---

             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


              Monday, March 5, 2018, Vol. 20, No. 46



                            Headlines


AAC HOLDINGS: Approval of $25 Million Settlement Sought
ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: $25MM Accord Reached in Two Class Suits
AEP TEXAS: Multiple Class Suits vs U.S. Bank Still Pending
ALLTRAN EDUCATION: "Chatman" FDCPA Suit Dismissed
AQUA METALS: Fraud Class Suits Pending in California

ARC LOGISTICS: Shareholders' Merger Suits Dismissed
ASCENA RETAIL: Justice Vouchers to Expire October 2018
ATKORE INTERNATIONAL: Wind Condominium Suit Still Ongoing
BARNES & NOBLE: 7th Cir. Appeal in Pin Pad Litigation Underway
BARNES & NOBLE: Cafe Managers Suit Underway

BARNES & NOBLE: Magistrate Judge Recommends Arbitration & Stay
BEST BUY: Says Pension Fund Complaint Underway
BRISTOL-MYERS: "Giugno" Securities Class Action Suit Underway
CALIFORNIA COMMERCE: Arbitration of "Lee" Claims Affirmed
CALPINE CORP: Defending Against Merger-Related Class Suits

CARMAX INC: Entities Faces Wage and Hour Claims in Calif.
CARMAX INC: Continues to Defend 4 Calif. Employees Class Suits
CATALINA RESTAURANT: Wins Summary Judgment in "Farrar" Suit
CHARLOTTE SCHOOL OF LAW: Time to File Consolidated Suit Extended
CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Court Stays "Brown" Pending ACA Ruling

CHRISTOPHER & BANKS: Receives 339,000 From Administrator
CITI MORTGAGE: Bid to Junk Class Allegations in "Trunzo" Denied
COMMUNITY BANK OF BERGEN: "Parshall" Suit Underway
COMSCORE INC: Settlement in Fresno Retirees' Suit Underway
CONAGRA BRANDS: Mediation in "Briseno" Action Concludes

CONAGRA BRANDS: "Negrete" Class Action Suit Still Ongoing
COTY INC: "Taylor" Suit Moved to Southern District of Alabama
DICK'S SPORTING: Court Partly Grants "Greer" Class Notice
EVINE LIVE: "Horan" Suit Remains Pending in New York
EVINE LIVE: "Gregory" TCPA Suit Underway

FEDERAL REALTY: Enters into $400,000 Settlement of Class Action
FIRST MID-ILLINOIS: Faces "Parshall" Class Action Suit in Del.
FORD MOTOR: Rosen Law Firm, Pomerantz to Lead in "Ruckel"
FRANKLIN FINANCIAL: Term Sheet Entered in "Kalen" Suit
FUYAO GLASS: Court Conditionally Certifies "Staggs" Workers Class

GENERAC POWER: Court Allows Limited Discovery in TCPA Suit
GENERAL MOTORS: Over 100 Putative Class Actions Pending at Feb.6
GENERAL MOTORS: Court Narrow Claims in "Sloan" Warranty Suit
GLOBAL POWER: 3rd Amended Complaint Filed in "Budde" Suit
HCP INC: Boynton Beach Pension Fund's Litigation Still Ongoing

HD SUPPLY: Georgia Shareholders Class Action Underway
HEALTHSOURCE GLOBAL: $600K Settlement in "MacKall" Has Final Nod
HERBALIFE LTD: "Rodgers" Class Action Suit Underway
HOLY REDEEMER: Court Narrows Claims in "Snyder" ERISA Suit
HUB GROUP: Awaits Court Decision on Bid to Clarify Dismissal

HUB GROUP: "Adame" Class Suit in California Still Ongoing
HUB GROUP: "Lubinski" Class Suit Completed
IDT CORP: JDS1 LLC's Class Action Suit Stayed
JC PENNEY: Marcus & Johnson Class Suits Settled for $97.5 Million
JC PENNEY: Court Grants Initial Approval to $4.5MM Settlement

JC PENNEY: Settlement of Calif & Illinois Suits Win Final OK
JETBLUE AIRWAYS: Court Dismisses "Alatortev" With Leave to Amend
KIRKLAND'S INC: "Gennock" Suit Stayed Pending 3rd Cir. Appeal
LOS ANGELES, CA: Court Dismisses "Harris" ADA Suit
MAGNACHIP SEMICONDUCTOR: Court Grants $6.2MM Class Settlement

MARVELL TECHNOLOGY: Trial to Begin in Shareholders' Suit
MDL 2002: Cal-Maine Foods' Updates on Egg Antitrust Litigation
MEDTRONIC PLC: Pre-Trial in Sprint Fidelis-Related Suit Underway
MEDTRONIC PLC: Settled 13,400 Claims in Pelvic Mesh-Related Suit
MEDTRONIC PLC: West Virginia Pipe and Pace Suit Still Ongoing

MEDTRONIC PLC: Suit Related to Covidien Acquisition Ongoing
MEDTRONIC PLC: St. Paul Teachers' Fund Suit Underway
MERCHANTS CREDIT: Court Corrects Error in Settlement Agreement
MERIDIAN BIOSCIENCE: "Forman" Class Action Suit Underway
MICHAELS COMPANIES: Store Managers' Class Suit in Cal. Pending

MICHAELS COMPANIES: FCRA-Related Suits Still Ongoing
MICHAELS COMPANIES: "Whalen" Data Security Suit Concluded
NATIONAL EXPRESS: Court Approves Class Settlement in "Kinney"
NELNET SERVICING: Dismissal of Breach of Contract Claim Reversed
NESTLE USA: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Amended "Hawkins" Suit

NORTHWESTERN MUTUAL: 9th Cir. Sends "Wishnev" to State High Court
NWAN INC: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss "Dickerson" MMWA Suit
OHIO PHASE-IN-RECOVERY: US Bank Still Faces BlackRock Suits
PEREGRINE PHARMA: Receives $1.5MM from 3 Former Directors
PIER 1: Continues to Defend Davie Police Pension Plan Suit

PIER 1: Faces State Wage-and-Hour Suits in California
PNC BANK: Bid to Dismiss "Wigod" State Law/ECOA Claims Granted
POWERCOMM HOLDINGS: Paid $100,000 in "Randolf" Suit
PROGRESSIVE SELECT: Court Dismisses UR Health's Suit
RITE AID: Still Faces "Wilson" Merger Action

RITE AID: Seeks Dismissal of "Hering" Amended Complaint
RITE AID: Settlement of "Indergit" Suit Has Final Approval
RITE AID: Continues to Defend Calif. Class Action Suits
RITE AID: Trial in "Hall" Suit Continued to March 9
ROYAL CARIBBEAN: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss "McIntosh" Suit

SHILOH INDUSTRIES: N.Y. Securities Suit Underway
SIGNET JEWELERS: Says Arbitration Trial Expected in April 2018
SIGNET JEWELERS: Suits Against Zale Corporation Settled
SIGNET JEWELERS: Parties in "Masten" Class Suit in Discovery
SIGNET JEWELERS: Shareholders' Suit in New York Underway

SONIC CORP: Continues to Defend Malware Attack-Related Suit
TILLY'S INC: "Gonzales" Suit Pending in California
TILLY'S INC: Agreement in Principle Reached in "Minnitti" Suit
TILLY'S INC: Appeal in "Ward" Suit Underway
TILLY'S INC: "Whitten" Class Suit Already Concluded

TRANSUNION: March 8 Hearing Set for "Patel" Settlement Agreement
TRANSUNION: Class Actions on Public Record Collection Ongoing
URANIUM ENERGY: "Stephens" Securities Class Suit Concluded
VACATION CONSULTING: JJ&C's Bid to Dismiss "Fitzhenry" Denied
VICTIM SERVICES: CFPB Subpoena Bid Moved to Class Action Court

VULCAN CHEMICALS: La. App. Affirms Final Judgment in "Guice" Suit
WALGREENS BOOTS: Illinois Securities Class Suit Still Ongoing
WALGREENS BOOTS: Briefing Schedule Set in Pennsylvania Suit
WARNER MUSIC: Price Fixing Suit over Song Downloads Underway
XCERRA CORP: "Stallings" Class Action Suit Dropped

XCERRA CORP: "Berg" Class Action Suit Dismissed
XCERRA CORP: Faces "Khan" Class Action in Massachusetts







                            *********


AAC HOLDINGS: Approval of $25 Million Settlement Sought
-------------------------------------------------------
AAC Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission that an order, dated December
29, 2017, was entered in the case entitled, Kasper v. AAC
Holdings, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-923 (M.D. Tenn.), staying
the proceedings for 45 days.

In its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal year ended December 31,
2017, the Company said that on February 16, 2018, plaintiffs
filed a motion for preliminary approval of the settlement and
attached the Stipulation of Settlement. That motion is currently
pending before the court.

On December 28, 2017, AAC Holdings, Inc. (the "Company") and
certain of its current and former officers entered into a
settlement term sheet with the plaintiffs' representatives to
memorialize an agreement in principle to settle the consolidated
securities class action lawsuit, Kasper v. AAC Holdings, Inc. et
al., Case No. 3:15-cv-923, pending in the United States District
Court for the Middle District of Tennessee (the "Tennessee Class
Action Litigation").

The settlement term sheet provides that, defendants will pay an
aggregate of $25,000,000 (which includes attorneys' fees to be
approved by the court) to establish a settlement fund
("Settlement Fund") for the benefit of the class. The Settlement
Fund will be funded as follows: (a) defendant Jerrod N. Menz will
sell 300,000 shares and contribute the cash derived from such
sale(s) to the Settlement Fund; and (b) the Company and the
individual defendants will pay in cash the difference, if any,
between the Settlement Fund and the stock component addressed in
(a). The settlement includes the dismissal of all claims against
the Company and the individual defendants and a denial by
defendants of any wrongdoing and no admission of liability.

An order, dated December 29, 2017, was entered staying the
proceedings for forty-five (45) days in order to allow the
parties to complete settlement documentation and present it to
the court. The settlement is subject to the execution of a
definitive settlement agreement and court approval, neither of
which can be assured.

AAC Holdings, Inc. provides inpatient substance abuse treatment
services for individuals with drug and alcohol addiction in the
United States. Its therapy services include motivational
interviewing, cognitive behavioral therapy, rational emotive
behavior therapy, dialectical behavioral therapy, solution-
focused therapy, eye movement desensitization and reprocessing,
and systematic family intervention services. The company is based
in Brentwood, Tennessee.


ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: $25MM Accord Reached in Two Class Suits
------------------------------------------------------------
Abercrombie & Fitch Co. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended October 28, 2017, that the parties in two separate class
action lawsuits have reached a framework for settling both cases
on a class-wide basis.

The Company is a defendant in two separate class action lawsuits
filed by former associates of the Company who are represented by
the same counsel. The first lawsuit, filed on September 16, 2013,
alleges failure to indemnify business expenses and a series of
derivative claims for compelled patronization, inaccurate wage
statements, waiting time penalties, minimum wage violations and
unfair competition under California state law on behalf of all
non-exempt hourly associates at Abercrombie & Fitch, Abercrombie
kids, Hollister, and Gilly Hicks stores in California. Four
subclasses of associates have since been certified, and the
matter is now before the United States ("U.S.") District Court
for the Central District of California.

The second lawsuit, filed on December 15, 2015, alleges that
associates were required to purchase uniforms without
reimbursement in violation of federal law, and laws of the states
of New York, Florida and Massachusetts, as well as derivative
putative state law claims and seeks to pursue such claims on a
class and collective basis. This matter is now before the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Ohio and is stayed
pending mediation.

Both matters have been mediated, and the parties have reached a
framework for settling both cases on a class-wide basis through a
proposed $25.0 million claims-made settlement agreement. The
parties continue to negotiate the details of the proposed
settlement, and the ultimate settlement amount is dependent upon
the actual claims made by members of the classes and is also
subject to the approval of a court of competent jurisdiction.

Abercrombie & Fitch Co. is a specialty retailer who primarily
sells its products through store and direct-to-consumer
operations, as well as through various wholesale, franchise and
licensing arrangements. The Company offers a broad array of
apparel products, including knit tops, woven shirts, graphic t-
shirts, fleece, sweaters, jeans, woven pants, shorts, outerwear,
dresses, intimates and swimwear; and personal care products and
accessories for men, women and kids under the Hollister,
Abercrombie & Fitch and abercrombie kids brands. The Company has
operations in North America, Europe, Asia and the Middle East.


AEP TEXAS: Multiple Class Suits vs U.S. Bank Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
AEP Texas Central Transition Funding III LLC said in its Form
10-D Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for
the monthly distribution period from June 1, 2017 to November 30,
2017, that U.S. Bank National Association in its capacity as
trustee or successor trustee, is currently facing multiple
actions alleging individual or class action claims.

Since 2014 various plaintiffs or groups of plaintiffs, primarily
investors, have filed claims against U.S. Bank National
Association ("U.S. Bank"), in its capacity as trustee or
successor trustee (as the case may be) under certain residential
mortgage backed securities ("RMBS") trusts.

The plaintiffs or plaintiff groups have filed substantially
similar complaints against other RMBS trustees, including
Deutsche Bank, Citibank, HSBC, Bank of New York Mellon and Wells
Fargo. The complaints against U.S. Bank allege the trustee caused
losses to investors as a result of alleged failures by the
sponsors, mortgage loan sellers and servicers for these RMBS
trusts and assert causes of action based upon the trustee's
purported failure to enforce repurchase obligations of mortgage
loan sellers for alleged breaches of representations and
warranties concerning loan quality.

The complaints also assert that the trustee failed to notify
securityholders of purported events of default allegedly caused
by breaches of servicing standards by mortgage loan servicers and
that the trustee purportedly failed to abide by a heightened
standard of care following alleged events of default.

Currently U.S. Bank is a defendant in multiple actions alleging
individual or class action claims against the trustee with
respect to multiple trusts as described above with the most
substantial case being: BlackRock Balanced Capital Portfolio et
al v. U.S. Bank National Association, No. 605204/2015 (N.Y. Sup.
Ct.) (class action alleging claims with respect to approximately
770 trusts) and its companion case BlackRock Core Bond Portfolio
et al v. U.S Bank National Association, No. 14-cv-9401
(S.D.N.Y.).

Some of the trusts implicated in the aforementioned Blackrock
cases, as well as other trusts, are involved in actions brought
by separate groups of plaintiffs related to no more than 100
trusts per case.

AEP Texas Central said "U.S. Bank cannot assure you as to the
outcome of any of the litigation, or the possible impact of these
litigations on the trustee or the RMBS trusts. However, U.S. Bank
denies liability and believes that it has performed its
obligations under the RMBS trusts in good faith, that its actions
were not the cause of losses to investors and that it has
meritorious defenses, and it intends to contest the plaintiffs'
claims vigorously."


ALLTRAN EDUCATION: "Chatman" FDCPA Suit Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------
Judge Amy J. St. Eve of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, Eastern Division, granted the Defendant's
motion to dismiss the case, JASMINE CHATMAN, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ALLTRAN
EDUCATION, INC., Defendant, Case No. 17 CV 5370 (N.D. Ill.).

Chatman brings the purported class action against Alltran
alleging one count, a violation of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act ("FDCPA").  The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant
failed to properly inform her of the amount of debt owed in
violation of 15 U.S.C. Section 1692g(a)(1).

According to the First Amended Complaint, Plaintiff Chatman is a
resident of the state of Illinois.  Chatman incurred a debt in
the form of a consumer student loan from Illinois State
University.  She became delinquent on her loan payments, her debt
went into default, and Alltran was subsequently assigned the debt
for collection.  Defendant Alltran is an Illinois corporation
that holds a collection agency license from the state of Illinois
and conducts business in Illinois as a debt collector.

Alltran sent a letter to Chatman regarding her debt, dated Dec.
19, 2016.  Twice the Debt Letter states that the "Amt Owed" or
the "Amount Owed" is $3051.55.  The Debt Letter again provides
Alltran's contact information, including the address and
telephone number, in the body of the letter, in the signature
block, and on the lower letterhead.  The bottom of the letter
also reads that the total balance due reflected is correct as of
the date of the letter. Until paid in full, interest may continue
to accrue on Chatman's account.  The Debt Letter constitutes
Alltran's initial communication with Chatman.

The Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint alleges one count, a
violation of the FDCPA.  Chatman claims that the Debt Letter
failed to properly inform her of the amount of debt owed in
violation of 15 U.S.C. Section 1692g(a)(1).  She seeks statutory
damages pursuant to 15 U.S.C. Section 1692k(a)(2) as well as
costs and attorney's fees pursuant to 15 U.S.C. Section
1692k(a)(3).

Before the Court is the Defendant's motion to dismiss Chatman's
complaint.

Judge St. Eve holds that neither Section 1692g(a)(1) nor the
Seventh Circuit requires the Miller v. McCalla, Raymer, Padrick,
Cobb, Nichols, & Clark, L.L.C. safe harbor language.  As stated
by the Seventh Circuit in both the original opinion as well as
numerous cases afterwards, the Miller language is not mandatory.
The only requirement comes from the text of Section 1692g(a)(1)
itself, which demands that a dunning letter state "the amount of
the debt."  Thus, to the extent the Plaintiff argues that she has
a claim because the Debt Letter does not contain the precise
language in Miller, her argument fails.

The Judge also holds that the Seventh Circuit did not create
additional disclosures beyond those required by the statute when
it formulated the safe harbor language in Miller.  Other courts
have also found that the Miller language does not create
additional disclosure requirements.  She also declines to read
into Miller any additional disclosures above those required by
Section 1692g(a)(1).  Neither the statute nor Seventh Circuit
precedent support the Plaintiff's theories of how the Defendant
violated Section 1692g(a)(1) of the FDCPA.

Finally, the Judge holds that Alltran's Debt Letter meets the
unsophisticated consumer standard.  Accepting all of the
Plaintiff's alleged facts as true and drawing all reasonable
inferences in her favor, the Plaintiff fails to state a claim
under FDCPA 1692g(a)(1) under which relief can be granted.

For these reasons, Judge St. Eve granted the Defendant's motion
to dismiss.  She also granted the Plaintiff leave to file a
Second Amended Complaint, if she believes that she can articulate
a claim consistent with the Opinion and her Rule 11 obligations.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 7, 2018 Memorandum Opinion
and Order is available at https://is.gd/gZz2oG from Leagle.com.

Jasmine Chatman, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Celetha Chatman --
cchatman@communitylawyersgroup.com -- Community Lawyers Group,
Ltd., Holly Rose Mccurdy, Community Lawyers Group, Ltd & Michael
Jacob Wood, Community Lawyers Group, Ltd.

Alltran Education, Inc., Defendant, represented by Brandon Allen
Carnes -- bcarnes@rfclaw.com -- Rock Fusco & Connelly, Llc &
Michael Justin Hornback, Rock Fusco & Connelly Llc.


AQUA METALS: Fraud Class Suits Pending in California
----------------------------------------------------
Aqua Metals, Inc. said in a Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission that the company faces
purported class action lawsuits in the United Stated District
Court for the Northern District California.

The company said "The following purported class action lawsuits
were filed in the United Stated District Court for the Northern
District California against Aqua Metals, Inc., Stephen R. Clarke,
Thomas Murphy and Mark Weinswig: Arlis Hampton vs. Aqua Metals,
Inc. et al., Case No 3:17-cv-07142; Grant Heath vs. Aqua Metals,
Inc. et al., Case No 3:17-cv-07196-JST; Lotfy Arbab vs. Aqua
Metals, Inc. et al., Case No 3:17-cv-07270WHA."

Each of the complaints was filed by persons claiming to be
stockholders of Aqua Metals and generally allege violations of
the anti-fraud provisions of the federal securities laws based on
the alleged issuance of false and misleading statements of
material fact, and the alleged omission to state material facts
necessary to make other statements made not misleading, between
May 19, 2016 and November 9, 2017 with respect to Aqua Metals'
lead recycling operations. The complaints seek unspecified
damages and plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs.

Aqua Metals, Inc. denies that the claims have any merit and it
intends to vigorously defend the actions.

Aqua Metals, Inc. operates lead acid battery recycling
facilities. The Company offers recycling of lead acid batteries.
Aqua Metals produces lead recovered from used lead acid
batteries. The company is based in Alameda, California.


ARC LOGISTICS: Shareholders' Merger Suits Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------
Class action lawsuits filed by shareholders of Arc Logistics
Partners LP to challenge a merger transaction have been
dismissed.

On December 21, 2017, Arc completed the merger with Zenith Energy
U.S. Logistics, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, and a
subsidiary of Zenith Energy U.S. Logistics Holdings, LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company and a subsidiary of Zenith
Energy U.S., L.P., a Delaware limited partnership.

Arc Logistics said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission that three purported holders
of common units representing limited partner interests in Arc
Logistics Partners LP (MLP) have filed complaints against MLP and
the board of directors of Arc Logistics GP LLC (MLP GP) in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The cases are David Spicer v. Arc Logistics Partners LP, et al.,
Case No. 1:17-cv-07555 (S.D.N.Y.), Hakeem Jacobs v. Arc Logistics
Partners LP, et al., Case No. 1:17-cv-07579 (S.D.N.Y.), and
Anthony Franchi v. Arc Logistics Partners LP, et al., Case No.
1:17-cv-07602 (S.D.N.Y.).

The Franchi action also names the Lightfoot Entities and the
Parent Entities as defendants, and the Jacobs and Franchi actions
are brought as putative class actions. The Franchi and Spicer
actions have been consolidated by the court.

The complaints generally allege that the preliminary version of
the Proxy Statement filed on September 26, 2017 fails to disclose
material information about the Merger and the GP Equity Transfer.

In order to moot what MLP considers to be unmeritorious
disclosure claims, alleviate the costs, risks and uncertainties
inherent in litigation and provide additional information to its
unitholders, MLP has determined to voluntarily supplement the
Proxy Statement. To the contrary, MLP specifically denies all
allegations in the foregoing complaints, including without
limitation that any additional disclosure was or is required. As
a result of the supplemental disclosures set forth herein, the
named plaintiffs in the Spicer, Jacobs, and Franchi actions have
decided that the claims in each of the lawsuits have been mooted
and will dismiss each action with prejudice on or before December
11, 2017.

Arc Logistics Partners LP engages in the terminalling, storage,
throughput, and transloading of petroleum products and other
liquids. The company's energy logistics assets serves various
third-party customers, including oil companies, independent
refiners, crude oil and petroleum product marketers,
distributors, and various industrial manufacturers. The company
is based in New York.


ASCENA RETAIL: Justice Vouchers to Expire October 2018
------------------------------------------------------
In the Justice Class Action Settlement, checks and vouchers were
scheduled to be sent to class members on October 13, 2017, and
the vouchers are good for one year through October 16, 2018.

"If you have not received your check or voucher by early
November, please contact the Settlement Administrator by calling
1-877-854-5282," according to the settlement web site at
https://www.justiceclassaction.com/en

Ascena Retail Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended October 31, 2017, that the Company is a defendant in a
number of class action lawsuits that allege that Justice's
promotional practices violated state comparative pricing laws in
connection with advertisements promoting a 40% discount. The
plaintiffs further allege false advertising, violation of state
consumer protection statutes, breach of contract, breach of
express warranty and unfair benefit to Justice.

On September 24, 2015, a formal settlement agreement was signed
with the plaintiffs in the Rougvie case to settle the lawsuit on
a class basis for the period of January 1, 2012 through February
28, 2015 for approximately $51 million, including payments to
members of the class and payment of legal fees and expenses of
settlement administration. On July 29, 2016, the Court granted
the parties' joint motion for final approval of settlement and
dismissed the case with prejudice.

The Court's decision granting final approval was appealed to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. After a
court-ordered mediation on March 24, 2017, the appeals were
withdrawn and dismissed with prejudice.

The class settlement is now final and non-appealable.
Distributions to class members pursuant to the settlement began
to take place on or about September 18, 2017 and continued
through mid-October in advance of the deadline of October 27,
2017.

To the extent some of the pricing lawsuits previously discussed
are still stayed, it is likely that they will be formally
dismissed within the coming months. If the matters described
herein do not occur and the pricing lawsuits are not finally
resolved on a class basis for approximately $51 million in
accordance with the settlement, the ultimate resolution of these
matters may or may not result in an additional material loss
which cannot be reasonably estimated at this time.

Potential claims related to purchases made in 2010 and 2011 have
been raised, including in the Metoyer case previously discussed,
although no additional lawsuits have been filed. The Company
believes it has strong defenses to any such claims and is
prepared to defend any such claims. If the plaintiffs in the
other Justice cases do not agree to dismissal, the Company will
move to dismiss.

Ascena Retail Group, Inc., a Delaware corporation, is a leading
national specialty retailer of apparel for women and tween girls.
The company's performance is subject to macroeconomic conditions
and its impact on levels and patterns of consumer spending. The
company is based in Mahwah, New Jersey.


ATKORE INTERNATIONAL: Wind Condominium Suit Still Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------
Atkore International Group Inc. said in its Form 10-K report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended September 30, 2017, that the named plaintiffs
in the Wind Condominium Action are pursuing their claims
individually or in state court.

On November 16, 2015, the Company was served with a Special
Products Claim, Wind Condominium Association, Inc., et al. v.
Allied Tube & Conduit Corporation, et al. (the "Wind Condominium
Action"), a putative class action claim filed in the Southern
District of Florida which defined a "National Class" and a
"Florida Subclass" consisting of all condominium associations and
building owners who had ABF and/or ABF II installed in
combination with CPVC from January 1, 2003 through December 31,
2010 nationwide and in Florida, respectively.

The plaintiffs sought to recover monetary damages for the
replacement and repair of fire suppression systems and any
damaged real property or personal property, as well as
consequential and incidental damages. The Wind Condominium Action
was dismissed voluntarily by plaintiffs on August 3, 2016. The
named plaintiffs in the Wind Condominium Action are pursuing
their claims individually or in state court.

Atkore International said "At this time, the Company does not
expect the outcome of the Special Products Claims proceedings, or
any other proceeding, either individually or in the aggregate, to
have a material adverse effect on its business, financial
condition, results of operations or cash flows, and the Company
believes that its reserves are adequate for all claims, including
for Special Products Claims contingencies. However, it is
possible that additional reserves could be required in the future
that could have a material adverse effect on the Company's
business, financial condition, results of operations or cash
flows. This additional loss or range of losses cannot be recorded
at this time, as it is not reasonably estimable."

Atkore International Group Inc. is a leading manufacturer of
Electrical Raceway products primarily for the non-residential
construction and renovation markets and MP&S for the construction
and industrial markets. Electrical Raceway products form the
critical infrastructure that enables the deployment, isolation
and protection of a structure's electrical circuitry from the
original power source to the final outlet. MP&S frame, support
and secure component parts in a broad range of structures,
equipment and systems in electrical, industrial and construction
applications. The company is based in Harvey, Illinois.


BARNES & NOBLE: 7th Cir. Appeal in Pin Pad Litigation Underway
--------------------------------------------------------------
Barnes & Noble, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
October 28, 2017, that an appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Seventh Circuit the Pin Pads-related litigation remains
pending.

The Company discovered that PIN pads in certain of its stores had
been tampered with to allow criminal access to card data and PIN
numbers on credit and debit cards swiped through the terminals.
Following public disclosure of this matter on October 24, 2012,
the Company was served with four putative class action complaints
(three in federal district court in the Northern District of
Illinois and one in the Northern District of California), each of
which alleged on behalf of national and other classes of
customers who swiped credit and debit cards in Barnes & Noble
Retail stores common law claims such as negligence, breach of
contract and invasion of privacy, as well as statutory claims
such as violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, state data
breach notification statutes, and state unfair and deceptive
practices statutes.

The actions sought various forms of relief including damages,
injunctive or equitable relief, multiple or punitive damages,
attorneys' fees, costs, and interest. All four cases were
transferred and/or assigned to a single judge in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, and
a single consolidated amended complaint was filed.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended
complaint in its entirety, and in September 2013, the Court
granted the motion to dismiss without prejudice. The Plaintiffs
then filed an amended complaint, and the Company filed a second
motion to dismiss. On October 3, 2016, the Court granted the
second motion to dismiss, and dismissed the case without
prejudice; in doing so, the Court permitted plaintiffs to file a
second amended complaint by October 31, 2016.

On October 31, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a second amended
complaint, and on January 25, 2017 the Company filed a motion to
dismiss the second amended complaint. On June 13, 2017, the Court
granted the Company's motion to dismiss with prejudice.

Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of
Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. The appeal is fully briefed, and
the Court has set the matter for oral argument on December 6,
2017.

                           *     *     *

Lauraann Wood, writing for Law360, reported that at least one
judge on a Seventh Circuit panel on December 6, 2017, grappled
with the prospect of reviving a proposed class action against
Barnes & Noble over its 2012 security breach, wondering whether
it's enough to claim economic damages if the California and
Illinois customers who lost money through the hack got it back
within three days.

Erich Schork of Barnow and Associates PC, who argued for the
proposed class, told the three-judge panel that it is enough.

Barnes & Noble, Inc. operates as a content and commerce company
in the United States. Barnes & Noble, Inc. operates as a retailer
of books, content, digital media, and educational products. The
company is based in New York.


BARNES & NOBLE: Cafe Managers Suit Underway
-------------------------------------------
Barnes & Noble, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
October 28, 2017, that the company continues to defend two
separate class action suits filed by its former Cafe Managers.

Two former Cafe Managers have filed separate actions alleging
similar claims of entitlement to unpaid compensation for
overtime. In each action, the plaintiff seeks to represent a
class of allegedly similarly situated employees who performed the
same position (Cafe Manager).

Specifically, Christine Hartpence filed a complaint against
Barnes & Noble, Inc. (Barnes & Noble) in Philadelphia County
Court of Common Pleas on May 26, 2015, alleging that she is
entitled to unpaid compensation for overtime under Pennsylvania
law and seeking to represent a class of allegedly similarly
situated employees who performed the same position (Cafe
Manager).

On July 14, 2016, Ms. Hartpence amended her complaint to assert a
purported collective action for alleged unpaid overtime
compensation under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA),
by which she sought to act as a class representative for
similarly situated Cafe Managers throughout the United States. On
July 27, 2016, Barnes & Noble removed the case to the U.S.
District Court of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Ms.
Hartpence then voluntarily dismissed her complaint and
subsequently re-filed a similar complaint in the Philadelphia
County Court of Common Pleas, where it is currently pending.

The re-filed complaint alleges only claims of unpaid overtime
under Pennsylvania law and alleges class claims under
Pennsylvania law that are limited to current and former Cafe
Managers within Pennsylvania. On June 22, 2017, Ms. Hartpence
filed an additional, separate action in Philadelphia County Court
of Common Pleas in which she repeats her allegations under
Pennsylvania law and asserts a similar claim for unpaid wages
under New Jersey law, purportedly on behalf of herself and others
similarly situated. The Court consolidated the two pending cases
on November 1, 2017.

On September 20, 2016, Kelly Brown filed a complaint against
Barnes & Noble in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York in which she also alleges that she is
entitled to unpaid compensation under the FLSA and Illinois law.
Ms. Brown seeks to represent a national class of all similarly
situated Cafe Managers under the FLSA, as well as an Illinois-
based class under Illinois law. On November 9, 2016, Ms. Brown
filed an amended complaint to add an additional plaintiff named
Tiffany Stewart, who is a former Cafe Manager who also alleges
unpaid overtime compensation in violation of New York law and
seeks to represent a class of similarly situated New York-based
Cafe Managers under New York law. On May 2, 2017, the Court
denied Plaintiffs' Motion for Conditional Certification, without
prejudice. There are currently 16 former Cafe Managers who have
joined the action as opt-in plaintiffs.

Barnes & Noble, Inc. operates as a content and commerce company
in the United States. Barnes & Noble, Inc. operates as a retailer
of books, content, digital media, and educational products. The
company is based in New York.


BARNES & NOBLE: Magistrate Judge Recommends Arbitration & Stay
--------------------------------------------------------------
Barnes & Noble, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
October 28, 2017, that the Magistrate Judge issued its report and
recommendation that the Court grant B&N's motion to compel
arbitration and stay all proceedings in the case, Bernardino v.
Barnes & Noble Booksellers, Inc.

On June 16, 2017, a putative class action complaint was filed
against Barnes & Noble Booksellers, Inc. (B&N Booksellers) in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York, alleging violations of the federal Video Privacy Protection
Act and related New York law.

The plaintiff, who seeks to represent a class of subscribers of
Facebook, Inc. (Facebook) who purchased DVDs or other video media
from the Barnes & Noble website, seeks damages, injunctive relief
and attorneys' fees, among other things, based on her allegation
that B&N Booksellers supposedly knowingly disclosed her
personally identifiable information to Facebook without her
consent when she bought a DVD from Barnes & Noble's website.

On July 10, 2017, the plaintiff moved for a preliminary
injunction requiring Barnes & Noble to change the operation of
its website, which motion B&N Booksellers opposed. On July 31,
2017, B&N Booksellers moved to compel the case to arbitration,
consistent with the terms of use on Barnes & Noble's website. On
August 28, 2017, the court denied the plaintiff's motion for a
preliminary injunction. On November 20, 2017, the magistrate
judge issued its report and recommendation that the Court grant
B&N's motion to compel arbitration and stay all proceedings.

Barnes & Noble, Inc. operates as a content and commerce company
in the United States. Barnes & Noble, Inc. operates as a retailer
of books, content, digital media, and educational products. The
company is based in New York.


BEST BUY: Says Pension Fund Complaint Underway
----------------------------------------------
Best Buy Co., Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
October 28, 2017, that plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a
second amended class action complaint is still pending.

In February 2011, a purported class action lawsuit captioned,
IBEW Local 98 Pension Fund, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Best Buy Co., Inc., et al., was
filed against the company and certain of its executive officers
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. This
federal court action alleges, among other things, that the
company and the officers named in the complaint violated Sections
10(b) and 20A of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 under the
Exchange Act in connection with press releases and other
statements relating to our fiscal 2011 earnings guidance that had
been made available to the public.

Additionally, in March 2011, a similar purported class action was
filed by a single shareholder, Rene LeBlanc, against the company
and certain of its executive officers in the same court. In July
2011, after consolidation of the IBEW Local 98 Pension Fund and
Rene LeBlanc actions, a consolidated complaint captioned, IBEW
Local 98 Pension Fund v. Best Buy Co., Inc., et al., was filed
and served.

The company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint
in September 2011, and in March 2012, subsequent to the end of
fiscal 2012, the court issued a decision dismissing the action
with prejudice. In April 2012, the plaintiffs filed a motion to
alter or amend the court's decision on the company's motion to
dismiss.

In October 2012, the court granted plaintiff's motion to alter or
amend the court's decision on the company's motion to dismiss in
part by vacating such decision and giving plaintiff leave to file
an amended complaint, which plaintiff did in October 2012. The
company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint in
November 2012 and all responsive pleadings were filed in December
2012.

A hearing was held on April 26, 2013. On August 5, 2013, the
court issued an order granting the company's motion to dismiss in
part and, contrary to its March 2012 order, denying the motion to
dismiss in part, holding that certain of the statements alleged
to have been made were not forward-looking statements and
therefore were not subject to the "safe-harbor" provisions of the
Private Securities Litigation Reform Act. Plaintiffs moved to
certify the purported class.

By Order filed August 6, 2014, the court certified a class of
persons or entities who acquired Best Buy common stock between
10:00 a.m. EDT on September 14, 2010, and December 13, 2010, and
who were damaged by the alleged violations of law. The 8th
Circuit Court of Appeals granted the company's request for
interlocutory appeal. On April 12, 2016, the 8th Circuit held the
trial court misapplied the law and reversed the class
certification order.

IBEW petitioned the 8th Circuit for a rehearing en banc, which
was denied on June 1, 2016. In October 2016, IBEW advised the
trial court it will not seek review by the Supreme Court. On June
23, 2017, the trial court denied plaintiff's request to file a
new Motion for Class Certification. On October 30, 2017,
plaintiffs filed with the trial court a motion for leave to file
a second amended class action complaint which Best Buy opposed in
a filing on November 6, 2017. That motion is pending.

The company said "We continue to believe that the remaining
individual plaintiff's allegations are without merit and intend
to vigorously defend our company in this matter."

Best Buy Co., Inc. is a leading provider of technology products,
services and solutions. The company offers these products and
services to customers who visit its stores, engage with Geek
Squad agents or use its websites or mobile applications. The
company had operations in the U.S., Canada and Mexico.


BRISTOL-MYERS: "Giugno" Securities Class Action Suit Underway
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bristol-Myers Squibb Company is facing putative class action
complaint filed by Joseph Giugno in California, according to the
Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017.

In February 2018, the Company became aware of a putative class
action complaint, Joseph Giugno v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., et
al. that was filed in the U.S. District for the Northern District
of California against the Company, the Company's Chief Executive
Officer, Giovanni Caforio, the Company's Chief Financial Officer,
Charles A. Bancroft and certain former and current executives of
the Company.  The complaint alleges violations of securities laws
for the Company's disclosures related to the CheckMate -026
clinical trial in lung cancer.  The Company intends to defend
itself vigorously in this litigation.

Bristol-Myers Squibb Company discovers, develops, licenses,
manufactures, markets, and distributes biopharmaceutical products
worldwide.  The Company was formerly known as Bristol-Myers
Company and changed its name to Bristol-Myers Squibb Company in
1989.  Bristol-Myers Squibb Company was founded in 1887 and is
headquartered in New York, New York.


CALIFORNIA COMMERCE: Arbitration of "Lee" Claims Affirmed
---------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division
Seven, issued an Opinion affirming the trial court's Order
granting Defendant's Motion to Compel Arbitration in the case
captioned BRITTNEY LEE, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CLUB, INC.,
Defendant and Respondent, No. B276171 (Cal. App.).

Brittney Lee appeals the order granting California Commerce
Club's motion to compel arbitration of her employment-related
claims and dismissing her class action claims.

Lee applied for a job as a runner at a casino owned by California
Commerce Club, doing business as Commerce Casino.  Commerce
extended an offer of employment to Lee and informed her she would
be required to sign an arbitration agreement and undergo a
medical examination before beginning her employment.  Lee signed
the arbitration agreement and underwent the medical examination
around that time.  Commerce informed Lee the job offer was being
rescinded because she had failed the medical examination.

Lee filed the lawsuit against Commerce on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated alleging disability discrimination,
failure to accommodate, failure to engage in the interactive
process and failure to prevent discrimination in violation of the
Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) pre-employment
discrimination, wrongful termination in violation of public
policy, invasion of privacy and unfair business practices.

The Cal. App. held that there is a strong public policy in favor
of arbitration. The party seeking to compel arbitration bears the
burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence the
existence of an agreement to arbitrate. Only if an agreement has
been proved does the burden shift to the party opposing
arbitration to demonstrate a defense to the enforcement of the
agreement.

Here, quite properly, Lee does not assert a breach of contract
claim based on Commerce's decision not to employ her. Whether or
not Commerce's requirement of a medical examination as a
condition to employment was lawful, Commerce did not fail to
perform under the contract.

