Registration Statement (the "Registration Statement") filed with
the United States Securities and Exchange Commission. The
Complaint alleges that the Registration Statement omits material
information with respect to, among other things, First Bank's and
First Mid's financial projections, the analyses performed by
First Bank's financial advisor, and potential conflicts of
interest. The Complaint seeks injunctive and equitable relief and
damages on behalf of holders of First Bank common stock.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court
no later than April 9, 2018. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. Any member of the proposed class may move the Court
to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or
may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member.

Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., with offices in Wilmington, Delaware,
Garden City, New York, and San Francisco, California, has
recovered hundreds of millions of dollars on behalf of investors
and achieved substantial corporate governance reforms in numerous
cases nationwide, including federal securities fraud actions,
shareholder class actions, and shareholder derivative actions.

         Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq.
         Gina M. Serra, Esq.
         Rigrodsky & Long, P.A.
         Tel: 888-969-4242
                  302-295-5310
         Fax: 302-654-7530
         E-mail: sdr@rl-legal.com
                 gms@rl-legal.com [GN]


FITBIT INC: Pomerantz, Glancy Prongay Inks $33MM Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP and Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP announce that the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California has approved the following announcement of a proposed
class action settlement that would benefit purchasers of Fitbit,
Inc. securities.

       Summary Notice Of Proposed Class-Action Settlement

To: All Persons Who Purchased Fitbit, Inc. securities between
June 18, 2015 and May 19, 2016, inclusive.

A hearing will be held on April 20, 2018 at 10:00 a.m. before the
Honorable Susan Illston at the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California, 450 Golden Gate Avenue,
Courtroom 1, San Francisco, CA 94102, to determine: (1) whether
the proposed Settlement for $33 million in cash should be
approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (2)
whether the proposed plan to distribute the settlement proceeds
is fair and reasonable; (3) whether the application for an award
of attorneys' fees of up to $9,240,000 and reimbursement of
expenses of not more than $250,000 and an payment of no more than
$5,000 to each of the five Class Representatives for their
reasonable costs and expenses should be approved; and (4) whether
the Action should be dismissed with prejudice against the
Defendants, as set forth in the Stipulation and Agreement of
Settlement (the "Stipulation") filed with the Court.

If you have not received the detailed Notice of Proposed Class-
Action Settlement (the "Notice") and Proof of Claim and Release
Form, you may obtain them free of charge at
www.FitBitSecuritiesLitigation.com or by contacting the
Settlement Administrator at Fitbit Securities Litigation, c/o
Settlement Administrator, 1801 Market Street, Suite 660,
Philadelphia, PA 19103.

If you purchased Fitbit Inc. ("Fitbit") securities between June
18, 2015 and May 19, 2016, inclusive, your rights may be affected
by this Settlement. As further described in the Notice, you will
be bound by any Judgment entered in the Action, whether or not
you make a claim, unless you request exclusion from the
Settlement Class, in the manner set forth in the Notice, no later
than April 10, 2018.

If you are a member of the Settlement Class and wish to share in
the Settlement proceeds, you must submit a Proof of Claim
postmarked no later than April 15, 2018 establishing that you are
entitled to recovery. Any objections to the Settlement, Plan of
Allocation, or application for attorneys' fees and expenses must
be made in writing and must be provided to the Court and parties,
in the manner set forth in the Notice, no later than April 3,
2018.

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING
THIS NOTICE. Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice, may
be made to Class Counsel at the addresses below.

     Brian P. Murray, Esq.
     Garth A. Spencer, Esq.
     GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
     230 Park Avenue, Suite 530
     New York, NY 10169
     Telephone: (212) 682-5340
     E-mail: bmurray@glancylaw.com
             gspencer@glancylaw.com

        -- and --

     Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
     Murielle Steven Walsh, Esq.
     POMERANTZ LLP
     600 Third Avenue, Floor 20
     New York, NY 10016
     Telephone: (212) 661-1100

Dated: January 19, 2018

BY ORDER OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN
DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA [GN]


FLEXICORPS INC: Thome Sues over Misuse of Biometric Data
--------------------------------------------------------
TIMOTHY THOME, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, the Plaintiff, v. FLEXICORPS, INC., the Defendant, Case
No. 2018-CH-01751 (Ill. Cir., Cook County, Feb. 13, 2018), seeks
to stop Defendant's unlawful collection, use, storage, and
disclosure of Plaintiffs and proposed Class' sensitive, private,
and personal biometric data.

The Plaintiff has worked for Defendant in Illinois. While most
employers use conventional methods for tracking time worked (such
as ID badge swipes or punch clocks), Defendant mandated and
required that its employees have their fingerprints scanned by a
biometric timekeeping device. Unlike ID badges or time cards --
which can be changed or replaced if stolen or compromised --
fingerprints biometrics are unique, permanent biometric
identifiers associated with each employee. This exposes
Defendant's employees to serious and irreversible privacy risks.
For example, if a biometric database is hacked, breached, or
otherwise exposed -- such as in the recent Equifax data breach --
employees have no means by which to prevent identity theft,
unauthorized tracking, and other improper or unlawful use of this
information.

As an employee of Defendant, Plaintiff has been required to
"clock in" and "clock out" of work shifts by having his
fingerprint scanned by a biometric timeclock which then
identified each employee, including Plaintiff. The Illinois
Biometric Information Privacy Act expressly obligates Defendant
to obtain an executed, written release from an individual, as a
condition of employment, in order to capture, collect, and store
an individual's biometric identifiers or biometric information,
especially a fingerprint, handprint, or hand geometry scan, and
biometric information derived from it.

The Defendants lacked retention schedules and guidelines for
permanently destroying Plaintiffs and the Class' biometric data
and has not destroyed Plaintiffs or the Class' biometric data as
required by BIPA. Plaintiff and the putative Class are aggrieved
by Defendant's failure to destroy their biometric data when the
initial purpose for collecting or obtaining such data has been
satisfied or within three years of employees' last interactions
with the company. Plaintiff and the putative Class have suffered
an injury in fact based on Defendant's violations of their legal
rights.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brandon M. Wise, Esq.
          Paul A. Lesko, Esq.
          PEIFFER RoscO WOLF ABDULLAH CARR & KANE, APLC
          818 Lafayette Ave., Floor 2
          St. Louis, MO 63104
          Telephone: (314) 833 4825
          E-mail: bwise@prwlqral.com
                  plesko@gmail.com


FUYAO GLASS: Judge Gives Workers Class-Action Status
----------------------------------------------------
Thomas Gnau, writing for Dayton Daily News, reports that a
federal judge has granted class-action status to Fuyao Glass
America workers and former workers in a lawsuit against the
company.

The class-action status will include current and former Fuyao
production workers in the last three years, and attorneys for
those suing Fuyao now have permission to contact those people.

The workers involved in the lawsuit so far -- about 13 -- have
alleged that the Moraine manufacturer of auto safety glass has
not properly paid workers for overtime work or did not completely
relieve them of duties for unpaid meal breaks and other times

The company has denied the allegations and is fighting the
lawsuit, which was first filed in Dayton's federal court last
June by a former Fuyao employee.

"The allegations in the complaint and the plaintiffs'
declarations agree that defendant's (Fuyao's) staff share similar
primary job duties and responsibilities and are alleged to be
victims of the same policy, decision and practice to deny them
overtime pay," wrote Judge Thomas Rose, in a decision dated
February 7.

"This suffices to consider plaintiffs and putative collective
members and sub-class members similarly situated for purposes of
conditional certification," Rose added.

The judge ordered Fuyao to give plaintiffs' attorneys a list of
prospective class members -- people who have worked for Fuyao in
the last three years.

Fuyao has 14 days to provide the plaintiffs' attorneys the
workers' and former workers' names, job positions, last-known
mailing addresses, last-known telephone numbers, email addresses
and other information.

Attorneys for those suing Fuyao have also asked to give workers
and former workers 60 days to "opt in" to the lawsuit, Rose
wrote. (In an amended filing, Rose raised that number to 90
days.)

Attorneys may contact workers via U.S. postal mail and email.

Scott Young, an attorney for Fuyao, said: "Fuyao Glass America
(FGA) denies any allegations by the plaintiffs that they were not
properly paid by FGA."

Young and his colleagues then took the position "that class
certification is not appropriate."

A message seeking comment was sent February 8 morning to
attorneys representing Fuyao. [GN]


G.E.C. RESTAURANT: Faces "Conner" Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against G.E.C. Restaurant
Management & Design, LLC. The case is styled as Mary Conner, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
G.E.C. Restaurant Management & Design, LLC doing business as:
Green Eggs Cafe, Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-00614-MSG (E.D.
Penn., February 12, 2018).

The case docket lists nature of suit as a civil rights action
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


GC SERVICES: Faces "Savage" Suit in New York Supreme Court
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit filed against GC Services Limited
Partnership was brought before the New York Supreme Court on
February 13, 2018. The case is styled as Rosa Savage on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GC
Services Limited Partnership, Defendant, Case No. 613619/2017.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

The Defendant is represented by:

   EMILY KIRSCH, ESQ.
   150 EAST 58TH STREET, 22ND FLR
   NEW YORK, NY 10155
   Tel: (212) 832-0170


GC SERVICES: "Reyes" Suit Seek Damages for Conn. Consumers
----------------------------------------------------------
Icela Reyes, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. GC Services Limited Partnership and John Does 1-25,
Case No. 3:18-cv-00151 (D. Conn., January 25, 2018), is brought
on behalf of a class of Connecticut consumers seeking damages,
and declaratory and injunctive relief under the Fair Debt
Collections Practices Act.

GC Services Limited Partnership is a "debt collector" with an
address in Houston, Texas.  The Defendant uses the 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.  John Does are fictitious names of individuals
and businesses alleged for the purpose of substituting names of
the Defendants whose identities will be disclosed in discovery
and should be made parties to the action.[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


GCB SERVICES: "Wren" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------
CORNELIUS WREN on Behalf of Himself and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. GCB SERVICES, LLC, the
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-00168-LMB-MSN (E.D. Va., Feb. 14,
2018), seeks to recover all unpaid wages and other damages owed
under the Fair Labor Standards Act as a collective action
pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b).

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and the employees he
seeks to represent are current and former workers classified as
independent contractors and paid on a day rate basis by GCB
Services, LLC. The Defendant knowingly and deliberately failed to
compensate Plaintiff and the Class Members at the rate of time
and one half their regular rate of pay for all hours worked over
40 in a workweek as required under the FLSA.

The Defendant violated the FLSA by misclassifying the Plaintiff
and Class Members as independent contractors instead of as
employees. Consequently, Defendant's compensation policy violates
the FLSA's mandate that non-exempt employees, such as the
Plaintiff and Class Members, be compensated at one and one-half
times their regular rate of pay for each hour worked over 40 in a
week.

GCB provides optimal engineering and business solutions for the
wireless telecom industry by offering professional wireless
network design, optimization and deployment services. Currently
Wireless Industry is moving through a rapid metamorphosis.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Don Foty, Esq.
          Gabriel A. Assaad, Esq.
          KENNEDY HODGES, LLP
          4409 Montrose Blvd., Ste. 200
          Houston, TX 77006
          Telephone: (713) 523 0001
          Facsimile: (713) 523 1116
          E-mail: DFoty@kennedyhodges.com
                  GAssaad@kennedyhodges.com


GENERAL MOTORS: "Won" Suit Moved to Eastern District of Michigan
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Jones Won, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. General
Motors Company, General Motors Holdings LLC, and General Motors
LLC, Case No. 1:17-cv-04819, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York, to the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan (Flint) on
Feb. 13, 2018. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:18-
cv-10508-MFL to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon.
District Judge Matthew F. Leitman.

General Motors Company, commonly abbreviated as GM, is an
American multinational corporation headquartered in Detroit that
designs, manufactures, markets, and distributes vehicles and
vehicle parts, and sells financial services.[BN]

Attorneys for the Defendants:

          Guyon H. Knight, Esq.
          Mark S. Cheffo, Esq.
          QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
          51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor
          New York, NY 10010
          Telephone: (212) 849 7128
          Facsimile: (212) 849 7100


GENERAL MOTORS: Jenkins, et al. Sue over AC System Defect
---------------------------------------------------------
In the case, RYAN JENKINS, YAMET GARCIA, and CARL WILLIAMS, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, v. GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No.
4:18-cv-10507-MFL (N.D. Cal., Feb. 14, 2018), the Plaintiffs
bring this action for themselves and on behalf of all persons who
purchased or leased in California certain vehicles equipped with
uniform and uniformly defective air conditioning Systems
designed, manufactured distributed, and sold/leased by General
Motors Company and/or its related subsidiaries or affiliate.

The vehicles at issue in this action include the 2015-2017
Cadillac Escalade, 2014-2016 Chevrolet Silverado 1500, 2015-2017
Chevrolet Suburban, 2015-2017 Chevrolet Tahoe, 2014-2016 GMC
Sierra 1500, and 2015-2017 GMC Yukon. These Class Vehicles' air
conditioning systems ("AC Systems") have a serious defect that
causes the AC Systems to (a) crack and leak refrigerant; (b) lose
pressure within the AC System; and (c) fail to properly function
to provide cooled air into the Vehicle's passenger cabin.

The AC System is substantially the same, from a mechanical
engineering standpoint, in all Class Vehicles, in that the AC
Systems in all Class Vehicles are made up of substantially the
same components and all employ the same general mechanism to
deliver cooled air to the passenger cabin. The AC System in the
Class Vehicles is defective because it is insufficiently strong
and durable to perform its intended function -- providing cooled
air into the passenger cabin of the Vehicle -- and to withstand
the internal pressures and external forces that the System
encounters during normal and expected use and conditions. The AC
System failure can first occur at low mileages, within the 36,000
mile New Vehicle Express Warranty period. Because of the high
number of failures, AC System replacement parts are on national
backorder and the wait for replacement parts is long -- often
many months -- during which time Plaintiffs and Class Members
must suffer without a functioning AC System in their Vehicles.

Moreover, GM's replacement of faulty AC System components with
equally defective replacement parts leaves the AC System
susceptible to repeated failure and thus does not permanently
remedy the AC System Defect. When the AC System fails outside of
the warranty period, consumers are forced to pay between $150 and
$2000 out of pocket to repair their AC Systems with the same
defective parts, and still are subjected to the same long wait
times for backordered parts. The long wait times for backordered
GM parts meant many consumers were forced to buy aftermarket
replacement parts because there was no timeline for when GM parts
would be available.

The AC System Defect inhibits Plaintiffs and Class Members'
expected, comfortable, and safe use of their Vehicles, and
requires Class Members to go months without functioning AC
Systems while waiting for replacement parts, and to pay for
equally defective replacement parts that themselves are
susceptible to failure. The AC System Defect creates a safety
risk for Plaintiffs and Class Members because AC System failure
subjects the occupants of the Vehicles to unsafely high
temperatures and can lead to decreased visibility due to fogging
of the windows and an inability to use the AC System to de-fog
the windows.

According to the complaint, prior to sale or lease of the
Vehicles at issue, GM knew of the AC System Defect through
sources such as pre-release evaluation and testing; repair data;
replacement part sales data; early consumer complaints made
directly to GM, collected by the National Highway Transportation
Safety Administration's Office of Defect Investigation, and/or
posted on public online vehicle owner forums; testing done in
response to those complaints; aggregate data from GM dealers; and
other internal sources. Yet despite this knowledge, GM failed to
disclose and actively concealed the AC System Defect from Class
Members and the public, and continued to market and advertise the
Class Vehicles as "reliable," "durable," with "functional,"
"customer-focused" interior AC Systems, which they are not.

GM has failed to provide a permanent in-warranty fix for the
Defect within a reasonable time, forced Class Members to wait
unreasonable lengths of time for repairs, and/or pay out-of-
pocket to replace broken AC System components with equally
defective replacement parts.

As a result of GM's alleged misconduct, Plaintiffs and Class
Members were harmed and suffered actual damages, including that
the Class Vehicles contain defective AC Systems, have manifested,
and continue to manifest, the AC System Defect, and that GM has
not provided a permanent, no-cost remedy for this Defect within a
reasonable amount of time. Furthermore, Plaintiffs and Class
Members have incurred, and will continue to incur, out-of-pocket
unreimbursed costs and expenses relating to the AC System
Defect.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the proposed Class:

          Jonathan D. Selbin, Esq.
          Mark P. Chalos, Esq.
          Annika K. Martin, Esq.
          LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
          275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 956 1000
          Facsimile: (415) 956 1008
          E-mail: jselbin@lchb.com
                  mchalos@lchb.com
                  akmartin@lchb.com

               - and -

          Patrick Newsom, Esq.
          BRUNO NEWSOM PLLC
          40 Music Square E.
          Nashville, TN 37203
          Telephone: (615) 251 9500
          Facsimile: (615) 345 4188
          E-mail: patrick@brunonewsom.com


GLOBAL EAGLE: M&M Hart Trust Appeals Decision to Ninth Circuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs M and M Hart Living Trust and Randi Williams filed an
appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit styled M and M Hart
Living Trust, et al. v. Global Eagle Entertainment Inc., et al.,
Case No. 2:17-cv-01479-PA-MRW, in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California, Los Angeles.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
was filed on February 23, 2017, seeking to recover compensable
damages caused by the Defendants' alleged violations of the
federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  The case is a federal
securities class action on behalf of a class consisting of all
persons other than Defendants who purchased or otherwise acquired
common shares of Global Eagle between July 27, 2016 and Feb. 17,
2017, both dates inclusive.

On July 27, 2016, Global Eagle announced that it had completed
its previously announced acquisition of Emergency Markets
Communications ("EMC"), a communications services provider to
maritime and hard-to-reach land markets.  Throughout the Class
Period, the Defendants made materially false and misleading
statements regarding the Company's business, operational and
compliance policies, the complaint alleges.  Specifically, the
Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed
to disclose that: (i) Global Eagle was unable to timely and
properly account for the EMC acquisition; (ii) consequently, the
Company lacked effective internal controls over financial
reporting; and (iii) as a result, Global Eagle's financial
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.

The appellate case is captioned as M and M Hart Living Trust, et
al. v. Global Eagle Entertainment Inc., et al., Case No. 18-
55122, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit.

