CAR_Public/180226.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


            Monday, February 26, 2018, Vol. 20, No. 41



                            Headlines


12 EAST 12 ASSOCIATES: "Murillo" Suit Seeks Minimum Wage
ABBVIE INC: "Rubinstein" Suit Seeks to Certify ADS Holders Class
ALBERT KEMPERLE: "Diaz" Suit Seeks OT Compensation under FLSA
ALLTRAN FINANCIAL: Alonso Sues Over Debt Collection
ALOHA TENT: Sanchez Moves to Certify Class of Workers Under FLSA

AMERICAN STRATEGIC: "Hanze" Suit Seeks to Certify FLSA Class
APPLE INC: Court Denies Bid for Class Certification in "Ward"
ASCENDUM SOLUTIONS: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, "Hook" Suit Says
BALLARD POWER: Bronstein, Gewirtz Files Securities Class Action
BASF CATALYSTS: Certification of Class Sought in "Williams" Suit

BELLICUM PHARMA: Robbins Arroyo Files Securities Class Action
BIOVERATIV INC: Sbriglio Balks at Sanofi Merger Deal
BOCK EVANS: Milliner's Class Cert. Bid Denied Without Prejudice
BODY SCULPT: "Thompson" Suit Seeks Overtime Wages under FLSA
BOS SOLUTIONS: Kolasa Seeks to Certify Control Consultants Class

BUCCANEERS LTD: Stay of TTA Suit Lifted After 11th Cir. Decision
CALIFORNIA: Oroville Dam Class Action Lawsuit Filed vs. DWR
CENTRAL PONY: Court Certifies Class of Dispatchers in "Townsend"
CHICAGO BRIDGE: "McIntyre" Suit Challenges Sale to McDermott
COLLECTION BUREAU HUDSON: Wilhelm Sues over Debt Collection

CONTOUR MORTGAGE: Faces "Kirk" Suit over Nonpayment of Wages
CURBSTAND INC: Reyes Seeks OT Pay & Minimum Wages
DRUG DEPOT: Court Certifies Two Classes in "Fauley" TCPA Suit
DUVAL COUNTY, FL: Menter Moves to Certify Class of Arrestees
DUVAL COUNTY, FL: Menter Moves to Certify Judge Defendants Class

ECLINICAL WORKS: Licari Bid for Class Certification Denied
EMERALD MEDICAL: "Solis" Suit Seeks Overtime Wage under FLSA
EZCORP INC: Rooney Moves to Certify Class in Securities Suit
FARMERS RESTAURANT: Ct. Certifies Servers Class in "Stephens"
FAST AUTO: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, "Shahbazian" Suit Claims

FERNANDEZ & FERNANDEZ: Certification for Collective Action Denied
FOREST PHARMACEUTICALS: Ct. Moots Painters Fund's Class Cert. Bid
FREEDOMROADS LLC: Piner, et al. Seek to Certify FLSA Class
GARDA CL WEST: Fails to Pay for Overtime Work, Zaragosa Claims
GENPACT SERVICES: "Untershine" Placeholder Class Cert. Bid Filed

GOOD SHEPHERD: Rumreich Seeks to Certify Preschool Teachers Class
GOOGLE LLC: CDA Immunity Bars Locksmiths' Claims
GREEN SUMMIT: "Jochola" Suit Seeks Minimum Wages under FLSA
GREGG PETERSON: Class of Outside Sale Reps Certified in "Iliff"
HOME PERFORMANCE: Appointment Setters Class Certification Sought

INTEL CORPORATION: Sued by Sterling over Defective CPUs
INTERCONTINENTAL HOTELS: Gulf Coast Bank Sues over Data Breach
IRONBOUND EXPRESS: Luxama to Seek Certification of Rule 23 Class
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Bronstein, Gewirtz Files Class Action

JUST ENERGY: Faces "Panozzo" Suit over Failure to Pay Overtime
KEYBANK NA: Web Site Not Accessible to the Blind, Duncan Claims
KINDRED HEALTHCARE: Rosenfeld Balks at HospitalCo Merger Deal
KRIEGER BEARD: Court Allows Perry to File First Amended Complaint
LIFEVANTAGE CORP: Smith Alleges Pyramid Scheme Practices

LJM FUNDS: Scott+Scott Files Securities Class Action
LJM FUNDS: Kahn Swick Files Securities Class Action
M-I LLC: Smith Moves to Certify Class of Production Technicians
MAJESTIC PRINCESS: Yarwood May Renew Collective Suit Bid
MARCO POLO: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, "Zaw" Suit Alleges

MARLU INVESTMENT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, "Chesney" Claims
MDL 2800: Equifax Faces "Kelley" Suit in N.D. Georgia
ME BATH: "Saleh" Stayed Pending Circuit Court Ruling in "ACA"
MERCHANTS & PROFESSIONAL: Pilgrim Sues over Debt Collections
MICHAEL KOPPLIN: Faces "Dupee" Suit over Housing Unit Condition

MIKE LOWRIE: Faces "Juarez" Suit Over Nonpayment of Wages
MONROE COLLEGE: Faces "Camacho" Suit over Disabilities' Rights
MONSANTO COMPANY: Faces "Luckey" Suit Over Roundup(R) Injuries
MRI INT'L: Court Grants Prelim Approval of $13MM Class Settlement
MTGOX INC: Bid to Extend Expert Deposition Deadline Denied

MUTUAL SECURITIES: Milliner's Bid to Certify May Be Refiled
NATIONAL CREDIT: Woods Files Placeholder Class Certification Bid
NATIONAL CREDIT: "Woods" Suit Seeks to Certify Class
NCL CORPORATION: Lombardo Seeks to Recover OT Pay Under FLSA
NECA-IBEW: "K.B." Suit Moved to Southern District of Florida

NELSON AIR: Penava Suit Seeks Trust Fund Monies under Lien Law
NORTHERN OIL: Court Dismisses "Fries" Securities Suit
NORTHERN TRUST: Sued by Duncan for Blind-Inaccessible Web site
NORTHSTAR LOCATION: Bennett Seeks Settlement Agreement Approval
NOVATION CAPITAL: "Buja" Suit Seeks to Certify IDNC Class

OANDA CORP: Zamansky LLC Files Class Action Lawsuit
OXNARD SCHOOL DISTRICT: JR's Bid for Cert. Taken Under Submission
PERRY'S RESTAURANTS: Employees Class Certified in "Shaffer" Suit
PHYSICIAN'S & SURGEON'S: Wright Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA
PLANNERNET INC: Meeting Managers Class Certified in "Champagne"

PROGRESSIVE FINANCIAL: Brace & Martin Seek to Certify Class
RED LOBSTER: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, "Hessler" Suit Claims
RELIANCE TRUST: Court Certifies Class in "Nistra" Suit
SANDRIDGE ENERGY: Class Certification Sought in Securities Case
SANTA FE COUNTY, NM: Bid for Lone Pine CMO in "Armendariz" Denied

SCHOOLSFIRST FEDERAL: Accused by "Ho" of Violating Privacy Rights
SEQUIUM ASSET: Certification of Class Sought in "Machnik" Suit
SMS SYSTEMS: "Pate" Suit Seeks Unpaid Back Wages under FLSA
SOUTHERN PAN: Plan Fiduciary Faces "Askew" Suit in N.D. Georgia
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Court Junks Ex-Ramp Agent's FCRA Claims

STEELE CANYON: "Witte" Suit Moved to S.D. California
STEMILT AG: Farmworker Class Action Settlement for $464,000
SUPER MICRO: Kessler Topaz Files Shareholder Class Action
SYNERGY PHARMA: WeissLaw Files Securities Class Action
TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Debt Collection Violates FDCPA, Latimore Says

UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Meyer Appeals Order Compelling Arbitration
UNITED STATES: Court Grants $1.5MM Attorney's Fees in "Almanza"
UNITED STATES: Motions for Preliminary Injunction Okayed
UNITED STATES: Seeks 2nd Circuit Review of Ruling in "Vidal" Suit
UNIVERSAL FIDELITY: Certification of Class Sought in "Valentine"

US COACHWAYS: Dipuglia Seeks Certification of Class Under TCPA
VIRGIN SCENT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, "Heras" Suit Claims






                            *********


12 EAST 12 ASSOCIATES: "Murillo" Suit Seeks Minimum Wage
--------------------------------------------------------
JAIME A. MURILLO, CINDY CAMPOS, PEDRO POLANCO and JERRY
FERNANDEZ, the Plaintiffs, v. 12 EAST 12 ASSOCIATES, LP d/b/a
GOTHAM BAR & GRILL, the Defendant, Case No. 503201/2018 (N.Y.
Sup. Ct., Feb. 15, 2018), seeks to recover minimum wage under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs bring First and Second Claims for Relief as a
collective action pursuant to FLSA Section 16(b), 29 U.S.C., on
behalf of all front-of-the-house tipped employees, including
captains, servers assistants, bartenders, bussers, runners and
servers, employed by Defendant on or after the date that is three
years before the filing of the Original Complaint in this case.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs and the other FLSA
Collective Plaintiffs, have had substantially similar job
requirements and pay provisions, and are and have been subject to
Defendant's decision, policy, plan and common policies, programs,
practices, procedures, protocols, routines, and rules willfully
failing and refusing to pay them at the legally required minimum
wage for all hours worked and allowing non-tipped employees to
share in their tips.

12 East 12 Associates, L.P. operates under the name Gotham Bar &
Grill, is located in New York, New York. This organization
primarily operates in the American Restaurant business / industry
within the Eating and Drinking Places sector. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph Nossbaum, Esq.
          JOSEPH KIRSCHENNBAUM LLP
          32 Broadway, Suite 601
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 688 5640
          Facsimile: (212) 688 2548


ABBVIE INC: "Rubinstein" Suit Seeks to Certify ADS Holders Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled MURRAY RUBINSTEIN, JEFFREY F. ST. CLAIR,
WILLIAM MCWADE, HARJOT DEV and VIKAS SHAH, Individually and On
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiffs, v.
RICHARD GONZALEZ and ABBVIE INC., the Defendants, Case No.
1:14-cv-09465 (N.D. Ill.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an
order to certify a class of:

   "all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired American
   Depository Shares or "ADS" or purchased call options or sold
   put options (collectively, "Securities") of Shire plc
   ("Shire") during the short period between September 29 and
   October 14, 2014, inclusive."

The Plaintiffs also move the Court for Plaintiff Bradley to be
appointed as the Class Representative and request that her
counsel, Gardy & Notis, LLP and Wolf Haldenstein Adler
Freeman & Herz LLP be appointed Class Counsel.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=anMA8jvZ

Co-Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs:

          James S. Notis, Esq.
          Jennifer Sarnelli, Esq.
          Meagan A. Farmer, Esq.
          GARDY & NOTIS, LLP
          Tower 56
          126 East 56th Street, 8th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 905 0509
          Facsimile: (212) 905 0508


ALBERT KEMPERLE: "Diaz" Suit Seeks OT Compensation under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
GEORGE DIAZ, DANIEL ESPOSITO, and JONATHAN PARIENTE, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
ALBERT KEMPERLE, INC. and RONALD KEMPERLE, individually, the
Defendants, Case No. 602168/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Feb. 15, 2018),
seeks to recover overtime compensation and other statutory
penalties pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards.

Founded in 1940 by Defendant Ronald Kemperle's father, AKI is a
family run business that focuses on the distribution of auto
paint, body, and equipment to the automotive, fleet, marine,
aviation, and industrial markets. According to its website,
www.kemperle.com, AKI has grown from a single store operation in
Brooklyn, New York to approximately 32 locations of which 17
locations are in the state of New York.

According to the complaint, the Defendants maintained a policy
and practice whereby Plaintiffs and other similarly situated Non-
Exempt Workers were denied overtime pay for all hours worked in
excess of 40 per workweek. The Defendants have maintained
control, oversight, and direction over Plaintiffs and similarly
situated employees, including the ability to hire, fire, and
discipline them. The Defendants apply the same employment
policies, practices, and procedures to all Non-Exempt
Workers.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs, the Putative Classes, and the Putative
Collective:

          Joseph A. Fitapelli, Esq.
          Arsenio D. Rodriguez, Esq.
          FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP
          28 Liberty Street, 30th Floor
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 300 0375

Attorneys for Defendants:

          Michael Dvorkin, Esq.
          LITCHFIELD CAVO, LLP
          420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 2104
          New York, NY 10170
          Telephone: (212) 434 0100
          E-mail: dvorkin@litchfieldcavo.com


ALLTRAN FINANCIAL: Alonso Sues Over Debt Collection
---------------------------------------------------
Gloria Alonso, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Alltran Financial, LP; and John Does 1-25,
Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-01126-KSH-CLW (D.N.J., Jan. 27,
2018) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable
means to collect a debt in violation of the Fair Debt Collection
Act.

Alltran Financial, LP specializes in revenue cycle, accounts
receivable, and contact center solutions within healthcare,
financial services, higher education, and government industries
in the Unites States. Alltran Financial, LP was formerly known as
United Recovery Systems, LP and changed its name to Alltran
Financial, LP in July 2016. The company was founded in 1977 and
is based in Houston, Texas with facilities in Sartell, Minnesota;
Gaithersburg, Maryland; Woodridge, Illinois; Bryan and Houston,
Texas; and Tulsa, Oklahoma. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ALOHA TENT: Sanchez Moves to Certify Class of Workers Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled Gerardo Sanchez, on behalf of
himself and others similarly situated v. Aloha Tent, Inc., Metro
Staff, Inc., and James John Gallagher, individually, Case No.
1:17-cv-05412 (N.D. Ill.), filed with the Court his motion for
class certification and for notice of the collective action claim
under Section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act, together
with his memorandum of law in support of the Motion.

The class is defined as:

     All persons employed by Defendants who traveled out of state
     to work for Defendant and either drove in or traveled in
     Aloha vehicles and who were not paid for the time spent
     doing so whether they were driving the vehicle or riding in
     it.

Mr. Sanchez moves for class certification of his overtime wage
claims under the Illinois Minimum Wage Law and for certification
of a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act, for
the Defendants' alleged failure to pay overtime wages.  He also
asks for an order:

   A. authorizing notice to issue to putative class members at
      his expense;

   B. appointing his counsel as class counsel, and him as Class
      Representative;

   C. granting the Motion for notice under the FLSA; and

   D. directing the Defendants to produce to his counsel the
      names and last known postal addresses, telephone numbers
      and e-mail addresses of all servers, server assistants and
      bartenders, who were employed since July 24, 2014, as filed
      crew members.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=obaWLt4b

A copy of the Memorandum is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=XRpEhAa4

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jorge Sanchez, Esq.
          LOPEZ & SANCHEZ LLP
          77 W. Washington St., Suite 1313
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 420-6784
          E-mail: jwsanchez.lawfirm@gmail.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Antonio Calderone, Esq.
          David V. Cascio, Esq.
          LANER MUCHIN, LTD.
          515 North State Street, Suite 2800
          Chicago, IL 60654-4688
          Telephone: (312) 467-9800
          Facsimile: (312) 467-9479
          E-mail: acaldarone@lanermuchin.com
                  dcascio@lanermuchin.com


AMERICAN STRATEGIC: "Hanze" Suit Seeks to Certify FLSA Class
------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled ALDO HANZE, JR., and DAVID KIRKER,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the
Plaintiffs, v. AMERICAN STRATEGIC INSURANCE CORP., ASI
UNDERWRITERS CORP., and ARX EXECUTIVE HOLDINGS, LLLP, the
Defendants, Case No. 8:17-cv-02432-EAK-AAS (M.D. Fla.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to grant conditional certification for
this category of individuals under the Fair Labor Standards Act:

   "all current and former independent contractors of American
   Strategic Insurance Corp., ASI Underwriters Corp., and ARX
   Executive Holdings, LLLP who in the three years prior to the
   filing of Plaintiffs' Motion for Conditional Certification:

     (1) have held the positions of 'adjusters,' 'team leads,' or
         who have performed duties similar to the duties
         performed by Plaintiffs in providing services related to
         adjusting insurance claims in Florida for ASI;

     (2) were paid an hourly rate of pay for their services; and

     (3) worked more than 40 hours in workweeks without being
         paid overtime premium wages for the hours worked over 40
         pursuant to the federal Fair Labor Standards Act."

The Plaintiffs estimate there are at least 80 similarly situated
employees whom worked for Defendants without overtime pay in the
last three years.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Amber L. Karns, Esq.
          Michael A. Starzyk, Esq.
          April L Walter, Esq.
          Megan M. Mitchell, Esq.
          STARZYK & ASSOCIATES, PC
          10200 Grogan's Mill Rd, Suite 300
          The Woodlands, TX 77380
          Telephone: (281) 364 7261
          Facsimile: (281) 364 7533
          E-mail: akarns@starzyklaw.com
                  mstarzyk@starzyklaw.com
                  awalter@starzyklaw.com
                  mmitchell@starzyklaw.com

Attorneys for Defendants:

          David P. Steffen, Esq.
          CONSTANGY, BROOKS, SMITH & PROPHETE LLP
          100 North Tampa Street, Ste. 3350
          Tampa, FL 33602-5832
          Telephone: (813) 223 7166
          Facsimile: (813) 223 2515
          E-mail: dsteffen@costangy.com

               - and -

          Gregory V. Mersol, Esq.
          Todd H. Lebowitz, Esq.
          BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
          Key Tower
          127 Public Square, Suite 2000
          Cleveland, OH 44114-1214
          Telephone: (216) 621 0200
          Facsimile: (216) 696 0740
          E-mail: gmersol@bakerlaw.com
                  tlebowitz@bakerlaw.com


APPLE INC: Court Denies Bid for Class Certification in "Ward"
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled ZACK WARD, ET AL., the Plaintiffs, v. APPLE
INC., the Defendant, Case No. 4:12-cv-05404-YGR (N.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge entered an order denying Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.

In the lawsuit, the plaintiffs allege that "[b]y locking the
iPhones and refusing to give consumers the software codes needed
to unlock them, Apple and AT&T unlawfully prevented iPhone
customers from exercising their legal right to switch carriers."
Among other injuries, plaintiffs allege that iPhone consumers
were unable to switch to a less expensive carrier and unable to
use local carriers while traveling abroad, thus incurring
"exorbitant roaming charges."

A trial date is set for August 20, 2018, in the case.

The plaintiffs have filed with the Court an 11-page expert
declaration of Dr. Frederick R. Warren-Boulton in support of
class certification.  Dr. Warren-Boulton is an economist and
principal at Microeconomic Consulting & Research Associates in
Washington, D.C.

The Court said, "Dr. Warren-Boulton's declaration is essentially
lacking any data-driven analysis. Instead, he refers generically
to an extant "common methodology and data," which he will
supposedly use to "reliably assess the existence and amount of
damages to the Class members." His failure to provide "properly
analyzed, reliable evidence that a common method of proof exists
to prove impact on a class-wide basis" is fatal. Indeed, he has
failed to submit any semblance of a "functioning model that is
tailored to market facts in the case at hand." In re GPU, 253
F.R.D. at 492 (noting courts in the antitrust context are
"increasingly skeptical of plaintiffs' experts who offer only
generalized and theoretical opinions" that a particular
methodology may be used to show class-wide impact and injury
using common proof) (internal quotation marks omitted). Dr.
Warren-Boulton's "but for" world hypotheses offer only theories
of impact and damages, and theory alone "is not sufficient to
satisfy Rule 23(b)(3)'s requirements." In re High-Tech, 289
F.R.D. at 570. Absent a data-driven model, plaintiffs have failed
to meet their "burden under Rule 23 to provide a viable method
for demonstrating class-wide antitrust injury based on common
proof."

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


ASCENDUM SOLUTIONS: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, "Hook" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH HOOK, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. ASCENDUM SOLUTIONS, LLC c/o Mahendra B. Vora and
LOANDEPOT.COM, LLC c/o CT Corporation Systems, Case No. 1:18-cv-
00056-TSB (S.D. Ohio, January 26, 2018), challenges the
Defendants' alleged practices and policies of failing to pay the
Plaintiff and other similarly-situated employees overtime wages
earned by them and owed to them in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Ascendum Solutions, LLC, is an Ohio for-profit limited liability
company headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio.  LoanDepot.com, LLC,
is a Delaware for-profit limited liability company headquartered
in California.  LoanDepot is registered in Ohio as a foreign
limited liability company and offers its services and employees
individuals, including Plaintiff, in Ohio.  The Defendants are
joint employers of the Plaintiff and the class.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jason R. Bristol, Esq.
          COHEN ROSENTHAL & KRAMER LLP
          3208 Clinton Avenue
          Cleveland, OH 44113
          Telephone: (216) 815-9500
          E-mail: jbristol@crklaw.com

               - and -

          Jason P. Matthews, Esq.
          JASON P. MATTHEWS, LLC
          130 West Second Street, Suite 924
          Dayton, OH 45402
          Telephone: (937) 608-4368
          Facsimile: (888) 577-3589
          E-mail: jason@daytonemploymentlawyers.com


BALLARD POWER: Bronstein, Gewirtz Files Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC, notifies investors that a
class action lawsuit has been filed against Ballard Power Systems
Inc. ("Ballard" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:BLDP) and certain of
its officers, on behalf of shareholders who purchased or
otherwise acquired Ballard securities between September 30, 2016
and January 25, 2018, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period").
Such investors are encouraged to join this case by visiting the
firm's site: http://www.bgandg.com/bldp.

This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for
alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period,
Defendants made materially false and misleading statements and/or
failed to disclose that: (1) Ballard overstated the operations of
its China-based partners Broad Ocean and Synergy; (2) there are
no demonstration lines operating in Guangdong and no bus lines
are in service in Sanshui or Yunfu; (3) Foshan has produced far
fewer buses than Ballard has indicated, and only 11 are licensed;
and (4) as a result, Defendants' public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On January 25, 2018, Spruce Point Capital Management reported
that Ballard overstated the operations of its China-based
partners Broad Ocean and Synergy JV and said that conflicting to
Ballard's public statements, "there are no demonstration lines
operating in Guangdong and that no bus lines are in service in
Sanshui or Yunfu." The report continued to state that "Ballard
and local press releases indicate that [Broad Ocean customer]
Foshan has produced 114 FCV buses...[but] a Foshan employee
claimed that far fewer buses have been produced to date and only
11 are licensed." Following this news, Ballard stock dropped
$0.52 per share or over 13% to close at $3.27 per share on
January 25, 2018.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the firm's site:
http://www.bgandg.com/bldpor you may contact Peretz Bronstein,
Esq. or his Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you
suffered a loss in Ballard you have until March 28, 2018 to
request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff.  Your
ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve
as a lead plaintiff.

Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a corporate litigation
boutique.  Our primary expertise is the aggressive pursuit of
litigation claims on behalf of our clients.  In addition to
representing institutions and other investor plaintiffs in class
action security litigation, the firm's expertise includes general
corporate and commercial litigation, as well as securities
arbitration.

         Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
         Yael Hurwitz, Esq.
         Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC
         Tel: 212-697-6484
         Email: peretz@bgandg.com [GN]


BASF CATALYSTS: Certification of Class Sought in "Williams" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit entitled KIMBERLEE WILLIAMS, et al.
v. BASF CATALYSTS LLC, et al., Case No. 2:11-cv-01754-JLL-JAD
(D.N.J.), move the Court for an order certifying the case as a
class action under Rule 23(b)(2) or (b)(3) of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure, or alternatively, under Rule 23(c)(4) on
behalf of this proposed class of plaintiffs:

     All persons within the United States and its territories who
     after March 7, 1984, filed a lawsuit against BASF for bodily
     injury for compensation or other relief arising from BASF's
     talc products who either: (A) had voluntarily dismissed or
     terminated the lawsuit as to BASF either before or after the
     suit was filed, including any voluntary dismissal or release
     of claims due to settlement; or (B) had their lawsuit as to
     BASF involuntarily dismissed.

The Moving Plaintiffs are Kimberlee Williams, Gayle Williams
(successor personal representative to Nancy Pease,
incapacitated), Marilyn L. Holley, Sheila Ware (successor
personal representative to Donna Ware, deceased), Donnette
Wengerd, and Rosanne Chernick.  They filed the Motion in
accordance with the Order of the Special Discovery Master (ECF
Nos. 369 and 400).