Moreover, as the trial court correctly observed, the promise to
employ Lee cannot be understood as anything other than a promise
of the opportunity of employment -- a promise Commerce fulfilled
by extending Lee an offer of employment, giving her pre-
employment paperwork and sending her for a physical examination.
This interpretation of the contract is confirmed by the multiple
contingencies on employment expressly set forth in the agreement.

Lee argues there was no mutual assent because she would not have
signed the agreement had she understood she might not be hired.
However, the La. App. found that the plain language of the
agreement explicitly states the offer of employment was
conditional. As Lee acknowledged in her memorandum of points and
authorities in opposition to the motion to compel, the clear
wording of the Arbitration Agreement must control over a party's
subjective intent.

Accordingly, the Cal. App. affirmed the order granting Commerce's
motion to compel arbitration, dismissing Lee's class action
claims and staying the action pending the completion of the
arbitration.

A full-text copy of the La. App.'s January 22, 2018 Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yd4gfr66 from Leagle.com.


CALPINE CORP: Defending Against Merger-Related Class Suits
----------------------------------------------------------
Calpine Corporation said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission that the company faces four
putative class action complaints related to its merger with Volt
Parent, LP and Volt Merger Sub.

On August 17, 2017, Calpine Corporation (the "Company") entered
into an Agreement and Plan of Merger with Volt Parent, LP, a
Delaware limited partnership ("Parent"), and Volt Merger Sub,
Inc., a Delaware corporation and wholly owned subsidiary of
Parent ("Merger Sub"), pursuant to which Merger Sub will merge
with and into the Company (the "Merger"), with the Company
surviving the Merger as a subsidiary of Parent.

In connection with the Merger, four putative class action
complaints have been filed in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division.

The four class action complaints are captioned as follows:
Hickson v. Calpine Corporation, et al., Civil Action No. 17-cv-
3252, filed on October 25, 2017; Scarantino v. Calpine
Corporation, et al., Civil Action No. 17-cv-03256, filed on
October 26, 2017 (the "Scarantino Complaint"); Langston v.
Calpine Corporation, et al., Civil Action No. 17-cv-03316, filed
on October 31, 2017; and Stoner v. Calpine Corporation, et al.,
Civil Action No. 17-cv-03317, filed on October 31, 2017 (the
"Stoner Complaint"). On November 17, 2017, a purported
shareholder of Calpine filed a complaint in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston
Division, which action is captioned Sulak v. Calpine Corporation,
et al., Civil Action No. 17-cv-03545.

Calpine and the individual members of the board of directors of
Calpine (the "Calpine Board") are named as defendants in each of
the actions. The Scarantino Complaint also names Energy Capital
Partners III, LLC ("ECP"), Parent and Merger Sub as defendants,
and the Stoner Complaint also names ECP as a defendant.

The plaintiffs allege that Calpine's definitive proxy statement
filed on November 14, 2017 with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the "SEC" and, such proxy statement, as supplemented
by additional materials filed by the Company with the SEC on
November 16, 2017, the "Proxy Statement") omitted certain
material information in connection with the Merger.

The plaintiffs seek various remedies, including injunctive relief
to prevent the consummation of the Merger unless certain
allegedly material information is disclosed and rescissory
damages in the event the Merger is consummated without such
disclosures.

Calpine Corporation is the largest generator of electricity from
natural gas and geothermal resources in the United States, with
operations in competitive power markets. The company is based in
Houston, Texas.


CARMAX INC: Entities Faces Wage and Hour Claims in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------
Carmax, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
November 30, 2017, that its entities are defendants in four
proceedings asserting wage and hour claims with respect to CarMax
sales consultants in California.

The asserted claims include failure to pay minimum wage, provide
meal periods and rest breaks, pay statutory/contractual wages,
reimburse for work-related expenses and provide accurate itemized
wage statements; unfair competition; and Private Attorney General
Act claims.

On September 4, 2015, Craig Weiss et al., v. CarMax Auto
Superstores California, LLC, and CarMax Auto Superstores West
Coast, Inc., a putative class action, was filed in the Superior
Court of California, County of Placer. The Weiss lawsuit seeks
civil penalties, fines, cost of suit, and the recovery of
attorneys' fees.

On June 29, 2016, Ryan Gomez et al. v. CarMax Auto Superstores
California, LLC, and CarMax Auto Superstores West Coast, Inc., a
putative class action, was filed in the Superior Court of the
State of California, Los Angeles. The Gomez lawsuit seeks
declaratory relief, unspecified damages, restitution, statutory
penalties, interest, cost and attorneys' fees.

On September 7, 2016, James Rowland v. CarMax Auto Superstores
California, LLC, and CarMax Auto Superstores West Coast, Inc., a
putative class action, was filed in the U.S. District Court,
Eastern District of California, Sacramento Division. The Rowland
lawsuit seeks unspecified damages, restitution, statutory
penalties, interest, cost and attorneys' fees.

On October 31, 2017, Joshua Sabanovich v. CarMax Superstores
California, LLC et al., a putative class action, was filed in the
Superior Court of California, County of Stanislaus. The
Sabanovich lawsuit seeks unspecified damages, restitution,
statutory penalties, interest, cost and attorneys' fees.

Carmax said "We are unable to make a reasonable estimate of the
amount or range of loss that could result from an unfavorable
outcome in these matters."

CarMax Inc., through its subsidiaries, operates as a retailer of
used vehicles in the United States. The company operates in two
segments, CarMax Sales Operations and CarMax Auto Finance. It
offers customers a range of makes and models of used vehicles,
including domestic and imported vehicles; sells vehicles that do
not meet its retail standards to licensed dealers through on-site
wholesale auctions; and provides extended protection plans to
customers at the time of sale. The company is based in Richmond,
Virginia.


CARMAX INC: Continues to Defend 4 Calif. Employees Class Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Carmax, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
November 30, 2017, that CarMax entities are defendants in four
proceedings asserting wage and hour claims with respect to CarMax
sales consultants in California.

The asserted claims include failure to pay minimum wage, provide
meal periods and rest breaks, pay statutory/contractual wages,
reimburse for work-related expenses and provide accurate itemized
wage statements; unfair competition; and Private Attorney General
Act claims.

On September 4, 2015, Craig Weiss et al., v. CarMax Auto
Superstores California, LLC, and CarMax Auto Superstores West
Coast, Inc., a putative class action, was filed in the Superior
Court of California, County of Placer. The Weiss lawsuit seeks
civil penalties, fines, cost of suit, and the recovery of
attorneys' fees.

On June 29, 2016, Ryan Gomez et al. v. CarMax Auto Superstores
California, LLC, and CarMax Auto Superstores West Coast, Inc., a
putative class action, was filed in the Superior Court of the
State of California, Los Angeles. The Gomez lawsuit seeks
declaratory relief, unspecified damages, restitution, statutory
penalties, interest, cost and attorneys' fees.

On September 7, 2016, James Rowland v. CarMax Auto Superstores
California, LLC, and CarMax Auto Superstores West Coast, Inc., a
putative class action, was filed in the U.S. District Court,
Eastern District of California, Sacramento Division. The Rowland
lawsuit seeks unspecified damages, restitution, statutory
penalties, interest, cost and attorneys' fees.

On October 31, 2017, Joshua Sabanovich v. CarMax Superstores
California, LLC et. al., a putative class action, was filed in
the Superior Court of California, County of Stanislaus. The
Sabanovich lawsuit seeks unspecified damages, restitution,
statutory penalties, interest, cost and attorneys' fees.

Carmax said "We are unable to make a reasonable estimate of the
amount or range of loss that could result from an unfavorable
outcome in these matters."

CarMax Inc. is a retailer of used vehicles.  The company operates
in two reportable segments:  CarMax Sales Operations and CarMax
Auto Finance ("CAF").  The CarMax Sales Operations segment
consists of all aspects of the company's auto merchandising and
service operations, excluding financing provided by CAF.  Its CAF
segment consists solely of its own finance operation that
provides financing to customers buying retail vehicles from
CarMax.


CATALINA RESTAURANT: Wins Summary Judgment in "Farrar" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Central District of
California issued an Order granting Defendants' Motion for
Summary Judgment in the case captioned ERI FARRAR, and others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. CATALINA RESTAURANT GROUP,
INC. and FOOD MANAGEMENT PARTNERS, INC., Defendants, Case No. 16-
cv-09066 DDP (JCx) (C.D. Cal.).

Catalina Restaurant Group owns and operates restaurants
throughout California and Arizona.  Catalina had corporate
headquarters in Carlsbad, California, which provided
administrative support to its restaurant locations.  Catalina
implemented a reduction in force, closing a number of its
restaurants and terminating employees at its corporate
headquarters.

Plaintiffs contend that Defendants terminated the employment of
53 employees at Catalina's corporate headquarters thereby
triggering the advance notice requirements of the federal and
state WARN Acts.  Defendants, in contrast, declare that the WARN
Acts' advance notice provisions do not apply because Catalina's
corporate headquarters laid off only 47 employees during this
period.

The centerpiece of this dispute involves whether Catalina laid
off 50 or more employees from its Carlsbad corporate headquarters
as part of its April 2015 reduction in force, thereby triggering
the notice requirements of the federal and California WARN Acts.

Under the federal WARN Act, covered employers must provide
employees with advance notice of a plant closing or mass layoff.
Both a plant closing and mass layoff are triggered when, inter
alia, at least 50 full-time employees are terminated over a 30-
day period.

Plaintiffs dispute Defendants' claims by pointing to payroll
records from April 1, 2015 to May 27, 2015.  These payroll
records suggest that Catalina's corporate headquarters had 53
individuals on its payroll on April 1, 2015.  Plaintiffs assert
that, by April 24, 2015, all 53 employees had been terminated.

The Court finds that Plaintiffs offer no explanation or
evidentiary support for this reading of the payroll records.
Furthermore, the same payroll records indicate that the allegedly
terminated employees continued to receive pay-checks well after
their termination dates.  For example, Plaintiffs claim that
employees Christopher Barkley, William Clark, and Vincent Plaza
were all terminated on April 24, 2015. Yet each of these
employees received paychecks on May 13, 2015 and continued to
receive paychecks on May 27, 2015.  Similarly, Plaintiffs contend
that employee Luseane Netane was laid off on April 3, 2015
because her name appears with the word TRUE next to it in the
payroll run. However, Netane continued to receive checks on April
24, 2015 and May 27, 2015. Employee Marciela Canizalez, whom
Plaintiffs assert was terminated on April 15, 2015 also continued
to receive payments on April 24, 2015, as well as May 27, 2015.

The court finds that Catalina's payroll records do not reasonably
support Plaintiffs' theory of termination, whereby all 53 of the
employees at Catalina's corporate headquarters were terminated as
of April 24, 2015. Instead, the payroll record bolsters
Defendants' contention that 47 employees were terminated as part
of the April 2015 reduction in force. The names of six out of the
original 53 employees appear on Catalina's payroll as of May 27,
2015.  Absent evidence that undermines Defendants' claims, the
court concludes that Plaintiffs have not created a triable issue
of fact as to whether at least 50 corporate headquarters
employees were terminated as a result of the April 2015 reduction
of force.

Accordingly, the Court granted Defendants' Motion for Summary
Judgment.

A full-text copy of the District of Court's January 22, 2018
Order and Reasons is available at https://tinyurl.com/ydgzt38x
from Leagle.com.

Jeri Farrar, and others similarly situated,, Kyle Whitney, Gary
Graham, Bill Dizon, Francisco Jimenez & Gina McMahon, Plaintiffs,
represented by Jeff R. Dingwall -- jeff@eightandsandlaw.com --
Eight and Sand PC.

Catalina Restaurant Group Inc & Food Management Partners, Inc.,
Respondents, represented by Jennifer L. Santa Maria -
jennifer.santamaria@ogletree.com -- Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak
and Stewart PC, Spencer C. Skeen -- spencer.skeen@ogletree.com -
Olgletree Deakins Nash Smoak and Stewart PC, Timothy L. Johnson -
- spencer.skeen@ogletree.com -- Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak and
Stewart PC & Marlene Marie Moffitt --
marlene.moffitt@ogletree.com -- Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak &
Stewart PC.


CHARLOTTE SCHOOL OF LAW: Time to File Consolidated Suit Extended
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of
North Carolina, Charlotte Division, issued an Order Granting
Plaintiffs' Motion for Extension of Time to File Consolidated
Class Action Complaint in the case captioned ROBERT C. BARCHIESI,
and LEJLA HADZIC, Individually and in a representative capacity
on behalf of a class of all persons similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. CHARLOTTE SCHOOL OF LAW, LLC and INFILAW
CORPORATION, Defendants. SPENCER KREBS, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
CHARLOTTE SCHOOL OF LAW, LLC, et al., Defendants. RAISSA LEVY,
JAMES VILLANUEVA, SHANNA RIVERA, and ANDRE MCCOY, individually
and on behalf of all similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs, v.
CHARLOTTE SCHOOL OF LAW, LLC, and INFILAW CORPORATION,
Defendants. LEAH ASH Plaintiffs, v. CHARLOTTE SCHOOL OF LAW, LLC
AND INFILAW CORPORATION, Defendants, Civil Action Nos. 3:16-CV-
00861-GCM, 3:17-CV-00190-GCM, 3:17-cv-00026, 3:17-CV-00039-GCM
(W.D.N.C.), after finding that the Plaintiffs have shown good
cause for the requested extension and Defendants have consented
to said extension.

A full-text copy of the District of Court's January 22, 2018
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yahwfbmc from
Leagle.com.

Spencer Krebs, Morgan Switzer, Dave Wyatt, Krystal Horsley,
Jacenta Marie Price & Markisha Dobson, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by
Anthony J. Majestro -- amajestro@powellmajestro.com -- Powell &
Majestro, PLLC, pro hac vice, Douglas B. Abrams, Abrams & Abrams,
P.A., 1526 Glenwood Avenue Raleigh, NC 27608, Taylor M. Norman --
tnorman@bjc4u.com -- Bailey Javins & Carter, LC, pro hac vice,
Timothy C. Bailey, Bailey Javins & Carter, PO Box 3712.,
Charleston, WV 25337, LC, pro hac vice & Noah Abrams, Abrams &
Abrams PA. 1526 Glenwood, Avenue Raleigh, NC 27608
Chidi Ogene, President of CSL, Defendant, represented by David
Edward Mills -- dmills@cooley.com -Cooley LLP, Debbie W. Harden -
- debbie.harden@wbd-us.com -- Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP,
Robert Cahill, Cooley LLP, pro hac vice, Sarah Motley Stone --
sarah.stone@wbd-us.com -- Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP & Johnny
M. Loper -- johnny.loper@wbd-us.com -- Womble Bond Dickinson (US)
LLP.

Sterling Partners, an Illinois business entity & Sterling Capital
Partners IV, LLC, a Delaware corporation doing business as
Sterling Partners, Defendants, represented by Adam Karl Doerr --
adoerr@rbh.com -- Robinson Bradshaw & Hinson & Robert Evans
Harrington


CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Court Stays "Brown" Pending ACA Ruling
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
California issued an Order granting in part Defendant's Motion to
Stay the case captioned TERI BROWN, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. CHARTER
COMMUNICATIONS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-00670-LJO-JLT
(E.D. Cal.), pending a ruling by the D.C. Circuit Court, which is
considering the definition of automatic telephone dialing system
under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Plaintiff alleges Charter communicated with her throughout the
past year by calling her cell phone number numerous times in
attempts to market its service. She asserts that Defendant called
from numerous phone numbers, including but not limited to (844)
207-1531, (855) 383-5891, and (203) 404-6762, which phone number
belongs to Defendant.

According to Plaintiff, when she answered these calls she was
subjected to an unwanted and uninvited sales pitch from the
Defendant. Further, Plaintiff asserts that she spoke with the
Defendant and stated emphatically that she is not interested in
this service.

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant used an automated telephone
dialing system and pre-recorded messages to call the Plaintiff"
and putative class members. The TCPA defines an automatic
telephone dialing system as equipment which has the capacity (A)
to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a
random or sequential number generator; and (B) to dial such
numbers.

In ACA International v. Federal Communications Commission, Case
No. 15-1211 (ACA International), the D.C. Circuit court is
currently considering the TCPA definition of automatic telephone
dialing system, and whether the word capacity' meant (1) the
current capacity or present ability of the equipment at the time
the calls were made or (2) the future capacity' to generate and
dial random or sequential numbers through modification of the
hardware and software used in the telephone systems.

Despite the rulings of other judges, the Court does not agree
that merely because the DC Circuit has not yet ruled, that this
means a stay entered now would be indefinite. Truly, logic seems
to dictate that every day that passes makes it more likely the
ruling will be issued soon. On the other hand, the plaintiff
makes very valid points that no matter how ACA is determined,
there are factual questions that must be discovered in order to
know whether the ACA ruling applies or, if it does, how it does.
Thus, because there is fair possibility" of harm to the
plaintiff, this factor weighs against a stay.

Here, the parties in this action would be required to engage in
discovery regardless of the outcome of the issue before the D.C.
Circuit, such as discovery related to the technology used to call
Plaintiff and the putative class members. As the plaintiff points
out, the mere specs on the technology used will not, necessarily,
resolve the issue even once ACA is decided. On the other hand, at
least at this time, it appears resolution of ACA no matter how it
is decided will resolve the entirety of the class claims.

Thus, if the Court allows discovery on the limited issue of the
technology used to make the alleged calls, this factor weighs in
favor of a stay.

The ability of defendant's systems to store or produce phone
numbers is an important issue that must be resolved in this case,
and resolution of the issue depends upon the outcome of ACA. It
would be injudicious for this Court to attempt to make rulings
that could be inconsistent with the ultimate ACA ruling.

Therefore, the Court finds this factor weighs in favor of a stay.
Defendant's motion to stay the proceedings is granted in part
although the plaintiff is permitted to conduct discovery related
to the type of equipment used to make the calls at issue and to
inquire into how the technology was used as well as how it could
be used.  In all other respects, including the defendant's
obligation to respond to written discovery already propounded,
the case is stayed.

A full-text copy of the District Court's January 22, 2018 Opinion
is available at https://tinyurl.com/y8fczxao from Leagle.com.

Teri Brown, Plaintiff, represented by Adrian R. Bacon --
abacon@attorneysforconsumers.com. -- Law Offices of Todd M.
Friedman, P.C., Ari H. Marcus -- Ari@MarcusZelman.com -- Marcus &
Zelman, LLC, pro hac vice, Meghan George -- mgeorge@toddflaw.com
-- Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman, PC, Yitzchak Zelman --
Yzelman@MarcusZelman.com -- Marcus & Zelman, LLC, pro hac vice &
Todd M. Friedman -- tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com -- Law
Offices of Todd M. Friedman, P.C.

Charter Communications, Inc., Doing business as Spectrum,
Defendant, represented by Geoffrey Lawrence Warner --
gwarner@thompsoncoburn.com -- Thompson Coburn LLP & Helen B. Kim
-- hkim@thompsoncoburn.com -- Thompson Coburn LLP.


CHRISTOPHER & BANKS: Receives 339,000 From Administrator
--------------------------------------------------------
Christopher & Banks Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended October 28, 2017, that the company
received approximately $339,000 from the settlement administrator
representing the remainder of the settlement fund after payment
of all submitted claims and related settlement fund costs and
expenses.

In connection with a preliminary settlement of pre-litigation
employment claims reached in February 2017, the company
established a loss contingency of $1.475 million as of January
28, 2017.

On April 13, 2017, a complaint was filed in State Circuit Court
in the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in Palm Beach County, Florida
(the "Florida Circuit Court") by three named plaintiffs in a
purported class action asserting claims on behalf of current and
former store managers.

The named plaintiffs principally alleged that they and other
similarly situated store managers were improperly classified as
exempt employees and thus not compensated for overtime work as
required under applicable federal and state law.

On May 4, 2017, the Company entered into a settlement agreement
with the named plaintiffs and the proposed class. On May 8, 2017,
the Florida Circuit Court issued an order approving the class
settlement. As approved by the Florida Circuit Court, certain
current and former store managers are eligible to receive
payments in connection with time worked in prior years. The
settlement of the lawsuit is not an admission by us of any
wrongdoing.

As part of the settlement, the Company contributed $1.475 million
into a settlement fund in the second fiscal quarter of 2017.
Following approval of the settlement, opt-in notices were sent to
the members of the class. After the opt-in period concluded,
settlement checks were mailed to the class members who opted in,
which represented approximately 58% of the class members.

On November 16, 2017, the Company received approximately $339,000
from the settlement administrator representing the remainder of
the settlement fund after payment of all submitted claims and
related settlement fund costs and expenses.

Christopher & Banks Corporation is a national specialty retailer
featuring exclusively-designed, privately-branded women's apparel
and accessories. The company offers its customer an assortment of
unique, classic and versatile clothing that fits her everyday
needs at a good value. The company is based in Plymouth,
Minnesota.


CITI MORTGAGE: Bid to Junk Class Allegations in "Trunzo" Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ALEXANDRA R. TRUNZO and ANTHONY HLISTA, Plaintiffs,
v. CITI MORTGAGE, et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 2:11-cv-
01124 (W.D. Pa.), Judge Mark R. Hornak of the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Pennsylvania denied without prejudice
PHS' motion to dismiss the Class Allegations of the Third Amended
Class Action Complaint ("TACAC").

The case has a long and complex procedural history.  The Court's
Opinion in Trunzo III, issued on Aug. 29, 2014, the boiled
Plaintiffs case down to the following claims: (1) as against
CitiMortgage, one individual claim under the Unfair Trade
Practice and Consumer Protection Law ("UTPCPL"); (2) as against
PHS, one claim under the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act ("FDCPA") and one claim under the UTPCPL; and (3) as against
Seterus, Inc., one claim under the FDCPA, one claim under the
UTPCPL, and one claim for unjust enrichment.  The Court stayed
the case on Feb. 26, 2015, pending the decision in Kaymark v.
Bank of America.  In February 2016, the Court ordered the parties
to file an updated ADR Stipulation.

Citi and the Plaintiffs reached a settlement agreement prior to
the scheduled mediation set for July 22, 2016.  Seterus and the
Plaintiffs reached a settlement as a result of that mediation.
Stipulations of settlement were filed on Sept. 30, 2016, and
approved by the Court on Oct. 3, 2016, without hearings.

The Plaintiffs then filed their TACAC on March 8, 2017.  PHS is
now the last remaining Defendant in the case.  Only one class
claim remains-alleged violation of the FDCPA.

The class description has also evolved throughout the pleading
phase, but the operative TACAC pleads a purported class
consisting of all former or current homeowners who obtained
financing secured by a first mortgage on property located within
the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, wherein (i) PHS' records show
that a demand for alleged foreclosure fees and costs was made in
standardized communications (i.e., letters or complaints) and
(ii) those foreclosure fees/costs had not been incurred at the
time the communication was made.  These foreclosure fees and
costs include some or all of the following: Prothonotary I Court
Costs, Additional Foreclosure Costs, and Attorney Fees.  Only
communications made within one year of the date the original
Complaint in the case was filed are included within the class.

PHS argues that the settlements with Citi and Seterus has created
a "sea change" in the landscape of the case.  In its Motion, PHS
seeks to dismiss the sole class claim against it pursuant to Rule
12(b)(6).  Given that PHS seeks to attack the class allegations
on the basis that the purported class lacks ascertainability,
typicality, and adequacy of representation, the Court will treat
the Motion as one to strike the FDCPA class claim.  In the
alternative, PHS asks the Court to narrow the class definition.
In the course of the extensive briefings by the parties, PHS also
raised a mootness argument with regard to the entire case.

Judge Hornak finds that absent any offers of judgment or other
docket activity demonstrating that the full $2,000 FDCPA damages
cap was in fact met, and in light of the fact that the theories
of FDCPA liability against PHS and Seterus differed, the
settlement proceeds from Seterus cannot be considered to be in
full satisfaction of the FDCPA claims against PHS.  Therefore,
there may well still be statutory damages on the table as to the
Plaintiffs' claim of FDCPA liability against PHS, and the case is
not moot.  Furthermore, since there is only one defendant left in
the case, the Judge says he needs not decide in the case the "per
Defendant" question.

Concluding there is still a live case or controversy, the Judge
turns to the essential elements of the Plaintiffs' class claim.
PHS has only challenged the Rule 23(a) factors.  The Judge finds
that (i) the Plaintiffs have met their burden of advancing a
prima facie showing that discovery is likely to produce
substantiation of the class allegations with respect to
ascertainability; (ii) the TACAC pleads a sufficient factual and
legal claim common to the entire class: PHS allegedly demanded
the payment of foreclosure fees and costs in standardized
communications before such fees or costs had been incurred, which
is enough to survive a motion to strike; and (iii) the TACAC
adequately pleads typicality to survive a motion to strike the
class claim.  As to adequacy, the Judge cannot conclude at this
juncture that the Plaintiffs are inadequate representatives as a
matter of law.

For these reasons, Judge Hornak denied without prejudice the
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the Class Allegations of the TCAC.
An appropriate Order will follow.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 7, 2018 Opinion is available
at https://is.gd/n5qd4k from Leagle.com.

LEXANDRA R. TRUNZO, Plaintiff, represented by Danielle R.
Grunden, J.C. Evans Law, P.C., Jonathan R. Burns, Michael P.
Malakoff, P.C., Ralph N. Feldman, Michael Malakoff, PC, John C.
Evans, Specter Specter Evans & Manogue, Michael P. Malakoff,
Michael P. Malakoff, PC & Trent A. Echard -- techard@smgglaw.com
-- Strassburger McKenna Gutnick & Gefsky.

ANTHONY HLISTA, Individually, and on behalf of other similarly
situated former and current homeowners in Pennsylvania,
Plaintiff, represented by Jonathan R. Burns, Michael P. Malakoff,
P.C., Ralph N. Feldman, Michael Malakoff, PC, John C. Evans,
Specter Specter Evans & Manogue, Michael P. Malakoff, Michael P.
Malakoff, PC & Trent A. Echard, Strassburger McKenna Gutnick &
Gefsky.

PHELAN HALLINAN & SCHMIEG, LLP, a law firm and debt collector,
Defendant, represented by Daniel S. Bernheim --
dbernheim@wilentz.com -- Wilentz Goldman & Spitzer & Jonathan J.
Bart -- jbart@wilentz.com -- Wilentz Goldman & Spitzer, P.A..


COMMUNITY BANK OF BERGEN: "Parshall" Suit Underway
--------------------------------------------------
Sussex Bancorp said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission that the company continues to
defend a securities class action in the Superior Court of New
Jersey Chancery Division, Bergen County, entitled Parshall v.
Community Bank of Bergen County, NJ, et al.

A purported securities class action lawsuit has been filed
against Sussex, Community and each of the members of the board of
directors of Community in the Superior Court of New Jersey
Chancery Division, Bergen County.

Captioned Parshall v. Community Bank of Bergen County, NJ, et
al., (No. C-222-17), the case was filed on August 17, 2017,
purports to have been brought on behalf of all public
shareholders of Community, and seeks to enjoin the defendants
from proceeding with the shareholder vote on the proposed merger
transaction at the special meetings or consummating the proposed
merger unless and until Sussex and Community disclose allegedly
omitted information, in addition to paying damages allegedly
suffered by the plaintiffs as a result of the asserted omissions,
as well as attorneys' fees and expenses.

Sussex and Community believe that all allegations in the
complaint are without merit, and further believe that no
supplemental disclosure is required under applicable laws;
however, Sussex and Community wish to make certain supplemental
disclosures related to the merger transaction solely for the
purpose of mooting the allegations contained in the complaint and
avoiding the expense and burden of litigation.

Sussex Bancorp is the holding company for Sussex Bank, which
operates through its Regional Office and Corporate Center in
Rockaway, New Jersey.

A copy of the supplemental disclosure is available at
https://goo.gl/TdpVKH.


COMSCORE INC: Settlement in Fresno Retirees' Suit Underway
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Sommer v. comScore, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-
01820 (S.D.N.Y.), Judge John G Koeltl entered an Order dated Feb.
22, 2018, approving a revised notice and extending the deadline
for mailing notice to class members.

The revised Notice is approved in full.  The definition of
"Notice Date" in paragraph 7(b) of the Preliminary Approval Order
is modified from "twenty (20) business days after the date of
entry of this Order" to "March 13, 2018." The Preliminary
Approval Order otherwise remains in full force and effect.

comScore, Inc. said in a Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission in September 2017, that the parties
reached an agreement in principle in the case, Fresno County
Employees' Retirement Association, et. al. v comScore, Inc., et.
al.

The Company has reached a proposed settlement, subject to court
approval, to settle the consolidated securities class action
pending against the Company and certain current and former
directors and officers of the Company in Fresno County Employees'
Retirement Association, et. al. v comScore, Inc., et. al, in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Under the terms of the proposed settlement, the stockholders in
the class action will receive a total of $27.2 million in cash
and $82.8 million in comScore common stock to be issued and
contributed by comScore to a settlement fund to resolve all
claims asserted against the Company. All of the $27.2 million in
cash would be funded by the Company's insurers. The Company may
also fund all or a portion of the $82.8 million with cash in lieu
of comScore common stock.

The proposed settlement further provides that comScore denies all
claims of wrongdoing or liability. If this proposed settlement is
approved by the court, a notice to the class members will be sent
with information regarding the allocation and distribution of the
settlement fund and instructions on procedures to follow to make
a claim on the settlement fund.

comScore, Inc. is an American media measurement and analytics
company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises,
media and advertising agencies, and publishers. The company is
based in Reston, Virginia.


CONAGRA BRANDS: Mediation in "Briseno" Action Concludes
-------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Robert Briseno v. Conagra Foods, Inc., Case No.
2:11-cv-05379 (C.D. Cal.), Judge Cormac J Carney entered an Order
dated February 16, 2018, Directing Parties to Conclude Mediation
Process and File a Notice of Settlement Status.

Judge Carney said the parties SHALL CONCLUDE their mediation
process within 30 days of this order and, within seven days
thereafter, FILE a JOINT STATUS REPORT regarding the result of
the settlement efforts. The parties are DIRECTED to file their
joint status report in the dockets for both In re ConAgra Foods,
Inc., Case No.CV 11-05379 CJC(AGRx), and In re Wesson Oil
Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation, Case No. ML 11-02291
CJC(AGRx). The stay of this action shall remain in effect until
the conclusion of the mediation process. In addition, the Court
VACATES the deadline for the parties to file a proposed
scheduling order. The Court will set a new deadline if the
parties are unable to reach a settlement within 30 days.

Conagra Brands said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
November 26, 2017, that the company continues to defend itself in
a putative class action suit entitled, Briseno v. ConAgra Foods,
Inc.,

The company is party to a number of putative class action
lawsuits challenging various product claims made in the Company's
product labeling. These matters include Briseno v. ConAgra Foods,
Inc., in which it is alleged that the labeling for Wesson(R) oils
as 100% natural is false and misleading because the oils contain
genetically modified plants and organisms.

In February 2015, the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California granted class certification to permit
plaintiffs to pursue state law claims. The Company appealed to
the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which
affirmed class certification in January 2017. The United States
Supreme Court declined to review the decision and the case has
been remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.

Conagra Brands said "While we cannot predict with certainty the
results of this or any other legal proceeding, we do not expect
this matter to have a material adverse effect on our financial
condition, results of operations, or business."

Conagra Brands, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as
a food company in North America. The company operates through
Grocery & Snacks, Refrigerated & Frozen, International, and
Foodservice segments. The company is based in Chicago, Illinois.


CONAGRA BRANDS: "Negrete" Class Action Suit Still Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------
Conagra Brands, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
November 26, 2017, the company continues to defend itself in
consolidated class action entitled, Negrete v. ConAgra Foods,
Inc., et al.

On March 1, 2018, Judge Fernando M. Olguin granted a Stipulation
for Order Modifying Scheduling Order filed by Plaintiffs Stephen
Anderson, Felicia Avila, Ruben Maldonado, Moises Negrete, Frank
Perez, Felix Villela.

The company is a party to a number of matters challenging the
Company's wage and hour practices. These matters include a number
of putative class actions consolidated under the caption Negrete
v. ConAgra Foods, Inc., et al, pending in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California, in which the plaintiffs
allege a pattern of violations of California and/or federal law
at several current and former Company manufacturing facilities
across the State of California.

Conagra Brands said "While we cannot predict with certainty the
results of this or any other legal proceeding, we do not expect
this matter to have a material adverse effect on our financial
condition, results of operations, or business."

Conagra Brands, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as
a food company in North America. The company operates through
Grocery & Snacks, Refrigerated & Frozen, International, and
Foodservice segments. The company is based in Chicago, Illinois.


COTY INC: "Taylor" Suit Moved to Southern District of Alabama
-------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Patrick J. Hanna of the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Louisiana, Lafayette Division,
transferred the case, TARA TAYLOR, on behalf of herself and all
other similarly situated, v. COTY, INC., ET AL, Civil Action No.
6:17-cv-01359 (W.D. La.) to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Alabama, Southern Division.

This is a class action lawsuit, in which the Plaintiff seeks to
certify a class of similarly-situated individuals, and in which
she has asserted claims against the Defendants for damages
alleged to have resulted from the use of Clairol Balsam Color
hair dyeing kits.

In December 2016, a virtually identical class action lawsuit was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Alabama, Southern Division, styled Jones v. Coty, Inc., et al.,
Civil Action No. 1:16-cv-622-WS-B.  In February 2017, another
virtually identical class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, Western
Division, styled Caddell, et al. v. Coty, Inc., et al., Civil
Action No. 7:17-cv-322-LSC.  In March 2017, another virtually
identical class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of Alabama, Northern Division,
styled Bowens v. Coty, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 2:17-cv-
118-WLW.  In May 2017, another virtually identical class action
lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Mississippi, Southern Division, styled Franks v.
Coty, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 1:17-cv-159-HSO-JCG.  The
Caddell suit, the Bowens suit, and the Franks suit were all
transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Alabama, Southern Division.  The suits were then consolidated.

In October 2017, the class action complaint that initiated this
lawsuit was filed.  At that time, the other suits had already
been filed, and Caddell, Bowens, and Franks had already been
transferred to the Southern District of Alabama, Southern
Division and consolidated with Jones.  The complaint filed in
this lawsuit is virtually identical to the complaint filed in the
Jones, Caddell, Bowens, and Franks cases.  All of the complaints
name a putative class of all persons in the United States or its
territories who, within the relevant and applicable statute of
limitations period, purchased Clairol Balsam Color (also labeled
as "The Balsam Color Kit") that contained p-Phenylenediamine.
The same Defendants were named in all five of the lawsuits, and
the factual allegations and legal claims in all five of the cases
are either identically or substantially overlap.

The Defendants filed their motion to transfer the case to the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Alabama,
Southern Division.  In support of their motion for transfer, the
Defendants represented that the same counsel actually represent
the Plaintiffs in all of the lawsuits, although they have not yet
been enrolled pro hac vice in this suit.  They seek the transfer
of the case to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Alabama, Southern Division, on the basis that the other cases
already pending in Alabama involve substantially similar issues
as the present case and were filed before the present action was
initiated.  The Defendants seek transfer of the action under the
"first-to-file" rule, a discretionary doctrine grounded in
principles of comity and sound judicial administration.

Magistrate Judge Hanna finds that the Jones case was the first of
this group of five cases to be filed, and there is substantial
overlap between that lawsuit, the other three cases currently
pending in Alabama, and this one.  In all of the suits, the Court
will be called upon to determine the same core issue, i.e.,
whether users of Clairol hair dye were damaged by that product.

Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge finds that there is substantial
overlap between this case and the referenced earlier-filed
lawsuits, such that it would be appropriate to transfer this case
to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Alabama,
Southern Division.  Additionally, the Defendants represented that
the Plaintiff in this case has no objection to the requested
transfer.

Magistrate Judge Hanna granted the Defendants' unopposed motion,
and directed the Clerk of Court to transfer the matter to the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Alabama,
Southern Division.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 7, 2018 Memorandum Ruling is
available at https://is.gd/S14ROw from Leagle.com.

Tara Taylor, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Matthew B. Moreland --
mmoreland@becnellaw.com -- Becnel Law Firm.

Coty Inc, Proctor & Gamble Co Inc, Proctor & Gamble Manufacturing
Co Inc, Proctor & Gamble Distributing L L C & Proctor & Gamble
Hair Care L L C, Defendants, represented by Brian M. LeCompte --
blecompte@mcglinchey.com -- McGlinchey Stafford.


DICK'S SPORTING: Court Partly Grants "Greer" Class Notice
---------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JIMMY GREER, individually, and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. DICK'S SPORTING GOODS, INC., a
Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 2:15-cv-01063-KJM-CKD (E.D. Cal.), Judge
Kimberley J. Mueller of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of California granted in part and denied in part the
Plaintiff's motion for approval of proposed class notice and
notice plan.

The Plaintiff filed a class action complaint on March 19, 2015,
in Sacramento County Superior Court, alleging DSG violated
several provisions of the California Labor Code and California
Business and Professions Code Section 17200.  DSG removed the
action to the Court, and the Plaintiff subsequently filed the
operative first amended complaint.

On April 13, 2017, the Court granted the Plaintiff's motion to
certify two subclasses under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
23(b)(3). See generally Class Cert. Order, ECF No. 45. The first
certified class is defined as all non-exempt or hourly paid
employees who worked for Defendant in its DSG retail stores
within California at any time from March 18, 2011 until Jan. 31,
2015 ("Security Check Class").  The second certified class is
defined as all non-exempt or hourly paid employees who worked for
Defendant in its DSG retail stores within California at any time
from March 18, 2011 until April 13, 2017 ("Business Reimbursement
Class").

On Jan. 10, 2018, the Court denied without prejudice DSG's motion
to stay the action pending the California Supreme Court's
decisions on two questions certified by the Ninth Circuit.  After
DSG filed its motion to stay, but before the Court issued its
order denying the motion, the Plaintiff moved for approval of its
proposed class notice and notice plan.  DSG opposes the motion,
contending (1) the Court should stay the action and defer ruling
on class notice until the stay is lifted, or, alternatively, (2)
the Court should approve DSG's proposed notice.

The Court took the matter under submission after oral argument,
Jan. 12, 2017, and resolves the motion.

Judge Mueller granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiff's
motion for approval of proposed class notice and notice plan.
The Judge accepts, among other things, DSG's (i) proposed change
to the caption and proposed changes to the "WHAT IS THE
LITIGATION ABOUT?" section in the body of the notice; and (ii)
placement of the "Options" chart to immediately follow the "WHAT
IS THE LITIGATION ABOUT" section rather than at the end of the
notice in the "Rights and Options" Chart.

Although not requested by the parties, the Judge requires the
following changes: In the section, "WHAT IS A CLASS ACTION?," she
strikes the parties' proposed language, as it is unnecessarily
legalistic and potentially confusing.  In addition, as the first
sentence in the section "WHY SHOULD I READ THIS NOTICE?," the
parties will add: "Dick's Sporting Goods' records show that you
currently work, or previously worked, for Dick's."