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

   -- Appellants M and M Hart Living Trust and Randi Williams'
      opening brief is due on March 30, 2018;

   -- Appellees David M. Davis, Global Eagle Entertainment, Inc.
      and Thomas E. Severson Jr.'s answering brief is due on
      April 30, 2018; and

   -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after
      service of the answering brief.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants M AND M HART LIVING TRUST, Individually and
on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, and RANDI WILLIAMS
are represented by:

          Adam M. Apton, Esq.
          Adam McCall, Esq.
          Nicholas I. Porritt, Esq.
          LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP
          1101 30th Street NW, Suite 115
          Washington, DC 20007
          Telephone: (202) 524-4290
          E-mail: AApton@zlk.com
                  amccall@zlk.com
                  nporritt@zlk.com

Defendants-Appellees GLOBAL EAGLE ENTERTAINMENT, INC., DAVID M.
DAVIS and THOMAS E. SEVERSON, Jr., are represented by:

          James G. Kreissman, Esq.
          Stephen Patrick Blake, Esq.
          SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP
          2475 Hanover Street
          Palo Alto, CA 94304
          Telephone: (650) 251-5080
          E-mail: jkreissman@stblaw.com
                  sblake@stblaw.com


GOOGLE INC: Class-Action Lawsuit Over Pixel Mic Drops
-----------------------------------------------------
Chris Merriman, writing for The Inquirer, reports that Google is
facing a class action lawsuit over problems with the original
Pixel phone.

Plaintiffs in the case have suggested that Google knowingly sold
phones that were defective and that after replacing them under
warranty, they were still borked.

Google has admitted there was an issue which was caused by "a
hairline crack in the solder connection on the audio codec" which
manifested when the phone's temperature raised as the microphone
cutting out.

As such it was a random, intermittent fault that was almost
impossible to identify quickly. As such, some users in the suit
didn't claim during the warranty period and feel vindicated that
they weren't going loco.

When the Pixel 2 (particularly the XL version) started to go
wrong, Google responded by offering a warranty extension. But for
first-gen Pixel users, no such courtesy has been extended, and
they're not happy.

Even so, there could well be a similar suit over the Pixel 2
brewing too.

Girard Gibbs LLP is heading up the ambulance chase, and sure
enough, it is also spearheading the Pixel 2 action as well.

What's concerning about all this is that on one hand, it's a
lawsuit against a company that hasn't been all that unreasonable.
But, by the same token, as Google continues its push to become a
name in the hardware space, it has now released two flagship
devices that are lawsuit worthy.

Action against the well-received Pixel 1 is a little more
surprising, as it hasn't been plagued by nearly as many issues as
the LG made Pixel 2 XL, which despite being brilliant on paper,
has suffered a catalogue of errors.

The crux of the original Pixel case will come down to whether a
judge believes that Google was deliberately negligent in not
finding the hairline crack. It's not a case of assigning guilt -
Google has fessed up to the fault. It's about whether it was
malicious or not, and our money is that Google can make that go
away pretty easily. [GN]


GRAND CAMPUS: Weiss Sues over Spam Advertisements
-------------------------------------------------
LAURA WEISS, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly
situated individuals, the Plaintiff, v. GRAND CAMPUS LIVING,
INC., a Texas corporation, and ASPEN HEIGHTS MANAGEMENT COMPANY,
LLC, a Texas limited liability company, the Defendants, Case No.
1:18-cv-00434-SEB-TAB (D. Ind., Feb. 14, 2018), seeks injunction
requiring Defendants to cease all unauthorized text message
advertisements, and an award of the greater of actual or
statutory damages to the class members, as well as costs and
reasonable attorneys' fees and pre-judgment interest from the
date of filing this suit.

The Plaintiff brings this class action complaint against
Defendants, to stop Defendants' unlawful practice of sending
unauthorized text message advertisements to consumers' cellular
telephones, and to obtain redress for all persons injured by its
conduct. In an effort to promote their rental housing properties,
Defendants, property management companies with numerous student
residential properties across the United States, engaged in an
invasive and unlawful form of marketing by transmitting
unauthorized advertisements in the form of text message calls to
the cellular telephones of individuals throughout the country.

According to the complaint, by causing the transmission of
unauthorized text message calls, Defendants have violated
consumers' statutory rights, invaded their privacy, and caused
actual harm to consumers because such text messages occupy phone
storage space and consumers have to pay their cell phone service
providers for the receipt of such unauthorized messages.

Grand Campus Living, Inc. provides property management and
consulting services to owners. It offers resident retention
programs. The company is based in Dallas, Texas. As of January
10, 2013, Grand Campus Living, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of
Lincoln Property Company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Fred Schultz, Esq.
          GREENE & SCHULTZ
          520 North Walnut Street
          Bloomington, IN 47404
          Telephone: (812) 336 4357
          Facsimile: (812) 336 5615
          E-mail: fred@greeneschultz.com

               - and -

          Eugene Y. Turin, Esq.
          MCGUIRE LAW, P.C. 55
          W. Wacker Dr., 9th Fl.
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 893 7002
          Facsimile: (312) 275 7895
          E-mail: eturin@mcgpc.com


HEALTH INSURANCE: Accused by "Hicks" Class Suit of Violating TCPA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Amandra Hicks, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Health Insurance Innovations, Inc., Case No. 8:18-cv-
00216-VMC-AEP (M.D. Fla., January 25, 2018), arises from the
alleged illegal actions of Health Insurance in negligently,
knowingly, and willfully placing automated and prerecorded calls
to the Plaintiff's cellular phone, in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

Health Innovations is a Delaware corporation with its principal
place of business located in Tampa, Florida.  Health Innovations
is a medical insurance sales corporation with a focus on short-
term and limited medical plans.  Health Innovations operates a
"cloud" based platform to facilitate the sale of, in addition to
the billing and collection of, insurance plans and associated
premiums.[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

HERITAGE HOME: Faces "Kiler" Suit in Eastern District New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Heritage Home
Group, LLC. The case is styled as Marion Kiler, Individually and
as the representative of a class of similarly situated, Plaintiff
v. Heritage Home Group, LLC doing business as: Thomasville,
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-00941 (E.D. N.Y., February 13, 2018).

Heritage Home Group offers designing, manufacturing, sourcing and
retailing of home furnishings.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL BANK: Faces "Duncan" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Industrial and
Commercial Bank of China USA, National Association. The case is
styled as Eugene Duncan, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Industrial and Commercial Bank
of China USA, National Association, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-
00955 (E.D.N.Y., February 13, 2018).

Industrial and Commercial Bank of China (USA) NA, a chartered
national bank, provides personal and corporate banking
services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


INTEL CORPORATION: Faces "Ali" Suit Over Misleading Fin'l Reports
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Meerain Ali, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Intel Corporation, Brian M. Krzanich and Robert H.
Swan, Case No. 4:18-cv-00507-YGR (N.D. Cal., January 23, 2018),
alleges that the Defendants made false and misleading statements,
as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically,
Defendants made false and misleading statements and failed to
disclose that: (i) a fundamental security flaw in Intel's
processor chips renders them susceptible to hacking; (ii)
software updates to fix the problems in Intel's processor chips
could cause Intel chips to operate 5-30 percent more slowly; and
(iii) as a result, Intel's public statements were materially
false and misleading at all relevant times.

Intel Corporation designs, manufactures, and sells computer
components and related products. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


JAKE'S FRANCHISING: Faces "Crosson" Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Jake's Franchising,
LLC. The case is styled as Aretha Crosson, individually and as
the representative of a class of similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Jake's Franchising, LLC doing business as: Wayback Burgers,
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-00940 (E.D. N.Y., February 13, 2018).

Wayback Burgers, previously known as Jake's Wayback Burgers, is
an American fast casual restaurant chain based in Cheshire,
Connecticut.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Dan Shaked, Esq.
   Shaked Law Group, P.C.
   44 Court Street, Suite 1217
   Brooklyn, NY 11217
   Tel: (917) 373-9128
   Fax: (718) 504-7555
   Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com


JAMES PERSE: Fails to Pay OT for All Hours Worked, Diaz Says
------------------------------------------------------------
FELIPE DIAZ, individually, and on behalf of other members of the
general public similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. JAMES PERSE
ENTERPRISES, INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1 through
100, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. BC693969 (Cal. Super.
Ct., Feb. 14, 2018), seeks to recover overtime pay under the
California Labor Code.

The Defendants employed Plaintiff and other persons as hourly-
paid or non-exempt employees within the State of California,
including the County of Los Angeles. The Defendants hired
Plaintiff and the other class members and classified them as
hourly-paid or non-exempt employees, and failed to compensate
them for all hours worked and missed meal periods and/or rest
breaks.

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

The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants knew or should have known
that Plaintiff and the other class members were entitled to
receive certain wages for overtime compensation and that they
were not receiving accurate overtime compensation for all
overtime hours worked.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Edwin Aiwazian, Esq.
          LAWYERS for JUST1CE, PC
          410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (818) 265 1020
          Facsimile: (818) 265 1021

               - and -

          AmirNayebdadash, Esq.
          Heather Davis, Esq.
          PROTECTION LAW GROUP LLP
          136 Main Street, Suite A
          El Segundo, CA 90245
          Telephone: (424) 290 3095
          Facsimile: (866) 264 7880


JAMES PERSE: "Marett" Suit Voluntarily Dismissed
------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Lucia Marett, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. James
Perse Enterprises, Inc., Case No. 1:18-cv-00530 (S.D.N.Y.,
January 22, 2018), has been voluntarily dismissed, with prejudice
against the defendant(s), according to the case's docket entry
dated February 13, 2018.

This is a civil rights action suit against James Perse for their
failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website
to be fully accessible to, and independently usable by, the
Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons.

James Perse Enterprises, Inc. owns and operates James Perse
Stores which provide to the public important and enjoyable goods
and services such as clothing, shoes, bags, accessories, and
furniture, amongst other items. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Dan Shaked, Esq.
      SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
      44 Court Street, Suite 1217
      Brooklyn, NY 11201
      Telephone: (917) 373-9128
      Facsimile: (718) 504-7555


JEFFERSON CAPITAL: Faces "Jones" Suit in N.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Jefferson Capital
Systems, LLC. The case is styled as Venus Jones, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Jefferson Capital Systems, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-00897
(N.D. Cal., February 12, 2018).

Jefferson Capital Systems, LLC operates as a debt solutions
provider of recovery services for consumer charged-off accounts,
credit grantors, and accounts receivable portfolio owners.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


JING WAH CHINESE RESTAURANT: Faces "Lin" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Jing Wah Chinese
Restaurant Inc. The case is styled as Jian Wu Lin, on behalf of
himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Jing Wah Chinese Restaurant Inc., Yi Ping Ou and John Does
1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-00933 (E.D.
N.Y., February 13, 2018).

Jing Wah Chinese Restaurant Inc. is located at 8720 Liberty Ave,
Jamaica, NY 11417, USA.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


JULLIARD SCHOOL: Faces "Bishop" Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Julliard
School. The case is styled Cedric Bishop, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. The Julliard
School, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-01276 (S.D. N.Y., February
13, 2018).

The Juilliard School, founded in 1905, is a world leader in
performing arts education.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


JUNO THERAPEUTICS: Sembhi Balks at Celgene Merger Deal
------------------------------------------------------
AMARDEEP SEMBHI, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. JUNO THERAPEUTICS, INC.,
HAL BARRON, HANS BISHOP, THOMAS DANIEL, ANTHONY EVNIN, JAY
FLATLEY, RICHARD KLAUSNER, ROBERT NELSEN, HOWARD PIEN, RUPERT
VESSEY, MARY AGNES WILDEROTTER, CELGENE CORPORATION, and BLUE
MAGPIE CORPORATION, the Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-00229 (W.D.
Wash., Feb. 13, 2018), seeks to enjoin a proposed transaction or,
in the event the proposed transaction is consummated, to recover
damages resulting from violation of the federal securities laws
by Defendants.

The Plaintiff brings this stockholder class action on behalf of
herself and all other public stockholders of Juno
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., for violations of Sections 14(d), 14(e)
and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 and for
breaches of fiduciary duty as a result of Defendants' efforts to
sell the Company to Celgene Corporation and Blue Magpie
Corporation as a result of an unfair process for an unfair price,
and to enjoin a tender offer in which Celgene will acquire each
outstanding share of Juno common stock for $87.00 per share in
cash, with a total valuation of approximately $9 billion. The
terms of the Proposed Transaction were memorialized in a January
22, 2018, filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
Form 8-K attaching the definitive Agreement and Plan of Merger.

Thereafter, on January 16, 2018, Juno filed a Solicitation/
Recommendation Statement on February 2, 2018 with the Securities
and Exchange Commission in support of the Proposed Transaction.
The Proposed Transaction is unfair and undervalued for a number
of reasons. Significantly, the 14D-9 describes an insufficient
sales process sin which Celgene, already owner of 9.7% of all
outstanding Juno stock, was shown significant favoritism by the
Board. Indeed, the Juno Board was dominated by three directors
closely aligned with, or employed by, Celgene. Juno's stock
ownership emanates initially from a June 2015 announcement of a
10-year collaboration between Juno and Celgene for the
development and commercialization of immunotherapies. In fact,
only one interested third party was even given an opportunity to
be part of the sales process, and no public outreach or market
check was undertaken at any point. In addition to this blatant
bias, as the Merger Agreement requires only 50% of all
outstanding stock to be tendered in favor of the Proposed
Transaction to meet the minimum requirements to consummate the
transaction, Celgene's ownership of nearly 10% of the Company and
the fact that Defendants Daniels, Vessey and Nelson are so
closely aligned with Celgene, will significantly reduce the
amount of shares required to be tendered in favor of the Proposed
Transaction to result in its consummation.

Next, it appears as though the Board has entered into the
Proposed Transaction to procure for themselves and senior
management of the Company significant and immediate benefits
while the Company's stockholders are cashed out at an unfair
price. For instance, pursuant to the terms of the Merger
Agreement, upon the consummation of the Proposed Transaction,
Company Board Members and executive officers will be able to
exchange large, illiquid blocks of Company stock for massive
payouts, in addition to receiving cash in exchange for all
outstanding and unvested options and/or other types of restricted
stock units. Moreover, certain Directors and other insiders will
also be the recipients of lucrative change-in-control agreements,
triggered upon the termination of their employment as a
consequence of the consummation of the Proposed Transaction.
8. Of significant note, Defendant Hans E. Bishop will receive
more than $205 million in cash pursuant to the terms of the
Proposed Transaction. Additionally, funds associated with Arch
Venture Partners VII, L.P., through Director Defendant Robert
Nelsen, managing director of Arch, will receive over $922 million
in cash for its currently illiquid block of Juno stock.

In sum, the directors and officers of Juno will extract nearly
$1.3 billion in cash for themselves or private equity funds they
represent at the close of the Proposed Transaction, representing
approximately 13% of the total value of the Proposed Transaction.
Such a large payday has clearly tainted the motivations of the
Board in approving the Proposed Transaction.

Juno Therapeutics is a biopharmaceutical company founded in 2013
through a collaboration of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research
Center, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center and pediatrics
partner Seattle Children's Research Institute.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Roger Townsend, Esq.
          BRESKIN JOHNSON & TOWNSEND PLLC
          1000 Second Avenue, Suite 3670
          Seattle, Washington 98104
          Telephone: (206) 652 8660
          Facsimile: (206) 652 8290
          E-mail: rtownsend@bjtlegal.com

               - and -

          Evan Smith, Esq.
          Marc L. Ackerman, Esq.
          BRODSKY & SMITH, LLC
          Two Bala Plaza, Suite 510
          Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
          Telephone: (610) 667 6200
          Facsimile: (610) 667 9029
          E-mail: esmith@brodskysmith.com
                  mackerman@brodskysmith.com


K&D HOME: Fails to Pay Minimum Wage and Overtime, "Kidd" Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
JUDITH KIDD, and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C.
216(b) v. K&D HOME HEALTH CARE CORP., and NORMA DENTON,
individually, Case No. 0:18-cv-60167-BB (S.D. Fla., January 25,
2018), alleges that the Defendants have unlawfully deprived the
Plaintiff and other employees of minimum wage and overtime
compensation during the course of their employment -- in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

K&D is a Florida corporation located and transacting business
within Broward County in Plantation, Florida.  Norma Denton, a
resident of Florida, is the President and operator of the
Defendant Company.

K&D is a home health aide agency that has been operating in
Broward County since 2004.  According to its own Web site, K&D
holds itself out to the community as a Medicare and Medicaid
certified Home Health Care Agency with two locations in South
Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


KADLEC REGIONAL: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Grego" Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Andrew Grego and Maria Doroshchuk filed an appeal from
a court ruling entered in their lawsuit entitled Andrew Grego, et
al. v. Kadlec Regional Medical Center, et al., Case No. 4:16-cv-
05150-RMP, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Washington, Richland.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the
Plaintiffs filed the lawsuit on November 14, 2016, against Kadlec
Regional Medical Center, Cardon Healthcare Network LLC d/b/a
Cardon Healthcare Networkde and Cardon Outreach, and Cardon
Healthcare Holdings.

The Defendants operate a general medical and surgical hospital in
Richland, Washington.