For purposes of the class definition:

   * "BASF" means and includes BASF Catalysts, LLC ("BASF") or
     any of BASF's predecessor companies that mined,
     manufactured, processed, distributed or sold talc ore or
     talc products, including but not limited to Engelhard
     Corporation, Engelhard Industries, Engelhard Minerals &
     Chemicals Corporation, Minerals & Chemicals Phillip
     Corporation, Eastern Magnesia Talc Company, Porocel
     Corporation and Pita Realty Limited (collectively "BASF
     Predecessor Companies").

   * "Bodily injury" includes common law or statutory claims for
     personal injury, loss of consortium or per quod claims,
     survival claims or wrongful death act claims.

   * "Persons" include individuals or entities who have or had
     the right to claim damages derivatively based on an injured
     person such as spouses, personal representatives and
     wrongful death beneficiaries.

Because discovery remains ongoing, the Plaintiffs request that
the Court enter and continue the Motion until after the
conclusion of discovery, at which time the Representative
Plaintiffs will submit a more complete or supplemental
evidentiary submission and memorandum of law in support of class
certification.

The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to appoint them as Class
Representatives and to appoint their counsel as Class Counsel.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=9unWnyom

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Christopher M. Placitella, Esq.
          Michael Coren, Esq.
          Jared M. Placitella, Esq.
          Eric S. Pasternack, Esq.
          COHEN, PLACITELLA & ROTH, P.C.
          127 Maple Avenue
          Red Bank, NJ 07701
          Telephone: (732) 747-9003
          Facsimile: (732) 747-9004
          E-mail: cplacitella@cprlaw.com
                  mcoren@cprlaw.com
                  jmplacitella@cprlaw.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey M. Pollock, Esq.
          FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP
          Princeton Pike Corp. Center
          997 Lennox Drive, Building 3
          Lawrenceville, NJ 08648
          Telephone: (609) 896-7660
          Facsimile: (609) 896-1469
          E-mail: jmpollock@foxrothschild.com


BELLICUM PHARMA: Robbins Arroyo Files Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights law firm Robbins Arroyo LLP disclosed that a
class action complaint was filed against Bellicum
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (NasdaqGM: BLCM). The complaint is brought
on behalf of all purchasers of Bellicum securities between May 8,
2017 and January 30, 2018, for alleged violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by Bellicum's officers and
directors. Bellicum, a clinical stage biopharmaceutical company,
develops novel cellular immunotherapies for the treatment of
hematological cancers, solid tumors, and orphan inherited blood
disorders. The company's lead product candidate, BPX-501, is an
adjunct T-cell therapy administered after allogeneic
hematopoietic stem cell transplantation.

View this information on the law firm's Shareholder Rights Blog:
www.robbinsarroyo.com/bellicum-pharmaceuticals

Bellicum Accused of Hiding Serious Adverse Effects of its Drug

According to the complaint, on May 8, 2017, Bellicum announced
that it experienced a productive first quarter across its
pipeline and presented clinical data highlighting BPX-501's
potential to transform lives. Bellicum went on to state that BPX-
501 showed a low incidence of transplant-related mortality, rapid
immune recovery, and no serious adverse events associated with
its use. Despite sharing a plethora of positive news about BPX-
501, Bellicum hid from investors that a substantial risk of
encephalopathy -- a chronic, degenerative disease of the brain --
was associated with the drug. The truth came to light on January
30, 2018, when Bellicum announced that it received notice from
the U.S. Food and Drug Administration that studies of BPX-501
have been placed on a clinical hold following three cases of
encephalopathy possibly related to BPX-501. On this news,
Bellicum's stock fell $2.12 per share, or over 25%, to close at
$6.08 per share on January 31, 2018.

Bellicum Shareholders Have Legal Options

If you would like more information about your rights and
potential remedies, contact attorney Leonid Kandinov at (800)
350-6003, LKandinov@robbinsarroyo.com, or via the shareholder
information form on the firm's website.

Robbins Arroyo LLP is a nationally recognized leader in
shareholder rights law. The firm represents individual and
institutional investors in shareholder derivative and securities
class action lawsuits, and has helped its clients realize more
than $1 billion of value for themselves and the companies in
which they have invested.

         Contacts
         Leonid Kandinov, Esq.
         Robbins Arroyo LLP
         Tel: (619) 525-3990 or Toll Free (800) 350-6003
         Website: www.robbinsarroyo.com
         Email: LKandinov@robbinsarroyo.com [GN]


BIOVERATIV INC: Sbriglio Balks at Sanofi Merger Deal
----------------------------------------------------
KAREN SBRIGLIO, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. BIOVERATIV INC., BRIAN S.
POSNER, JOHN G. COX, ALEXANDER J. DENNER, GENO J. GERMANO, LOUIS
J. PAGLIA, ANNA PROTOPAPAS, SANOFI, S.A., and BLINK ACQUISITION
CORP., the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-10291 (D. Mass., Feb. 15,
2018), stems from a proposed transaction announced on January 22,
2018, pursuant to which Bioverativ Inc. will be acquired by
Sanofi, S.A. and Blink Acquisition Corp.

On January 21, 2018, Bioverativ's Board of Directors caused the
Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with
Sanofi. Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, Merger Sub
commenced a tender offer, currently set to expire at midnight,
Eastern Time, on March 7, 2018, to acquire all of Bioverativ's
outstanding common stock for $105.00 in cash for each share of
Bioverativ common stock. If the Tender Offer is completed, Merger
Sub will be merged with and into the Company, and the Company
will continue as the surviving corporation as a wholly owned
subsidiary of Parent.

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.
Accordingly, plaintiff alleges that defendants violated Sections
14(e), 14(d), and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in
connection with the Solicitation Statement.

Bioverativ Inc. is an American multinational biotechnology,
specializing in the discovery, development, and delivery of
therapies for the treatment of haemophilia. Bioverativ competes
with Baxalta, Pfizer and Novo Nordisk.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mitchell J. Matorin, Esq.
          MATORIN LAW OFFICE, LLC
          18 Grove Street, Suite 5
          Wellesley, MA 02482
          Telephone: (781) 453 0100

               - and -

          Brian D. Long, Esq.
          Gina M. Serra, Esq.
          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


BOCK EVANS: Milliner's Class Cert. Bid Denied Without Prejudice
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. James Donato terminated without prejudice the motion to
certify a class in the lawsuit styled Milliner, et al. v. Bock
Evans Financial Counsel, Ltd., Case No. 3:15-cv-01763-JD (N.D.
Cal.).

The Plaintiffs may refile the Motion according to the Court's
standing orders, Judge Donato notes.  Judge Donato adds that the
Motion should focus on the requirements under Rule 23(a) and (b)
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

For the discovery disputes, Ms. Milliner will produce the
portions of the trust instrument that may direct or constrain her
investment discretion, according to the Court's Civil Minutes.
If no responsive portion exists, Ms. Milliner will certify that.
Each plaintiff will produce the documents submitted to open any
brokerage account in the two years before the Bock Evans
Financial Counsel account was opened.

Judge Donato also rules that the Defendant will identify each
client who received the "Statement of Responsibilities" discussed
in plaintiffs' letter, at Docket No. 145.  The Defendant
represents that it is no longer affiliated with Tom Bock and Mary
Evans.  The Plaintiffs may subpoena Bock and Evans if they want
to obtain documents from them, Judge Donato says.

All requests for sanctions are denied, Judge Donato further
rules.  Judge Donato adds that the parties are referred to
Magistrate Judge Donna Ryu for settlement purposes.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          David Sturgeon-Garcia, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF DAVID STURGEON-GARCIA
          1100 Moraga Way, Suite 208
          Moraga, CA 94556-1155
          Telephone: (925) 235-7290
          E-mail: dsglaw@comcast.net

The Defendant is represented by:

          Timothy W. Fredricks, Esq.
          Jared Michael Ahern, Esq.
          WINGET, SPADAFORA & SCHWARTZBERG, LLP
          1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 450
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 836-4800
          Facsimile: (310) 836-4801
          E-mail: Fredricks.T@wssllp.com
                  ahern.j@wssllp.com


BODY SCULPT: "Thompson" Suit Seeks Overtime Wages under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------
Maria Carolina Thompson and Kimberley Capuano, Individually and
on behalf others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Body
Sculpt Internantional, LLC d/b/a Sono Bello; TriNet HR
Corporation d/b/a Sono Bello; TriNet HR III, Inc., d/b/a Sono
Bello; Aesthetics Physicians, P.C. d/b/a Sono Bello; Michael J.
Garissin; and DOES 1-18; inclusive, the Defendants, Case No.
2:18-cv-01001-LDW-GRB (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 15, 2018), seeks to recover
Damages resulting from Defendants' joint failure to pay their
patient care consultants ("PCCs") and other similarly situated
sales consultants' overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Sono Bello offers laser liposuction and body contouring.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Robi J. Baishnab, Esq.
          Robert E. DeRose, Esq.
          BARKAN MEIZLISH HANDLEMAN
          GOODIN DEROSE WENTZ LLP
          250 E. Broad St., 10th Floor
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Telephone: (614) 221 4221
          Facsimile: (614) 744 2300
          E-mail: rbaishnab@barkanmeizlish.com
                  bderose@barkanmeizlish.com

                - and -

          James A. DeRoche, Esq.
          Jefrey D. Johnson, Esq.
          GARSON JOHNSON LLC
          101 W. Prospect Avenue
          1600 Midland Building
          Cleveland, OH 4415
          Telephone: (216) 696 9330
          Facsimile: (216) 696 8558
          E-mail: jderoche@garson.com
                  jjohndon@garson.com
                  sgarson@garson.com


BOS SOLUTIONS: Kolasa Seeks to Certify Control Consultants Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled DENNIS KOLASA, individually
and for others similarly situated v. BOS SOLUTIONS, INC., Case
No. 2:17-cv-01087-NBF-MPK (W.D. Pa.), moves for conditional
certification of this class:

     ALL CURRENT AND FORMER SOLIDS CONTROL CONSULTANTS EMPLOYED
     BY, OR WORKING ON BEHALF OF BOS SOLUTIONS, INC. WHO WERE
     CLASSIFIED AS INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS AND PAID A DAY RATE
     BASIS AND NOT PAID OVERTIME DURING THE LAST THREE (3) YEARS.
     ("PUTATIVE CLASS MEMBERS")

The lawsuit is filed under the Fair Labor Standards Act on behalf
of all solids control consultants, who were misclassified as
independent contractors, paid a day rate, and not paid for work
in excess of 40 hours a week by BOS Solutions.

To facilitate the purposes of the FLSA's collective action
provisions, the Plaintiff also asks the Court to (1) order that
judicial notice proposed by Plaintiff be sent to all Putative
Class Members; (2) order the mailing and e-mailing of the
proposed notice, along with a reminder notice after 30 days; (3)
order BOS Solutions to post the notice documents at BOS
Solution's offices for the entire opt-in period; (4) authorize
follow up calls to ensure returned notices are delivered to the
Putative Class Members; (5) order BOS Solutions to produce to
Plaintiff'' Counsel the contact information for each Putative
Class Member within 20 days of the Court's order; and (6)
authorize a sixty day notice period for Putative Class Members to
join the case.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
          Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
          JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 352-1100
          Facsimile: (713) 352-3300
          E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
                  adunlap@mybackwages.com

               - and -

          Joshua P. Geist, Esq.
          GOODRICH & GEIST, P.C.
          3634 California Ave.
          Pittsburgh, PA 15212
          Telephone: (412) 766-1455
          Facsimile: (412) 766-0300
          E-mail: josh@goodrichandgeist.com

               - and -

          Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
          BRUCKNER BURCH, P.L.L.C.
          8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 877-8788
          Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
          E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com


BUCCANEERS LTD: Stay of TTA Suit Lifted After 11th Cir. Decision
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Anthony E. Porcelli lifted the stay on the action
entitled TECHNOLOGY TRAINING ASSOCIATES, INC., et al. v.
BUCCANEERS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, Case No. 8:16-cv-01622-AEP (M.D.
Fla.).  The Clerk of Court is directed to reopen the case.

The Order states that the cause came before the Court for a
status conference following a stay of this action pending an
appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh
Circuit.  After the issuance of the Eleventh Circuit's mandate,
the Court scheduled the status conference to address the
procedural posture of the case, especially in light of the
Eleventh Circuit's decision reversing the denial of the
Intervenor's Motion to Intervene.

Judge Porcelli vacated in part, only as to the denial of the
Intervenor's Motion to Intervene, the Court's March 31, 2017
Order.  The Court takes under advisement the issue of whether the
rest of the March 31 Order should be vacated at a later date.
The Clerk is directed to reinstate the Intervenor's Motion to
Intervene, which will be granted by separate order.

Judge Porcelli also ruled that within seven days of the order on
the Motion to Intervene, the Intervenor shall file its consent to
the undersigned's jurisdiction, given the stated lack of
opposition to submitting to the Court's jurisdiction for purposes
of this action.

Within 14 days of the date of this Order, the parties shall
provide the Court with a scheduling plan, including deadlines for
conducting discovery, filing additional briefing, and appearing
for an evidentiary hearing.  The parties should also propose
dates for subsequent status conferences wherein all parties can
appear and be heard.

Judge Porcelli also noted that the Intervenor presented an ore
tenus motion to certify the class in Cin-Q Automobiles, Inc. v.
Buccaneers Limited Partnership, 8:13-cv-1592-T-AEP (M.D. Fla.
filed June 18, 2013) and appoint Anderson & Wanca and the Addison
Law Office as class counsel.  Given that the Court is taking
under advisement the request to vacate the remaining portions of
the Court's March 31, 2017 Order conditionally approving the
class and settlement, the ore tenus motion is denied.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=YDvT7Yno


CALIFORNIA: Oroville Dam Class Action Lawsuit Filed vs. DWR
-----------------------------------------------------------
Risa Johnson, writing for ChicoER News, reports that another
class action lawsuit was filed February 8 against the state
Department of Water Resources for damages as a result of the
Oroville Dam crisis.

Plaintiffs include: Akers Ranch, Elkhorn Outdoor Sports, LLC,
Marie Giordano, Carol Gissell, Jordan Crossing Ministries,
Oroville Cycle, Small World Child Care and Learning Center, Small
World Infant Center and all others similarly situated. The
lawsuit contains the same allegations brought forth in recent
complaints by the city of Oroville and over 40 business owners,
farmers and other individuals. In all three cases, the plaintiffs
are represented by Burlingame-based Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy,
LLP and the Woodland-based law firm Gardner, Janes, Nakken, Hugo
& Nolan.

Below are the damages alleged in the lawsuit.

-- Akers Ranch in Oroville: $17,000 or more

-- Elkhorn Outdoor Sports, LLC in Rio Linda: $200,000 or more

-- Marie Giordano, owner of three rental properties in Oroville:
$500,000 drop in property value plus additional damages

-- Carol Gissell, Oroville property owner: $32,000 or more

-- Jordan Crossing Ministries in Oroville: $3,000 or more

-- Oroville Cycle: $220,000 or more

-- Small World Child Care in Oroville: $7,000 or more

-- Small World Infant Center in Oroville: $7,000 or more

The lawsuit proposes that these individuals and organizations
form different classes. The diminution class would represent all
people who owned real estate property downstream of the dam and
saw property values diminish as a result of the spillway crisis
or the unsafe condition of the dam.

The property loss class would include all who suffered real or
personal property damage of $100,000 or less as a result of the
crisis "due to flooding, seepage, high water, excessive flows and
abrupt and erratic releases of high volumes of water from the
Oroville Dam."

There would also be the business loss class, representing those
who sustained business losses as a result of the crisis or the
dam's unsafe condition. [GN]


CENTRAL PONY: Court Certifies Class of Dispatchers in "Townsend"
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Orlando L. Garcia grants the Plaintiff's opposed motion
for conditional class certification filed in the lawsuit
captioned MICHELE TOWNSEND, on behalf of herself and others
similarly situated v. CENTRAL PONY EXPRESS, INC., Case No. 5:17-
cv-00552-OLG (W.D. Tex.).

Plaintiff Michele Townsend seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages
on behalf of herself and other former and current dispatchers
employed by the Defendant pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Judge Garcia ruled that to the extent such information has not
already been provided, the Defendant shall within 14 days of the
date of this Order provide Plaintiff's counsel with the names,
mailing addresses, e-mail addresses, and phone numbers of "all
current and former salaried Dispatchers who were employed by
Defendant at any time from June 20, 2014 to the present."

Within 30 days following the date of the Order, Plaintiff's
counsel shall mail and/or e-mail a copy of the Notice and Consent
Form to the prospective class members, and provide each member a
date-specific deadline for opting-in, with such deadline being 60
days from the date the Notice and Consent Form are first
transmitted to the members, according to the Order.

At least 30 days following the date the Notice and Consent Form
are first transmitted to the members, Plaintiff's counsel may on
one occasion contact by telephone any prospective class members,
who have not already returned their Consent Forms, but may only
do so to inquire (i) whether the member received the mailed
and/or e-mailed package, and, if not, (ii) the member's preferred
method for receiving the Notice and Consent Form f he or she
wishes to receive such documents.

Judge Garcia further ordered that Plaintiff's counsel shall date
stamp any signed, returned Consent Forms on the day they are
received and retain any evidence showing the date each Consent
Form was postmarked or otherwise transmitted by the class member.

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


CHICAGO BRIDGE: "McIntyre" Suit Challenges Sale to McDermott
------------------------------------------------------------
ROME L. MCINTYRE, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. CHICAGO BRIDGE & IRON COMPANY N.V., MARSHA
C. WILLIAMS, L. RICHARD FLURY, WESTLEY S. STOCKTON, LARRY D.
MCVAY, W. CRAIG KISSEL, DEBORAH M. FRETZ, JAMES R. BOLCH, JAMES
H. MILLER, TRAVIS L. STRICKER, FORBES I. J. ALEXANDER, LUCIANO
REYES, and JOHN R. ALBANESE, Case No. 4:18-cv-00273 (S.D. Tex.,
January 29, 2018), seeks to enjoin the Defendants from holding
the stockholder vote in connection with acquisition of CB&I by
McDermott International, Inc., through a merger transaction.

On December 18, 2017, CB&I and McDermott issued a joint press
release announcing the execution of a business combination
agreement providing for the combination of CB&I and McDermott in
a stock-for-stock transaction.  Pursuant to the terms of the
Merger Agreement, CB&I stockholders will receive 2.47221 shares
of McDermott common stock in exchange for each share of CB&I they
own.  The Proposed Transaction is valued at approximately $6
billion.

CB&I is a public company with limited liability incorporated
under the laws of the Netherlands and its principal office is
located in The Woodlands, Texas.  The Individual Defendants are
directors and officers of the Company.

CB&I, incorporated in 1889, provides a range of services to
customers in the energy infrastructure market across the world.
The Company provides various services, such as conceptual design,
technology, engineering, procurement, fabrication,
modularization, construction, commissioning, maintenance, program
management and environmental services, and provides various
Government services.  CB&I operates through three segments:
Engineering and Construction, Fabrication Services, and
Technology.  CB&I offers its services worldwide to the oil and
gas, infrastructure, wastewater, and power industries.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas E. Bilek, Esq.
          THE BILEK LAW FIRM, L.L.P.
          700 Louisiana, Suite 3950
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (713) 227-7720
          E-mail: tbilek@bileklaw.com

               - and -

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


COLLECTION BUREAU HUDSON: Wilhelm Sues over Debt Collection
-----------------------------------------------------------
JAFA WILHELM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. COLLECTION BUREAU OF THE HUDSON VALLEY,
INC., Case No. 2:18-cv-00499-AYS (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 24, 2018), seeks
to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to
collect a debt.

Collection Bureau of the Hudson Valley is a corporation doing
business and with principal place of business located in
Newburgh, New York. The Company is engaged in the collection of
debts allegedly owed by consumers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Palace, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF DAVID PALACE
          383 Kingston Ave., Suite 113
          Brooklyn, NY 11213
          Telephone: (347) 651-1077
          Facsimile: (347) 464-0012


CONTOUR MORTGAGE: Faces "Kirk" Suit over Nonpayment of Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Gabriel Kirk, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Contour Mortgage Corporation, Defendant,
Case No. 1:18-cv-00237-ELH (D. Md., Jan. 24, 2018), is an action
against the Defendant for nonpayment of wages, overtime hours,
and minimum wages.

Plaintiff alleged in the complaint that his schedule fluctuated
from day-to-day. His regular schedule had her working Mondays
through Fridays, from 8 am to 7 pm. He worked at least 3 to 4
hours weekend days every month. He also performed additional
hours of work each week using his mobile device to send and
receive business-related emails. He is thus working an average of
60 hours per week.

Plaintiff was hired by the Defendant as a Mortgage Loan
Originator from March 2017 through November 2017 at Defendant's
offices located in Towson, Maryland.

Contour Mortgage Corporation provides lending and mortgage
services. The Company offers refinance, reverse mortgage,
commercial, and multi family loans. Contour Mortgage serves
customers in the State of New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gregg C. Greenberg, Esq.
          ZIPIN, AMSTER & GREENBERG, LLC
          8757 Georgia Avenue, Suite 400
          Silver Spring, MD 20910
          Telephone: (301) 587-9373
          Facsimile: (301) 587-9397
          E-mail: Ggreenberg@zagfirm.com

               - and -

          Rowdy B. Meeks, Esq.
          ROWDY MEEKS LEGAL GROUP LLC
          8201 Mission Road, Suite 250
          Prairie Village, Kansas 66208
          Telephone: (913) 766-5585
          Facsimile: (816) 875-5069
          E-mail: Rowdy.Meeks@rmlegalgroup.com
                  www.rmlegalgroup.com


CURBSTAND INC: Reyes Seeks OT Pay & Minimum Wages
-------------------------------------------------
MAXIMO REYES, individually, and on behalf of other members of the
general public similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. CURBSTAND,
INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive,
the Defendant, Case No. BC694192 (Cal. Super. Ct., Feb. 15,
2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime and minimum wages under
the California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, Defendants provide valet parking
services and develop, market, and share software that allows
valet parking providers and valet service users to engage in
cashless transactions. The burden of the valet parking service is
performed by valet parking attendants who Defendants
intentionally, but improperly and illegally, classify as
independent contractors rather than employees.

As a result of Defendants' intentional misclassification of its
valet parking attendants as independent contractors, Defendants
have denied numerous wage-and-hour protections provided by the
California Labor Code and the applicable Industrial Welfare
Commission Wage Orders including, but not limited to, overtime
wages, minimum wages, meal and rest breaks, gratuities, and
reimbursement of business-related expenses.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Amab Banerjee, Esq.
          Brandon K. Brouillette, Esq.
          Ruhandy Glezakos, Esq.
          CAPSTONE LAW APC
          1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 556-4811
          Facsimile: (310)943-0396
          E-mail: Amab.Banerjee@capstonelawyers.com
                  Brandon.Brouillette@capstonelawyers.com
                  Ruhandy.Glezakos@capstonelawyers.com


DRUG DEPOT: Court Certifies Two Classes in "Fauley" TCPA Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Virginia M. Kendall entered a memorandum opinion and
order in the lawsuit entitled SHUAN FAULEY, individually and on
behalf of a class of similarly-situated persons v. DRUG DEPOT,
INC., a/k/a APS PHARMACY and JOHN DOES 1-10, Case No. 1:15-cv-
10735 (N.D. Ill.),

   -- denying the Defendants' motion to exclude the expert report
      and testimony; and

   -- granting the Plaintiff's motion for class certification.

Mr. Fauley proposes two specific classes:

   Class A: All persons or entities who were successfully sent a
            Fax stating, "APS Pharmacy," and containing the
            phrase "Fax Order To: (727) 785-2502," on July 22,
            2013, and on September 30, 2013.

   Class B: All persons or entities who were successfully sent a
            Fax stating, "APS Pharmacy," and containing the
            phrase "Fax Order To (727) 785-2502," on February 27,
            2012, March 7, 2012, March 30, 2012, June 4, 2012,
            August 20, 2012, January 25, 2013, February 11, 2013,
            February 18, 2013, February 28, 2013, March 25, 2013,
            March 26, 2013, July 1, 2013, July 22, 2013,
            August 5, 2013, September 30, 2013, March 18, 2014,
            August 8, 2014, April 27, 2015.

Mr. Fauley is a veterinarian, who received a facsimile regarding
animal medicine that he did not solicit and so he sued the
Defendant alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act of 1991.