The Judge accepts the Plaintiff's proposed opt-out form which
will be included with the notice mailed to class members, with
the following adjustments to the second sentence: (1) the word
"back" should be deleted and (2) the claims administrator's
mailing address should be provided at the end of the sentence.
Accordingly, the latter half of the second sentence should read,
"you must complete and sign this form and mail it to the Claims
Administrator at [address] before [date]."

Judge Mueller is not satisfied by the mere inclusion of skip
tracing and remailing costs in CPT's estimate.  She orders the
Plaintiff to provide the Court with a supplemental explanation of
up to five pages correcting the omission within 14 days of the
order.

Finally, the Judge orders the parties to meet and confer to
implement changes required in the Order and jointly file an
updated class notice and opt-out form incorporating the Court's
required changes within 14-days of the Order.  In addition, the
filing may include each party's objections, if any, to the
court's revisions.  Any such objections should be explained
concisely and should not be filed as a formal brief.

After receiving and reviewing the parties' joint filing, the
Court will issue an order noting additional changes, if any,
approving the notice and issuing a notice plan.  As discussed at
hearing, DSG should be prepared to provide class information
within ten days of the Court's order approving the notice and
issuing a notice plan.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 7, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/3roNzS from Leagle.com.

Jimmy Greer, Plaintiff, represented by Melissa Grant, Capstone
Law APC, Robert J. Drexler -- Robert.Drexler@Capstonelawyers.com
-- Capstone Law APC, Bevin Elaine Allen Pike --
Bevin.Pike@capstonelawyers.com -- Capstone Law APC & Jonathan
Sing Lee -- Jonathan.Lee@capstonelawyers.com -- Capstone Law APC.

Dick's Sporting Goods, Inc., Defendant, represented by Paul S.
Cowie -- pcowie@sheppardmullin.com -- Sheppard Mullin, Caryn F.
Horner -- chorner@sheppardmullin.com -- Sheppard Mullin Richter &
Hampton LLP, Cassidy Mariko English --
cenglish@sheppardmullin.com -- Sheppard Mullin Richler & Hampton,
Michael Thomas Campbell -- mcampbell@sheppardmullin.com --
Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP & Stephen Luther Taeusch --
staeusch@sheppardmullin.com -- Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton
LLP.


EVINE LIVE: "Horan" Suit Remains Pending in New York
----------------------------------------------------
EVINE Live Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
October 28, 2017, that the company continues to defend a
purported class action case filed by William Horan.

On June 26, 2017, a purported class action case was filed by an
individual, William Horan, against both the Company and Invicta
Watch Co. of America, Inc. ("Invicta") in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York, asserting
claims under the federal Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and New York
General Business Law Section 349.

The claims relate to the warranty provided with the Invicta watch
that the plaintiff allegedly purchased through the Company.
Plaintiff alleges that the defendants breached the warranty,
failed to disclose material information and\or made false
representations concerning the warranty. This case is pled as a
putative class action, which means that the plaintiff seeks to
represent a class of all other similarly situated individuals who
purchased an Invicta watch through the Company.

The complaint seeks, among other relief, class certification of
the lawsuit, unspecified damages, injunctive relief, costs and
expenses, including attorneys' fees, and such other relief as the
court might find just and proper.

EVINE Live said "Given the uncertainty of litigation, the
preliminary stage of this case and the legal standards that must
be met for, among other things, class certification, the Company
cannot reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of loss
that may result from this action."

EVINE Live Inc. is a multiplatform video commerce company that
offers a mix of proprietary, exclusive and name brands directly
to consumers in an engaging and informative shopping experience
through TV, online and mobile devices. The company is based in
Eden Prairie Minnesota.


EVINE LIVE: "Gregory" TCPA Suit Underway
----------------------------------------
EVINE Live Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
October 28, 2017, that the company continues to defend a
purported class action suit filed by Betty Gregory.

On June 29, 2017, a purported class action case was filed by an
individual, Betty Gregory, against the Company in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California,
asserting claims under the federal Telephone Consumer Protection
Act ("TCPA").

The plaintiff alleges that the Company unlawfully contacted her
on her cellular telephone without her prior express consent.
This case is pled as a putative class action, and the plaintiff
seeks to represent a class of all other individuals who received
telephone calls similar to the ones she allegedly received from
the Company and the Company's third-party collection vendors.
The TCPA provides for recovery of actual damages or $500 for each
violation, whichever is greater.

If it is determined that a defendant acted willfully or knowingly
in violating the TCPA, the amount of the award may be increased
by up to three times the amount provided above. The complaint
seeks, among other relief, class certification of the lawsuit,
unspecified damages, injunctive relief, costs and expenses,
including attorneys' fees, and such other relief as the court
might find just and proper.

EVINE Live said "Given the uncertainty of litigation, the
preliminary stage of this case and the legal standards that must
be met for, among other things, class certification, the Company
cannot reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of loss
that may result from this action."

EVINE Live Inc. is a multiplatform video commerce company that
offers a mix of proprietary, exclusive and name brands directly
to consumers in an engaging and informative shopping experience
through TV, online and mobile devices. The company is based in
Eden Prairie Minnesota.


FEDERAL REALTY: Enters into $400,000 Settlement of Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Realty Investment Trust disclosed in its Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2017, that it has participated in a class
action settlement for which the Company's share is around US$0.4
million.

The Company said, "In November 2016, we were included as a
defendant in a class action lawsuit, in the circuit court for
Montgomery County, Maryland, related to predatory towing by a
third party company we had retained to provide towing services at
several of our properties in Montgomery County, Maryland.

"We, individually and collectively with other members of the more
than 500 property owner defendant class, have undertaken numerous
legal actions to challenge property owner liability in this case,
including challenging the certification of the class as a matter
of law; however, all of these legal actions have been
unsuccessful.

"Given the costs and risks of continuing litigation on this
matter, we elected to participate in a settlement for which our
share is approximately US$0.4 million.  We expect that this
settlement amount will be reimbursed by insurance.  The
settlement did not cover liability for certain tows that were
included in the lawsuit that the defendant class believes cannot
be pursued because of the statute of limitations.  Accordingly,
we do not believe we should have any additional liability for
these remaining tows; however, if we are unsuccessful in
dismissing these tows from the litigation, our liability would be
approximately US$0.2 million, assuming payment on the same terms
as the settlement."

Based in Rockville, Md., Federal Realty Investment Trust is an
equity real estate investment trust specializing in the
ownership, management, development and redevelopment of retail
and mixed-use properties. Its properties are located primarily in
densely populated and affluent communities in strategic
metropolitan markets in the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast regions of
the United States, as well as in California.


FIRST MID-ILLINOIS: Faces "Parshall" Class Action Suit in Del.
--------------------------------------------------------------
First Mid-Illinois Bancshares Inc is defending itself against an
alleged class action complaint in Delaware, according to the
Company's Form 8-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on February 13, 2018.

On December 11, 2017, First Mid-Illinois Bancshares, Inc. (the
"Company") and Project Hawks Merger Sub LLC, a newly formed
Delaware limited liability company and wholly-owned subsidiary of
the Company ("Merger Sub"), entered into an Agreement and Plan of
Merger (as amended by the First Amendment to Agreement and Plan
of Merger entered into as of January 18, 2018) with First
BancTrust Corporation, a Delaware corporation ("First Bank"),
pursuant to which, among other things, the Company agreed to
acquire 100% of the issued and outstanding shares of First Bank
pursuant to a business combination whereby First Bank will merge
with and into Merger Sub, with Merger Sub as the surviving entity
and a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company (the "Merger").

An alleged class action complaint was filed by a purported
stockholder of First Bank in the United States District Court for
the District of Delaware captioned Parshall v. First BancTrust
Corporation (Case No. 1:18-cv-00218) against the Company, Merger
Sub, First Bank and members of First Bank's board of directors
(the "Lawsuit").  Among other things, the Lawsuit alleges that
the Registration Statement on Form S-4 filed by the Company on
January 22, 2018, failed to disclose allegedly material
information relating to the Company's and First Bank's financial
projections, the analyses performed by First Bank's financial
advisor, and alleged potential conflicts of interest of First
Bank's officers, directors and financial advisor.  The plaintiff
seeks, among other relief, to enjoin the Merger from proceeding.

First Mid-Illinois said, "The Company and First Bank believe that
the factual allegations in the complaint are without merit and
intend to defend vigorously against these allegations."

First Mid-Illinois Bancshares, Inc., through its subsidiaries,
provides community banking products and services to commercial,
retail, and agricultural customers in the United States.  The
Company was incorporated in 1981 and is headquartered in Mattoon,
Illinois.


FORD MOTOR: Rosen Law Firm, Pomerantz to Lead in "Ruckel"
---------------------------------------------------------
In the case, PAUL RUCKEL, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY,
JAMES PATRICK HACKETT, ALAN MULALLY, MARK FIELDS, and ROBERT L.
SHANKS, Defendants, Civil Case No. 17-cv-13536 (E.D. Mich.),
Judge Linda V. Parker of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan, Southern Division, appointed James Emerson,
the William T. Higgs Trust, Power Holding Corp. and the November
Family Trust DD 5/5/1983 as the Lead Plaintiffs; and the Rosen
Law Firm, P.A. and Pomerantz, LLP as the Co-Lead Counsel.

The putative class action lawsuit is filed under the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 ("PSLRA").  The lawsuit
asserts violations of federal law based on alleged false and
misleading statements and omissions concerning Ford's business,
operations, and prospects.  The Plaintiffs claim the statements
and/or omissions concerned flaws in the manufacturing process,
supply chain and/or quality control that resulted in at least
841,000 Ford vehicles being unsafe to drive.

The following movants filed a motion seeking appointment as the
Lead Plaintiffs and appointment of their choice of a Lead
Counsel: James Emerson, the William T. Higgs Trust, Power Holding
Corp. and the November Family Trust DD 5/5/1983 ("Ford Investor
Group").

Judge Parker finds that facing no opposition, the Ford Investor
Group benefits from the PSLRA's statutory presumption that they
are the most adequate Plaintiffs to represent the purported
class.  They have the largest financial interest in the relief
sought (whether considered individually or taken together) and
they make a prima facie showing that they satisfy the
requirements of Rule 23.

First, the proposed group consists of four investors, which is
far smaller than many of the groups courts have found incapable
of cooperating to oversee counsel's conduct and control the
litigation.  Second, collectively the Ford Investor Group has a
significant claimed loss resulting from Defendants' purported
misconduct: (1) $1,269,231 on a FIFO basis and (2) 1,178,835 on a
LIFO basis.  As such, they are not the "professional Plaintiffs"
whose appointment the PSLRA sought to avoid.  The Ford Investor
Group, unlike investors with a nominal financial interest in the
class action, has the incentive to monitor the litigation,
control lead counsel, and police any proposed settlement.

For these reasons, Judge Parker concludes that Ford Investor
Group should be appointed the Lead Plaintiffs.  Their submissions
demonstrate that their chosen counsel is competent, experienced,
and qualified to represent the interests of the Plaintiff class.
Accordingly, the Judge granted Ford Investors Group's motion.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 7, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/i0Nyt3 from Leagle.com.

Paul Ruckel, Plaintiff, represented by Joseph A. Hood, II --
ahood@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP & Jeremy A. Lieberman --
jalieberman@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP.

Ford Motor Company, James Patrick Hackett, Alan Mulally, Mark
Fields & Robert L. Shanks, Defendants, represented by Jerome S.
Fortinsky -- jfortinsky@shearman.com -- Shearman & Sterling,
Patrick G. Seyferth -- seyferth@bsplaw.com -- Bush, Seyferth &
Paige & Roger P. Meyers -- meyers@bsplaw.com -- Bush Seyferth &
Paige, PLLC.

James Emerson & William T. Higgs Trust, Power Holding
Corporation, and the November Family Trust, Movants, represented
by Jeremy A. Lieberma, Pomerantz LLP.


FRANKLIN FINANCIAL: Term Sheet Entered in "Kalen" Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Franklin Financial Services Corporation said in its Form 8-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that
Farmers and Merchants Trust Company of Chambersburg, a wholly-
owned commercial bank subsidiary of Franklin Financial Services
had entered into a Class Action Settlement Term Sheet with the
named plaintiffs and certain of the other remaining defendants in
the Kalen, et al., v. Farmers and Merchants Trust Company of
Chambersburg, et al.

On December 29, 2017, Farmers and Merchants Trust Company of
Chambersburg ("F&M Trust"), the wholly-owned commercial bank
subsidiary of Franklin Financial Services Corporation (the
"Registrant"), entered into a Class Action Settlement Term Sheet
(the "Term Sheet") with the named plaintiffs and certain of the
other remaining defendants in the Kalen, et al., v. Farmers and
Merchants Trust Company of Chambersburg, et al. (Case No. 2:15-
CV-01435 WB) case filed in United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania and described in the company's
current reports on Form 8-K filed July 29, 2016, July 28, 2017
and November 3, 2017.

The Term Sheet was entered into by the parties following a
mediation of the case held pursuant to a Stipulation for
Selection of Mediator submitted jointly by the parties and
approved by the court, described in the company's current report
on Form 8-K filed November 3, 2017.

The Term Sheet sets forth the basic terms upon which the case is
to be settled, subject to the parties entering into a definitive
settlement agreement and approval of the terms of the settlement
by the Court.

The Term Sheet provides for F&M Trust to make a settlement
payment of $10,000,000 in full and final settlement of all claims
that the named plaintiffs and members of the Settlement Class (as
defined by the Term Sheet) have brought or could have brought
against F&M Trust. The Term Sheet further provides that the
definitive settlement agreement is to provide for a general
release of claims by all parties to the case. The terms of
settlement will be subject to preliminary and final approval by
the client.

Franklin Financial Services Corporation operates as the bank
holding company for Farmers and Merchants Trust Company of
Chambersburg that provides commercial and retail banking, and
trust services to small and medium-sized businesses, individuals,
governmental entities, and non-profit organizations in
Pennsylvania. The company is based in Chambersburg, Pennsylvania.


FUYAO GLASS: Court Conditionally Certifies "Staggs" Workers Class
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Julie Staggs, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Fuyao Glass
America, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-191 (S.D. Ohio), Judge
Thomas M. Rose of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio, Western Division, Dayton, granted the
Plaintiffs' Motion to Conditionally Certify Collective Action and
For Court-Authorized Notice.

The Plaintiffs have moved the Court for an order conditionally
certifying the lawsuit as a collective action and authorizing the
dissemination of the Notice and Consent to Join form to the
following current and former employees of Defendant:

     a. All current and former hourly, non-exempt production
employees of the Defendant working in the Moraine, Ohio location
who during the previous three years have worked at least forty
hours in any workweek.

     b. All current and former hourly, non-exempt production
employees of the Defendant working in the Moraine, Ohio location
who have worked any period of hours and have been paid for that
work in the form of a gift card and not wages or the appropriate
overtime wages.

The Plaintiffs seek an order conditionally certifying a
collective action for unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor
Standards Act defined as all persons who are or have been
employed by Self-Reliance as Direct Care staff in Ohio, or other
job titles performing similar job duties, who did not receive
premium overtime pay at a rate of not less than one and one-half
times their regular rate of pay when they worked more than 40
hours in a workweek, at any time from Aug. 25, 2012 through the
entry of final judgment.

Judge Moore finds that the allegations in the Complaint and the
Plaintiffs' declarations agree that the Defendant's staff share
similar primary job duties and responsibilities and are alleged
to be victims of the same policy, decision and practice to deny
them overtime pay.  This suffices to consider the Plaintiffs and
the putative collective members and sub-Class members similarly
situated for purposes of conditional certification.

In addition, he finds that the Plaintiffs' proposed Notice and
Consent to Join form is accurate and informative.  Both the
proposed Notice and Consent to Join form advises putative
collective members of the pending litigation, describes the legal
and factual bases of the Plaintiffs' claims, informs collective
members of the right to opt in and that participation in the
lawsuit is voluntary, and provides instructions on how to opt in.

For these reasons, Judge Moore granted the Plaintiffs' Motion to
Conditionally Certify Collective Action and For Court-Authorized
Notice.

In order to accurately, efficiently, and quickly facilitate the
Court-authorized Notice and Consent to Join form, the Judge
ordered the Defendant to produce to the Plaintiffs' counsel a
list of all putative class members or sub-Class members who have
worked for Defendant at the Moraine, Ohio facility in the last
three years, including their names, positions of employment,
last-known mailing addresses, last-known telephone numbers, email
addresses, work locations, and dates of employment.  The
Defendant is to provide this information to the Plaintiffs'
counsel within 14 days of the Court's Order granting the Motion.

The Judge permitted the Plaintiffs' counsel to send within 20
days of the Order granting the Motion, the Court-authorized
Notice and Consent Form via U.S. Mail and electronic mail to
putative class members.  The Notice should also be posted at
Self-Reliance facilities.  The Plaintiffs also request a 60-day
opt-in period for the putative class.  Additionally, the
Plaintiffs' counsel is authorized to send a second, identical
copy of the Notice and Consent Form to members of the putative
class 30 days into the opt-in period, reminding them of the
deadline for the submission of the Consent Forms.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 7, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/eB1qkx from Leagle.com.

Julie Staggs, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Kathleen Tefend --
mtefend@barkanmeizlish.com -- Barkan Meizlish Handelman Goodin
Derose Wentz, LLP, Ryan Keith Hymore -- rkhymore@bmanganolaw.com
-- Mangano Law Offices Co., LPA, Trent R. Taylor --
ttaylor@barkanmeizlish.com -- Barkan Meizlish Handelman Goodin
DeRose Wentz, LLP & Robert E. DeRose, II --
bderose@barkanmeizlish.com -- Barkan Meizlish Handelman Goodin
DeRose Wentz, LLP.

Fuyao Glass America, Inc., Defendant, represented by Lindsay
Marie Nichols -- Lindsay.Nichols@ThompsonHine.com -- Thompson
Hine, Malcom Scott Young -- Scott.Young@ThompsonHine.com --
Thompson Hine LLP & Megan S. Glowacki --
Megan.Glowacki@ThompsonHine.com -- Thompson Hine, LLP.


GENERAC POWER: Court Allows Limited Discovery in TCPA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division, issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order
allowing limited discovery in the case captioned CRAFTWOOD II,
INC., et al., Plaintiff, v. GENERAC POWER SYSTEMS, INC. and
COMPREHENSIVE MARKETING, INC., Defendants, No. 17 C 4105 (N.D.
Cal.).

CMI filed an amended Rule 12(b)(1) Motion claiming the court
lacked subject matter jurisdiction because, according to the
Motion, a claimed CMI/Craftwood consensual relationship allowed
the conduct complained of in the Complaint.

The plaintiff is a professional litigant having been the
plaintiff in numerous junk fax cases filed a class action
Complaint charging Comprehensive Marketing, Inc. (CMI) and
Generac Power Systems, Inc. (Generac) with having violated the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

According to the Motion, the Plaintiff had not suffered harm and
therefore the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.  The
parties appeared before Judge Gettleman and discussed the
defendants' pending Motion to prohibit the plaintiffs from
deposing the movants.  At the end of the hearing, Judge Gettleman
entered an Order that provided for limited discovery on the issue
raised in the jurisdictional Motion.

Thus, the judge said the plaintiffs could take discovery narrowed
to responding to defendants' Rule 12(b)(1) Motion, which he said
concerned the alleged prior business relationship between
defendants and plaintiff.  The Order immediately went on to say
that discovery is stayed in all other respects.  The Order made
clear that Judge Gettleman was allowing very limited discovery,
while excluding broader discovery into the merits of the overall
case. Only literary perversity or jaundiced partisanship could
read the Order in a more expansive way.

Based on Judge Gettleman's Order, the plaintiffs demanded that
they be allowed to take the deposition of a corporate
representative of each defendant, limited to the claimed prior
relationship between the parties, which is the very basis on
which the defendants' jurisdictional Motion is based. The
Defendants insist that they need not require that they designate
a corporate representative to be deposed on the substance of the
allegations in the Motion to Dismiss.

Their view is that the plaintiffs can adequately deal with the
questions raised in the Motion with Declarations of their own or
other proof that would support their position. They have gone so
far as to contend that depositions of the defendants are
unnecessary since they say evidence already shows that a business
relationship between the parties in fact existed.

The depositions of the defendants that were envisioned by Judge
Gettleman's Order and by this Order are to be limited in number
and in subject matter. Questions may be asked that deal with the
basis of the jurisdictional Motions brought by the defendants.
Contrary to what the plaintiffs seem to have suggested in their
Reply Brief, the permissible discovery is not to be turned into a
vehicle to obliquely obtain wide-ranging merits discovery. And
yet, the plaintiffs' Reply Brief ominously concludes with this
heading: The district court has already concluded that merits
discovery will not be allowed. The instant Order repeats that
conclusion.

Of course, under the circumstances of this case, the discovery
permitted by this and Judge Gettleman's Order, is merits based.
But, to the extent that additional discovery relates to the
merits, it will not be allowed.

The narrowed discovery permitted by Judge Gettleman's Order and
this Order should proceed within time limits.

A full-text copy of the District Court's January 22, 2018
Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/yaepf5e4 from Leagle.com.

Craftwood II, Inc., a California corporation doing business as
Bay Hardware & Craftwood III, Inc., a California corporation,
individually and as representatives of all others similarly
situated doing business as Lunada Bay Hardware, Plaintiffs,
represented by Charles Darryl Cordero -- cdc@paynefears.com
-- Payne & Fears LLP, Damon Rubin -- dr@paynefears.com -- Payne &
Fears Llp, Matthew K. Brown -- mkb@paynefears.com -- Payne &
Fears LLP, Michael D. Furlong, Trobe, Babowice & Associates, LLC,
& Peter Michael Trobe, Trobe Babowice & Associates, LLC, 404 W.
Water St, Waukegan, IL 60085

Generac Power Systems, Inc., a Wisconsin corporation, Defendant,
represented by Molly Anne Arranz -- gamundsen@salawus.com --
Smith Amundsen, LLC, Erin Anne Walsh -- ewalsh@salawus.com --
Smith Amundsen LLC & John C. Ochoa -- jochoa@salawus.com -- Smith
Amundsen LLC.

Comprehensive Marketing, Inc., an Illinois corporation,
Defendant, represented by Paul Bozych -- pbozych@nzalaw.com --
Nielson, Zehe & Antas, P.C., John J. Murphy, Nielson, Zehe &
Antas, P.C. & Preetha Jayakumar -- pjayakumar@nzalaw.com --
Nielsen, Zehe & Antas, P.C.


GENERAL MOTORS: Over 100 Putative Class Actions Pending at Feb.6
----------------------------------------------------------------
General Motors Company has more than 100 putative class actions
pending in the United States related to product recalls in 2014,
according to Motors Liquidation Company GUC Trust's Form 10-Q
filed on February 13, 2018, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2017.

Motors Liquidation said, "In its annual report on Form 10-K filed
February 6, 2018, New GM also disclosed that over 100 putative
class actions are pending against New GM in various federal and
state trial courts in the United States seeking compensatory and
other damages and other relief for economic losses allegedly
resulting from one or more of the recalls announced in 2014
and/or the underlying condition of vehicles covered by those
recalls.  Certain of these over 100 cases, or the Ignition Switch
Economic Loss Actions, concern the Ignition Switch Recall,
certain other cases, or the Other Economic Loss Actions, concern
recalls other than the Ignition Switch Recall, and yet others
concern both the Ignition Switch Recall and one or more other
recalls (such actions are described herein interchangeably as
Ignition Switch Economic Loss Actions or Other Economic Loss
Actions).  In addition, New GM disclosed that several hundred
actions are pending against New GM in various federal and state
courts in the United States seeking compensatory and other
damages and other relief for personal injury and other claims
allegedly arising from accidents that occurred as a result of the
underlying condition of the vehicles subject to the recalls
initiated by New GM.  Certain of these several hundred cases, or
the Ignition Switch Personal Injury Actions, concern the Ignition
Switch Recall, certain other cases, or the Other Personal Injury
Actions, concern recalls other than the Ignition Switch Recall,
and yet others concern both the Ignition Switch Recall and one or
more other recalls (such actions are described herein
interchangeably as Ignition Switch Personal Injury Actions or
Other Personal Injury Actions)."


GENERAL MOTORS: Court Narrow Claims in "Sloan" Warranty Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Edward M. Chen of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California granted in part and denied in part the
Defendant's motion to dismiss the case, MONTEVILLE SLOAN, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. GENERAL MOTORS LLC, Defendant, Case No. 16-cv-
07244-EMC (N.D. Cal.).

The Plaintiffs allege that GM manufactured and sold a car engine
that, due to several internal defects, consumes excessive amounts
of oil, resulting in engine damage that presents a safety risk of
sudden shutdowns or engine fires.

They allege that the Gen IV Vortec 5300 engine suffers from an
"inherent" "Oil Consumption Defect."  The engine was installed in
each of the Class Vehicles: the 2010-2014 Chevrolet Avalanche;
2010-2012 Chevrolet Colorado; 2010-2013 Chevrolet Express; 2010-
2013 Chevrolet Silverado; 2010-2014 Chevrolet Suburban; 2010-2014
Chevrolet Tahoe; Yukon; and the 2010-2014 GMC Yukon XL.

The Plaintiffs identify five defects that contribute to the
overall Oil Consumption Defect.  First, the primary cause are
piston rings that do not maintain sufficient tension to keep oil
in the crankcase.  Second, the Active Fuel Management ("AFM")
system contributes to the defect by spraying oil directly at the
piston skirts, which overloads and fouls the defective piston
rings, triggering oil migration past the rings.  Third, the PCV
system vacuums oil from the valve train into the intake system,
where it is ultimately burned in the combustion chambers
contributing to excessive oil combustion.  Fourth, the defective
Oil Life Monitoring System does not monitor oil level, but
rather, engine conditions like revolutions and temperature to
predict oil quality.  Because it does not take oil level into
account, the system directs drivers to travel thousands of miles
with inadequate engine lubricity levels, wearing out and damaging
moving internal engine components.  Fifth, the oil pressure gauge
does not provide any indication as to when the oil pressure falls
to levels low enough to damage internally lubricated parts or
cause engine failure and the oil canister symbol does not
illuminate until well past the time when the Class Vehicles are
critically oil starved.

The Plaintiffs also discuss the impact of the alleged defect on
their own vehicles and on other consumers.

GM moves to dismiss on several grounds which can broadly be
grouped under challenges to personal jurisdiction for the out-of-
state Plaintiffs; failure to plead an unreasonable safety hazard
or pre-sale knowledge that gives rise to a duty to disclose in
support of the consumer protection and fraud claims; failure to
adequately plead reliance on the omission; failure to allege the
defect manifested during the implied warranty period; and various
statute of limitations or pre-suit notice issues.

In sum, Judge Chen granted in part and denied in part the
Defendant's motion to dismiss.  He denied the Defendant's motion
to dismiss claims by the out-of-state Plaintiffs for lack of
personal jurisdiction because the challenge is waived with
respect to the original Named Plaintiffs and the exercise of
personal jurisdiction over the new Named Plaintiffs' claims is
permitted under the pendent personal jurisdiction doctrine.  He
denied the Defendant's motion to dismiss the fraud and consumer
protection claims because the Plaintiffs have adequately pled
materiality, pre-sale knowledge, and reliance, except with
respect to the non-dealership Plaintiffs the Doepels, Ware,
Warpinski, Byrge, and Thacker, for whom GM's motion is granted
with leave to amend.

Judge Chen granted the Defendant's request to dismiss the
consumer protection claims on statute of limitations grounds as
follows: (i) where tolling is unavailable under the relevant
state law (Plaintiff Olivier); and (ii) delayed discovery rule
tolling is available but inadequately pled (Plaintiffs Goodwin,
Bradford, Hanneken, Smith, Sanchez, and Thacker), with leave to
amend.

He denied the Defendant's request to dismiss consumer protection
claims on statute of limitations grounds because tolling is
available for Plaintiffs Shorter, Luddington, Madison, Vita,
Jones, Gulling, and Bednarek.  He also denied the Defendant's
request to dismiss the implied warranty claims for Plaintiffs
Smith, Molina, Warpinski, Byrge, Del Valle, Olivier, Peterson,
Ware, Kitchen, Vita, Ehrke, Gulling, Jones, and Sloan because the
face of the complaint does not demonstrate their claims are time-
barred.

The Judge further denied the Defendant's request to dismiss the
implied warranty claims for Plaintiffs Siquieros, the Cralleys,
Brannan, Goodwin, Perkins, Bradford, Faulkner, Dahl, Martell,
Graziano, Thacker, Robertson because, although they failed to
bring their claims within the applicable limitations period,
their claims may be tolled by the fraudulent concealment
doctrine.

Judge Chen granted the Defendant's request to dismiss (i) the
implied and express warranty claims of Plaintiff Martell
(Oregon), with leave to amend, because Oregon law requires
privity, which has not been demonstrated; (ii) the Magnuson Moss
Warranty Act claims of: (a) Plaintiffs Clausen, Harris,
Ludington, Shorter, Bednarek, Hanneken, and the Doepels because
they do not bring implied warranty claims, and the express
warranty claims are pled only to preserve them on appeal, having
been previously dismissed by the Court; and (b) Plaintiffs
Gulling and Jones' claims for implied warranty in tort under Ohio
law; (iii) claims of Plaintiffs Brannan and Goodwin for failure
to give pre-suit notice, but denied the request for Plaintiffs
Bradford, Dahl, Peterson, Vita, Sloan, due to the variations in
state law; and (iv) the unjust enrichment claims as time-barred,
with leave to amend, because Plaintiffs Siquieros, the Cralleys,
Ludington, Shorter, Hanneken, Madison, Smith, Molina, Warpinski,
Martell, Graziano, Sanchez, Clausen, Harris, Robertson, and
Bednarek fail to adequately plead delayed discovery.

Finally, Judge Chen denied the Defendant's request to dismiss the
unjust enrichment claims on statute of limitations grounds for
Plaintiffs Brannan and Vita because the claims are brought within
the statute of limitations, and for Plaintiffs Goodwin, Perkins,
and Dah because tolling is permitted and adequately pleaded under
the fraudulent concealment doctrine.

The order disposes of Docket No. 70.  Consistent with the Order,
the Judge ordered that the Plaintiffs may file an amended
complaint within 30 days.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 7, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/qTlmrW from Leagle.com.

Monteville Sloan, Jr., Raul Siqueiros, Donald Ludington, Thomas
Shorter, Gabriel Del Valle & Steven Ehrke, Plaintiffs,
represented by Lori Erin Andrus -- lori@andrusanderson.com --
Andrus Anderson LLP, Adam J. Levitt, DiCello Levitt & Casey LLC,
Andrew England Brashier -- andrew.brashier@beasleyallen.com --
Beasley Allen, pro hac vice, Anthony J. Garcia --
Anthony@aglawinc.com -- AG Law, P.A., Archibald Irwin Grubb, II,
Beasley Allen, 218 Commerce St. PO Box 4160, Montgomery, AL
36103, pro hac vice, Daniel Richard Ferri -- dferri@dlcfirm.com -
- DiCello Levitt & Casey LLC, H. Clay Barnett, III --
clay.barnett@beasleyallen.com -- Beasley, Allen, Crow, Methvin,
Portis and Miles, P.C., pro hac vice, Jennell Kristine Shannon --
jshannon@johnsonbecker.com -- Johnson Becker, pro hac vice, John
Ernst Tangren -- jtangren@dlcfirm.com -- DiCello Levitt & Casey
LLC, Mark A. DiCello -- madicello@dlcfirm.com -- The DiCello Law
Firm, pro hac vice, Timothy J. Becker --
tbecker@johnsonbecker.com -- Johnson Becker, PLLC, pro hac vice,
Wilson Daniel Miles, III -- dee.miles@beasleyallen.com -- Beasley
Allen, pro hac vice & Jennie Lee Anderson --
jennie@andrusanderson.com -- Andrus Anderson LLP.

Joseph Brannan, Plaintiff, represented by Lori Erin Andrus,
Andrus Anderson LLP, Adam J. Levitt, DiCello Levitt & Casey LLC,
Amy E. Keller, DiCello Levitt & Casey LLC, pro hac vice, Andrew
England Brashier, Beasley Allen, pro hac vice, Anthony J. Garcia,
AG Law, P.A., pro hac vice, Archibald Irwin Grubb, II, Beasley
Allen, pro hac vice, Daniel Richard Ferri, DiCello Levitt & Casey
LLC, H. Clay Barnett, III, Beasley, Allen, Crow, Methvin, Portis
and Miles, P.C., pro hac vice, Jennell Kristine Shannon, Johnson
Becker, pro hac vice, John Ernst Tangren, DiCello Levitt & Casey
LLC, Mark A. DiCello, The DiCello Law Firm, Marybeth V. Gibson,
The Finley Firm, PC, pro hac vice, Timothy J. Becker, Johnson
Becker, PLLC, pro hac vice, Wilson Daniel Miles, III, Beasley,
Allen, Crow, Methvin, Portis & Miles, P.C. & Jennie Lee Anderson,
Andrus Anderson LLP.

Gail Lannom, Bradley K. Zierke, Ross Dahl, Drew Peterson, Barbara
Molina, Bill Mauch, Thomas Gulling & Ronald Jones, Plaintiffs,
represented by Lori Erin Andrus, Andrus Anderson LLP, Adam J.
Levitt, DiCello Levitt & Casey LLC, Amy E. Keller, DiCello Levitt
& Casey LLC, pro hac vice, Andrew England Brashier, Beasley
Allen, pro hac vice, Anthony J. Garcia, AG Law, P.A., pro hac
vice, Archibald Irwin Grubb, II, Beasley Allen, pro hac vice,
Daniel Richard Ferri, DiCello Levitt & Casey LLC, H. Clay
Barnett, III, Beasley, Allen, Crow, Methvin, Portis and Miles,
P.C., pro hac vice, Jennell Kristine Shannon, Johnson Becker, pro
hac vice, John Ernst Tangren, DiCello Levitt & Casey LLC, Mark A.
DiCello, The DiCello Law Firm, Marybeth V. Gibson, The Finley
Firm, PC, pro hac vice, Timothy J. Becker, Johnson Becker, PLLC,
pro hac vice, Wilson Daniel Miles, III, Beasley, Allen, Crow,
Methvin, Portis & Miles, P.C. & Jennie Lee Anderson, Andrus
Anderson LLP.

John Graziano, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Jennie Lee Anderson, Andrus
Anderson LLP, Adam J. Levitt, DiCello Levitt & Casey LLC, Amy E.
Keller, DiCello Levitt & Casey LLC, pro hac vice, Andrew England
Brashier, Beasley Allen, pro hac vice, Anthony J. Garcia, AG Law,
P.A., Archibald Irwin Grubb, II, Beasley Allen, pro hac vice,
Daniel Richard Ferri, DiCello Levitt & Casey LLC, H. Clay
Barnett, III, Beasley, Allen, Crow, Methvin, Portis and Miles,
P.C., pro hac vice, Jennell Kristine Shannon, Johnson Becker, pro
hac vice, John Ernst Tangren, DiCello Levitt & Casey LLC, Mark A.
DiCello, The DiCello Law Firm, Timothy J. Becker, Johnson Becker,
PLLC, pro hac vice & Wilson Daniel Miles, III, Beasley, Allen,
Crow, Methvin, Portis & Miles, P.C.

Rudy Sanchez, Plaintiff, represented by Adam J. Levitt, DiCello
Levitt & Casey LLC, Amy E. Keller, DiCello Levitt & Casey LLC,
pro hac vice, Jennell Kristine Shannon, Johnson Becker, Timothy
J. Becker, Johnson Becker, PLLC & Jennie Lee Anderson, Andrus
Anderson LLP.

Mike Warpinski, Marc Perkins, Joseph Olivier, Christopher
Thacker, Derick Bradford, Larry Goodwin, James Robertson, Joshua
Byrge, Randy Clausen, Steve Kitchen, Ted Edgecomb, Kevin
Hanneken, Michael Ware, Scott Smith, John Neubauer, James
Faulkner & Dan Madson, Plaintiffs, represented by Adam J. Levitt,
DiCello Levitt & Casey LLC, Amy E. Keller, DiCello Levitt & Casey
LLC, pro hac vice, Anthony J. Garcia, AG Law, P.A., pro hac vice,
Jennell Kristine Shannon, Johnson Becker, Timothy J. Becker,
Johnson Becker, PLLC & Jennie Lee Anderson, Andrus Anderson LLP.

Jonas Bednarek, Plaintiff, represented by Adam J. Levitt, DiCello
Levitt & Casey LLC, Amy E. Keller, DiCello Levitt & Casey LLC,
pro hac vice, Anthony J. Garcia, AG Law, P.A., pro hac vice, Eric
J. Haag, Atterbury Kammer Haag S.C., pro hac vice, Jennell
Kristine Shannon, Johnson Becker, Timothy J. Becker, Johnson
Becker, PLLC & Jennie Lee Anderson, Andrus Anderson LLP.

Doepel Katelyn, Plaintiff, represented by Jennie Lee Anderson,
Andrus Anderson LLP & Adam J. Levitt, DiCello Levitt & Casey LLC.

Katelyn Doepel, Todd Cralley, Jill Cralley, Dennis Vita, Edwin
Doepel, Kelly Harris & William Martell, Plaintiffs, represented
by Amy E. Keller, DiCello Levitt & Casey LLC, pro hac vice,
Jennie Lee Anderson, Andrus Anderson LLP & Adam J. Levitt,
DiCello Levitt & Casey LLC.

General Motors LLC, Defendant, represented by Joseph John Ybarra
-- Joseph.Ybarra@hygmlaw.com -- Huang Ybarra Gelberg & May LLP &
Gregory Richard Oxford -- goxford@iccolaw.com -- Isaacs Clouse
Crose & Oxford LLP.


GLOBAL POWER: 3rd Amended Complaint Filed in "Budde" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Global Power Equipment Group Inc. said in its Form 10-Q for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2017, that in the case,
Budde v. Global Power Equipment Group Inc., pending in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Texas, the plaintiffs
on January 15, 2018, filed their third amended complaint, which
the Company is currently evaluating with counsel.

Stockholders of Global Power Equipment Group Inc. (the "Company")
filed a putative class action against the Company and three of
its former officers in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Texas. Plaintiffs brought claims under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended, on behalf of a purported class of stockholders who
acquired shares of the Company during the period from September
7, 2011, through May 6, 2015. On May 1, 2017, following the
Company's March 15, 2017 restatement, plaintiffs filed a Second
Amended Complaint. The Second Amended Complaint alleged that a
September 7, 2011 current report on Form 8-K and every quarterly
report on Form 10-Q and annual report on Form 10-K filed by the
Company from March 14, 2012 through May 6, 2015 contained false
and misleading information.

On June 26, 2017, the Company and the other defendants moved to
dismiss the Second Amended Complaint in its entirety. On December
27, 2017, the Court issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order
granting the motion. The Court found that, with respect to each
of the defendants, plaintiffs failed to plead facts supporting a
strong inference of scienter, or the required intent to deceive,
manipulate or defraud, or act with severe recklessness.

The Court also ruled that plaintiffs failed to allege loss
causation with regard to certain alleged misstatements made in
connection with the 2011 sale of the Company's Deltak, L.L.C.
subsidiary. Finally, the Court also dismissed plaintiffs'
"control person" claims under Section 20(a) in light of the
Court's dismissal of the underlying Section 10(b) claims.