The appellate case is captioned as Andrew Grego, et al. v. Kadlec
Regional Medical Center, et al., Case No. 18-35064, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

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

   -- Transcript must be ordered by February 26, 2018;

   -- Transcript is due on March 27, 2018;

   -- Appellants Maria Doroshchuk and Andrew Grego's opening
      brief is due on May 7, 2018;

   -- Appellees Cardon Healthcare Holdings, Cardon Healthcare
      Network, LLC and Kadlec Regional Medical Center's answering
      brief is due on June 5, 2018; and

   -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after
      service of the answering brief.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants ANDREW GREGO and MARIA DOROSHCHUK,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are
represented by:

          Darrell Cochran, Esq.
          Kevin Michael Hastings, Esq.
          Christopher Eric Love, Esq.
          PFAU COCHRAN VERTETIS KOSNOFF PLLC
          911 Pacific Avenue
          Tacoma, WA 98402
          Telephone: (253) 777-0799
          Facsimile: (253) 627-0654
          E-mail: darrell@pcvalaw.com
                  kevin@pcvalaw.com
                  chris@pcvalaw.com

Defendant-Appellee KADLEC REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, a Washington
non-profit corporation, is represented by:

          Bradley Lloyd Fisher, Esq.
          Rebecca J. Francis, Esq.
          DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
          1201 Third Avenue
          Seattle, WA 98101-3045
          Telephone: (206) 757-8285
          E-mail: bradfisher@dwt.com
                  rebeccafrancis@dwt.com

Defendants-Appellees CARDON HEALTHCARE NETWORK, LLC, a Delaware
for-profit corporation, DBA Cardon Healthcare Networkde, DBA
Cardon Outreach, and CARDON HEALTHCARE HOLDINGS, a Delaware for-
profit corporation, are represented by:

          Ralph Howard Palumbo, Esq.
          YARMUTH WILSDON PLLC
          1420 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1400
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 516-3800
          E-mail: palumbo@yarmuth.com


LAW OFFICE OF PERRI: Faces "Maximov" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Law Office of
Perri E. Frosch, Esq. The case is styled Liel Maximov as parent
and guardian of Shaina Maximov on behalf of herself and all other
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. The Law Office of Perri E.
Frosch, Esq., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-00965 (E.D. N.Y.,
February 13, 2018).

The Law Office of Perri E. Frosch is a law firm regularly
engaged, for profit, in the collection of debts allegedly owed by
consumers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Julius Toonkel, Esq.
   Law Office of Julius Toonkel
   45 Broadway-27th Floor
   New York, NY 10006
   Tel: (212) 269-7511
   Fax: (212) 269-7514
   Email: jtnylaw@yahoo.com

MATTY & MERK: Faces "Prazdnik" Suit in E.D. of Pennsylvania
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Matty & Merk, LLC.
The case is styled as Leonid Prazdnik, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Matty & Merk, LLC
doing business as: Hershel's East Side Deli, Defendant, Case No.
2:18-cv-00615-RBS (E.D. Penn., February 13, 2018).

Based in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Hershel's East Side Deli
serves breakfast, lunch, dinner and coffee.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MDA CITY: Hamilton, et al. Sue over Deceptive Rental Terms
----------------------------------------------------------
JACOB HAMILTON, & LAUREN DESCHENES, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. MDA CITY
APARTMENTS, LLC & VILLAGE GREEN MANAGEMENT COMPANY, LLC, the
Defendants, Case No. 2018-CH-01890 (Ill. Cir., Cook County, Feb.
13, 2018), seeks to recover statutory damages equal to two times
the security deposit of each putative class member; reasonable
attorney's fees, plus litigation expenses and costs of suit; and
such other and further relief as the Court deems proper.

The property at 63 E. Lake Street in Chicago is a multi-unit
residential apartment building with more than 150 apartments. At
all times within the two years before this case was filed MDA has
been a person in whom is vested all or part of the legal title to
the Building, or all or part of the beneficial ownership and a
right to present use and enjoyment of the Building. At all times
within the two years before this case was filed VG has been the
lessor and management of the Building.

On July 21, 2017, Plaintiffs and VG entered into a written rental
agreement for a dwelling unit numbered 501 at the Building. The
security deposit under the Lease was $150.00. The address of the
financial institution where Plaintiffs' security deposit held was
nowhere disclosed in the rental agreement signed by the
Plaintiffs. Defendants failed to disclose in writing on its
Chicago rental agreements the address of the financial
institution where the security deposit was held to Plaintiffs and
dozens of other tenants who entered into new or renewal leases at
the Building in the two years before this case was filed.

MDA City Apartments, LLC offers furnished suites and apartments.
The company provides housing with standard amenities and services
which include high speed Internet, Air Conditioning, breakfast
bar, and garbage disposal. MDA City Apartments, LLC was
incorporated in 2003 and is based in Chicago, Illinois.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Aaron Krolik, Esq.
          Mark Silverman, Esq.
          MARK SILVERMAN LAW OFFICE LTD.
          225 W. Washing Ton Suite 2200
          Chicago, IL 60606


MDL 2741: "Joffe" Class Suit Transferred to N.D. Calif.
-------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit filed on December 6, 2017 entitled
Jeffrey F. Joffe and Laurie Rodetsky Joffe, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Monsanto Company, Case
No. 2:17-cv-00667 was transferred on January 19, 2018 from the
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida to the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:18-cv-00430-VC to the
proceeding.

The Plaintiffs asserts product-liability claims.

The Case is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation titled
In re: Roundup Products Liability Litigation MDL No. 2741.
According to an order entered by the United States Judicial Panel
on Multidistrict Litigation, it appears that the actions in the
litigation involve questions of fact that are common to the
actions previously transferred to the Northern District of
California and assigned to Judge Vince Chhabria.

Monsanto Company own and operate a multinational agricultural
biotechnology corporation based in St. Louis, Missouri. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      George T. Williamson, Esq.
      FARR, FARR, EMERICH, HACKETT, CARR AND HOLMES, PA
      99 Nesbit St
      Punta Gorda, FL 33950
      Telephone: (941) 639-1158
      E-mail: gwilliamson@farr.com


MDL 2741: "Mayo" Class Suit Transferred to N.D. Calif.
------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit filed on December 27, 2017 styled
Foster and Patricia Mayo, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Monsanto Company, Case No. 4:17-cv-
02930 was transferred on January 19, 2018, from the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Missouri to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California.  The District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:18-cv-00433-VC to the proceeding.

The Plaintiffs asserts product-liability claims.

The Case is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation titled
In re: Roundup Products Liability Litigation MDL No. 2741.
According to an order entered by the United States Judicial Panel
on Multidistrict Litigation, it appears that the actions in the
litigation involve questions of fact that are common to the
actions previously transferred to the Northern District of
California and assigned to Judge Vince Chhabria.

Monsanto Company own and operate a multinational agricultural
biotechnology corporation based in St. Louis, Missouri. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MDL 2741: "Nahler" Class Suit Transferred to N.D. Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit filed on December 22, 2017 styled
Neal and Mary Ann Nahler, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Monsanto Company, Case No. 4:17-cv-
02921 was transferred on January 19, 2018 from the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Missouri to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California. The District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 3:18-cv-00432-VC to the proceeding.

The action is for damages suffered by the Plaintiff as a direct
and proximate result of the Defendant 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.

The Case is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation titled
In re: Roundup Products Liability Litigation MDL No. 2741.
According to an order entered by the United States Judicial Panel
on Multidistrict Litigation, it appears that the actions in the
litigation involve questions of fact that are common to the
actions previously transferred to the Northern District of
California and assigned to Judge Vince Chhabria.

Monsanto Company own and operate a multinational agricultural
biotechnology corporation based in St. Louis, Missouri. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MDL 2741: "Ragland" Class Suit Transferred to N.D. Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit filed on December 22, 2017 captioned
Dorothy Ragland, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Monsanto Company, Case No. 4:17-cv-02919
was transferred on January 19, 2018 from the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Missouri to the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California. The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 3:18-cv-00431-VC to the proceeding.

The action is for damages suffered by the Plaintiff as a direct
and proximate result of the Defendant 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.

The Case is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation titled
In re: Roundup Products Liability Litigation MDL No. 2741.
According to an order entered by the United States Judicial Panel
on Multidistrict Litigation, it appears that the actions in the
litigation involve questions of fact that are common to the
actions previously transferred to the Northern District of
California and assigned to Judge Vince Chhabria.

Monsanto Company own and operate a multinational agricultural
biotechnology corporation based in St. Louis, Missouri. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

MDL 2741: "Beams" Suit Transferred to N.D. Calif.
-------------------------------------------------
The case captioned David Beams v. Monsanto Company, Case No.
4:18-cv-00107 (E.D. Miss., January 28, 2018), has been
transferred to the Northern District of California under
multidistrict litigation IN RE: ROUNDUP PRODUCTS LIABILITY
LITIGATION MDL No. 2741.


This is an action for damages suffered by the Plaintiff as a
direct and proximate result of 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.

Monsanto Company is a multinational agricultural biotechnology
corporation based in St. Louis, Missouri. It is the world's
leading producer of glyphosate. [BN]

The Plaintiff is 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


METLIFE INC: Brower Piven Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The securities litigation law firm of Brower Piven, A
Professional Corporation, disclosed that a class action lawsuit
has been commenced in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of MetLife,
Inc. securities during the period between February 27, 2013 and
January 29, 2018, inclusive (the "Class Period").  Investors who
wish to become proactively involved in the litigation have until
April 6, 2018 to seek appointment as lead plaintiff.

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

The complaint accuses the defendants of violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by virtue of the defendants'
failure to disclose during the Class Period that MetLife's
practices and procedures used to estimate its reserves set aside
for annuity and pension payments were inadequate and MetLife had
inadequate internal controls over financial reporting.

According to the complaint, following a December 15, 2017 filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC")
announcing that the Company had been unable to locate some of the
Company's annuitant population and planned to provide an update
upon the filing of MetLife's Form 10-K for the year ending
December 31, 2017; a December 15, 2017 article which discussed
the extent and duration of MetLife's failure to pay pension
benefits; and, a January 29, 2018 press release announcing that
MetLife would reschedule its earnings releases and conference
calls for the fourth quarter of and full year of 2017, that the
Company had identified material weaknesses in its internal
controls, that the Company would have to revise certain of its
prior financial statements, and that the SEC and New York
Department of Financial Services had made inquiries to MetLife
with respect to the foregoing issues, the value of MetLife shares
declined significantly.

If you have suffered a loss in excess of $100,000 from investment
in MetLife securities purchased on or after February 27, 2013 and
held through the revelation of negative information during and/or
at the end of the Class Period and would like to learn more about
this lawsuit and your ability to participate as a lead plaintiff,
without cost or obligation to you, please contact Brower Piven
either by email at hoffman@browerpiven.com or by telephone at
(410) 415-6616.

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

         Charles J. Piven, Esq.
         Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation
         1925 Old Valley Road
         Stevenson, Maryland 21153
         Telephone: 410-415-6616
         Email: hoffman@browerpiven.com [GN]


MICHIGAN, USA: 6th Cir. Appeal Filed in Fowler v. State Secretary
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Ruth Johnson filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in the lawsuit titled Adrian Fowler, et al. v. Ruth
Johnson, Case No. 4:17-cv-11441, in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Michigan at Flint.

Ruth Johnson is the Secretary of State of Michigan.

The appellate case is captioned as Adrian Fowler, et al. v. Ruth
Johnson, Case No. 18-1089, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Sixth Circuit.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Jan. 17, 2018, the
District Court issued an Opinion and Order granting the
Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction in the case.

On the day the Plaintiffs initiated the action, they also filed a
motion for preliminary injunction to enjoin the Defendant from
suspending the driver's licenses of people unable to pay their
traffic debt.

Under Michigan's Motor Vehicle Code, the failure to follow
certain traffic laws results in a civil infraction that includes
a fine.  For each civil infraction, a judge can order costs of up
to $100 and, in the majority of cases, must also impose a
mandatory justice system assessment of $40. Any fine, cost, or
fee remaining unpaid after fifty-six (56) days incurs a 20% late
fee.

Michigan law provides that twenty-eight (28) days after a person
fails to answer a traffic citation or notice to appear in court
for a citation, the court must notify the person that the failure
within fourteen (14) days to appear in court or comply with an
order or judgment of the court (including the failure to pay all
fines, costs, fees, and assessments) will result in the Secretary
of State suspending his or her driver's license.

Plaintiffs Adrian Fowler and Kitia Harris are Michigan residents,
who claim to have had their driver's licenses suspended pursuant
to the aforementioned statutory provisions.  The Plaintiffs
allege in their Complaint that the Defendant's indefinite
suspensions of their driver's licenses because of their inability
to pay court debts violated their constitutional rights under the
Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellees ADRIAN FOWLER, on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated, and KITIA HARRIS, on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated, are represented by:

          Phil Telfeyan, Esq.
          EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW
          400 Seventh Street, N.W., Suite 602
          Washington, DC 20004
          Telephone: (202) 505-2058
          E-mail: ptelfeyan@equaljusticeunderlaw.org

Defendant-Appellant RUTH JOHNSON, Michigan Secretary of State, in
her official capacity, is represented by:

          Denise C. Barton, Esq.
          John G. Fedynsky, Esq.
          OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
          P.O. Box 30736
          Lansing, MI 48909
          Telephone: (517) 373-6434
          Facsimile: (517) 373-6434
          E-mail: bartond@michigan.gov
                  fedynskyj@michigan.gov


MUTUAL OF OMAHA: Lechner Files ERISA Class Suit in Nebraska
-----------------------------------------------------------
TAMERA S. LECHNER, individually, on behalf of the MUTUAL OF OMAHA
401(k) LONG-TERM SAVINGS PLAN and on behalf of a class of all
those similarly situated v. MUTUAL OF OMAHA INSURANCE COMPANY,
UNITED OF OMAHA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY and JOHN DOES 1-50, Case
No. 8:18-cv-00022-JFB-CRZ (D. Neb., January 25, 2018), is brought
on behalf of the Mutual of Omaha 401(k) Long-Term Savings Plan
and as a class action on behalf of all similarly situated
participants in and beneficiaries of the Plan for alleged
violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of
1974.

The Plan is an individual account, defined contribution pension
plan covered by the ERISA.  The Plan is funded by a combination
of salary withholding by plan participants and employer matching
contributions.  The Plan is a participant-directed, individual
account, defined contribution retirement savings plan covered by
ERISA.

Mutual of Omaha Insurance Company is an insurance company
incorporated under the laws of the state of Nebraska.  Mutual of
Omaha sponsors the Plan to provide retirement benefits to
employees of Mutual of Omaha and certain of its subsidiaries,
including its wholly owned subsidiary, United of Omaha Life
Insurance Company.  The identities of the Doe Defendants are
currently unknown.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Garrett W. Wotkyns, Esq.
          John J. Nestico, Esq.
          SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY WOTKYNS LLP
          8501 N. Scottsdale Rd., Suite 270
          Scottsdale, AZ 85253
          Telephone: (480) 315-3841
          Facsimile: (866) 505-8036
          E-mail: gwotkyns@schneiderwallace.com
                  jnestico@schneiderwallace.com

               - and -

          Todd M. Schneider, Esq.
          Kyle G. Bates, Esq.
          James A. Bloom, Esq.
          SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY WOTKYNS LLP
          2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400
          Emeryville, CA 94608
          Telephone: (415) 421-7100
          Facsimile: (415) 421-7105
          E-mail: tschneider@schneiderwallace.com
                  kbates@schneiderwallace.com
                  jbloom@schneiderwallace.com

               - and -

          Todd S. Collins, Esq.
          Shanon J. Carson, Esq.
          Ellen T. Noteware, Esq.
          BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
          1622 Locust Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103-6365
          Telephone: (215) 875-3000
          E-mail: tcollins@bm.net
                  scarson@bm.net
                  enoteware@bm.net


NATIONWIDE MUTUAL: Eleventh Cir. Appeal Filed in "Majesko" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Alyssa Majesko filed an appeal from a court ruling in
the lawsuit entitled Alyssa Majesko v. Nationwide Mutual
Insurance Co., et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-00222-MHC, in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the
complaint alleges that Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company and
Nationwide Affinity Insurance Company of America regularly
refused to pay for the diminished value to leased vehicles when
they suffered a covered loss under lessee's insurance policy
issued in the State of Georgia.  The complaint also alleges that
Nationwide's policy violates Georgia law.  Similar policies by
other insurers may entitle policyholders to seek recovery in a
separate case.

The appellate case is captioned as Alyssa Majesko v. Nationwide
Mutual Insurance Co., et al., Case No. 18-10132, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that the
Appellee's Certificate of Interested Persons was due on or before
February 9, 2018, as to Appellee Nationwide Affinity Insurance
Company of America.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant ALYSSA MAJESKO, on behalf of herself and all
persons similarly situated, is represented by:

          Jonathan E. Hawkins, Esq.
          Halsey G. Knapp, Jr., Esq.
          Patricia King Minton, Esq.
          KREVOLIN & HORST, LLC
          1201 W Peachtree Street NW, Suite 3250
          Atlanta, GA 30309-3449
          Telephone: (404) 888-9700
          Facsimile: (404) 888-9577
          E-mail: Hawkins@khlawfirm.com
                  hknapp@khlawfirm.com
                  minton@khlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Kristina M. Jones, Esq.
          John Da Grosa Smith, Esq.
          SMITH, LLC
          1320 Ellsworth Industrial Blvd. NW, Suite A1000
          Atlanta, GA 30318-4150
          Telephone: (404) 605-9680
          E-mail: kjones@smithlit.com
                  jdsmith@smithlit.com

Defendants-Appellees NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY and
NATIONWIDE AFFINITY INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA are represented
by:

          Nathan L. Garroway, Esq.
          Jeffrey A. Zachman, Esq.
          DENTONS US, LLP
          303 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 5300
          Atlanta, GA 30308
          Telephone: (404) 527-4000
          E-mail: nathan.garroway@dentons.com
                  jeffrey.zachman@dentons.com


NEW ALBERTSON'S: Bruhn Sues over Collection of Biometric Data
-------------------------------------------------------------
GREGG BRUHN, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. NEW ALBERTSON'S, INC. d/b/a JEWEL-
OSCO, CERBERUS CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, L.P., AB ACQUISITIONS, LLC,
ALBERTSONS COMPANIES, LLC, and AMERICAN DRUG STORES, LLC, the
Defendants, Case No. 2018-CH-01737 (Ill. Cir., Cook County, Feb.
13, 2018), seeks to recover statutory penalties, prejudgment
interest, attorneys' fees and costs, and other damages under the
Biometric Information Privacy Act.

According to the complaint, when Jewel-Osco hires an employee to
work in the pharmacy department, he or she is enrolled in an
employee database(s). Jewel-Osco uses the employee database(s)
to, among other things, monitor its employees. Jewel-Osco
requires employees working in the pharmacy department to have
their fingerprints scanned by a biometric device to enable them
to access the pharmacy computer system as well as to track
functions performed by its pharmacy employees for both
accountability and performance purposes.