A copy of the Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at no
charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=a9NdOIBR


DUVAL COUNTY, FL: Menter Moves to Certify Class of Arrestees
------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit titled JOSEPH MENTER, JONATHAN
DANIELS, JAMES DAVIS, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated v. JUDGE MARK H. MAHON, in his official
capacity, as Chief Judge of the Fourth Judicial Circuit of
Florida, on behalf of himself and all other Fourth Circuit Judges
and County Judges sitting in Duval County, Florida, SHERIFF MIKE
WILLIAMS, in his official capacity, as Sheriff of the City of
Jacksonville, Case No. 3:17-cv-01029-BJD-JBT (M.D. Fla.), ask the
Court to certify an injunctive plaintiff class defined as:

     all misdemeanor arrestees who are or will be detained in the
     custody of J SO for any amount of time after arrest because
     they are unable to maintain money bail.

According to the Motion, the Plaintiffs are a group of pretrial
detainees, who are subject to continued detention because of
their inability to afford bond.  Specifically, the Plaintiffs
contend, they are unable to afford the standardized amounts of
money set by the fixed misdemeanor bail schedule promulgated and
enforced by the Defendants.

The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to appoint them to serve as
class representatives.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=vAPW3p6D

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Wm. J. Sheppard, Esq.
          Elizabeth L. White, Esq.
          Matthew R. Kachergus, Esq.
          Bryan E. DeMaggio, Esq.
          Jesse B. Wilkison, Esq.
          Camille E. Sheppard, Esq.
          SHEPPARD, WHITE, KACHERGUS & DEMAGGIO, P.A.
          215 Washington Street
          Jacksonville, FL 32202
          Telephone: (904) 356-9661
          Facsimile: (904) 356-9667
          E-mail: sheplaw@sheppardwhite.com
                  sheplaw@att.net
                  mattkachergus@att.net
                  sheplaw6@att.net
                  ceshepp1127@gmail.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Jon R. Phillips, Esq.
          DEPUTY GENERAL COUNSEL
          OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL
          117 West Duval Street, Suite 480
          Jacksonville, FL 32202
          Telephone: (904) 630-1609
          Facsimile: (904) 630-1316
          E-mail: jphillips@coj.net

               - and -

          William Stafford, Esq.
          SENIOR ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL
          OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
          State Programs Bureau
          The Capitol - PL 01
          Tallahassee, FL 32399-1050
          Telephone: (850) 414-3785
          Facsimile: (850) 488-4872
          E-mail: william.stafford@myfloridalegal.com


DUVAL COUNTY, FL: Menter Moves to Certify Judge Defendants Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit captioned JOSEPH MENTER, JONATHAN
DANIELS, JAMES DAVIS, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated v. JUDGE MARK H. MAHON, in his official
capacity, as Chief Judge of the Fourth Judicial Circuit of
Florida, on behalf of himself and all other Fourth Circuit Judges
and County Judges sitting in Duval County, Florida, SHERIFF MIKE
WILLIAMS, in his official capacity, as Sheriff of the City of
Jacksonville, Case No. 3:17-cv-01029-BJD-JBT (M.D. Fla.), move to
certify an injunctive defendant class defined as:

     all circuit judges of the Fourth Judicial Circuit in and for
     Duval County, Florida and county judges for Duval County,
     Florida (hereinafter referred to as "Judges" or "the
     Judges").

The Plaintiffs tell the Court that they are a group of pretrial
detainees, who are subject to continued detention because of
their inability to afford bond.  Specifically, the Plaintiffs
contend, they are unable to afford the standardized amounts of
money set by the fixed misdemeanor bail schedule promulgated and
enforced by the Defendants.

The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to appoint the Honorable Chief
Judge Mark Mahon as the representative of the class.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=ZRr9GBIv

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Wm. J. Sheppard, Esq.
          Elizabeth L. White, Esq.
          Matthew R. Kachergus, Esq.
          Bryan E. DeMaggio, Esq.
          Jesse B. Wilkison, Esq.
          Camille E. Sheppard, Esq.
          SHEPPARD, WHITE, KACHERGUS & DEMAGGIO, P.A.
          215 Washington Street
          Jacksonville, FL 32202
          Telephone: (904) 356-9661
          Facsimile: (904) 356-9667
          E-mail: sheplaw@sheppardwhite.com
                  sheplaw@att.net
                  mattkachergus@att.net
                  sheplaw6@att.net
                  ceshepp1127@gmail.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Jon R. Phillips, Esq.
          DEPUTY GENERAL COUNSEL
          OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL
          117 West Duval Street, Suite 480
          Jacksonville, FL 32202
          Telephone: (904) 630-1609
          Facsimile: (904) 630-1316
          E-mail: jphillips@coj.net

               - and -

          William Stafford, Esq.
          SENIOR ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL
          OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
          State Programs Bureau
          The Capitol - PL 01
          Tallahassee, FL 32399-1050
          Telephone: (850) 414-3785
          Facsimile: (850) 488-4872
          E-mail: william.stafford@myfloridalegal.com


ECLINICAL WORKS: Licari Bid for Class Certification Denied
----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled LICARI FAMILY CHIROPRACTIC INC., a Florida
corporation, individually and as the representative of a class of
similarly-situated persons and PETER LICARI, individually and as
the representative of a class of similarly situated persons, the
Plaintiffs, v. ECLINICAL WORKS, the Defendant, Case No. 8:16-cv-
03461-MSS-JSS (M.D. Fla.), the Court entered an order on February
16, 2018:

   1. denying without prejudice Plaintiffs' motion for class
      certification to Plaintiff's right to renew its motion
      based on a redefined class, if appropriate; and

   2. denying Plaintiffs' motion for Leave to file a reply.

The Court said, "In order to sustain this action on a class wide
basis, Plaintiffs will need to alter both their class definition
and their asserted basis for class certification. Such a material
alteration should be set forth in a renewed motion, rather than
in a reply in support of the motion as filed".

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=MlBQQ56N


EMERALD MEDICAL: "Solis" Suit Seeks Overtime Wage under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------
CARMEL SOLIS, 14112 Leroy Avenue Cleveland, OH 44135 on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
EMERALD MEDICAL STAFFING LLC c/o Statutory Agent Patricia A.
Zayas, 4891 Cabernet Drive Brunswick, OH 44212, the Defendant,
Case No. 1:18-cv-00369 (N.D. Ohio., Feb. 15, 2018), seeks to
recover overtime compensation 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
non-exempt home health aides, including Plaintiff, overtime
compensation at the rate of one and one-half times their regular
rates of pay for the hours they worked over 40 each workweek, in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, and the Ohio Minimum
Fair Wage Standards Act.

On October 1, 2013, the U.S. Department of Labor issued the Home
Care Final Rule to extend minimum wage and overtime protections
to almost 2 million home care workers. The Final Rule was
challenged in federal court, but on August 21, 2015, the District
of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals in Home Care Association of
America v. Weil, 78 F.Supp. 3d 123 (D.C. Cir. 2015), issued a
unanimous opinion affirming the validity of the Final Rule. This
opinion upholding the Home Care Final Rule became effective on
October 13, 2015, when the Court of Appeals issued its mandate.
The Home Care Final Rule had an effective date of January 1,
2015.2 Under the Final Rule, companies that provide home health
care services to customers are required to pay employees overtime
compensation at the rate of one and one-half times their regular
rate of pay for the hours they worked over 40 each workweek.
Despite these requirements, Defendant has failed to pay its home
health aides overtime compensation since January 1, 2015.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

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


EZCORP INC: Rooney Moves to Certify Class in Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
John Rooney, a Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled In re EZCORP, Inc.
Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:15-cv-00608-SS (W.D. Tex.),
moves the Court for an order:

   (1) certifying this action pursuant to Rule 23(a) and
       Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as a
       class action and certifying the proposed Class;

   (2) appointing John Rooney as Class Representative; and

   (3) appointing Block & Leviton LLP and Glancy Prongay & Murray
       LLP as Class Counsel and Kendall Law Group, PLLC, as
       Liaison Counsel for the Class.

The proposed Class is defined as:

     all persons and entities that purchased or otherwise
     acquired EZCORP, Inc. Class A common stock between
     January 28, 2014 and October 20, 2015, inclusive, and were
     damaged thereby.  Excluded from the Class are Defendants;
     the officers and directors of the Company, at all relevant
     times; members of their immediate families and their legal
     representatives, heirs, successors, or assigns; and any
     entity in which any of the Defendants have or had a
     controlling interest.  Excluded from the Class are
     Defendants, the officers and directors of the Company, at
     all relevant times, members of their immediate families and
     their legal representatives, heirs, successors or assigns
     and any entity in which Defendants have or had a controlling
     interest.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=pU1mCbe2

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Jeffrey C. Block, Esq.
          Jacob A. Walker, Esq.
          BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
          155 Federal Street, Suite 400
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617) 398-5600
          Facsimile: (617) 507-6020
          E-mail: Jeff@blockesq.com
                  Jake@blockesq.com

               - and -

          Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
          GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 201-9150
          Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
          E-mail: lglancy@glancylaw.com


FARMERS RESTAURANT: Ct. Certifies Servers Class in "Stephens"
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Timothy J. Kelly granted in part and denied in part the
Plaintiffs' conditional-certification motion filed in the lawsuit
captioned SHAYN STEPHENS, et al. v. FARMERS RESTAURANT GROUP, et
al., Case No. 1:17-cv-01087-TJK (D.D.C.).

According to the Court's memorandum opinion and order, the
Defendants' motion for leave to file a surreply is denied.  The
parties shall meet, confer, and submit to the Court a revised
form of notice consistent with the Opinion by February 9, 2018.

The Plaintiffs, eight current and former servers at five
restaurants operated by the Defendants, claim that Defendants
violated federal and state laws concerning the minimum wage,
overtime pay, and sick leave.  In their Motion, the Plaintiffs
seek conditional certification of an opt-in collective action
under federal and D.C. law.

Judge Kelly opines that conditional certification is granted,
with certain limitations, including that the putative class is
limited to servers.  Conditional certification is not granted
with respect to these factual allegations: (a) Plaintiffs'
"homework" allegations; (b) Plaintiffs' allegations regarding
uncompensated time at pre-shift meetings insofar as they relate
to the Founding Farmers Tysons restaurant in Virginia; and (c)
Plaintiffs' allegation that Defendants failed to aggregate hours
worked at different restaurants for overtime purposes.

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


FAST AUTO: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, "Shahbazian" Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
LINDA SHAHBAZIAN and EDWIN MENDOZA, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. FAST AUTO LOANS,
INC.; and DOES 1 through 50, Inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
B691951 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Jan. 26, 2018) is an
action against the Defendants for unpaid regular hours, overtime
hours, minimum wages, wages for missed meal and rest periods. The
action includes the Defendants' inclusion of the liability
release clause releasing the Defendants and the third party
conducting the background check of the Plaintiffs prior
employment.

Ms. Shahbazian sought employment with the Defendants in January
2017, and worked as a non-exempt employee.

Mr. Mendoza sought employment with the Defendants in September
2016, and worked as a non-exempt employee.

Fast Auto Loans, Inc. is a California corporation.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Norman B. Blumenthal, Esq.
          Kyle R. Nordrehaug, Esq.
          Aparajit Bhowmik, Esq.
          BLUMENTHAL NORDREHAUG BHOWMIK DE BLOUW LLP
          2255 Calle Clara
          La Jolla, CA 92037
          Telephone: (858) 551-1223
          Facsimile: (858) 551-1232
          Website: www.bamlawca.com


FERNANDEZ & FERNANDEZ: Certification for Collective Action Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled DAYLOR YANES, the Plaintiff, v. FERNANDEZ &
FERNANDEZ INSURANCE, INC., et al., the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-
cv-23677-UU (S.D. Fla.), the Court entered an order on February
13, 2018:

   1. denying Plaintiffs' motion to certify collective action and
      facilitate notice to potential class members;

   2. granting Defendant's partial motion to dismiss, and
      dismissing Count Two of Plaintiff's first amended complaint
      without prejudice; and

   3. dismissing claims of opt-in Plaintiffs, Javier Varona and
      Carlos Ramiro De Armas Soto without prejudice.

The Court said, "Plaintiff's amended complaint requests that the
trier of fact find that Defendants' past conduct, policies, and
procedures violated FLSA. As Plaintiff is a former employee,
there is no future harm with regard to unpaid overtime. Further
Plaintiff has not alleged any future harm in his complaint and
therefore certainly has not met the particularity required in
Elend. As the court in Mical stated, 'the Plaintiff, who is no
longer employed by Defendant, has no continuing or imminent
future injury claim and cannot allege that he may be entitled to
declaratory relief.'  Therefore Plaintiff's claim for declaratory
relief fails to state a claim on its face as it does not properly
allege any future harm."

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


FOREST PHARMACEUTICALS: Ct. Moots Painters Fund's Class Cert. Bid
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Nathaniel M. Gorton denied as moot the Plaintiff's
second motion for class certification filed in the lawsuit titled
PAINTERS AND ALLIED TRADES DISTRICT COUNCIL 82 HEALTH CARE FUND,
A THIRD-PARTY HEALTHCARE PAYOR FUND, on behalf of itself and all
Hon. Marianne B. Bowler others similarly situated v. FOREST
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. and FOREST LABORATORIES, INC., Case No. 13-
CV-13113 (NMG) (D. Mass.).

The Plaintiff sought class certification under the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.  The National Class is
defined as:

     All health insurance companies, third-party administrators,
     health maintenance organizations, self-funded health and
     welfare benefit plans, third-party payors and any other
     health benefit providers, in the United States of America
     and its territories, which paid or incurred costs for the
     purchase or reimbursement of (1) the drug Celexa prescribed
     for use by an individual under 18 years of age, for purposes
     other than resale; and/or (2) the drug Lexapro prescribed
     for use by an individual under 18 years of age, for purposes
     other than resale, on or before March 19, 2009.

Excluded from the Class and all subclasses are employees of
Forest, including its officers and directors; the judge to which
this case is assigned and his immediate family members; personnel
of the Court to which this case is assigned; governmental
entities and/or governmental healthcare payors; all claims
reimbursed to health insurance.

The lawsuit is part of the multidistrict litigation captioned In
re: CELEXA AND LEXAPRO MARKETING AND SALES PRACTICES LITIGATION,
MDL No. 1:09-md-02067-NMG.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Tfbvu8GU


FREEDOMROADS LLC: Piner, et al. Seek to Certify FLSA Class
----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled Piner, et al., On behalf of themselves and
other members of the general public similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, v. FreedomRoads, LLC, et al, the Defendants, Case No.
2:17-cv-00902-EAS-KAJ (S.D. Ohio), Piner and Dingus ask the Court
pursuant to Section 16(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act, for
entry of an order:

   1. conditionally certifying a proposed collective FLSA class
      defined as:

      "all of Defendants' current and former service technicians,
      RV service technicians or equivalent positions who worked
      over 40 hours in any workweek for the period beginning
      three years immediately preceding the filing of the First
      Amended Complaint";

   2. implementing a procedure whereby Court-approved notice of
      Plaintiffs' FLSA claims is sent (via U.S. Mail and e-mail)
      to the class above;

   3. approving a reminder Email to be sent to Putative Class
      Members halfway through the 45-day notice period; and

   4. requiring Defendants to, within 14 days of this Court's
      order, identify all potential opt-in plaintiffs by
      providing a list in electronic and importable format, of
      the names, addresses, and e-mail addresses of all potential
      opt-in plaintiffs who worked for Defendants at any time
      from three years preceding the filing of this Motion
      through the present.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Z4JS3zkI

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and those similarly situated:

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

               - and -

          Daniel I. Bryant, Esq.
          BRYANT LEGAL, LLC
          1457 S. High St.
          Columbus, Ohio 43207
          Telephone: (614) 704 0546
          Facsimile: (614) 573 9826
          E-mail: dbryant@bryantlegalllc.com

               - and -

          Robert E. DeRose, Esq.
          Molly K. Tefend, Esq.
          BARKAN MEIZLISH HANDELMAN GOODIN DEROSE WENTZ, LLP
          250 East Broad Street, 10th Floor
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Telephone: (614) 221 4221
          Facsimile: (614) 744 2300
          E-mail: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com
                  mtefend@barkanmeizlish.com


GARDA CL WEST: Fails to Pay for Overtime Work, Zaragosa Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
JESUS ZARAGOSA, JR., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GARDA CL WEST, INC.; and DOES 1
to 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. BC691897 (Cal. Super., Los
Angeles Cty., Jan. 26, 2018), is an action against the Defendants
for unpaid regular hours, overtime hours, minimum wages, wages
for missed meal and rest periods.

Mr. Zaragosa was employed by the Defendants as a guard for four
years prior to the filing of the action.

Garda Cl West, Inc. was founded in 1960. The Company's line of
business includes providing detective, guard, and armored car
services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Darren M. Cohen, Esq.
          KINGSLEY & KINGSLEY, APC
          16133 Ventura Blvd., Suite 1200
          Encino, CA 91436
          Telephone: (818) 990-8300
          Facsimile: (818) 990-2903
          E-mail: dcohen@kingsley@kingsley.com


GENPACT SERVICES: "Untershine" Placeholder Class Cert. Bid Filed
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled WENDY UNTERSHINE, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v.
GENPACT SERVICES LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-00247 (E.D.
Wisc.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying
proposed classes in this case, appointing the Plaintiff as class
representatives, and appointing Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as Class
Counsel, and for such other and further relief as the Court may
deem appropriate.

The Plaintiff further asks that the Court stay this class
certification motion until an amended motion for class
certification is filed, and that the Court grant the parties
relief from the local rules' automatic briefing schedule and
requirement that Plaintiff file a brief and supporting documents
in support of this motion.

To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class
representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh
Circuit in Damasco instructed plaintiffs to file a certification
motion with the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing
on the certification motion until discovery could commence.
Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891 (7th Cir. 2011),
overruled, Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th
Cir. 2015).

As this motion to certify a class is a placeholder motion as
described in Damasco, the parties and the Court should not be
burdened with unnecessary paperwork and the resulting expense
when a one paragraph, single page motion to certify and stay
should suffice until an amended motion is filed, the Plaintiffs
contend.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


GOOD SHEPHERD: Rumreich Seeks to Certify Preschool Teachers Class
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled MARIAH RUMREICH, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. GOOD SHEPHERD
DAY SCHOOL OF CHARLOTTE COUNTY, INC., a Florida Not for Profit
Corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-00292-SPC-MRM (M.D.
Fla.), Plaintiff asks the Court for an order:

   1. conditionally certifying a class of:

      "current and former hourly non-exempt Preschool
      Teachers/Day Care Workers who worked for Defendant between
      May 30, 2014 and the present";

   2. directing Defendant to produce, in an electronic readable
      format, to undersigned counsel within 14 days of the Order
      granting this Motion, a list containing the names, the last
      known addresses, phone numbers and e-mail addresses of
      putative class members who worked for Defendant between May
      30, 2014 and the present, attached hereto as Exhibit D;

   3. authorizing undersigned counsel to send notice to all
      individuals whose names appear on the list produced by
      Defendant's counsel by first-class mail and e-mail; and

   4. providing all individuals whose names appear on the list
      produced by Defendant's counsel with 60 days from the date
      the notices are initially mailed to file a Consent to
      Become Opt-In Plaintiff.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=E0vNnyo5

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bill B. Berke, Esq.
          BERKE LAW FIRM, P.A.
          4423 Del Prado Blvd. S.
          Cape Coral, FL 33904
          Telephone: (239) 549 6689
          E-mail: berkelaw@yahoo.com


GOOGLE LLC: CDA Immunity Bars Locksmiths' Claims
------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Columbia
issued a Memorandum Opinion granting Defendant's Motion to
Dismiss the case captioned BALDINO'S LOCK & KEY SERVICE, INC., et
al., Plaintiffs, v. GOOGLE LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No.
1:16-cv-02360 (TNM)(D.D.C.).

In 2014, Baldino's Lock & Key Service, Inc., brought suit against
Google LLC and two online directories in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.  The suit
alleged that the defendants had violated the Lanham Act and the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) by
listing numerous scam locksmiths on their websites, thus harming
the plaintiff's business.  The district court dismissed the case,
reasoning that the defendants enjoyed immunity under the
Communications Decency Act (CDA) as providers of an "interactive
computer service" against a suit trying to hold them "liable for
content originating with a third-party information content
provider," and that each count independently failed to state a
claim.  The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision
without mention of the CDA, since Baldino's had abandoned all
RICO claims on appeal, and the Lanham Act claim failed because
the district court had "correctly determined" that the
"locksmiths who generated the information that appeared on
Defendants' websites are solely responsible for making any faulty
or misleading representations."

The instant suit relies on similar factual allegations, but with
a slightly different array of defendants, plaintiffs, and claims.
This time, the suit names search engine providers Google, Yahoo!
Inc., and Microsoft Corporation (the Providers) as defendants.
Baldino's is now the lead plaintiff in a putative class action,
joined by licensed locksmiths from around the country (the
Locksmiths), who allege that the Providers are burying legitimate
locksmiths under scam locksmiths in search results on the
Providers' websites, forcing legitimate locksmiths to pay for
premium advertising slots or face the reality of an eroding
customer base.  The Locksmiths allege violations of the Lanham
Act and the Sherman Antitrust Act, and assert five state law
causes of action.  In an effort to avoid a repeat outcome, the
Locksmiths emphasize that the Providers create mapping
information based on scam locksmiths' allegedly false location
claims, contending that the Providers have thus created original
content not immunized by the CDA.  Nonetheless, the Providers
move to dismiss, claiming that they enjoy immunity under the CDA
for seven of the eight counts, that all counts independently fail
to state a claim, and that claim preclusion bars Baldino's
allegations against Google.

The Court concludes that CDA immunity bars all of the Locksmiths'
claims except for breach of contract, and that the Locksmiths
have failed to adequately plead that claim. Accordingly, all
counts will be dismissed.

The Court finds that it is the scam locksmiths who provide the
original location claim, and the Providers have created a website
that simply re-publishes that information along with associated
mapping information.  The extra information is wholly dependent
on the original location claim, and does not materially
contribute to the alleged unlawfulness of the original claim.
After all, the Locksmiths do not even allege that the Providers
should ban those who make false location claims.  It is the scam
locksmiths' unlicensed status that Plaintiffs claim should prompt
a ban, and they infer from this fact that "we're a local
business" claims are questionable.  In short, the maps are
essentially unrelated to any unlawful conduct.

In common sense terms, it is the scam locksmiths and not the
Providers who are providing the information that potentially
creates liability here. The complaint strains to avoid this
conclusion, alleging that the mapping information independently
and deliberately deceives consumers beyond the original deception
purveyed by the scam locksmiths, and facilitates, enhances, and
legitimizes the scam locksmiths.  But most websites that
incorporate content from elsewhere could be said to facilitate,
enhance, and legitimize original content by amplifying its reach
or improving its relevance and presentation.

By presenting Internet search results to users in a relevant
manner, Google, Yahoo, and Microsoft facilitate the operations of
every website on the internet. The CDA was enacted precisely to
prevent these types of interactions from creating civil liability
for the Providers. The fundamental legal question is whether the
Defendants provided the specific information for which Plaintiffs
seek to hold them liable. The gravamen of this complaint is
precisely that the Providers are financially liable for re-
publishing the scam locksmiths' information.

The Court conclude that the Locksmiths seek to hold the Providers
liable for information provided by another information content
provider, satisfying the CDA's second requirement.

The Locksmiths also sue for breach of contract, claiming a
violation of the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing.
Here, the Court is reasonably confident that contracts existed
between at least two of the 14 locksmiths (Baldino's and Joe East
Enterprises) and Microsoft, since those parties consented to a
stay pending potential arbitration based on the contracts'
existence. But those claims are precisely the ones not before the
Court on this motion to dismiss, and no other specific contracts
have been alleged.

Although other contracts very well may exist, Plaintiffs have not
provided sufficient factual content to allow the Court to draw
the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable.  Even if
the Court inferred that Defendants' conduct would violate
contractual duties if a contract existed, the Court cannot
reasonably infer which Defendants are liable to which Plaintiffs,
without any information about the existence of specific
contracts.  Accordingly, Count VI must be dismissed as well.

A full-text copy of the District Court's January 11, 2018
Memorandum Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/y748pzz7
from Leagle.com.