Global Power said in its Form 8-K filing on January 2, 2018, that
the Court granted plaintiffs leave to further amend their
complaint to attempt to address the defects identified in the
Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order. Plaintiffs have until
January 15, 2018, to file an amended complaint. Alternatively, if
plaintiffs determine not to file a further amendment, they may
appeal the District Court's decision to the United States Court
of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

Global Power Equipment Group Inc. provides custom-engineered
solutions, and modification and maintenance services for
customers in the energy and industrial markets worldwide. Its
Mechanical Solutions segment designs, engineers, manufactures,
installs, commissions, and services filter houses, inlet and
exhaust systems, diverter dampers, selective catalytic reduction
systems, auxiliary control skids and enclosures, expansion
joints, air filtration elements, and retrofit and upgrade
solutions for power generation markets.


HCP INC: Boynton Beach Pension Fund's Litigation Still Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------------
HCP, Inc. continues to face a class action lawsuit by Boynton
Beach Firefighters' Pension Fund, according to the Company's Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017.

On May 9, 2016, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a
putative class action complaint, Boynton Beach Firefighters'
Pension Fund v. HCP, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:16-cv-01106-JJH, in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio against
the Company, certain of its officers, HCRMC, and certain of its
officers, asserting violations of the federal securities laws.
The suit asserts claims under sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act")
and alleges that the Company made certain false or misleading
statements relating to the value of and risks concerning its
investment in HCRMC by allegedly failing to disclose that HCRMC
had engaged in billing fraud, as alleged by the U.S. Department
of Justice in a pending suit against HCRMC arising from the False
Claims Act.  The plaintiff in the suit demands compensatory
damages (in an unspecified amount), costs and expenses (including
attorneys' fees and expert fees), and equitable, injunctive, or
other relief as the Court deems just and proper.

On November 28, 2017, the Court appointed Societe Generale
Securities GmbH (SGSS Germany) and the City of Birmingham
Retirement and Relief Systems (Birmingham) as Co-Lead Plaintiffs
in the class action.  Co-Lead Plaintiffs must file a consolidated
Amended Complaint by February 28, 2018.  Defendants will then
have until March 30, 2018 to respond to the Amended Complaint and
file a motion to dismiss.

HCP, Inc. said, "The Company believes the suit to be without
merit and intends to vigorously defend against it."

HCP, Inc., a Standard & Poor's ("S&P") 500 company, is a Maryland
corporation that is organized to qualify as a real estate
investment trust ("REIT") which, together with its consolidated
entities (collectively, "HCP" or the "Company"), invests
primarily in real estate serving the healthcare industry in the
United States ("U.S."). The Company acquires, develops, leases,
manages and disposes of healthcare real estate and provides
financing to healthcare providers. The Company's diverse
portfolio is comprised of investments in the following reportable
healthcare segments: (i) senior housing triple-net; (ii) senior
housing operating portfolio ("SHOP"); (iii) life science and (iv)
medical office.


HD SUPPLY: Georgia Shareholders Class Action Underway
-----------------------------------------------------
HD Supply, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
October 29, 2017, that the company continues to defend a
shareholders putative class action in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Georgia.

On July 10, 2017 and August 8, 2017, shareholders filed putative
class action complaints in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia, alleging that HD Supply and certain
senior members of its management (collectively, the "defendants")
made certain false or misleading public statements in violation
of the federal securities laws between November 9, 2016 and June
5, 2017, inclusive (the "original securities complaints").

Subsequently, the two securities cases were consolidated, and, on
November 16, 2017, the lead plaintiffs appointed by the Court
filed a Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint (the "Amended
Complaint") against the defendants on behalf of all persons other
than defendants who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's
common stock between November 9, 2016 and June 5, 2017,
inclusive.

The Amended Complaint alleges that defendants made certain false
or misleading public statements, primarily relating to the
Company's progress in addressing certain supply chain disruption
issues encountered in the Company's Facilities Maintenance
business unit. The Amended Complaint asserts claims against the
defendants under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5, and seeks class
certification under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as well
as unspecified monetary damages, pre-judgment and post-judgment
interest, and attorneys' fees and other costs.

The Company intends to defend the lawsuit vigorously. Given the
stage of the complaint and the claims and issues presented, the
Company cannot reasonably estimate at this time the possible loss
or range of loss, if any, that may arise from the unresolved
lawsuit.

HD Supply is one of the largest industrial distributors in North
America. The company operates through two reportable segments:
Facilities Maintenance and Construction & Industrial. The company
is based in Atlanta, Georgia.


HEALTHSOURCE GLOBAL: $600K Settlement in "MacKall" Has Final Nod
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, KAREN MacKALL, Plaintiff, v. HEALTHSOURCE GLOBAL
STAFFING, INC., Defendant, Case No. 16-cv-03810-WHO (N.D. Cal.),
Judge William H. Orrick of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California granted the Plaintiffs' Motion
for Final Approval of the Class Action Settlement.

On Feb. 7, 2018, the Parties appeared before the Court on the
Plaintiffs' Motion.  After considering the evidence and argument
presented by all Parties in attendance, Judge Orrick granted the
Plaintiffs' motion for final approval in full.

On Oct. 23, 2017, the Judge certified for preliminary approval,
the Settlement Class, consisting of the Plaintiffs and a class of
non-exempt employees defined as all current and former non-exempt
employees who performed any work in California in any healthcare
position including, but not limited to, traveling nurses at any
time during the class period, which is from May 23, 2012 through
the date of Preliminary Approval, who will share in a Settlement
of $600,000.

The Gross Settlement Fund will be distributed as follows: (1) the
Class Counsel Fees of $200,000; (2) the Class Counsel costs
payment of $13,754.46; (3) the Class Representative Enhancement
Awards of $17,500 collectively to the Named Plaintiffs (Mackall
to receive $10,000 and Lacombe to receive $7,500, respectively);
(4) the Claims Administrator Costs of $16,350; and (5) LWDA
distribution of $15,000.  Of the $15,000, 75% or $11,250 will go
the LWDA and $3,750 will be paid to the Class.

The Judge ordered that the remaining amount will be the Net
Settlement Amount, which will be distributed in its entirety to
the Class Members who have not excluded themselves from the
Settlement based on the number of Qualifying Work Weeks the
Settlement Class Member worked for the Defendant during the Class
Period.  The Settlement Administrator will issue payment
according to the terms of the settlement.  He excluded from the
terms of the Settlement Gwenis Alexis, Ashley Bedford, Shemeka
Bellard, Andrea Dixon, Colette Gaceta, Deaundria Harris, Carol
Hochstein, Steven Holland, Monica Rogers, and Tonya Williams as
requested.

Having also considered the motion for attorney's fees and costs,
Judge Orrick awarded attorney's fees to the Class Counsel, the
Mahoney Law Group, APC in the amount of $200,000 and costs in the
amount of $13,754.46.  He further ordered that the costs of
administration of the Settlement as set forth in the declaration
of Zachary Cooley of KCC Settlement Administrators be paid out of
the settlement in the amount of $16,350.  He ordered that the
Class Representatives; Mackall and Lacombe, will receive $17,500
collectively (Mackall to receive $10,000 and Lacombe to receive
$7,500, respectively).

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 7, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/uzdp2B from Leagle.com.

Karen Mackall, as an individual and on behalf of all other
similarly situated employees, Plaintiff, represented by Kevin
Mahoney -- kmahoney@mahoney-law.net -- Mahoney Law Group, APC,
Treana Louise Allen -- tallen@mahoney-law.net -- & Na'Shaun Lamar
Neal -- nneal@mahoney-law.net -- Mahoney Law Group.

Healthsource Global Staffing, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Adam Ryan Rosenthal -- arosenthal@littler.com -- Sheppard Mullin
Richter & Hampton LLP, Thomas Roy Kaufman --
tkaufman@sheppardmullin.com -- Sheppard, Mullin, Richter &
Hampton LLP & Brian Samuel Fong -- bfong@sheppardmullin.com --
Sheppard Mullin Richter Hampton.


HERBALIFE LTD: "Rodgers" Class Action Suit Underway
---------------------------------------------------
Herbalife Ltd. said in its Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2017, that the company continues to defend itself in
a case filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida, entitled, Rodgers, et al. v Herbalife Ltd., et al.

On September 18, 2017, the Company and certain of its
subsidiaries and members were named as defendants in a purported
class action lawsuit, titled Rodgers, et al. v Herbalife Ltd., et
al. and filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida, which alleges violations of Florida's
Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices statute and federal
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations statutes, unjust
enrichment, and negligent misrepresentation.

Herbalife said "The Company believes the lawsuit is without merit
and will vigorously defend against the claims in the lawsuit."

Herbalife Ltd. is a global multi-level marketing corporation that
develops, markets and sells nutrition supplements, weight
management, sports nutrition and personal-care products.


HOLY REDEEMER: Court Narrows Claims in "Snyder" ERISA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, KAREN SNYDER, CHERYL ROBINSON-KELLY, BARBARA
FREDERICI and KIMBERLY NIEDRIST, Individually and on Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated, v. HOLY REDEEMER HEALTH SYSTEM,
d/b/a HOLY REDEEMER HOSPITAL, THE HOLY REDEEMER HEALTH SYSTEM
PENSION PLAN COMMITTEE and DOE DEFENDANTS 1-20, Civil Action No.
17-960 (E.D. Pa.), Judge Timothy J. Savage of the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted in part
and denied in part the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Amended
Class Action Complaint.

The employees of the HRHS brought the putative class action under
the Employment Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA")
to enforce compliance with ERISA's reporting and funding
requirements.  The Plaintiffs assert subject matter jurisdiction
under both 28 U.S.C. Section 1331 and 29 U.S.C. Section
1132(e)(1).

Moving to dismiss under both Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), HRHS challenges subject matter
jurisdiction.  It argues that the pension plan is exempt from
ERISA's requirements because it is a "church plan" under 29
U.S.C. Section 1003(b)(2).  In its motion, HRHS relies upon
voluminous documents that are neither attached to the complaint
nor matters of public record.

Judge Savage concludes that there is federal question
jurisdiction.  However, he cannot determine whether the pension
plan is exempt as a "church plan," entitling HRHS to dismissal
under Rule 12(b)(6), because there are factual disputes that must
be resolved.  Therefore, he will deny the motion to the extent it
seeks dismissal under Rule 12(b)(1) and will convert the Rule
12(b)(6) motion to one for summary judgment under Rule 56.

The Judge explains that whether the "church plan" exemption
applies is not a jurisdictional issue, but rather a merits
decision.  It clearly presents a federal question because it
"arises under" a federal law.  He must determine whether the HRHS
Pension Plan is exempt from ERISA as a "church plan" in the first
instance.  If it is, HRHS is entitled to judgment in its favor.

He says there is no doubt that the HRHS Plan is church
affiliated, and its principal purpose is to administer and fund
the benefit plan.  What is disputed is whether the HRHS Plan is
"controlled by or associated with" the Roman Catholic Church.
The Plaintiffs in their amended complaint cast doubt upon this
requirement for the "church plan" exemption.  They allege that
HRHS was not established or maintained by a church.  Nor is the
Plan.  They then recite a number of facts that could contradict
HRHS's claim that it is a non-profit corporation because it has
ownership interests in for-profit businesses.

Deciding this critical issue calls for a merits decision
requiring the resolution of numerous factual disputes which
cannot be done on a motion to dismiss.  Therefore, Judge Savage
denied the motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) and converted
the motion under Rule 12(b)(6) to one for summary judgment.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 7, 2018 Memorandum Opinion
and Order are available at https://is.gd/CwARAn and
https://is.gd/Shd7Jb, respectively, from Leagle.com.

KAREN SNYDER, CHERYL ROBINSON-KELLY, BARBARA FREDERICI & KIMBERLY
NIEDRIST, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, Plaintiffs, represented by GERALD D. WELLS, III --
gwells@cwglaw.com -- CONNOLLY WELLS & GRAY, LLP.

HOLY REDEEMER HEALTH SYSTEM, doing business as HOLY REDEEMER
HOSPITAL, Defendant, represented by MARISSA RACHEL PARKER --
mparker@stradley.com -- STRADLEY RONON STEVENS & YOUNG & BRANDON
MICHAEL RILEY -- briley@stradley.com -- STRADLEY RONON STEVENS &
YOUNG.


HUB GROUP: Awaits Court Decision on Bid to Clarify Dismissal
------------------------------------------------------------
Hub Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2016, that the parties in the case filed by Salvador
Robles, are awaiting court decision on plaintiffs' motion to
clarify whether the court's dismissal of the claims of all
purported class members who signed settlement agreements was with
or without prejudice.

On January 25, 2013, a complaint was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of California (Sacramento
Division) by Salvador Robles against the Company's subsidiary,
Comtrak Logistics, Inc., now known as Hub Group Trucking, Inc.
Mr. Robles drove a truck for Hub Group Trucking in California,
first as an independent contractor and then as an employee.

The action was brought on behalf of a class comprised of present
and former California-based truck drivers for Hub Group Trucking
who were classified as independent contractors, from January 2009
to August 2014. The complaint alleges Hub Group Trucking has
misclassified such drivers as independent contractors and that
such drivers were employees. The complaint asserts various
violations of the California Labor Code and claims that Hub Group
Trucking has engaged in unfair competition practices. The
complaint seeks, among other things, declaratory and injunctive
relief, compensatory damages and attorney's fees.

In May 2013, the complaint was amended to add similar claims
based on Mr. Robles' status as an employed company driver. These
additional claims are only on behalf of Mr. Robles and not a
putative class.

The Company believes that the California independent contractor
truck drivers were properly classified as independent contractors
at all times. Nevertheless, because lawsuits are expensive, time-
consuming and could interrupt the company's business operations,
Hub Group Trucking decided to make settlement offers to
individual drivers with respect to the claims alleged in this
lawsuit, without admitting liability.

As of September 30, 2016, 93% of the California drivers have
accepted the settlement offers. In late 2014, Hub Group Trucking
decided to convert its model from independent contractors to
employee drivers in California. In early 2016, Hub Group Trucking
closed its operations in Southern California.

On April 3, 2015, the Robles case was transferred to the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Tennessee (Western
Division) in Memphis. In May 2015, the plaintiffs in the Robles
case filed a Second Amended Complaint ("SAC") which names 334
current and former Hub Group Trucking drivers as "interested
putative class members." In addition to reasserting their
existing claims, the SAC includes claims post-conversion, added
two new plaintiffs and seeks a judicial declaration that the
settlement agreements are unenforceable.

In June 2015, Hub Group Trucking filed a motion to dismiss the
SAC and on July 19, 2016, Hub Group Trucking's motion to dismiss
was granted in part, and denied in part, by the District Court.
The motion to dismiss was granted for the claims of all purported
class members who have signed settlement agreements and on
plaintiffs' claims based on quantum merit and it was denied with
respect to federal preemption and choice of law. On August 11,
2016, Plaintiffs filed a motion to clarify whether the Court's
dismissal of the claims of all purported class members who signed
settlement agreements was with or without prejudice and, if the
dismissal was with prejudice, Plaintiffs moved the Court to
revise and reconsider the order. Plaintiffs' motion to clarify is
fully briefed and the parties are awaiting a decision by the
Court.

Hub Group, Inc. is a Delaware corporation that was incorporated
on March 8, 1995. The company is one of North America's leading
asset-light freight transportation management companies. The
company offers comprehensive intermodal, truck brokerage and
logistics services.


HUB GROUP: "Adame" Class Suit in California Still Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------
Hub Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2016, that the company continues to defend a class
action suit in San Bernardino County, California, entitled Adame,
Et Al. v Hub Group, Inc., Et Al.

On August 5, 2015, the Plaintiffs' law firm in the Robles case
filed a lawsuit in state court in San Bernardino County,
California on behalf of 63 named Plaintiffs against Hub Group
Trucking and five Company employees. The lawsuit alleges claims
similar to those being made in Robles and seeks monetary
penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act. Of the 63
named Plaintiffs, at least 58 of them previously accepted the
settlement offers referenced.

On October 29, 2015, Defendants filed a notice of removal to
remove the case from state court in San Bernardino to federal
court in the Central District of California. On November 19,
2015, Defendants filed a motion to transfer the case to federal
court in Memphis, Tennessee and also filed a motion to dismiss
the case pursuant to a clause in the independent contractor
agreement stating that Tennessee law applies. Also on November
19, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a motion to remand the case back to
state court, claiming that the federal court lacks jurisdiction
over the case. The court granted Plaintiffs' motion to remand to
the state court in San Bernardino County on April 7, 2016,
mooting Defendants' motions to transfer and dismiss.

On July 11, 2016, Defendants filed several motions in state
court, asking the court to dismiss and/or stay the Plaintiffs'
suit for various reasons. On July 11, 2016, Defendants filed
several motions in state court, asking the court to dismiss
and/or stay the Plaintiffs' suit for various reasons. During a
hearing on October 5, 2016, the judge issued an oral tentative
ruling stating that the choice of forum provision was
unenforceable.

On Defendants' motion to dismiss the individual defendants, the
court allowed for supplemental briefing for additional arguments
regarding individual liability under PAGA. The court did not
reach a decision regarding the motion to stay pending the outcome
in Robles. Plaintiffs filed their supplemental brief on November
9, 2016 to which Defendants responded on December 6, 2016. The
court had scheduled a hearing for January 19, 2017, which was
continued until February 21, 2017.

Hub Group, Inc. is a Delaware corporation that was incorporated
on March 8, 1995. The company is one of North America's leading
asset-light freight transportation management companies. The
company offers comprehensive intermodal, truck brokerage and
logistics services.


HUB GROUP: "Lubinski" Class Suit Completed
------------------------------------------
Hub Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2016, that the class action suit filed by Christian
Lubinski, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division has been completed.

On September 12, 2014, a complaint was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Eastern Division) by
Christian Lubinski against Hub Group Trucking. The action was
brought on behalf of a class comprised of present and former
owner-operators providing delivery services in Illinois for Hub
Group Trucking.

The complaint alleged Hub Group Trucking misclassified such
drivers as independent contractors and that such drivers were
employees. The complaint also alleged that Hub Group Trucking
made illegal deductions from the drivers' pay and failed to
properly compensate the drivers for all hours worked, reimburse
business expenses, pay employment taxes, and provide workers'
compensation and other employment benefits. The complaint
asserted various violations of the Illinois Wage Payment and
Collections Act and claimed that Hub Group Trucking was unjustly
enriched. The complaint sought, among other things, monetary
damages for the relevant statutory period and attorneys' fees.

On October 24, 2014, the Lubinski case was transferred to the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee
(Western Division), in Memphis.  On September 22, 2015, the court
granted Hub Group Trucking's motion to dismiss Lubinski's
Illinois law claims with prejudice based on the contractual
choice of law provision, which provided that Tennessee law
governed. The court denied as moot Hub Group Trucking's motion to
dismiss based on federal preemption. On October 2, 2015, Lubinski
appealed this order to the United States Court of Appeals for the
Sixth Circuit in Cincinnati.

On December 17, 2015, Lubinski filed his brief in support of his
appeal of the motion to dismiss, asserting for the first time
that the federal court did not have jurisdiction over the case
due to a lack of diversity of citizenship. Hub Group Trucking
filed its response brief on January 19, 2016, in part arguing
that Lubinski had himself alleged diversity of citizenship in his
complaint. Lubinski filed his reply brief on February 5, 2016.

On April 1, 2016, the Sixth Circuit remanded the case to the
district court -- without ruling on the merits -- for the
district court "to consider the argument and admit the evidence
necessary to determine the question of federal subject-matter
jurisdiction."

On July 11, 2016, with his federal district court case still
pending, Lubinski filed an additional putative class action
Complaint, with the same claims, in Illinois state court. On the
same day, Hub Group Trucking filed a declaratory judgment
complaint in Tennessee state court, seeking a declaration that
Lubinski's claims must be heard in Tennessee (based on the
contractual choice-of-forum provision) and that the claims must
be dismissed because Tennessee law controls and Lubinski's claims
are preempted by federal law.

On October 26, 2016, Lubinski filed a motion to dismiss for lack
of federal subject-matter jurisdiction and a motion for leave to
file an amended complaint, attempting to "clarify" the putative
class definition and arguing that the Class Action Fairness Act's
exceptions to jurisdiction apply.

In early 2017, Plaintiff's counsel advised Hub Group Trucking
that Lubinski would no longer challenge federal jurisdiction. On
February 15, 2017, the District Court adopted the parties'
stipulation and found that there is federal subject-matter
jurisdiction.

On March 22, 2017, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth
Circuit granted Plaintiff's motion to recall the mandate and
reinstate Lubinski's appeal of the district court's order
dismissing the case. On June 8, 2017, the Sixth Circuit issued an
Opinion affirming the District Court's dismissal of Plantiff's
claims.  On June 30, 2017, the Sixth Circuit issued the Mandate
in the case, which terminates the 6th Circuit appeal proceedings.
Plaintiff had until September 6, 2017, to ask the U.S. Supreme
Court to review the case. Plaintiff did not file any petition
with the Supreme Court, so the case is completed.

Hub Group, Inc. is a Delaware corporation that was incorporated
on March 8, 1995. The company is one of North America's leading
asset-light freight transportation management companies. The
company offers comprehensive intermodal, truck brokerage and
logistics services.


IDT CORP: JDS1 LLC's Class Action Suit Stayed
---------------------------------------------
IDT Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
October 31, 2017, that the Delaware Chancery Court issued an
order staying the case pending the closing of the transaction
between Verizon and Straight Path on the grounds that the claims
are not ripe.

On July 31, 2013, the Company completed a pro rata distribution
of the common stock of the Company's subsidiary Straight Path
Communications Inc. ("Straight Path") to the Company's
stockholders of record as of the close of business on July 25,
2013 (the "Straight Path Spin-Off").

On July 5, 2017, plaintiff JDS1, LLC, on behalf of itself and all
other similarly situated stockholders of Straight Path, and
derivatively on behalf of Straight Path as nominal defendant,
filed a putative class action and derivative complaint in the
Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against the Company,
The Patrick Henry Trust (a trust formed by Howard S. Jonas that
holds record and beneficial ownership of certain of his shares of
Straight Path), Howard S. Jonas, and each of Straight Path's
directors.

The complaint alleges that the Company aided and abetted Straight
Path Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer Davidi
Jonas, and Howard S. Jonas in his capacity as controlling
stockholder of Straight Path, in breaching their fiduciary duties
to Straight Path in connection with the settlement of claims
between Straight Path and the Company related to potential
indemnification claims concerning Straight Path's obligations
under the Consent Decree it entered into with the Federal
Communications Commission ("FCC"), as well as the proposed sale
of Straight Path's subsidiary Straight Path IP Group, Inc.
("SPIP") to the Company in connection with that settlement. That
action was consolidated with a similar action that was initiated
by The Arbitrage Fund.

The Plaintiffs are seeking, among other things, (i) a declaration
that the action may be maintained as a class action or in the
alternative, that demand on the Straight Path Board is excused;
(ii) that the term sheet is invalid; (iii) awarding damages for
the unfair price stockholders are receiving in the merger between
Straight Path and Verizon Communications Inc. for their shares of
Straight Path's Class B common stock; and (iv) ordering Howard S.
Jonas, Davidi Jonas, and the Company to disgorge any profits for
the benefit of the class Plaintiffs.

On August 28, 2017, the Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. On
September 24, 2017, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint. The Company intends to vigorously defend the
action. On November 20, 2017, the Delaware Chancery Court issued
an order staying the case pending the closing of the transaction
between Verizon and Straight Path on the grounds that the claims
are not ripe.

IDT Corporation is a multinational holding company with
operations primarily in the telecommunications and payment
industries. The company has two reportable business segments,
Telecom Platform Services and net2phone-Unified Communications as
a Service, or net2phone-UCaaS (formerly known as UCaaS). The
company is based in Newark New Jersey.


JC PENNEY: Marcus & Johnson Class Suits Settled for $97.5 Million
-----------------------------------------------------------------
J.C. Penney Company, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended October 31, 2017, that parties have reached an agreement in
principle to settle the consolidated securities class action for
$97.5 million.

The Company, Myron E. Ullman, III and Kenneth H. Hannah are
parties to the Marcus consolidated purported class action lawsuit
in the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas, Tyler
Division. The Marcus consolidated complaint is purportedly
brought on behalf of persons who acquired the company's common
stock during the period from August 20, 2013 through September
26, 2013, and alleges claims for violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.

Plaintiff claims that the defendants made false and misleading
statements and/or omissions regarding the Company's financial
condition and business prospects that caused our common stock to
trade at artificially inflated prices. The consolidated complaint
seeks class certification, unspecified compensatory damages,
including interest, reasonable costs and expenses, and other
relief as the court may deem just and proper.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint
which was denied by the court on September 29, 2015. Defendants
filed an answer to the consolidated complaint on November 12,
2015. Plaintiff filed a motion for class certification on January
25, 2016, and on August 29, 2016, a magistrate judge issued a
report and recommendation that the motion for class certification
be granted. The district court adopted this report and
recommendation granting class certification on March 8, 2017.

Also, on August 26, 2014, plaintiff Nathan Johnson filed a
purported class action lawsuit against the Company, Myron E.
Ullman, III and Kenneth H. Hannah in the U.S. District Court,
Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division. The suit is
purportedly brought on behalf of persons who acquired our
securities other than common stock during the period from August
20, 2013 through September 26, 2013, generally mirrors the
allegations contained in the Marcus lawsuit, and seeks similar
relief.

On June 8, 2015, plaintiff in the Marcus lawsuit amended the
consolidated complaint to include the members of the purported
class in the Johnson lawsuit, and on June 10, 2015, the Johnson
lawsuit was consolidated into the Marcus lawsuit.

The parties have reached an agreement in principle, subject to
final court approval, to settle the consolidated securities class
action for $97.5 million, which will be funded by insurance. The
court granted preliminary approval of the settlement on June 24,
2017.

J. C. Penney said "While no assurance can be given as to the
ultimate outcome of these matters, we believe that the final
resolution of these actions will not have a material adverse
effect on our results of operations, financial position,
liquidity or capital resources."

J. C. Penney Company, Inc., through its subsidiary J. C. Penney
Corporation, Inc., sells merchandise through department stores.
The company sells family apparel and footwear, accessories, fine
and fashion jewelry, beauty products, home furnishings, and
appliances, as well as provides various services, including
styling salon, optical, portrait photography, and custom
decorating. The company is based in Plano, Texas.


JC PENNEY: Court Grants Initial Approval to $4.5MM Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
J.C. Penney Company, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended October 31, 2017, that the court preliminary granted a $4.5
settlement in an ERISA-related class suit.

JCP and certain present and former members of JCP's Board of
Directors have been sued in a purported class action complaint by
plaintiffs Roberto Ramirez and Thomas Ihle, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, which was filed on July
8, 2014 in the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas,
Tyler Division.

The suit alleges that the defendants violated Section 502 of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) by breaching
fiduciary duties relating to the J. C. Penney Corporation, Inc.
Savings, Profit-Sharing and Stock Ownership Plan (the Plan). The
class period is alleged to be between November 1, 2011 and
September 27, 2013. Plaintiffs allege that they and others who
invested in or held Company stock in the Plan during this period
were injured because defendants allegedly made false and
misleading statements and/or omissions regarding the Company's
financial condition and business prospects that caused the
Company's common stock to trade at artificially inflated prices.

The complaint seeks class certification, declaratory relief, a
constructive trust, reimbursement of alleged losses to the Plan,
actual damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and other relief.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint which was
granted in part and denied in part by the court on September 29,
2015. The parties reached a settlement agreement, subject to
final court approval, pursuant to which JCP would make available
$4.5 million to settle class members' claims, and the court
granted preliminary approval of the settlement on January 3,
2017.

J. C. Penney said "While no assurance can be given as to the
ultimate outcome of this matter, we believe that the final
resolution of this action will not have a material adverse effect
on our results of operations, financial position, liquidity or
capital resources."

J. C. Penney Company, Inc., through its subsidiary J. C. Penney
Corporation, Inc., sells merchandise through department stores.
The company sells family apparel and footwear, accessories, fine
and fashion jewelry, beauty products, home furnishings, and
appliances, as well as provides various services, including
styling salon, optical, portrait photography, and custom
decorating. The company is based in Plano, Texas.


JC PENNEY: Settlement of Calif & Illinois Suits Win Final OK
------------------------------------------------------------
J.C. Penney Company, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended October 31, 2017, that the California and Illinois courts
in the employment class action-related suits have granted final
approval on the parties' settlements.

JCP is a defendant in a class action proceeding entitled Tschudy
v. JCPenney Corporation filed on April 15, 2011 in the U.S.
District Court, Southern District of California. The lawsuit
alleges that JCP violated the California Labor Code in connection
with the alleged forfeiture of accrued and vested vacation time
under its "My Time Off" policy.

The class consists of all JCP employees who worked in California
from April 5, 2007 to the present. Plaintiffs amended the
complaint to assert additional claims under the Illinois Wage
Payment and Collection Act on behalf of all JCP employees who
worked in Illinois from January 1, 2004 to the present.

After the court granted JCP's motion to transfer the Illinois
claims, those claims are now pending in a separate action in the
U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois, entitled
Garcia v. JCPenney Corporation. The lawsuits seek compensatory
damages, penalties, interest, disgorgement, declaratory and
injunctive relief, and attorney's fees and costs.

Plaintiffs in both lawsuits filed motions, which the Company
opposed, to certify these actions on behalf of all employees in
California and Illinois based on the specific claims at issue. On
December 17, 2014, the California court granted plaintiffs'
motion for class certification. Pursuant to a motion by the
Company, the California court decertified the class on December
9, 2015. On March 30, 2016, the California court granted JCP's
motion for summary judgment.

On April 26, 2016, the California plaintiffs filed a notice of
appeal. On May 4, 2016, the California court entered judgment for
JCP on all plaintiffs' claims. The Illinois court denied without
prejudice plaintiffs' motion for class certification pending the
filing of an amended complaint. Plaintiffs filed their amended
complaint in the Illinois lawsuit on April 14, 2015 and the
Company answered. On July 2, 2015, the Illinois plaintiffs
renewed their motion for class certification, which the Illinois
court granted on March 8, 2016.

The parties have reached a settlement agreement, subject to final
court approval, to resolve the California action for $1.75
million. The California court granted final approval of the
settlement on November 3, 2017. The parties have also reached a
settlement agreement to resolve the Illinois action for $5
million. The Illinois court granted final approval of the
settlement on August 9, 2017.

J. C. Penney Company, Inc., through its subsidiary J. C. Penney
Corporation, Inc., sells merchandise through department stores.
The company sells family apparel and footwear, accessories, fine
and fashion jewelry, beauty products, home furnishings, and
appliances, as well as provides various services, including
styling salon, optical, portrait photography, and custom
decorating. The company is based in Plano, Texas.


JETBLUE AIRWAYS: Court Dismisses "Alatortev" With Leave to Amend
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge William H. Orrick of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California granted JetBlue's motion to
dismiss the case, IGOR A. ALATORTEV, Plaintiff, v. JETBLUE
AIRWAYS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-04859-WHO (N.D. Cal.).

In June 2015, JetBlue instituted a new policy to charge a
passenger traveling on a domestic flight a fee of $25 for his
first bag checked (or $20 under certain conditions), $35 for the
second bag, and $100 for a third bag.  The baggage fee is charged
in a transaction separate and apart from the customer's purchase
of the airline ticket.

On May 12, 2017, Alatortev and his wife were charged a fee of $25
for JetBlue to deliver his wife's bag from Boston, Massachusetts,
to Sacramento, California.  According to Alatortev, he and his
wife were "advised that their flight would be diverted to San
Francisco, California." Once they arrived in San Francisco, they
discovered, and it was confirmed, that their bag had been lost.
Alatortev alleges that JetBlue did not ultimately deliver the bag
until May 15, 2017, when he had to return to the airport and pick
it up.  JetBlue did not refund the baggage fee, but instead
offered them a credit that would require them to do business with
JetBlue in the future.

The Plaintiff alleges that JetBlue took the deliberate self-
imposed undertaking to create a baggage fee, set the baggage fee,
and require its passengers to pay the baggage fee.  He brought
claims on behalf of a putative class against JetBlue purportedly
based on JetBlue's Contract of Carriage ("COC") for breach of
contract, unjust enrichment/quasi contract, and breach of the
implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

JetBlue moves to dismiss the complaint, arguing that Alatortev's
complaint must be dismissed on several grounds: (1) his state-law
claims are expressly preempted by the Airline Deregulation Act of
1978 ("ADA") because they relate to JetBlue's "prices" and
"services"; (2) his state-law claims are impliedly preempted by
principles of field and conflict preemption because they relate
to an area pervasively regulated by the federal government under
the Federal Aviation Act; (3) his complaint fails to state a
claim for relief; (4) the Complaint fails to state a basis for
personal jurisdiction over JetBlue in California; and (5) he does
not have standing to assert claims based on the delayed delivery
of his wife's bag.

Judge Orrick finds in its current state, Alatortev's breach of
contract claim depends on an "enlargement or enhancement" of the
parties' agreement, and is therefore preempted by the ADA.  In
other words, the Plaintiff has not "adequately pleaded" a breach
of contract claim.  The same holds true for his claims for unjust
enrichment/quasi contract and breach of the covenant of good
faith and fair dealing because they are essentially alternative
theories to the breach of contract claim.  Because he may be able
to amend his complaint to state a claim based on JetBlue's "self-
imposed undertaking," his complaint will be dismissed with leave
to amend.

Just as with JetBlue's express preemption argument, its implied
preemption argument only works to the extent that Alatortev seeks
to enlarge the scope of the parties' agreement.  Otherwise, there
is no state-imposed obligation to find impliedly preempted.

Because Alatortev's complaint fails for other reasons, the Judge
says he needs not address JetBlue's arguments against exercising
personal jurisdiction over it in California for a nationwide
class.  But he notes that he conceded that no general
jurisdiction exists, and he failed to plead a basis for specific
jurisdiction.  He should include these allegations in his amended
complaint.

Finally, as to JetBlue's argument that Alatortev lacks standing
to bring these claims because the checked bag belongs to his
wife, and he does not allege that he purchased the airline
ticket, which forms the basis of the COC, the Judge says that
Alatortev must include these allegations in an amended complaint
to establish a basis for him to assert any rights under the COC.

In accordance with the forgoing, Judge Orrick granted JetBlue's
motion.  Alatortev should file an amended complaint, if any,
within 30 days.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 7, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/KHqZd3 from Leagle.com.

Igor A. Alatortev, individually, and on behalf of a class of
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by David
Raymond Ongaro -- dongaro@ongaropc.com -- Ongaro PC.

Jetblue Airways Corp., a Delaware corporation, Defendant,
represented by Shelley Gershon Hurwitz --
Shelley.Hurwitz@hklaw.com -- Holland & Knight LLP, Robert Joseph
Burns -- Robert.Burns@hklaw.com -- Holland and Knight LLP &
Steven Raffaele -- Steven.Raffaele@hklaw.com -- Holland & Knight
LLP, pro hac vice.


KIRKLAND'S INC: "Gennock" Suit Stayed Pending 3rd Cir. Appeal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kirkland's, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
October 28, 2017, that the Company was named as a defendant in a
putative class action filed in April 2017 in the United States
District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, Gennock
v. Kirkland's, Inc. The Complaint alleges that the Company, in
violation of federal law, published more than the last five
digits of a credit or debit card number on customers' receipts.

The Company denies the material allegations of the complaint and
has filed a motion to dismiss. On November 29, 2017, the
Magistrate Judge recommended that the Company's motion to dismiss
be denied. The Company will file objections to the recommendation
and plans to appeal if the recommendation is adopted by the
Court.

The Company continues to believe that the case is without merit
and intends to vigorously defend itself against the allegations.
The matter is covered by insurance, and the Company does not
believe that the case will have a material adverse effect on the
Company's consolidated financial condition, operating results or
cash flows.

                           *     *     *

On Jan. 23, 2018, Kirkland's filed its answer to the Complaint.
The next day, Kirkland's filed a motion to stay.

Plaintiffs filed their response in opposition to the Motion to
Stay on Jan. 30.  The following day, Magistrate Judge Robert C.
Mitchell entered a Memorandum Opinion & Order granting the Motion
to Stay.

On Feb. 1, Judge David S. Cercone entered an Order for
Statistical Case Closing.  "The Clerk is directed to close this
case for administrative purposes only. Jurisdiction is retained
over all claims, defenses and rights of the parties and the same
shall be preserved during the pendency of this administrative
closing. Nothing contained herein shall be construed as a final
dismissal or disposition of this case. Any party may move to
reopen this case when further proceedings become necessary. The
parties shall notify the Court when Third Circuit appeal in Kamal
v. J. Crew Group, Inc. has been resolved," that ruling says.

Kirkland's, Inc. is a specialty retailer of home decor and gifts
in the United States, operating 415 stores in 36 states as of
October 28, 2017, as well as an e-Commerce enabled website,
www.kirklands.com. The company is based in Brentwood, Tennessee.


LOS ANGELES, CA: Court Dismisses "Harris" ADA Suit
--------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Central District of
California issued an Order granting Defendant's Motion to Dismiss
the case captioned BERNADINE HARRIS; OUDY WALL; and MARIA REYES,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, a public entity; ERIC
GARCETTI, in his official capacity as Mayor of Los Angeles; CITY
OF LOS ANGELES, a public entity; CITY OF INGLEWOOD, a public
entity; CITY OF HAWTHORNE, a public entity; CITY OF GARDENA, a
public entity; CITY OF TORRANCE, a public entity; CITY OF CARSON,
a public entity; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants,
Case No. 2116 2:17-cv-08293-ODW (AGR) (C.D. Cal.).

Plaintiffs Bernadine Harris, Oudy Wall, and Maria Reyes filed the
action in Los Angeles Superior Court and assert numerous claims
for Defendants' purported violations of the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA), among other derivative causes of action.

The Court finds that the second factor weighs in favor of
dismissal.  The Court must manage its docket to ensure the
efficient provision of justice.  In granting the other
defendants' motions as unopposed, the Court noted that Plaintiffs
had notice of four separate motions, which were filed over the
course of three weeks, yet failed to oppose any of them.  Now,
Plaintiffs fail to oppose yet another motion.  The Court's need
to manage its docket favors granting the County's motion to
dismiss, as unopposed.

The risk of prejudice to the defendants is slight. If, after the
Court grants the motions, Plaintiffs do not seek reconsideration
or other relief, then their case will be dismissed as against the
moving defendants. In the event that they do seek
reconsideration, and the Court grants it, the moving defendants
may simply refile the motions they have already prepared. The
nature of the ADA claims asserted here do not require immediate
action from defendants, and a slight delay in the event
Plaintiffs ultimately decide to pursue this action will not
significantly prejudice defendants.

A full-text copy of the District Court's January 22, 2018 Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/y96dvdc3 from Leagle.com.

Bernadine Harris, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Oudy Thomas Wall, Jr., on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated & Maria Reyes, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, represented by Jonathan Daniel Winters --
jwinters@jwinterslaw.com -- Law Offices of Jonathan Winters.

County of Los Angeles, a public entity, Defendant, represented by
Dusan Pavlovic, Office of the County Counsel.

City of Los Angeles, a public entity, Defendant, represented by
Kevin E. Gilbert -- kgilbert@ohshlaw.com -- Orbach Huff Suarez
and Henderson LLP.

City of Inglewood, a public entity & City of Hawthorne, a public
entity, Defendants, represented by Kenton E. Moore -
kmoore@mccuneharber.com -- McCune and Harber LLP & Benson Edward
Garrett, McCune and Harber LLP, 515 S. Figueroa Street, Suite
1100, Los Angeles, California 90071

City of Carson, a public entity, Defendant, represented by Marsha
Michiko Yasuda -- Marsha.Yasuda@usdoj.gov -- Aleshire and Wynder
LLP.

City of Torrance, a public entity, Defendant, represented by
Daniel K. Spradlin -- dspradlin@wss-law.com -- Woodruff Spradlin
and Smart APC & Myles S. Couch -- mcouch@wss-law.com -- Woodruff
Spradlin and Smart APC.


MAGNACHIP SEMICONDUCTOR: Court Grants $6.2MM Class Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District
California issued an Order granting Plaintiffs' Unopposed Second
Renewed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action
Settlement with Defendant Avenue Capital Management II, L.P., in
the case captioned KEITH THOMAS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. MAGNACHIP
SEMICONDUCTOR CORP., et al., Defendants, Case No. 14-cv-01160-JST
(N.D. Cal.).

The Court finds evidence sufficient to establish that a
reasonably likely recovery at trial would be $39.6 to $55.44
million.  The proposed $6.2 million settlement amounts to 11.2 to
15.7 percent of what the class would likely recover if it were to
prevail at trial.  This, the Court holds, is within the range of
reasonableness.

The Court therefore grants Plaintiffs' second renewed motion for
preliminary approval of the class action settlement.

A full-text copy of the District Court's January 22, 2018 Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/y9khebd3 from Leagle.com.

Richard Hayes, Individually and on Behalf of All Other Persons
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Jeremy A. Lieberman
-- jalieberman@pomla -- Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice, Lionel Z.
Glancy -- lglancy@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP,
Joshua B. Silverman -- jbsilverman@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP,
pro hac vice, Laurence M. Rosen, The Rosen Law Firm, P.A., Lesley
F. Portnoy -- lportnoy@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay & Murray
LLP, Louis C. Ludwig -- lcludwig@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, pro
hac vice, Marc Ian Gross -- migross@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP,
pro hac vice, Michael J. Wernke -- mjwernke@pomlaw.com --
Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice, Omar Jafri -- ojafri@pomlaw.com --
Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice, Patrick V. Dahlstrom --
pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice, Phillip C.
Kim -- pkim@rosenlegal.com -- The Rosen Law Firm, P.A., Robert
Vincent Prongay -- rprongay@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay &
Murray LLP & Yu Shi -- yshi@rosenlegal.com -- The Rosen Law Firm
PA, pro hac vice.

Keith Thomas, (Class Representative), Plaintiff, represented by
Jeremy A. Lieberman, Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice, Lionel Z.
Glancy, Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Robert Vincent Prongay,
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Jonathan Stern, Rosen Law Firm, pro
hac vice, Joshua B. Silverman, Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice,
Laurence M. Rosen, The Rosen Law Firm, P.A., Lesley F. Portnoy,
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Louis C. Ludwig, Pomerantz LLP, pro
hac vice, Marc Ian Gross, Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice, Michael J.
Wernke, Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice, Omar Jafri, Pomerantz LLP,
pro hac vice, Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice,
Phillip C. Kim, The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. & Yu Shi, The Rosen Law
Firm PA, pro hac vice.

Herb Smith, (Class Representative), Plaintiff, represented by
Jeremy A. Lieberman, Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice, Lionel Z.
Glancy, Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Marc Ian Gross, Pomerantz
LLP, pro hac vice, Joshua B. Silverman, Pomerantz LLP, pro hac
vice, Laurence M. Rosen, The Rosen Law Firm, P.A., Louis C.
Ludwig, Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice, Michael J. Wernke, Pomerantz
LLP, pro hac vice, Omar Jafri, Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice,
Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice, Robert Vincent
Prongay, Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP & Yu Shi, The Rosen Law Firm
PA, pro hac vice.

Magnachip Semiconductor Corp., Defendant, represented by Daniel
J. Kramer -- dkramer@paulweiss.com -- Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton
& Garrison LLP, pro hac vice, Robert N. Kravitz --
rkravitz@paulweiss.com -- Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison
LLP, pro hac vice, Alex Young K. Oh -- aoh@paulweiss.com -- Paul
Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison LLP, pro hac vice, Jacqueline P.
Rubin -- jrubin@paulweiss.com -- Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton &
Garrison LLP, pro hac vice, John C. Tang -- jctang@jonesday.com -
- Jones Day, Kelsey Israel-Trummel -- kitrummel@jonesday.com --
Jones Day & Matthew D. Stachel -- mstachel@paulweiss.com -- Paul
Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison LLP, pro hac vice.

Margaret Sakai, Defendant, represented by Kimberly Perrotta Cole
-- kimberly.cole@kobrekim.com -- Kobre & Kim LLP, pro hac vice,
Michael Sangyun Kim -- michael.kim@kobrekim.com -- Kobre & Kim
LLP, pro hac vice & Michael Fang Peng --
michael.peng@kobrekim.com -- Kobre & Kim LLP.

R. Douglas Norby & Ilbok Lee, Defendants, represented by Daniel
J. Kramer, Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison LLP, Jacqueline
P. Rubin, Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison LLP, Robert N.
Kravitz, Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison LLP, Alex Young K.
Oh, Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison LLP & Matthew D.
Stachel, Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison LLP.


MARVELL TECHNOLOGY: Trial to Begin in Shareholders' Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Marvel Technology Group Ltd. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended October 28, 2017, that the court set March 5, 2018
as trial date on a consolidated class action suit.

On September 11, 2015, Daniel Luna filed an action asserting
putative class action claims on behalf of the Company's
shareholders in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York ("S.D. of New York"). This action was
consolidated with two additional, nearly identical complaints
subsequently filed by Philip Limbacher and Jim Farno.

The complaints asserted violations of federal securities laws
based on allegations that the Company and certain of its officers
and directors (Sehat Sutardja, Michael Rashkin and Sukhi Nagesh)
made, caused to be made, or failed to correct false and/or
misleading statements in the Company's press releases and public
filings. The complaints request damages in unspecified amounts,
costs and fees of bringing the action, and other unspecified
relief.

On November 18, 2015, the S.D. of New York granted the Company's
motion to transfer the consolidated cases to the N.D. of
California. On December 21, 2015, the N.D. of California granted
the Company's motion to deem the consolidated cases related to
the Saratoga litigation. On February 8, 2016, the N.D. of
California granted an unopposed motion to appoint Plumbers and
Pipefitters National Pension Fund as Lead Plaintiff. On March 19,
2016, Lead Plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint.

On April 29, 2016, Marvell and each of the individual defendants
each filed motions to dismiss. The hearing on the motions to
dismiss took place on July 29, 2016 and the court took the matter
under submission. On October 12, 2016, the Court granted
Defendants' motions to dismiss with leave to amend and granted
lead plaintiff 30 days to file an amended complaint. The parties
agreed that the plaintiffs would file and serve an amended
complaint by November 28, 2016. Plaintiffs filed and served the
amended complaint on November 28, 2016.

The Initial Case Management Conference took place on January 12,
2017. Marvell and co-defendants filed separate Motions to Dismiss
on January 17, 2017. A hearing on the Motion to Dismiss took
place on May 4, 2017 and, on May 17, 2017, the Court granted the
Motion to Dismiss as to Rashkin and Nagesh and denied the Motion
to Dismiss as to Sutardja and Marvell. On August 2, 2017, Lead
Plaintiff filed a motion for class certification. On October 27,
2017, after a hearing on October 26, 2017, the Court certified a
class of persons or entities that acquired Marvell stock during
the period from February 19, 2015 to December 7, 2015.

The Court has set a deadline of December 29, 2017 for the
conclusion of fact discovery and a March 5, 2018 trial date.

Marvel Technology Group Ltd. is a fabless semiconductor provider
of high-performance, application-specific standard products. The
company's core strength of expertise is the development of
complex System-on-a-Chip ("SoC") devices, leveraging the
company's technology portfolio of intellectual property in the
areas of analog, mixed-signal, digital signal processing, and
embedded and standalone integrated circuits.


MDL 2002: Cal-Maine Foods' Updates on Egg Antitrust Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cal-Maine Foods, Inc., in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
December 2, 2017, provided updates on the so-called Egg Antitrust
Litigation.

On September 25, 2008, the Company was named as one of several
defendants in numerous antitrust cases involving the United
States shell egg industry. The cases were consolidated into In
re: Processed Egg Products Antitrust Litigation, No. 2:08-md-
02002-GP, in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania (the "District Court"), in three (3)
groups of cases -- the "Direct Purchaser Putative Class Action",
the "Indirect Purchaser Putative Class Action" and the "Non-Class
Cases."

              Direct Purchaser Putative Class Action

The named plaintiffs in these cases alleged that they purchased
eggs or egg products directly from a defendant and sued on behalf
of themselves and a putative class of others who claimed to be
similarly situated.  In November 2014, the District Court
approved the Company's settlement with the direct purchaser
plaintiff class and entered final judgment dismissing with
prejudice the class members' claims against the Company.

             Indirect Purchaser Putative Class Action

The named plaintiffs in these cases are individuals or companies
who allege that they purchased shell eggs indirectly from one or
more of the defendants -- that is, they purchased from retailers
that had previously purchased from defendants or other parties -
and have sued on behalf of themselves and a putative class of
others who claim to be similarly situated. The indirect purchaser
plaintiffs have filed two (2) motions for class certification,
one of which sought certification of 21 separate classes seeking
damages under the laws of 21 states and another which sought
certification of an injunctive-relief class under federal law,
and the District Court has denied both of these motions. After
each ruling, the plaintiffs filed a petition with the United
States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, asking that court
to hear an immediate appeal of the District Court's refusal to
certify a class. The Third Circuit denied both petitions.

Therefore, there is no certified class in the indirect purchaser
putative class action case, although the plaintiffs could appeal
the denials of class certification after a trial on the merits.
At this time, all that remains for trial are the claims of the
individual named plaintiffs, who seek treble damages under the
statutes and common law of various states and injunctive relief
under the Sherman Act attacking certain features of the United
Egg Producers' (UEP) animal-welfare guidelines and program used
by the Company and many other egg producers. Management believes
that neither the aggregate treble damages nor the injunctive
relief sought by the individual plaintiffs in these cases, even
if awarded, would be material to the Company. The District Court
has not set a trial date for the indirect purchaser case.

In its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September
2, 2017, Cal-Maine Foods disclosed this timeline:

On April 20-21, 2015, the District Court for the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania held an evidentiary hearing on the indirect
purchaser plaintiffs' motion for class certification.  On
September 18, 2015, the Court denied the indirect purchaser
plaintiffs' motion for class certification of 21 separate classes
seeking damages under the laws of 21 states, holding that the
plaintiffs were not able to prove that their purported method for
ascertaining class membership was reliable or administratively
feasible, that common questions would predominate, or that their
proposed class approach would be manageable in a single trial.
In addition to barring any right to pursue a class monetary
remedy under state law, the Court also denied indirect purchaser
plaintiffs' request for certification of an injunctive-relief
class under federal law. However, the court allowed the indirect
purchaser plaintiffs to renew their motion for class
certification seeking a federal injunction.

The plaintiffs filed their renewed motion to certify an
injunctive-relief class on October 23, 2015. The Company joined
the other defendants in opposing that motion on November 20.

The plaintiffs filed their reply memorandum on December 11, 2015,
and on March 7, 2017, the Court heard arguments on the renewed
motion for injunctive class certification.

On June 27, 2017, the Court denied plaintiffs' renewed motion for
injunctive class certification.

The plaintiffs also filed a petition with the United States Court
of Appeals for the Third Circuit, asking the court to hear an
immediate appeal of the trial court's denial of the motion to
certify 21 state-law damages classes.

On December 3, 2015, the Third Circuit entered an order staying
its consideration of the plaintiffs' request for an immediate
appeal of the damages-class ruling pending the trial court's
resolution of the plaintiffs' renewed motion to certify an
injunctive-relief class.

On July 11, 2017 the plaintiffs filed a petition with the Third
Circuit asking the court to hear an immediate appeal of the June
27 order denying plaintiffs' renewed motion for injunctive class
certification. On July 21, 2017, the Company joined other
defendants in a response filed with the Third Circuit opposing
the plaintiffs' latest petition. The Third Circuit has not yet
ruled on either petition.

                          Non-Class Cases

In the remaining cases, the named plaintiffs allege that they
purchased shell eggs and egg products directly from one or more
of the defendants but sue only for their own alleged damages and
not on behalf of a putative class.

Also in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended
September 2, 2017, Cal-Maine Foods disclosed that six of the
cases in which plaintiffs do not seek to certify a class have
been consolidated with the putative class actions into In re:
Processed Egg Products Antitrust Litigation, No. 2:08-md-02002-
GP, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania.

Cal-Maine Foods also disclosed this timeline:

The court granted with prejudice the defendants' renewed motion
to dismiss the non-class plaintiffs' claims for damages arising
before September 24, 2004.

On July 2, 2015, the Company filed and joined several motions for
summary judgment that sought either dismissal of all of the
claims in all of these cases or, in the alternative, dismissal of
portions of these cases.

On July 2, 2015, the non-class plaintiffs filed a motion for
summary judgment seeking dismissal of certain affirmative
defenses based on statutory immunities from federal antitrust
law.

The Court heard oral argument on the motions for summary judgment
on February 22 and 23, 2016.

On September 6, 2016, the Court granted the defendants' motion
for summary judgment against the plaintiffs' claims arising from
their purchases of egg products, dismissing those claims with
prejudice.

On September 9, 2016, the Court granted in part the Company's
motion for summary judgment on liability, dismissing as a matter
of law the plaintiffs' allegations of a side agreement to cease
construction of new facilities and ruling that the plaintiffs'
allegations against United Egg Producers' (UEP) animal-welfare
guidelines must be evaluated at trial under the rule of reason.

On September 12, 2016, the Court granted in part the Company's
motion for summary judgment on damages, ruling that plaintiffs
cannot recover damages arising from purchases of eggs from non-
defendants and cannot recover any relief arising from eggs and
egg products produced or sold in Arizona after October 1, 2009,
the date that Arizona mandated that all eggs sold or produced in
that state must be produced in compliance with the 2008 version
of the UEP animal-welfare guidelines.

On September 13, 2016, the Court granted in part the plaintiffs'
motion for summary judgment as to the applicability of the
Capper-Volstead defense, ruling that United States Egg Marketers
(an industry cooperative of which the Company is a member) may
invoke the defense at trial but that UEP (another industry
cooperative of which the Company is a member) cannot. The Capper-
Volstead defense is a defense pursuant to the Capper-Volstead Act
(the Co-operative Marketing Associations Act), enacted by
Congress in 1922, which gives certain associations of farmers
certain exemptions from antitrust laws.

On October 4, 2016, certain direct action plaintiffs (Kraft Food
Global, Inc., General Mills, Inc., Nestle USA, Inc., and The
Kellogg Company) filed an appeal to the United States Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit from the District Court's Order
dated September 6, 2016, granting defendants' motion for summary
judgment and dismissing with prejudice all claims based on the
purchase of egg products.

These plaintiffs filed their opening brief on March 7, 2017. The
defendants filed their response brief on April 20. These
plaintiffs filed their reply brief on May 18. The court of
appeals heard oral argument on July 11, 2017, but has not issued
a ruling.

On November 22, 2016, the non-class plaintiffs filed a motion
asking the Court to hold a status conference and asking the court
to set the non-class cases for trial in June of 2017. The parties
in all of the remaining class and non-class cases submitted
several different proposed trial schedules to the court, and a
status conference was held on February 9, 2017.

On August 11, 2017, the Company and certain other defendants
filed a motion to exclude damage calculations by direct action
plaintiffs' expert, Dr. Baye. The direct action plaintiffs filed
a motion to strike on August 25, 2017, and then filed a
memorandum in support thereof on August 28, 2017. On September 8,
the Company and the other moving defendants filed a response to
the plaintiffs' motion to strike. The court has scheduled a
hearing on these latest motions for October 25, 2017.

Five of the original six non-class cases remain pending against
the Company. The principal plaintiffs in these cases are: The
Kroger Co.; Publix Super Markets, Inc.; SUPERVALU, Inc.; Safeway,
Inc.; Albertsons LLC; H.E. Butt Grocery Co.; The Great Atlantic &
Pacific Tea Company, Inc.; Walgreen Co.; Hy-Vee, Inc.; and Giant
Eagle, Inc. In four of these remaining non-class cases, the
plaintiffs seek treble damages and injunctive relief under the
Sherman Act.  In one of those four cases, the plaintiffs
purchased only egg products, and as noted above, the Court
dismissed with prejudice all claims arising from the purchase of
egg products. On October 4, 2016, the four plaintiffs in that
case (Kraft Food Global, Inc., General Mills, Inc., Nestle USA,
Inc., and The Kellogg Company) appealed that decision to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. In the
fifth remaining non-class case, the plaintiff seeks treble
damages and injunctive relief under the Sherman Act and the Ohio
antitrust act (known as the Valentine Act).

The Pennsylvania court has entered a series of orders related to
case management, discovery, class certification, summary
judgment, and scheduling.  The Court has also denied all four
motions that the plaintiffs filed to exclude testimony from
certain expert witnesses retained by the defendants. The court's
latest Case Management Order (No. 23) was filed on September 20,
2017, and indicated that the non-class plaintiffs' cases would be
set for trial later in calendar year 2018.

                   Settlement with Kroger et al.

On December 29, 2017, the Company entered into a Binding
Agreement as to Material Terms to resolve all claims brought by
the following non-class plaintiffs: The Kroger Co.; Publix Super
Markets, Inc.; SUPERVALU, Inc.; Safeway, Inc.; Albertsons LLC;
H.E. Butt Grocery Co.; The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company,
Inc.; Walgreen Co.; Hy-Vee, Inc.; and Giant Eagle, Inc.

Pursuant to the agreement, which the parties intend to be legally
binding, the Company agreed to pay the non-class plaintiffs $80.8
million within 45 days of all parties signing a formal settlement
agreement, and the parties agreed to work in good faith to
prepare and execute the formal settlement agreement no later than
January 10, 2018. The parties agreed to resolve any disputes
relating to the agreement through binding arbitration.

The only non-class plaintiffs that are not included in the
agreement are the following companies that sought substantial
damages allegedly arising from the purchase of egg products (as
opposed to shell eggs): Conopco, Inc., Kraft Food Global, Inc.,
General Mills, Inc., Nestle USA, Inc., and The Kellogg Company.
The egg products plaintiffs sought treble damages and injunctive
relief under the Sherman Act attacking certain features of the
United Egg Producers' (UEP) animal-welfare guidelines and program
used by the Company and many other egg producers.

On September 6, 2016, the District Court granted defendants'
motion for summary judgment and dismissed with prejudice all
claims based on the purchase of egg products. That ruling has
been appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit, which heard oral argument on July 11, 2017, but has not
issued a ruling.


                      Allegations in Each Case

In all of the cases described, the plaintiffs allege that the
Company and certain other large domestic egg producers conspired
to reduce the domestic supply of eggs in a concerted effort to
raise the price of eggs to artificially high levels. In each
case, plaintiffs allege that all defendants agreed to reduce the
domestic supply of eggs by: (a) agreeing to limit production; (b)
manipulating egg exports; and (c) implementing industry-wide
animal welfare guidelines that reduced the number of hens and
eggs.

The Company intends to continue to defend the remaining cases as
vigorously as possible based on defenses which the Company
believes are meritorious and provable.  Adjustments, if any,
which might result from the resolution of these remaining legal
matters, have not been reflected in the financial statements.

Cal-Maine Foods, Inc. is a fresh egg producer, established in
1969 and based in Jackson, Mississippi. Its eggs are sold mostly
in mid-Atlantic, midwestern, southeastern, and southwestern
states. It accounts for approximately a quarter of US egg
consumption.


MEDTRONIC PLC: Pre-Trial in Sprint Fidelis-Related Suit Underway
----------------------------------------------------------------
Medtronic Public Limited Company said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended October 27, 2017, that the pre-trial
proceedings in the putative class action in Ontario Superior
Court of Justice in Canada relating to Sprint Fidelis is
underway.

In 2007, a putative class action was filed in the Ontario
Superior Court of Justice in Canada seeking damages for personal
injuries allegedly related to the Company's Sprint Fidelis family
of defibrillation leads. On October 20, 2009, the court certified
a class proceeding but denied class certification on plaintiffs'
claim for punitive damages. Pretrial proceedings are underway.
The Company has not recognized an expense related to damages in
connection with this matter because any potential loss is not
currently probable or reasonably estimable under U.S. GAAP.
Additionally, the Company is unable to reasonably estimate the
range of loss, if any, that may result from this matter.

Medtronic is among the world's largest medical technology,
services, and solutions companies -- alleviating pain, restoring
health, and extending life for millions of people around the
world. The company's primary products include those for cardiac
rhythm disorders, cardiovascular disease, advanced and general
surgical care, respiratory and monitoring solutions, neurological
disorders, spinal conditions and musculoskeletal trauma,
urological and digestive disorders, and ear, nose, and throat,
and diabetes conditions.


MEDTRONIC PLC: Settled 13,400 Claims in Pelvic Mesh-Related Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Medtronic Public Limited Company said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended October 27, 2017, that the company has
reached agreements to settle approximately 13,400 relating to the
Pelvic Mesh Litigation.

The Company, through the acquisition of Covidien, is currently
involved in litigation in various state and federal courts
against manufacturers of pelvic mesh products alleging personal
injuries resulting from the implantation of those products. Two
subsidiaries of Covidien supplied pelvic mesh products to one of
the manufacturers, C.R. Bard (Bard), named in the litigation.

The litigation includes a federal multi-district litigation in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of West
Virginia and cases in various state courts and jurisdictions
outside the U.S. Generally, complaints allege design and
manufacturing claims, failure to warn, breach of warranty, fraud,
violations of state consumer protection laws and loss of
consortium claims. In fiscal year 2016, Bard paid the Company
$121 million towards the settlement of 11,000 of these claims. In
May 2017, the agreement with Bard was amended to extend the terms
to apply to up to an additional 5,000 claims. That agreement does
not resolve the dispute between the Company and Bard with respect
to claims that do not settle, if any.

As part of the agreement, the Company and Bard agreed to dismiss
without prejudice their pending litigation with respect to Bard's
obligation to defend and indemnify the Company. The Company
estimates law firms representing approximately 15,800 claimants
have asserted or may assert claims involving products
manufactured by Covidien's subsidiaries.

As of December 1, 2017, the Company had reached agreements to
settle approximately 13,400 of these claims.

Medtronic is among the world's largest medical technology,
services, and solutions companies - alleviating pain, restoring
health, and extending life for millions of people around the
world. The company's primary products include those for cardiac
rhythm disorders, cardiovascular disease, advanced and general
surgical care, respiratory and monitoring solutions, neurological
disorders, spinal conditions and musculoskeletal trauma,
urological and digestive disorders, and ear, nose, and throat,
and diabetes conditions.


MEDTRONIC PLC: West Virginia Pipe and Pace Suit Still Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------------
Medtronic Public Limited Company continues to defend against the
consolidated class action complaints of West Virginia Pipe Trades
and Phil Pace, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended October 27, 2017.

West Virginia Pipe Trades and Phil Pace, on June 27, 2013 and
July 3, 2013, respectively, filed putative class action
complaints against Medtronic, Inc. and certain of its officers in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, alleging
that the defendants made false and misleading public statements
and engaged in a scheme to defraud regarding the INFUSE Bone
Graft product during the period of December 8, 2010 through
August 3, 2011.

The matters were consolidated in September 2013, and in the
consolidated complaint plaintiffs alleged a class period of
September 28, 2010 through August 3, 2011. On September 30, 2015,
the District Court granted defendants' motion for summary
judgment in the consolidated matters. Plaintiffs appealed the
dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit,
and in December of 2016 the Eighth Circuit Court reversed and
remanded the case to the District Court for further proceedings.

The Company has not recognized an expense related to damages in
connection with this matter, because any potential loss is not
currently probable or reasonably estimable under U.S. GAAP.
Additionally, the Company is unable to reasonably estimate the
range of loss, if any, that may result from these matters.

Medtronic is among the world's largest medical technology,
services, and solutions companies -- alleviating pain, restoring
health, and extending life for millions of people around the
world. The company's primary products include those for cardiac
rhythm disorders, cardiovascular disease, advanced and general
surgical care, respiratory and monitoring solutions, neurological
disorders, spinal conditions and musculoskeletal trauma,
urological and digestive disorders, and ear, nose, and throat,
and diabetes conditions.


MEDTRONIC PLC: Suit Related to Covidien Acquisition Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------------
Medtronic Public Limited Company said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended October 27, 2017, that the company
continues to defend itself in a consolidated class action suit
relating to the Covidien acquisition.

On July 2, 2014, Lewis Merenstein filed a putative shareholder
class action in Hennepin County, Minnesota, District Court
seeking to enjoin the then-potential acquisition of Covidien.

The lawsuit named Medtronic, Inc., Covidien, and each member of
the Medtronic, Inc. Board of Directors at the time as defendants,
and alleged that the directors breached their fiduciary duties to
shareholders with regard to the then-potential acquisition.

On August 21, 2014, Kenneth Steiner filed a putative shareholder
class action in Hennepin County, Minnesota, District Court, also
seeking an injunction to prevent the potential Covidien
acquisition. In September 2014, the Merenstein and Steiner
matters were consolidated and in December 2014, the plaintiffs
filed a preliminary injunction motion seeking to enjoin the
Covidien transaction.

On December 30, 2014, a hearing was held on plaintiffs' motion
for preliminary injunction and on defendants' motion to dismiss.
On January 2, 2015, the District Court denied the plaintiffs'
motion for preliminary injunction and on January 5, 2015 issued
its opinion. On March 20, 2015, the District Court issued its
order and opinion granting Medtronic's motion to dismiss the
case.

In May of 2015, the plaintiffs filed an appeal, and, in January
of 2016, the Minnesota State Court of Appeals affirmed in part,
reversed in part, and remanded the case to the District Court for
further proceedings. In February of 2016, the Company petitioned
the Minnesota Supreme Court to review the decision of the
Minnesota State Court of Appeals, and on April 19, 2016 the
Minnesota Supreme Court granted the Company's petition on the
issue of whether most of the original claims are properly
characterized as direct or derivative under Minnesota law.

In August of 2017, the Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed the
decision of the Minnesota State Court of Appeals, sending the
matter back to the trial court for further proceedings.

Medtronic said "The Company has not recognized an expense related
to damages in connection with this matter, because any potential
loss is not currently probable or reasonably estimable under U.S.
GAAP. Additionally, the Company is unable to reasonably estimate
the range of loss, if any, that may result from these matters."

Medtronic is among the world's largest medical technology,
services, and solutions companies -- alleviating pain, restoring
health, and extending life for millions of people around the
world. The company's primary products include those for cardiac
rhythm disorders, cardiovascular disease, advanced and general
surgical care, respiratory and monitoring solutions, neurological
disorders, spinal conditions and musculoskeletal trauma,
urological and digestive disorders, and ear, nose, and throat,
and diabetes conditions.


MEDTRONIC PLC: St. Paul Teachers' Fund Suit Underway
----------------------------------------------------
Medtronic Public Limited Company said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended October 27, 2017, that the company
continues to defend itself in a putative class action suit filed
by the St. Paul Teachers' Retirement Fund Association in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York

On January 22, 2016, the St. Paul Teachers' Retirement Fund
Association filed a putative class action complaint (the
"Complaint") in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York against HeartWare on behalf of all persons
and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of
HeartWare from June 10, 2014 through January 11, 2016 (the "Class
Period").

The Complaint was amended on June 29, 2016 and claims HeartWare
and one of its executives violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making false and
misleading statements about, among other things, HeartWare's
response to a June 2014 U.S. FDA warning letter, the development
of the Miniaturized Ventricular Assist Device (MVAD) System and
the proposed acquisition of Valtech Cardio Ltd.

The Complaint seeks to recover damages on behalf of all
purchasers or acquirers of HeartWare's stock during the Class
Period. In August of 2016 the Company acquired HeartWare.

Medtronic is among the world's largest medical technology,
services, and solutions companies - alleviating pain, restoring
health, and extending life for millions of people around the
world. The company's primary products include those for cardiac
rhythm disorders, cardiovascular disease, advanced and general
surgical care, respiratory and monitoring solutions, neurological
disorders, spinal conditions and musculoskeletal trauma,
urological and digestive disorders, and ear, nose, and throat,
and diabetes conditions.


MERCHANTS CREDIT: Court Corrects Error in Settlement Agreement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Nebraska
issued an Order correcting an Error in the Settlement Agreement
in the case captioned JANNETTE TAYLOR, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. MERCHANTS CREDIT
ADJUSTERS, INC. and PANSING, HOGAN, ERNST & BACHMAN, L.L.P.,
Defendants, Case No. 8:16-CV-452 (D. Nev.), following Stipulation
by Parties regarding a clerical error in the Settlement
Agreement.

Paragraph 4.2 of the Settlement Agreement shall be corrected to
read:

   4.2 Defendant Pansing will establish two separate settlement
funds for distribution to the Class Members as follows: A.
Settlement Fund No. 1 ($23,320.00), Each Class Member who falls
within FDCPA Class No. 1 and/or FDCPA Class No. 2 and (1) who
does not exclude himself or herself from the class; and (2) whose
class notice is not returned as undeliverable without a
forwarding address, shall share equally in the Settlement Fund
amount of $23,320.00. Settlement Administrator shall distribute
checks of equal amount to each Class Member eligible to receive
payment under this Paragraph.

A full-text copy of the District Court's January 22, 2018 Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/y95hlsw7 from Leagle.com.

Jannette Taylor, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Pamela A. Car, CAR,
REINBRECHT LAW FIRM, 8720 Frederick Street, Suite 105. Omaha, NE
68124, Tregg R. Lunn -- tregg@tregglunnlaw.com -- LAW OFFICE OF
TREGG LUNN & William L. Reinbrecht, CAR, REINBRECHT LAW FIRM,
8720 Frederick Street, Suite 105. Omaha, NE 68124.

Merchants Credit Adjustors, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Joshua C. Dickinson, SPENCER, FANE LAW FIRM & Shilee T. Mullin,
SPENCER, FANE LAW FIRM, 13520 California Street, Suite 290.
Omaha, NE 68154

Pansing, Hogan, Ernst & Bachman, L.L.P., Defendant, represented
by Lauren R. Goodman -- lgoodman@mcgrathnorth.com -- MCGRATH,
NORTH LAW FIRM & William F. Hargens -- whargens@mcgrathnorth.com
-- MCGRATH, NORTH LAW FIRM.


MERIDIAN BIOSCIENCE: "Forman" Class Action Suit Underway
--------------------------------------------------------
Meridian Bioscience, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended September 30, 2017, that the company continues to defend
itself in a class action suit filed by Barbara Forman in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Ohio.

On November 15, 2017, Barbara Forman filed a class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio naming Meridian, its Chief Executive Officer and
Chief Financial Officer (in their capacities as such) as
defendants.

The complaint alleges that Meridian made false and misleading
representations concerning certain lead test systems used by
Magellan at or around the time of Meridian's acquisition of
Magellan and subsequent thereto. The lawsuit underlying
plaintiff's class action complaint seeks compensatory damages,
injunctive relief and attorneys' fees to all members of the
proposed class.

Meridian Bioscience said "Because the litigation and related
discovery are in preliminary stages, we do not have sufficient
information to determine or predict the ultimate outcome or
estimate the range of possible losses, if any. Accordingly, no
provision for litigation losses has been included within the
accompanying Consolidated Statement of Operations for fiscal
2017.

Meridian is a fully-integrated life science company with
principal businesses in (i) the development, manufacture, sale
and distribution of diagnostic test kits, primarily for certain
gastrointestinal, viral, respiratory, and parasitic infectious
diseases, and elevated blood lead levels; and (ii) the
manufacture and distribution of bulk antigens, antibodies,
PCR/qPCR reagents, nucleotides, competent cells, and bioresearch
reagents used by researchers and other diagnostic manufacturers.
The Company was incorporated in Ohio in 1976. The company's
principal corporate offices are located near Cincinnati, Ohio,
USA.


MICHAELS COMPANIES: Store Managers' Class Suit in Cal. Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Michaels Companies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended October 28, 2017, that the individual claims of 26 former
class members remain pending in the Central District of
California.

On September 15, 2011, MSI was served with a lawsuit filed in the
California Superior Court in and for the County of Orange
("Superior Court") by four former store managers as a class
action proceeding on behalf of themselves and certain former and
current store managers employed by MSI in California.

The lawsuit alleged that MSI improperly classified its store
managers as exempt employees and as such failed to pay all wages,
overtime and waiting time penalties and failed to provide
accurate wage statements. The lawsuit also alleged that the
foregoing conduct was in breach of various laws, including
California's unfair competition law.

On December 3, 2013, the Superior Court entered an order
certifying a class of approximately 200 members. MSI successfully
removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California and on May 8, 2014, the class was
decertified. Three of the four named plaintiffs' claims were
resolved in September 2014 and the remaining one is set for trial
on February 18, 2018.

The individual claims of 26 former class members remain pending
in the Central District of California. In addition, a separate
representative action brought on behalf of store managers
throughout the state is pending in the California Superior Court,
County of San Diego.

Michaels Companies said "We believe we have meritorious defenses
and intend to defend the lawsuits vigorously. We do not believe
the resolution of the lawsuits will have a material effect on our
consolidated financial statements."

Michaels Companies, Inc. is the largest arts and crafts specialty
retailer in North America (based on store count) providing
materials, project ideas and education for creative activities
under the retail brands of Michaels, Aaron Brothers and Pat
Catan's. The company is based in Irving, Texas.


MICHAELS COMPANIES: FCRA-Related Suits Still Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------
Michaels Companies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended October 28, 2017, that the company continues to defend
against suits over the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

On December 11, 2014, MSI was served with a lawsuit, Christina
Graham v. Michaels Stores, Inc., filed in the U.S. District Court
for the District of New Jersey by a former employee.

The lawsuit is a purported class action, bringing plaintiff's
individual claims, as well as claims on behalf of a putative
class of applicants who applied for employment with Michaels
through an online application, and on whom a background check for
employment was procured. The lawsuit alleges that MSI violated
the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA") and the New Jersey Fair
Credit Reporting Act by failing to provide the proper disclosure
and obtain the proper authorization to conduct background checks.

Since the initial filing, another named plaintiff joined the
lawsuit, which was amended in February 2015, Christina Graham and
Gary Anderson v. Michaels Stores, Inc., with substantially
similar allegations. The plaintiffs seek statutory and punitive
damages as well as attorneys' fees and costs.

Following the filing of the Graham case in New Jersey, five
additional purported class action lawsuits with six plaintiffs
were filed, Michele Castro and Janice Bercut v. Michaels Stores,
Inc., in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Texas, Michelle Bercut v. Michaels Stores, Inc. in the Superior
Court of California for Sonoma County, Raini Burnside v. Michaels
Stores, Inc., in the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Missouri, Sue Gettings v. Michaels Stores, Inc., in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York, and Barbara
Horton v. Michaels Stores, Inc., in the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California.

All of the plaintiffs alleged violations of the FCRA. In
addition, the Castro, Horton and Janice Bercut lawsuits also
alleged violations of California's unfair competition law. The
Burnside, Horton and Gettings lawsuits, as well as the claims by
Michele Castro, have been dismissed. The Graham, Janice Bercut
and Michelle Bercut lawsuits were transferred for centralized
pretrial proceedings to the District of New Jersey.

On January 24, 2017, the Company's motion to dismiss for lack of
standing was granted, and the court declined to rule on the
merits of plaintiffs' claims. The dismissal order was stayed for
30 days to allow the plaintiffs to amend their complaints.

Because there were no amendments filed, two of the three
centralized cases were dismissed and subsequently appealed to the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, and the remaining
case (Michelle Bercut) was remanded to California Superior Court.

Michaels Companies said "We do not believe the resolution of the
lawsuits will have a material effect on our consolidated
financial statements."

Michaels Companies, Inc. is the largest arts and crafts specialty
retailer in North America (based on store count) providing
materials, project ideas and education for creative activities
under the retail brands of Michaels, Aaron Brothers and Pat
Catan's. The company is based in Irving, Texas.


MICHAELS COMPANIES: "Whalen" Data Security Suit Concluded
---------------------------------------------------------
Michaels Companies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended October 28, 2017, that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the "Whalen" lawsuit and
the plaintiff did not appeal, thereby concluding the case.

Five putative class actions were filed against MSI relating to
the January 2014 data breach. The plaintiffs generally alleged
that MSI failed to secure and safeguard customers' private
information including credit and debit card information, and as
such, breached an implied contract and violated the Illinois
Consumer Fraud Act (and other states' similar laws).

The plaintiffs were seeking damages including declaratory relief,
actual damages, punitive damages, statutory damages, attorneys'
fees, litigation costs, remedial action, pre and post judgment
interest, and other relief as available.

The cases were as follows: Christina Moyer v. Michaels Stores,
Inc., was filed on January 27, 2014; Michael and Jessica Gouwens
v. Michaels Stores, Inc., was filed on January 29, 2014; Nancy
Maize and Jessica Gordon v. Michaels Stores, Inc., was filed on
February 21, 2014; and Daniel Ripes v. Michaels Stores, Inc., was
filed on March 14, 2014. These four cases were filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern
Division. On March 18, 2014, an additional putative class action
was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
New York, Mary Jane Whalen v. Michaels Stores, Inc., but was
voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff on April 11, 2014 without
prejudice to her right to re-file a complaint. On April 16, 2014,
an order was entered consolidating the Illinois actions. On July
14, 2014, the Company's motion to dismiss the consolidated
complaint was granted.

On December 2, 2014, Whalen filed a new lawsuit against MSI
related to the data breach in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York, Mary Jane Whalen v. Michaels
Stores, Inc., seeking damages including declaratory relief,
monetary damages, statutory damages, punitive damages, attorneys'
fees and costs, injunctive relief, pre and post judgment
interest, and other relief as available. The Company filed a
motion to dismiss which was granted on December 28, 2015, and
judgment was entered in favor of the Company on January 8, 2016.

Plaintiff appealed the judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit and on May 2, 2017, the Second Circuit
affirmed the dismissal and Whalen did not appeal further, thereby
concluding the matter.

Michaels Companies, Inc. is the largest arts and crafts specialty
retailer in North America (based on store count) providing
materials, project ideas and education for creative activities
under the retail brands of Michaels, Aaron Brothers and Pat
Catan's. The company is based in Irving, Texas.


NATIONAL EXPRESS: Court Approves Class Settlement in "Kinney"
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
California issued an Order granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Final
Approval of Class Settlement, Attorney's Fees and Costs and Award
in the case captioned ROXANNE KINNEY, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. NATIONAL EXPRESS
TRANSIT SERVICES CORPORATION, Defendant, No. 2:14-cv-01615-TLN-DB
(E.D. Cal.).

The Class consists of: All individuals who are or have been
employed as non-exempt bus operators on or after May 25, 2013
through the date of preliminary approval (Class Period) in
California, excluding any individual who was not employed on or
after July 1, 2013, or was not a member of the Amalgamated
Transit Union, Local Division 192. Notwithstanding the above, the
Class shall include every individual who has filed a consent to
join this action as of November 3, 2015.

The Court confirms its previous appointment of Plaintiff Roxanne
Kinney as the Class Representative; Steven G. Tidrick, Esq. and
Joel Young, Esq. of The Tidrick Law Firm as Class Counsel; and
Simpluris, Inc. as the settlement administrator.

This settlement confers substantial monetary benefits, including
a Gross Settlement Fund of $125,000. The requested fee award of
$31,250 represents 25% of that amount.

The Court approves payment to Simpluris, Inc. of $6,495 for its
administration of the notice and settlement. That amount is less
than the amount estimated in the Settlement Agreement, which was
$7,500.

The Settlement Agreement authorizes the Court to award a service
award to Plaintiff Roxanne Kinney in the amount of $5,000 for her
service to the class.  It is within the Court's discretion
whether to award such payments and in what amount.

The requested service award to Plaintiff Roxanne Kinney in the
amount of $5,000.00 for her service to the class is warranted.

From the Gross Settlement Fund of $125,000, the Court orders: an
award of $31,250 in attorneys' fees and $6,442.66 in incurred
litigation costs to The Tidrick Law Firm; a service award to
Plaintiff Roxanne Kinney in the amount of $5,000; $6,495 to the
settlement administrator, Simpluris, Inc.; and the remainder,
$75,812.34, to be distributed among the Class Members as
specified in the Settlement.

A full-text copy of the District Court's January 22, 2018 Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/ya27j8w9 from Leagle.com.

Roxanne Kinney, Plaintiff, represented by Steven G. Tidrick --
sgt@tidricklaw.com -- The Tidrick Law Firm.

National Express Transit Services Corporation, Defendant,
represented by Aurelio J. Perez -- aperez@littler.com -- Littler
Mendelson, P.C..


NELNET SERVICING: Dismissal of Breach of Contract Claim Reversed
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, issued an
Opinion affirming in part and reversing in part the District
Court's dismissal for failure to state a claim the case captioned
KURT MIRANDETTE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NELNET, INC., a Nebraska
Corp.; NELNET SERVICING, LLC, a Nebraska Limited Liability Co.,
Defendants-Appellees, No. 16-2224 (6th Cir.).

Kurt Mirandette appeals the dismissal for failure to state a
claim of his diversity putative class action against Nebraska-
based businesses Nelnet, Inc., and Nelnet Servicing, LLC.

Mirandette's complaint alleges that Defendants, who are among the
nation's largest student-loan lenders and servicers, manipulate
the date on which they credit student-loan payments, often
crediting his daughter's student loan account, on which he is a
co-borrower and makes all the payments, ten to thirty days after
he mails monthly checks, resulting in the wrongful accrual of
interest and late fees.  Mirandette alleges that these practices
violate Nebraska's Consumer Protection Act (CPA) and Nebraska's
Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act (UDTPA) and constitute a
breach of the Master Promissory Note (MPN), a standardized form1
he and his daughter signed to obtain the loan.

CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT CLAIM

Nebraska's CPA makes unlawful unfair methods of competition and
unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade
or commerce. The CPA's scope is limited to `the sale of assets or
services and any commerce directly or indirectly affecting the
people of the State of Nebraska.

In Kuntzelman v. Avco Financial Services of Nebraska, Inc., 291
N.W.2d 705, 706 (Neb. 1980), the Nebraska Supreme Court
considered a CPA claim in which the conduct at issue was
addressed by legislation only after suit had been filed. The
Nebraska Supreme Court applied the exemption to conduct that had
occurred before the new legislation, cautioning that even before
the legislation the conduct complained of had been subject to
regulation, although not yet regulated.

Applying the Kuntzelman rule to this case, Defendants are exempt
from CPA liability. The DOE has considerable regulatory authority
over student loans. The Secretary of Education is given broad
power to regulate under the Federal Family Educational Loan
Program, and has regulated this area heavily. Indeed, the DOE
drafted the MPN at issue here and has regulated with regard to
borrower payments. This is sufficient to trigger the CPA
exemption provision. Thus, we agree with the district court that
Nebraska courts would deem Mirandette's claim exempt under the
CPA and we affirm the dismissal of this claim.

UNIFORM DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICES ACT CLAIM

Nebraska's UDTPA is intended to provide "protection from
deception for both consumers and competitors."

Mirandette's complaint alleges that Defendants engaged in
deceptive acts and practices that harm its customers and increase
interest payments and late fees through intentionally slow or
ineffective payment processing.

Mirandette cites no Nebraska state-court cases, and the Sixth
Circuit has found none, applying the UDTPA to loan payments or
suggesting that loan servicing constitutes a good or service;
thus it is not clear that the UDTPA applies to loan servicing at
all and, if it does, whether its statute of limitations would run
from the signing of the loan agreement, as Defendants assert, or
from each monthly payment made on the loan, as Mirandette
asserts. But the conduct proscribed by the UDTPA suggests it is
not applicable to Mirandette's claim.

The Act proscribes an enumerated list of conduct that generally
covers misrepresentations in sales; none of the enumerated
practices describe the late crediting of loan payments. More
important, Mirandette has identified no false or fraudulent
promise or representation by Defendants regarding the crediting
of payments, or the dates the payments were received.

Because the alleged violation of the UDTPA does not fall under
any enumerated practice, the Sixth Circuit affirms the district
court's dismissal of this claim.

BREACH OF CONTRACT CLAIM

Mirandette argued that the MPN was either silent regarding when
the servicer must credit his payments or was ambiguous as to that
term. He advanced two breach-of-contract theories: (1) the MPN
should be read in conjunction with the "mailbox rule," which
provides that a payment is made when it is placed in the mail;
and (2) the court should interpret payment under the MPN to occur
on Defendants' receipt of his checks.

Defendants present two arguments in support of the district
court's dismissal: (1) that they could not have breached the MPN
because the MPN is a contract between Mirandette and a separate
lender; and (2) even if they are bound by the MPN, there is no
provision obligating them to credit Mirandette's payments as of a
certain date.

Both arguments fail.

Defendants' reading would suggest that even if Mirandette walked
into their office and paid his monthly installments in cash,
Defendants still would not be required to credit his account
until they chose to do so. Such an absurdity cannot have been
intended by the parties signing this contract or, for that
matter, by the DOE when it drafted the MPN. Rather, the more
natural reading of the contract is that when Mirandette fulfills
his obligation to make timely payments, Defendants have the
reciprocal obligation to acknowledge those payments by crediting
his daughter's account. The question is when Defendants must
credit those payments.

MAILBOX RULE AS GAP FILLER

Mirandette's first breach-of-contract theory is that the "mailbox
rule" should govern the meaning of the term payment, which is
undefined in the MPN.

Neither party challenges the formation of a contract and neither
claims that the contract expressly provides when payment is made
or payments are to be credited. It is not entirely clear that we
are presented with a situation involving an omitted term, rather
than an issue of interpretation. In any event, Mirandette's
argument that the district court erred in rejecting the "mailbox
rule" as either a gap filler or the proper interpretation of the
term pay or payment is unsupported by case law suggesting the
Nebraska courts would supply such a term or find it in the
contract. Thus, the Sixth Circuit agrees with the district
court's determination not to apply the mailbox rule.

The Sixth Circuit affirms the dismissal of the Nebraska state-law
claims, reverses the dismissal of the breach of contract claim
and remands for the district court to consider Mirandette's
payment-upon-receipt breach-of-contract theory.

A full-text copy of the Court of Appeals' January 18, 2018
Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/y8s8ejes from
Leagle.com..


NESTLE USA: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Amended "Hawkins" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LAHONEE HAWKINS, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. NESTLE U.S.A. INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 4:17CV205 HEA (E.D. Mo.), Judge Henry Edward
Autrey of the U.S. District Court for the Easter District of
Missouri, Eastern Division, denied the Defendant's motion to
dismiss the Amended Complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) and
12(b)(1).

The Defendant manufactures Raisonets candy.  The products are
regularly sold at grocery stores, convenience stores, and other
food retail outlets throughout Missouri and the rest of the
United States.  The Plaintiff bought an opaque, non-pliable,
cardboard box of Raisonets for about $1.59 apiece at a Walgreens
store in Rolla, Missouri, for his personal, family, or household
purposes.  His lawsuit focuses on the Defendant's packaging of
the candies.

The Plaintiff alleges that she attached importance to the size of
the Raisonets boxes, and was misled to believe that she was
purchasing more Product than was actually received.  She alleges
that boxes are uniformly under-filled or slack-filled; the slack-
filled space serves no purpose; and had she known the boxes were
substantially slack-filled, she would not have purchased the
products or would have purchased them on different terms.  She
alleges that she suffered an ascertainable loss as a result of
the Defendant's unlawful conduct because the actual value of the
Products as purchased was less than the value of the Products as
represented.  The Plaintiff alleges that she would likely
purchase the Products in the future if the Products complied with
applicable laws.

The Plaintiff filed the lawsuit as a putative class action.  In
Count I, she claims a violation of the Missouri Merchandising
Practices Act ("MMPA") for a Missouri Consumer Subclass, and she
requests injunctive relief and damages under the statute.  Count
II is a claim for unjust enrichment brought on behalf of All
Classes (the class members in all states who purchased the
products), in which she requests restitution or disgorgement of
the Defendant's economic enrichment.

The Defendant moves to dismiss the Amended Complaint under Fed.
R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) and 12(b)(1).  It argues that Count I must be
dismissed because the Plaintiff fails to state a claim under the
MMPA and has no standing to seek injunctive relief.  It also
argues that argues that Count II must be dismissed because it is
derivative of her legally insufficient MMPA claim.

As to Count I, Judge Autrey concludes that the analysis
consistent with Missouri law leads to the conclusion that the
Plaintiff has plausibly alleged a claim under the MMPA and that
reasonableness is an issue of fact, which cannot be resolved on a
motion to dismiss.  He also concludes that the Plaintiff has
sufficiently alleged ascertainable loss for purposes of
withstanding the motion to dismiss and that the alleged loss was
the result of the packaging and has pled a threat of ongoing or
future harm, which is fairly traceable to the Defendant's
conduct.  Hence, the Judge will deny the Defendant's motion to
dismiss the request for injunctive relief.

As to Count II, the Judge concluded that the Plaintiff states a
claim under the MMPA.  It is generally permissible to pursue
alternative theories at the pleading stage, and courts generally
permit unjust enrichment claims to proceed alongside a properly-
pled MMPA claim.  The Plaintiff has also alleged sufficient facts
to demonstrate Article III standing to pursue the claim, in that
she has alleged an injury in fact, which is fairly traceable to
the Defendant's conduct, and which will likely be redressed by a
favorable decision.  For the foregoing reasons, Hershey's motion
to dismiss Count II will be denied.

Based upon this analysis, Judge Autrey holds that the Plaintiff's
Amended Complaint satisfies the requirements of Rules 12(b)(6)
and 12(b)(1).  Accordingly, he denied the Defendant's Motion to
Dismiss.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 7, 2018 Memorandum and Order
is available at https://is.gd/gblSeY from Leagle.com.

Lahonee Hawkins, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated in Missouri, Plaintiff, represented by David
L. Steelman, STEELMAN, GAUNT & HORSEFIELD & Naomi B. Spector,
KAMBERLAW LLP.

Nestle USA, Inc., Defendant, represented by Carmine R. Zarlenga,
III -- czarlenga@mayerbrown.com -- MAYER BROWN LLP, Dale Joseph
Giali -- dgiali@mayerbrown.com -- MAYER BROWN LLP, Elizabeth Jean
Crepps -- ecrepps@mayerbrown.com -- Mayer Brown LLP & Keri E.
Borders -- kborders@mayerbrown.com -- MAYER BROWN LLP.


NORTHWESTERN MUTUAL: 9th Cir. Sends "Wishnev" to State High Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, issued an
Order certifying a Question to the California Supreme Court in
the case captioned SANFORD J. WISHNEV, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. THE
NORTHWESTERN MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant,
No. 16-16037 (9th Cir.), holding that this "is an appropriate
case in which to seek the California Supreme Court's guidance on
this issue because it squarely raises the question whether exempt
lenders are subject to the Initiative's prohibition against
charging compound interest unless an agreement to that effect is
clearly expressed in writing and signed by the party to be
charged therewith."

Northwestern Mutual is a Wisconsin corporation admitted in
California.  Northwestern Mutual issued Wishnev four life
insurance policies between 1967 and 1976.  These policies are
permanent life insurance policies, which pay a benefit on the
death of the insured and also accumulate a cash value during the
insured's lifetime.

Wishnev brought a class action lawsuit in state court on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated arising from
Northwestern Mutual's pattern and practice of charging compound
interest on life insure policy and premium loans without a
written agreement signed by the borrower providing for such
compounding.  Wishnev claimed that Northwestern Mutual violated
section 1916-2 of the California Civil Code by failing to obtain
a clearly expressed writing signed by the borrower before
charging compound interest.  The complaint seeks repayment of
dividends withheld from Wishnev and the putative class and treble
damages under section 1916-3.

In a motion to dismiss, Northwestern Mutual argued that, as an
insurance company, it is an exempt lender under section 1100.1 of
the California Insurance Code, and therefore exempt from the
Initiative's disclosure requirement.  Second, Northwestern Mutual
argued that it complied with the disclosure requirement because
the contract, comprised of the insurance application and
insurance policy, Cal. Ins. Code Section 10113, provides for
assessment of compound interest.

The district court denied Northwestern Mutual's motion.  The
district court held that because Article XV did not address
disclosure of compound interest, the Initiative's disclosure
requirement was not repugnant to the California Constitution and
therefore remained in effect.  The court also reasoned that the
legislature's authority to regulate fees, bonuses, commissions,
discounts, or other compensation of exempt lenders did not
supersede the Initiative's disclosure requirement, because other
compensation included only "such things as loan fees and points,
not compound interest."  The court then certified its order for
interlocutory appeal.

An amendment to the California constitution exempts certain
lenders from some aspects of the Initiative. Cal. Const. art. XV,
Section 1. The state legislature has included insurance companies
as an exempt lender. Cal. Ins. Code Section 1100.1. It is not
clear, however, whether the constitutional provision exempts
lenders from the disclosure requirement, and courts considering
this issue have reached different results.

Nor is it clear whether a lender that is an insurance company can
satisfy the disclosure requirement of section 1916-2 by obtaining
the borrower's signature on an application for insurance, and
then subsequently providing an insurance policy that includes a
compound interest provision, even though the state legislature
has provided that an insurance application and policy form a
single contract. Cal. Ins. Code Section 10113.

By addressing these open issues, the California Supreme Court
will resolve the appeal before the Ninth Circuit.

Accordingly, the Ninth Circuit certifies the following two
questions to the California Supreme Court:

   1. Are the lenders identified in Article XV of the California
Constitution, see Cal. Const. art. XV, Section 1, as being exempt
from the restrictions otherwise imposed by that article,
nevertheless subject to the requirement in section 1916-2 of the
California Civil Code that a lender may not compound interest
unless an agreement to that effect is clearly expressed in
writing and signed by the party to be charged therewith?

   2. Does an agreement meet the requirement of section 1916-2 if
it is comprised of: (1) an application for insurance signed by
the borrower, and (2) a policy of insurance containing an
agreement for compound interest that is subsequently attached to
the application, thus constituting the entire contract between
the parties pursuant to section 10113 of the California Insurance
Code?

A full-text copy of the Ninth Circuit's January 18, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yaeu7z8x from Leagle.com..

Timothy J. O'Driscoll (argued) and Stephen C. Baker --
timothy.odriscoll@dbr.com -- Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Marshall L. Baker --
marshall.baker@dbr.com, Matthew J. Adler -- matthew.adler@dbr.com
-- Alan J. Lazarus -- alan.lazarus@dbr.com, and Michael J.
Stortz, Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, San Francisco, California;
for Defendant-Appellant.

Robert Bramson -- RBramson@bramsonplutzik.com -- (argued) and
Jennifer S. Rosenberg -- JRosenberg@bramsonplutzik.com -- Bramson
Plutzik Mahler & Birkhaeuser LLP, Walnut Creek, California, for
Plaintiff-Appellee.

Thomas A. Evans -- tom.evans@alston.com -- Reed Smith LLP, San
Francisco, California; Lisa Tate, Vice President, Litigation &
Associate General Counsel, American Council of Life Insurers,
Washington, D.C.; for Amicus Curiae American Council of Life
Insurers.

Laura L. Geist -- laura.geist@dentons.com -- and Andrew S. Azarmi
-- andrew.azarmi@dentons.com -- Dentons US LLP, San Francisco,
California; Brad Wenger, Association of California Life and
Health Insurance Companies, Sacramento, California; for Amicus
Curiae Association of California Life and Health Insurance
Companies.


NWAN INC: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss "Dickerson" MMWA Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Paul Dickerson and Ma Riza Dickerson, Plaintiffs, v.
NWAN Incorporated and Superstition Springs MID LLC, Defendants,
Case No. CV-17-01899-PHX-DGC (), Judge David G. Campbell of the
U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona granted NWAN's
motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' amended complaint, and denied
Superstition's motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' amended
complaint.

The Plaintiffs purchased a Dodge Ram truck from Defendant
Superstition, covered by a limited warranty administered by
Defendant NWAN.  The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants voided
the warranty in violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act
("MMWA").

The Plaintiffs' amended complaint alleges that on Oct. 3, 2015,
they purchased a 2007 Dodge Ram truck from Superstition.  They
were induced to make the purchase and pay a higher price than
they otherwise would have because Superstition provided a
"Warranty Forever" limited powertrain warranty.  When the
Plaintiffs purchased the vehicle, they received a one-page
declaration and a one-page "Acknowledgment of Service
Requirements" regarding the Warranty.  Both documents identify Ma
Riza Dickerson as the customer and Superstition as the selling
dealership. Paul Dickerson and an authorized Superstition
representative signed both documents.

A few weeks after the purchase, the Plaintiffs received
additional information about the Warranty by mail. The first page
of the mailed information is identical to the Declaration.  The
remaining three pages define certain terms used in the
Declaration, and provide more detailed information about the
Warranty.

By a separate agreement between NWAN and Superstition, NWAN
agreed to administer the "Warranty Forever" warranties that
Superstition provided to its customers.  That agreement provides
that NWAN creates the forms provided to customers and processes
customer claims and pre-authorizations, Superstition pays NWAN a
fee, and NWAN reimburses Superstition for any covered repairs it
performs.

From the date of purchase through April 2016, the Plaintiffs
performed necessary non-covered maintenance and repairs on the
truck at facilities other than Superstition, but did not seek
pre-authorization.  Dickerson, a retired mechanic, performed at
least one repair on the truck himself.  In April 2016, the
Plaintiffs filed a claim with NWAN for transmission repairs
covered by the Warranty.  NWAN denied the claim as the contract
is voided for failure to follow the maintenance requirements of
the agreement.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Warranty's preauthorization
requirement is burdensome and coercive and devised to effectively
require that the dealer perform all maintenance and services.
They further assert that the requirement violates the MMWA's
anti-tying provision.  Based on these allegations, the Plaintiffs
bring a MMWA claim against NWAN and Superstition, and a claim for
intentional interference with contract against NWAN.

The Defendants have filed motions to dismiss the Plaintiffs'
amended complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6).  NWAN argues that
the Plaintiffs have failed to allege two out of five essential
elements of an intentional interference claim: (1) intentional
interference inducing or causing a breach, and (2) improper
action by NWAN.  Both the Defendants argue that the MMWA claim
should be dismissed because the Plaintiffs lack standing and the
Warranty does not violate Section 2302(c).  NWAN also argues that
it is not a proper defendant because it is not a warrantor.

Judge Campbell finds that the Plaintiffs have standing to
challenge the preauthorization provisions.  If the
preauthorization provisions were unlawful, the Plaintiffs were
not required to comply with them in order to receive the benefits
of the Warranty, and they have been damaged by the Defendants'
denial of those benefits on the basis of the unlawful provisions.

The Judge will dismiss the MMWA claim against NWAN because the
Plaintiffs have not alleged facts to show that NWAN is a
warrantor.  He finds that the Warranty documents attached to the
complaint indicate that the Warranty was offered and given by
Superstition.  NWAN is not a party to the agreement, and the
Plaintiffs do not allege that NWAN had any involvement in the
negotiating or purchasing phase when they entered into the
Warranty.  NWAN is identified as the "Administrator," to be
contacted if the Plaintiffs wish to seek preauthorization or file
a claim under the Warranty, but this delegation of Superstition's
obligations to NWAN does not make NWAN a co-warrantor.

The Judge also finds that the Plaintiffs have alleged conduct
which plausibly falls within the MMWA's prohibited conduct.  He
will not dismiss the Plaintiffs' MMWA claim at this stage.  He
cannot conclude as a matter of law that the Warranty complies
with the MMWA.

Finally, as to subject-matter jurisdiction, Judge Campbell finds
that without NWAN in the case, all parties are from Arizona and
it does not appear that the Plaintiffs can satisfy the
jurisdictional requirement.  He says the Plaintiffs might
alternatively assert jurisdiction under the MMWA, but it appears
the Court may assert jurisdiction over an MMWA class action only
if there are at least 100 named Plaintiffs.

For these reasons, Judge Campbell granted the Defendant NWAN's
motion to dismiss but denied Superstition's.  He ordered the
Plaintiffs and Defendant Superstition to file simultaneous
briefs, not to exceed seven pages each, addressing the Court's
subject matter jurisdiction, by Feb. 21, 2018.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 7, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/1yvv3k from Leagle.com.

Paul Dickerson, on behalf of plaintiffs and the class members
described herein, Plaintiff, represented by Cassandra P. Miller -
- cmiller@edcombs.com -- Edelman Combs Latturner & Goodwin LLC,
Hyung Sik Choi -- hyung@choiandfabian.com -- Choi & Fabian PLC &
Veronika Fabian, Choi & Fabian PLC.

Ma Riza Dickerson, on behalf of plaintiffs and the class members
described herein, Plaintiff, represented by Cassandra P. Miller,
Edelman Combs Latturner & Goodwin LLC, Daniel A. Edelman, Edelman
Combs Latturner & Goodwin LLC, Hyung Sik Choi, Choi & Fabian PLC
& Veronika Fabian, Choi & Fabian PLC.

Superstition Springs MID LLC, doing business as Superstition
Springs Chrysler-Jeep-Dodge Ram, Defendant, represented by Brett
Steven Krantz -- BK@KJK.COM -- Kohrman Jackson & Krantz LLP, Sean
Patrick Malone -- SPM@KJK.COM -- Kohrman Jackson & Krantz LLP &
Jeffrey S. Leonard -- jeffrey.leonard@sackstierney.com -- Sacks
Tierney PA.


OHIO PHASE-IN-RECOVERY: US Bank Still Faces BlackRock Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ohio Phase-In-Recovery Funding LLC said in its Form 10-D Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the monthly
distribution period from July 1, 2017 to December 31, 2017, that
U.S. Bank National Association ("U.S. Bank"), in its capacity as
trustee or successor trustee (as the case may be) under certain
residential mortgage backed securities ("RMBS") trusts is facing
a class action complaint.

Since 2014 various plaintiffs or groups of plaintiffs, primarily
investors, have filed claims against U.S. Bank National
Association ("U.S. Bank"), in its capacity as trustee or
successor trustee (as the case may be) under certain residential
mortgage backed securities ("RMBS") trusts. The plaintiffs or
plaintiff groups have filed substantially similar complaints
against other RMBS trustees, including Deutsche Bank, Citibank,
HSBC, Bank of New York Mellon and Wells Fargo.

The complaints against U.S. Bank allege the trustee caused losses
to investors as a result of alleged failures by the sponsors,
mortgage loan sellers and servicers for these RMBS trusts and
assert causes of action based upon the trustee's purported
failure to enforce repurchase obligations of mortgage loan
sellers for alleged breaches of representations and warranties
concerning loan quality. The complaints also assert that the
trustee failed to notify security holders of purported events of
default allegedly caused by breaches of servicing standards by
mortgage loan servicers and that the trustee purportedly failed
to abide by a heightened standard of care following alleged
events of default.

Currently U.S. Bank is a defendant in multiple actions alleging
individual or class action claims against the trustee with
respect to multiple trusts with the most substantial case being:
BlackRock Balanced Capital Portfolio et al v. U.S. Bank National
Association, No. 605204/2015 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.) (class action
alleging claims with respect to approximately 770 trusts) and its
companion case BlackRock Core Bond Portfolio et al v. U.S Bank
National Association, No. 14-cv-9401 (S.D.N.Y.). Some of the
trusts implicated in the aforementioned Blackrock cases, as well
as other trusts, are involved in actions brought by separate
groups of plaintiffs related to no more than 100 trusts per case.

Ohio Phase-In-Recovery said "U.S. Bank cannot assure you as to
the outcome of any of the litigation, or the possible impact of
these litigations on the trustee or the RMBS trusts. However,
U.S. Bank denies liability and believes that it has performed its
obligations under the RMBS trusts in good faith, that its actions
were not the cause of losses to investors and that it has
meritorious defenses, and it intends to contest the plaintiffs"
claims vigorously."


PEREGRINE PHARMA: Receives $1.5MM from 3 Former Directors
---------------------------------------------------------
Peregrine Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended October 31, 2017, that the Company
received the full $1,500,000 payment, in accordance with a court
order approving a settlement.

On October 10, 2013, a derivative and class action complaint,
captioned Michaeli v. Steven W. King, et al., C.A. No. 8994-VCL,
was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (the
"Court"), purportedly on behalf of the Company, which was named a
nominal defendant, against certain of the company's executive
officers and its three former non-employee directors
(collectively, the "Defendants").

On December 1, 2015, the plaintiffs filed an amended and
supplemental derivative and class action complaint (the "Amended
Complaint"). The Amended Complaint alleged that the Defendants
breached their respective fiduciary duties in connection with
certain purportedly improper compensation decisions made by the
company's board of directors during the past four fiscal years
ended April 30, 2015 and that the company's directors breached
their fiduciary duty of candor by filing and seeking stockholder
action on the basis of an allegedly materially false and
misleading proxy statement for its 2013 annual meeting of
stockholders.

On May 15, 2017, the parties filed with the Court a Stipulation
and Agreement of Compromise, Settlement and Release (the
"Settlement") setting forth the terms of the proposed settlement
of the claims in the Amended Complaint.

Peregrine said in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period
ended July 31, 2017, that at a hearing on July 27, 2017, the
Court issued an order approving the Settlement.

The Settlement provides, among other things, that the three
former non-employee directors agreed to pay or cause to be paid
$1,500,000 to the company, which amount is included as a
reduction to selling, general and administrative expense in the
accompanying unaudited condensed consolidated financial
statements for the six months ended October 31, 2017. The Company
received such payment in full in August 2017.

Peregrine Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a company committed to
improving the lives of patients by manufacturing and delivering
high quality pharmaceutical products through its contract
development and manufacturing organization ("CDMO"), Avid
Bioservices, Inc. ("Avid"). The company is currently
transitioning from a research and development company to a
dedicated CDMO business focused on development and manufacturing
of biopharmaceutical products derived from mammalian cell
culture. The company is based in Tustin California.


PIER 1: Continues to Defend Davie Police Pension Plan Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Pier 1 Imports, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
November 25, 2017, that the company continues to defend itself in
a class action suit entitled, Town of Davie Police Pension Plan,
Plaintiff, v. Pier 1 Imports, Inc., Alexander W. Smith and
Charles H. Turner.

Putative class action complaints were filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Texas - Dallas
Division against Pier 1 Imports, Inc., Alexander W. Smith and
Charles H. Turner in August and October 2015 alleging violations
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

The lawsuits, which have been consolidated into a single action
captioned Town of Davie Police Pension Plan, Plaintiff, v. Pier 1
Imports, Inc., Alexander W. Smith and Charles H. Turner,
Defendants, were filed on behalf of a purported putative class of
investors who purchased or otherwise acquired stock of Pier 1
Imports, Inc. between April 10, 2014 and December 17, 2015. The
plaintiffs seek to recover damages purportedly caused by the
Defendants' alleged violations of the federal securities laws and
to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder. The complaint seeks certification as a class action,
unspecified compensatory damages plus interest and attorneys'
fees.

On August 10, 2017, the court granted the Company's motion to
dismiss the complaint, while providing the plaintiffs an
opportunity to replead their complaint. An amended complaint was
filed with the court on September 25, 2017, Pier 1 Imports said
in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended August 26,
2017.

On November 22, 2017, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint.

Pier 1 said "Although the ultimate outcome of litigation cannot
be predicted with certainty, the Company believes that this
lawsuit is without merit and intends to defend against it
vigorously."

Pier 1 Imports, Inc. (together with its consolidated
subsidiaries, the "Company") is dedicated to offering customers
exclusive, one-of-a-kind products that reflect high quality at a
great value. Starting with a single store in 1962, Pier 1
Imports' product is now available in retail stores throughout the
U.S. and Canada and online at pier1.com. The Company directly
imports merchandise from many countries, and sells a wide variety
of decorative accessories, furniture, candles, housewares, gifts
and seasonal products. The company is based in Fort Worth Texas.


PIER 1: Faces State Wage-and-Hour Suits in California
-----------------------------------------------------
Pier 1 Imports, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on January 3, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended November 25, 2017, that the company is a
defendant in lawsuits pending in federal courts in California
containing various class action allegations under California
state wage-and-hour laws.

These lawsuits seek unspecified monetary damages, injunctive
relief and attorneys' fees. The Company has sought to settle
these cases on terms favorable to the Company in view of the
claims made, the continuing cost of litigation and an assessment
of the risk of an adverse trial court or appellate decision.

The Company has settled or agreed to settle the pending cases,
subject to completion of associated procedural requirements.

The Company does not believe any reasonably foreseeable
resolution of these matters will have a material adverse effect
on the Company's financial condition, results of operations or
liquidity.

Pier 1 Imports, Inc., is dedicated to offering customers
exclusive, one-of-a-kind products that reflect high quality at a
great value. Starting with a single store in 1962, Pier 1
Imports' product is now available in retail stores throughout the
U.S. and Canada and online at pier1.com. The Company directly
imports merchandise from many countries, and sells a wide variety
of decorative accessories, furniture, candles, housewares, gifts
and seasonal products. The company is based in Fort Worth Texas.


PNC BANK: Bid to Dismiss "Wigod" State Law/ECOA Claims Granted
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LORI WIGOD, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. PNC BANK, N.A., Defendant, Case
No. 17 C 2025 (N.D. Ill.), Judge Gary Feinerman of the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern
Division, (i) granted PNC's motion to dismiss the state law
claims and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act ("ECOA") vague notice
claim; (ii) denied PNC's motion for summary judgment on the ECOA
late notice claim, and (iii) denied PNC's motion to strike the
complaint's class allegations.

On Aug. 31, 2016, Wigod applied to PNC for a modification of her
mortgage loan.  PNC responded on Oct. 12, 2016 with a letter
stating that additional information was needed to complete the
application.  Wigod's husband faxed PNC the document completing
her application during the evening of Saturday, Oct. 22, 2016.
The next business day was Monday, Oct. 24, 2016. On Nov. 23,
2016, PNC sent a letter to Wigod denying the application.

In this putative class action, Wigod alleges that PNC violated
the ECOA, and Illinois law by notifying her, in a manner that was
both untimely and unlawfully vague, that it had denied her
mortgage loan modification application.

Count I of the operative complaint alleges that PNC violated the
ECOA, as implemented by its Regulation B, by notifying her of the
denial of her application more than 30 days after it received the
completed application.  Count II alleges that PNC violated this
provision because its letter to Wigod did not provide specific
reasons for denying her application; Count II also seeks relief
on behalf of a purported national "Vague Notice" class.  Count
III alleges that PNC breached the implied covenant of good faith
and fair dealing in its mortgage agreement with Wigod by failing
to provide a timely and clear notice of its reasons for denying
her application.  Count IV alleges that PNC violated the Illinois
Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act ("ICFA"), by
failing to provide a clear, written notice of the reasons for its
denial of Wigod's application.

PNC moves to dismiss the state law claims and the ECOA vague
notice claim, for summary judgment on the ECOA late notice claim,
and to strike the complaint's class allegations.  The motion to
dismiss the state law and ECOA vague notice claims is granted,
the motion for summary judgment on the ECOA late notice claim is
denied, and the motion to strike the class allegations on that
claim is denied as well.

Viewing the record in the light most favorable to Wigod, PNC
received her husband's fax -- and thus her completed application
-- on October 22, which is more than 30 days before it denied the
application on November 23.  Because PNC has not demonstrated
that it complied with Regulation B's 30-day notice provision,
Judge Fienerman holds it is not entitled to summary judgment on
Count I.

As to motion to dismiss the ECOA vague notice claim and the state
Law claims, the Judge finds that if Wigod believes that PNC's use
of incorrect inputs violated some other provision of the ECOA or
its Regulation B, she may bring such a claim in an amended
complaint.  But that is not the claim presented in Count II of
the operative complaint.  Wigod's claim alleges only that PNC's
notice did not have the specificity demanded by Regulation B's
"statement of specific reasons" provision -- after all, she named
the putative class seeking relief under Count II the "Vague
Notice Class" -- and for the reasons given, PNC's notice is not
unlawfully vague.

As to Count III, the Judge holds that to state a good faith and
fair dealing claim, Wigod must allege that PNC exercised in bad
faith its discretion under a provision that obligated the bank to
respond to modification applications.  Because Wigod has not done
so, the claim will be dismissed.  And because Wigod was able to
correct the two (alleged) errors in PNC's calculation over the
phone, she has not plausibly alleged that PNC's practice of
providing financial inputs over the phone caused her "substantial
injury" by leading PNC to deny her loan modification.  Hence,
Wigod's ICFA claim will also be dismissed.

Finally, with respect to PNC's motion to strike class
allegations, Judge Fienerman holds that even if PNC's fail-safe
argument had merit, it would not require striking Wigod's class
allegations, but rather would warrant refining the class
definition at the class certification stage.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Fienerman denied PNC's summary
judgment motion on Count I (ECOA late notice claim), as is PNC's
motion to strike that count's class allegations.  He granted
PNC's motion to dismiss is granted.  Counts II (ECOA vague notice
claim), III (good faith and fair dealing claim), and IV (ICFA
claim) of the operative complaint are dismissed, but the
dismissal is without prejudice to repleading.  Wigod has until
Feb. 28, 2018 to file a second amended complaint.  If Wigod files
a second amended complaint, PNC will file its response by March
14, 2018.  If Wigod does not file a second amended complaint, the
dismissal of Counts II, III, and IV will convert automatically to
a dismissal with prejudice.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 7, 2018 Memorandum Opinion
and Order is available at https://is.gd/ARy2t3 from Leagle.com.

Lori Wigod, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Steven Lezell Woodrow --
swoodrow@woodrowpeluso.com -- Woodrow & Peluso, LLC & Marc E.
McCallister, McCallister Law Group LLC.

PNC Bank NA, Defendant, represented by Timothy Lawrence Binetti -
- timothy.binetti@dinsmore.com -- Dinsmore & Shohl LLP, Brittany
E. Kirk -- brittany.kirk@dinsmore.com -- Dinsmore & Shohl LLP &
Nicole Helen Daniel -- nicole.daniel@dinsmore.com -- Dinsmore &
Shohl LLP.


POWERCOMM HOLDINGS: Paid $100,000 in "Randolf" Suit
---------------------------------------------------
PowerComm Holdings Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2017, that the company has made
payments to plaintiffs in a lawsuit filed by Gregory Randolf, in
the total amount of $100,000.

In April 2014, Gregory Randolf, a former employee of the Company
filed a Class Action Labor Lawsuit against the Company in the
Maryland District Court. The lawsuit alleges that he and 48 other
flaggers of the Company were not paid overtime pay which in
Maryland is time and 1/2.  The Company believes that Mr.
Randolf's testimony as to the amount of hours he worked was
completely false and that he was correctly paid for the hours he
worked per his time slips. As of December 2015, the Company
offered $100,000 to settle the case.

The Company accrued contingent loss of $100,000 during the year
ended December 31, 2014. No additional contingent liability was
accrued during the year ended December 31, 2015. On April 28,
2016, the settlement agreement was approved by court and judgment
for plaintiffs was entered in the amount of $100,000. On April
29, 2016, the company made payments to plaintiffs in the total
amount of $100,000.

PowerComm Holdings Inc., through its subsidiary, PowerComm
Construction, Inc., provides electric utility, fiber optic, and
telecommunications construction and maintenance services in the
United States. It installs, connects, and services the energy and
communications sectors. The company was formerly known as White
Grotto Acquisition Corporation and changed its name to PowerComm
Holdings, Inc. in September 2015. PowerComm Holdings Inc. was
incorporated in 2015 and is based in Alexandria, Virginia.


PROGRESSIVE SELECT: Court Dismisses UR Health's Suit
----------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida, Miami Division, issued an Order granting Defendant's
Motion to Dismiss the case captioned UR HEALTH CHIROPRACTIC
CORP., a/a/o Oxana Kouzmenko, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. PROGRESSIVE SELECT INSURANCE
COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 17-62086-CIV-MORENO (S.D. Fla.).

Kouzmenko assigned the personal injury protection benefits from
her Progressive automobile insurance policy to UR Health.  In
turn, UR Health provided chiropractic services to help Kouzmenko
recover from the personal injuries she sustained during the
accident.  Progressive subsequently reimbursed UR Health for
certain medical services covered by the policy.

UR Health contends that Progressive still violated the law by
arbitrarily applying the Multiple Procedure Payment Reduction
Rule to some healthcare providers but not to others.  It alleges
that Progressive did not apply the Multiple Procedure Payment
Reduction Rule to reduce reimbursement amounts owed to
diagnostic/imaging providers.  UR Health argues that by applying
the Multiple Procedure Payment Reduction Rule to providers like
the Plaintiff' and arbitrarily choosing not to apply it to
diagnostic/imaging providers, Progressive engaged in unlawful
discriminatory conduct.

Progressive maintains that it has no obligation to employ the
Payment Reduction Rule uniformly for all providers, or to notify
insureds when it applies the Payment Reduction Rule non-
uniformly.  It notes that UR Health offers no support for its
all-or-nothing rule or its notice requirement.

The Court finds that UR Health's argument, that even if Florida's
personal injury protection statute permitted Progressive to apply
the Multiple Procedure Payment Reduction Rule for only some
providers, it must provide adequate notice to the insureds that
it will do so, fails.

Here, UR Health ostensibly invents a cause of action. Nothing in
the governing statute or Kouzmenko's insurance policy requires
Progressive to provide such notice or allows UR Health to recover
in the absence of that notice.  To be sure, the statute states
that an insurer may limit payment as authorized by this paragraph
only if the insurance policy includes a notice at the time of
issuance or renewal that the insurer may limit payment pursuant
to the schedule of charges specified in this paragraph.  However,
Progressive satisfied that requirement by including language in
Kouzmenko's insurance policy reserving the right to utilize the
Multiple Procedure Payment Reduction Rule.

In short, UR Health seeks to recover for a cause of action that
does not exist.  It cannot prevail under any construction of the
complaint because it has not plead cognizable claim for relief.

Thus, contrary to UR Health's absurd suggestion that
Progressive's motion to dismiss is premature because it advances
arguments that go to the merits of the claims, the Court must
dismiss the complaint.

A full-text copy of the District Court's January 18, 2018 Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/yafkjy9d from Leagle.com.

UR Health Chiropractic Corp., on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, other Oxana Kouzmenko, Plaintiff, represented
by Andres H. Lopez, The Andres Lopez Law Firm, 7351 Wiles Road,
Suite 101, Coral Springs, FL 33067

Progressive Select Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by
Marcy Levine Aldrich -- marcy.aldrich@akerman.com -- Akerman LLP,
Ross Elliot Linzer -- ross.linzer@akerman.com -- Akerman LLP &
Ari Gerstin -- ari.gerstin@akerman.com -- Akerman LLP.


RITE AID: Still Faces "Wilson" Merger Action
--------------------------------------------
According to its Form 10-Q report for the quarterly period ended
December 2, 2017, Rite Aid Corporation continues to defend itself
against a putative class action filed in the Pennsylvania in the
Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, entitled Wilson v.
Rite Aid Corp., et al.

After the announcement of the proposed Merger between the Company
and Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc. (WBA), a putative class action
lawsuit was filed in Pennsylvania in the Court of Common Pleas of
Cumberland County (Wilson v. Rite Aid Corp., et al.) by purported
Company stockholders against the Company, its directors (the
Individual Defendants, together with the Company, the Rite Aid
Defendants), WBA and Victoria Merger Sub Inc. (Victoria)
challenging the transactions contemplated by the Merger
agreement.

The complaint alleged primarily that the Individual Defendants
breached their fiduciary duties by, among other things, agreeing
to an allegedly unfair and inadequate price, agreeing to deal
protection devices that allegedly prevented the directors from
obtaining higher offers from other interested buyers for the
Company and allegedly failing to protect against certain
purported conflicts of interest in connection with the Merger.
The complaint further alleged that the Company, WBA and/or
Victoria aided and abetted these alleged breaches of fiduciary
duty. The complaint sought, among other things, to enjoin the
closing of the Merger as well as money damages and attorneys' and
experts' fees.

Rite Aid Corporation is a pharmacy retail healthcare company,
providing its customers and communities with a high level of care
and service through various programs the company offers through
its two reportable business segments, the Retail Pharmacy segment
and the Pharmacy Services segment. The company is based in Camp
Hill, Pennsylvania.


RITE AID: Seeks Dismissal of "Hering" Amended Complaint
-------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Hering v. Rite AID Corporation et al., Case No.
1:15-cv-02440 (M.D. Pa.), Defendants George R Fairweather,
Stephano Pessina, Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc. filed on Feb. 14
a motion to dismiss the amended complaint.

On Feb. 16, Defendants Joseph B Anderson, Bruce G Bodaken, David
R Jessick, Kevin E Lofton, Myrtle S Potter, Michael N Regan, Rite
AID Corporation, Frank A Savage, John T Standley, Marcy Syms.,
filed their brief in support of the Motion to Dismiss.

The case is pending before Judge John E Jones, III.

After the announcement of the proposed Merger between the Company
and Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc. (WBA), an action was filed in
the United States District Court for the Middle District of
Pennsylvania (the Pennsylvania District Court), asserting a claim
for violations of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule
14a-9 against the Rite Aid Defendants, WBA and Victoria and a
claim for violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against
the Individual Defendants and WBA (Hering v. Rite Aid Corp., et
al.).

The complaint in the Hering action alleged, among other things,
that the Rite Aid Defendants disseminated an allegedly false and
materially misleading proxy and sought to enjoin the shareholder
vote on the proposed Merger, a declaration that the proxy was
materially false and misleading in violation of federal
securities laws and an award of money damages and attorneys' and
experts' fees.  On January 14 and 16, 2016, respectively, the
plaintiff in the Hering action filed a motion for preliminary
injunction and a motion for expedited discovery.  On January 21,
2016, the Rite Aid Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
Hering complaint.

At a hearing held on January 25, 2016, the Pennsylvania District
Court orally denied the plaintiff's motion for expedited
discovery and subsequently denied the plaintiff's motion for
preliminary injunction on January 28, 2016.  On March 14, 2016,
the Pennsylvania District Court appointed Jerry Hering, Don
Michael Hussey and Joanna Pauli Hussey as lead plaintiffs for the
putative class and approved their selection of Robbins Geller
Rudman & Dowd LLP as lead counsel.  On April 14, 2016, the
Pennsylvania District Court granted the lead plaintiffs'
unopposed motion to stay the Hering action for all purposes
pending consummation of the Merger.

On March 17, 2017, the Hering plaintiffs filed a motion to lift
the stay for the purpose of filing a proposed amended complaint.
Defendants opposed the motion, and briefing concluded on April
17, 2017.  The proposed amended complaint asserted state law
breach of fiduciary duty claims against the Individual
Defendants, a claim of aiding and abetting the alleged breaches
of fiduciary duty against Rite Aid, WBA and Victoria, as well as
claims for violations of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act and
SEC Rule 14a-9 against the Rite Aid Defendants, WBA and Victoria,
claims for violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and
SEC Rule 10b-5 against the Rite Aid Defendants, WBA, Victoria and
certain WBA executives, and a claim for violations of Section
20(a) of the Exchange Act against the Individual Defendants, WBA
and Victoria.  On July 12, 2017, the Hering plaintiffs filed a
motion to set a status conference.  Later the same day, the
Pennsylvania District Court ordered the plaintiffs to submit a
letter advising the court of the purpose of the requested status
conference, any claims that the plaintiffs believe remain in
light of the dissolution of the merger, and if any claims remain,
the relief the plaintiffs seek.

Pursuant to the court's order, the plaintiffs' letter was
submitted on July 21, 2017, and the Rite Aid Defendants submitted
a letter in response on July 28, 2017.

Rite Aid said in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period
ended August 27, 2017, that on August 4, 2017, the Pennsylvania
District Court entered an order lifting the stay, noting that the
original claims in this matter are now moot, and directed the
plaintiffs to file a motion for leave to amend the complaint,
with brief in support thereof, on or before September 15, 2017.
On September 12, 2017, the Pennsylvania District Court granted
the plaintiffs' unopposed motion to extend time, extending the
deadline for the plaintiffs to file their motion to September 22,
2017.

According to its Form 10-Q report for the quarterly period ended
December 2, 2017, Rite Aid said the September 15, 2017 deadline
was subsequently extended to September 22.  On September 22,
2017, the lead plaintiffs gave notice that plaintiffs Don Michael
Hussey and Joanna Pauli Hussey were withdrawing as lead
plaintiffs, and that plaintiff Jerry Hering (the Lead Plaintiff)
would continue to represent the proposed class in the Hering
action going forward.  That same day, Lead Plaintiff filed a
motion for leave to file an amended complaint, which the
Pennsylvania District Court granted on November 27, 2017.

On December 11, 2017, Lead Plaintiff filed the amended complaint
(the Amended Complaint), which alleges a claim for violations of
Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5 and a claim
for violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the
Rite Aid Defendants, WBA, and certain WBA executives.  The Rite
Aid Defendants intend to move to dismiss the Amended Complaint.

Rite Aid Corporation is a pharmacy retail healthcare company,
providing its customers and communities with a high level of care
and service through various programs the company offers through
its two reportable business segments, the Retail Pharmacy segment
and the Pharmacy Services segment. The company is based in Camp
Hill, Pennsylvania.


RITE AID: Settlement of "Indergit" Suit Has Final Approval
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Indergit v. Rite Aid Corporation et al., Case No.
1:08-cv-09361 (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. J Paul Oetken entered an order
on Jan. 11, 2018, granting Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Final
Approval of the Class and FLSA Collective Action Settlement, and
Approval of Attorneys' Fees, Reimbursement of Expenses and
Service Awards.

According to the Court, the settlement amounts shall be paid from
the Qualified Settlement Fund.  If no individual or party appeals
this Order, the "Effective Date" of the settlement shall be the
later of: (A) three (3) days after the expiration of the time for
filing of an appeal from the Court's approval of the Agreement
without the filing of a Notice of Appeal, or (B) if an appeal is
filed, three (3) days after the expiration of the final
resolution of all appeals (including requests for rehearing or
petitions for certiorari) resulting in final judicial approval of
this Agreement.

The Order also provides that the Claims Administrator will
disburse settlement checks to Class Members, Class Counsel's
attorneys' fees and costs, the service payment and the
administrative costs within 20 days of the Effective Date. The
Claims Administrator shall provide verification to Class Counsel
and Defendants Counsel that it has distributed the Settlement
Checks, retain copies of all of the endorsed Settlement Checks,
and provide Defendants' Counsel with the original or copies of
the endorsed Settlement Checks (both sides) in accordance with
the Settlement Agreement.

Upon the fulfillment of all settlement terms, the entire
Litigation will be dismissed with prejudice, and without costs,
expenses or attorneys' fees to any party except as provided in
the Settlement Agreement and this Order. All Class Members who
did not opt out and Plaintiffs are permanently enjoined from
asserting, pursuing, and/or seeking to reopen claims that have
been released pursuant to the Settlement Agreement. The Court
retains jurisdiction over the interpretation and implementation
of the Settlement Agreement. The Clerk of Court is directed to
mark this case as closed.

According to its Form 10-Q report for the quarterly period ended
December 2, 2017, Rite Aid said the Company has been named in a
collective and class action lawsuit, Indergit v. Rite Aid
Corporation, et al., pending in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York, filed purportedly on
behalf of current and former store managers working in the
Company's stores at various locations around the country. The
lawsuit alleges that the Company failed to pay overtime to store
managers as required under the FLSA and under certain New York
state statutes. The lawsuit also seeks other relief, including
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, costs and injunctive relief
arising out of state and federal claims for overtime pay.

On April 2, 2010, the Court conditionally certified a nationwide
collective group of individuals who worked for the Company as
store managers since March 31, 2007. The Court ordered that
Notice of the Indergit action be sent to the purported members of
the collective group (approximately 7,000 current and former
store managers) and approximately 1,550 joined the Indergit
action. Discovery as to certification issues has been completed.
On September 26, 2013, the Court granted Rule 23 class
certification of the New York store manager claims as to
liability only, but denied it as to damages, and denied the
Company's motion for decertification of the nationwide collective
action claims.

The Company filed a motion seeking reconsideration of the Court's
September 26, 2013 decision which motion was denied in June 2014.
The Company subsequently filed a petition for an interlocutory
appeal of the Court's September 26, 2013 ruling with the U. S.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit which petition was denied
in September 2014. Notice of the Rule 23 class certification as
to liability only has been sent to approximately 1,750 current
and former store managers in the state of New York. Discovery
related to the merits of the claims is ongoing. On January 12,
2017, the parties reached a settlement in principle of this
matter, for an immaterial amount of money, which is subject to
preliminary and final approval by the court. On August 3, 2017,
the court entered an order granting plaintiff's unopposed motion
for preliminary approval of the settlement and notice of the
settlement was issued to putative class members on September 7,
2017.

Rite Aid said "In the event the settlement does not receive
preliminary and/or final approval by the court, the litigation
will resume. If such occurs, the Company presently is not able to
either predict the outcome of this lawsuit or estimate a
potential range of loss with respect to the lawsuit. The
Company's management believes, however, that this lawsuit is
without merit and is vigorously defending this lawsuit."

Rite Aid Corporation is a pharmacy retail healthcare company,
providing its customers and communities with a high level of care
and service through various programs the company offers through
its two reportable business segments, the Retail Pharmacy segment
and the Pharmacy Services segment. The company is based in Camp
Hill, Pennsylvania.


RITE AID: Continues to Defend Calif. Class Action Suits
-------------------------------------------------------
Rite Aid Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ended December 2, 2017, that the company
continues to defend itself in several class action suits in
California.

The Company is currently a defendant in several lawsuits filed in
state courts in California alleging violations of California
wage-and-hour laws, rules and regulations pertaining primarily to
failure to pay overtime, failure to pay for missed meals and rest
periods, failure to reimburse business expenses and failure to
provide employee seating (the "California Cases"). The class
actions pertaining to failure to reimburse business expenses and
provide employee seating purport to be class actions and seek
substantial damages. The single-plaintiff and multi-plaintiff
lawsuits regarding failure to pay overtime and failure to pay for
missed meals and rest periods, in the aggregate, seek substantial
damages.

Rite Aid said "The Company has aggressively challenged the merits
of the lawsuits and, where applicable, the allegations that the
cases should be certified as class or representative actions."

Rite Aid Corporation is a pharmacy retail healthcare company,
providing its customers and communities with a high level of care
and service through various programs the company offers through
its two reportable business segments, the Retail Pharmacy segment
and the Pharmacy Services segment. The company is based in Camp
Hill, Pennsylvania.


RITE AID: Trial in "Hall" Suit Continued to March 9
---------------------------------------------------
Trial in the "Hall" employee seating case against Rite Aid
Corporation has been continued to March 9, 2018.

In the employee seating case (Hall v. Rite Aid Corporation, San
Diego County Superior Court), the Court, in October 2011, granted
the plaintiff's motion for class certification. The Company filed
its motion for decertification, which motion was granted in
November 2012. Plaintiff subsequently appealed the Court's order
which appeal was granted in May 2014. The Company filed a
petition for review of the appellate court's decision with the
California Supreme Court, which petition was denied in August
2014. Proceedings in the Hall case were stayed pending a decision
by the California Supreme Court in two similar cases. That
decision was rendered on April 4, 2016.

A status conference in the case was held on November 18, 2016, at
which time the court lifted the stay and scheduled the case for
trial on January 26, 2018, Rite Aid said in its Form 10-Q Report
for the quarterly period ended August 27, 2017.

According to Rite Aid's Form 10-Q report for the quarterly period
ended December 2, 2017, the Court continued the trial to March 9,
2018, and was scheduled to hear Rite Aid's motion for summary
judgment on February 2, 2018.

Rite Aid Corporation is a pharmacy retail healthcare company,
providing its customers and communities with a high level of care
and service through various programs the company offers through
its two reportable business segments, the Retail Pharmacy segment
and the Pharmacy Services segment. The company is based in Camp
Hill, Pennsylvania.


ROYAL CARIBBEAN: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss "McIntosh" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, NIKKI McINTOSH, on her own behalf and on behalf of
all other similarly situated passengers scheduled to have been
aboard the M/V Liberty of the Seas, Plaintiff, v. ROYAL CARIBBEAN
CRUISES LTD., Defendant, Case No. 17-cv-23575-KING (N.D. Fla.),
Judge James Lawrence King of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Miami Division, granted the Defendant's
Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs Complaint.

The matter arises from a cancelled cruise that was set to leave
the Port of Galveston in Texas on Aug. 27, 2017, which date
coincided with Hurricane Harvey's landfall along the Gulf Coast
in eastern Texas.  The Plaintiff's Complaint alleges, on her own
behalf and on behalf of a class allegedly numbered in the
thousands, that the Defendant's decision not to cancel the
subject cruise until the day it was set to sail, coupled with
notices the Defendant issued in the days leading up to the cruise
that it was still on schedule, forced thousands of people travel
to the Houston area, placing them directly in the path of the
storm.

The Plaintiff's complaint alleges that this forced would be-
passengers to endure torrential rains and dangerous hurricane
conditions, and alleges these would-be passengers, now stranded
in and around Houston, suffered a long list of grievous injuries
ranging from being injured on about their bodily extremities, to
temporary and/or permanent physical disability, to mental and
emotional anguish and feelings of economic insecurity.  It
alleges that these injuries were all caused by the Defendant's
failure to cancel the trip sooner, failure to warn of the dangers
of traveling to a hurricane zone during an impending hurricane,
and failure to promulgate refund policies aimed at ensuring the
safety of passengers.  The Plaintiff further alleges that these
actions were so outrageous as to amount to an intentional
infliction of emotional distress.

The Defendant argues in its Motion to Dismiss that the action
cannot be maintained as a class action based upon a class action
waiver contained within the ticket contract.  More fundamentally,
however, it argues that the complaint must be dismissed because,
as pled, the Plaintiff herself does not allege that she sustained
any injuries, what they were, how she was injured, or that she
even travelled to the Houston area herself like the class of
people she hopes to represent.  Moreover, the Defendant argues
that the Plaintiff's claim for intentional infliction of
emotional distress fails to state a claim, as the Defendant's
alleged actions and inactions were not sufficiently outrageous to
maintain such a claim.

Judge King finds that fatal to the Plaintiff's negligence claims
is her failure to allege that she herself suffered injury or
damages.  While she recites a laundry list of harms allegedly
suffered by the class she hopes to represent, she fails to allege
any specific harms that befell her as a result of the Defendant's
various alleged failures and negligent acts.  Moreover, while she
alleges in her complaint that thousands of would be cruise
passengers were forced to travel to the Houston area because of
the Defendant's negligence, thereby putting them in harm's way
and forcing them to endure said laundry list of harms, the
Plaintiff does not allege anywhere in her complaint that she
herself travelled to Houston and endured these harms.
Accordingly, the Plaintiffs complaint does not plausibly state a
claim for negligence and must be dismissed.

Finally, the Judge finds that the Plaintiffs intentional
infliction of emotional distress claim is due to be dismissed
with prejudice.  The Plaintiff's Complaint fails to allege
conduct sufficiently outrageous to meet the requirements of
Florida law for such a claim, and must be dismissed.

Therefore, Judge King granted the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss.
He dismissed without prejudice Counts I and II of the Plaintiffs
Complaint and dismissed with prejudice Count III of Plaintiffs
Complaint.  The Plaintiff may file an amended complaint within 20
days of the date of the Order.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 7, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/A4Bj1J from Leagle.com.

Nikki McIntosh, on her own behalf and on behalf of all other
similarly situated passengers scheduled to have been aboard the
M/V Liberty of the Seas, Plaintiff, represented by Marc E. Weiner
-- mweiner@lipcon.com -- Lipcon, Margulies, Alsina, Winkleman,
P.A. & Michael A. Winkleman -- mwinkleman@lipcon.com -- Lipcon
Margulies Alsina & Winkleman.

Royal Caribbean Cruises LTD., on her own behalf and on behalf of
all other similarly situated passengers scheduled to have been
aboard the M/V Liberty of the Seas, Defendant, represented by
Scott Daniel Ponce -- Scott.Ponce@hklaw.com -- Holland & Knight.


SHILOH INDUSTRIES: N.Y. Securities Suit Underway
------------------------------------------------
Shiloh Industries, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended October 31, 2017, that the company continues to defend
itself in a securities class action suit in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York.

A securities class action lawsuit was filed on September 21, 2015
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York against the Company and certain of its officers (the
President and Chief Executive Officer and Vice President of
Finance and Treasurer).

As amended, the lawsuit claims in part that the company issued
inaccurate information to investors about, among other things,
its earnings and income and the company's internal controls over
financial reporting for fiscal 2014 and the first and second
fiscal quarters of 2015 in violation of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934. The amended complaint seeks an award of damages in
an unspecified amount on behalf of a putative class consisting of
persons who purchased the company's common stock between January
12, 2015 and September 14, 2015, inclusive.

The Company and such officers filed a Motion to Dismiss this
lawsuit with the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on April 18, 2016. The District Court
rendered an opinion and order granting the company's motion to
dismiss the lawsuit on March 23, 2017. On April 6, 2017, the
plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration of the dismissal
order.

Shiloh Industries said "We, in opposition to the plaintiff's
motion, filed a motion for consideration of the dismissal on
April 20, 2017 and the plaintiffs filed a reply motion in
opposition for reconsideration on April 27, 2017." On July 7,
2017, the District Court denied the Plaintiffs' request to vacate
the District Court's March 23, 2017 order of dismissal and
granted the Plaintiff's request to further amend their complaint.
The Plaintiffs filed their Second Amended Complaint on August 4,
2017.

The company filed its Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended
Compliant on August 18, 2017.  The Plaintiffs' filed their
opposition brief on November 2, 2017 and the company filed its
reply in support of defendants' motion to dismiss the second
amended complaint on November 22, 2017.

Shiloh Industries, Inc. is a global innovative solutions provider
to the automotive, commercial vehicle and other industrial
markets with a strategic focus on designing, engineering and
manufacturing lightweight technologies that improve performance
and benefit the environment. The company is based in Valley City,
Ohio.


SIGNET JEWELERS: Says Arbitration Trial Expected in April 2018
--------------------------------------------------------------
Signet Jewelers Limited said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended October 28, 2017, that the company anticipates trial in the
arbitration to begin the week of April 16, 2018, or as soon
thereafter as the Arbitrator's schedule permits.

In March 2008, a group of private plaintiffs (the "Claimants")
filed a class action lawsuit for an unspecified amount against
SJI, a subsidiary of Signet, in the US District Court for the
Southern District of New York alleging that US store-level
employment practices are discriminatory as to compensation and
promotional activities with respect to gender.

In June 2008, the District Court referred the matter to private
arbitration where the Claimants sought to proceed on a class-wide
basis. The Claimants filed a motion for class certification and
SJI opposed the motion. A hearing on the class certification
motion was held in late February 2014. On February 2, 2015, the
arbitrator issued a Class Determination Award in which she
certified for a class-wide hearing Claimants' disparate impact
declaratory and injunctive relief class claim under Title VII,
with a class period of July 22, 2004 through date of trial for
the Claimants' compensation claims and December 7, 2004 through
date of trial for Claimants' promotion claims.

The arbitrator otherwise denied Claimants' motion to certify a
disparate treatment class alleged under Title VII, denied a
disparate impact monetary damages class alleged under Title VII,
and denied an opt-out monetary damages class under the Equal Pay
Act.

On February 9, 2015, Claimants filed an Emergency Motion To
Restrict Communications With The Certified Class And For
Corrective Notice. SJI filed its opposition to Claimants'
emergency motion on February 17, 2015, and a hearing was held on
February 18, 2015. Claimants' motion was granted in part and
denied in part in an order issued on March 16, 2015. Claimants
filed a Motion for Reconsideration Regarding Title VII Claims for
Disparate Treatment in Compensation on February 11, 2015. SJI
filed its opposition to Claimants' Motion for Reconsideration on
March 4, 2015. Claimants' reply was filed on March 16, 2015.
Claimants' Motion was denied in an order issued April 27, 2015.

SJI filed with the US District Court for the Southern District of
New York a Motion to Vacate the Arbitrator's Class Certification
Award on March 3, 2015. Claimants' opposition was filed on March
23, 2015 and SJI's reply was filed on April 3, 2015. SJI's motion
was heard on May 4, 2015. On November 16, 2015, the US District
Court for the Southern District of New York granted SJI's Motion
to Vacate the Arbitrator's Class Certification Award in part and
denied it in part.

On November 25, 2015, SJI filed a Motion to Stay the AAA
Proceedings while SJI appeals the decision of the US District
Court for the Southern District of New York to the United States
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Claimants filed their
opposition on December 2, 2015. On December 3, 2015, SJI filed
with the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
SJI's Notice of Appeal of the Southern District's November 16,
2015 Opinion and Order.

The arbitrator issued an order denying SJI's Motion to Stay on
February 22, 2016. SJI filed its Brief and Special Appendix with
the Second Circuit on March 16, 2016. The matter was fully
briefed and oral argument was heard by the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit on November 2, 2016. On April 6, 2015,
Claimants filed in the AAA Claimants' Motion for Clarification or
in the Alternative Motion for Stay of the Effect of the Class
Certification Award as to the Individual Intentional
Discrimination Claims. SJI filed its opposition on May 12, 2015.
Claimants' reply was filed on May 22, 2015. Claimants' motion was
granted on June 15, 2015.

Claimants filed Claimants' Motion for Conditional Certification
of Claimants' Equal Pay Act Claims and Authorization of Notice on
March 6, 2015. SJI's opposition was filed on May 1, 2015.
Claimants filed their reply on June 5, 2015. The arbitrator heard
oral argument on Claimants' Motion on December 18, 2015 and, on
February 29, 2016, issued an Equal Pay Act Collective Action
Conditional Certification Award and Order Re Claimants' Motion
For Tolling Of EPA Limitations Period, conditionally certifying
Claimants' Equal Pay Act claims as a collective action, and
tolling the statute of limitations on EPA claims to October 16,
2003 to ninety days after notice issues to the putative members
of the collective action.

SJI filed in the AAA a Motion To Stay Arbitration Pending The
District Court's Consideration Of Respondent's Motion To Vacate
Arbitrator's Equal Pay Act Collective Action Conditional
Certification Award And Order Re Claimants' Motion For Tolling Of
EPA Limitations Period on March 10, 2016. SJI filed in the AAA a
Renewed Motion To Stay Arbitration Pending The District Court's
Resolution Of Sterling's Motion To Vacate Arbitrator's Equal Pay
Act Collective Action Conditional Certification Award And Order
Re Claimants' Motion For Tolling Of EPA Limitations Period on
March 31, 2016. Claimants filed their opposition on April 4,
2016. The arbitrator denied SJI's Motion on April 5, 2016.

On March 23, 2016 SJI filed with the US District Court for the
Southern District of New York a Motion To Vacate The Arbitrator's
Equal Pay Act Collective Action Conditional Certification Award
And Order Re Claimants' Motion For Tolling Of EPA Limitations
Period. Claimants filed their opposition brief on April 11, 2016,
SJI filed its reply on April 20, 2016, and oral argument was
heard on SJI's Motion on May 11, 2016. SJI's Motion was denied on
May 22, 2016.

On May 31, 2016, SJI filed a Notice Of Appeal of Judge Rakoff's
opinion and order to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. SJI's
brief was filed September 13, 2016, and Claimants' brief was
filed on December 13, 2016, SJI filed its reply brief on January
10, 2017, and oral argument was heard on May 9, 2017. On June 1,
2017 the Second Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed SJI's appeal
for lack of appellate jurisdiction. Claimants filed a Motion For
Amended Class Determination Award on November 18, 2015, and on
March 31, 2016 the arbitrator entered an order amending the Title
VII class certification award to preclude class members from
requesting exclusion from the injunctive and declaratory relief
class certified in the arbitration.

The arbitrator issued a Bifurcated Case Management Plan on April
5, 2016, and ordered into effect the parties' Stipulation
Regarding Notice Of Equal Pay Act Collective Action And Related
Notice Administrative Procedures on April 7, 2016. SJI filed in
the AAA a Motion For Protective Order on May 2, 2016. Claimants'
opposition was filed on June 3, 2016. The matter was fully
briefed and oral argument was heard on July 22, 2016. The motion
was granted in part on January 27, 2017. Notice to EPA collective
action members was issued on May 3, 2016, and the opt-in period
for these notice recipients closed on August 1, 2016.

Approximately 10,314 current and former employees submitted
consent forms to opt in to the collective action; however, some
have withdrawn their consents. The number of valid consents is
disputed and yet to be determined.

SJI believes the number of valid consents to be approximately
9,124. On July 24, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit issued its unanimous Summary Order that held
that the absent class members "never consented" to the Arbitrator
determining the permissibility of class arbitration under the
agreements, and remanded the matter to the District Court to
determine whether the Arbitrator exceeded her authority by
certifying the Title VII class that contained absent class
members who had not opted in the litigation. On August 7, 2017,
SJI filed its Renewed Motion to Vacate the Class Determination
Award relative to absent class members with the District Court.

The matter was fully briefed and an oral argument was heard on
October 16, 2017. The parties await a ruling. On November 9,
2017, Claimants filed in the arbitration disclosures identifying
witnesses, exhibits and deposition designations to be used at
trial. SJI's disclosures are due December 7, 2017. On November
10, 2017 SJI filed in the arbitration motions for summary
judgment, and for decertification, of Claimants' Equal Pay Act
and Title VII promotions claims. Claimants' opposition briefs to
these motions are due for filing on December 8, 2017.

Signet Jewelers said "We anticipate trial in the arbitration
to begin the week of April 16, 2018, or as soon thereafter as the
Arbitrator's schedule permits. SJI denies the allegations of the
Claimants and has been defending the case vigorously. At this
point, no outcome or possible loss or range of losses, if any,
arising from the litigation is able to be estimated."

Signet Jewelers Limited engages in the retail sale of diamond
jewelry, watches, and other products in the United States,
Canada, Puerto Rico, the United Kingdom, the Republic of Ireland,
and the Channel Islands. Signet is incorporated in Bermuda.


SIGNET JEWELERS: Suits Against Zale Corporation Settled
-------------------------------------------------------
Signet Jewelers Limited said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended October 28, 2017, that the company reached an agreement to
settle claims on the three class action lawsuits that Zale
Corporation faced.

Prior to the Acquisition, Zale Corporation was a defendant in
three class action lawsuits: Tessa Hodge v. Zale Delaware, Inc.,
d/b/a Piercing Pagoda which was filed on April 23, 2013 in the
Superior Court of the State of California, County of San
Bernardino; Naomi Tapia v. Zale Corporation which was filed on
July 3, 2013 in the US District Court, Southern District of
California; and Melissa Roberts v. Zale Delaware, Inc. which was
filed on October 7, 2013 in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Los Angeles.

All three cases include allegations that Zale Corporation
violated various wage and hour labor laws. Relief was sought on
behalf of current and former Piercing Pagoda and Zale
Corporation's employees. The lawsuits sought to recover damages,
penalties and attorneys' fees as a result of the alleged
violations.

Without admitting or conceding any liability, the Company reached
an agreement to settle the Hodge and Roberts matters for an
immaterial amount. Final approval of the settlement was granted
on March 9, 2015 and the settlement was implemented. On December
28, 2016, the Company participated in a mediation of the Tapia
class action. The mediation resulted in a settlement agreement.
The settlement resolved various California wage and hour claims
involving all current and former employees of Zale Delaware Inc.
d/b/a Zale Corporation who were designated as nonexempt and
worked in California at any time from July 3, 2010 to present.
The Court granted final approval of the settlement on July 14,
2017. In August 2017, the settlement was funded and the
settlement funds were disbursed.

Signet Jewelers Limited engages in the retail sale of diamond
jewelry, watches, and other products in the United States,
Canada, Puerto Rico, the United Kingdom, the Republic of Ireland,
and the Channel Islands. Signet is incorporated in Bermuda.


SIGNET JEWELERS: Parties in "Masten" Class Suit in Discovery
------------------------------------------------------------
Signet Jewelers Limited said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended October 28, 2017, that the parties in the class action suit
filed by Veronica Masten in the Superior Court of California,
County of Los Angeles, are engaged in discovery.

On May 13, 2017, the Company received notice that a Class Action
Complaint against Sterling Jewelers Inc. and Signet Jewelers Ltd.
was filed by Veronica Masten in the Superior Court of California,
County of Los Angeles, alleging violations of various wage and
hour labor laws.

In Masten, Plaintiff seeks to certify two separate classes
comprising all current and former hourly-paid employees employed
by in jewelry stores in California, and all current and former
California employees that received a wage statement "during the
applicable liability period." The Company was served with the
Class Acton Complaint on May 16, 2017. The Company filed its
Answer to the Complaint on June 13, 2017.

On June 14, 2017, the Company removed this matter to the United
States District Court for the Central District of California. A
joint scheduling conference was held on September 18, 2017,
during which the Court scheduled pretrial dates and trial for May
2019. The parties are currently engaged in discovery.

SJI denies the allegations of the Plaintiff and will defend the
case vigorously. At this point, no outcome or possible loss or
range of losses, if any, arising from the litigation can be
estimated.

Signet Jewelers Limited engages in the retail sale of diamond
jewelry, watches, and other products in the United States,
Canada, Puerto Rico, the United Kingdom, the Republic of Ireland,
and the Channel Islands. Signet is incorporated in Bermuda.


SIGNET JEWELERS: Shareholders' Suit in New York Underway
--------------------------------------------------------
Signet Jewelers Limited said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended October 28, 2017, that the Company continues to defend
against shareholders' suit in New York.

In August 2016, two alleged Company shareholders each filed a
putative class action complaint in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company
and its then-current Chief Executive Officer and current Chief
Financial Officer (Nos. 16-cv-6728 and 16-cv-6861, the "S.D.N.Y.
cases").

On September 16, 2016, the Court consolidated the S.D.N.Y. cases
under case number 16-cv-6728. On April 3, 2017, the plaintiffs
filed a second amended complaint, purportedly on behalf of
persons that acquired the Company's securities on or between
August 29, 2013, and February 27, 2017, naming as defendants the
Company, its then-current and former Chief Executive Officers,
and its current and former Chief Financial Officers.

The second amended complaint alleges that the defendants violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
by, among other things, misrepresenting the Company's business
and earnings by (i) failing to disclose that the Company was
allegedly having issues ensuring the safety of customers' jewelry
while in the Company's custody for repairs, which allegedly
damaged customer confidence; (ii) making misleading statements
about the Company's credit portfolio; and (iii) failing to
disclose reports of sexual harassment allegations that were
raised by claimants in an ongoing pay and promotion gender
discrimination class arbitration (the "Arbitration").

The second amended complaint alleged that the Company's share
price was artificially inflated as a result of the alleged
misrepresentations and sought unspecified compensatory damages
and costs and expenses, including attorneys' and experts' fees.

In March 2017, two other alleged Company shareholders each filed
a putative class action complaint in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Texas against the Company and
its then-current and former Chief Executive Officers (Nos. 17-cv-
875 and 17-cv-923, the "N.D. Tex. cases"). Those complaints were
nearly identical to each other and alleged that the defendants'
statements concerning the Arbitration violated Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The N.D. Tex. cases
were subsequently transferred to the Southern District of New
York and consolidated with the S.D.N.Y. cases. On July 27, 2017,
the Court appointed a lead plaintiff and lead plaintiff's counsel
in the consolidated action. On August 3, 2017, the Court ordered
the lead plaintiff to file a third amended complaint by September
29, 2017. The defendants must answer or otherwise respond to the
third amended complaint by December 1, 2017.

Signet Jewelers Limited engages in the retail sale of diamond
jewelry, watches, and other products in the United States,
Canada, Puerto Rico, the United Kingdom, the Republic of Ireland,
and the Channel Islands. Signet is incorporated in Bermuda.


SONIC CORP: Continues to Defend Malware Attack-Related Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Sonic Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
November 30, 2017, that the company continues to defend itself in
a centralized class action suit related to malware attack.

On October 4, 2017, the Company issued a public statement
notifying guests that it had discovered that credit and debit
card numbers may have been acquired without authorization as part
of a malware attack experienced at certain Sonic Drive-In
locations. As reported in its Annual Report on Form 10-K for the
year ended August 31, 2017, the Company was named as a defendant
in five purported class action complaints.

The Company has since been named as a defendant in four
additional purported class action complaints filed on October 9,
2017, in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Ohio, on November 3, 2017, in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Texas, on November
13, 2017, in the United States District Court for the District of
Arizona, and on December 17, 2017, in the Northern District of
Illinois (the nine actions are collectively referred to as the
"Litigation").

Each of these complaints asserts various claims related to the
Company's alleged failure to safeguard customer credit card
information, and the plaintiffs seek monetary damages, injunctive
and declaratory relief and attorneys' fees and costs. The
Litigation has since been centralized in the Northern District of
Ohio for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.

The Company believes it has meritorious defenses to the
Litigation and intends to vigorously oppose the claims asserted
in the complaints.

Sonic Corp. said "We cannot reasonably estimate the range of
potential losses that may be associated with the Litigation
because of the early stage of each lawsuit. We also cannot assure
you that we will not become subject to other inquiries or claims
relating to the payment card breach in the future. Although we
maintain cyber liability insurance, we currently believe it is
possible that the ultimate amount paid by us, if we are
unsuccessful in defending all of the Litigation, will be in
excess of our cyber liability insurance coverage applicable to
claims of this nature. We are unable to estimate the amount of
any such excess."

Sonic Corp. operates and franchises a chain of quick-service
drive-in restaurants in the United States. The company is based
in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.


TILLY'S INC: "Gonzales" Suit Pending in California
--------------------------------------------------
Tilly's, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
October 28, 2017, that the company faces a class action suit
entitled, Juan Carlos Gonzales, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, v. Tilly's Inc. et al, Superior Court
of California, County of Orange, Case No. 30-2017-00948710-CU-OE-
CXC.

In October 2017, the plaintiff filed a putative class action
against the company alleging various violations of California's
wage and hour laws. The complaint seeks class certification,
unspecified damages, unpaid wages, penalties, restitution,
interest, and attorneys' fees and costs.

Tilly's said "We intend to defend this case vigorously."

Tilly's, Inc. is a destination specialty retailer of casual
apparel, footwear and accessories for young men, young women,
boys and girls. The company offers an extensive assortment of
iconic global, emerging, and proprietary brands rooted in an
active and social lifestyle. The company is based in Irvine,
California.


TILLY'S INC: Agreement in Principle Reached in "Minnitti" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tilly's, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
October 28, 2017, that the parties in the case entitled, Lauren
Minniti, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated,
v. Tilly's, Inc., United States District Court, Southern District
of Florida, Case No. 0:17-cv-60237-FAM, have reached an agreement
in principle.

On January 30, 2017, the plaintiff filed a putative class action
lawsuit against the company, alleging violations of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (the "TCPA"). Specifically, the
complaint asserts a violation of the TCPA for allegedly sending
unsolicited automated messages to the cellular telephones of the
plaintiff and others. The complaint seeks class certification and
damages of $500 per violation plus treble damages under the TCPA.

The company filed its initial response to this matter with the
court in March 2017. The parties attended a mediation in June
2017. In July 2017, the parties reached an agreement in principle
to settle this matter, subject to court approval and the
execution of a final settlement agreement.

Tilly's, Inc. is a destination specialty retailer of casual
apparel, footwear and accessories for young men, young women,
boys and girls. The company offers an extensive assortment of
iconic global, emerging, and proprietary brands rooted in an
active and social lifestyle. The company is based in Irvine,
California.


TILLY'S INC: Appeal in "Ward" Suit Underway
-------------------------------------------
The appeal in the case, Skylar Ward, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, v. Tilly's, Inc., Superior Court of
California, County of Los Angeles, Case No. BC595405, remains
pending, Tilly's, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended October 28, 2017.

In September 2015, the plaintiff filed a putative class action
lawsuit against the company alleging, among other things, various
violations of California's wage and hour laws. The complaint
sought class certification, unspecified damages, unpaid wages,
penalties, restitution, and attorneys' fees.

In June 2016, the court granted the company's demurrer to the
plaintiff's complaint on the grounds that the plaintiff failed to
state a cause of action against Tilly's and dismissed the
complaint. Specifically, the court agreed with the company that
the plaintiff's cause of action for reporting-time pay fails as a
matter of law as the plaintiff and other putative class members
did not "report for work" with respect to certain shifts on which
the plaintiff's claims are based.

In November 2016, the court entered a written order sustaining
the company's demurrer to the plaintiff's complaint and
dismissing all of plaintiff's causes of action with prejudice.
In January 2017, the plaintiff filed an appeal of the order to
the California Court of Appeal. The plaintiff filed her opening
appellate brief on October 2, 2017, and the company's responding
appellate brief is due to be filed in December 2017.

Tilly's said "We have defended this case vigorously and will
continue to do so."

Tilly's, Inc. is a destination specialty retailer of casual
apparel, footwear and accessories for young men, young women,
boys and girls. The company offers an extensive assortment of
iconic global, emerging, and proprietary brands rooted in an
active and social lifestyle. The company is based in Irvine,
California.


TILLY'S INC: "Whitten" Class Suit Already Concluded
---------------------------------------------------
Tilly's, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
October 28, 2017, that the case, Karina Whitten, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, v. Tilly's Inc.,
Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, Case No.
BC548252, has been concluded with the payment of the final
settlement in April 2017.

In June 2014, the plaintiff filed a putative class action and
representative Private Attorney General Act of 2004 lawsuit
against us alleging violations of California's wage and hour,
meal break and rest break rules and regulations, and unfair
competition law, among other things.

The complaint sought class certification, penalties, restitution,
injunctive relief and attorneys' fees and costs. The plaintiff
filed a first amended complaint in December 2014.

The company answered the complaint in January 2015, denying all
allegations. The company engaged in mediation in May 2016, and
the parties reached a resolution that was presented to the court
for preliminary approval in September 2016.

The court preliminarily approved the settlement in October 2016,
and notice of the settlement was issued to class members. Upon
completion of the claims process, the court approved the final
settlement in February 2017.

Tilly's said "We concluded this matter with the payment of the
final settlement in April 2017. The final settlement amount was
not materially different from the amount previously accrued when
a loss provision was established."

Tilly's, Inc. is a destination specialty retailer of casual
apparel, footwear and accessories for young men, young women,
boys and girls. The company offers an extensive assortment of
iconic global, emerging, and proprietary brands rooted in an
active and social lifestyle. The company is based in Irvine,
California.


TRANSUNION: March 8 Hearing Set for "Patel" Settlement Agreement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The final approval hearing of a settlement agreement in a class
action filed by Amit Patel against TransUnion is set for March 8,
2018, according to TransUnion's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2017.

The Company said, "As a result of a decision by the United States
Third Circuit Court of Appeals in 2010 (Cortez v. Trans Union
LLC), we modified one of our add-on services we offer to our
business customers that was designed to alert our customer that
the consumer, who was seeking to establish a business
relationship with the customer, may potentially be on the Office
of Foreign Assets Control, Specifically Designated National and
Blocked Persons alert list (the "OFAC Alert").  The OFAC Alert
service is meant to assist our customers with their compliance
obligations in connection with the Uniting and Strengthening
America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and
Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT) Act of 2001.

"In Ramirez v. Trans Union LLC, (No. 3:12-cv-00632-JSC, United
States District Court for the Northern District of California),
filed in 2012, the plaintiff has alleged that: the OFAC Alert
service does not comply with the Cortez ruling; we have willfully
violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA") and the
corresponding California state-FCRA based on the Cortez ruling by
continuing to offer the OFAC Alert service; and there are one or
more classes of individuals who should be entitled to statutory
damages (i.e., US$100 to US$5,000 per person) based on the
allegedly willful violations.  In addition to the Ramirez action,
the same lawyers representing Ramirez (who also represented the
plaintiff in Cortez) filed two additional alleged class actions
in 2012 (Miller v. Trans Union, LLC, No.  12-1715-WJN, United
States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania;
and Larson v. Trans Union, LLC, No. 12-5726-JSC, United States
District Court for the Northern District of California) and one
in 2014 (Amit Patel, et al. v. TransUnion LLC, TransUnion Rental
Screening Solutions, Inc. and TransUnion Background Data
Solutions, No.  14-cv-0522-LB, United States District Court for
the Northern District of California) claiming that our process
for disclosing OFAC information to consumers, or how we match
OFAC information to a consumer's name or other identifying
information, violates the FCRA and, in some instances, the
corresponding California state-FCRA.  In addition to the OFAC
allegations, the plaintiff in the Patel action seeks to collapse
all TransUnion FCRA regulated entities into a single entity.  In
July 2014, the Court in Ramirez certified a class of
approximately 8,000 individuals solely for purposes of statutory
damages if TransUnion is ultimately found to have willfully
violated the FCRA, and a sub-class of California residents solely
for purposes of injunctive relief under the California Consumer
Credit Reporting Agencies Act.  While the Court noted that the
plaintiff is not seeking any actual monetary damage, the class
certification order was predicated on a disputed question of
Ninth Circuit law (currently there is a conflict between the
federal circuits) that is awaiting action by the United States
Supreme Court.  Our motions to stay the Ramirez, Miller and
Larson proceedings were granted and the proceedings stayed
pending action by the U.S. Supreme Court in Spokeo v. Robins.  In
June 2015, the Court in Patel certified a national class of
approximately 11,000 individuals with respect to allegations that
TransUnion willfully violated the FCRA by failing to maintain and
follow reasonable procedures to ensure the maximum possible
accuracy of their information, and a national subclass of
approximately 3,000 individuals with respect to allegations that
TransUnion willfully violated the FCRA by failing to provide
consumers with all information in their files.  In September
2015, our motion to stay the Patel proceedings was granted and
the proceedings stayed pending action by the U.S. Supreme Court
in Spokeo v. Robins.

"On May 16, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in
Spokeo v. Robins, holding that the injury-in-fact requirement for
standing under Article III of the United States Constitution
requires a plaintiff to allege an injury that is both "concrete
and particularized." The Court held that the Ninth Circuit's
analysis failed to consider concreteness in its analysis and
vacated the decision and remanded to the Ninth Circuit to
consider both aspects of the injury-in-fact requirement.
Following the U.S. Supreme Court's decision, the stays in the
Ramirez, Miller, Larson and Patel matters were lifted.  In August
2016, the Court in Larson certified a class of approximately
18,000 California residents with respect to allegations that
TransUnion failed to provide consumers with all information in
their files in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.  In
October 2016, the Court in Larson denied our petition for
permission to appeal the class certification decision to the
Ninth Circuit, and the Courts in Ramirez and Patel denied our
motions to decertify the classes based on the implications of
Spokeo.  On January 17, 2017, the magistrate in Miller
recommended that the Court find that the plaintiff has standing
to bring suit in federal court, and that the motion for class
certification should be granted.  We intend to continue to defend
these matters vigorously as we believe we have acted in a lawful
manner.

"As a result of mediation on May 15, 2017 and without admitting
any wrongdoing, we agreed, with the consent of our insurance
carrier, to the terms of an US$8.0 million settlement of all
class, subclass and individual claims in the Patel matter, which
was primarily accrued in the prior year.  On October 26, 2017,
the Court granted preliminary approval of the settlement.  The
settlement administrator has mailed notice of the settlement to
the class members who have until February 21, 2018 to file a
claim for damages or object to the settlement.  The final
approval hearing is scheduled for March 8, 2018.  If the
settlement is not ultimately approved by the Court, we intend to
continue to defend this matter vigorously.

"On June 21, 2017, the jury in Ramirez returned a verdict in
favor of a class of 8,185 individuals in the amount of
approximately US$8.1 million (US$984.22 per class member) in
statutory damages and approximately US$52.0 million (US$6,353.08
per class member) in punitive damages.  Plaintiff's counsel has
not provided any estimate of attorneys' fees and costs that they
will seek in connection with this verdict as permitted by law.
The timing and outcome of the ultimate resolution of this matter
is uncertain.

"We have posted a bond at nominal cost to stay the execution of
the judgment pending resolution of post-judgment motions that
were filed with the trial court and the subsequent appeal.  In
November 2017, the trial court denied our post-trial motions for
judgment as a matter of law, a new trial and a reduction on the
jury verdict, and we appealed the Ramirez ruling to the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.  Despite the jury
verdict, we continue to believe that we have not willfully
violated any law and have meritorious grounds for seeking
modification of the judgment at the trial court or on appeal.
Given the complexity and uncertainties associated with the
outcome of the current and any subsequent appeals, there is a
wide range of potential results, from vacating the judgment in
its entirety to upholding some or all aspects of the judgment.
As of December 31, 2017, we have recorded a charge for this
matter equal to our current estimate of probable losses for
statutory damages, net of amounts we expect to receive from our
insurance carriers, the impact of which is not material to our
financial condition or results of operations.  We have not,
however, recorded an accrual with respect to the punitive damages
awarded by the jury since it is not probable, based on current
legal precedent, that an award for punitive damages in
conjunction with statutory damages for the alleged conduct will
survive the post-judgment actions.  We currently estimate,
however, that the reasonably possible loss in future periods for
punitive damages falls within a range from zero to something less
than the amount of the statutory damages awarded by the jury.
This estimate is based on currently available information.  As
available information changes, our estimates may change as well.
We believe we will have some level of insurance coverage for the
damage award and the legal fees and expenses we have incurred"

TransUnion provides risk and information solutions.  It operates
in three segments: U.S. Information Services (USIS),
International, and Consumer Interactive.  The Company was
formerly known as TransUnion Holding Company, Inc. and changed
its name to TransUnion in March 2015.  TransUnion was founded in
1968 and is headquartered in Chicago, Illinois.


TRANSUNION: Class Actions on Public Record Collection Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------------
TransUnion continues to defend itself against class action claims
related to public record collection, according to TransUnion's
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017.

The Company said, "In connection with the settlements agreed to
by the industry with the various State Attorneys General in 2014,
2015 and 2016, TransUnion and the other nationwide consumer
reporting agencies agreed to implement enhanced public record
collection, matching and reporting standards that are to be
phased in over a 3-year period.  The industry reminded all users
of consumer reports in 2017 that, as a result of these enhanced
standards, a significant number of civil judgments and tax liens
would be expunged from files and fewer civil judgments and tax
liens would be reported in the future until federal, state or
county offices created compliant programs.

"As a result of the voluntary actions being taken by the
industry, plaintiff lawyers are now seeking to advance claims
that are solely focused on public record collection.  In
particular, these claims allege two common legal theories in
common and allege some form of class action status.  The theories
are: (1) the nationwide consumer reporting agency failed to
disclose to consumers the sources of public record information
contained in their consumer reports by failing to identify as a
source the vendor(s) engaged by that consumer reporting agency to
collect public record information from government entities; and
(2) the nationwide consumer reporting agency failed to timely
update civil judgment and tax lien records based on its
obligation to have reasonable procedures to assure maximum file
accuracy.

"Cases currently pending that name TransUnion, allege a legal
violation of this nature and assert a class claim are: Olga
Anderson, Kim Breeden and Brenda Walker v. Trans Union, LLC
(No.3:16-cv-558-MHL, United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, filed 2016); Carolyn Clark v. Trans Union,
LLC (No.  3:15-cv-00391-MHL, United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Virginia, filed 2015); Deidre Dennis v. Trans
Union, LLC (No.  2:14-cv-02865-MSG, United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, filed 2014); Brigitte
A. Jakob v. Trans Union LLC (No.  2:17-cv-01247, United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, filed
September 14, 2017); Treva Sudell Jones v. Trans Union LLC (No.
1:17-cv-01167, United States District Court for the Western
District of Tennessee, filed August 31, 2017); Herbert Lustig v.
Trans Union, LLC (No.2:17-cv-01175-GAM, Untied States District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, filed 2017);
David Matthews and Brenda Matthews v. Trans Union, LLC (No.
2:17-cv-01825-JS, United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania, filed 2017); Paul K. Nair v. Trans
Union LLC (No.  1:17-cv-05496, United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York, filed July 19, 2017); Wendy
Newcomb v. Trans Union LLC (No.  1:17-cv-11797, United States
District Court, District of Massachusetts, filed September 19,
2017); Rebecca Anne Peters v. Trans Union LLC (No.  2:17-cv-
01273, United States District Court for the Northern District of
Alabama, filed July 28, 2017); and Juan De La Rosa v. TransUnion
LLC (No.  1:18-cv-00073, United States Court for the Southern
District of New York, filed January 4, 2018).  In the third
quarter of 2017, we agreed to settle the Florence Morris v. Trans
Union, LLC (No.3:17-cv-00511-BEN-AGS, United States District
Court for the Southern District of California, filed 2017);
Jeffrey Andree v. Trans Union, LLC (No.1:16-cv-01404-JTN-ESC,
United States District Court for the Western District of
Michigan, filed 2016); and Candace Anderson et al v. Trans Union,
LLC (No.2:16-cv-12873-DML-APP, United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Michigan, filed 2016) matters on terms
that have not had and will not have a material impact on our
financial condition or results of operations.

"TransUnion believes it has valid defenses to each of these
actions and intends to vigorously defend against the claims."

TransUnion provides risk and information solutions.  It operates
in three segments: U.S. Information Services (USIS),
International, and Consumer Interactive.  The Company was
formerly known as TransUnion Holding Company, Inc. and changed
its name to TransUnion in March 2015.  TransUnion was founded in
1968 and is headquartered in Chicago, Illinois.


URANIUM ENERGY: "Stephens" Securities Class Suit Concluded
----------------------------------------------------------
Uranium Energy Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
October 31, 2017, that the securities class action suit filed by
Heather M. Stephens has concluded.

On or about June 29, 2015, Heather M. Stephens filed a class
action complaint against the Company and two of its executive
officers in the United States District Court, Southern District
of Texas, with an amended class action complaint filed on
November 16, 2015 (the "Securities Case"), seeking unspecified
damages and alleging the defendants violated Section 17(b) of the
Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss and on July 15, 2016, the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas entered a
final judgment dismissing the case in its entirety with
prejudice. On September 22, 2016, the plaintiffs voluntarily
dismissed their appeal of the District Court's judgment and on
September 26, 2016 the Fifth Circuit dismissed the Securities
Case pursuant to the plaintiffs' motion.

As a result, the judgment in favor of the Company is final. No
settlement payments or any other consideration was paid by the
Company to the plaintiffs in connection with the Securities Case
dismissal.

Uranium Energy Corp. is pre-dominantly engaged in uranium mining
and related activities, including exploration, pre-extraction,
extraction and processing, on uranium projects located in the
United States and Paraguay. The company is based in Vancouver,
B.C., Canada.


VACATION CONSULTING: JJ&C's Bid to Dismiss "Fitzhenry" Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MARK FITZHENRY, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. VACATION CONSULTING
SERVICES, LLC, BRIAN JAY SCROGGS and JOHN DOES 1-10, Defendants,
v. SIGNATURE GETAWAYS, LLC, JJ&C MARKETING, LLC, ROGELIO MENDOZA,
JR., d/b/a MENDOZA MARKETING and MENDOZA MARKETING, LLC, Third-
Party Defendants, Case No. 4:17CV774 RLW (), Judge Ronnie L.
White of the U.S. District Court for the District of Missouri,
Eastern Division, denied without prejudice JJ&C's Motion to
Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim.

On Dec. 5, 2016, Fitzhenry filed a putative class action suit in
state court alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act ("TCPA") against Defendants VCS, Brian Jay
Scroggs, and John Does 1-10.  The Plaintiff alleges that VCS and
Scroggs violated the TCPA during a May 25, 2016 automated
telephone call.  He also seeks class certification for persons
called on or after June 12, 2013 on residential or cellular
telephone lines by or on behalf of the Defendants VCS and/or
Scroggs in violation of the TCPA.  Defendant VCS removed the case
to federal court on Feb. 21, 2017.

VCS and Scroggs filed a Third-Party Complaint and an Amended
Third-Party Complaint against several Third-Party Defendants,
including JJ&C.  In the First Amended Complaint and specific to
JJ&C, the Third-Party Plaintiffs allege that VCS entered into an
oral contract with JJ&C to provide marketing services.  They
further allege that any telephone calls made to Plaintiff
Fitzhenry or other members of the purported class were made by
the Third-Party Defendants or agents acting on their behalf
without the knowledge or control of the Third-Party Plaintiffs.
The Third-Party Plaintiffs raise claims of breach of contract;
implied contractual and equitable indemnity; and contribution.

On May 17, 2017, JJ&C filed a motion to dismiss the First Amended
Third-Party Complaint for failure state a claim, along with an
Answer.  The Third-Party Plaintiffs filed a response in
opposition on June 13, 2017.  JJ&C did not timely file a reply
brief within seven days in accordance with Rule 4.01 of the Local
Rules of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Missouri.  Further, over one month has passed, and JJ&C has not
complied with the Court's Order of Dec. 28, 2018 or otherwise
responded or requested additional time.

Judge White finds that JJ&C's failure to comply with the Court's
Order and failure file a reply briefrenders it impracticable for
the Court to properly address JJ&C's motion to dismiss and the
Third-Party Plaintiffs' well-briefed response in opposition.
Therefore, he denied JJ&C's motion without prejudice.  He notes
that JJ&C has also filed an Answer, and the Court entered a Case
Management Order on Sept. 7, 2017.  JJ&C is free to renew the
motion to dismiss; however, the Court cautions JJ&C that to
receive Court consideration, any motion to dismiss must be fully
briefed.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 7, 2018 Memorandum and Order
is available at https://is.gd/i6DxBa from Leagle.com.

Mark Fitzhenry, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly-situated, Plaintiff, represented by Max G. Margulis --
MaxMargulis@MargulisLaw.com -- MARGULIS LAW GROUP, Brian J. Wanca
-- bwanca@andersonwanca.com -- ANDERSON AND WANCA, Ross M. Good -
- rgood@andersonwanca.com -- ANDERSON AND WANCA & Ryan M. Kelly -
- rkelly@andersonwanca.com -- ANDERSON AND WANCA.

Vacation Consulting Services, LLC, Defendant, represented by
Matthew A. Jacober -- mjacober@lathropgage.com -- LATHROP AND
GAGE, LLP, Michael A. Clithero -- mclithero@lathropgage.com --
LATHROP AND GAGE, LLP & Matthew J. Rogers --
mrogers@lathropgage.com -- LATHROP AND GAGE, LLP.

Brian Jay Scroggs, Defendant, represented by Matthew A. Jacober,
LATHROP AND GAGE, LLP & Matthew J. Rogers, LATHROP AND GAGE, LLP.

Brian Jay Scroggs, ThirdParty Plaintiff, represented by Matthew
A. Jacober, LATHROP AND GAGE, LLP & Matthew J. Rogers, LATHROP
AND GAGE, LLP.

Vacation Consulting Services, LLC, ThirdParty Plaintiff,
represented by Matthew A. Jacober, LATHROP AND GAGE, LLP, Michael
A. Clithero, LATHROP AND GAGE, LLP & Matthew J. Rogers, LATHROP
AND GAGE, LLP.

JJ&C Marketing, LLC, Third Party Defendant, represented by Taylor
Charles Moore, TAYLOR MOORE LAW.

Rogelio Mendoza, Jr. & Mendoza Marketing, LLC, Third Party
Defendants, represented by James C. Ochs, OCHS AND KLEIN.


VICTIM SERVICES: CFPB Subpoena Bid Moved to Class Action Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, VICTIM SERVICES, INC., et al., Movants, v. CONSUMER
FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU, Respondent, Case No. 1:17-mc-03002
(CRC) (D. D.C.), Judge Christopher R. Cooper of the U.S. District
Court for the District of Columbia transferred to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California the Motion
to Compel Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to Comply with
Properly-Served Subpoena.

Victim Services previously contracted with state prosecutors in
California to manage a diversion program for people accused of
writing bad checks.  In a putative class action pending in the
Northern District of California, several California residents
allege that Victim Services unlawfully collected fees related to
that diversion program.  Specifically, those Plaintiffs claim
that notices sent to individuals eligible for the program created
a false impression that Victim Services was a law enforcement
entity (as opposed to a mere debt collector) and that the notices
falsely suggested that, without enrollment in the diversion
program, criminal charges would be imminent (even if the chances
of prosecution were slim to none).

The year that class action was filed, the Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau brought an enforcement action against Victim
Services based on the same alleged conduct.  The parties settled
that action through a stipulated final judgment and consent order
approved by the District of Maryland in March 2015.  The consent
order enjoined Victim Services from continuing its diversion
program and imposed a $50,000 civil penalty.  It did not require
Victim Services to pay restitution to individuals who had paid
them diversion-program fees.

Several months after entry of the consent decree, however, the
Bureau allocated $23.26 million from its Civil Penalty Fund to
reimburse people who paid diversion fees to Victim Services.

With the class action still pending in California, Victim
Services in October 2016 served a subpoena on the Bureau that had
been issued by the California court.  The subpoena requested all
documents and communications related to the Bureau's payment of
individuals after the enforcement action.  The Bureau responded
with a letter asserting several objections to the subpoena.  The
parties conferred by telephone but were unable to resolve their
disagreement.

Victim Services then filed the instant motion to compel the
Bureau's compliance with the subpoena.  In opposing the motion,
the Bureau contends that complying with the subpoena would impose
a significant burden on the Bureau because, under the Privacy
Act, it would have to issue notices to the nearly 40,000
individuals whose information would be disclosed.  And the Bureau
claims that the cost of such notification -- somewhere between
$40,000 and $82,000, plus staff resources -- far outweighs the
minimal relevance of any disclosed information to the California
litigation.

After reviewing the parties' briefs, Judge Cooper has determined
that the motion should be transferred to the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California -- the court in which the
putative class action against Victim Services is pending.  The
Judge finds that exceptional circumstances warrant transfer of
the motion, as the Court's resolution of the motion could
substantially interfere with the California court's management of
the underlying class action and that potential interference
outweighs any potential burden on the Bureau.

The decision of whether to order the Bureau's compliance with the
subpoena depends, first and foremost, on whether the information
regarding payment from the Civil Penalty Fund is relevant to any
party's claim or defense.  The relevance of the information turns
squarely on whether the Bureau's payments from the Civil Penalty
Fund could implicate the double recovery rule.  Beyond resulting
in a redundant resolution of the issue, the Court's decision on
the relevance of the information Victim Services seeks --
particularly if inconsistent with the California court's own view
-- could disrupt that court's management of the underlying class
action.

Moreover, the Judge does not find that transferring the motion
will significantly burden the Bureau.  In any event, the slight
burden imposed by transferring this motion is outweighed by the
interest in obtaining an efficient and uniform resolution of a
threshold legal question -- one that not only underlies this
discovery dispute but also could significantly affect the merits
of the California class action.

Finally, as suggested in the Advisory Committee Note to the 2013
amendments to Rule 45(f), Judge Cooper in reaching his decision
has consulted with the district judge handling the California
litigation, who agrees that transfer is appropriate.

Judge Cooper therefore ordered that the Motion to Compel Consumer
Financial Protection Bureau to Comply with Properly-Served
Subpoena is transferred to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 7, 2018 Opinion and Order is
available at https://is.gd/IeQzW1 from Leagle.com.

VICTIM SERVICES, INC., NATIONAL CORRECTIVE GROUP, INC. & MATS
JONSSON, Petitioners, represented by Sean M. Hardy --
smhardy@ftllp.com
-- FREEDMAN & TAITELMAN, LLP, pro hac vice & Terrence Michael
McShane -- tmm@lee-mcshane.com -- LEE & MCSHANE, PC.

CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU, Respondent, represented by
Kristin Lee Bateman, CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU Office
of General Counsel.


VULCAN CHEMICALS: La. App. Affirms Final Judgment in "Guice" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, KENNY GUICE, ANTHONY FERNANDEZ, CHAD MORGAN, KEVIN
MORGAN, LARRY JAMES HEBERT, WAYNE TUREAU, AND STACY TUREAU CREASY
WIFE OF/AND TERRY CREASY v. VULCAN CHEMICALS, A BUSINESS GROUP OF
VULCAN MATERIALS COMPANY, VULCAN CHEMICALS INVESTMENTS, L.L.C.,
AND VULCAN CHLORALKALI, L.L.C., INDUSTRIAL COATINGS CONTRACTORS,
INC., AND INTERNATIONAL MAINTENANCE CORPORATION, Case No.
2017CA0859 (La. App.), Judge Mitch Theriot of the Court of Appeal
of Louisiana for the First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the
trial court affirmed the judgment of the trial court sustaining
exceptions of no cause of action and prescription filed by the
Appellee, Hon. Judge Ralph Tureau, against Appellant Mr.
Fernandez.

On Nov. 10, 2016, Mr. Fernandez filed a pro se petition against
Judge Tureau and several other parties, in which he alleged that
the Defendants withheld certain documents from him, effectively
keeping him uninformed on the status of his claims in the
underlying litigation.  He requested information from the named
Defendants, including Vulcan and its insurers, relating to the
"Chemical Explosion" that was the subject of litigation in a
class action lawsuit that included Mr. Fernandez as a member of
the class.  Mr. Fernandez also sought $30,000,000 in damages in
his pro se petition.

The petition for damages in the underlying class action matter
was filed on Aug. 11, 2003.  Judge Tureau presided over a related
case named Vercher v. Vulcan Chemicals et al., No. 69,418, 23rd
JDC, that was joined with other related cases in the class action
lawsuit pertaining to a chemical release at Vulcan.  Judge Tureau
approved a settlement of the class action on Sept. 25, 2009, and
the judgment reflecting the settlement was filed into the record
on Sept. 28, 2009.

On Dec. 12, 2016, Judge Tureau filed a dilatory exception of non-
conformity of petition and peremptory exceptions of prescription
and no cause of action.  On Dec. 14, 2016, Mr. Fernandez filed a
motion to unseal documents, in which he made allegations similar
to those found in his pro se petition.

Following a hearing on the exceptions, the trial court signed a
judgment on April 19, 2017, sustaining the exceptions of no cause
of action and prescription and dismissing Mr. Fernandez's pro se
petition against Judge Tureau, with prejudice.  From this
judgment, Mr. Fernandez has appealed.

Regarding the motion to unseal documents, no final, appealable
judgment has been rendered as to that motion.  The trial court
stated the motion was moot in its oral reasons, but the oral
reasons form no part of the judgment under review by the Court.
As such, insofar as Mr. Fernandez has raised issues regarding the
motion to unseal documents in the instant appeal, that argument
is not properly before the Court and will not be addressed.

Judge Theriot finds that the Appellant's allegations in his pro
se petition do not specify any certain action performed by Judge
Tureau; however, there is a general allegation that the
Defendants "withheld many documents" from the Appellant, that he
was kept uninformed of the proceedings, that he was denied the
opportunity for arbitration, and that he was essentially forced
to "take what was offered."  All the allegations against Judge
Tureau pertain to his role as a judge in the judicial process.
As such, Judge Tureau is entitled to absolute immunity when he
performs "judicial" acts.  Therefore, the Judge finds that Mr.
Fernandez has failed to state a cause of action against Judge
Tureau.

Accordingly, she affirmed the judgment of the trial court.  Judge
Theriot issued the memorandum opinion pursuant to Uniform Rules -
Courts of Appeal, Rule 2-16.1(B).  All costs of the appeal are
assessed to the Appellant Mr. Fernandez.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 7, 2018 Memorandum Opinion
is available at https://is.gd/pI3Ro7 from Leagle.com.

Anthony Fernandez Donaldsonville, Louisiana Appellant Pro Se.

Richard C. Stanley -- rcs@stanleyreuter.com -- M. Rebecca Cooper
-- rebecca@coopercoons.com -- New Orleans, Louisiana, Appellee
Ret. Judge Ralph Tureau.


WALGREENS BOOTS: Illinois Securities Class Suit Still Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------------
Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended November 30, 2017, that the company continues to
defend itself in a putative securities class action suit in
federal court in the Northern District of Illinois.

On April 10, 2015, a putative shareholder filed a securities
class action in federal court in the Northern District of
Illinois against Walgreen Co. and certain former officers of
Walgreen Co. The action asserts claims for violation of the
federal securities laws arising out of certain public statements
the Company made regarding its former fiscal 2016 goals.

On June 16, 2015, the Court entered an order appointing a lead
plaintiff. Pursuant to the Court's order, lead plaintiff filed an
amended complaint on August 17, 2015, and defendants moved to
dismiss the amended complaint on October 16, 2015. Lead plaintiff
filed a response to the motion to dismiss on December 22, 2015,
and defendants filed a reply in support of the motion on February
5, 2016.

On September 30, 2016, the Court issued an order granting in part
and denying in part defendants' motion to dismiss. Defendants
filed their answer to the amended complaint on November 4, 2016
and filed an amended answer on January 16, 2017. Plaintiffs filed
their motion for class certification on April 21, 2017.

Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc. operates as a pharmacy-led health
and wellbeing company. It operates through three segments: Retail
Pharmacy USA, Retail Pharmacy International, and Pharmaceutical
Wholesale. The company is based in Deerfield, Illinois.


WALGREENS BOOTS: Briefing Schedule Set in Pennsylvania Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended November 30, 2017, that the United States District
Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania set a briefing
schedule pursuant to which motions to dismiss will be filed by
February 16, 2018, response briefs by April 17, 2018 and reply
briefs by May 17, 2018.

As of August 31, 2017, the Company was aware of two putative
class action lawsuits filed by purported Rite Aid stockholders
against Rite Aid and its board of directors, Walgreens Boots
Alliance and Victoria Merger Sub, Inc. for claims arising out of
the transactions contemplated by the original Merger Agreement
(prior to its amendment on January 29, 2017) (such transactions,
the "Rite Aid Transactions").

One Rite Aid action was filed in the State of Pennsylvania in the
Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County (the "Pennsylvania
action"), and one action was filed in the United States District
Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania (the "federal
action").

The Pennsylvania action primarily alleged that the Rite Aid board
of directors breached its fiduciary duties in connection with the
Rite Aid Transactions by, among other things, agreeing to an
unfair and inadequate price, agreeing to deal protection devices
that preclude other bidders from making successful competing
offers for Rite Aid, and failing to disclose all allegedly
material information concerning the proposed merger, and also
alleged that Walgreens Boots Alliance and Victoria Merger Sub,
Inc. aided and abetted these alleged breaches of fiduciary duty.

The federal action alleged, among other things, that Rite Aid and
its board of directors disseminated an allegedly false and
misleading proxy statement in connection with the Rite Aid
Transactions.

The plaintiffs in the federal action also filed a motion for
preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin the Rite Aid shareholder
vote relating to the Rite Aid Transactions. That motion was
denied and plaintiffs agreed to stay the litigation until after
the Rite Aid Transactions closed. On March 17, 2017, plaintiffs
moved to lift the stay to allow plaintiffs to file an amended
complaint. On August 4, 2017, that motion was granted for the
limited purpose of allowing plaintiffs to file a motion seeking
leave to amend their complaint in light of the termination of the
Merger Agreement.

Plaintiffs filed such a motion on September 22, 2017. The Company
filed its response on October 6, 2017. The Court granted the
motion on November 27, 2017, ordering the plaintiffs to file
their amended complaint within 10 business days. Plaintiffs filed
their amended complaint on December 11, 2017. The Court set a
briefing schedule pursuant to which motions to dismiss will be
filed by February 16, 2018, response briefs by April 17, 2018 and
reply briefs by May 17, 2018.

Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc. operates as a pharmacy-led health
and wellbeing company. It operates through three segments: Retail
Pharmacy USA, Retail Pharmacy International, and Pharmaceutical
Wholesale. The company is based in Deerfield, Illinois.


WARNER MUSIC: Price Fixing Suit over Song Downloads Underway
------------------------------------------------------------
Warner Music Group Corp. said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended September 30, 2017, that the company continues to defend a
class action suit related to the pricing of digital music
downloads.

On December 20, 2005 and February 3, 2006, the Attorney General
of the State of New York served the Company with requests for
information in connection with an industry-wide investigation as
to the pricing of digital music downloads. On February 28, 2006,
the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice served
Warner Music with a Civil Investigative Demand, also seeking
information relating to the pricing of digitally downloaded
music. Both investigations were ultimately closed, but subsequent
to the announcements of the investigations, more than thirty
putative class action lawsuits were filed concerning the pricing
of digital music downloads.

The lawsuits were consolidated in the Southern District of New
York. The consolidated amended complaint, filed on April 13,
2007, alleges conspiracy among record companies to delay the
release of their content for digital distribution, inflate their
pricing of CDs and fix prices for digital downloads. The
complaint seeks unspecified compensatory, statutory and treble
damages.

On October 9, 2008, the District Court issued an order dismissing
the case as to all defendants, including Warner Music. However,
on January 12, 2010, the Second Circuit vacated the judgment of
the District Court and remanded the case for further proceedings
and on January 10, 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court denied the
defendants' petition for Certiorari.

Upon remand to the District Court, all defendants, including the
Company, filed a renewed motion to dismiss challenging, among
other things, plaintiffs' state law claims and standing to bring
certain claims. The renewed motion was based mainly on arguments
made in defendants' original motion to dismiss, but not addressed
by the District Court.

On July 18, 2011, the District Court granted defendants' motion
in part, and denied it in part. Notably, all claims on behalf of
the CD-purchaser class were dismissed with prejudice. However, a
wide variety of state and federal claims remain for the class of
Internet download purchasers. On March 19, 2014, plaintiffs filed
a motion for class certification. Plaintiffs filed an operative
consolidated amended complaint on September 25, 2015. The Company
filed its answer to the fourth amended complaint on October 9,
2015, and filed an amended answer on November 3, 2015. A
mediation took place on February 22, 2016, but the parties were
unable to reach a resolution.

On July 12, 2017, the District Court denied plaintiffs' motion
for class certification. On August 1, 2017, plaintiffs filed a
petition with the Second Circuit seeking permission to appeal the
District Court's order denying class certification. On August 11,
2017, defendants filed an opposition to plaintiffs' petition.

The Company intends to defend against these lawsuits vigorously,
but is unable to predict the outcome of these suits. Regardless
of the merits of the claims, this and any related litigation
could continue to be costly, and divert the time and resources of
management. The potential outcomes of these claims that are
reasonably possible cannot be determined at this time and an
estimate of the reasonably possible loss or range of loss cannot
presently be made.

Warner Music Group Corp. operates as a music-based content
company in the United States, the United Kingdom, and
internationally. The company operates in two segments, Recorded
Music and Music Publishing. The company is based in New York.


XCERRA CORP: "Stallings" Class Action Suit Dropped
--------------------------------------------------
The case, Chris Stallings v. Xcerra Corporation, et al., has been
dismissed.

Xcerra said in its Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended July 31,
2017, that on August 22, 2017, a putative shareholder class
action complaint was filed in the United States District Court
for the District of Massachusetts against the Company and each
member of the Board, captioned Chris Stallings v. Xcerra
Corporation, et al., C.A. No. 1:17-cv-11579. The complaint
alleges, among other things, that the Company and the Board
violated federal securities laws and regulations by soliciting
stockholder votes in connection with the Merger through a proxy
statement that omits material facts necessary to make the
statements therein not false or misleading. The complaint seeks,
among other things, either to enjoin the Company and the Board
from conducting the stockholder vote on the Merger unless and
until the allegedly omitted material information is disclosed to
the Company's stockholders or, in the event the Merger is
consummated, to recover damages resulting from the Company's and
the Board's violations of federal securities laws and
regulations.

Xcerra said in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended
October 31, 2017, that the parties agreed on certain additional
disclosures to the Company's definitive proxy statement, which
were filed on October 3, 2017. The plaintiffs dismissed the
complaint on November 1, 2017.

Xcerra Corporation formerly known as LTX-Credence Corporation, is
a global provider of test and handling capital equipment,
interface products, test fixtures and related services to the
semiconductor and electronics manufacturing industries. The
company designs, manufactures and market products and services
that address the broad, divergent requirements of the mobility,
industrial, medical, automotive and consumer end markets,
offering a comprehensive portfolio of solutions and technologies,
and a global network of strategically deployed applications and
support resources. The company operates in the semiconductor and
electronics manufacturing test markets through its atg-Luther &
Maelzer, Everett Charles Technologies (ECT), LTX-Credence and
Multitest businesses.


XCERRA CORP: "Berg" Class Action Suit Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in the case, Robert Berg v. Xcerra Corporation et
al., have agreed to dismiss the case.

On August 23, 2017, a putative shareholder class action complaint
was filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts against the Company, each member of the Board,
Parent, Unic Capital, Sponsor and Merger Sub, captioned Robert
Berg v. Xcerra Corporation et al., Case No. 1:17-cv-11583.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that the Company, the
Board, Parent, Unic Capital, Sponsor and Merger Sub violated
federal securities laws and regulations by soliciting stockholder
votes in connection with the Merger through a proxy statement
that omits material information with respect to the proposed
Merger, which renders the proxy statement false and misleading.
The complaint seeks, among other things, either to enjoin the
Company, the Board, Parent, Unic Capital, Sponsor and Merger Sub
from proceeding with, consummating or closing the Merger or, in
the event the Merger is consummated, to rescind the Merger and
set aside or award rescissory damages.

Xcerra said in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended
October 31, 2017, that the parties agreed on certain additional
disclosures to the Company's definitive proxy statement, which
were filed on October 3, 2017. The plaintiff dismissed the
complaint on November 1, 2017.

Xcerra Corporation formerly known as LTX-Credence Corporation, is
a global provider of test and handling capital equipment,
interface products, test fixtures and related services to the
semiconductor and electronics manufacturing industries. The
company designs, manufactures and market products and services
that address the broad, divergent requirements of the mobility,
industrial, medical, automotive and consumer end markets,
offering a comprehensive portfolio of solutions and technologies,
and a global network of strategically deployed applications and
support resources. The company operates in the semiconductor and
electronics manufacturing test markets through its atg-Luther &
Maelzer, Everett Charles Technologies (ECT), LTX-Credence and
Multitest businesses.


XCERRA CORP: Faces "Khan" Class Action in Massachusetts
-------------------------------------------------------
Xcerra Corp. said in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended
October 31, 2017, that the Company is defending against the case,
Waseem Khan v. Xcerra Corporation et al.

On November 10, 2017, a putative shareholder class action
complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts against the Company and each member of
the Board, captioned Waseem Khan v. Xcerra Corporation et al.,
Case No. 1:17-cv-12226. The complaint alleges, among other
things, that the Company and the Board violated federal
securities laws and regulations by soliciting stockholder votes
in connection with the Merger through a proxy statement that
includes false and misleading material information with respect
to the proposed Merger, which renders the proxy statement false
and misleading. The complaint seeks damages.

The Company is reviewing the complaint and has not yet formally
responded to it, but believes that the plaintiffs' allegations
are without merit and intends to defend against them vigorously.
However, litigation is inherently uncertain and there can be no
assurance regarding the likelihood that the Company's defense of
the actions will be successful. Additional complaints containing
substantially similar allegations may be filed in the future.







                            *********


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  * * *