Unlike ID badges -- which can be changed or replaced if stolen or
compromised -- fingerprints are a unique, permanent biometric
identifier associated with each employee. This exposes Jewel-Osco
employees to serious and irreversible privacy risks. For example,
if a biometric database is hacked, breached, or otherwise exposed
- such as in the recent Equifax and Uber data breaches -
employees have no means by which to prevent identity theft,
unauthorized tracking, and other improper or unlawful use of this
information, 5. Recognizing the need to protect its citizens from
situations like these, Illinois enacted the Biometric Information
Privacy Act, 740 ILCS 14/1, et seq., specifically to regulate
companies that collect and store lllinois citizens' biometrics,
such as fingerprints. Despite this law, Defendants disregard
their employees' statutorily protected privacy rights and
unlawfully collect, store, use, and disseminate their biometric
data in violation of BIPA.

Jewel-Osco is a supermarket chain headquartered in Itasca,
Illinois. Jewel-Osco operates 187 stores in Illinois, Iowa and
Indiana, including stores located in Cook County, Illinois.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew C. Ficzko, Esq.
          Ryan F. Stephan, Esq.
          James B. Zouras, Esq.
          Andrew C. Ficzko, Esq.
          STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
          205 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 2560
          Chicago, IL 6060
          Telephone: (312) 233 1550
          Facsimile: (312) 233 1560
          E-mail: rstephan@stephanzouras.com
                  jzouras@stephanzouras.com
                  aficzko@stephanzouras.com


NORMAN NOBLE: "Hill" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------
KHRYSTYNE HILL, the Plaintiff, v. NORMAN NOBLE, INC., the
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-00360 (N.D. Ohio, Feb. 14, 2018),
seeks to recover overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The case is a collective action instituted by Plaintiff as a
result of Defendant's practices and policies of not paying its
hourly, non-exempt manufacturing employees, including Plaintiff
and other similarly-situated employees, for all time worked and
overtime compensation at the rate of one and one-half times their
regular rates of pay for all of the hours they worked over 40
each workweek in violation of the FLSA, as well as a "class
action" pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 to remedy violations of
the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act.

Norman Noble provides contract manufacturing services to the
medical and aerospace industries. It offers vascular products,
including finished class III implants and devices, which include
stents and heart valves; endoscope components and finished biopsy
forceps devices; and arthroscopy products.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Chastity L. Christy, Esq.
          Lori M. Griffin, Esq.
          Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq.
          THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC
          920 Rockefeller Building
          614 W. Superior Avenue
          Cleveland, Ohio 44113
          Telephone: (216) 696 5000
          Facsimile: (216) 696 7005
          E-mail: lori@lazzarolawfirm.com
                  chastity@lazzarolawfirm.com
                  anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com


NORTHFIELD BANK: Faces "Duncan" Suit in E.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Northfield Bank.
The case is styled as Eugene Duncan, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Northfield Bank,
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-00960 (E.D. Cal., February 13, 2018).

Northfield Bank offers a full line of personal and commercial
banking services to the Staten Island, Brooklyn and New Jersey
community.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


OBALON THERAPEUTICS: Hustig Sues over Securities Law Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL HUSTIG, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. OBALON THERAPEUTICS, INC.,
ANDREW RASDAL, and WILLIAM PLOVANIC, the Defendants, Case No.
3:18-cv-00352-AJB-WVG (S.D. Cal., Feb. 14, 2018), seeks to
recover damages under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The case is a class action on behalf of all persons and entities
that purchased or otherwise acquired Obalon common stock between
October 5, 2016 and January 23, 2018, inclusive. Obalon is
purportedly a medical device company that develops and
commercializes medical devices to treat obese and overweight
people by facilitating weight loss. The Company claims that its
initial product offering is the Obalon balloon system, a U.S.
Food and Drug Administration approved swallowable, gas-filled
intragastric balloon designed to provide progressive and
sustained weight loss in obese patients.

On January 23, 2018, Obalon issued a press release disclosing
that "a purported whistleblower contacted KPMG LLP, the Company's
independent auditors, to make certain allegations relating to
allegedly improper revenue recognition during the Company's
fourth fiscal quarter of 2017." The Company further stated that
"Obalon's Audit Committee will oversee an internal investigation
of these allegations." On this news, Obalon's stock price fell
$1.73 per share, or 33.3%, to close at $3.46 per share on January
23, 2018, on unusually heavy volume. The $3.46 closing price
represented a total decline of $11.54, or nearly 77%, from the
IPO price of $15.00 per share. Throughout the Class Period,
Defendants made false and/or misleading statements, as well as
failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants
failed to disclose: (1) that the Company recognized revenue in
violation of Generally Accepted Accounting principles; (2) that
the Company lacked adequate internal controls over accounting and
financial reporting; and (3) that, as a result of the foregoing,
the Company's financial statements and Defendants' statements
about Obalon's business, operations, and prospects, were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times. As a
result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages.

Obalon Therapeutics, a vertically integrated medical device
company, focuses on developing and commercializing medical
devices to treat obese and overweight people by facilitating
weight loss. It offers the Obalon balloon system designed to
provide weight loss in obese patients.[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiff:

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


OSI SYSTEMS: Bragar Eagel Files Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., disclosed to investors that a class
action complaint was recently filed against OSI Systems, Inc. The
complaint was brought on behalf of all purchasers of OSI Systems
securities between August 21, 2013 and February 1, 2018, for
alleged violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by OSI
Systems' officers and directors.

According to the complaint, on August 21, 2013, OSI announced
that it had entered into a 15-year agreement to provide turnkey
cargo and vehicle security screening services in Albania.
However, OSI officials failed to disclose that OSI transferred
49% of its project company associated with the Albania contract-
the entity to which all rights and obligations under the contract
belong and therefore worth millions-to a holding company owned by
an Albanian doctor for consideration of less than $5.00. Muddy
Waters Research brought this information to light on December 6,
2017, when it reported that OSI obtained the contract in Albania
through corruption. Immediately following the Muddy Waters
report, OSI denied Muddy Waters' claims, calling them misleading.

On February 1, 2018, OSI Systems effectively admitted that the
Muddy Waters report was accurate, and announced that the
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) had commenced an
investigation into the Company's compliance with the Foreign
Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA), and that the U.S. Attorney's Office
for the Central District of California (DOJ) had also said it
intended to request information regarding FCPA compliance
matters. Following this news, OSI's share price fell $12.00 per
share, or over 18%, to close at $54.60 per share on February 2,
2018.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired OSI Systems securities and
continue to hold shares, have information, would like to learn
more about these claims, or have any questions concerning this
announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these
matters, please contact Brandon Walker or Melissa Fortunato by
email at investigations@bespc.com, or telephone at (212) 355-
4648, or by filling out this contact form. There is no cost or
obligation to you.

Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a New York-based law firm
concentrating in commercial and securities litigation. For
additional information concerning the OSI Systems, Inc. lawsuit,
please go to www.bespc.com/osis. For additional information about
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., please go to www.bespc.com.

         Brandon Walker, Esq.
         Melissa Fortunato, Esq.
         Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
         Tel. No: 212-355-4648
         E-mail: walker@bespc.com
                 fortunato@bespc.com [GN]


PENTAGON FEDERAL: Neal Files Suit Over Property Damage
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pentagon Federal
Credit Union. The case is styled as Tiffany Neal, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Pentagon Federal Credit Union, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-00451-
ELH (D. Md., February 13, 2018).

The case is assigned to Judge Ellen L. Hollander. The case docket
lists nature of suit as Other Statutes - Consumer Credit, and
Property Damage as cause of suit.

Pentagon Federal Credit Union, widely known by its abbreviated
name PenFed, is a United States federal credit union
headquartered in McLean, Virginia, chartered and regulated under
the authority of the National Credit Union Administration.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Andrew Nyombi, Esq.
   KNA PEARL
   8701 Georgia Avenue, Suite 606
   Silver Spring, MD 20910
   Tel: (301) 585-1568
   Fax: (800) 250-7923
   Email: anyombi@enylaw.com


PENTAGON FEDERAL: Neal Files Suit Under Truth in Lending Act
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pentagon Federal
Credit Union. The case is styled as Tiffany Neal individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Pentagon
Federal Credit Union, Defendant, Case No. 8:18-cv-00451-PWG (D.
Md., February 13, 2018).

The case is assigned to Judge Paul w. Grimm. The case docket
lists nature of suit as Torts - Personal, and Truth in Lending as
cause of suit.

Pentagon Federal Credit Union, widely known by its abbreviated
name PenFed, is a United States federal credit union
headquartered in McLean, Virginia, chartered and regulated under
the authority of the National Credit Union Administration.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Andrew Nyombi, Esq.
   KNA PEARL
   8701 Georgia Avenue, Suite 606
   Silver Spring, MD 20910
   Tel: (301) 585-1568
   Fax: (800) 250-7923
   Email: anyombi@enylaw.com


PERFECT PASTA: "McConnell" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Grace McConnell, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Perfect Pasta Enterprises L.L.C. and
Jimmy's Pizza, Inc., Case No. 1:18-cv-00011-CSM (D.N.D., January
22, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and other
damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate Jimmy's Pizza restaurant in North
Dakota. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David I. Moulton, Esq.
      Matthew S. Parmet, Esq.
      BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
      8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
      Houston, TX 77046
      Telephone: (713) 877-8788
      Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
      E-mail: dmoulton@brucknerburch.com
              mparmet@brucknerburch.com
PHILADELPHIA, PA: Third Circuit Appeal Filed in "J. C." Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff J. C. filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in
the lawsuit titled J. C. v. Ford, et al., Case No. 2-15-cv-04745,
in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania.

The Defendants are Philadelphia Probation Officers.

The appellate case is captioned as In re: J. C., Case No. 18-
1142, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit.

Plaintiff-Petitioner J. C., individually and all others similarly
situated, of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, appears pro se.[BN]

Defendants-Respondents NICHOLAS FORD, STEFFEN BOYD, JOSETTE
SPRINGER, SHONDA WILLIAMS, JOHN W. HARRISON, E. MARTINEZ, STEVEN
AUSTIN, DARLENE MILLER and CHARLES HOYT are represented by:

          Christopher P. Boyle, Sr., Esq.
          MARSHALL DENNEHEY WARNER COLEMAN & GOGGIN
          620 Freedom Business Center, Suite 300
          King of Prussia, PA 19406
          Telephone: (610) 354-8476
          Facsimile: (610) 354-8299
          E-mail: cpboyle@mdwcg.com

               - and -

          Martha Gale, Esq.
          ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF PENNSYLVANIA COURTS
          1515 Market Street, Suite 1414
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Telephone: (215) 560-6300


PHILLIPS & COHEN: Steffek Sues over Debt Collection Practices
-------------------------------------------------------------
SARAH STEFFEK, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. PHILLIPS & COHEN ASSOCIATES, LTD., a
Delaware Corporation; and, JOHN AND JANE DOES NUMBERS 1 THROUGH
25, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-00239 (E.D. Wisc., Feb. 14,
2018), seeks statutory damages, injunctive relief, attorney fees,
costs, and all other relief, equitable or legal in nature, as
deemed appropriate by this Court, pursuant to the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act and all other common law or statutory
regimes.

The Plaintiff, on her own behalf and on behalf of the class she
seeks to represent, and demanding a trial by jury, brings this
action for the illegal practices of PHILLIPS & COHEN who used
unfair, unconscionable, false, deceptive, and misleading
practices, and other illegal practices, in connection with its
attempts to collect alleged debts from the Plaintiff and others.

The Plaintiff alleges Phillips & Cohen's collection practices
violate the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Such collection
practices include, inter alia, sending consumers written
communications in an attempt to collect debts, which make false,
deceptive, and misleading statements.

Phillips & Cohen Associates provides debt recovery services in
the United States and internationally. The company offers
deceased account care, pre and post C/O, and pre-arbitration and
litigation services, as well as bankruptcy recovery services,
including on-line bankruptcy verification, fraud review, and
proof-of-claim.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

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


PHILLIPS & COHEN: Faces "Dennis" Suit in N.D. Georgia
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Phillips & Cohen
Associates, Ltd. The case is styled as Robert Dennis,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Phillips & Cohen Associates, Ltd. and John Does 1-
25, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-00632-AT-WEJ (N.D. Ga., February
12, 2018).

Phillips & Cohen Associates, Ltd. is a debt collection agency in
Wilmington, Delaware.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Jonathan Braxton Mason, Esq.
   Mason Law Group, LLC - GA
   1100 Peachtree Street, NE, Suite 200
   Atlanta, GA 30309
   Tel: (404) 920-8040
   Fax: (404) 920-8039
   Email: jmason@atlshowbizlaw.com


PHILIPS BRYANT PARK: Faces "Fischler" Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Philips Bryant Park
Hotel LLC. The case is styled Brian Fischler, individually and on
behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Philips Bryant Park Hotel LLC doing business as: Bryant Park
Hotel LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-01224 (S.D. N.Y., February
12, 2018).

Philips Bryant Park LLC (trade name Bryant Park Hotel) operates
in the hospitality industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


POINTER TELOCATION: Applicant Seeks Withdrawal of Class Claim
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pointer Telocation Ltd. -- a leading developer and operator of
Fleet and Mobile Resource Management (MRM) solutions, disclosed
that further to its announcement dated August 2, 2017, the
applicant that filed an application to recognize a claim as a
class action against the Company, has made a request from the
courts in Israel, that his application should be withdrawn. This
was due to the recognition that his claim had no basis. [GN]


PURDUE PHARMA: New Castle City Sues over Prescription Opioids
-------------------------------------------------------------
THE CITY OF NEW CASTLE, on behalf of itself and other similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. PURDUE PHARMA L.P., PURDUE PHARMA
INC., THE PURDUE FREDERICK COMPANY, INC., TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS
USA, INC., CEPHALON, INC. JOHNSON & JOHNSON, JANSSEN
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., ORTHO-McNEIL-JANSSEN, PHARMACEUTICALS,
INC. N/K/A, JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICS
INC., ENDO HEALTH SOLUTIONS INC., and ALLERGAN PLC, Case No.
180201036 (Pa. Common Pleas, Philadelphia County, Feb. 13, 2018),
seeks actual damages to recover costs of reimbursement of
prescription opioids for long-term daily use and the cost of
treatment of opioid addiction and other adverse medical
conditions associated with long-term use incurred by the class
members' health plans and paid directly by it.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff, like many other
cities, municipalities, counties and townships across this
country are suffering from severe public health and safety crisis
arising out of the unlawful and deceptive marketing and sale of
prescription opioids by Defendants. The deceptive marketing and
sale of prescription opioids for medical use in New Castle are
responsible for an opioid epidemic addiction. As a result of the
opioid epidemic, Plaintiff has suffered a public health and
safety crisis. As a result of the opioid epidemic, Plaintiff has
suffered public safety, lack of economic productivity and quality
of life in its city. Further, Plaintiff has expended money to
contain the epidemic and adverse impacts on public health and
safety which has caused it to suffer damages. Further, the opioid
crisis has affected the citizens of New Castle resulting in
crime, family and social dysfunction. The opioid epidemic has
caused health consequences to the citizens of New Castle.
Finally, the city agencies have been responsible for coping and
containing the epidemic crisis by expending unnecessary money to
discharge their duties.

The opioid epidemic has affected New Castle's agencies including
police, fire and hospitals which has greatly increased costs to
Plaintiff. The opioid epidemic has also affected the law
enforcement authorities which include the criminal justice
system, social services, health and municipal agencies. Plaintiff
has been forced to incur substantial costs as a provider of
health coverage to its employees, their families and emergency
health services as a result of the opioid epidemic. The costs
incurred by Plaintiff are similar to costs that are incurred by
cities and municipalities across the country. The epidemic is
directly a result of the commercial activities of Defendants.

The opioid drugs that are prescribed by the Defendants are
dangerous and have severe adverse side effects to its users. The
Defendants marketed and promoted the prescription drugs for long-
term use to treat chronic pain. However, the overwhelming weight
of medical and scientific authority is that the prescription
opioids should not be used for long term treatment or chronic
pain.

The opioids include brand name drugs like OxyContin and Percocet
and generics like oxycodone and hydrocodone. The oxycodone is
derived from properties similar to opium and heroin, such are
highly addictive and dangerous and are regulated by the United
States Food and Drug Administration as controlled substances.
While opioids provide effective treatment for short-term, post-
surgical and trauma-related pain, the Defendants have
manufactured, promoted and marketed the opioids for management of
pain by misleading consumers and providers regarding their
appropriate use. Opioids should not be prescribed for long-term
treatment.

Opioids are addictive drugs. Defendants knew that barring
exceptional circumstances, opioids are too addictive and too
debilitating for long-term use. The Defendants knew with
prolonged use, the effectiveness of opioids will be outweighed by
the risks of side effects and addiction. Defendants knew of
controlled studies where the risks of addiction and adverse
outcomes were significantly minimized by prescribing opioids for
limited short-term use. Despite this information, Defendants
marketed opioids for long-term use creating a false perception of
the safety and efficacy of opioids. Defendants had a highly
deceptive marketing campaign that begin in the late 1990's up
until 2006. Defendants were able to convince doctors to prescribe
opioids for long-term use even though Defendants were aware of
the negative consequences of using opioids for long-term use.
Defendants were aware that opioid use should be short-term
because opioids are addictive and debilitating under long-term
use.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel C. Levin, Esq.
          Arnold Levin, Esq.
          Charles E. Schaffer, Esq.
          LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN LLP
          510 Walnut Street, Ste. 500
          Philadelphia, Pa 19106
          Telephone: (215) 592 1500


RED LOBSTER: "Demarest" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Law
---------------------------------------------------------------
TYRA DEMAREST, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. RED LOBSTER RESTAURANTS,
LLC, RED LOBSTER HOSPITALITY, LLC, GMRI, INC., N AND D
RESTAURANTS, LLC, N AND D RESTAURANTS, INC., and DARDEN CORP.,
the Defendants, Case No. 151338/2018 (N.Y Sup. Ct., Feb. 13,
2018), seeks to recover wages and benefits pursuant to the New
York Labor Law.