MARSHALL'S LOCKSMITH SERVICE INC., CLS LOCKSMITH LLC, MANK
LIMITED, JOE EAST ENTERPRISES, INC., MRS. LOCKSMITH INCORPORATED,
MICHAEL X. BRONZELL, DAWSON SAFE & LOCK SERVICES, INC., BERKELEY
LOCK AND INSTITUTIONAL SUPPLY, INC., KEYWAY LOCK & SECURITY
COMPANY INC., MANK, INC., REDFORD LOCK COMPANY, INC., for
themselves and all others similarly situated, GRAH SAFE & LOCK
INC., A BETTER CHOICE LOCK & KEY LLC & BALDINO'S LOCK & KEY
SERVICE, INC., Plaintiffs, represented by Jeffrey Waintroob
Roberts -- jrobets@waintrooddonovan.com -- ROBERTS ATTORNEYS,
P.A., 1500 Main St #1600, Springfield, MA 01103, USA
GOOGLE, LLC, Defendant, represented by Kathleen E. McCarthy
kmccarthy@kslaw.com, KING & SPALDING & Taylor T. Lankford -
tlankford@kslaw.com -- KING & SPALDING, LLP.

YAHOO! INC., Defendant, represented by Jeff A. Jaeckel --
jjaeckel@mofo.com -- MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP.

MICROSOFT CORPORATION, Defendant, represented by Amy Wilkie Ray,
CADWALADER, WICKERSHAM & TAFT LLP, 700 Sixth Street NW.
Washington, DC 20001


GREEN SUMMIT: "Jochola" Suit Seeks Minimum Wages under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------
FELIPE UPON JOCHOLA, OTTONIEL RAMOS BATEN, MIGUEL FRANCISCO
AJPOP, and ROMAN PAJARITO, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. GREEN SUMMIT GROUP LLC
(d/b/a GREEN SUMMIT), CITY BARN GROUP LLC.(d/b/a CITY BARN
KITCHEN), BLACK LEXINGTON GROUP, LLC. (d/b/a GREEN SUMMIT), PETER
SHATZBERG, and TODD MILLMAN, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-
01360 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 15, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid minimum
wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the
New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiffs are former employees of Defendants. The Defendants
owned, operated or controlled a catering company located at 144
East 44th Street, New York, NY 10017 under the name Green Summit,
and a restaurant previously located at 16 West 45th Street, New
York, NY 10036 under the name "City Barn Kitchen".

The Plaintiffs were ostensibly employed as delivery workers;
however, they were required to spend a considerable part of their
work day performing non-tipped, non-delivery duties, including
but not limited to various us restaurant duties such as, cutting
bread, sweeping and mopping, cleaning the bathroom, arranging
deliveries packages, cleaning the walls, cleaning the bathroom
and the basement, wrapping food, taking out the garbage and
stocking incoming merchandise. The Plaintiffs worked for
Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate
minimum wage for the hours that they worked. Rather, Defendants
failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of their hours worked,
and failed to pay Plaintiffs appropriately for any hours worked,
at the appropriate rate of pay.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

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


GREGG PETERSON: Class of Outside Sale Reps Certified in "Iliff"
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Stephen P. Friot conditionally certifies the collective
action entitled DUSTIN ILIFF, CHARLES SEWELL, and CHARLES CHURCH,
on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. GREGG
PETERSON CONSTRUCTION GROUP, LLC; GREGG PETERSON; AND JEFF
PETERSON, Case No. 5:17-cv-01040-F (W.D. Okla.), under the Fair
Labor Standards Act for the purpose of giving notice and sending
opt-in consent forms.

The Court adopts the Plaintiffs' definition of the class set
forth in their reply.  The class conditionally certified is:

     All outside sale representatives who worked for defendants
     and were classified as independent contractors for the time
     period of September 14, 2014, through the present.

Judge Friot approves the notice and opt-in consent forms with the
modifications stated in the Order.  Within 20 days of the date of
this Order, the Defendants shall provide the Plaintiffs with the
identity, last known address and year of birth for all outside
sales representatives, who worked for them during any period
between September 14, 2014 and the present.

After receiving the information from the Defendants, the
Plaintiffs shall mail the notice and opt-in consent forms to the
putative plaintiffs providing for a 60-day period from mailing to
return the opt-in consent form.

The Plaintiffs originally commenced suit in the District Court of
Oklahoma County, State of Oklahoma.  The Defendants removed the
action to the District Court based upon federal question
jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1331.

The Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and others similarly
situated, allege claims against the Defendants under the Fair
Labor Standards Act, Oklahoma's Protection of Labor Act and
Oklahoma common law.  The Plaintiffs allege, in part, that the
Defendants misclassified the Plaintiffs and others similarly
situated as independent contractors and the Defendants failed to
pay them minimum wages and overtime compensation.

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


HOME PERFORMANCE: Appointment Setters Class Certification Sought
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled MARIA KLEEKAMP, on behalf of
herself and others similarly situated v. HOME PERFORMANCE
ALLIANCE INC., a Florida Profit Corporation, Case No. 2:17-cv-
00660-SPC-MRM (M.D. Fla.), asks the Court to conditionally
certify a Fair Labor Standards Act class of:

     current and former hourly non-exempt appointment setters who
     worked for Defendant between December 1, 2014 and the
     present.

Ms. Kleekamp alleges that the Defendant did not pay her for work
performed both prior to and after her scheduled shifts and
automatically deducted a 30-minute lunch break daily but did not
allow its appointment setters to take a 30-minute break, thereby,
reducing her hours, including overtime if applicable.  She adds
that the Defendant also made illegal deductions from her wages
for damaged equipment, which reduced her hourly rate below
minimum wage.

Ms. Kleekamp also asks the Court to (i) direct the Defendant to
produce to her counsel a list containing the names, the last
known addresses, phone numbers and e-mail addresses of putative
class members; (ii) authorize her counsel to send proposed notice
to all individuals whose names appear on the list; and (iii)
provide all individuals whose names appear on the list with 60
days from the date the notices are initially mailed to file a
Consent to Become Opt-In Plaintiff.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=E4rJMLWl

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bill B. Berke, Esq.
          BERKE LAW FIRM, P.A.
          4423 Del Prado Blvd. S.
          Cape Coral, FL 33904
          Telephone: (239) 549-6689
          E-mail: berkelaw@yahoo.com


INTEL CORPORATION: Sued by Sterling over Defective CPUs
-------------------------------------------------------
DAVID STERLING, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. INTEL CORP., Defendant, Case No. 5:18-cv-
00580-SVK (N.D. Cal., Jan. 26, 2018) alleges that Intel's sales
of defective processors constitutes a violation of the California
and North Carolina Law.

Until 2018, Intel didn't have a hardware security team. As a
result, Intel's hardware design contains serious security flaws.
On January 3, 2018, the news broke that security researchers had
discovered two methods that could be used to exploit flaws in
Intel's hardware design. These two methods can give a hacker
access to anything on the computer. And because they exploit
flaws in hardware, not software, they work on any operating
system, so long as it runs on an Intel processor.

With no hardware fix possible, software makers have recently
attempted to create patches to protect Intel-based computers from
hackers. But these software patches significantly slow down the
computers on which they're installed and don't provide complete
protection.

On January 3, 2018, news broke that four independent teams of
security researchers had uncovered two major security exploits
affecting nearly every Intel CPU manufactured since 1995. The
security researchers gave these exploits the nicknames "Meltdown"
and "Spectre."

Individuals and businesses that don't apply the Meltdown and
Spectre patches face the risk of being hacked. In particular, the
Meltdown vulnerability is an "immediate threat, with proof-of-
concept exploits already available" to hackers on the internet.
Consumers and businesses may have already received the patch
without realizing because they have automatic updates enabled.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Eric H. Gibbs, Esq.
          Andre M. Mura, Esq.
          Amanda M. Karl, Esq.
          Aaron Blumenthal, Esq.
          GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP
          505 14th Street, Suite 1110
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 350-9700
          Facsimile: (510) 350-9701
          E-mail: ehg@classlawgroup.com
                  amm@classlawgroup.com
                  amk@classlawgroup.com
                  ab@classlawgroup.com

               - and -

          Michael S. Danko, Esq.
          Kristine K. Meredith, Esq.
          DANKO MEREDITH
          333 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 145
          Redwood Shores, CA 94065
          Telephone: (650) 453-3600
          Facsimile: (650) 394-8672
          E-mail: mdanko@dankolaw.com
                  kmeredith@dankolaw.com


INTERCONTINENTAL HOTELS: Gulf Coast Bank Sues over Data Breach
--------------------------------------------------------------
GULF COAST BANK & TRUST COMPANY, Plaintiff v. INTERCONTINENTAL
HOTELS GROUP, PLC; INTER-CONTINENTAL HOTELS CORPORATION; and
INTERCONTINENTAL HOTELS GROUP RESOURCES, INC., Defendants, Case
No. 1:18-cv-00411-ELR (N.D. Ga., Jan. 26, 2018) is brought
against the Defendants for their failure to take adequate and
reasonable measures to protect their point-of-sale and computer
systems in violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act.

Defendants' systemic failure exposed its customers' highly
sensitive Payment Card Data from approximately August 1, 2016 to
December 29, 2016, and allowed hackers to steal that data and
misuse it for various purposes. The exposure of the Payment Card
Data destroyed the usefulness of the payment cards and the
information set forth thereon.

InterContinental Hotels Group PLC owns and operates a portfolio
of hotel businesses. The Group's portfolio is comprised primarily
of various franchised hotels from an established and diverse
group of brands. InterContinental Hotels manages hotel loyalty
and priority club rewards programs. The Group operates hotels in
countries and territories all over the world.

Inter-Continental Hotels Corporation operates a chain of hotels
and resorts in North America, South America, Central-America/the
Caribbean, Africa, Europe, Australasia/the Oceania, the Asia
Pacific, and the Middle East. InterContinental Hotels Corporation
was formerly known as International Hotels Corporation and
changed its name to InterContinental Hotels Corporation in 1947.
The company was founded in 1946 and is based in Atlanta, Georgia.
Inter-Continental Hotels Corporation operates as a subsidiary of
Intercontinental Hotels Group plc.

InterContinental Hotels Group Resources, Inc. owns, manages,
franchises, and leases hotels. The company was founded in 1998
and is based in Olympia, Washington. InterContinental Hotels
Group Resources, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of
InterContinental Hotels Group PLC. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
          CARLSON LYNCH SWEET
          KILPELA & CARPENTER, LLP
          1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Telephone: (412) 253-6307
          Facsimile: (412) 322-9243
          E-mail: glynch@carlsonlynch.com


IRONBOUND EXPRESS: Luxama to Seek Certification of Rule 23 Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit captioned VAUDRAL LUXAMA, CHANDLER
LUXEUS, JAVIER R. GARCIA, FREDO BONHOMME, SANTOS MALDONADO,
CHANEL FONTIN, each individually and as class representatives v.
IRONBOUND EXPRESS, INC., Case No. 2:11-cv-02224-JMV-JBC (D.N.J.),
will move the Court on March 20, 2018, for an order granting
class certification pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Steven I. Adler, Esq.
          Lauren X. Topelsohn, Esq.
          MANDELBAUM SALSBURG P.C.
          3 Becker Farm Road, Suite 105
          Roseland, NJ 07068
          Telephone: (973) 736-4600
          Facsimile: (973) 736-4670
          E-mail: sadler@lawfirm.ms
                  ltopelsohn@lawfirm.ms

               - and -

          Jerry Maroules, Esq.
          LEANZA, AGRAPIDIS AND MAROULES
          777 Terrace Avenue, # 504
          Hasbrouck Heights, NJ 07604
          Telephone: (201) 288-0500


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announced it
has filed a federal securities class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of Johnson & Johnson (NYSE:JNJ)
between Feb. 22, 2013, and Feb. 7, 2018, both dates inclusive
("Class Period.") The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for J&J
investors under the federal securities laws.

New documents were uncovered as part of existing lawsuits filed
by ovarian cancer and mesothelioma victims. The documents
indicate J&J knew for decades that cancer-causing asbestos and
heavy metals were prevalent in the talc used in its Johnson's
Baby Powder and other products but failed to put a warning label
on them. J&J stock prices plummeted after this and earlier
disclosures.

According to the lawsuit, throughout the Class Period defendants
made false or misleading statements, and failed to disclose that
J&J has known for decades that its talc products include asbestos
fibers and that the exposure to those fibers can cause ovarian
cancer and mesothelioma. J&J's denials that talc could cause
cancer and mesothelioma were materially false and misleading, and
the company concealed contingent liabilities and loss of future
revenues from the product. As a result of the company's actions,
the lawsuit claims, investors suffered damages when the true
details entered the market.

Joining Rosen as co-counsel in the lawsuit is renowned civil
rights attorney Ben Crump, who said Johnson & Johnson engaged in
"cynical tactics to market these products to women of color,
while knowing their potential harm."

"Johnson & Johnson devalued Black lives by expressly marketing a
product to black customers that they knew for decades to be
harmful," Crump said. "Given that many black workers' retirement
funds depend on government pension funds that invest in this
stock for their retirement, Johnson & Johnson victimized them
twice, jeopardizing their physical and their financial health."

In the 1990s, Johnson & Johnson began a concerted effort to boost
the sales of its baby powder by "targeting" black and Hispanic
women, according to a company memorandum made public in recent
lawsuits that led to multimillion-dollar verdicts against the
powder manufacturer. In the past, African-American women have
reported significantly higher use of feminine hygiene products,
including genital powder. A 2015 case-control study in Los
Angeles found that 44 percent of African-American women reported
using talcum powder, compared to 30 percent of white women and 29
percent of Hispanic women.

Rosen said the class action lawsuit has already been filed.
Anyone wishing to serve as lead plaintiff, 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. Anyone wishing to join the litigation should go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1288.htmlor contact Phillip Kim
or Daniel Sadeh of Rosen Law Firm toll-free at 866-767-3653 or
via email at pkim@rosenlegal.com or dsadeh@rosenlegal.com.

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

Ben Crump is well known for representing clients in a wide range
of civil rights cases and is a former president of the National
Bar Association. He has been recognized by the National Bar
Association as the Nation's Best Advocate and listed on The
National Trial Lawyers' Top 100 Lawyers. His firm also focuses on
practice areas that include class actions, personal injury,
wrongful deaths, and workers' compensation.

The Rosen and Crump firms announced a partnership earlier this
year to expand and diversify reach and help bring justice to
organizations and individuals impacted by securities fraud and
corporate misconduct throughout the world.

         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

            -- or --

         Ben Crump, Esq.
         Ben Crump Law, PLLC
         122 S. Calhoun St.
         Tallahassee, FL 32301
         Tel: (844) 638-1822
         Email: ben@bencrump.com  [GN]


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Bronstein, Gewirtz Files Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC notifies investors that a
class action lawsuit has been filed against Johnson & Johnson
("J&J" or the "Company") (NYSE: JNJ) and certain of its officers,
on behalf of shareholders who purchased J&J securities during the
period between February 22, 2013 and February 7, 2018, inclusive
(the "Class Period"). Such investors are encouraged to join this
case by visiting the firm's site: http://www.bgandg.com/jnj.

This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for
alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period,
defendants made materially false and misleading statements and/or
failed to disclose that: (1) J&J has known for decades that its
talc products include asbestos fibers and that the exposure to
those fibers can cause ovarian cancer and mesothelioma; and (2)
consequently, defendants' statements about J&J's business,
operations and prospects were materially false and misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.

On February 5, 2018, CNBC reported that "court proceedings could
expose potentially damaging documents" in connection with J&J's
talc products, such as Johnson's Baby Powder. Following this
news, J&J stock dropped $7.29 per share or over 5% to close at
$130.39 per share on February 5, 2018. Then, on February 7, 2018,
the Beasley Allen Law Firm published a press release stating that
"[l]awsuits filed by ovarian cancer and mesothelioma victims are
revealing never-before-seen documents from Johnson & Johnson and
talc supplier, Imerys, that shed light on just how prevalent
asbestos and heavy metals are in the talc used in Baby Powder."
The release continued that "[i]nternal Johnson & Johnson
documents from 1972 note that asbestos was found in 100 percent
of talc samples tested at the time, but this information was
never released publicly," and continued to explain how J&J
stopped testing talc samples for asbestos contamination after
majority of the sample batches were found to be positive for
asbestos. Following this news, J&J stock dropped.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the firm's site:
http://www.bgandg.com/jnjor you may contact Peretz Bronstein,
Esq. or his Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you
suffered a loss in J&J you have until April 9, 2018 to request
that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff.  Your ability to
share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead
plaintiff.

Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a corporate litigation
boutique.  Our primary expertise is the aggressive pursuit of
litigation claims on behalf of our clients.  In addition to
representing institutions and other investor plaintiffs in class
action security litigation, the firm's expertise includes general
corporate and commercial litigation, as well as securities
arbitration.

         Contact:
         Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
         Yael Hurwitz, Esq.
         Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC
         Tel: 212-697-6484
         Email: peretz@bgandg.com [GN]


JUST ENERGY: Faces "Panozzo" Suit over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Douglas Panozzo, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Just Energy Group Inc.; Just Energy
Marketing Corp; and Commerce Energy, Inc., Defendants, Case No.
1:18-cv-00537, (N.D. ILL., Jan. 24, 2018) is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of
Illinois Minimum Wage Law.

According to the complaint, Plaintiff never received any overtime
pay for the hours worked over 40 hours per week. He was only paid
$50 for each of the customers who ultimately purchased
Defendant's service.

Mr. Panozzo was employed by the Defendants to go door to door in
Illinois with the objective of getting potential customers to
apply for Defendants' services.

Just Energy Group Inc., through its subsidiaries, provides
electricity, natural gas, and renewable energy solutions in the
United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, Ireland, Germany, and
Japan. It operates through Consumer Energy and Commercial Energy
segments. The company offers various home and business energy
solutions, including long-term fixed-price, variable-price, and
flat-bill solutions to residential and commercial customers. It
also provides solar energy solutions; carbon emissions solutions,
such as carbon offsets and renewable energy credits; and smart
thermostats. As of May 17, 2017, the company served two million
residential and commercial customers. It markets its products
through various sales channels comprising door-to-door marketing,
brokers, online marketing, and others. The company was founded in
1997 and is based in Mississauga, Canada. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Terrence Buehler, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF TERRENCE BUEHLER
          17220 W 22nd Street, Suite 410
          Oakbrook Terrace, IL 60181
          Telephone: (630) 333-0000
          E-mail: tbuehler@tbuehlerlaw.com

               - and -

          Patrick J. Perotti, Esq.
          Frank A. Bartela, Esq.
          Nicole T. Fiorelli, Esq.
          DWORKEN & BERNSTEIN CO. L.P.A.
          60 South Park Place
          Painesville, OH 44077
          Telephone: (440) 352-3391
          E-mail: pperotti@dworkenlaw.com
                  fbartela@dworkenlaw.com
                  nfiorelli@dworkenlaw.com

               - and -

          Murray Richelson, Esq.
          DAVID A. KATZ CO., LPA
          842 Terminal Tower
          Cleveland, OH 44113
          Telephone: (216) 696-5250
          E-mail: mrichelson@aol.com

               - and -

          James A. DeRoche, Esq.
          GARSON JOHNSON LLC
          101 West Prospect Avenue, Suite 1610
          Cleveland, OH 44115
          Telephone: (216) 830-1000
          E-mail: jderoche@garson.com


KEYBANK NA: Web Site Not Accessible to the Blind, Duncan Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
EUGENE DUNCAN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. KEYBANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Case No. 1:18-cv-00612
(E.D.N.Y., January 29, 2018), is a civil rights action brought
against the Company under the Americans with Disabilities Act for
its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its Web
site to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the
Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people.

Mr. Duncan is a visually-impaired and legally blind person, who
requires screen-reading software to read Web site content using
his computer.

Keybank is a California Business Corporation licensed to do
business and doing business in New York.  The Defendant operates
Keybank Banks as well as the Keybank Web site, offering features,
which should allow all consumers to access the products and
services which the Company offers in connection with their
physical locations.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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


KINDRED HEALTHCARE: Rosenfeld Balks at HospitalCo Merger Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------
JOEL ROSENFELD, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. KINDRED HEALTHCARE, INC., BENJAMIN A.
BREIER, PHYLLIS R. YALE, JOEL ACKERMAN, JONATHAN D. BLUM, PAUL J.
DIAZ, HEYWARD R. DONIGAN, RICHARD GOODMAN, CHRISTOPHER T. HJELM,
FREDERICK J. KLEISNER, SHARAD MANSUKANI, and LYNN SIMON, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-00260-UNA (D. Del., Feb. 15, 2018),
seeks to enjoin stockholder vote on a proposed transaction unless
and until Securities Exchange Act violations are cured.

On December 19, 2017, Kindred issued a press release announcing
it had entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger with
HospitalCo Parent, Parent and Merger Sub. Under the terms of the
Merger Agreement, Kindred stockholders will have the right to
receive $9.00 in cash for each share of Kindred common stock they
own. The Proposed Transaction is valued at approximately $4.1
billion.

On February 5, 2018, Kindred filed a Preliminary Proxy Statement
on Schedule 14A with the Securities Exchange Commission. The
Proxy Statement, which recommends that Kindred stockholders vote
in favor of the Proposed Transaction, omits or misrepresents
material information concerning, among other things: (i)
Kindred's financial projections, including the financial
projections relied upon by Kindred's financial advisors, Barclays
Capital Inc. and Guggenheim Securities, LLC, in their financial
analyses; (ii) the background process leading to the Proposed
Transaction; (iii) the data and inputs underlying the financial
valuation analyses that support the fairness opinions provided by
Barclays and Guggenheim; and (iv) insiders' potential conflicts
of interest. The failure to adequately disclose such material
information constitutes a violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a)
of the Exchange Act as Kindred stockholders need such information
in order to cast a fully-informed vote in connection with the
Proposed Transaction or seek appraisal. In short, unless
remedied, Kindred's public stockholders will be forced to make a
voting or appraisal decision on the Proposed Transaction without
full disclosure of all material information concerning the
Proposed Transaction being provided to them.

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

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Ryan M. Ernst, Esq.
          Daniel P. Murray, Esq.
          O'KELLY ERNST & JOYCE, LLC
          901 N. Market St., Suite 1000
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 778-4000
          E-mail: rernst@oelegal.com
                  dmurray@oelegal.com

               - and -

          Richard A. Acocelli, Esq.
          Michael A. Rogovin, Esq.
          Kelly C. Keenan, Esq.
          WEISSLAW LLP
          1500 Broadway, 16th Floor
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 682 3025
          Facsimile: (212) 682 3010


KRIEGER BEARD: Court Allows Perry to File First Amended Complaint
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Thomas M. Rose grants the Plaintiff's motion for leave
to file first amended complaint in the lawsuit styled MORGAN
PERRY v. KRIEGER BEARD SERVICES, LLC, et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-
00161-TMR (S.D. Ohio).

The Court also terminates these pending motions, which will be
mooted by the filing of the First Amended Complaint:

   * Plaintiff's Motion to Certify Class;

   * Defendants DIRECTV and DirectSat's Motion to Dismiss;

   * Defendants DIRECTV and DirectSat's Motion to Strike the
     Motion to Certify Class;

   * Defendant Krieger Beard's Motion to Dismiss;

   * Defendants DIRECTV and DirectSat's Motion to Strike Reply to
     Response to Motion to Certify Class; and

   * Defendant Krieger Beard's Motion to Strike Reply to Response
     to Motion to Certify Class.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=y4IYohlA


LIFEVANTAGE CORP: Smith Alleges Pyramid Scheme Practices
--------------------------------------------------------
BRIAN SMITH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LIFEVANTAGE CORPORATION; DARREN JENSEN;
JUSTIN ROSE; and RYAN GOODWIN, Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-
00135-SRU (D. Conn., Jan. 24, 2018) alleging that Defendants
engaged in pyramid scheme business practices.