According to the complaint, beginning in approximately February
2012 and continuing through the present, Defendants required
Plaintiffs to wear uniforms but did not offer to launder them or
to provide the uniform maintenance pay.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff and the Putative Class:

          Lloyd R. Ambinder, Esq.
          Jack L. Newhousev
          VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP
          40 Broad Street, 7th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 943 9080
          E-mail: lambinder@vandallp.com


RISTORANTE NUMERO: Fails to Pay Florida's Mandated Minimum Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN NEILAN, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, the Plaintiff, v. RISTORANTE NUMERO DIECI LTD., d/b/a
LOUIE BOSSI, A Florida Profit Corporation, the Defendant, Case
No. CACE-18-003350 (Fla. Cir., 17th Judicial Cir. in and for
Broward Cty., Feb. 13, 2018), seeks to recover Florida's mandated
minimum wages for all hours worked to all servers who worked in
the State of Florida, pursuant to Fla. Const. Art. X section 24.

All working Floridians are entitled to be paid a minimum wage
that is sufficient to provide a decent and healthy life for them
and their families, that protects their employers from unfair
low-wage competition, and that does not force them to rely on
taxpayer-funded public services in order to avoid economic
hardship. In 2004, the Florida legislature adopted this Section
of the constitution that specifically mandated that all employers
shall pay employees wages no less than the minimum wage for all
hours worked in Florida, including tipped employees.

According to the complaint, the Defendant willfully failed to pay
Plaintiff and the class members the full minimum wage for one or
more weeks of work contrary to Article X, Section 24 of the
Florida Constitution. As a direct and proximate result of
Defendant's deliberate underpayment of wages, Plaintiff and the
class members have been damaged in the loss of minimum wages for
one or more weeks of work during their employ with Defendant.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          Carlos V. Leach, Esq.
          THE LEACH FIRM, P.A.
          1950 Lee Road, Suite 213
          Winter Park, FL 32789
          Telephone: (407) 574 4999
          Facsimile: (833) 423 5864
          E-mail: cleach@leachfirm.com

               - and -

          RICHARD CELLER LEGAL, P.A
          7450 Griffin Road, Suite 230
          Davie, FL 33314
          Telephone: (866) 344 9243
          Facsimile: (954) 337 2771
          E-mail: Richard@floridaovertimelawyer.com


SAN JOSE: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Hernandez" Action Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Hernandez, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. San Jose Mercury-News, LLC, and Does 1
through 10, inclusive, and each of them, Case No. 5:18-cv-00145
(C.D. Cal., January 22, 2018), seeks to put an end to the
Defendants' practice of using an "automatic telephone dialing
system" to place its call to the Plaintiff and Class Members
seeking to solicit its services, without prior express consent of
the called party.

San Jose Mercury-News, LLC owns and operates a media and
entertainment company in Silicon Valley, San Francisco,
California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
      Meghan E. George, Esq.
      Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
      324 S. Beverly Dr., #725
      Beverly Hills, CA 90212
      Telephone: (877) 206-4741
      Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
      E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
              abacon@toddflaw.com
              mgeorge@toddflaw.com
SANTA MONICA AMUSEMENTS: White Seeks OT & Minimum Wages
-------------------------------------------------------
FIONA WHITE, individually, and on behalf of other members of the
general public similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. SANTA MONICA
AMUSEMENTS, LLC DBA PACIFIC PARK, a California corporation; and
DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. BC693970
(Cal. Super. Ct., Feb. 14, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime and minimum wages under the California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the Defendants employed Plaintiff and
other persons as hourly-paid or non-exempt employees within the
State of California, including the County of Los Angeles. The
Defendants, jointly and severally, employed Plaintiff as an
hourly-paid, nonexempt employee, from May 2014 to January 2015,
in the State of California, County of Los Angeles.

The Defendants hired Plaintiff and the other class members,
classified them as hourly-paid or non-exempt employees, and
failed to compensate them for all hours worked and missed meal
periods and/or rest breaks. The Defendants had the authority to
hire and terminate Plaintiff and the other class members, to set
work rules and conditions governing Plaintiffs and the other
class members' employment, and to supervise their daily
employment activities. Defendants exercised sufficient authority
over the terms and conditions of Plaintiffs and the other class
members' employment for them to be joint employers of Plaintiff
and the other class members.

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

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

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

               - and -

          Amir Nayebdadash, Esq.
          Heather Davis, Esq.
          PROTECTION LAW GROUP LLP
          136 Main Street, Suite A
          El Segundo, California 90245
          Telephone: (424) 290 3095
          Facsimile: (866) 264 7880


SEARS HOLDINGS: Smith & Alberton Sue over Defective Dryer Covers
----------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL SMITH and LISA ALBERTON, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. SEARS HOLDINGS
CORP., a Delaware corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-
01142 (N.D. Ill., Feb. 13, 2018), seeks to redress Sears'
violations of state and federal law, and to obtain relief from
Sears, including, inter alia, damages and declaratory relief.

In 1893 Sears, Roebuck and Company was founded and began selling
sewing machines. In 1927, the name "Kenmore" first appeared on a
Sears laundry appliance. Sears Holding Corporation (as it is now
known) has marketed and sold appliances for generations,
including clothes drying machines ("Dryers"), throughout the
United States, including in Illinois.

Sears has sold many of the Dryers it markets under the Sears and
Kenmore brand names with defective dryer lint screen covers, a
defect which manifests itself through an accumulation of lint
and/or by protruding Dryer Lint Screen Covers, whether or not
lint has accumulated. The accumulation of lint is a leading cause
of dryer fires each year. There are 2,900 dryer fires reported
each year causing deaths, injuries and property damage. It is
estimated that 34% of these fires are the result of lint build-
up.

The Lint Screen Covers protrude into the machines so that they
catch items of clothing and damage them. The protrusion allows
excess lint to build up in the Dryers. The Defect results in
consumers being forced to spend money on unnecessary repairs to
both their clothing and to the Dryers themselves, and occurs in
both Defendant's gas and electric Dryers.

The only potential means of resolving the problems caused by the
Defect is the removal of the Dryers' Lint Screen Covers, a
thorough cleanout of accumulated lint, and a reinsertion of the
Lint Screen Covers. However, this remedy does not work with all
Dryers, and does not permanently resolve the Defect. Consumers
must also -- for even this limited repair -- either spend money
to hire a professional to perform the "repair" or attempt to
perform the repair themselves, expending consumers' own time and
effort without a promise of permanent success. The Internet is
replete with consumer complaints about this pervasive Defect and
the damaged clothing in which it results. Yet, at the time Sears
sold the Dryers, it failed to adequately disclose that the Dryers
are inherently defective as manufactured and/or designed.

The Plaintiffs bring this class action to remedy Sears'
violations of state and federal law in connection with its
fraudulent and deceptive marketing and pricing scheme relating to
the Dryers. Sears represents, through false and misleading
advertising to potential customers, that the Dryers are capable
of efficiently and effectively drying clothes, when in fact they
damage consumers' clothing. Sears also inflates its Dryers'
prices to reflect their purported drying capabilities. As a
consequence of this scheme, consumers across the nation are
paying more than they would otherwise pay had Sears disclosed the
truth about the Dryers, and consumers receive a lower-quality
product than Sears advertises.[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiffs and the Putative Class:

          Daniel O. Herrera, Esq.
          Brian P. O'Connell, Esq.
          CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP
          150 South Wacker Drive, Suite 3000
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 782 4880
          Facsimile: (312) 782 4485
          E-mail: dherrera@caffertyclobes.com
                  boconnell@caffertyclobes.com

               - and -

          Bryan L. Clobes, Esq.
          CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP
          1101 Market Street Suite 2650
          Philadelphia, PA 19107
          Telephone: (215) 864 2800
          Facsimile: (215) 964-2808
          E-mail: bclobes@caffertyclobes.com

               - and -

          Joseph G. Sauder, Esq.
          Matthew D. Schelkopf, Esq.
          Joseph B. Kenney, Esq.
          MCCUNE WRIGHT AREVALO LLP
          555 Lancaster Avenue
          Berwyn, PA 19312
          Telephone: (610) 200 0580
          Facsimile: (610) 727 4360
          E-mail: jgs@mccunewright.com
                  mds@mccunewright.com
                  jbk@mccunewright.com


SEATTLE, WA: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Hooper" Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Kayla Willis, Reavy Washington, Lisa Hooper, Brandie
Osborne, The Episcopal Diocese Of Olympia, Trinity Parish of
Seattle and Real Change filed an appeal from a court ruling in
their lawsuit entitled Lisa Hooper, et al. v. City of Seattle, et
al., Case No. 2:17-cv-00077-RSM, in the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Washington, Seattle.

The appellate case is captioned as Kayla Willis, et al. v. City
of Seattle, et al., Case No. 18-35053, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the
Plaintiffs filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit.
That appellate case is styled Kayla Willis, et al. v. City of
Seattle, et al., Case No. 17-80214.

The lawsuit stems from the Defendants' enforcement of rules and
guidelines that authorize the removal of unauthorized encampments
from City-owned and Washington State-owned property.  In 2008,
the City enacted rules, the Multi-Departmental Administrative
Rules 08-01 ("MDAR 08-01"), to establish, in part, standard
procedures for the removal of unauthorized encampments, camping
equipment, and personal property left on City-owned property.

That same year, Washington State Department of Transportation
("WSDOT") also adopted guidelines, entitled WSDOT's Guidelines to
Address Illegal Encampments within State Right of Way,
establishing similar removal procedures for unauthorized
encampments.

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

   -- Transcript must be ordered by February 22, 2018;

   -- Transcript is due on March 26, 2018;

   -- Appellants Lisa Hooper, Brandie Osborne, Real Change, The
      Episcopal Diocese of Olympia, Trinity Parish of Seattle,
      Reavy Washington and Kayla Willis' opening brief is due on
      May 3, 2018;

   -- Appellees City of Seattle, Rogar Millar and Washington
      State Department of Transportation's answering brief is due
      on June 4, 2018; and

   -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after
      service of the answering brief.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants KAYLA WILLIS, REAVY WASHINGTON, LISA
HOOPER, BRANDIE OSBORNE, individually and on behalf of a class of
similarly situated individuals, THE EPISCOPAL DIOCESE OF OLYMPIA,
TRINITY PARISH OF SEATTLE and REAL CHANGE are represented by:

          Emily Chiang, Esq.
          Nancy Lynn Talner, Esq.
          Breanne Schuster, Esq.
          ACLU OF WASHINGTON
          901 Fifth Avenue
          Seattle, WA 98164
          Telephone: (206) 624-2184
          E-mail: echiang@aclu-wa.org
                  talner@aclu-wa.org
                  bschuster@aclu-wa.org

               - and -

          Eric A. Lindberg, Esq.
          Todd Tyler Williams, Esq.
          CORR CRONIN MICHELSON BAUMGARDNER FOGG & MOORE LLP
          1001 4th Avenue, Suite 3900
          Seattle, WA 98154-1051
          Telephone: (206) 625-8600
          E-mail: elindberg@corrcronin.com
                  twilliams@corrcronin.com

Defendant-Appellee CITY OF SEATTLE is represented by:

          Patrick Downs, Esq.
          Andrew Myerberg, Esq.
          Gregory Colin Narver, Esq.
          Gary Theodore Smith, Esq.
          SEATTLE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
          701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2050
          Seattle, WA 98104-7097
          Telephone: (206) 684-8616
          E-mail: patrick.downs@seattle.gov
                  andrew.myerberg@seattle.gov
                  gregory.narver@seattle.gov
                  gary.smith@seattle.gov

               - and -

          Taki V. Flevaris, Esq.
          Matthew J. Segal, Esq.
          Gregory J. Wong, Esq.
          PACIFICA LAW GROUP
          1191 Second Avenue
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 245-1735
          E-mail: taki.flevaris@pacificalawgroup.com
                  matthew.segal@pacificalawgroup.com
                  greg.wong@pacificalawgroup.com

               - and -

          Carlton W. Seu, Esq.
          SEATTLE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
          P.O. Box 94769
          Seattle, WA 98124-4769
          Telephone: (206) 684-8200
          E-mail: carlton.seu@seattle.gov

Defendants-Appellees WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION, and ROGAR MILLAR, Secretary of Transportation for
WSDOT, in his official capacity, are represented by:

          Alicia Orlena Young, Esq.
          Matthew David Huot, Esq.
          AGWA - OFFICE OF THE WASHINGTON
          ATTORNEY GENERAL (OLYMPIA)
          7141 Cleanwater Drive SW
          Olympia, WA 98504
          Telephone: (360) 709-6470
          E-mail: AliciaO@atg.wa.gov


SELIP & STYLIANOU: Faces "Natela" Suit in District of New Jersey
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Selip & Stylianou,
LLP.  The case is styled as Iobidze Natela, on behalf of herself
and all other similarly situated consumers, Plaintiff v. Selip &
Stylianou, LLP, Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-01992 (D. N.J.,
February 12, 2018).

Selip & Stylianou LLP is a debt collection agency.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


SHERWIN-WILLIAMS: Elastomeric Coating Ads Deceptive, Sluder Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
REGAN SLUDER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the PLAINTIFF, v. THE SHERWIN-WILLIAMS COMPANY; THE
SHERWINWILLIAMS MANUFACTURING COMPANY, USA, the DEFENDANTS, Case
No. 1:18-cv-01121 (N.D. Il., Feb. 13, 2018), seeks to recover
actual and punitive damages, injunctive relief, costs, and
attorneys' fees, to hold Defendants' accountable for the unfair,
deceptive, untrue, and misleading advertising.

The Plaintiff brings this complaint on behalf of a nationwide and
an alternative state sub-class of all similarly situated
purchasers of Defendants' Duckback Deck & Dock Elastomeric
Coating and Deck and Dock Solid Coating and SuperDeck Deck and
Dock Coating. Despite knowing that the Products are defective,
Defendants marketed, sold, and continue to sell them to millions
of unsuspecting consumers.

Defendants market and sell the Products as do-it-yourself
products for use by consumers hoping to save time and money by
repairing and revitalizing -- rather than replacing -- their
existing decks and docks by covering the surface with a thick,
weather-resistant coating. Defendants market the Products
specially "designed to protect, resurface and waterproof old,
damaged wood and concrete."

Defendants market the Products as all-in-one products capable of
resurfacing, sealing, and waterproofing surfaces. Defendants
further claim the Products can be applied by homeowners ("easy to
use, just clean deck or patio surface and apply with a roller");
protect, resurface, and repel water on old damaged wood and
concrete; lock down splinters and bridge dimensionally unstable
cracks on old damaged wood surfaces; are formulated to resist
growth of mildew and algae on the coating's surface; and provide
long-lasting protection against moisture and the damaging effects
of the sun. The Defendants claim the Products are "designed to
expand and contract along with the substrate while offering
excellent scuff resistance for heavy duty foot traffic areas,"
such that the Products will not crack or peel following
application.

Contrary to Defendants' representations and illusory guarantees
and warranties, the Products are plagued by design flaws that
invariably result in peeling, cracking, and bubbling once exposed
to the elements, all of which ultimately expose the underlying
surface to environmental conditions that further degrade the
remaining coating, as well as the surface to which it is applied.

Despite longstanding knowledge of the Products' inherently
defective nature, Defendants continue to manufacture, market, and
sell them to the public -- and make misrepresentations and
illusory guarantees and warranties -- while leaving consumers to
shoulder the substantial removal and replacement costs required
to return surfaces to their original condition once the Products
invariably fail. But for Defendants' many misrepresentations and
omissions, Plaintiff and Class members would not have purchased
the Products, or would have paid less for them, and would not
have suffered the alleged damages.

Founded in 1866, The Sherwin-Williams Company is a global leader
in the manufacture, development, distribution, and sale of
paints, coatings and related products to professional,
industrial, commercial, and retail customers.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Edward A. Wallace, Esq.
          Richard L. Miller II, Esq.
          WEXLERWALLACE LLP
          55 W. Monroe St., Suite 3300
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 346 2222
          Facsimile: (312) 346 0022
          E-mail: eaw@wexlerwallace.com
                  rlm@wexlerwallace.com

               - and -

          Daniel K. Bryson, Esq.
          Patrick M. Wallace, Esq.
          WHITFIELD BRYSON&MASON LLP
          900 W. Morgan Street
          Raleigh, NC 27603
          Telephone: (919) 600 5000
          Facsimile: (919) 600 5035
          E-mail: dan@wbmllp.com
                  pat@wbmllp.com

               - and -

          Gregory F. Coleman, Esq.
          GREG COLEMAN LAW PC
          First Tennessee Plaza
          800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100
          Knoxville, TN 37929
          Telephone: (865) 247 0080
          Facsimile: (865) 522 0049
          E-mail: greg@gregcolemanlaw.com

               - and -

          Christopher Jennings, Esq.
          JOHNSON FIRM
          2226 Cottondale Ln No. 210
          Little Rock, AR 72202
          Telephone: (501) 777 7777
          Facsimile: (888) 888 0612
          E-mail: chris@yourattorney.com


SOUTHCROSS ENERGY: Sued in N.D. Tex. Over American Merger Plan
--------------------------------------------------------------
Robinson Iglesias, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Southcross Energy Partners, L.P.,
Southcross Energy Partners GP, LLC, Southcross Holdings LP,
Southcross Holdings GP LLC, Bruce A. Williamson, David W.
Biegler, Andrew A. Cameron, Nicholas J. Caruso, Jason H. Downie,
Wallace Henderson, Jerry W. Pinkerton, Cherokee Merger Sub LLC,
and American Midstream Partners, LP, Case No. 3:18-cv-00158-N
(N.D. Tex., January 22, 2018), is brought on behalf of all public
unitholders of Southcross Energy Partners, L.P., to enjoin the
Board's attempt to sell the Company to American Midstream
Partners, LP through its wholly-owned subsidiary Cherokee Merger
Sub LLC for approximately $815 million.

According to the complaint, Southcross filed a Preliminary Proxy
Statement on Schedule 14A with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission, which recommends that Southcross stockholders vote in
favor of the Proposed Transaction. However, the Registration
Statement contains materially incomplete and misleading
information concerning the sales process, financial projections
prepared by Southcross management, and the financial analyses
conducted by Jefferies, says the complaint. The failure to
adequately disclose such material information constitutes a
violation of the Exchange Act as stockholders need such
information in order to cast a fully-informed vote in connection
with the Proposed Transaction, it adds.  The Complaint says the
Proposed Transaction will unlawfully divest Southcross' public
stockholders of the Company's valuable assets without fully
disclosing all material information concerning the Proposed
Transaction to Company stockholders. To remedy defendants'
Exchange Act violations, Plaintiff seeks to enjoin the
stockholder vote on the Proposed Transaction unless and until
such problems are remedied.