LifeVantage Corporation identifies, researches, develops, and
distributes nutraceutical dietary supplements and skin care
products. It sells its products through a network of independent
distributors, and preferred and retail customers in the United
States, Japan, Hong Kong, Australia, Canada, Mexico, Thailand,
the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, and Germany. LifeVantage
Corporation is headquartered in Sandy, Utah. [BN]

The plaintiff is represented by:

          James K. Robertson, Jr., Esq.
          Brian T. Henebry, Esq.
          John L. Cordani, Jr., Esq.
          CARMODY TORRANCE SANDAK &
          HENESSEY LLP
          50 Leavenworth Street
          Waterbury, CT 06721-1110
          Telephone: (203) 573-1200
          E-mail: jrobertson@carmodylaw.com
                  bhenebry@carmodylaw.com
                  jcordanijr@carmodylaw.com

               - and -

          Andrew Kochanowski, Esq.
          Sarah L. Rickard, Esq.
          SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
          One Towne Square, Suite 1700
          Southfield, MI 48076
          Telephone: (248) 355-0300
          E-mail: akochanowski@sommerspc.com
                  srickard@sommerspc.com

               - and -

          J. Benjamin King, Esq.
          REID COLLINS & TSAI LLP
          1601 Elm St., Suite 4250
          Dallas, Texas 75201
          Telephone: 214-420-8900
          E-mail: bking@rctlegal.com

               - and -

          R. Adam Swick, Esq.
          1301 S. Capital of Texas Hwy.
          Bldg. C, Suite 300
          Austin, Texas 78746
          Telephone: 512-647-6100
          E-mail: aswick@rctlegal.com


LJM FUNDS: Scott+Scott Files Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
Scott+Scott, Attorneys at Law, LLP ("Scott+Scott"), a national
securities and consumer rights litigation firm, announced that it
has filed a class action lawsuit against LJM Funds Management
Ltd. ("LJM Partners" or the "Company") and certain of its
executives (collectively, "Defendants").

The action, which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, asserts claims under Sections 11,
12, and 15 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1933 (the
"Securities Act"), 15 U.S.C. Sections 77k, 77l and 77o, on behalf
of persons who purchased shares of the LJM Preservation and
Growth Fund Class I ("LJMIX") (MUTF: LJMIX) between February 28,
2015 and February 7, 2018, inclusive (the "Class Period").

LJMIX is a mutual fund that purports to invest primarily in
purchased and sold call and put options on Standard & Poor's 500
Futures Index ("S&P").

The complaint alleges that Defendants violated provisions of the
Securities Act by issuing false and misleading statements to
investors, including in filings with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission ("SEC"). Specifically, Defendants made false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that LJMIX
was not focused on capital preservation and left investors
exposed to an unacceptably high risk of catastrophic losses. In
addition, it is alleged that Defendants violated 17 C.F.R.
229.303 by failing to disclose the fact that LJMIX had not taken
appropriate steps to preserve capital in down markets.

The truth emerged on February 5, 2018, when the S&P fell
approximately 4.6 percent. In the wake of this drop, LJMIX
plunged from a close price of $9.82 on February 2, 2018 to a
close price of $1.94 on February 7, 2018, a massive loss of
approximately 80 percent.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court
no later than April 10, 2018. 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 a member of
the proposed class.

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions
concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please
contact plaintiff's counsel, Joe Pettigrew of Scott+Scott at
(844) 818-6982, or via email at jpettigrew@scott-scott.com.

About Scott+Scott, Attorneys at Law, LLP

Scott+Scott has significant experience in prosecuting major
securities, antitrust, and employee retirement plan actions
throughout the United States. The firm represents pension funds,
foundations, individuals, and other entities worldwide with
offices in New York, London, Connecticut, California, and Ohio.

         Contacts
         Joe Pettigrew, Esq.
         Scott+Scott, Attorneys at Law, LLP
         Tel: 844-818-6982
         Email: jpettigrew@scott-scott.com [GN]


LJM FUNDS: Kahn Swick Files Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney
General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors that
they have until April 10, 2018 to file lead plaintiff
applications in a securities class action lawsuit against LJM
Funds Management Ltd., if they purchased shares of the LJM
Preservation and Growth Fund Class I (Nasdaq:LJMIX) between
February 28, 2015 and February 7, 2018, inclusive (the "Class
Period").  This action is pending in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

What You May Do

If you purchased shares of LJM Preservation and Growth Fund Class
I and would like to discuss your legal rights and how this case
might affect you and your right to recover for your economic
loss, you may, without obligation or cost to you, contact KSF
Managing Partner Lewis Kahn toll-free at 1-877-515-1850 or via
email (lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com), or visit
http://ksfcounsel.com/cases/nasdaq-ljmix/to learn more. If you
wish to serve as a lead plaintiff in this class action, you must
petition the Court by April 10, 2018.

About the Lawsuit

LJM Funds Management, certain of its executives and others  are
charged with failing to disclose material information during the
Class Period, violating federal securities laws.

The alleged false and misleading statements and omissions
include, but are not limited to, that: (i) LJMIX failed to
adequately focus on preservation of capital particularly in down
markets as stated in its Registration Statements and
Prospectuses; (ii) investors were exposed to unacceptably high
risks of significant losses; and (iii) as a result, the Fund's
financial statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times.

About Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC

KSF, whose partners include the Former Louisiana Attorney General
Charles C. Foti, Jr., is a law firm focused on securities,
antitrust and consumer class actions, along with merger &
acquisition and breach of fiduciary litigation against publicly
traded companies on behalf of shareholders. The firm has offices
in New York, California and Louisiana.

         Lewis Kahn
         Managing Partner
         Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC
         206 Covington St.
         Madisonville, LA 70447
         Tel: 1-877-515-1850
         E-mail: ewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com[GN]


M-I LLC: Smith Moves to Certify Class of Production Technicians
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit entitled DAVID SMITH, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. M-I, L.L.C.
d/b/a MI SWACO, Case No. 5:17-cv-00788-FB-RBF (W.D. Tex.), asks
the Court to conditionally certify a class of:

    "All current and former production technicians employed by
     M-I, LLC during the last three years." ("Putative Class
     Members").

Mr. Smith alleges that the Defendant failed to pay its production
technicians overtime as required under federal law.  He contends
that MI SWACO maintained a uniform pay practice of paying these
workers -- and many others -- a salary without any overtime
compensation, which violates the Fair Labor Standards Act.

To facilitate the purposes of the FLSA's collective action
provisions, Mr. Smith asks that the Court grant this Motion and
(1) conditionally certify this action for purposes of notice and
discovery; (2) order that a judicially approved notice be sent to
all Putative Class Members by mail and email; (3) approve the
form and content of Plaintiff's proposed judicial notice and
reminder notice; (4) order MI SWACO to produce to Plaintiff's
Counsel the last known name, address, phone number, email address
and dates of employment for each of the Putative Class Members in
a usable electronic format; (5) authorize Plaintiff's Counsel to
send by mail and e-mail a Reminder Postcard to the Putative Class
Members reminding them of the deadline for the submission of the
Consent forms; (6) authorize Plaintiff's Counsel to follow up
with all those Putative Class Members who have not returned their
Consent forms with a phone call to ensure receipt of the Notice
packet; and (7) authorize a 60-day notice period for the Putative
Class Members to join this case.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=1CHPHmk4

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
          Richard M. Schreiber, Esq.
          Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
          JOSEPHSON DUNLAP
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 352-1100
          Facsimile: (713) 352-3300
          E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
                  rschreiber@mybackwages.com
                  adunlap@mybackwages.com

               - and -

          Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
          BRUCKNER BURCH, P.L.L.C.
          8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 877-8788
          Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
          E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com


MAJESTIC PRINCESS: Yarwood May Renew Collective Suit Bid
--------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Dave Lee Brannon denied without prejudice to renew, the
motion to proceed as a collective action filed by the Plaintiff
of the lawsuit titled GERI YARWOOD v. MAJESTIC PRINCESS CRUISES,
INC., Case No. 9:17-cv-80549-DLB (S.D. Fla.).

The Plaintiff's alleged class is: "all 'tipped' servers and
bartenders where a tip-credit was claimed, who were required to
disburse a portion of tips to non-tipped employees of the
Defendant."

On May 2, 2017, the Plaintiff filed a Collective Action Complaint
alleging that she and others similarly situated were servers and
bartenders at the Defendant's casino and were "tipped" employees
under the Fair Labor Standards Act.  She further alleges that the
Defendant failed to pay minimum wage compensation by claiming a
"tip-credit" for her and others similarly situated but failing to
comply with "tip-credit" requirements under the FLSA.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=gUgHa2It


MARCO POLO: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, "Zaw" Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------
Nyi Nyi Zaw, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Marco Polo Caterers, Inc., Marco Moreira and Jo-Ann
Makovitzky, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-00540-JGK (S.D.N.Y.,
Jan. 22, 2018), is a class action against the Defendants for
violating the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants paid Plaintiff an
hourly wage that was lover that the federal and New York minimum
wages in 2015 and lower that the New York minimum wage in 2016-
2018. Instead of paying Plaintiff the full minimum wage,
Defendants paid Plaintiff pursuant to a relevant tip credits.

Marco Polo Caterers, Inc. is a New York limited liability
corporation that operates 15 East Restaurant in Gramercy,
Manhattan.

Marco Moreira and Jo-Ann Makovitzky are the managing owners of
the 15 East Restaurants.

Mr. Zaw worked at 15 East Restaurants as a server from early 2015
until January 2018. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          D. Maimon Kirschenbaum, Esq.
          Josef Nussbaum, Esq.
          JOSEPH & KIRSCHENBAUM LLP
          32 Broadway, Suite 601
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 688-5640
          Facsimile: (212) 981-9587


MARLU INVESTMENT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, "Chesney" Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
LARRY CHESNEY, and KELLY MCCARTHY, an individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MARLU INVESTMENT
GROUP, LLC; CARDINAL APPLIANCE AND HARDWARE, INC.; and DOES 1
through 20, inclusive, Case No. 37-2018-00003981-CU-OE-NC (Cal.
Super, San Diego North Cty., Jan. 24, 2018) seeks to recover
proper minimum wages, overtime compensation, and attorney's fees.
Defendants failed to accurately provide gross wages earned, net
wages earned, applicable hourly rate, and wages representing
commission earned during each respective pay period.

Plaintiffs alleged in the complaint that regardless of whether
the respective wage statement contained a line item for
commission, Plaintiffs' regular hourly rate inexplicably
fluctuated between $4.50 per hour and $10.50 per hour. This is so
despite the fact that, on some of the wage statements reflecting
a regular hourly rate of $4.50 per hour, they purportedly did not
earn any commissions even after making several Commissionable
Sales.

Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as sales
representatives.

MarLu Investment Group operates quick service restaurant
franchises. The Company owns and manages roast beef restaurants,
fast-food hamburger chains, and pizza chains.

Cardinal Appliance and Hardware, Inc. is a California Corporation
whose principal place of business is located at Elk Grove,
California. The Company owns, operates and conducts substantial
business in the County of San Diego, State of California. [BN]

Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Douglas F. Walters, Esq.
          Ryan J. Carlson, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF DOUGLAS F. WALTERS, APC
          12626 High Bluff Drive, Suite 330
          San Diego, CA 92130
          Telephone: (858) 623-5655
          Facsimile: (858) 623-5645


MDL 2800: Equifax Faces "Kelley" Suit in N.D. Georgia
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Equifax Inc. and
Equifax Information Services, LLC. The case is captioned as
Melissa Kelley, on behalf of herself and all other similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Equifax Inc; and Equifax Information
Services, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-00418 (N.D. Ga., Jan.
26, 2018). The case is assigned to Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr.
The "Kelley" suit is a member case in the multi-district
litigation proceeding, MDL No. 02800.

Equifax Inc. provides information solutions and human resources
business process outsourcing services for businesses,
governments, and consumers. The company operates through four
segments: U.S. Information Solutions (USIS), International,
Workforce Solutions, and Global Consumer Solutions. The USIS
segment offers consumer and commercial information services, such
as credit information and credit scoring, credit modeling and
portfolio analytics, locate, fraud detection and prevention,
identity verification, and other consulting; mortgage loan
origination information; financial marketing; and identity
management services.

Equifax Information Services LLC collects and reports consumer
information to financial institutions. The company was formerly
known as Equifax Credit Information Services Inc. and changed its
name to Equifax Information Services LLC in June 2004. The
company was incorporated in 1937 and is based in Atlanta,
Georgia. Equifax Information Services LLC operates as a
subsidiary of Equifax Inc.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kevin Hunter Sharp, Esq.
          SANFORD HEISLER SHARP, LLP
          611 Commerce Street, Suite 3100
          Nashville, TN 37203
          Telephone: (615) 434-7001
          Facsimile: (615) 434-7020
          E-mail: ksharp@sanfordheisler.com


ME BATH: "Saleh" Stayed Pending Circuit Court Ruling in "ACA"
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida issued an Order granting Defendant's Motion to Stay the
case captioned BILAL SALEH, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, will do Plaintiffs, v. ME BATH SPA
EXPERIENCE, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 17-cv-62322-BLOOM/Valle
(S.D. Fla.), pending a ruling by the D.C. Circuit Court of
Appeals in ACA International v. Federal Communications
Commission, Case No. 15-1211.

Plaintiff has filed a putative class action against Defendant
alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
(TCPA), for sending text messages using an automatic telephone
dialing system (ATDS) to his cellular telephone without his
consent.  The TCPA makes it unlawful for any person to make any
call other than a call made for emergency purposes or made with
the prior express consent of the called party) using any
automatic telephone dialing system to any telephone number
assigned to a cellular telephone service.

Objecting to the Motion, Plaintiff also argues that a stay would
be immoderate because the parties to the D.C. Circuit appeal will
likely challenge the decision at the Supreme Court level and such
a challenge will lead to an indeterminate stay. In support of
this argument, Plaintiff cites to several decisions finding that
a stay would be immoderate given the possibility of further
appellate review.

As an additional basis to deny the stay, Plaintiff directs the
Court to three decisions from the Middle District of Florida and
argues that a stay would violate the Hobbs Act.

These decisions rely upon the Eleventh Circuit's opinion in Mais,
which found that a district court violated the Hobbs Act when it
declared that a 2008 FCC ruling was inconsistent with the TCPA.
Unlike Mais, the Hobbs Act is not implicated here as this Court
is not commenting upon or opining upon the validity of the FCC's
interpretation and definition of ATDS. Likewise, this Court is
not refusing to enforce the FCC's interpretation of ATDS.
Instead, the Court is briefly staying the case given the
imminence of the D.C. Circuit's decision and the benefit that
such clarification will provide the Court and the parties
throughout the proceedings, including the discovery process.

A full-text copy of the District Court's January 11, 2018 Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/y8zhhmhk from Leagle.com.

Bilal Saleh, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Jibrael Jarallah Said Hindi -
- jibrael@jibraellaw -- The Law Offices of Jibrael S. Hindi.

ME BATH SPA EXPERIENCE, LLC, a Delaware Corporation, Defendant,
represented by Leanne McKnight Prendergast --
Leanne.Prendergast@fisherbroyles.com -- Smith Hulsey & Busey.


MERCHANTS & PROFESSIONAL: Pilgrim Sues over Debt Collections
------------------------------------------------------------
JON PILGRIM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. MERCHANTS & PROFESSIONAL CREDIT
BUREAU, INC. and JOHN DOES 1-25, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-
cv-00138 (W.D. Tex., Feb. 15, 2018), seeks to recover damages and
declaratory and injunctive relief under the Fair Debt Collections
Practices Act.

According to the complaint, an alleged obligation arose out of a
transaction involving medical debts allegedly incurred by
Plaintiff with multiple creditors in which money, property,
insurance or services, which are the subject of the transaction,
are primarily for personal, family or household purposes,
specifically in this instance it was multiple personal medical
debts. The alleged obligation is a "debt" as defined by 15 U.S.C.
section 1692a(5). The owner of the alleged obligation is a
"creditor" as defined by 15 U.S.C. section 1692a(4). The owner of
the obligation contracted the Defendant to collect the alleged
debt. The Defendant collects and attempts to collect debts
incurred or alleged to have been incurred for personal, family or
household purposes on behalf of creditors using the United
States Postal Services, telephone and internet.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          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


MICHAEL KOPPLIN: Faces "Dupee" Suit over Housing Unit Condition
---------------------------------------------------------------
NORINE DUPEE, on behalf of herself and all similarly situated
persons, the Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL KOPPLIN, the Defendant, Case
No. 2018-CH-01982 (Ill. Cir., Cook County, Feb. 15, 2018), seeks
an order requiring Defendant to ameliorate the unsafe,
unsanitary, and uninhabitable conditions instanter, including
without limitation the rat infestations.

The Plaintiff is a natural person and resident of the County of
Cook in the State of Illinois. The Plaintiff was and is legally
blind. The Plaintiff occupied the residential housing unit
located at 4824 West Hutchinson, Unit 102A, in Chicago, Illinois.
The Defendant is a natural person and resident of the County of
Cook in the State of Illinois. The Defendant was and is the owner
and/or manager of a building and all units therein. The Defendant
was and is a licensed realtor.

On or about April 11, 2017, Plaintiff and Defendant entered into
a one-year, written lease agreement for the subject matter unit.
The Plaintiff leased the apartment after seeing an advertisement
for it in the Nadig Newspapers. That advertisement was the same
used by Defendant for most or all of his rental properties. That
advertisement stated that the subject unit was "updated" with
"newer hardwood floors, appliances, laundry." That advertisement
stated that no pets or smoking were allowed. The Plaintiff relied
on the representations contained in the advertisement in deciding
to rent the subject unit. The Plaintiff would not have rented the
subject matter unit without the representations made in the
advertisement.

Plaintiff was a participant in the Housing Choice Voucher Program
administered by the United States Department of Housing and Urban
Development pursuant to Section 8 of the Housing Act of 1937.
The lease contained a monthly rent of $765, and a term from May
1, 2017 to April 30, 2018.  Pursuant to her voucher, Plaintiff
agreed to pay $137 per month in rent directly to HUD, and HUD
paid the full amount of rent to Defendant. The lease required a
move-in fee of $500, to be paid by HUD. Prior to Plaintiffs move-
in date, Defendant demanded from Plaintiff an additional $765 as
a prepayment for May rent. Defendant promised Plaintiff before
she paid that he would return the $765 after receiving payment
for that amount from HUD. The prepaid rent was not stated
anywhere in the parties' lease agreement. Defendant demanded that
Plaintiff pay the prepaid rent in cash. Defendant demanded that
Plaintiff pay the $7 65 prepaid rent herself prior to occupying
the apartment.  Defendant informed Plaintiff that if she did not,
Defendant would rent the apartment to someone else.

Based on Defendant's demand and promise, Plaintiff paid to
Defendant $765 in cash. Defendant gave a receipt to Plaintiff for
that $765 which stated the following: I, Michael Kopplin, have
received a non-refundable deposit for 4824 W. Hutchinson l51
North Chicago, IL 60641 of $765.00 Seven Hundred Sixty-Five [sic]
to be used as May 2017 rent.  Plaintiff did not agree to pay the
full amount of May 2017 rent to Defendant. Because she is legally
blind, Plaintiff did not realize what Defendant had written on
the receipt until after she returned home. On April 21, 2017, AFC
Housing Assistance paid the $765 for May rent to Defendant.
Thereafter, Plaintiff repeatedly requested in writing and orally
that Defendant return the $765 payment. Defendant never returned
the $765 payment to Plaintiff. As a result, Defendant received
May rent twice.  Plaintiff has retained Berton N. Ring, P.C. as
her attorneys and has assigned all claims for attorney fees to
Berton N. Ring, P.C.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Berton N. Ring, Esq.
          Sheryl Ring, Esq.
          BERTON N. RING, P.C.
          No. 12735 123 West Madison Street, 15th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60602 (312) 781 0290


MIKE LOWRIE: Faces "Juarez" Suit Over Nonpayment of Wages
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action has been filed against Mike Lowrie Trucking, Inc.
The case is captioned Carlos Martin Lopez Juarez and Jonathan
Melmed, individually and on behalf of similarly situated persons,
Plaintiffs v. Mike Lowrie Trucking, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
BCV-18-100177 (Cal. Super., Kern Cty., Jan. 24, 2018).

Lowrie Mike Trucking was founded in 1978.  The company's line of
business includes provides trucking or transfer services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by Jonathan Melmed, Esq.


MONROE COLLEGE: Faces "Camacho" Suit over Disabilities' Rights
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action has been filed against Monroe College, Ltd. The
case is captioned Jason Camacho, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Monroe College, Ltd.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:18cv-00649-KBF (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 24, 2018).
The case is assigned to Judge Katherine B. Forrest.

Monroe College, Ltd. provides educational services. The School
offers academic programs in criminal justice, allied health,
business, education, informational technology, hospitality
management, nursing, and arts. Monroe College serves students in
the State of New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dana Lauren Gottlieb, Esq.
          GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
          150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
          New York, NY 10003
          Telephone: (917) 796-7437
          Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
          E-mail: danalgottlieb@aol.com


MONSANTO COMPANY: Faces "Luckey" Suit Over Roundup(R) Injuries
--------------------------------------------------------------:
DAVID AND CAROL LUCKEY v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Case No. 4:18-cv-
00133 (E.D. Mo., January 26, 2018), is an action for damages
allegedly suffered by the Plaintiff as a direct and proximate
result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in
connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing,
packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution,
labeling, and sale of the herbicide Roundup(R), containing the
active ingredient glyphosate.

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

David Luckey, a resident and citizen of Travis County, Texas,
brings the action for alleged personal injuries sustained by
exposure to Roundup.  He alleges that as a direct and proximate
result of being exposed to Roundup(R), he developed Non-Hodgkin's
Lymphoma.  Carol Luckey has a claim for loss of consortium
related to the injuries of her husband.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


MRI INT'L: Court Grants Prelim Approval of $13MM Class Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Nevada
issued an Order granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary
Approval of Proposed Class Action Settlement in the case
captioned SHIGE TAKIGUCHI, FUMI NONAKA, MITSUAKI TAKITA, TATSURO
SAKAI, SHIZUKO ISHIMORI, YUKO NAKAMURA, MASAAKI MORIYA, HATSUNE
HATANO, and HIDENAO TAKAMA, Individually and On Behalf of All
Others Similarity Situated, Plaintiff, v. MRI INTERNATIONAL,
INC., EDWIN J. FUJINAGA, JUNZO SUZUKI, PAUL MUSASHI SUZUKI, LVT,
INC., dba STERLING ESCROW, and DOES 1-500, Defendants, Case No.
2:13-cv-01183-HDM-NJK (D. Nev.).

The Court finds that the proposed Settlement with Settling
Defendants for approximately $13,100,000 is sufficiently fair,
reasonable and adequate such that it is hereby preliminarily
approved.  The Court finds that the Settlement Agreement appears
to be the product of arm's length, informed, non-collusive
negotiations between experienced and knowledgeable counsel who
have actively prosecuted and contested this litigation for over
three and a half years.

The settlement class, estimated at 8,800, is sufficiently
numerous to satisfy the numerosity requirement.  The Court finds
that common issues predominate as to all twelve causes of action,
including the causes of action for Section 10(b) and Rule 10B-5
claims.  Because Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants repeatedly
made the same core misrepresentations throughout the class
period, there was no meaningful difference between statements
made by Junzo and Paul Suzuki to individual investors to justify
requiring individual proof. Since the allegations set forth
against Keiko Suzuki parallel those made against Junzo and Paul
Suzuki, there is no reason that individual issues should not
predominate as to Keiko Suzuki. For the unjust enrichment cause
of action, whether the defendants' receipt and retention of money
is an issue that may be answered on a class-wide basis. With
respect to the constructive trust cause of action, no individual
questions exist to preclude class certification.

A full-text copy of the District Court's January 11, 2018 Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/ya82o524 from Leagle.com.

Shige Takiguchi, Fumi Nonaka, Kaoruko Koizumi, Tatsuro Sakai &
Mitsuaki Takita, Plaintiffs, represented by James Edwin Gibbons -
jegnull@nullmanningllp -- Manning & Kass Ellrod, Ramirez, Trester
LLP, James R. Olson, Olson, Cannon, Gormley, Angulo & Stoberski,
9950 W. Cheyenne Avenue. Las Vegas, NV 89129,  Mariko Taenaka --
mt@robertwcohenlaw.com, Law Offices of Robert W. Cohen, Robert W.
Cohen -- rwc@robertwcohenlaw.com -- Law Offices of Robert W.
Cohen, APC & Steven Jeff Renick, Manning & Kass, Ellrod, Ramirez,
Trester LLP, 9950 W. Cheyenne Avenue. Las Vegas, NV 89129,
Shizuuko Ishimori, Yoko Hatano, Yuko Nakamura, Hidehito Miura,
Yoshiko Tazaki, Masaaki Moriya, Hatsune Hatano, Satoru Moriya,
Hidenao Takama, Shigeru Kurisu, Saka Ono, Kazuhiro Matsumoto,
Kaya Hatanaka, Hiroka Yamajiri, Kiyoharu Yamamoto, Junko
Yamamoto, Koichi Inoue, Akiko Naruse, Toshimasa Nomura & Ritsu
Yurikusa, Plaintiffs, represented by James Edwin Gibbons, Manning
& Kass Ellrod, Ramirez, Trester LLP, James R. Olson, Olson,
Cannon, Gormley, Angulo & Stoberski, Mariko Taenaka, Law Offices
of Robert W. Cohen, Robert W. Cohen, Law Offices of Robert W.
Cohen, APC & Steven Jeff Renick, Manning & Kass, Ellrod, Ramirez,
Trester LLP, pro hac vice.