Southcross Energy Partners, L.P. together with its subsidiaries,
provides natural gas gathering, processing, treating,
compression, and transportation services in the United States.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

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


SPARK OF HOPE: "Gayle" Suit Moved to Southern District of Florida
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Michael Gayle, and all others
similarly situated under 29USC 216 (B), the Plaintiff, v. Spark
of Hope, LLC and David Lam, the Defendants, Case No. CACE-17-
022328, was removed from the 17th Judicial Circuit Court, to the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Ft
Lauderdale) on Feb. 14, 2018. The District Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 0:18-cv-60345-WPD to the proceeding. The case is
assigned to the Hon. Judge William P. Dimitrouleas.

Spark of Hope offers an outpatient treatment program for drug and
alcohol abuse using holistic treatment including therapy and bio
sound therapy beds.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jorge Freddy Perera, Esq.
          Perera Barnhart, Esq.
          PERERA BARNHART
          12555 Orange Drive
          Second Floor
          Davie, FL 33330
          Telephone: (786) 485 5232
          Facsimile: (786) 485 1519
          E-mail: freddy@pererabarnhart.com

Attorneys for Defendants:

          Andrew Michael Gordon, Esq.
          HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP
          1 East Broward Blvd., Suite 1010
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 467 7900
          Facsimile: (954) 467 1024
          E-mail: agordon@hinshawlaw.com


SUNNY JEWANEE: "Qureshi" Suit Seeks Overtime Wages under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jamal Qureshi; and All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiffs,
v. Sunny Jewanee; Cypresswood Fortune, Inc.; Fallbrook Fortune,
Inc.; Irvington Business, Inc.; Littleyork Enterprise, LLC;
Louetta Fortune, Inc.; South Post Oak Business, L.L.C.; Suncroft
Business, Inc.; and Wallisville Enterprise, Inc., the DEFENDANTS,
Case No. 4:18-cv-00441 (S.D. Tex., Feb. 14, 2018), seeks to
recover unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act

The Plaintiff seeks notice to issue to all employees of the named
Defendants who together were victims of Defendant Jewanee's
widespread and identical violations of the FLSA, of paying his
employees' overtime wages with cash at straight-time hourly
rates. This policy and practice violates the FLSA because it
allows Defendant Jewanee not to pay his employees' overtime hours
at the required premium overtime pay rate at time-and-one-half of
the employee's base hourly rate. By Defendant Jewanee's failure
to document the proper hours and pay owed to members of the
Plaintiff Class, the Defendants also committed repeated
violations of the recordkeeping requirements of the FLSA.

Jewanee operates gasoline stations and convenience stores.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Salar Ali Ahmed, Esq.
          ALI S. AHMED, P.C.
          One Arena Place
          7322 Southwest Frwy., Suite 1920
          Houston, Texas 77074
          Telephone: (713) 223 1300
          Facsimile: (713) 255 0013
          E-mail: aahmedlaw@gmail.com


SUPER MICRO: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been
filed against Super Micro Computer, Inc. and certain of its
officers.  The class action, filed in United States District
Court, for the Northern District of California, and docketed
under 18-cv-00838, is on behalf of a class consisting of
investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Super Micro
securities, seeking to recover compensable damages caused by
defendants' violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Super Micro securities
between January 27, 2017, and January 30, 2018, both dates
inclusive, you have until April 9, 2018, to ask the Court to
appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com.  To discuss
this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-
free, Ext. 9980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to
include their mailing address, telephone number, and the number
of shares purchased.

Super Micro Computer, Inc. designs, develops, manufactures and
sells server solutions based on modular and open-standard
architecture. The Company's products include servers,
motherboards, chassis, and accessories.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period,
Defendants made materially false and misleading statements
regarding the Company's business, operational and compliance
policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Super Micro's
financial statements contained accounting errors, including
errors with respect to one of the Company's sales transactions;
(ii) as such, the Company's internal controls were not effective;
(iii) Super Micro lacked the capability to timely review and
assess the impact of the foregoing issues; and (iv) as a result,
Super Micro's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

On August 29, 2017, post-market, Super Micro filed a Notice of
Late Filing with the SEC, reporting that the Company "is not in a
position to file its Form 10-K for fiscal year ended June 30,
2017 (the "Form 10-K"), in a timely manner because the Registrant
cannot complete the Form 10-K in a timely manner without
unreasonable effort or expense" and that "[a]dditional time is
needed for the Company to compile and analyze certain information
and documentation and complete preparation of its financial
statements."

On this news, Super Micro's share price fell $1.35, or 4.96%, to
close at $25.85 on August 30, 2017.

Then, on October 26, 2017, post-market, Super Micro reaffirmed
its delay in filing the 10-K, stating that "[i]n connection with
the in-process audit of the Company's financial results for the
year ended June 30, 2017, a sales transaction was subject to
additional inquiry and review".  Super Micro advised investors
that the transaction at issue "was originally recorded as revenue
during the quarter ended December 31, 2016.  However, prior to
review by the Company's independent auditors and prior to the
Company's public announcement of its results for the quarter, the
recognition of revenue was reversed and the revenue was
subsequently recognized in the quarter ended March 31, 2017."

On this news, Super Micro's share price fell $1.23, or 5.65%, to
close at $20.48 on October 27, 2017.

On January 30, 2018, post-market, Super Micro announced that the
Company's "Audit Committee has completed the previously disclosed
investigation," and that "[a]dditional time is required to
analyze the impact, if any, of the results of the investigation
on the Company's historical financial statements, as well as to
conduct additional reviews before the Company will be able to
finalize its Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended
June 30, 2017." Super Micro also announced the resignations of
three executives: Wally Liaw, Senior Vice President of
International Sales; Phidias Chou, Senior Vice President of
Worldwide Sales; and Howard Hideshima, Senior Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer ("CFO").

Following this news, Super Micro's share price fell $1.83, or
7.4%, to close at $22.83 on January 31, 2018.

The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los
Angeles, and Paris, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms
in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class
litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as
the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered
the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 80 years
later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he
established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities
fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The
Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on
behalf of class members.

         Robert S. Willoughby, Esq.
         Pomerantz LLP
         Email: rswilloughby@pomlaw.com [GN]


SUPER MICRO: Saxena White Files Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Saxena White P.A. has filed a securities fraud class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California against Super Micro Computer, Inc. ("Super
Micro" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:SMCI) on behalf of investors who
purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of the Company
between August 5, 2016 and January 30, 2018, inclusive (the
"Class Period").

Super Micro, headquartered in San Jose, California, designs,
develops, manufactures and sells server solutions. The Company's
products include servers, motherboards, chassis and other
accessories.

The Complaint asserts claims for violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934. The Complaint alleges that, throughout the
Class Period, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements,
as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects.

Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Super Micro was improperly
and illicitly recognizing revenue on certain sales transactions;
(2) the Company failed to implement and maintain proper internal
controls over its financial reporting (3); Super Micro's revenues
and income were artificially inflated as a result of its illicit
business practices; (4) these practices caused the Company to be
vulnerable to potential civil and criminal liability, and adverse
regulatory action; and (5) as a result of the foregoing,
Defendants' statements about Super Micro's business, operations,
and prospects, were materially false and/or misleading and/or
lacked a reasonable basis.

You may obtain a copy of the Complaint and join the class action
at www.saxenawhite.com.

If you purchased Super Micro shares between August 5, 2016 and
January 30, 2018, you may contact Lester Hooker
(lhooker@saxenawhite.com) at Saxena White P.A. to discuss your
rights and interests.

If you purchased Super Micro securities during the Class Period
of August 5, 2016 through January 30, 2018 and wish to apply to
be the lead plaintiff in this action, a motion on your behalf
must be filed with the Court by no later than April 9, 2018. You
may contact Saxena White P.A. to discuss your rights regarding
the appointment of lead plaintiff and your interest in the class
action. Please note that you may also retain counsel of your
choice and need not take any action at this time to be a class
member.

Saxena White P.A., with offices in Florida, New York, and
Massachusetts, concentrates its practice on prosecuting
securities fraud and complex class actions on behalf of
institutions and individuals. Currently serving as lead counsel
in numerous securities fraud class actions nationwide, the firm
has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars on behalf of
injured investors and is active in major litigation pending in
federal and state courts throughout the United States. [GN]


SUPER MICRO: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, disclosed the
filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of Super Micro Computer, Inc. (NASDAQ:SMCI) from
January 27, 2017 through January 30, 2018, inclusive (the "Class
Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Super Micro
investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the Super Micro class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1229.htmlor call Phillip Kim,
Esq. or Daniel Sadeh, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email
pkim@rosenlegal.com or dsadeh@rosenlegal.com for information on
the class action.

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

According to the lawsuit, defendants during the Class Period made
materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) Super Micro's financial statements contained
accounting errors, including errors with respect to one of the
Company's sales transactions; (2) the Company's internal controls
were therefore not effective; (3) Super Micro lacked the
capability to timely review and assess the impact of the
foregoing issues; and (4) as a result, Super Micro's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than
April 9, 2018. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting
on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If
you wish to join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1229.htmlor to discuss your
rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact
Phillip Kim, Esq. or Daniel Sadeh, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll
free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
dsadeh@rosenlegal.com.

Follow us for updates on LinkedIn:
https://www.linkedin.com/company/the-rosen-law-firm or on
Twitter: https://twitter.com/rosen_firm.

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.

         Contacts
         Laurence Rosen, Esq.
         Phillip Kim, Esq.
         Daniel Sadeh, Esq.
         The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
         275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor
         New York, NY 10016
         Tel: 212-686-1060
         Toll Free: 866-767-3653
         Fax: 212-202-3827
         Website: www.rosenlegal.com
         Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
                pkim@rosenlegal.com
                dsadeh@rosenlegal.com [GN]


TJD TRANSPORTATION: "Gaye" Suit Seeks to Recoup Unpaid Back Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MOUHAMADOU GAYE, Individually and on behalf of other employees
similarly situated v. TJD Transportation, TJD Limo, AND Djibril
Gacou, Case No. 4:18-cv-00243 (S.D. Tex., January 25, 2018), is
brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to
recover alleged unpaid back wages, an additional equal amount as
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and pre- and post-
judgment interest.

TJD Transportation is a luxury town car and limousine service
located in Houston, Texas.  TJD Limo is a luxury town car and
limousine service located in Houston.  Djabril Gacou, a resident
of Houston, is TJD's CEO and owner.

TJD provides limousine transportation services to the greater
Houston area.  Mr. Gaye worked for TJD since September 2014 until
August 20, 2017, as a limousine driver and was classified as an
independent contractor.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Trang Q. Tran, Esq.
          TRAN LAW FIRM
          2537 S. Gessner Road, Suite 104
          Houston, TX 77063
          Telephone: (713) 223-8855
          Facsimile: (713) 623-6399
          E-mail: Ttran@tranlawllp.com

               - and -

          Nichole Nech, Esq.
          THE NECH LAW FIRM
          800 Bering Drive, Suite 220
          Houston, TX 77057
          Telephone: (713) 936-9496
          Facsimile: (888) 557-7257
          E-mail: nichole@nechtriallaw.com


TOLL GLOBAL: Marquez Seeks Minimum Wage, OT under Labor Code
------------------------------------------------------------
CARLOS MARQUEZ, an individual and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. TOLL GLOBAL FORWARDING
(USA) INC., a corporation; TGF MANAGEMENT GROUP HOLDCO,
INC., a corporation; INSPERITY EXPENSE MANAGEMENT, INC.; and
DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC693823
(Cal. Super. Ct., Feb. 13, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid minimum
wage and overtime under the California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the Defendant consistently required
Plaintiff and Class Members to perform work past their scheduled
eight hours of work, however, Plaintiff and Class Members were
not compensated for hours worked in excess of eight hours per day
or 40 hours per week. This was a routine and habitual practice,
which required Plaintiff and those similarly situated to work
many hours "off the clock."

Toll Global provides transportation support services. The Company
offers courier services, warehousing and storage, business
support, remote and resource logistics, freight forwarding, and
supply chain management services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kevin Mahoney, Esq.
          George B. Singer, Esq.
          MAHONEY LAW GROUP, APC
          249 E. Ocean Blvd., Ste. 814
          Long Beach, CA 90802
          Telephone: (562) 590 5550
          Facsimile: (562) 590 8400
          E-mail: kmahoney@mahoney-law.net
                  gsinger@mahoney-law.net


TOWN SPORTS: Faces "Kolomiichuk" Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Town Sports
International Holdings, Inc. The case is styled as Mykola
Kolomiichuk, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Town Sports International Holdings, Inc.
and Town Sports International, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 7:18-cv-
01223 (S.D. N.Y., February 12, 2018).

Town Sports International Holdings is an operator of fitness
centers in the Eastern United States and in Switzerland. Its
brands include New York Sports Clubs, Boston Sports Clubs,
Philadelphia Sports Clubs and Washington Sports Clubs.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Sergei Lemberg, Esq.
   Lemberg Law, LLC
   43 Danbury Rd
   Wilton, CT 06897
   Tel: (203) 653-2250
   Fax: (203) 653-3424
   Email: slemberg@lemberglaw.com


TRIANGLE CAPITAL: Transferred "Dagher" Class Suit to E.D.N.C.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit filed on November 21, 2017 styled Elias
Dagher, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Triangle Capital Corporation, E. Ashton Poole, Steven
C. Lilly and Garland S. Tucker, III, Case No. 1:17-cv-09102, was
transferred on January 19, 2018, from the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York to the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of North Carolina. The District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 5:18-cv-00015-FL to the proceeding.

The case alleges violation of the Securities Exchange Act.

Triangle Capital Corporation is a specialty finance company that
provides customized financing to lower middle market companies
located primarily in the United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

The Defendant is represented by:

      Benjamin Warren Pope, Esq.
      Israel Dahan, Esq.
      Michael R. Smith, Esq.
      KING & SPALDING, LLP
      1180 Peachtree Street
      Atlanta, GA 30309-1763
      Telephone: (404) 572-4897
      Facsimile: (404) 572-5100
      E-mail: wpope@kslaw.com
              idahan@kslaw.com
              mrsmith@kslaw.com


TWIN KITTY: "Saavedra" Suit Seeks Unpaid Minimum & OT under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
BEATRIZ SAAVEDRA, ERIKA ALFARO, and JASBLEIDY MONTEJO,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, v. THE TWIN KITTY BAKERY CORP. (D/B/A LA GATA
GOLOSA), TWO BROTHERS BAKERY CORP. (D/B/A LA GATA GOLOSA), SWEET
KISS CORP. (D/B/A LA GATA GOLOSA), 8263 BAKERY CORP. (D/B/A LA
GATA GOLOSA), JOHN CASTRO, JOSE CASTRO, WENDY A CASTRO, and MAX
CASTRO, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-00932 (E.D.N.Y., Feb.
13, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and New York
Labor Law.

The Plaintiffs were employees of Defendants. The Plaintiffs were
employed as waitresses and cashiers at the three La Gata Golosa
locations. The Plaintiffs were ostensibly employed as waitresses.
However, they were required to spend a considerable part of their
work day performing non-tipped duties, including but not limited
to cleaning the restaurants, tables, windows and bathrooms,
cooking, preparing food, stocking and organizing merchandise in
the store, bringing supplies from the basement to the main floor,
mopping, sweeping, taking out trash, preparing coffee.

The Plaintiffs worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per
week, without appropriate minimum wage and overtime compensation
for the hours that they worked. Rather, Defendants failed to
maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours worked, failed to
pay Plaintiffs appropriately for any hours worked, either at the
straight rate of pay or for any additional overtime premium.
Defendants employed and accounted for Plaintiffs as waitresses in
their payroll, but in actuality their duties required a
significant amount of time spent performing the non-tipped duties
alleged above.

However, under both the FLSA and NYLL, Defendants were not
entitled to take a tip credit because Plaintiffs' non-tipped
duties exceeded 20% of each workday, or 2 hours per day,
whichever is less in each day. The Defendants employed the policy
and practice of disguising Plaintiffs' actual duties in payroll
records by designating them as waitresses instead of non-tipped
employees. This allowed Defendants to avoid paying Plaintiffs at
the minimum wage rate and enabled them to pay them above the tip-
credit rate, but below the minimum wage. Defendants' conduct
extended beyond Plaintiffs to all other similarly situated
employees.

The Defendants maintained a policy and practice of requiring
Plaintiffs and other employees to work in excess of 40 hours per
week without providing the minimum wage and overtime compensation
required by federal and state law and regulations.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

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


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Meyer Appeals Order Compelling Arbitration
-------------------------------------------------------------
Spencer Meyer, the plaintiff in the lawsuit titled SPENCER MEYER,
individually and on behalf of those similarly situated v. TRAVIS
KALANICK and UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Case No. 1:15-cv-9796
(JSR), in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York (New York City), appeals to the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit from the order:

   (1) granting the motion by Defendant Uber Technologies, Inc.
       to compel arbitration;

   (2) granting the motion by Defendant Travis Kalanick for
       judgment on the pleadings;

   (3) dismissing the case without prejudice to Plaintiff Spencer
       Meyer pursuing his claims in arbitration; and

   (4) denying as moot the motion by Plaintiff Spencer Meyer to
       join four additional plaintiffs, which Order was signed by
       Judge Jed S. Rakoff of the District Court and entered in
       this action on November 27, 2017, and from any and all of
       the Court's rulings adverse to Plaintiff Spencer Meyer
       incorporated in, antecedent to, or ancillary to that
       Order.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the District
Court ruled that Uber can force an unhappy Connecticut customer's
price-fixing case against the ride-service company into
arbitration, after the customer said the proposed class action
belonged in court because he never agreed to arbitrate.

In an order dated November 22, Judge Rakoff also dismissed claims
by the customer, Spencer Meyer, against former Uber Technologies
Inc. Chief Executive Travis Kalanick, unless Meyer wished to
arbitrate.