MRI International, Inc. & Edwin J Fujinaga, Defendants,
represented by Daniel L. Hitzke -- daniel.hitzke@hitzkelaw.com --
Hitzke & Associates & Erick M. Ferran --
ferranlawoffice@gmail.com -- Junzo Suzuki & Paul Musashi Suzuki,
Defendants, represented by Jeffrey A. Silvestri --
jsilvestri@mcdonaldcarano.com, McDonald Carano Wilson, Nicolas
Morgan -- nicolasmorgan@paulhastings.com -- Paul Hastings LLP,
pro hac vice & Paul J. Georgeson -- pgeorgeson@mcdonaldcarano.com
-- McDonald Carano Wilson LLP.

ICAG, INC., Defendant, represented by Jacob A. Reynolds,
Hutchison & Steffen, Mark A. Hutchison, Hutchison & Steffen, LLC
& Robert T. Stewart, Hutchison & Steffen, LLC, Peccole
Professional Park, 10080 W Alta Drive Dr., Suite 200. Las Vegas,
NV 89145-8651

First Hawaiian Bank, as Trustee of the Junzo Suzuki Irrevocable
Trust, First Hawaiian Bank, as Trustee of the Keiko Suzuki
Irrevocable Trust & First Hawaiian Bank, as Trustee of the Junzo
Suzuki and Keiko Suzuki Irrevocable Life Insurance Trust,
Defendants, represented by Christopher R. Ramos --
cramos@vedderprice.com -- Vedder Price (CA), LLP, pro hac vice,
Rex Garner -- rex.garner@akerman.com -- Akerman LLP, Ariel E.
Stern  ariel.stern@akerman.com -- Akerman LLP & Lisa M. Simonetti
-- lsimonetti@vedderprice.com. -- Vedder Price, LLP.

Suzuki Enterprises, Inc. Profit Sharing Plan, Defendant,
represented by Gregg D. Zucker -- gregg@foundationlaw.com --
Foundation Law Group, Robert A. Rabbat -- rrabbat@enesteinlaw.com
-- Enenstein Pham & Glass & Tess Emily Johnson, Backus Carranza,
3050 South Durango Drive, Las Vegas, Nevada 89117


MTGOX INC: Bid to Extend Expert Deposition Deadline Denied
----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled Gregory Greene, et al., the Plaintiffs, v.
MtGox Inc., et al., the Defendants, Case No. 1:14-cv-01437 (N.D.
Ill.), the Hon. Judge Gary Feinerman entered an order denying as
moot Plaintiff's motion to extend expert deposition deadline and
deadline to file reply in support of motion for class
certification.

According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on February 13,
2018, Strombom will be deposed on March 2, and Plaintiffs have
until March 22 to file their reply in support of their motion for
class certification. Defendant Mizuho's motion to exclude the
report and testimony of M. Todd Henderson is entered and
continued. Plaintiffs' response is due by March 2; reply is due
by March 26. The March 8 status hearing is stricken and reset for
April 3 at 9:30 a.m.

A copy of the Docket Entry is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=ZqhFNZ0J


MUTUAL SECURITIES: Milliner's Bid to Certify May Be Refiled
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. James Donato terminated without prejudice the motion to
certify a class in the lawsuit titled Charlotte B. Milliner, et
al. v. Mutual Securities, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-03354-JD (N.D.
Cal.).

The Plaintiffs may refile the Motion according to the Court's
standing orders.  The Motion should focus on the requirements
under Rule 23(a) and (b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
Judge Donato notes.

For the discovery disputes, Judge Donato ruled that Ms. Milliner
will produce the portions of the trust instrument that may direct
or constrain her investment discretion.  If no responsive portion
exists, Ms. Milliner will certify that.  Each plaintiff will
produce the documents submitted to open any brokerage account in
the two years before the Bock Evans Financial Counsel account was
opened.

Judge Donato also states that the Defendant will identify each
client who received the "Statement of Responsibilities" discussed
in plaintiffs' letter, at Docket No. 145.  The Defendant
represents that it is no longer affiliated with Tom Bock and Mary
Evans.  The Plaintiffs may subpoena Bock and Evans if they want
to obtain documents from them.  All requests for sanctions are
denied.

The parties are referred to Magistrate Judge Ryu for settlement
purposes.

A copy of the Civil Minutes is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=3hWLHYSg


NATIONAL CREDIT: Woods Files Placeholder Class Certification Bid
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled LETICIA WOODS, Individually and on Behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. NATIONAL
CREDIT ADJUSTERS LLC and REVIVER FINANCIAL LLC, the Defendants,
Case No. 2:18-cv-00248 (E.D. Wisc.), Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order certifying proposed classes in this case,
appointing the Plaintiffs as class representatives, and
appointing Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as Class Counsel, and for such
other and further relief as the Court may deem appropriate.

The Plaintiff further asks that the Court stay this class
certification motion until an amended motion for class
certification is filed, and that the Court grant the parties
relief from the local rules' automatic briefing schedule and
requirement that Plaintiff file a brief and supporting documents
in support of this motion.

To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class
representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh
Circuit in Damasco instructed plaintiffs to file a certification
motion with the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing
on the certification motion until discovery could commence.
Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891 (7th Cir. 2011),
overruled, Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th
Cir. 2015).

As this motion to certify a class is a placeholder motion as
described in Damasco, the parties and the Court should not be
burdened with unnecessary paperwork and the resulting expense
when a one paragraph, single page motion to certify and stay
should suffice until an amended motion is filed, the Plaintiffs
contend.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


NATIONAL CREDIT: "Woods" Suit Seeks to Certify Class
----------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled LETICIA WOODS, Individually and on Behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. NATIONAL
CREDIT SYSTEMS INC., the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-00339-LA
(E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order:

   1. certifying a class of:

      "(a) all natural persons in the United States of America
      (b) who were sent a collection letter to the complaint in
      this action, (c) seeking to collect a debt allegedly owed
      to Silver Cloud for personal, family or household purposes,
      (d) between March 8, 2016 and March 8, 2017, inclusive, (e)
      that was not returned by the postal service"; and

   2. appointing the Plaintiff as its representative, and
      appointing Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as its counsel.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=tnaHuOB7

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John D. Blythin, Esq.
          Shpetim Ademi, Esq.
          Mark A. Eldridge, Esq.
          3620 East Layton Avenue
          Cudahy, WI 53110
          Telephone: (414) 482 8000
          Facsimile: (414) 482 8001
          E-mail: sademi@ademilaw.com
                  jblythin@ademilaw.com
                  meldridge@ademilaw.com


NCL CORPORATION: Lombardo Seeks to Recover OT Pay Under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------
MICHELLE LOMBARDO, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated v. NCL CORPORATION LTD., a Foreign Corporation, Case No.
1:18-cv-20314-DPG (S.D. Fla., January 26, 2018), seeks to recover
from the Defendant alleged unpaid overtime compensation,
liquidated damages, and costs and reasonable attorneys' fees
under the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

NCL Corporation Ltd., a Foreign Corporation doing business as
Norwegian Cruise Line, is a business specializing in the sale and
provision of cruise services with call center sales employees in
one or more locations in Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Keith M. Stern, Esq.
          Hazel Solis Rojas, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF KEITH M. STERN, P.A.
          One Flagler
          14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 800
          Miami, FL 33132
          Telephone: (305) 901-1379
          Facsimile: (561) 288-9031
          E-mail: employlaw@keithstern.com
                  hsolis@workingforyou.com


NECA-IBEW: "K.B." Suit Moved to Southern District of Florida
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled K.B., Individually and Behalf of
a Class of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. NECA-
IBEW Welfare Trust Fund, the Defendant, Case No. CACE18001182,
was removed from the 17th Judicial Circuit in and for Broward
County, Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida (Ft Lauderdale) on Feb. 15, 2018. The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:18-cv-60352-DPG to the
proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Darrin P.
Gayles.

NECA-IBEW Welfare Trust Fund operates as a non-profit
organization. The Fund offers medical, dental, legal counsel,
vision services, prescription drug care, fund consultant, and
other services to its participants.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joshua Harris Eggnatz, Esq.
          EGGNATZ PASCUCCI, P.A.
          5400 S. University Drive, Suite 417
          Davie, FL 33328
          Telephone: (954) 889 3359
          Facsimile: (954) 889 5913
          E-mail: JEggnatz@JusticeEarned.com

Attorneys for Defendant:

          Ivelisse Berio LeBeau, Esq.
          SUGARMAN & SUSSKIND PA
          100 Miracle Mile, Suite 300
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 529 2801
          Facsimile: (305) 447 8115
          E-mail: ivelisse@sugarmansusskind.com


NELSON AIR: Penava Suit Seeks Trust Fund Monies under Lien Law
--------------------------------------------------------------
PENAVA MECHANICAL CORP., on behalf of itself And on behalf of all
others entitled to share in the Funds received by NELSON AIR
DEVICE CORPORATION, as Trustee, in connection with the
improvement of real property known as 620 Fulton Street,
Brooklyn, New York, Block: 2108; Lot: 0001, the Plaintiff, v.
NELSON AIR DEVICE CORPORATION, MICHAEL HANSMAN, ROBERT A.
BRIGANTI NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, and "JOHN DOE No.
1" Through "JOHN DOE No. 100," the Defendants, Case No.
503192/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Feb. 15, 2018), seeks to recover
trust fund pursuant to New York Lien Law section 77 on behalf of
itself individually, and on behalf of any of the Trust Fund
Beneficiaries, as hereinafter defined, who have claims against
Nelson by reason of services rendered and materials or equipment
incorporated into a Construction Project at 620 Fulton Street,
Brooklyn, New York, Block: 2108; Lot: 0001.

Penava's claims arise from (a) Nelson's breach of its Agreement
with Penava; and (b) the failure and refusal of Nelson to pay for
certain piping and related work that Penava provided to Nelson,
as well as other construction materials, equipment and labor
supplied by the other trust fund beneficiaries, for use at the
Project, and the unlawful diversion of said trust fund monies for
non-trust purposes.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Constatine T. Tzifas, Esq.
          286 Madison Avenue - Suite 1801
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 557 5055


NORTHERN OIL: Court Dismisses "Fries" Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York issued an Opinion and Order granting Defendant's Motion to
Dismiss the case captioned JEFFREY FRIES, Individually and On
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. NORTHERN
OIL AND GAS, INC., MICHAEL L. REGER, and THOMAS W. STOELK,
Defendants, No. 16 Civ. 6543 (ER) (S.D.N.Y.).

This class action arises out of alleged violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by Northern Oil and Gas, Inc.
("Northern Oil"), Michael L. Reger ("Reger"), and Thomas W.
Stoelk ("Stoelk," collectively, the "Defendants").  Lead
plaintiff Matthew Atkinson ("Plaintiff" or "Atkinson") asserts
causes of action individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated against Defendants for violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.  Plaintiff generally alleges that
Defendants made false and misleading statements in their public
filings and comments.

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants made material misstatements or
omissions regarding Northern Oil's Code of Business Conduct and
Ethics, and Reger's importance at Northern Oil.

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants made the following
representations about Reger: (1) Northern Oil relies on
executives' knowledge and expertise in the industry, and
specifically relies on Reger's relationships with industry
participants; (2) Reger has been involved in the acquisition of
oil and gas mineral rights for his entire career; (3) Reger is a
fourth generation landman in the Williston Basin; and (4) Reger's
knowledge of the landscape and relationships gave Northern Oil
certain early advantages.  However, the Court finds that the
Plaintiff does not claim that these statements are inaccurate in
and of themselves. Further, the omitted facts do not show that
Northern Oil did not rely on Reger's knowledge and expertise in
the industry, that Reger did not have the pedigree Northern Oil
represented, or that Reger's experience and expertise did not
give Northern Oil certain early advantages.

Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff also fails to allege
an actionable misstatement or omission related to Defendants'
representations about Reger.

Defendants argue that even if Plaintiff had sufficiently alleged
an actionable misrepresentation or omission, his claims must
further fail for the independent reason that Plaintiff has
inadequately pled scienter.

The Court agrees.

Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 require plaintiffs to allege a state
of mind demonstrating an intent to deceive, manipulate or
defraud, also known as scienter.

There are also no allegations that Reger acted with recklessness
sufficient to show that Plaintiff sought to deceive Northern Oil
shareholders. Dakota Plains is alleged to be wholly unrelated to
Northern Oil, and the SEC settlement concerning Reger's failure
to disclose his control of Dakota Plains, which occurred after
the Class Period, only implicated Reger in negligent, not
fraudulent, conduct. Furthermore, Reger's alleged violations of
the Code of Business Conduct and Ethics and abdication of
responsibility do not establish fraudulent intent as opposed to
mere mismanagement.

Plaintiff also argues that Reger engaged in conscious misbehavior
by making false or misleading statements, and Stoelk engaged in
conscious misbehavior by certifying the Form 10-Ks. The mere
allegation that Defendants' disclosures were incomplete or that
they omitted material information "is not enough to plead
scienter based on conscious misbehavior or recklessness.

Viewing all of Plaintiff's allegations as a whole, the inference
of scienter is not as compelling as any opposing inference of
non-fraudulent intent. Defendants may not have disclosed Reger's
uncharged involvement with Dakota Plains because there was no
reason to believe that Reger's conduct was improper when
Defendants made the disclosures, and because Reger believed
during the Class Period that the success of Dakota Plains would
benefit Northern Oil investors.  Indeed, when Reger received a
Wells Notice from the SEC, Northern Oil terminated him, which
undermines scienter.

A full-text copy of the District Court's January 11, 2018 Opinion
and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yd5q34x4 from
Leagle.com.

Jeffrey Fries, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Joseph Alexander Hood, II --
ahood@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, Louis Carey Ludwig --
lcludwig@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz Grossman Hufford Dahlstrom &
Gross LLP & Jeremy Alan Lieberman -- jalieberman@pomlaw.com --
Pomerantz LLP.

Matthew Atkinson, Movant, represented by Joseph Alexander Hood,
II, Pomerantz LLP & Louis Carey Ludwig, Pomerantz Grossman
Hufford Dahlstrom & Gross LLP.

Richard Miller, Movant, represented by Joseph Alexander Hood, II,
Pomerantz LLP.

Vittorio Franceschi, Movant, represented by Jason Allen Zweig,
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP.

Northern Oil and Gas, Inc. & Thomas W. Stoelk, Defendants,
represented by Jeff G. Hammel -- jeff.hammel@lw.com -- Latham and
Watkins, Serrin Andrew Turner -- serrin.turner@lw.com -- Latham &
Watkins LLP & Blake Thomas Denton -- blake.denton@lw.com --
Latham & Watkins LLP.

Michael L. Reger, Defendant, represented by David Anthony
Scheffel, Dorsey & Whitney LLP, James K. Langdon, Dorsey &
Whitney LLP & Michael E. Rowe, III, Dorsey & Whitney LLP.


NORTHERN TRUST: Sued by Duncan for Blind-Inaccessible Web site
--------------------------------------------------------------
EUGENE DUNCAN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. NORTHERN TRUST CORPORATION, Case No. 1:18-cv-00616
(E.D.N.Y., January 29, 2018), accuses the Defendant of violating
the Americans with Disabilities Act because its Web site,
http://www.northerntrust.com/,is not equally accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers.

Mr. Duncan is a visually-impaired and legally blind person, who
requires screen-reading software to read Web site content using
his computer.

Northern Trust Corporation is a Delaware Business Corporation
licensed to do business and doing business in New York.  The
Company's banks provide to the public important products and
services and the Web site provides consumers with access to an
array of products and services, including bank locations and
hours, information about the financial and banking products and
services that it provides, the fees that Defendant charges, FDIC
Insurance coverage, telephone contacts, and online banking and
bill paying.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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


NORTHSTAR LOCATION: Bennett Seeks Settlement Agreement Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled LISA BENNETT, the Plaintiff, v. NORTHSTAR
LOCATION SERVICES, LLC, and ALLY FINANCIAL, INC., the Defendants,
Case No. 5:16-cv-09273 (S.D.W.Va.), Ms. Lisa Bennett asks the
Court for an order:

   1. granting final approval in all respects of the terms and
      provisions of the class action settlement agreement, which
      the Court preliminarily approved by Order entered on
      November 13, 2017;

   2. granting Plaintiff's motion For attorneys' fees, costs, and
      service award filed on December 13, 2017;

   3. dismissing on the merits and with prejudice all Class
      claims of the Plaintiff and the Class Members in this
      action; and

   4. retaining jurisdiction over this action for the purpose of
      interpretation and enforcement of the Class Settlement
      Agreement, including oversight of settlement administration
      and distribution of settlement funds.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jason E. Causey, Esq.
          James G. Bordas, Jr., Esq.
          BORDAS & BORDAS, PLLC
          1358 National Road
          Wheeling, WV 26003
          Telephone: (304) 242 8410
          E-mail: jason@bordaslaw.com

               - and -

          Ralph Young, Esq.
          Christopher Frost, Esq.
          Steven Broadwater, Esq.
          Jed Nolan, Esq.
          HAMILTON BURGESS YOUNG & POLLARD, PLLC
          PO Box 959
          Fayette, WV 25840
          Telephone: (304) 574 2727
          E-mail: ryoung@hamiltonburgess.com


NOVATION CAPITAL: "Buja" Suit Seeks to Certify IDNC Class
---------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled KEVIN BUJA, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. NOVATION CAPITAL,
LLC, a foreign limited liability company, et al., the Defendants,
the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order to certify IDNC Class
of:

   "(i) all persons within the United States (ii) to whom
   Defendants, directly or through their agents, (iii) made more
   than one call to their telephone (iv) within a 12-month period
   (v) between July 21, 2011 through the date of class
   certification, (vi) where Defendants records show the person
   previously stated that he or she did not wish to received
   telephone calls from or on behalf of Defendants."

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Keith J. Keogh, Esq.
          KEOGH LAW LTD.
          55 W. Monroe, Suite 3390
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 726 1092
          Facsimile: (312) 726 1093
          E-mail: keith@keoghlaw.com


OANDA CORP: Zamansky LLC Files Class Action Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------
Zamansky LLC announces that on October 31, 2017, a class action
lawsuit was filed on behalf of all OANDA Corp. ("OANDA") foreign
exchange ("Forex") trading customers. The lawsuit alleges
excessive and undisclosed spread, fee and interest overcharges
and related trading losses on online foreign currency exchange
transactions. The lawsuit is pending in New York Supreme Court,
New York County, Index No. 656647/2017.

OANDA is one of the largest online Forex trading platforms in the
United States. It offers anyone the ability to trade Forex
contracts which usually trade among banks and large institutions
in the major interbank systems.

For years OANDA has advertised that it allegedly offers "low
spreads," "competitive spreads" and "transparent" pricing with no
hidden fees. As a result of its advertising, OANDA has become one
the largest online Forex trading platforms and processes an
average of $10 billion of Forex trades daily. The lawsuit alleges
that OANDA violated its agreements with its customers by charging
excessive spreads and hidden interest.

What OANDA Customers Can Do

If you are or were an OANDA Forex trading customer and believe
that you may have been charged a spread that was too high or
charged any "interest" fees, please contact our firm for an
update and to determine eligibility for the lawsuit. You can
contact Jake Zamansky by telephone at (212) 742-1414 or by email
at jake@zamansky.com.

About Zamansky LLC

Zamansky LLC is a leading securities law firm nationally
recognized for its ability to aggressively prosecute cases and
recover investment losses. To learn more about Zamansky LLC,
please visit our website, http://www.zamansky.com.

         Contacts
         Jake Zamansky, Esq.
         Zamansky LLC
         Tel: 212-742-1414
         Email: jake@zamansky.com [GN]


OXNARD SCHOOL DISTRICT: JR's Bid for Cert. Taken Under Submission
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. John A. Kronstadt takes under submission the Plaintiffs'
motion for class certification in the lawsuit titled J.R. v.
Oxnard School District, et al., Case No. 2:17-cv-04304-JAK-FFM
(C.D. Cal.).

The Court states its tentative views that it is inclined to deny
Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification without prejudice to
Plaintiffs filing an amended complaint and a renewed motion for
class certification, according to the civil minutes.

The Court has reviewed the parties' reports and has issued an
order selecting Hon. Margaret Nagle (Ret.) to serve as the
mediator in this action.  Counsel shall adhere to the dates with
respect to settlement set in the Scheduling Order, Judge
Kronstadt rules.

A copy of the Civil Minutes is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=aEOqLU1B

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shawna L. Parks, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF SHAWNA L PARKS
          4470 W. Sunset Blvd., Suite 107-347
          Los Angeles, CA 90027
          Telephone: (323) 389-9239
          E-mail: sparks@parks-law-office.com

               - and -

          Janeen Steel, Esq.
          LEARNING RIGHTS LAW CENTER
          205 S. Broadway, Suite 808
          Los Angeles, CA 90012
          Telephone: (213) 489-4030
          Facsimile: (213) 489-4033
          E-mail: janeen@learningrights.org

               - and -

          Stuart Seaborn, Esq.
          SEABORN LEGAL
          2532 Santa Clara Ave., Suite 111
          Alameda, CA 94501
          Telephone: (510) 473-6963
          E-mail: seabornlegal@outlook.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Norma N. Franklin, Esq.
          GARCIA HERNANDEZ SAWHNEY LLP
          801 N Brand Blvd., Suite 620
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (213) 347-0210
          Facsimile: (213) 347-0216
          E-mail: nnava@ghslaw.com

               - and -

          Albert A. Erkel, Jr., Esq.
          101 Parkshore Dr., Suite 100
          Folsom, CA 95630
          Telephone: (916) 932-7410
          Facsimile: (916) 932-7299

PERRY'S RESTAURANTS: Employees Class Certified in "Shaffer" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Elizabeth S. ("Betsy") Chestney granted the Plaintiffs'
Corrected Motion for Conditional Certification in the lawsuit
titled MARK SHAFFER, ET AL. v. PERRY'S RESTAURANTS, LTD., F/K/A
LEASING ENTERPRISES, LTD., Case No. 5:16-cv-01193-FB-ESC (W.D.
Tex.).

The Court conditionally certifies a collective action under the
Fair Labor Standards Act comprised of:

     All current and former nonexempt employees of Perry's
     Restaurants, Ltd. (f/k/a Leasing Enterprises, Ltd.), to whom
     Defendant paid $2.13 an hour for performing dual jobs,
     between September 8, 2014 and September 8, 2017.

Judge Chestney required the parties to meet and confer regarding
the substance of the Plaintiffs' proposed notice and to submit to
the Court their proposed notice for approval in light of this
Order.  If the parties successfully reach an agreement regarding
the notice, they should notify the Court of the same.  If there
are portions of the notice on which the parties do not agree, the
parties should submit their respective positions to the Court for
resolution.

Any relief requested not expressly granted in the Order is
denied, Judge Chestney also ruled.  Judge Chestney added that the
Plaintiffs' Motion for Conditional Certification, Docket No. 67,
is dismissed as moot.

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


PHYSICIAN'S & SURGEON'S: Wright Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTOPHER WRIGHT, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. PHYSICIAN'S & SURGEON'S AMBULANCE
SERVICE, INC. d/b/a AMERICAN MEDICAL RESPONSE, the Defendant,
Case No. 5:18-cv-00372 (N.D. Ohio, Feb. 15, 2018), seeks to
recover overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and the Putative Class
members should have been paid overtime compensation at the rate
of one and one-half times their "regular rate" for all hours
worked in excess of forty hours per workweek. The Defendant
miscalculated and underpaid the overtime compensation it paid to
Plaintiff and the Putative Class members by excluding the signing
bonus from the calculation of their "regular rates." The signing
bonus was non-discretionary and promised to Plaintiff and the
Potential Opt-Ins as part of their compensation. By engaging in
that practice, Defendant willfully violated the FLSA and
regulations thereunder that have the force and effect of law. As
a result of Defendant's violations of the FLSA, Plaintiff and the
Putative Class members were injured in that they did not receive
overtime compensation due to them.

Physicians & Surgeons Ambulance Service, Inc. operates as a
subsidiary of American Medical Response, Inc.[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiff:

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


PLANNERNET INC: Meeting Managers Class Certified in "Champagne"
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled LINDA CHAMPAGNE, the Plaintiff, v.
PLANNERNET, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-02128-SK (N.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Sallie Kim entered an order granting motion
to certify class with the modification for the claim under Cal.
Labor Code section 2802.

The Court said, "Because the Version 4.0 Agreement and 2017
Agreement differ on some of the issues regarding the potential
employment status of the Meeting Managers, there is a possibility
that the Court will create a sub-class of plaintiffs: (1) one
class of Meeting Managers who signed an Agreement substantially
similar to or identical to the Version 4.0 Agreement, and (2)
another class of Meeting Managers who signed an Agreement
substantially similar to or identical to the 2017 Agreement.
However, the Court defers that possibility until a later date."

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=lZ01lms3


PROGRESSIVE FINANCIAL: Brace & Martin Seek to Certify Class
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled MARGRET BRACE and CRYSTAL MARTIN,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the
Plaintiffs, v. PROGRESSIVE FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC., the
Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-00249 (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiffs
ask the Court to enter an order certifying proposed classes in
this case, appointing the Plaintiffs as class representatives,
and appointing Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as Class Counsel, and for
such other and further relief as the Court may deem appropriate.

The Plaintiffs further ask that the Court stay this class
certification motion until an amended motion for class
certification is filed, and that the Court grant the parties
relief from the local rules' automatic briefing schedule and
requirement that Plaintiffs file a brief and supporting documents
in support of this motion.

To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class
representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh
Circuit in Damasco instructed plaintiffs to file a certification
motion with the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing
on the certification motion until discovery could commence.
Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891 (7th Cir. 2011),
overruled, Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th
Cir. 2015).

As this motion to certify a class is a placeholder motion as
described in Damasco, the parties and the Court should not be
burdened with unnecessary paperwork and the resulting expense
when a one paragraph, single page motion to certify and stay
should suffice until an amended motion is filed, the Plaintiffs
contend.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=SxFjCO3V

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


RED LOBSTER: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, "Hessler" Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
KATHRYN HESSLER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RED LOBSTER RESTAURANTS LLC; and
DOES 1 to 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. BC691871 (Cal.
Super., Los Angeles Cty., Jan. 26, 2018) is an action against the
Defendants for unpaid regular hours, overtime hours, minimum
wages, wages for missed meal and rest periods.

Ms. Hessler was employed by the Defendants as an hourly employee.

Red Lobster Restaurants LLC is a limited liability company
operating within the State of California, with address at 450 S
Orange Ave., Suite 800, Orlando, FL 32801. The Company is engaged
in restaurant business. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Darren M. Cohen, Esq.
          KINGSLEY & KINGSLEY, APC
          16133 Ventura Blvd., Suite 1200
          Encino, CA 91436
          Telephone: (818) 990-8300
          Facsimile: (818) 990-2903
          E-mail: dcohen@kingsley@kingsley.com


RELIANCE TRUST: Court Certifies Class in "Nistra" Suit
------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled Artur A. Nistra, et al., the Plaintiffs, v.
Reliance Trust Company, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-04773,
the Hon. Judge Gary Feinerman entered an order granting
Plaintiff's motion for class certification of:

     "all persons who were participants in The Bradford Hammacher
     Group, Inc. Employee Stock Ownership Plan other than the
     officers and directors of The Bradford Hammacher Group,
     Inc.; the legal representatives, successors, and assigns of
     the officers and directors; and those individuals, trusts,
     and their family members that redeemed or sold their shares
     in the Bradford Group and its affiliates and/or Hammacher,
     Schlemmer & Company, Inc. to Bradford in 2013."

According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on February 13,
2018, the claim to be tried is whether Defendant violated ERISA
through its participation as Plan trustee in the Plan's 2013
purchase of Bradford stock.

Pursuant to Civil Rule 23(g), Gregory Y. Porter and Robert A.
Izard of Bailey & Glasser LLP and Izard, Kindall & Raabe, LLP,
respectively, are appointed as class counsel. The parties are
directed to address class notice in a joint filing or separate
filings by March 6, 2018.

A copy of the Docket Entry is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=8RtXr7j5


SANDRIDGE ENERGY: Class Certification Sought in Securities Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit re SANDRIDGE ENERGY, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION,
Case No. 5:12-cv-01341-W (W.D. Okla.), the Lead Plaintiffs ask
the Court for an order:

   a. certify this action as a class action pursuant to Rules
      23(a) and 23(b)(3):

      "all purchasers of SandRidge common stock between February
      24, 2011 and November 8, 2012, inclusive (the "Class
      Period"), and who were damaged thereby.

   b. certifying Northern Nevada, Greater St. Louis, and the
      Galkins as the representatives of the Class; and

   c. appointing Robbins Geller as Class Counsel.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Evan J. Kaufman, Esq.
          EVAN J. KAUFMAN
          58 South Service Road, Suite 200
          Melville, NY 11747
          Telephone: 631 367 7100
          Facsimile: 631 367 1173
          E-mail: srudman@rgrdlaw.com
                  ekaufman@rgrdlaw.com
                  cgilroy@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Darren B. Derryberry, Esq.
          DERRYBERRY & NAIFEH, LLP
          4800 North Lincoln Blvd.
          Oklahoma City, OK 73105
          Telephone: 405/708 6784
          Facsimile: 405/528 6462
          E-mail: dderryberry@derryberrylaw.com

               - and -

          Amber L. Eck, Esq.
          HAEGGQUIST & ECK, LLP
          225 Broadway, Suite 2050
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: 619/342-8000
          Facsimile: 619/342 7878
          E-mail: ambere@haelaw.com


SANTA FE COUNTY, NM: Bid for Lone Pine CMO in "Armendariz" Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of New Mexico
issued an Order denying Mark Gallegos and Santa Fe County Board
of Commissioners' (County Defendants) Motion for Entry of a Lone
Pine Case Management Order in the case captioned GABRIEL
ARMENDARIZ, ERIC DION COLEMAN, JACOB GOMEZ, TONY LOVATO, MATTHEW
J. LUCERO, EDWARD R. MANZANARES, JOE MARTINEZ, CHRISTOPHER MAVIS,
PHILIP TALACHY, FELIPE J. TRUJILLO, and JOSEPH VIGIL, on their
own behalf and on behalf of a class of similarly situated
persons, Plaintiffs, v. SANTA FE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS,
and MARK GALLEGOS, in his individual and official capacity, and
Industrial Commercial Coatings, LLC, Defendants, No. 17cv339-WJ-
LF (D.N.M.).

This case involves a putative class action, in which plaintiffs
allege that they were exposed to toxic chemical fumes, dust, and
debris while inmates at the Santa Fe Adult Detention Facility
(ADF) when the shower facilities were renovated in 2014.
Plaintiffs allege that the showers at the facility had not been
renovated in many years, but had been repeatedly painted over for
at least a decade, resulting in thick layers of paint, mold, and
grime accumulating on the shower walls.

A Lone Pine order is designed to assist in the management of
complex issues and potential burdens on defendants and the court
in mass tort litigation, essentially requiring plaintiffs to
produce a measure of evidence to support their claims at the
outset. Courts consider the following five factors in deciding
whether a Lone Pine order is appropriate: (1) the posture of the
action, (2) the peculiar case management needs presented, (3)
external agency decisions impacting the merits of the case, (4)
the availability and use of other procedures explicitly
sanctioned by federal rule or statute, and (5) the type of injury
alleged by plaintiffs and its cause.
The Posture of the Action

Plaintiffs state that they never received verification of the
actual product applied during the shower renovation or materials
related to the Risk Management assessment and investigation
conducted in regards to complaints from both inmates and
correctional workers.  Plaintiffs assert that they need discovery
into these issues so that they can properly prepare their case.
Lone Pine motions are more likely to be granted when the parties
have engaged in discovery and the motion is filed at a time when
plaintiffs should have already had the opportunity to obtain
information regarding the cause of their injuries. That time has
not arrived in this case.

Given the incomplete state of discovery in this case, and the
fact that County Defendants have not shown that plaintiffs fail
to allege a prima facie case, the Court finds that this factor
weighs strongly in favor of denying the motion for a Lone Pine
order.

The Court agrees with plaintiffs that this case is not overly
complex and does not pose peculiar case management needs
warranting the imposition of a Lone Pine order. While the County
Defendants claim that Courts routinely enter Lone Pine case
management orders in toxic tort class action cases, the Court is
not convinced that the size or complexity of this case merits a
Lone Pine order. Discovery in the state court proceeding was
proceeding through traditional means, and the Court sees no
reason this case cannot be managed through traditional discovery
processes and procedures.

This factor weighs in favor of denying the motion for a Lone Pine
order.

County Defendants argue that the fact that there are no external
agency decisions in this case is neutral, and does not tilt the
balance in either direction. Whether this factor supports denial
of the motion or is neutral is immaterial, as the other factors
clearly support denying a Lone Pine order.

Resorting to crafting and applying a Lone Pine order, however,
should only occur where existing procedural devices explicitly at
the disposal of the parties by statute and federal rule have been
exhausted or where they cannot accommodate the unique issues of
this litigation. County Defendants have failed to show why normal
discovery and case management tools are inadequate, and this
factor weights against entry of a Lone Pine order.

The Court agrees with plaintiffs that this is not the type of
complex "toxic tort" case involving delayed, ongoing, and long-
term health concerns where Lone Pine orders have been found
appropriate.

The County Defendants cite two cases for the proposition that
dose/response evidence will be required: McClain v. Metabolife
Int'l, Inc., 401 F.3d 1233, 1241 (11th Cir. 2005) and Mitchell v.
Gencorp, 165 F.3d 778, 781 (10th Cir.1999). While both of these
cases recognize that plaintiffs ultimately must prove that the
defendants exposed them to a harmful substance at a level that is
harmful to humans, neither case stands for the proposition that
this evidence must be produced early in the litigation, as a Lone
Pine order would require. This factor therefore weighs in favor
of denying the motion.

The relevant factors weigh in favor of denying the motion.
County Defendants' Motion for Entry of a Lone Pine Case
Management Order is denied.

A full-text copy of the District Court's January 11, 2018 Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/yaxf7pvv from Leagle.com.

Gabriel Armendariz, Eric Dion Coleman, Jacob Gomez, Tony Lovato,
Matthew J. Lucero, Edward R. Manzanares, Joe Martinez,
Christopher Mavis, Philip Talachy, Felipe J. Trujillo & Joseph
Vigil, on their own behalf and on behalf of a class of similarly
situated persons, Plaintiffs, represented by Mark H. Donatelli,
Rothstein Law Firm, John C. Bienvenu, Bienvenu Law Office,
Kristina Martinez, Coberly and Martinez, LLLP & Paul M.
Linnenburger, Rothstein Donatelli LLP.

Santa Fe County Board of Commissioners & Mark Gallegos, in his
individual and official capacity, Defendants, represented by
Jennifer A. Noya, Modrall Sperling Roehl Harris & Sisk PA,Tiffany
L. Roach Martin, Modrall, Sperling, Roehl, Harris & Sisk, PA &
Alex Cameron Walker, Modrall, Sperling, Roehl, Harris & Sisk,
P.A.

Industrial Commercial Coatings, LLC, Defendant, represented by
Judd C. West, West Law Firm, PLLC, Carrie A. Snow, West Law Firm,
PLLC, John D. Sear, Bowman and Brooke LLP, pro hac vice & Richard
G. Morgan, Bowman and Brooke, LLP, pro hac vice.


SCHOOLSFIRST FEDERAL: Accused by "Ho" of Violating Privacy Rights
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JENNY HO, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. SCHOOLSFIRST FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, Case No. 3:18-cv-
00181-BEN-MDD (S.D. Cal., January 26, 2018), alleges that the
Defendant violated the Plaintiff's constitutionally protected
privacy rights by failing to advise or otherwise provide notice
at the beginning of the recorded conversations with the Plaintiff
that the call would be recorded and the Defendant did not try to
obtain the Plaintiff's consent before such recording.

SchoolsFirst Federal Credit Union is a federal credit union with
its principal place of business in California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
          Jason A. Ibey, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
          245 Fischer Avenue, Suite D1
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Telephone: (800) 400-6808
          Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
          E-mail: ak@kazlg.com
                  jason@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 B. Swigart, Esq.
          Yana A. Hart, Esq.
          HYDE & SWIGART
          2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101
          San Diego, CA 92108-3551
          Telephone: (619) 233-7770
          Facsimile: (619) 297-1022
          E-mail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com
                  yana@westcoastlitigation.com


SEQUIUM ASSET: Certification of Class Sought in "Machnik" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Audrey Machnik moves the Court to certify the class described in
the complaint of the lawsuit styled AUDREY MACHNIK, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. SEQUIUM ASSET
SOLUTIONS, LLC, Case No. 2:18-cv-00155 (E.D. Wisc.), and further
asks that the Court both stay the motion for class certification
and to grant the Plaintiff (and the Defendant) relief from the
Local Rules setting automatic briefing schedules and requiring
briefs and supporting material to be filed with the Motion.

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

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

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

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

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

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

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=K3w64COx

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SMS SYSTEMS: "Pate" Suit Seeks Unpaid Back Wages under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------
CHARLES PATE, for himself and on behalf of those similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. SMS SYSTEMS, INC., a Florida Profit
Corporation d/b/a SKYLETEC, the Defendant, Case No. 6:18-cv-
00237-GAP-TBS (M.D. Fla., Feb. 15, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid
back wages and liquidated damages under Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, from May 2016 to January 2017,
Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff any overtime premiums at all
for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a single workweek.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Angeli Murthy, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
          600 N. Pine Island Road, Suite 400
          Plantation, FL 33324
          Telephone: (954) 318 0268
          Facsimile: (954) 327 2016
          E-mail: Amurthy@forthepeople.com


SOUTHERN PAN: Plan Fiduciary Faces "Askew" Suit in N.D. Georgia
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action was filed against SOUTHERN PAN SERVICES COMPANY
EMPLOYEE STOCK OWNERSHIP PLAN. The case is captioned as BOBBY
ASKEW, PORTER BUTLER, and JOSEPH MCDUFFIE, on behalf of
themselves and other similarly situated, v. SOUTHERN PAN SERVICES
COMPANY EMPLOYEE STOCK OWNERSHIP PLAN; AMERICAN STRUCTURAL
CONCRETE, LLC f/k/a SOUTHERN PAN STRUCTURES LLC, as successor-in-
interest to Southern Pan Services Company, in its capacity as
Plan Sponsor or Fiduciary; and KEN DICKEY and JEREMY CANTRILL,
Case No. 1:18-cv-00309-MHC (N.D. Ga., Jan 22, 2018).

Mr. Askew's employment with Southern Pan terminated on February
20, 2010 after 18 years of employment. As of the time of his
termination, Mr. Askew had a vested balance in his ESOP account
consisting of 133.8155 shares of Southern Pan stock.

Mr. Butler's employment with Southern Pan terminated on February
20, 2010 after 31 years of employment. As of the time of his
termination, Butler had a vested balance in his ESOP account
consisting of 165.3462 shares of Southern Pan stock.

Mr. McDuffie's employment with Southern Pan terminated in 2007
after 27 years of employment. As of the time of his termination,
McDuffie had a vested balance in his ESOP account consisting of
142.7659 shares of Southern Pan stock.

In September 2010, Plaintiffs each elected to receive a lump sum
payout of their respective Plan benefits, which, according to the
Plan, could be distributed on approximately June 30th following
either the year each Plaintiff turned 65 or following 5 calendar
years after each Plaintiff's termination date.

Plaintiffs did not receive their lump sum payout following either
the year they turned 65 or following 5 calendar years after their
respective termination dates.

Southern Pan Services Company Employee Stock Ownership Plan is
the plan organized to manage the employees' contributions in
accordance with the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of
1974.

American Structural Concrete, LLC f/k/a Southern Pan Structures
LLC, as successor-in-interest to Southern Pan Services Company,
provides concrete formwork and frame construction services for
commercial, industrial, and institutional customers in the
Southeast. Its works include formwork for foundations, slab-on-
grade, columns, walls, beams, slabs, and other formwork on low-
rise, mid-rise, and high-rise structures; and pre-construction
services, such as design phase development of formwork budgets,
schedules, and constructability reviews.  Its project portfolio
comprises commercial, higher education, healthcare, residential,
hospitality, parking deck, sports facility projects. Southern Pan
Services Company, Inc. was incorporated in 1987 and is
headquartered in Lithonia, Georgia with additional offices in
Atlanta, Georgia; and Miami, Florida.

Ken Dickey and Jeremy Cantrill are the Plan Administrator of the
Southern Pan Services Company Employee Stock Ownership Plan.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

               - and -

          Jason L. Crawford, Esq.
          Dustin T. Brown, Esq.
          DAUGHTERY CRAWFORD & BROWN, LLP
          Post Office Box 1118
          Columbus, GA 31902
          Telephone: (706) 320-9646
          Facsimile: (706) 494-0221
          E-mail: jason@dcblawyers.com
                  dustin@dcblawyers.com


SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Court Junks Ex-Ramp Agent's FCRA Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Texas, Dallas Division, issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order
granting Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment in the case
captioned JUSTIN LEWIS, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SOUTHWEST AIRLINES CO.,
Defendant, Civil Action No. 3:16-CV-01538-M (N.D. Tex.).

Plaintiff Justin Lewis applied for a job with Southwest as a
part-time ramp agent at LAX airport in Los Angeles, California.
In connection with his application, Plaintiff executed a two-page
Consent to Request Consumer Report & Investigative Consumer
Report Information (Consent Form), pursuant to which Plaintiff
authorized Southwest to engage Sterling Infosystems Inc.
(Sterling) to obtain information regarding Plaintiff's
"character, general reputation, personal characteristics and
standard of living, driving record and criminal record" and to
prepare an investigative consumer report for employment purposes.
The next month, Sterling procured the report authorized by
Plaintiff.  Southwest later hired Plaintiff, but terminated him
shortly thereafter for reasons unrelated to the investigative
consumer report prepared by Sterling.

Plaintiff subsequently filed this putative class action lawsuit
against Southwest for allegedly violating the Fair Credit
Reporting Act (FCRA), the California Investigative Consumer
Reporting Agencies Act (CICRAA), California Civil Code Sectioon
1780 and the California Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act
(CCCRAA).

Having reviewed all the evidence and the relevant authority, the
Court finds that the inclusion of the Acknowledgment and other
extraneous information on the Consent Form contravenes the FCRA's
stand-alone disclosure requirement, but, under the circumstances
presented here, the violation was not willful, as a matter of
law. The word solely, as used in section 1681b(b)(2)(A),
unambiguously prohibits the inclusion of substantive provisions
extraneous to the FCRA's required disclosures.

The plainness or ambiguity of statutory language is determined by
reference to the language itself, the specific context in which
that language is used, and the broader context of the statute as
a whole. The plain and ordinary meaning of the word solely is
without another; singly, and to the exclusion of all else.
Nothing in the specific context in which the word solely is used
in section 1681b(b)(2)(A) or the broader context of the FCRA as a
whole compels a different conclusion.

The Court declines to determine whether the Acknowledgment is the
functional equivalent of a liability waiver. However, the
language is a substantive provision that could affect the legal
relationship between Plaintiff and Southwest. The Acknowledgment
does not further the overall purpose of the disclosure
requirement to inform consumers of their rights to obtain and
dispute information in consumer reports and to obtain credit
scores. The other extraneous information in the Consent Form is
not substantive, but also does not further the overall purpose of
the disclosure requirement, and the inclusion of such extraneous
information could limit the effectiveness of the disclosures, or
increase the possibility of consumer confusion about those
rights. Thus, the Court determines that the inclusion of the
Acknowledgment and other extraneous information in the Consent
Form violates the FCRA's stand-alone requirement.

Notwithstanding this conclusion, the Court finds that the
violation was not willful. As stated earlier, willful violations
of the FCRA include both intentional and reckless violations of
the law.  A company subject to the FCRA does not act in reckless
disregard of it unless the action shows that the company ran a
risk of violating the law substantially greater than the risk
associated with a reading that was merely careless. To constitute
a willful violation, the company's interpretation of the FCRA
must have been objectively unreasonable. The Supreme Court
measures objectivity by assessing whether the defendant's
interpretation of the FCRA had a foundation in the statutory
text" and whether it had the benefit of guidance from the courts
of appeals or the FTC that might have warned it away from the
view it took.

At the time Southwest engaged Sterling to procure an
investigative consumer report for Plaintiff pursuant to the
Consent Form, no court of appeals had addressed the question of
statutory interpretation at issue here; nor had the FTC offered
authoritative guidance on the issue. Indeed, it was not until
after Plaintiff had filed this lawsuit that the Ninth Circuit
issued its decision in Syed, holding that inclusion of a
liability waiver in a FCRA disclosure constitutes a willful
violation of the statute. In 2015, the district courts that had
considered whether extraneous information in an FCRA disclosure
constitutes a willful violation came to conflicting answers.
Plaintiff points to no other binding authority that would dictate
a different result.

The Court determines that Southwest's violation of the FCRA was
not willful and grants Southwest's Motion for Summary Judgment in
its entirety.

Southwest's Motion for Summary Judgment is granted, and
Plaintiff's claims for willful violation of the FCRA and
violation of the CICRAA are dismissed with prejudice.

A full-text copy of the District Court's January 11, 2018
Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/y96en2an from Leagle.com.

Justin Lewis, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Shaun Setareh --
shaun@setarehlaw.com  -- Setareh Law Group, pro hac vice, Alice
Kim -- Alice921@gmail.com -- Setareh Law Group, Allen Ryan Vaught
-- avaught@baronbudd.com. -- Baron & Budd PC, Melinda Arbuckle --
marbuckl@baronbudd.com -- Baron & Budd PC & Thomas Alistair Segal
- thomas@setarehlaw.com -- Setareh Law Group, pro hac vice.

Southwest Airlines Co, a Texas Corporation, Defendant,
represented by Alison Sue Hightower -- ahightower@littler.com --
Littler Mendelson PC, pro hac vice, Gilbert Anthony Castro,
Atkinson Andelson Loya Ruud and Romo, 5075 Hopyard Road, Suite
210Pleasanton, CA 94588, Kimberly Rives Miers --
kmiers@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson & Rod Michael Fliegel --
rfliegel@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, pro hac vice.


STEELE CANYON: "Witte" Suit Moved to S.D. California
----------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Michael Witte, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Steele Canyon Golf Club Corporation, a California corporation and
DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 37-2018-
00000721-CU-MC-CTL, was removed from the Superior Court of the
State of California in and for the County of San Diego, to the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California (San
Diego) on Feb. 15, 2018. The District Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 3:18-cv-00355-BEN-AGS to the proceeding. The case is assigned
to: the Hon. Judge Roger T. Benitez.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kenneth S. Gaines, Esq.
          GAINES & GAINES, APLC
          27200 Agoura Road, Suite 101
          Calabasas, CA 91301
          Telephone: (818) 703 8985
          Facsimile: (818) 703 8984
          E-mail: ken@gaineslawfirm.com

Attorneys for Defendant:

          Scott A Smylie, Esq.
          SMYLIE AND VANDUSEN
          2878 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 200
          San Diego, CA 92108
          Telephone: (619) 233 9199
          Facsimile: (619) 233 9045
          E-mail: esqsas@aol.com


STEMILT AG: Farmworker Class Action Settlement for $464,000
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jefferson Robbins, writing for Yakima Herald, reports that all
parties in a class action lawsuit against Stemilt Ag Services
agreed to dismiss the case February 8, with the farm management
company paying $393,624 to former fieldworkers as part of a
nearly $464,000 settlement.

The settlement repays the money owed to 690 workers for rest
breaks taken during their agricultural shifts in 2014 and 2015,
and pays more than $168,000 in attorneys' fees and administrative
costs. It also includes a $5,000 payout to Francisco Flores
Olivares, the lead plaintiff who pushed the case on behalf of
himself and his fellow workers.

Chelan County Superior Court Judge Robert McSeveney signed off on
the settlement in an afternoon court hearing, five months after
his predecessor, Judge Alicia Nakata, approved the outline of the
deal. Robert Siderius, attorney for Stemilt Ag, said the
settlement represents roughly 96 to 97 percent of what the
claimants' actual compensation would have been if paid at the
time.