The appellate case is captioned as SPENCER MEYER, individually
and on behalf of those similarly situated v. TRAVIS KALANICK and
UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Case No. 18-247, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ankur Kapoor, Esq.
          David Alan Scupp, Esq.
          Matthew L. Cantor, Esq.
          CONSTANTINE CANNON, LLP
          335 Madison Avenue, 9th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 350-2748
          Facsimile: (212) 350-2701
          E-mail: akapoor@constantinecannon.com
                  dscupp@constantinecannon.com
                  mcantor@constantinecannon.com

               - and -

          Brian Marc Feldman, Esq.
          Edwin Michael Larkin, III, Esq.
          Jeffrey A. Wadsworth, Esq.
          HARTER, SECREST & EMERY, LLP
          1600 Bausch & Lomb Place
          Rochester, NY 14604
          Telephone: (585) 232-6500
          Facsimile: (585) 232-2152
          E-mail: bfeldman@hselaw.com
                  elarkin@hselaw.com
                  jwadsworth@hselaw.com

               - and -

          Bryan Lee Clobes, Esq.
          Nyran Rose Rasche, Esq.
          Ellen Meriwether, Esq.
          CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP
          1717 Arch Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 864-2800
          Facsimile: (215) 864-2810
          E-mail: bclobes@caffertyclobes.com
                  nrasche@caffertyclobes.com
                  emeriwether@caffertyclobes.com

               - and -

          James Hartmann Smith, Esq.
          John Christopher Briody, Esq.
          MCKOOL SMITH
          One Bryant Park, 47th Floor
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 402-9418
          Facsimile: (212) 402-9444
          E-mail: jsmith@mckoolsmith.com
                  jbriody@mckoolsmith.com

               - and -

          Lewis Titus LeClair, Esq.
          MCKOOL SMITH, P.C.
          300 Crescent Court, Suite 1500
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: (214) 978-4000
          Facsimile: (214) 978-4044
          E-mail: lleclair@mckoolsmith.com

               - and -

          Andrew Arthur Schmidt, Esq.
          ANDREW SCHMIDT LAW PLLC
          97 India Street
          Portland, ME 04101
          Telephone: (207) 619-0320
          E-mail: andy@maineworkerjustice.com

Defendant Travis Kalanick is represented by:

          Peter M. Skinner, Esq.
          Alanna Cyreeta Rutherford, Esq.
          Joanna Christine Wright, Esq.
          BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
          575 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 446-2300
          Facsimile: (212) 446-2350
          E-mail: pskinner@bsfllp.com
                  arutherford@bsfllp.com
                  jwright@bsfllp.com

               - and -

          Karen L. Dunn, Esq.
          Ryan Young Park, Esq.
          William A. Isaacson, Esq.
          BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
          5301 Wisconsin Avenue, NW, Suite 800
          Washington, DC 20015
          Telephone: (202) 895-5235
          Facsimile: (202) 237-6131
          E-mail: kdunn@bsfllp.com
                  rpark@bsfllp.com
                  wisaacson@bsfllp.com

Defendant Uber Technologies, Inc., is represented by:

          Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr., Esq.
          Daniel G. Swanson, Esq.
          GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER, LLP
          333 South Grand Avenue
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 229-7804
          Facsimile: (213) 229-6804
          E-mail: tboutrous@gibsondunn.com
                  dswanson@gibsondunn.com

               - and -

          Joshua S. Lipshutz, Esq.
          GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER, LLP
          555 Mission Street, Suite 3000
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 393-8200
          Facsimile: (415) 393-8306
          E-mail: jlipshutz@gibsondunn.com

               - and -

          Reed Michael Brodsky, Esq.
          GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER, LLP
          200 Park Avenue, 48th Floor
          New York, NY 10166
          Telephone: (212) 351-5334
          Facsimile: (212) 351-6235
          E-mail: rbrodsky@gibsondunn.com


UNITED PARCEL: Faces "Castro" Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against United Parcel
Service, Inc. The case is styled as Elizabeth Castro, Aquanza
Jones, Kaslyn Belgrave, Francis Cooper, Rawle Cummings, Scott
DiBona, David Gotay and Jessica Grandy, on behalf of herself and
other employees similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. United Parcel
Service, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-01286 (S.D. N.Y.,
February 13, 2018).

United Parcel Service is an American multinational package
delivery company and a provider of supply chain management
solutions.[BN]

The Plaintiffs appear PRO SE.


UNIVERSAL HANDICRAFT: Transferred "Mollicone" Suit to S.D. Fla.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit filed on December 6, 2017, captioned
Lisa Mollicone, on behalf of herself, all others similarly
situated, and the general public v. Universal Handicraft, Inc.,
d/b/a "Deep Sea Cosmetics" d/b/a "Adore Organic Innovations;" and
Shay Sabag Segev, Case No. 3:17-cv-02450, was transferred on
January 23, 2018, from the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida. The District Court Clerk assigned
1:18-cv-20273 to the proceeding.

The Defendants own and operate an import/export company that
mostly deals with cosmetics products. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Nathan M. Dooley, Esq.
      Megan Peitzke, Esq.
      COZEN O'CONNOR
      601 South Figueroa Street, Suite 3700
      Los Angeles, CA  90017
      Telephone: (213)892-7900
      Facsimile: (213)892-7999
      E-mail: ndooley@cozen.com
              mpeitzke@cozen.com


UPA LLC: Carpenter Wants Rent Payments Returned
-----------------------------------------------
BEATRICE CARPENTER, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. UPA, LLC, an Illinois Limited
Liability Company, EVERGREEN TOWERS I, LP, an Illinois Limited,
Partnership, EVERGREEN TOWERS II LP, an Illinois Limited
Partnership, CULLEN DA VIS, an Individual d/b/a CULLEN J. DA VIS
DEVELOPMENT LLC, and NEAR NORTH DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, an
Illinois Not-For-Profit Corporation, the Defendants, Case No.
2018-CH-01748 (Ill. Cir., Cook County, Feb. 13, 2018), seeks to
recover equitable relief including the rescission of a contract,
and return of Plaintiffs' rent payments, in full, striking and
deleting out the illegal provisions of the past leases and the
injunction against the landlord about including those provisions
in the future.

The Plaintiff was and is a resident of the building located at
1333 N. Cleveland, in Chicago, Illinois. The tenants of the
subject matter properties were represented by a tenant
organization Tenants' Union, for which Plaintiff served as
Secretary during the years on or about 2015 and 2016. The
Plaintiff was and is a "handicapped" person as that term is
defined in the United States Code of Federal Regulations, in so
far as she is physically impaired and has substantial functional
limitations in mobility resulting in her necessity for a
wheelchair. According to records maintained by the Illinois
Secretary of State, Defendant UPA, LLC was and is an Illinois
Limited Liability Company with its principal place of business
located at 73 70 N. Lincoln, Suite A, in Lincolnwood, Illinois.

The Defendants enter into several types of lease agreements with
tenants. The first agreement is the Lease agreement itself
wherein Defendants use the Model Lease Form HUD-90 I 05-b
document, inserting monetary terms specific to the tenant. On or
about June 19, 2013, Defendants also provided Plaintiff another
document that explains how the tenant rent is determined for HUD
assisted residents in Project-Based Section 8 housing.

According to the complaint, the Defendants violated the ICFA
through one or more of the following acts or omissions related to
the condition of the building:

     a. Advertising a complete remodel, when Defendants did not
        perform a complete remodel;

     b. Advertising a building intended for use by elderly and
        handicapped/disabled tenants when the building and units
        were not accessible to handicapped/disabled and elderly
        due to non-working elevators, inaccessible bathtubs,
        inaccessible kitchen cabinets, and inaccessible laundry
        facilities for handicapped/disabled tenants;

     c. Failing to disclose the defects at the property,
        including and not limited to mold and holes in the walls;
        and

     d. Other fraudulent acts and/or omissions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Berton N. Ring
          BERTON N. RING, P.C.
          123 West Madison Street, 15th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 781 0290
          E-mail: bring@bnrpc.com


VERIPRO SOLUTIONS: Faces "Doest" Suit in Northern District Texas
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Veripro Solutions
Inc. The case is styled as George Doest, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Veripro
Solutions Inc., Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-00119-O (N.D. Tex.,
February 12, 2018).

Veripro Solutions Inc. helps clients repay outstanding debt using
multiple solutions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
   Marcus & Zelman LLC
   1500 Allaire Avenue, Suite 101
   Ocean, NJ 07712
   Tel: (845) 367-7146
   Fax: (732) 298-6256
   Email: yzelman@marcuszelman.com


VICE MEDIA: "Rose" Suit Seeks Monetary Damages under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------
ELIZABETH ROSE, an Individual, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. the VICE MEDIA INC.,
a Delaware corporation, VICE MEDIA LLC, a Delaware limited
liability corporation, and DOES 1 through 100, Inclusive, the
Defendants, Case No. BC693688 (Cal. Super. Ct., Feb. 13, 2018),
seeks monetary damages, including full restitution from
Defendants as a result of Defendants' unlawful, fraudulent and/or
unfair business practices, pursuant to the Federal Labor
Standards Act.

The Defendants are Delaware corporations based in Los Angeles,
California and Brooklyn, New York that operate as a digital media
and broadcasting company. Defendants create, edit, and produce
youth focused media and content for various platforms, including
for their online digital publications, channels, web series,
television network, and HBO television series.

The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a channel manager and
project manager, where she worked on creating and producing
content for Vice Media. The Plaintiff and members of the proposed
Classes are female employees who were/are employed by Defendants
in California and/or New York Defendants' female employees face
discrimination in pay, promotions, and other unequal
opportunities in the terms and conditions of their employment.
Through formal policies and widespread practices, Defendants'
male leadership interferes with, limits, or prevents female
employees from receiving equal pay for equal or substantially
similar work compared to their male counterparts.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Michael S. Morrison, Esq.
          Jessica S. Choi, Esq.
          ALEXANDER, KRAKOW + GLICK LLP
          401 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1000
          Santa Monica, CA 90401


VODAFONE GROUP: Korry Sues over Drop in ADR Price
-------------------------------------------------
KORRY PEARL, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. VODAFONE GROUP PLC, VITTORIO A.
COLAO and NICHOLAS JONATHAN READ, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-
cv-01339 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 14, 2018), seeks to recover damages
caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws
and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The case is a federal securities class action on behalf of a
class consisting of all persons other than defendants who
purchased or otherwise acquired Vodafone's American Depositary
Receipts ("ADRs") between February 11, 2015 and January 10, 2018,
both dates inclusive.

Vodafone Group PLC is a mobile telecommunications company
providing a range of services, including voice and data
communications. The Company operates in Continental Europe, the
United Kingdom, the United States, Asia Pacific, Africa, and the
Middle East through its subsidiaries, associates, and
investments. Founded in 1984, the Company is headquartered in
Newbury, the United Kingdom, and its ADRs trade on the NASDAQ
Global Select market under the ticker symbol "VOD."

According to the complaint, the Defendants made materially false
and misleading statements regarding the Company's business,
operational and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (i) Vodafone had contravened Australian law by permitting
customers to purchase pre-paid mobile phones without first
verifying their identities; and (ii) as a result of the
foregoing, Vodafone shares traded at artificially inflated prices
during the Class Period, and class members suffered significant
losses and damages.

On January 10, 2018, post-market, the Australian Communications
and Media Authority announced that an investigation into Vodafone
Australia revealed that VHA had contravened Australian law by
permitting customers to purchase pre-paid mobile phones without
first verifying their identities. Specifically, an update to
VHA's website allowed customers "to select that their identity
had been verified in a store and then proceed to activate their
service through use of the website" without confirming that the
customers' identities had in fact been verified, as required by
law. VHA has entered into an enforceable undertaking with ACMA to
ensure that its identity checks are up to date.

On this news, Vodafone's American Depositary Receipt price fell
$0.21 or 0.66%, to close at $31.44 per share on January 11, 2018.
As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

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


WELLS FARGO: Purple Mountain Trust Sues over Share Price Drop
-------------------------------------------------------------
PURPLE MOUNTAIN TRUST, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. WELLS FARGO & COMPANY,
TIMOTHY J. SLOAN and JOHN RICHARD SHREWSBERRY, the Defendants,
Case No. 1:18-cv-01318 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 14, 2018), seeks to
recover compensable damages caused by Defendants' violations of
the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The case is a federal securities class action on behalf of a
class consisting of all persons other than Defendants who
purchased or otherwise acquired common shares of Wells Fargo
between January 13, 2017 and July 27, 2017, both dates inclusive.

Wells Fargo & Company is a diversified financial services company
providing banking, insurance, investments, mortgage, leasing,
credit cards, and consumer finance. The Company operates through
physical stores, the internet, and other distribution channels
worldwide. Founded in 1852, the Company is headquartered in San
Francisco, California, and its stock trades on the New York Stock
Exchange under the ticker symbol "WFC."

On September 8, 2016, the U.S. Consumer Financial Protection
Bureau published a Consent Order with a Stipulation to its entry
signed by Mary Mack, Executive Vice President of Wells Fargo
Bank, detailing fraudulent practices at the Company, which were
centered on a corporate culture intent on growing its cross-
selling opportunities and unlawfully and without its customers'
consent opening millions of unauthorized deposit and credit card
accounts, and imposing a fine of more than $185 million.

On July 27, 2017, post-market, The New York Times published an
article entitled "Wells Fargo Forced Unwanted Auto Insurance on
Borrowers." Citing an internal report prepared for Wells Fargo's
executives, the article reported that "more than 800,000 people
who took out car loans from Wells Fargo were charged for auto
insurance they did not need," that "[t]he expense of the unneeded
insurance pushed roughly 274,000 Wells Fargo customers into
delinquency and resulted in almost 25,000 wrongful vehicle
repossessions," and "that the bank owed $73 million to wronged
customers." Following publication of this article, Wells Fargo's
share price fell $1.41, or 2.58%, to close at $53.30 on July 28,
2017. As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and
the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
common shares, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          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


WILLIAMS SONOMA: Fails to Pay All Overtime Wages, Arellano Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
TINA ARELLANO, as an individual and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. WILLIAMS SONOMA STORES,
INC.; and 16 DOES 1 through 100, the Defendant, Case No. BC693760
(Cal. Super. Ct., Feb. 14, 2018), seeks to recover overtime wages
and minimum wage under California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, during the portions of Plaintiffs
employment for which she was classified as a non-exempt employee,
Plaintiff routinely worked in excess of 8 hours per workday
and/or more than 40 hours per workweek, but did not receive
overtime compensation equal to one and one half times her regular
rate of pay for working overtime hours. Specifically, Defendants
payed Plaintiff non-discretionary bonuses based on the store
achieving certain goals, and other forms of non-discretionary pay
that are not excludable from the regular rate of pay. The
Defendants fail to accurately calculate Plaintiffs regular rate
of pay as a result of receiving Incentive Pay, as Plaintiff is
only paid one-and-a-half times her base rate of pay for overtime
hours, thereby causing Plaintiff to be underpaid all her required
overtime wages.

Williams-Sonoma Stores, Inc. operates as home furnishing
retailer. The company was incorporated in 1984 and is based in
San Francisco, California. Williams-Sonoma Stores, Inc. operates
as a subsidiary of Williams-Sonoma Inc.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Paul K. Haines, Esq.
          Fletcher W. Schmidt, Esq.
          Andrew J. Rowbotham, Esq.
          Matthew K. Moen, Esq.
          HAINES LAW GROUP, APC
          222 N. Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 1550
          El Segundo, CA 90245
          Telephone: (424) 292 2350
          Facsimile: (424) 292 2355
          E-mail: phaines@haineslawgroup.com
                  fschmidt@haineslawgroup.com
                  arowbotham@haineslawgroup.com
                  mmoen@haineslawgroup.com


ZOCO PRODUCTIONS: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Burbon Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
LUC BURBON AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
Plaintiffs, the Plaintiffs, v. ZOCO PRODUCTIONS, LLC, the
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-01293 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 13, 2018),
seeks permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's
corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's
website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-
impaired consumers.

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Avi A. Naveh, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF AVI A. NAVEH, ESQ.
          175 Varick Street, 3rd Floor
          New York, NY 10014
          Telephone: (646) 881 4471
          Facsimile: (661) 430 4471
          E-mail: avi@navehlaw.com

               - and -

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


                           Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Denial of Claims vs. Wetzel in "Brown" Affirmed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Anne E. Covey of the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
affirms the Centre County Common Pleas Court's (trial court)
October 4, 2016 order sustaining the preliminary objections filed
by the Appellees to the Complaint filed by past and current SCI-
Rockview inmates Lamar Brown, Warren Evans, Joel Daniels, Ernest
Norris, Rashan Mickens, and Shawn Johnson against Appellees and
dismissing all claims pertaining to Lamar Brown.

The Appellees in this case are: the Pennsylvania Department of
Corrections (DOC) Secretary John Wetzel; the Secretary's Office
of Inmate Grievances and Appeals Hearing Examiners Dorina Varner
and Keri Moore; State Correctional Institution at Rockview
employees Douglas Sampsel, Heather Haldeman and Eric Tice; SCI-
Rockview Superintendents Steven Glunt and Mark Garman; SCI-
Rockview Facility Grievance Coordinator Jeffrey Rackovan; Brown's
Unit Manager Samuel Condo; and SCI-Rockview Administration
(collectively "Wetzel").

Lamar Brown is currently incarcerated at State Correctional
Institution at Rockview. On March 16, 2016, Inmates filed the
Complaint alleging that, as a result of DOC's administration --
failing to act on the knowledge of the existence of asbestos
within the facility -- one or more Inmates were exposed to
asbestos at some point between October 2014 and March 2016 while
being confined at SCI-Rockview. Inmates demanded compensatory
damages in the amount of $500,000 for each Inmate and other
individuals to whom the allegations of the Complaint pertained,
as well as punitive damages in an amount to be determined for
each Inmate and other similarly-situated SCI-Rockview inmates. On
April 12, 2016, Wetzel filed Preliminary Objections to Inmates'
Eighth Amendment constitutional claim, negligence claim and fraud
claim.

On appeal, Brown argues that the trial court erred by dismissing
his Eighth Amendment conditions of confinement claim on the basis
that he did not suffer an injury. Specifically, Brown asserts
that the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), does not bar
compensation for the actual increased risk of contracting an
asbestos-related disease and serious damage to a prisoner's
future health is actionable pursuant to Farmer v. Brennan, 511
U.S. 825 (1994), and Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25 (1993).

The Court disagrees with Brown and points out to Section 1997e(e)
of the PLRA provides, in relevant part that: "No federal civil
action may be brought by a prisoner confined in a jail, prison,
or other correctional facility, for mental or emotional injury
suffered while in custody without a prior showing of physical
injury..."

The Court cites Simmons v. Pacor, Inc., 674 A.2d 232 (Pa. 1996),
where the Supreme Court held that "asymptomatic pleural
thickening is not a compensable injury which gives rise to a
cause of action... The appellants are not precluded from
subsequently commencing an action for an asbestos related injury
when symptoms develop and physiological impairment begins."
Further, "it is the general rule of this Commonwealth that there
can be no recovery of damages for injuries resulting from fright
or nervous shock or mental or emotional disturbances or distress
unless they are accompanied by physical injury or physical
impact." The Court notes that Brown alleged no physical injury.

Because Inmates are not seeking to prevent future harm, but
rather are seeking damages for risk of harm, the Court determines
that the trial court properly dismissed Brown's Eighth Amendment
conditions of confinement claim on the basis that he did not
suffer an injury as required under the PLRA.

The appealed case is Lamar Brown, Appellant, v. John Wetzel,
Douglas R. Sampsel, M.C. Garman, Steven Glunt, Jeffrey Rackovan,
Samuel Condo, Heather Haldeman, Eric Tice, Dorina Varner, Keri
Moore, SCI Rockview Administration, No. 114 C.D. 2017, (Commw.
Ct. Pa.).

A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion, dated February 6, 2018,
is available at https://tinyurl.com/yadfgnax from Leagle.com.

Lamar Brown, for Appellant, Pro Se.

Abby Nicole Trovinger, PA Department of Corrections, for
Appellee, John Wetzel.

Theron Richard Perez, PA Department of Corrections, for Appellee,
John Wetzel.

Abby Nicole Trovinger, PA Department of Corrections, for
Appellee, Dorina Varner.

Theron Richard Perez, PA Department of Corrections, for Appellee,
Dorina Varner.

Abby Nicole Trovinger, PA Department of Corrections, for
Appellee, Eric Tice.

Theron Richard Perez, PA Department of Corrections, for Appellee,
Eric Tice.

Abby Nicole Trovinger, PA Department of Corrections, for
Appellee, SCI Rockview Administration.

Theron Richard Perez, PA Department of Corrections, for Appellee,
SCI Rockview Administration.

Abby Nicole Trovinger, PA Department of Corrections, for
Appellee, Douglas R. Sampsel.

Theron Richard Perez, PA Department of Corrections, for Appellee,
Douglas R. Sampsel.

Abby Nicole Trovinger, PA Department of Corrections, for
Appellee, Jeffrey Rackovan.

Theron Richard Perez, PA Department of Corrections, for Appellee,
Jeffrey Rackovan.

Abby Nicole Trovinger, PA Department of Corrections, for
Appellee, Keri Moore.

Theron Richard Perez, PA Department of Corrections, for Appellee,
Keri Moore.

Abby Nicole Trovinger, PA Department of Corrections, for
Appellee, Heather Haldeman.

Theron Richard Perez, PA Department of Corrections, for Appellee,
Heather Haldeman.

Abby Nicole Trovinger, PA Department of Corrections, for
Appellee, Steven Glunt.

Theron Richard Perez, PA Department of Corrections, for Appellee,
Steven Glunt.

Abby Nicole Trovinger, PA Department of Corrections, for
Appellee, Garman, M.C.

Theron Richard Perez, PA Department of Corrections, for Appellee,
Garman, M.C.

Abby Nicole Trovinger, PA Department of Corrections, for
Appellee, Samuel Condo.

Theron Richard Perez, PA Department of Corrections, for Appellee,
Samuel Condo.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Budd Co. Can't Add Expert Witness in "Little"
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Daniel D. Crabtree of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Kansas affirms Magistrate Judge Kenneth G. Gale's
January 3, 2018 decision denying Defendant The Budd Company's
Motion for Leave to Add an Expert Witness and to Reopen Discovery
for a Limited Purpose.

Plaintiff Nancy Little brings this action individually and as the
personal representative of the estate of her father, Robert L.
Rabe, against Defendant The Budd Company. Plaintiff alleges that
her father was exposed to asbestos-containing pipe insulation
that Defendant placed in passenger railcars it manufactured. She
contends that this exposure caused her father to develop
asbestos-related malignant mesothelioma, causing his death on
December 28, 2012.

On January 6, 2017, Judge Gale entered a Scheduling Order that
established various deadlines for the case's management,
including a requirement that Defendant disclose its experts by
June 23, 2017. On August 10, 2017, Defendant filed an unopposed
motion to modify certain deadlines in the Scheduling Order,
including an extension of its expert disclosure deadline until
September 30, 2017. Judge Gale granted that request and entered a
Revised Scheduling Order that established September 30, 2017, as
Defendant's deadline to disclose experts.

By the September 30, 2017 deadline, Defendant had identified
eight expert witnesses in its Rule 26(a) disclosures. On November
6, 2017, Defendant's counsel sent an email to plaintiff's counsel
disclosing a ninth expert witness -- Dr. Louis Burgher. The email
also provided Dr. Burgher's curriculum vitae. Plaintiff asserts
that Dr. Burgher will offer "only general, state-of-the-art
opinions regarding the historical knowledge of the hazards of
asbestos at various times in the 20th century. . ."

On November 15, 2017, Defendant filed a Motion for Leave to Add
an Expert Witness and to Reopen Discovery for a Limited Purpose -
- 15 days after the Scheduling Order's deadline for disclosing
experts had expired. Because Defendant's motion sought to amend a
deadline established by the Scheduling Order, Judge Gale applied
Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 -- the rule that governs modification of a
Scheduling Order.

Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4), "a schedule may be modified only
for good cause and with the judge's consent." The advisory
committee notes to this Rule provide: "The court may modify the
schedule on a showing of good cause if it cannot reasonably be
met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension." In
practice, this standard requires the movant to show the
scheduling deadlines cannot be met despite the movant's diligent
efforts. Rule 16's good cause requirement may be satisfied, for
example, if a plaintiff learns new information through discovery
or if the underlying law has changed.

On January 3, 2018, Judge Gale denied the motion because he
determined that Defendant had not established "good cause" under
Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4) to modify the Scheduling Order after the
deadline for disclosing experts had expired. Judge Gale reasoned
that Defendant had made no attempt to establish that it could not
have met the deadline without due diligence. Instead, Defendant's
reason for seeking leave to add an expert was because it had
"come to the conclusion that this action will be furthered by
retention of an additional expert." Judge Gale concluded that
this reason -- Defendant's late realization that it would benefit
from another expert -- did not provide the requisite good cause
to grant Defendant leave to add an expert after the deadline
established by the Scheduling Order had expired.

Defendant asserts that Judge Gale applied an incorrect legal
standard in his Order. Thus, Defendant contends, Judge Gale's
Order is clearly erroneous and asks the Court to set aside Judge
Gale's Order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a).
Defendant argues that Judge Gale applied the "good cause"
standard that governs amendment of pleadings -- not requests for
leave to add an expert. Defendant contends that the standard for
leave to add an expert requires a party to satisfy a less onerous
burden. And so, Defendant argues, Judge Gale's Order is clearly
erroneous. Defendant thus asks the Court to modify Judge Gale's
Order and allow it to use the testimony of Dr. Louis Burgher in
this action.

The Court finds that Defendant presented no facts showing that it
has acted diligently. Instead, after securing one extension of
time to designate experts, Defendant again has asked for leave to
extend the deadline -- after its expiration -- to designate an
expert simply because it came to the conclusion that the action
will be "furthered" by an additional expert. Defendant provides
no reason justifying a conclusion that it could not have come to
this realization sooner.

The Court concludes that Judge Gale did not apply an incorrect
legal standard to Defendant's Motion for Leave to Add an Expert
Witness and Reopen Discovery for a Limited Purpose. The Court
determines that the Defendant has failed to establish that it
acted with the requisite diligence justifying disclosure of an
expert after the Scheduling Order's deadline has expired.

Moreover, the Court holds that an extension would disrupt orderly
administration of the case considering that Judge Gale already
has extended the deadline for designating experts once, and an
amendment of that deadline again will require the court to extend
the discovery deadline a second time. These extensions, in turn,
may affect the established dispositive motion deadline and trial
date. Also, Defendant still has failed to provide a good reason
for its delay. Although no evidence of bad faith exists, it
appears that Defendant's late disclosure results from a lack of
diligence. These factors favor denying Defendant's request for
leave to add an expert.

The Court thus holds that Judge Gale, exercising sound
discretion, properly denied Defendant's Motion for Leave to Add
an Expert Witness and Reopen Discovery for a Limited Purpose.

A full-text copy of Memorandum and Order dated February 13, 2018
is available at https://tinyurl.com/ybrapkrv from Leagle.com

The case is Nancy Little, individually and as personal
representative of the estate of Robert L. Rabe, Plaintiff, v. The
Budd Company, Defendant, Case No. 16-4170-DDC-KGG, (D. Kan.).

Nancy Little, individually and as personal representative of the,
Plaintiff, represented by E. Todd Hottman, Hottman Law Firm, John
D. Roven -- info@rovenlaw.com -- Roven-Kaplan, LLP, pro hac vice
& Kevin M. Camp -- kcam@jonesgranger.com -- Jones Granger, pro
hac vice.

The Budd Company, Defendant, represented by James E. Wynne --
wynne@butzel.com -- Butzel Long, PC, pro hac vice, Joseph E.
Richotte -- richotte@butzel.com -- Butzel Long, PC, pro hac vice
& Vincent Edward Gunter -- vgunter@rdm.law -- Rasmussen Dickey
Moore, LLC.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Can Appeal Ruling in "Terwilliger"
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of New York has granted the Motion for leave
to appeal filed in the case styled In the Matter of the Eighth
Judicial District Asbestos Litigation. Donald J. Terwilliger,
etc., Appellant, v. Beazer East, Inc., etc., et al., Defendants,
Honeywell International, Inc., etc., Respondent, Motion No. 2017-
1108, (N.Y. App. Div.).

A full-text copy of the Order dated February 15, 2018, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y95lgcm2 from Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rohr Witness to be Deposed After Discovery
-----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Jon S. Tigar of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California has entered a Stipulation and Order,
approving the stipulation between Defendant The Boeing Company
and Plaintiffs in the case styled Joseph Thrash and Chez Thrash,
Plaintiffs, v. Cirrus Enterprises, LLC, et al., Defendants. Case
No. 3:17-cv-01501-JST, (N.D. Cal.).

Due to scheduling conflicts, Defendant Rohr, Inc. ("Rohr") and
Plaintiffs stipulate that the deposition of Rohr's 30(b)(6)
witness can go forward after the discovery deadline currently set
in this matter.

Counsel for Boeing represents that each Defendant in this matter
(Goodyear Aerospace Corporation; Honeywell International, Inc.;
Rohr, Inc.; Lockheed Martin Corporation; Cirrus Enterprises LLC;
Henkel Corporation; IMO Industries; and United Technologies
Corporation) has been made aware of this proposed stipulation and
each has concurred in the filing's content and have authorized
the filing.

A full-text copy of the Stipulation and Order dated February 13,
2018, is available at https://tinyurl.com/yb5qajpn from
Leagle.com.

Joseph Thrash & Chez Thrash, Plaintiffs, represented by Benno
Behnam Ashrafi, Weitz & Luxenberg, P.C., Robert Allen Green,
Weitz & Luxenberg, P.C. & Tyler Robert Stock, Weitz & Luxenburg,
P.C.

The Boeing Company, individually and as successor by merger to
McDonnell Douglas Corporation, successor by merger with Douglas
Aircraft Company, Defendant, represented by Dustin Clark Beckley
-- dbeckley@mgmlaw.com -- Manion Gaynor & Manning LLP, Brent
Marshall Karren -- bkarren@mgmlaw.com -- Manion Gaynor & Manning
LLP & Freddy Israel Fonseca -- ffonseca@mgmlaw.com -- Manion
Gaynor & Manning LLP.

Lockheed Martin Corporation, Defendant, represented by Brian
Thomas Clark -- clark@glazieryee.com -- Glazier Yee LLP, Deborah
Maria Parker -- parker@glazieryee.com -- Glazier Yee LLP, Guy P.
Glazier -- glazier@glazieryee.com -- Glazier Yee LLP & Laura
Patricia Yee -- yee@glazieryee.com -- Glazier Yee LLP.

United Technologies Corporation, Defendant, represented by Ferlin
Peregrino Ruiz -- ferlin.ruiz@tuckerellis.com -- Tucker Ellis
LLP.

The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, Defendant, represented by
Michael J. Pietrykowski -- mpietrykowski@grsm.com -- Gordon &
Rees LLP, Megan Feeney Clark -- mfc@severson.com -- Severson &
Werson, APC & Melissa Rose Badgett -- mbadgett@grsm.com -- Gordon
& Rees LLP.

Honeywell International Inc., formerly known as, Defendant,
represented by Bo W. Kim -- BKim@perkinscoie.com -- Perkins Coie
LLP & David T. Biderman -- DBiderman@perkinscoie.com -- Perkins
Coie LLP.

Rohr, Inc., Defendant, represented by David Michael Glaspy --
dglaspy@mgmlaw.com -- Manion Gaynor & Manning LLP.

Henkel Corporation, individually and as s-i-i to Dexter Corp.,
Dexter Hysol Aerospace LLC, Defendant, represented by Allison
Elizabeth Mullings -- Allison.Mullings@lewisbrisbois.com -- Lewis
Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP and Florence Anne McClain-Meza --
Florence.McClain@lewisbrisbois.com -- Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard &
Smith LLP.

IMO Industries Inc., Defendant, represented by Bobbie Rae Bailey
-- bbailey@leaderberkon.com -- Leader & Berkon LLP, Frederick W.
Gatt -- fgatt@leaderberkon.com -- Leader & Berkon LLP and Ketul
Dilip Patel -- kpatel@leaderberkon.com -- Leader & Berkon LLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Expert Witness Depositions Stipulations Entered
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Jon S. Tigar of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, at the behest of the Parties, has entered
a Stipulation and Order regarding the depositions of expert
witnesses:

      (1) Plaintiffs and Defendants have stipulated that it is
not necessary to subpoena the opposing side's expert witnesses in
this case. Any party who wants to take any opposing party's
expert deposition in person can do so near the expert's location
at the noticing party's expense.

      (2) Rather than having to serve a subpoena, a party may
request dates of availability of an opposing party's experts,
and, within 48 hours of such request, the opposing party will
provide dates of their experts' availability for deposition. The
requesting party may subsequently serve a notice of deposition
including requests for production of documents at the deposition
(subject to proper objections).

The case is Joseph Thrash and Chez Thrash, Plaintiffs, v. Cirrus
Enterprises, LLC, et al., Defendants. Case No. 3:17-cv-01501-JST,
(N.D. Cal.).

A full-text copy of the Stipulation and Order dated February 14,
2018, is available at https://tinyurl.com/ydh5u48a from
Leagle.com.

Joseph Thrash & Chez Thrash, Plaintiffs, represented by Benno
Behnam Ashrafi, Weitz & Luxenberg, P.C., Robert Allen Green,
Weitz & Luxenberg, P.C. & Tyler Robert Stock, Weitz & Luxenburg,
P.C.

The Boeing Company, individually and as successor by merger to
McDonnell Douglas Corporation, successor by merger with Douglas
Aircraft Company, Defendant, represented by Dustin Clark Beckley
-- dbeckley@mgmlaw.com -- Manion Gaynor & Manning LLP, Brent
Marshall Karren -- bkarren@mgmlaw.com -- Manion Gaynor & Manning
LLP & Freddy Israel Fonseca -- ffonseca@mgmlaw.com -- Manion
Gaynor & Manning LLP.

Lockheed Martin Corporation, Defendant, represented by Brian
Thomas Clark -- clark@glazieryee.com -- Glazier Yee LLP, Deborah
Maria Parker -- parker@glazieryee.com -- Glazier Yee LLP, Guy P.
Glazier -- glazier@glazieryee.com -- Glazier Yee LLP & Laura
Patricia Yee -- yee@glazieryee.com -- Glazier Yee LLP.

United Technologies Corporation, Defendant, represented by Ferlin
Peregrino Ruiz -- ferlin.ruiz@tuckerellis.com -- Tucker Ellis
LLP.

The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, Defendant, represented by
Michael J. Pietrykowski -- mpietrykowski@grsm.com -- Gordon &
Rees LLP, Megan Feeney Clark -- mfc@severson.com -- Severson &
Werson, APC & Melissa Rose Badgett -- mbadgett@grsm.com -- Gordon
& Rees LLP.

Honeywell International Inc., formerly known as, Defendant,
represented by Bo W. Kim -- BKim@perkinscoie.com -- Perkins Coie
LLP & David T. Biderman -- DBiderman@perkinscoie.com -- Perkins
Coie LLP.

Rohr, Inc., Defendant, represented by David Michael Glaspy --
dglaspy@mgmlaw.com -- Manion Gaynor & Manning LLP.

Henkel Corporation, individually and as s-i-i to Dexter Corp.,
Dexter Hysol Aerospace LLC, Defendant, represented by Allison
Elizabeth Mullings -- Allison.Mullings@lewisbrisbois.com -- Lewis
Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP and Florence Anne McClain-Meza --
Florence.McClain@lewisbrisbois.com -- Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard &
Smith LLP.

IMO Industries Inc., Defendant, represented by Bobbie Rae Bailey
-- bbailey@leaderberkon.com -- Leader & Berkon LLP, Frederick W.
Gatt -- fgatt@leaderberkon.com -- Leader & Berkon LLP and Ketul
Dilip Patel -- kpatel@leaderberkon.com -- Leader & Berkon LLP.



                            *********


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  * * *