Stemilt Ag Services, which manages orchard land for private fruit
growers, hired the workers at a "piece rate" of pay based on
productivity. A July 2015 state Supreme Court ruling, in Demetrio
v. Sakuma Brothers, held that farmworkers paid a piece rate must
also be separately compensated for rest breaks -- 10 minutes for
every four hours of work.

"It was kind of a hard, sharp ruling for all employers who pay on
the piece rate," said Craig Ackermann, Esq. an attorney for
Olivares and the class plaintiffs.

Olivares filed the class-action suit in January 2017, saying
Stemilt Ag Services had not paid rest-break compensation; the
company denied wrongdoing and disputed the legal basis for the
suit. Two federal courts have ruled that rest-break repayments
must be made retroactively to past employees, but the Washington
Supreme Court never addressed the question.

Claims administrators sought out more than 4,600 orchard workers
who might have been affected by the pay arrangement, but only 690
submitted claims. The settlement repays the rest breaks,
distributing an average of $438 to the former workers, or "class
members," who submitted a valid claim. The maximum claim repaid
for a single worker is $2,000.

"In my experience, these amounts are substantial recoveries for
class members in a class action involving wage and hour claims,
and in particular unpaid rest break claims involving piece-rate
farm workers," wrote India Bodien, Esq. a plaintiffs' attorney,
in a court filing. [GN]


SUPER MICRO: Kessler Topaz Files Shareholder Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP announces that
a shareholder class action lawsuit has been filed against Super
Micro Computer, Inc. (Nasdaq: SMCI) ("Super Micro" or the
"Company") on behalf of purchasers of the Company's securities
between August 5, 2016 and January 30, 2018, inclusive (the
"Class Period").

Investors who purchased Super Micro securities during the Class
Period may, no later than April 9, 2018, seek to be appointed as
a lead plaintiff representative of the class. For additional
information or to learn how to participate in this action please
visit https://www.ktmc.com/new-cases/super-micro-computer-inc-
2018#join.

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

Super Micro develops and provides high performance server
solutions based upon an innovative, modular and open-standard
architecture.

The shareholder class action complaint alleges that the
Defendants made a series of false and misleading statements
during the Class Period and 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; and (4) these
practices caused the Company to be vulnerable to potential civil
and criminal liability, and adverse regulatory action.

Investors first learned of potential accounting and financial
reporting issues at Super Micro on August 29, 2017, when the
Company filed a Notice of Late Filing with the SEC and disclosed
that it was "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 [Company] cannot complete the Form 10-K in a timely
manner without unreasonable effort or expense. Additional time is
needed for the Company to compile and analyze certain information
and documentation and complete preparation of its financial
statements in order to permit the Company's independent
registered public accounting firm to complete its audit of the
financial statements to be incorporated in the Form 10-K and
complete its audit of the Company's internal controls over
financial reporting as of June 30, 2017."

Following this news, shares of Super Micro's stock declined $1.35
per share, or 5%, to close on August 30, 2017 at $25.85 per
share, on heavy trading volume.

Then, on January 30, 2018, Super Micro announced that its Chief
Financial Officer, and other senior executive officers, had
resigned.  Additionally, Super Micro disclosed that, although the
Company's Audit Committee had completed an investigation,
additional time was 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."

Following this news, shares of Super Micro's stock fell an
additional $1.83 per share, or 7.4%, to close on January 31, 2018
at $22.83 per share, again on heavy trading volume.

Super Micro shareholders may, no later than April 9, 2018, seek
to be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class
through Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, or other counsel, or may
choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member.  A lead
plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of all
class members in directing the litigation.  In order to be
appointed as a lead plaintiff, the Court must determine that the
class member's claim is typical of the claims of other class
members, and that the class member will adequately represent the
class in the action.  Your ability to share in any recovery is
not affected by the decision of whether or not to serve as a lead
plaintiff.

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


         Darren J. Check, Esq.
         D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq.
         Adrienne Bell, Esq.
         Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP
         280 King of Prussia Road
         Radnor, PA 19087
         Tel: (888) 299-7706
              (610) 667-7706
         Email: dcheck@ktmc.com
                skaskela@ktmc.com
                abell@ktmc.com [GN]


SYNERGY PHARMA: WeissLaw Files Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
WeissLaw LLP has filed a class action lawsuit in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, Lee
v. Synergy Pharmaceuticals Inc., et al., C.A. No. 18-cv-00873-
AMD-CLP, on behalf of persons and entities that purchased Synergy
Pharmaceuticals Inc. ("Synergy" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: SGYP)
securities between September 5, 2017 and November 14, 2017,
inclusive (the "Class Period"), asserting claims under Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

On September 5, 2017, the Defendants issued a press release
announcing that Synergy closed on a "non-dilutive" $300 million
loan from CRG Partners III L.P., which would be available to
Synergy "when needed" and fund the Company's operations through
2019.  On November 14, 2017, the end of the Class Period, Synergy
revealed that terms of the loan agreement, omitted from
Defendants' prior statements regarding the loan, prevented it
from accessing $200 million of the loan without conducting a
dilutive secondary offering or offerings of shares to raise cash
and, as such, the Company was conducting a secondary offering of
its shares.  Thus, contrary to Defendants' statements at the
beginning of the Class Period, the loan was not available to
Synergy "when needed," would result in dilution of the
outstanding shares, and would not be sufficient to fund the
Company's operations through 2019, without dilution.  On the
news, Synergy's share price plunged, trading as low as $1.68 per
share, thereby injuring Class members.

If you purchased Synergy securities during the Class Period, you
may move the Court no later than sixty (60) days from the date of
this notice to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff.
To be a member of the Class you need not take any action at this
time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and
remain an absent member of the Class.  If you wish to learn more
about this action, or if you have any questions concerning this
notice or your rights or interests with respect to these matters,
please contact plaintiff's counsel, Joshua M. Rubin, Esq., of
WeissLaw at 888-593-4771, or by e-mail at
stockinfo@weisslawllp.com. [GN]


TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Debt Collection Violates FDCPA, Latimore Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
India Latimore, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Transworld Systems, Inc., a California
corporation, Case No. 1:18-cv-00260-TWP-DML (S.D. Ind., January
29, 2018), is brought under the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act for a finding that the Defendant's form debt collection
letter violated the FDCPA, and to recover damages.

Transworld Systems, Inc., is a California corporation that acts
as a debt collector, because it regularly uses the mails and/or
the telephone to collect, or attempt to collect, defaulted
consumer debts.  Transworld operates a nationwide debt collection
business and attempts to collect debts from consumers in
virtually every state, including consumers in the state of
Indiana.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David J. Philipps, Esq.
          Mary E. Philipps, Esq.
          Carissa K. Rasch, Esq.
          PHILIPPS & PHILIPPS, LTD.
          9760 S. Roberts Road, Suite One
          Palos Hills, IL 60465
          Telephone: (708) 974-2900
          Facsimile: (708) 974-2907
          E-mail: davephilipps@aol.com
                  mephilipps@aol.com
                  carissa@philippslegal.com

               - and -

          John T. Steinkamp, Esq.
          5214 S. East Street, Suite D1
          Indianapolis, IN 46227
          Telephone: (317) 780-8300
          Facsimile: (317) 217-1320
          E-mail: steinkamplaw@yahoo.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 STATES: Court Grants $1.5MM Attorney's Fees in "Almanza"
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Federal Claims issued an Opinion and
Order granting in part Plaintiffs' Amended Motion for an Award of
Attorney Fees, Expenses and Costs in the case captioned MANUEL
ALMANZA, et al., AND OTHER SIMILARLY SITUATED PERSONS,
Plaintiffs, v. THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant, No. 13-
130C (Fed. Cl.).

The original plaintiffs in this case were 290 Customs and Border
Protection Officers (CBPOs) and Border Patrol Agents (BPAs) who
are now or were formerly employed by U.S. Customs and Border
Protection, Department of Homeland Security (CBP). They filed
this action to recover overtime pay for time that they spent
studying outside of regular working hours while attending CBP's
Detection Canine Instructor Course.

Thereafter, the parties entered into a settlement agreement as to
the claims of the CBPOs.  Under the settlement, Plaintiffs agreed
to dismiss their COPRA and FLSA claims with prejudice in exchange
for payment by the government of $1,716,000.

In its Order approving the agreement, the Court requested that
the parties file supplemental briefs addressing the effect, if
any, of the Court's order approving the settlement agreement on
the government's arguments: 1) that Plaintiffs are not prevailing
parties; and 2) that Plaintiffs have not been awarded any
judgment as is required to recover attorneys' fees under the
FLSA, 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b).

Plaintiffs have requested an award of $2,983,219.95 in attorneys'
fees, as well as $28,568.87 in expenses and costs.

Plaintiffs claim fees in the amount of $2,024,199.74 for the
services of the Kern Law Firm, PC, a solo law practice located in
El Paso, Texas, whose principal, David L. Kern, is lead counsel
in this case. The total fee award sought for services provided by
the Kern Law Firm is based on:

   1) 150.6 hours claimed by Mr. Kern for services provided
between April 26, 2012 and May 31, 2013 at an hourly rate of
$826;

   2) 1,656.95 hours claimed by Mr. Kern for services provided
between June 1, 2013 and May 31, 2017 at an hourly rate of $950;
and

   3) 1,741.72 hours claimed for the firm's paralegals at a rate
$187 per hour.  These hourly rates are based on the Kavanaugh
Matrix rates for Washington, DC.

Plaintiffs also request an award of $571,330 for the services of
attorney Mark Greenwald, one of the principal attorneys at the
Greenwald Law Firm in San Antonio, Texas. Finally, Plaintiffs
seek an award of $386,442.75 for the services of attorney Robert
Gaudet, for 564.15 hours of work at $685 per hour.

The government responds that the hourly rates Plaintiffs have
proposed are unreasonable. Citing a 2015 rate survey conducted by
the State Bar of Texas (SBOT), it argues that prevailing hourly
rates in the communities in which the bulk of the work in this
case was performed are well below $950 (the highest rate demanded
by Plaintiffs on the basis of the Kavanaugh Matrix). The
government argues that given the significant disparity between
the forum and local rates, Avera demands that the Court use
prevailing rates from San Antonio and/or El Paso (rather than
Washington, DC) to determine the fee award due to Plaintiffs.

In this case, the government does not challenge the
reasonableness of the number of hours Plaintiffs' counsel claim
were expended in support of the overtime claims made by the
CBPOs. Based on the government's failure to object and the
Court's review of the time sheets submitted in support of the
motion, the Court finds that the number of hours claimed is
reasonable and was necessary to the favorable outcome the CBPOs
achieved in this case. Further, the Court concludes that counsel
have appropriately excluded from their fee petition all hours
attributable exclusively to the claims of the BPAs, on which they
did not prevail.

With respect to the hourly rate payable for the services of
Plaintiffs' counsel, it is clear that each of Plaintiffs'
attorneys performed the bulk of their services in this case
outside of Washington, DC, primarily in their offices in Texas.
Therefore, under Avera v. Sec'y of HHS, 515 F.3d 1343, 1348-49
(Fed. Cir. 2008), the Court must determine whether there is a
substantial difference between the prevailing rates in
Washington, DC for attorneys with comparable experience and the
rates for such services in El Paso and San Antonio, Texas.

The information in the Fact Sheet suggests that the rate ranges
for highly experienced FLSA practitioners in both San Antonio and
El Paso are lower than the $400 to $500 range suggested by
federal district court cases that primarily involved the larger
metropolitan areas in Texas. Accordingly, the Court finds that
the appropriate range for experienced FLSA counsel in Texas
outside of the larger metropolitan areas is $360 to $450 per hour
(10% lower than the $400 to $500 range for Houston and Dallas).

Given the expertise of Mr. Kern and Mr. Greenwald in federal
sector wage and hour cases and their nationwide practice, and in
consideration of other similar cases and the SBOT Fact Sheet, the
Court concludes that a reasonable local rate for each of their
services would be at the upper end of the range, approximately
$450 per hour. As to Mr. Gaudet, his credentials are impressive,
as is his experience, but his experience is less extensive than
that of either Mr. Kern or Mr. Greenwald. Accordingly, the Court
finds that the appropriate rate for Mr. Gaudet's services is $380
per hour. It further finds that a reasonable hourly rate for the
paralegal services claimed is $115 per hour, consistent with the
cases from the federal district courts in Texas described above.
As is readily apparent, the disparity between the local rates for
the services of Mr. Kern, Mr. Greenwald, and Mr. Gaudet, and the
Kavanaugh Matrix rates they claim is substantial, the rates
Plaintiffs request for Mr. Gaudet are nearly twice the local
rate, while the rates Plaintiffs request for Mr. Kern and Mr.
Greenwald are more than twice the local rate. An award of fees at
the forum rate would provide a windfall that would overcompensate
counsel for their work in this case. Therefore, attorneys' fees
shall be calculated based on the local rates.

The Court rejects Plaintiffs' arguments that an upward adjustment
to the lodestar amount is warranted based on additional factors
referenced in Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express, Inc., 488 F.2d
714, 717-19 (5th Cir. 1974), overruled in part by Blanchard v.
Bergeron, 489 U.S. 87, 90 (1989).

None of the additional considerations Plaintiffs cite justify an
upward adjustment of the lodestar figure. Even assuming that this
case could be considered unusually complex, the complexity of a
case as well as the quality of representation (or the specialized
experience of counsel) are factors that are subsumed in the
lodestar calculation. See Applegate v. United States, 52 Fed. Cl.
751, 763 (2002) (citing Blum, 465 U.S. at 899). Further, the
Supreme Court has stated that consideration of the "'results
obtained' ordinarily is subsumed within the lodestar amount and
should not be an independent basis for increasing the fee amount.
In addition, courts may not enhance the lodestar to reflect the
contingent nature of the fee arrangement between plaintiffs and
counsel. And, the fact that counsel may have had to turn away
other work to provide services in this case does not seem to the
Court to be a basis for adjusting the lodestar amount upward, at
least not where the foregone work was not significantly more
lucrative than the work for which fees are being sought.

Plaintiffs are entitled to a total award of attorneys' fees in
the amount of $1,498,703, broken down as follows:

   -- For the services of David L. Kern: 1,807.55 hours x
$450/hour = $813,398.

   -- For the services of Mark Greenwald: 601.4 hours x
$450/hour = $270,630.

   -- For the services of Robert Gaudet: 564.15 hours x
$380/hour = $214,377.

   Paralegal services: 1,741.72 hours x $115/hour = $200,298.

A full-text copy of the Federal Claims Court's January 11, 2018
Opinion and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/ycdx249f
from Leagle.com.

MANUEL ALMANZA, et al., AND OTHER SIMILARLY SITUATED PERSONS,
Plaintiff, represented by David Luis Kern, Kern Law Firm, 309 E.
Robinson Ave, El Paso, TX 79902

USA, Defendant, represented by Albert Salvatore Iarossi, U.S.
Department of Justice -- Civil Division.


UNITED STATES: Motions for Preliminary Injunction Okayed
--------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuits styled "MARTIN JONATHAN BATALLA VIDAL et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. KJRSTJEN M. NIELSEN, Secretary, Department of
Homeland Security, et al., the Defendants, Case No. 16-CV-4756
(NGG) (JO)" and "STATE OF NEW YORK et al., the Plaintiffs, v.
DONALD TRUMP, President of the United States, et al., the
Defendants, Case No. 17-CV-5228 (NGG) (JO), the Hon. Judge
Nicholas G. Garaufis entered an order on February 13, 2018:

   1. granting Plaintiffs' motions for a preliminary injunction;
      and

   2. denying as moot Batalla Vidal Plaintiffs' motion for class
      certification.

The Court said, "The court finds that a nationwide injunction is
warranted in these cases. First, it is hard to conceive of how
the court would craft a narrower injunction that would adequately
protect Plaintiffs' interests. Plaintiffs include not only
several individuals and a nonprofit organization, but also
sixteen states and the District of Columbia. To protect the State
Plaintiffs' interests, the court would presumably need to enjoin
Defendants from rescinding the DACA program with respect to the
State Plaintiffs' residents and employees, including the
employees of any instrumentalities of the state, such as public
hospitals, schools, and universities. Such an injunction would be
unworkable, partly in light of the simple fact that people move
from state to state and job to job, and would likely create
administrative problems for Defendants. Furthermore, there is a
strong federal interest in the uniformity of federal immigration
law."

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=7eSVTqVt


UNITED STATES: Seeks 2nd Circuit Review of Ruling in "Vidal" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Donald J. Trump, Kirstjen M. Nielsen, United States
Citizenship and Immigration Services, United States Immigration
and Customs Enforcement, United States of America and United
States Department of Homeland Security filed an appeal from a
court ruling entered in these related lawsuits:

   -- MARTIN JONATHAN BATALLA VIDAL; MAKE THE ROAD NEW YORK, on
      behalf of itself, its members, its clients, and all
      similarly situated individuals; ANTONIO ALARCON; ELIANA
      FERNANDEZ; CARLOS VARGAS; MARIANO MONDRAGON; CAROLINA FUNG
      FENG v. KIRSTJEN M. NIELSEN, Secretary of Homeland
      Security; JEFFERSON BEAUREGARD SESSIONS III, Attorney
      General of the United States; DONALD J. TRUMP, President of
      the United States, Case No. 16-CV-4756 (NGG) (JO)
      (E.D.N.Y.); and

   -- STATE OF NEW YORK; STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS; STATE OF
      WASHINGTON; STATE OF CONNECTICUT; STATE OF DELAWARE;
      DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA; STATE OF HAWAII; STATE OF ILLINOIS;
      STATE OF IOWA; STATE OF NEW MEXICO; STATE OF NORTH
      CAROLINA; STATE OF OREGON; STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA; STATE OF
      RHODE ISLAND; STATE OF VERMONT; STATE OF VIRGINIA; STATE OF
      COLORADO v. DONALD J. TRUMP, President of the United
      States; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; KIRSTJEN M.
      NIELSEN, Secretary of Homeland Security; U.S. CITIZENSHIP
      AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES; U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS
      ENFORCEMENT; and the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Case No.
      17-CV-5228 (NGG) (JO) (E.D.N.Y.).

The appellate case is captioned as Trump, et al. v. State of New
York, et al., Case No. 18-123, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit.

The Plaintiffs challenge the rescission of the Deferred Action
for Childhood Arrivals program, as well as other actions that the
Defendants are alleged to have taken in connection with the
rescission of that program.  The Plaintiffs challenge the
rescission on substantive and procedural grounds under the
Administrative Procedure Act.  The Plaintiffs also alleged that
the rescission violated equal protection and that the
implementation of the rescission violated due process.  The
Government moved to dismiss both cases in their entirety, arguing
that the suits were non-justiciable and that, in any event, the
Plaintiffs had failed to state a claim.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Hon.
Jose A. Cabranes granted the Government's emergency motion for a
stay of discovery and record supplementation in the related
appellate case entitled Elaine C. Duke, et al. v. Vidal, et al.,
Case No. Case No. 17-3345, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit.

"The Government's emergency motion for a stay of discovery and
record supplementation in the proceedings before the district
court is GRANTED pending its consideration by a regular three-
judge panel of the Court, it being understood that during the
pendency of this emergency motion and the stay hereby granted no
rights or claims of rights of any of the parties shall have been
waived or forfeited," according to the Order.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Respondents State of New York, State of Massachusetts,
State of Washington, State of Connecticut, State of Delaware,
District of Columbia, State of Hawaii, State of Illinois, State
of Iowa, State of New Mexico, State of North Carolina, State of
Oregon, State of Pennsylvania, State of Rhode Island, State of
Vermont, State of Virginia and State of Colorado are represented
by:

          Anisha Dasgupta, Esq.
          Barbara D. Underwood, Esq.
          NEW YORK STATE OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
          120 Broadway
          New York, NY 10271
          Telephone: (212) 416-8921
          E-mail: anisha.dasgupta@ag.ny.gov
                  barbara.underwood@ag.ny.gov

Defendants-Petitioners Donald J. Trump, President of the United
States; Kirstjen M. Nielsen, Secretary of Homeland Security;
United States Citizenship and Immigration Services; United States
Immigration and Customs Enforcement; United States of America;
and United States Department of Homeland Security are represented
by:

          Thomas Pulham, Esq.
          Mark B. Stern, Esq.
          Abby Christine Wright, Esq.
          ATTORNEYS, APPELLATE STAFF, CIVIL DIVISION
          U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
          950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
          Washington, DC 20530
          Telephone: (202) 514-2000
          E-mail: Thomas.Pulham@usdoj.gov
                  Mark.Stern@usdoj.gov
                  Abby.Wright@usdoj.gov


UNIVERSAL FIDELITY: Certification of Class Sought in "Valentine"
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gary Valentine moves the Court to certify the class described in
the complaint of the lawsuit styled GARY VALENTINE, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. UNIVERSAL
FIDELITY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP and JOHN LEE JACKSON, Case No. 2:18-
cv-00148-DEJ (E.D. Wisc.), and further asks that the Court both
stay the motion for class certification and to grant the
Plaintiff (and the Defendants) relief from the Local Rules
setting automatic briefing schedules and requiring briefs and
supporting material to be filed with the Motion.

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

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

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

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

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

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

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=4kwX9mbG

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


US COACHWAYS: Dipuglia Seeks Certification of Class Under TCPA
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled JESSICA DIPUGLIA,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. US
COACHWAYS, INC., a foreign corporation, Case No. 1:17-cv-23006-
MGC (S.D. Fla.), moves to certify a class with respect to two
claims for violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act set
forth in Counts I and II of her complaint.

The Class is defined as:

     All persons within the United States who were sent a text
     message marketing Defendant's services, made through the use
     of any automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial
     or prerecorded voice, from Defendant or anyone on
     Defendant's behalf, to said person's cellular telephone
     number, without emergency purpose and without the
     recipient's prior express written consent, on February 6,
     2017, May 1, 2017, and August 7, 2017.

Excluded from the Class are Coachways, Coachways' directors and
officers, immediate families of Coachways' directors and
officers, or the legal representatives, agents, affiliates,
heirs, successors-in-interests or assignees of any such excluded
person.

Ms. Dipuglia also asks the Court to appoint her as representative
of the Class, to appoint Kopelowitz Ostrow Ferguson Weiselberg
Gilbert, Hiraldo P.A., and Shamis & Gentile, P.A. as class
counsel, and to establish a deadline for submission of proposed
class notice.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Eq9RRMKL

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeff Ostrow, Esq.
          Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
          KOPELOWITZ OSTROW FERGUSON WEISELBERG GILBERT
          One West Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 500
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 525-4100
          E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com
          edelsberg@kolawyers.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
          SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
          14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 400
          Miami, FL 33132
          Telephone: (305) 479-2299
          E-mail: ashamis@sflinjuryattorneys.com


VIRGIN SCENT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, "Heras" Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
ADELA HERAS, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. VIRGIN SCENT, INC., d/b/a ART NATURALS, INC.;
ASSOCIATE MANAGEMENT RESOURCES, INC., d/b/a AMR STAFFING, INC;
DAVID ZAHLER, an individual; and DOES 1 to 100, Inclusive, Case
No. BC691294 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Jan. 19, 2018), is a
class action against the Defendants for their failure to provide
mandated timely meal periods, rest periods, in addition to
failure to pay minimum and overtime wages; failure to pay all
wages due and owing; failure to issue accurate itemized wage
statements to employees; waiting time penalties, among other
violations of the California Labor Code, Wage Orders and Private
Attorneys General Act of 2004.

Ms. Heras worked for the Defendants on or about the end of 2016.
She was terminated on or about July 2017.

Virgin Scent, Inc., d/b/a Art Naturals, Inc. is a California
corporation authorized to do business within the State of
California, located at 16325 S Avalon Blvd in Gardena and has
been in the business of Cosmetics, Perfumes, And Hair Products
since 2010.

Association Management Resources Inc operates as a management
corporation. The Corporation focuses on health care related
funding and program management and creation. AMR specializes in
purchasing programs for non profit organizations.

David Zahler is the president of the Defendants.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael R. Crosner, Esq.
          Zachary M. Crosner, Esq.
          Alfredo Nava, Esq.
          CROSNER LEGAL, P.C.
          433 N. Camden Dr., Suite 400
          Beverly Hills, CA 90210
          Telephone: (310) 496-5818
          Facsimile: (310) 510-6429
          E-mail: mike@crosnerlegal.com
                  zach@crosnerlegal.com
                  aldredo@crosnerlegal.com






                            *********


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

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

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

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

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

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



                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *