CAR_Public/180306.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


              Tuesday, March 6, 2018, Vol. 20, No. 47



                            Headlines


7 HILLS RESTAURANT: Fails to Pay Wages and OT Pay, Bertram Says
143 CAFE INC: Fails to Pay for Overtime Work, "Ajala" Suit Claims
ACCENTCARE INC: "Trammell" Suit Seeks to Certify Employee Class
ACE INDUSTRIES: Faces "Fannis" Suit over Failure to Pay Overtime
ACUMEN ROBOT: Black et al. Sue over Sales of Onagofly F115 Drones

ADMIN RECOVERY: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed
ADVANCED MEDICAL: Faces "Wright" Suit in California
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Ivig Trucking Sues over Credit Card Application
APEX ASSET: Winship Sues over Debt Collection
APPLE INC: "Canoa de Oliveira" Suit Alleges Calif. UCL Violation

ARS NATIONAL: Dionisio Sues over Debt Collection
AVIACODE INC: Hazel Seeks to Certify Class of Medical Coders
BANK OF AMERICA: "Boswell" Suit Seeks Certification of 5 Classes
BANK OF THE WEST: Fails to Pay for Overtime, Mkhitarian Claims
BAYWATCH INC: Faces "Caruso" Suit over Failure to Pay for OT

BENJAMIN MOORE: Natura Brand Paint Ads Misleading, Keats Claims
BIG HEART: Sturm Sues over Contaminated Dog Foods
BIOVERATIV INC: Quigley Balks at Sanofi Merger Deal
BNSF LOGISTICS: "Garza" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
BONDED COLLECTION: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed

BRIAD WENCO: "Fils" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay under Labor Law
BRIGADOON FITNESS: Gorss Motels Seeks to Certify Class
BRISTOL-MYERS: Faces "Tung" Suit over Share Price Drop
BUCK VALLEY: Faces "Wood" Suit over Failure to Pay Overtime
CARROLL MEMORIAL: "Sanders" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA

CDK GLOBAL: Massey Chrysler Alleges Automobile Sales Price-Fixing
CDK GLOBAL: Hoover Auto Class Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois
CDK GLOBAL: Kenny Class Suit Transferred to North. Dist. Illinois
CDK GLOBAL: Massey Class Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois
CENTURY ARMS: Court Denies Redacted Bid for Class Certification

CREDIT CONTROL: Rincon-Marin Seeks to Certify Consumers Class
CREDIT PROTECTION: Illegally Collects Debt, says "McRobie" Suit
CGR SERVICES: Court Denies Bid for Class Certification as Moot
CHICAGO, IL: Educ Board Fails to Disclose Reinspection Report
COLLECTO INC: Winship Sues over Debt Collection

COLORADO: 10th Cir. Orders Enforcement of $50 Award in "Moore"
COMCAST CABLE: Hodges Sues over Subscribers' Personal Info
CORNING INCORPORATED: Faces "Read" Suit in W.D. New York
DISNEY STORE: Faces "Burbon" Suit in. S.D. New York
DST SYSTEMS: Scott Balks at SS&C Technologies Merger Deal

DYNAMIC RECOVERY: "Siddiqi" Bid for Class Certification Nixed
EDELMAN FINANCIAL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, "Brown" Suit Claims
ENERMEX INTERNATIONAL: "Serrato" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
ENHANCED RECOVERY: "Eady" Suit Seeks to Certify 3 Classes
EQUIFAX INC: Faces "Carter" Suit in N.D. Georgia

ERELEVANCE CORPORATION: Removes "Jaffe" Suit to N.D. Illinois
ESSEX TECHNOLOGY: "Nowell" Suit Alleges Violation of FCRA
EXPEDIA INC: Buckeye Tree, et al. Seek to Certify Class
FAIRMONT FUNDING: Azulay Sues over Mortgage Loan Fraud
FCA US: Vaugn Sues over Defective Chrysler 2017 Pacifica Vans

FEDEX FREIGHT: Pina Seeks to Certify Operations Supervisors Class
FRENCH BREAD: "Gonzalez" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime under FLSA
FUJIFILM HOLDINGS: Lowinger Balks at Xerox Merger Deal
GET AROUND INC: Ponciano Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code
GLYNN COUNTY, GA: "Coleman" Summary Ruling Partly Affirmed

GSP TRANSPORTATION: "Campbell" Suit Seeks to Certify Class
HMR OF ALABAMA: Court Dismisses "Cooley" Wage and Hour Suit
HOLLAND LP: Fails to Pay for Overtime Work, "Thomas" Suit Claims
HOME DEPOT: "Manopla" Suit Seeks to Certify Class
HOME DEPOT: 4th Cir. Affirms Remand of "Jackson" to State Court

HUFFS RESTAURANT: "Garvin" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages
HUGO BOSS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, "Chavez" Suit Says
HYUNDAI CAPITAL: Made Unsolicited Calls, Sloatman Says
ILLUMINA INC: Court Narrows Claims in Securities Fraud Suit
IMPRESA AEROSPACE: Gutierrez Seeks OT Wages Under Labor Code

INNOVAK INTERNATIONAL: All Pending Bids Denied in "Bohannan" Suit
INTERNATIONAL PITA: Nevarez Seeks Unpaid OT under Labor Code
INTERNATIONAL QUALITY: "Williamson" Suit Moved to S.D. Ohio
JEREMY REVITCH: Revitch Sues over Unsolicited Telephone Calls
JKB FINANCIAL: Faces "Salinas" Suit in California

JOHN DOES: Samuel Sues over VIX-Linked Instruments Price-Fixing
JULIE JONES: Plaintiffs Win More Time to Respond to Dismissal Bid
KENNETH REES: India Banks Bid for Class Certification Denied
LESCONCIERGES INC: Pivirotto Seeks Overtime Pay
LOUISIANA: Commission Frederick Faces "Murphy" Class Suit

M.L. ZAGER: Accused of Wrongful Conduct over Debt Collection
MAGNOLIA HI-FI: "Bonomi" Suit Moved to Southern Dist. of Florida
MANNA PRO: Rabbit Food Products Contain Corn, Hale Complains
MATSU CORP: "Zhen Zhu" Suit Alleges FLSA and CMWA Violations
MONSANTO COMPANY: "Hoskins" Suit Moved to N.D. California

MONTERREY SECURITY: Lee Seeks Unpaid Wages
MURATA MANUFACTURING: Cambridge Alleges Price-Fixing of Inductors
NATIONAL GAS: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Moore" Suit Claims
NORDIC NATURALS: Elikman Sues over Mislabeling of Probiotics
NORTH SHORE AGENCY: Veytsman Sues over Debt Collection

OCWEN LOAN: Seeks to Deny Certification of "Stromberg" Class
PALMER & REIFLER: "Cook" Suit Seeks to Certify 3 Classes
PEAK PROPERTIES: Antjuanyaakins Sues over Rental Agreement
PEOPLE'S UNITED: Faces "Delacruz" Suit over Payment of Wages
PINNACLE ENTERTAINMENT: Smith Balks at Penn Merger Deal

PROFESSIONAL PLACEMENT: "Safranski" Accord Has Final Court OK
PURDUE PHARMA: Minute Men Sues over Sale of Prescription Opioids
QDI 1: Faces "Lopez" Class Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
SPIRIT AIRLINES: "Giavasis" Suit Alleges UCL Violations
TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICAL: Weisberg Sues over TRINTELLIX Program

TGI FRIDAYS: "Williams" Class Certification Bid Tossed
TOLEDO COUNTRY CLUB: "McCullen" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
UBIQUITI NETWORKS: Overstated User Community, Vanderheiden Says
VAL VERDE: "Sehr" Suit Seeks to Certify Nurses Class
WE DRIVE U: Fails to Pay for Overtime Work, "Davis" Suit Claims

WELLS FARGO: Nakamura Seeks to Certify Class of Service Members
XEROX CORP: Carpenters Pension Fund Balks at Fuji Merger Deal







                            *********


7 HILLS RESTAURANT: Fails to Pay Wages and OT Pay, Bertram Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
MARISSA BERTRAM, as an individual and on behalf of others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. 7 HILLS RESTAURANT, LLC DBA
"SPQR", a California limited liability company; and DOES 1
through 50, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. CGC-18-564474
(S.D. Fla., Feb. 21, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid wages and
overtime pay under the California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to pay non-
exempt workers employed by them minimum wages for all hours
worked, as required by Labor Code. The Defendant routinely
required Plaintiff and class members to report to work and
perform work before their scheduled shift began, and stay at work
and perform work after their scheduled shift ended. However, on a
routine and systematic basis, Plaintiff and class members were
clocked out of Defendant's timekeeping system when performing
this work and were not compensated for the work they performed
while clocked out. Plaintiff and class members were not paid
minimum wages for all hours they worked.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kelly Armstrong, Esq.
          Matihew J. Wayne, Esq.
          THE ARMSTRONG LAW FIRM
          302 Caledonia Street, Suite 4
          Sausalito, CA 94965
          Telephone: (415) 331 4400
          Facsimile: (415) 331 4407
          E-mail: kelly@thearmstronglawfirm.com
                  mwayne@thearmstronglawfirm.com

               - and -

          Jennifer Kramer, Esq.
          JENNIFER KRAMER LEGAL, APC
          5015 Eagle Rock Boulevard, Suite 202
          Los Angeles, CA 90041
          Telephone: (213) 955-0200
          Facsimile: (213) 226-4358
          E-mail: Jennifer@laborlex.com


143 CAFE INC: Fails to Pay for Overtime Work, "Ajala" Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MALIK AJALA and BLAGOJ VASILEV, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 143 CAFE INC., d/b/a
TOSCANA 49; DORJAN KALAJA; DRITON MILA; RAMADAN MILA; and GAZMEND
HODZIC, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-00831-KPF (S.D.N.Y., Jan.
30, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated
damages and attorney's fees, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act and New York Labor Law.

Mr. Ajala worked as a server at Toscana 49 for a year, starting
in December 2016.

Mr. Vasilev worked at Toscana 49 as server from March 2017
through the present.

143 CAFE INC., d/b/a TOSCANA 49 is a New York Corporation,
operating Toscana 49 restaurant in midtown Manhattan. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     D. Maimon Kirschenbaum, Esq.
     Lucas Buzzard, Esq.
     JOSEPH & KIRSCHENBAUM LLP
     32 Broadway, Suite 601
     New York, NY 10004
     Telephone: (212) 688-5640
     Facsimile: (212) 688-2548


ACCENTCARE INC: "Trammell" Suit Seeks to Certify Employee Class
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled ESTELLA LYNN TRAMMELL Individually and On
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v.
ACCENTCARE, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-01129-LY (W.D.
Tex.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to conditionally certify a
class of:

   "all current and former employees of Defendant who were
   treated by Defendant as FLSA non-exempt and were paid straight
   time for their intra-workday travel in the last three years."

Plaintiff also asks the Court to authorize her counsel to send
notices the Class members.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=cXi8gODd

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel A. Verrett, Esq.
          Edmond S. Moreland, Jr., Esq.
          MORELAND LAW FIRM, P.C.
          The Commissioners House at Heritage Square
          2901 Bee Cave Road, Box L
          Austin, TX 78746
          Telephone: (512) 782-0567
          Facsimile: (512) 782-0605
          E-mail: daniel@morelandlaw.com
                  edmond@morelandlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Kimberly R. Miers, Esq.
          Melissa J. Ackie, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
          100 Congress Avenue, Suite 1400
          Austin, TX 78701
          Telephone: (512) 982 7250
          Facsimile: (512) 982 7248
          E-mail: kmiers@littler.com
                  mackie@littler.com


ACE INDUSTRIES: Faces "Fannis" Suit over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jahni Fannis, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. Ace Industries Construction LLC and Kyle Lavender,
Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-00857-JGK (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 31, 2018),
is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay the minimum
wage rate for all hours worked and the required overtime premium
rate for all hours worked over 40 per week, in violation of the
Fair Labor Standard Act.

Kyle Lavender is a co-owner and senior manager of Ace. Defendant
Lavender is an employer within the meaning of the FLSA and the
New York Labor Law.

Ace Industries Construction LLC is a New York corporation with
principal place of business in Mount Vernon, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jason L. Solotaroff, Esq.
          Aliaksandra R. Ramanenka, Esq.
          GISKAN SOLOTAROFF & ANDERSON LLP
          217 Centre Street, 6th Floor
          New York, NY 10013
          Telephone: (212) 847-8315


ACUMEN ROBOT: Black et al. Sue over Sales of Onagofly F115 Drones
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ALLAN BLACK, CHRISTOPHER JONES, ROGER WATTS, and ROBERT MATOS
RIVERA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. ACUMEN ROBOT INTELLIGENCE, INC. and
DOES 1-100, the Defendant, Case No. BC694897 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
Feb. 21, 2018), seeks to recover actual damages based upon
Defendants' deceptive, fraudulent, and illegal practices relating
to the national marketing and sale of the Onagofly drone marketed
as Onagofly F115.

The Defendants have perpetrated a scam upon the fast-growing
drone-buying community by duping consumers into purchasing
Onagofly FI15s that lack various specifications as advertised or,
in some cases, by not even delivering a purchased Onagofly FI 15
at all. Defendants have placed in the marketplace for sale a
product that does not live up to its billing and have not
delivered on their own express promises in a number of important
ways.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class:

          Gillian L. Wade, Esq.
          MILSTEIN JACKSON FILED
          FAIRCHILD & WADE LLP
          10250 Constellation Boulevard, 14th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 396 9600
          Facsimile: (310) 396 9635
          E-mail: gwade@majfw.com

               - and -

          Kenneth J. Grunfeld, Esq.
          GOLOMB & HONIK, P.C.
          1515 Market Street, Suite 1100
          Philadelphia, PA
          Telephone: (215) 985 9177
          Facsimile: (215) 985 4169
          E-mail: kgrunfeld@golombhonik.com


ADMIN RECOVERY: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled CARLOS BEAUFRAND, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. ADMIN
RECOVERY, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-00269-PP (E.D.
Wisc.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying
proposed classes in this case, appointing the Plaintiff as class
representative, and appointing Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as Class
Counsel, and for such other and further relief as the Court may
deem appropriate.

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

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ADVANCED MEDICAL: Faces "Wright" Suit in California
---------------------------------------------------
A class action suit was filed against Advanced Medical Personnel
Services Inc., and Rise Medical Staffing LLC. The case is
captioned as Tekary Wright, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Advanced Medical
Personnel Services Inc.; Rise Medical Staffing LLC; and Does
1-50, Defendants, Case No. 34-2018-00226320-CU-OE-GDS (Cal.
Super., Sacramento Cty., Jan. 30, 2018).

Advanced Medical Personnel Services Inc operates as a therapy
staffing agency. The Company specializes in the placement of
allied health professionals and specialized nurses into skilled
nursing facilities, hospitals, home health agencies, K-12
schools, and other healthcare organizations. Advanced Medical
Personnel offers its services in the United States.

Rise Medical Staffing, LLC provides short and long-term staffing
solutions to healthcare facilities suffering from nurse staff
shortages. Rise Medical Staffing, LLC was formerly known as
HealthOne Staffing LLC and changed its name to Rise Medical
Staffing, LLC in November 2012. The company was founded in 2003
and is based in Sacramento, California. As of April 27, 2016,
Rise Medical Staffing, LLC operates as a subsidiary of Advanced
Medical Personnel Services, Inc. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Norman B. Blumenthal, Esq.
          BLUMENTHAL NORDREHAUG BHOWMIK DE BLOUW LLP
          2255 Calle Clara
          San Diego, CA 92037
          Phone: (858) 367-9913
          Fax: (858) 551-1232


AMERICAN EXPRESS: Ivig Trucking Sues over Credit Card Application
-----------------------------------------------------------------
IL YA VASIL YEV and IVIG TRUCKING CO., individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN
EXPRESS TRAVEL RELATED SERVICES COMPANY, INC. and DOES 1-10, the
Defendants, Case No. 2018-L-001808 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Feb. 20,
2018), seeks to recover all actual damages suffered as a result
of AmEx's acts and omissions relating to a credit card account
application.

According to the complaint, on February 2, 2017, the Plaintiffs
called AmEx to inquire as to whether they were meeting the
threshold spending levels to qualify for the promotional offer.
Plaintiffs spoke with an employee and/or agent of AmEx who stated
that the promotional offer did not apply to Plaintiffs' credit
card account. The employee and/or agent of AmEx urged Plaintiffs
to submit another application for another credit card account
with AmEx over the phone to qualify for the promotional offer.

At the urging of that employee and/or agent of AmEx, Plaintiffs
did submit another application for another SimplyCash Plus
Business Credit Card account with AmEx over the phone to qualify
for the promotional offer.  Plaintiffs were advised during the
phone application process that they had been instantly approved
for the second credit card account.  Shortly thereafter,
Plaintiffs received notice by mail that their second credit card
account application had actually been denied, as Plaintiffs had
reached the maximum number of such accounts that AmEx would
approve within a period of a few months.  Had Plaintiffs known
that their second credit card account application would be denied
for this reason, they never would have submitted such
application, thereby risking a reduction in Plaintiff Vasilyev's
credit score due to repeated credit report inquiries from
AmEx.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David B. Levin, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
          111 West Jackson Blvd., Suite 1700
          Chicago, IL 60604
          Telephone: (312) 212 4355
          Facsimile: (866) 633 0228
          E-mail: dlevin@toddflaw.com


APEX ASSET: Winship Sues over Debt Collection
---------------------------------------------
MELISSA WINSHIP, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. APEX ASSET MANAGEMENT, LLC, JOHN DOES
1-25, Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-01770-BRM-LHG (D.N.J., Feb. 7,
2018) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable
means to collect a debt. The case is assigned to Judge Brian R.
Martinotti, and referred to Magistrate Judge Lois H. Goodman.

Apex Asset Management, LLC provides custom solution. The Company
offers system integration, health care conversion, front end
training, and collection law. Apex Asset Management serves
customers in the United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


APPLE INC: "Canoa de Oliveira" Suit Alleges Calif. UCL Violation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Guilherme Rafael Canoa de Oliveira, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Apple, Inc., Case No. 5:18-cv-
00735 (N.D. Calif., February 2, 2018), is brought against the
Defendant for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair
dealing and violation of the California Unfair Competition Law.

Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of all
non-U.S. residents injured by Apple's misconduct.

Plaintiff Guilherme Rafael Canoa de Oliveira is a resident of Sao
Paulo, Brazil. He purchased his iPhone 6s on November 17, 2016 in
Sao Paulo.  Plaintiff still owns this device.  As of the date of
filing, Plaintiff's device was running iOS 11.2.1.

Defendant Apple is a California corporation with its headquarters
and principal place of business in Cupertino, California. Apple
is the designer and manufacturer of the iPhone and iOS software.
Apple manufactures, designs, produces, and sells several types of
electronic products, including, among others, personal computers,
portable music players, cellular phones, and other communication
devices. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Eli R. Greenstein, Esq.
      KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER
      & CHECK, LLP
      One Sansome Street, Suite 1850
      San Francisco, CA 94104
      Tel: (415) 400-3000
      Fax: (415) 400-3001
      E-mail: egreenstein@ktmc.com


ARS NATIONAL: Dionisio Sues over Debt Collection
------------------------------------------------
GABRIEL DIONISIO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ARS NATIONAL SERVICES, INC., and JOHN DOES
1-25, Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-01764-JMV-SCM (D.N.J., Feb. 7,
2018) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable
means to collect a debt. The case is assigned to Judge John
Michael Vazquez, and referred to Magistrate Judge Steven C.
Mannion.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


AVIACODE INC: Hazel Seeks to Certify Class of Medical Coders
------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled BRIAN HAZEL, individually and on behalf of
all similarly situated persons, the Plaintiff, v. AVIACODE, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-01065-BSJ (D. Utah), the Plaintiff
asks the Court for an order:

   1. conditionally certifying a class pursuant to the Fair Labor
      Standards Act:

      "all current and former medical coders employed by
      Defendant at any time during the last three years"; and

   2. directing Defendant to provide information to Plaintiff's
      counsel within 14 days; and

   3. directing issuance of Plaintiff's proposed notice and
      consent form, plus a reminder, via mail and email

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Eric D. Barton, Esq.
          WAGSTAFF & CARTMELL LLP
          4740 Grand Ave. Suite 300
          Kansas City, MO 64112
          Telephone: (816) 701 1100
          E-mail: ebarton@wcllp.com

               - and -

          Jack McInnes, Esq.
          MCINNES LAW LLC
          3500 West 75th Street, Suite 200
          Prairie Village, KS 66208
          Telephone: (913) 220 2488
          Facsimile: (913) 273 1671
          E-mail: jack@mcinnes-law.com

               - and -

          Patrick G. Reavey, Esq.
          Kevin C. Koc, Esq.
          REAVEY LAW LLC
          1600 Genessee St Ste 303
          Kansas City, MO 64102
          Telephone: (816) 474 6300
          Facsimile: (815) 474 6302
          E-mail: preavey@reaveylaw.com
                  kkoc@reaveylaw.com


BANK OF AMERICA: "Boswell" Suit Seeks Certification of 5 Classes
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled JOSHUA B. BOSWELL; on behalf of himself,
all others similarly situated, the general public, and as an
"aggrieved employee" under the California Labor Code Private
Attorneys General Act, the Plaintiff, v. BANK OF AMERICA
CORPORATION, a Delaware Corporation doing business in California;
BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, a national association
bank doing business in California, the Defendants, Case No. 2:17-
cv-06120-GW-RAO (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff moves the Court for
class certification pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure on behalf of these classes of individuals:

   1. The California Overtime / B&P Code 17200 Class, consisting
      of the following persons:

      "all employees of Defendant, Bank of America, who at all
      relevant times were employees of Defendant, Bank of
      America, as Mortgage Loan Officers who were subject to
      Defendants' illegal practices of failing to pay overtime
      due at time and one half their regular rate under federal
      law for all hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek";

   2. The California Labor Code section 203 (Unlawful Forfeiture)
      Class, consisting of the following persons:

      "all employees of Defendant Bank of America employed in
      the state of California, who at all relevant times were
      employees of Defendant Bank of America as Mortgage
      Loan Officers and were subject to Defendant Bank of
      America's illegal practices not paying Plaintiff and all
      others similarly situated commission wages earned solely
      because they were not employed by the Defendant at the
      scheduled time of payment";

   3. The California Labor Code section 204 (Improper Pay Period)
      Class, consisting of the following persons:

      "all employees of Defendant, Bank of America, who at all
      relevant times were employees of Defendant, Bank of
      America, as Mortgage Loan Officers who were subject to
      Defendant, Bank of America's illegal practices of not
      paying Plaintiff and all others similarly situated for work
      performed within the proper pay period in violation of
      California Labor Code section 204";

   4. The California Labor Code section 1197.1 (Minimum Wage)
      Class, consisting of the following persons:

      "all employees of Defendant, Bank of America, who at all
      relevant times were employees of Defendant, Bank of
      America, who were subject to Defendant, Bank of America's
      illegal practices of requiring Plaintiff and all others
      similarly situated to work without payment of the minimum
      wage for all hours worked in violation of California Labor
      Code section 1194"; and

   5. The California Labor Code section 226.7 (Rest Break) Class,
      consisting of the following persons:

      "all employees of Defendant, Bank of America, who at all
      relevant times were employees of Defendant, Bank of
      America, who were subject to Defendant, Bank of America's
      illegal pay practices that did not compensate Plaintiff and
      all others similarly situated for their rest breaks in
      violation of California Labor Code section 226.7.

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

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Mark R. Thierman, Esq.
          Joshua D. Buck, Esq.
          Leah L. Jones, Esq.
          THIERMAN BUCK, LLP
          7287 Lakeside Drive
          Reno, NV 89511
          Telephone: (775) 284 1500
          E-mail: Mark@thiermanbuck.com
                  Josh@thiermanbuck.com


BANK OF THE WEST: Fails to Pay for Overtime, Mkhitarian Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
SILVANA MKHITARIAN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BANK OF THE WEST; and DOES
1-100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. BC691989 (Cal. Super., Los
Angeles Cty., Jan. 30, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
wages, wages for meal and rest periods, liquidated damages and
attorney's fees, pursuant to the California Labor Code.

Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as an hourly-paid or
non-exempt employees within the State of California, including
the County of Los Angeles.

Bank of the West provides a range of financial services to
consumers, businesses, and government agencies in the United
States and the Pacific Rim. As of October 5, 2017, it operated
through a network of approximately 600 branches and offices in 23
states and digital channels. The company was formerly known as
First National Bank of San Jose and changed its name to Bank of
the West in 1979. The company was founded in 1874 and is
headquartered in San Francisco, California. Bank of the West is a
subsidiary of Bancwest Holding Inc.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Haig B. Kazandjian, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF HAIG B. KAZANDJIAN
          801 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 970
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (818) 696-2306
          Facsimile: (818) 696-2307

               - and -

          Romina Keshishyan, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF ROMINA KESHISHYAN
          801 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 970
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (323) 744-4124


BAYWATCH INC: Faces "Caruso" Suit over Failure to Pay for OT
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Amber L. Caruso; Devan Alisabeth
Mccoole and Jade Gaudiello on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Bay Watch, Inc., d/b/a Club
Alex's, Defendant, was moved from the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts (Case No. 18-0138) to the Massachusetts Superior
Court Norfolk County (Case No. 1882-cv-00138), on Jan. 31, 2018.

Amber L. Caruso; Devan Alisabeth Mccoole and Jade Gaudiello on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. Bay Watch, Inc., d/b/a Club Alex's, Defendant, Case
No. 180138 (Mass. Cmmw., Jan. 31, 2018) seeks to recover proper
minimum wages, proper overtime compensation, and earned customer
gratuities. She also seeks the right to work without paying
"house fees" and other fees.

Plaintiff Devan Alisabeth Mccoole worked at Alex's as a bartender
and server from approximately 2013 through 2017.

Plaintiff Amber L. Caruso worked at Alex's as a massage therapist
from approximately May 2017 through July 2017.

Plaintiff Jade Gaudiello, worked at Alex's as a massage therapist
from approximately May 2017 through July 2017.

Bay Watch, Inc., d/b/a club Alex's own and operates Alex's, a
strip club. Defendant owns and operates a strip club in
Stoughton, Massachusetts, known as Alex's. Defendant employs or
employed service staff at the club, including the named
Plaintiffs. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian A. Joyce, Esq.
          Joyce Law Group
          776R Washington Street
          Canton, MA 02021
          Telephone: (781) 821-2250
          E-mail: bjoyce@joycelawgroup.com


BENJAMIN MOORE: Natura Brand Paint Ads Misleading, Keats Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
ADAM KEATS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, V. BENJAMIN MOORE & CO.; and DOES 1
through 100, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. (Cal. Super.
Ct., Feb. 20, 2018), seeks to remedy the unlawful, unfair and
deceptive business practices of Defendant with respect to the
advertising, marketing and sales of its Natura brand paint.

According to the complaint, Natura Paints are advertised,
marketed and sold as "green" paints that have "Zero VOCs," "Zero
emissions," and "No harsh fumes." However, contrary to these
representations, the Natura Paints in fact contain, emit and
expose consumers to volatile organic compounds ("VOCs").

VOCs are emitted as gases from certain solids or liquids that are
present in numerous household products such as paint. According
to the Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA"), health effects
from VOCs include respiratory ailments, damage to the immune
system, headaches, loss of coordination and nausea, damage to the
liver, the kidney and the central nervous system and cancer.

These health effects are particularly acute in infants, children,
asthmatics and those suffering from allergies. VOCs are a primary
contributor to indoor air pollution, where concentrations can be
up to ten times higher than[outdoor concentrations (and even
higher when using products that contain VOCs such as paint). VOCs
are also an environmental hazard in that they react with sunlight
and nitrogen oxides in air to form smog. Smog is a serious air
pollutant that is especially harmful to senior citizens, children
and people with heart and lung conditions such as emphysema,
bronchitis and, asthma. Thus, many I consumers concerned about
negative human and environmental health impacts actively seek
products that do not contain or emit VOCS.

Despite Defendants' marketing and advertising of Natura Paints as
"green" paints that contain zero VOCs and emit no chemicals or
hash fumes, Defendants know and intend that the Natura Paints,
when applied as directed, emit VOCs and expose those breathing
the air to these chemicals both during and after application.

Benjamin Moore & Co., also known as Benjamin Moore Paints or
simply Benjamin Moore, is an American company that produces
paint. It is owned by Berkshire Hathaway. Founded in 1883,
Benjamin Moore is based in Montvale, New Jersey.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Eric Somers, Esq.
          Ryan Berghoff, Esq.
          LEXINGTON LAW GROUP
          503 Divisadero Street
          San Francisco, CA 9411
          Telephone: (415) 913 7800
          Facsimile: (415) 759 4112
          E-mail: esomers@lexlawgroup.com
                  rberghoff@lexlawgroup.com


BIG HEART: Sturm Sues over Contaminated Dog Foods
-------------------------------------------------
NANCY STURM, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. BIG HEART PET BRANDS, INC., a
Delaware corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-01099 (N.D.
Cal, Feb. 21, 2018), seeks to enjoin Defendant from selling
contaminated dog Foods.

The Plaintiff brings this Class Action Complaint against
defendant, to cause Defendant to disclose its pet food sold
throughout the United States is adulterated and contains
pentobarbital and to restore monies to the consumers and
businesses who purchased the Contaminated Dog Foods during the
time that Defendant failed to make such disclosures. The
Plaintiff also seeks to bar Defendant from selling any dog food
that contains any levels of pentobarbital.

Defendant manufactures, markets, advertises, labels, distributes,
and sells Gravy Train Chunks in Gravy with Beef Chunks, Gravy
Train Chunks in Gravy with TBone Flavor Chunks, Gravy Train
Chunks in Gravy with Chicken Chunks, Gravy Train Strips in Gravy
Beef Strips and Gravy Train with Lamb & Rice Chunks.

The Contaminated Dog Foods contain pentobarbital, a barbiturate
drug used as a sedative and anesthetic for animals, rendering it
adulterated under relevant federal and state law. Pentobarbital
is now most commonly used to euthanizing dogs and cats.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Rebecca A. Peterson, Esq.
          Robert K. Shelquist, Esq.
          LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
          100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
          Minneapolis, MN 55401
          Telephone: (612) 339 6900
          Facsimile: (612) 339 0981
          E-mail: rkshelquist@locklaw.com
                  rapeterson@locklaw.com

               - and -

          Kevin A. Seely, Esq.
          Steven M. Mckany, Esq.
          ROBBINS ARROYO LLP
          600 B Street, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 525 3990
          Facsimile: (619) 525 3991
          E-mail: kseely@robbinsarroyo.com
                  smckany@robbinsarroyo.com

               - and -

          Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq.
          Karla M. Gluek, Esq.
          Joseph C. Bourne, Esq.
          Raina C. Borrelli, Esq.
          GUSTAFSON GLUEK, PLLC
          Canadian Pacific Plaza
          120 South 6th Street, Suite 2600
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 333 8844
          Facsimile: (612) 339 6622
          E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com
                  kgluek@gustafsongluek.com
                  jbourne@gustafsongluek.com
                  rborrelli@gustafsongluek.com

               - and -

          Charles Laduca, Esq.
          Katherine Van Dyck, Esq.
          CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
          4725 Wisconsin Ave NW, Suite 200
          Washington, DC 20016
          Telephone: (202) 789 3960
          Facsimile: (202) 789 1813
          E-mail: kvandyck@cuneolaw.com
                  charles@cuneolaw.com

               - and -

          Joseph Depalma, Esq.
          Susana Cruz Hodge, Esq.
          LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC
          570 Broad Street, Suite 1201
          Newark, NJ 07102
          Telephone: (973) 623 3000
          E-mail: jdepalma@litedepalma.com
                  scruzhodge@litedepalma.com


BIOVERATIV INC: Quigley Balks at Sanofi Merger Deal
----------------------------------------------------
CATHERINE QUIGLEY, On Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. BIOVERATIV INC., JOHN G. COX,
ALEXANDER J. DENNER, GENO J. GERMANO, LOUIS J. PAGLIA, BRIAN S.
POSNER, and ANNA PROTOPAPAS, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-
10338 (D. Mass., Feb. 21, 2018), seeks to enjoin a proposed
transaction or, in the event the proposed transaction is
consummated, recover damages resulting from the Individual
Defendants' violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The Plaintiff brings this action as a public stockholder of
Bioverativ, Incagainst the members of Bioverativ's Board of
Directors for their violations of Section 14(d)(4), and Rule 14d-
promulgated thereunder by the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission pursuant to Section 14 under the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as well as Section 20(a).

Specifically, Defendants solicit stockholder approval of the sale
of the Company to Sanofi in a tender offer by Sanofi's subsidiary
Blink Acquisition Corp., through a recommendation statement that
omits material facts necessary to make the statements therein not
false or misleading. Stockholders need this material information
to decide whether to tender their shares or pursue their
appraisal rights.

On January 22, 2018, the Company announced that it had entered
into a definitive agreement by which Sanofi, through its wholly-
owned subsidiary Merger Sub, would commence a tender offer to
acquire all of the outstanding shares of Bioverativ for $105.00
per share in cash. The Proposed Transaction is valued at
approximately $11.6 billion.

On February 7, 2018, Merger Sub commenced the Tender Offer, which
is set to expire at midnight, one minute after 11:59 p.m. Eastern
Time, on March 7, 2018. The Tender Offer provides that the number
of shares of Bioverativ common stock that have to be validly
tendered, together with the shares beneficially owned by Sanofi
and its affiliates, if any, must represent at least one share
more than 1/2 of the total number of outstanding shares of
Bioverativ common stock as of the Expiration Date or at the time
and date to which the Tender Offer has been extended. The Tender
Offer is not subject to any financing condition.

In connection with the commencement of the Tender Offer on
February 8, 2018, the Company filed a Recommendation Statement on
Schedule 14D-9 with the SEC. The Recommendation Statement is
materially deficient and misleading because, inter alia, it fails
to disclose material information about the Company's financial
projections, the financial analysis performed by the Company's
financial advisor, and the process leading to the Merger
Agreement. Without all material information Bioverativ
stockholders cannot make an informed decision to exchange their
shares in the Tender Offer.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shannon L. Hopkins, Esq.
          Donald J. Enright, Esq.
          Elizabeth K. Tripodi, Esq.
          LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
          733 Summer Street, Suite 304
          Stamford, CT 06901
          Telephone: (203) 992 4523
          Facsimile: (212) 363 7171
          E-mail: shopkins@zlk.com
                  denright@zlk.com


BNSF LOGISTICS: "Garza" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
Alejandro Garza, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. BNSF Logistics, LLC., BNSF Railway Company, and
Transportation Technology Services Inc., Case No. 4:18-cv-00323
(S.D. Tex., February 4, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid wages,
liquidated damages, penalties, interest, attorneys' fees and
litigation costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants misclassify their
welders as independent contractors instead of as employees. In
doing so, Defendants deny those welders the overtime they are
entitled under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff Alejandro Garza worked for Defendants as welder and was
misclassified as an independent contractor. He resides in Harris
County, Texas. Plaintiff performed work for Defendants in Texas;
Oklahoma; Colorado; and New Mexico within the last three years.

Defendant BNSF Railway Company is one of the largest freight
railroad networks in North America. It employs thousands of
welders throughout the United States and North America.

Defendant BNSF Logistics, LLC is a transportation intermediary
that provides truckload, project cargo, ocean, rail, air, less
than truckload, and intermodal services in North America.

Defendant Transportation Technology Services, Inc. is an
engineering and logistics company, specializing in handling
various aspects of shipping by rail. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Taft L. Foley, II, Esq.
      THE FOLEY LAW FIRM
      3003 South Loop West, Suite 108
      Houston, TX 77054
      Tel: (832) 778-8182
      Fax: (832) 778-8353
      E-mail: Taft.Foley@thefoleylawfirm.com


BONDED COLLECTION: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled PATRICK MANIACI, Individually and on Behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. BONDED
COLLECTION CORPORATION, and COLONY BRANDS, INC., the Defendants,
Case No. 2:18-cv-00267-WED (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiff asks the
Court to enter an order certifying proposed classes in this case,
appointing the Plaintiff as class representative, and appointing
Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as Class Counsel, and for such other and
further relief as the Court may deem appropriate.

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

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

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

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=5jorghTK

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BRIAD WENCO: "Fils" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay under Labor Law
-----------------------------------------------------------
RAOUL LISSOUCK FILS, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. BRIAD WENCO, LLC d/b/a
WENDY'S, the Defendant, Case No. 702749/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Feb.
22, 2018), seeks to recover overtime pay under New York Labor
Law.

The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and all
other similarly situated assistant managers, who worked in New
York State at a Wendy's and who worked more than 40 hours in a
week and were not paid overtime during the period commencing six
years prior to the filing of this action and continuing until
such further date as the practices complained of are
discontinued.

According to the complaint, the Defendant has engaged and
continues to engage in illegal and improper wage practices. The
Defendant misclassified Plaintiff and other Assistant Managers as
exempt from the overtime laws and failed to pay Plaintiff, and
the similarly situated current and former Assistant Managers, for
overtime of time and one-half their regular rate of pay for all
hours worked over 40 in a week.[BN]

Briad Kenco owns and operates quick service restaurants under the
Wendy's franchise. The company is based in Florham Park, New
Jersey. Briad Wenco, L.L.C. operates as a subsidiary of The Briad
Group.

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Putative New York Class:

          Louis Ginsberg, Esq.
          THE LAW FIRM OF LOUIS GINSBERG, P.C.
          1613 Northern Boulevard
          Roslyn, N.Y. 11576
          Telephone: (516) 625 0105


BRIGADOON FITNESS: Gorss Motels Seeks to Certify Class
------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled GORSS MOTELS, INC., a Connecticut
corporation, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly-
situated persons, the Plaintiff, v. BRIGADOON FITNESS, INC., an
Indiana corporation, BRIGADOON FINANCIAL, INC., an Indiana
corporation, and JOHN DOES 1-5, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-
00330-TLS-SLC (N.D. Ind.), the Plaintiff seeks to certify a class
of:

   "all those persons who were sent faxes in violation of the
   Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 and its implementing
   regulations. Rule 23(a) and (b) requirements are easily
   satisfied - the faxes were successfully sent to successfully
   sent to 10,490 fax numbers, Defendants' conduct is uniform as
   to all putative class members".

The Plaintiff also asks the court to be appointed as class
representative, as it has no conflicts and will actively and
adequately prosecute this action.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=vxZQvs9M

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ryan M. Kelly, Esq.
          Brian J. Wanca, Esq.
          Ross M. Good, Esq.
          ANDERSON + WANCA
          3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 500
          Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
          Telephone: (847) 368 1500
          Facsimile: (847) 368 1501


BRISTOL-MYERS: Faces "Tung" Suit over Share Price Drop
------------------------------------------------------
JENNIFER TUNG, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY,
MICHAEL GIORDANO, FOUAD NAMOUNI, FRANCIS M. CUSS, GIOVANNI
CAFORIO, LAMBERTO ANDREOTTI, and CHARLES A. BANCROFT, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-01611 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 21, 2018),
seeks to recover compensable damages caused by Defendants'
violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

The case is a federal securities class action on behalf of a
class consisting of all persons other than Defendants who
purchased or otherwise acquired common shares of Bristol-
Myers between January 27, 2015 and October 9, 2016.

As of January of 2015, the Company's CheckMate-026 study
investigating the use of Opdivo (nivolumab) monotherapy as first-
line therapy in patients with advanced nonsmall cell lung cancer
was underway. Founded in 1887, the Company was formerly known as
"Bristol-Myers Company" and changed its name to "Bristol-Myers
Squibb Company" in 1989. Bristol-Myers is headquartered in New
York, New York, and its stock trades on the New York Stock
Exchange under the ticker symbol "BMY."

Throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and
misleading statements regarding the Company's business,
operational and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (i) Bristol-Myers' CheckMate-026 trial was more likely to
fail than Defendants were representing; (ii) Bristol-Myers'
CheckMate-026 trial failed more severely than the Company
indicated it did in its August 5, 2016 announcements and
disclosures concerning the trial; and (iii) as a result, Bristol-
Myers's public statements were materially false and misleading at
all relevant times.

On August 5, 2016, the Company announced that its CheckMate-026
trial investigating the use of Opdivo (nivolumab) as monotherapy
had failed because it did not meet its primary endpoint of
progression-free survival. On this news, the Company's stock
price fell $12.04 per share, or 16%, to close at $63.28 per share
on August 5, 2016, on unusually heavy trading volume. The stock
price continued to fall on the next trading day, declining
another $2.98 per share, or 4.7%, on unusually heavy trading
volume, to close at $60.30 per share on August 8, 2016.

On October 9, 2016, Bristol-Myers disclosed the final primary
analysis of CheckMate-026, including the finding that overall
survival was only 14.4 months for Opdivo versus 13.2 months for
chemotherapy. On this news, the Company's stock price fell $5.62
per share, or 10.1%, to close at $49.81 per share on October 10,
2016, on unusually heavy trading volume. As a result of
Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous
decline in the market value of the Company's common shares,
Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant
losses and damages.

Bristol-Myers is a global biopharmaceutical company that
develops, licenses, manufactures, markets, and sells
pharmaceutical and nutritional products. Bristol-Myers products
and experimental therapies address cancer, heart disease, HIV and
AIDS, diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis, hepatitis, organ transplant
rejection, and psychiatric disorders.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

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

               - and -

          Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
          BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ
          & GROSSMAN, LLC
          60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600
          New York, NY 10165
          Telephone: (212) 697-6484
          E-mail: peretz@bgandg.com


BUCK VALLEY: Faces "Wood" Suit over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------
KEITH WOOD and GABRIEL AVALOS, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BUCK VALLEY DRYWALL,
INC.; and RAJANI KONERU, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-00631-WSD
(N.D. Ga., Feb. 11, 2018) is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Plaintiffs worked for the Defendants as supervisors and
constructions laborers.

Buck Valley Drywall is a Georgia corporation engaged in the
drywall and construction industry, supplying professional drywall
repair and remodeling contractor services. Its principal place of
business is 5901 Peachtree Dunwoody Rd, C-160, Atlanta, GA,
30328, which is in Dekalb County. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CARROLL MEMORIAL: "Sanders" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
CARLA SANDERS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. CARROLL COUNTY MEMORIAL HOSPITAL and
CARROLL COUNTY MEMORIAL HOSPITAL HOME HEALTH CARE AGENCY, the
Defendants, Case No. 4:18-cv-00136-SRB (W.D. Mo., Feb. 22, 2018),
seeks to recover damages, costs, and attorneys' fees for
Defendants' wrongful termination of Plaintiff's employment in
retaliation for Plaintiff's protected acts under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Plaintiff alleges on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated who consent to join this collective action
pursuant to the FLSA and Missouri Minimum Wage Law that they are
entitled to compensation for automatically deducted but
interrupted meal breaks, time spent working off-the-clock, and
unpaid overtime wages for all hours worked in excess of 40 for
each work week, liquidated damages, costs, and attorneys'
fees.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Amanda Pennington Ketchum, Esq.
          Anne E. Baggott, Esq.
          DYSART TAYLOR COTTER McMONIGLE & MONTEMORE, P.C.
          4420 Madison Avenue, Suite 200
          Kansas City, MO 64111
          Telephone: (816) 931 2700
          Facsimile: (816) 931 7377
          E-mail: aketchum@dysarttaylor.com
                  abaggott@dysarttaylor.com


CDK GLOBAL: Massey Chrysler Alleges Automobile Sales Price-Fixing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MASSEY CHRYSLER CENTER, INC.; and MASSEY AUTOMOTIVE, INC,
Plaintiffs v. CDK GLOBAL, LLC; and THE REYNOLDS AND REYNOLDS
COMPANY, Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-42 (M.D. Ala., Jan. 25,
2018), seeks to recover damages and injunctive relief under
Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890, and the antitrust
laws of the U.S.

The Plaintiffs alleged in the complaint that the Defendants
engaged in a scheme to control the market for back-office
computer applications used by automobile dealers; engaged in a
conspiracy to allocate market share, reduce competition, and fix
prices in the market for data management systems used by
automobile dealers; and use their market power to lock automobile
dealers into long-term service contracts, lasting up to seven
years, with punitive terms that make it inordinately difficult
and expensive for dealers to switch to another providers.

CDK Global LLC provides integrated information technology and
digital marketing solutions. The Company offers solutions that
automate and integrate critical workflow processes from pre-sale
targeted advertising and marketing campaigns to the sale,
financing, insurance, parts supply, and repair and maintenance of
vehicles.

The Reynolds and Reynolds Company provides automobile dealership
software, business forms and supplies, and professional services
for car dealers and automakers in the United States, Canada, the
United Kingdom, and Europe. The company also provides document
services, including printing business documents; and consulting
and training services. The Reynolds and Reynolds Company was
formerly known as Universal Computer Systems, Inc. and changed
its name to The Reynolds and Reynolds Company in October 2006.
The company was founded in 1866 and is based in Kettering, Ohio.
It has locations in Houston and College Station, Texas; Celina,
Ohio; and internationally. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          W. Daniel Miles, Esq.
          Archie I. Grubb, II, Esq.
          BEASLEY ALLEN CROW METHVIN
          PORTIS & MILES, P.C.
          218 Commerce Street
          Montgomery, AL 36104
          Telephone: (334) 269-2343
          E-mail: Dee.Miles@BeasleyAllen.com
                  Archie.Grubb@BeasleyAllen.com

               - and -

          Ralph Edward Massey, Jr.
          CLAY MASSEY & ASSOCIATES
          509 Church Street
          Mobile, AL 36602
          Telephone: (251) 433-1000
          E-mail: em@claymassey.com

               - and -

          Michael Stephen Dampier, Esq.
          THE DAMPIER LAW FIRM, P.C.
          55 North Section Street
          Fairhope, AL 36532
          Telephone: (251) 929-0900
          E-mail: steve@dampierlaw.com


CDK GLOBAL: Hoover Auto Class Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit filed on November 14, 2017 captioned
Hoover Automotive, LLC d/b/a Hoover Dodge Chrysler Jeep Of
Summerville, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. CDK Global, LLC and The Reynolds and Reynolds
Company, Case No. 3:17-cv-00864 was transferred on February 12,
2018, from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Wisconsin to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:18-cv-
01057 to the proceeding.

The case arises out of the Defendants' anticompetitive conspiracy
designed to foreclose competition in the market for Dealer
Management System Software ("DMS") in the United States.

The Defendants are in the business of providing of IT and digital
marketing solutions to the automotive retail industry. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Shawn M. Raiter, Esq.
      LARSON KING LLP
      2800 Wells Fargo Place
      30 East Seventh Street
      Saint Paul, MN 55101
      Telephone: (651) 312-6500
      Facsimile: (651) 312-6618
      E-mail: sraiter@larsonking.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      Charles Grant Curtis Jr., Esq.
      PERKINS COIE LLP
      1 East Main Street, Suite 201
      Madison, WI 53703
      Telephone: (608) 663-5411
      E-mail: ccurtis@perkinscoie.com


CDK GLOBAL: Kenny Class Suit Transferred to North. Dist. Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit filed on January 24, 2018, styled Kenny
Thomas Enterprises, Inc. (d/b/a Olathe Toyota), on behalf of
itself and all those similarly situated v. CDK Global, LLC, and
The Reynolds and Reynolds Company, Case No. 3:18-cv-00029, was
transferred on February 12, 2018, from the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Ohio to the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois. The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 1:18-cv-01056 to the proceeding.

The case arises out of the illegal and anticompetitive practices
of the Defendants in the markets for data management and
integration systems sold to auto dealerships.

The Defendants are in the business of providing of IT and digital
marketing solutions to the automotive retail industry. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mark H. Troutman, Esq.
      ISAAC WILES BURKHOLDER & TEETOR LLC
      Two Miranova Place, Suite 700
      Columbus, OH 43215
      Telephone: (614) 221-2121
      E-mail: mtroutman@isaacwiles.com


CDK GLOBAL: Massey Class Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois
----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit filed on January 25, 2018, entitled
Massey Chrysler Center, Inc., and Massey Automotive, Inc.,
individually and on behalf of the class v. CDK Global, LLC and
The Reynolds and Reynolds Company, Case No. 2:18-cv-00042, was
transferred on February 12, 2018, from the U.S. District Court
for the Middle District of Alabama to the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois. The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 1:18-cv-01054 to the proceeding.

The case arises out of the Defendants' anticompetitive conspiracy
designed to foreclose competition in the market for Dealer
Management System Software ("DMS") in the United States.

The Defendants are in the business of providing of IT and digital
marketing solutions to the automotive retail industry. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Archibald Irwin Grubb II, Esq.
      Wilson Daniel Miles III, Esq.
      BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES, P.C.
      Post Office Box 4160
      Montgomery, AL 36103
      Telephone: (800) 898-2034
      Facsimile: (334) 954-7555
      E-mail: archie.grubb@beasleyallen.com
              dee.miles@beasleyallen.com

         - and -

      Michael Stephen Dampier, Esq.
      THE DAMPIER LAW FIRM, P.C.
      P.O. Box 161
      Fairhope, AL 36533
      Telephone: (251) 929-0900
      E-mail: stevedampier@dampierlaw.com

         - and -

      Ralph Edward Massey Jr., Esq.
      CLAY MASSEY & ASSOC PC
      509 Church Street
      Mobile, AL 36602
      Telephone: (251) 433-1000
      E-mail: em@claymassey.com

The Defendant CDK Global, LLC is represented by:

      CDK Global, LLC
      2 North Jackson Street, Suite 605
      Montgomery, AL 36104
      c/o CT Corporation System
      PRO SE

The Defendant is represented by:

      The Reynolds and Reynolds Company
      2 North Jackson Street, Suite 605
      Montgomery, AL 36104
      c/o CT Corporation System
      PRO SE


CENTURY ARMS: Court Denies Redacted Bid for Class Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled JEFFREY M ELTON, EZEKIEL M ORRIS, TOMMY
JOHNSON , JUAN VALDES, and M AN VILLE SMITH, the Plaintiffs,
CENTURY ARMS, INC.; CENTURY INTERNATION ALARMS CORP.; CENTURY
ARMS OF VERMONT, INC.; and CENTURY INTERNATIONAL ARMS OF VERMONT,
INC., the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-21008-FAM (S.D. Fla.), the
Hon. Judge Frederico A. Moreno entered an order denying a
redacted motion for Class Certification.

The Court has considered the motion, the pertinent portions of
the record, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, it
is adjudged that the motion is denied as moot in light of the
Court denying Plaintiffs' Motion to Seal.  The Court requires
Plaintiffs to file an un-redacted version of their motion for
class certification.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=gjn2lPhF


CREDIT CONTROL: Rincon-Marin Seeks to Certify Consumers Class
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled PABLO RINCON-MARIN, Individually and on
behalf of all other persons similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
CREDIT CONTROL, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-00007-VLB
(D. Conn.), the Hon. Vanessa L. Bryant entered an order

   a. certifying a class of:

      "all consumers nationwide who were sent collection letters
      and/or notices from Defendant attempting to collect a
      consumer debt wherein said collection letters state both
      that 'Please note that a negative credit bureau report
      reflecting on your credit record may be submitted to a
      credit reporting agency by the current account owner if you
      fail to fulfill the terms of your credit obligations. This
      notice in no way affects any rights you may have,' and 'The
      law limits how long you can be sued on a debt. Because of
      the age of your debt, LVNV Funding LLC will not sue you for
      it and LVNV Funding LLC will not report it to any credit
      reporting agency,' since January 3, 2016 through October
      26, 2017;

   b. appointing Daniel Zemel and Peter M. Van Dyke as Class
      Counsel; and

   c. appointing Mr. Rincon-Marin as representative of the
      Settlement Class.

The Court also preliminarily approves the proposed settlement
agreement, approves the mailing of the notice and claim form to
Settlement Class members, finds the mailing of such notice
satisfies the requirements of due process, and imposes the
following deadlines:

   1. Class notice is to be mailed by March 26, 2018;

   2. Settlement Class members shall have until May 10, 2018 to
      exclude themselves from, or object to, the settlement
      agreement. Any Settlement Class members desiring to exclude
      themselves from the action must serve copies of the request
      on the Class Administrator by the same date. Any Settlement
      Class members who wish to object to the settlement must
      submit an objection in writing to the District of
      Connecticut's Clerk's Office and serve copes of the
      objection on the Class Administrator by the same date.;

   3. The parties shall file with the Court a report of the
      results of class notification, including the number of
      class members who excluded themselves from or objected to
      the settlement agreement, by June 11, 2018.; and

   4. A final hearing on the fairness and reasonableness of the
      settlement agreement will take place on July 26, 2018 at
      10:00 a.m., at 450 Main Street, Courtroom Three, before the
      undersigned. At the hearing, the Court will also determine
      whether to grant final approval to the settlement agreement
      and whether to grant the parties' requests for fees and
      expenses by Class Counsel.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=v68FRJyk


CREDIT PROTECTION: Illegally Collects Debt, says "McRobie" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth McRobie, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Credit Protection Association I, Inc., Case No. 5:18-
cv-00566-JFL (E.D. Penn., February 12, 2018), seeks to stop the
Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

The Defendant provides businesses cost-effective credit
management.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Sergei Lemberg, Esq.
      LEMBERG LAW LLC
      43 Danbury Road
      Wilton, CT 06897
      Telephone: (203) 653-2250
      E-mail: slemberg@lemberglaw.com

CGR SERVICES: Court Denies Bid for Class Certification as Moot
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled Vera Harris-Stewart, the Plaintiff, v. CGR
Services, Inc., et al. the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-04032
(N.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Andrea R. Wood entered an order
denying Plaintiff's motion for class certification as moot.

According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on February 21,
2018, in light of the Court's preliminary approval of the
parties' class settlement, Plaintiff's motion for class
certification is denied as moot.

A copy of the Docket Entry is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=qFq0wrTI


CHICAGO, IL: Educ Board Fails to Disclose Reinspection Report
-------------------------------------------------------------
RIVERS OF LIVING WATER MINISTRIES INTERNATTONAL, an Illinois
Not-For-Profit Corporation, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. BOARD OF EDUCATION
OF THE CITY OF CHICAGO, a body politic and corporate, and the
PUBLIC BUILDING COMMISSION OF CHICAGO, an Illinois Municipal
Corporation, et. al., the Defendants, Case No. 2018CH02403 (Ill.
Cir. Ct., Cook Cty., Feb. 22, 2018), seeks to recover damages
caused to the Plaintiff, as a result of the Defendants' failure
to disclose a Three-Year Reinspection Report to the Church, prior
to accepting its bid, and for any resulting injuries.

The Plaintiff is a not for profit organization incorporated under
the laws of the State of Illinois with its principal place of
worship in the City of Chicago, County of Cook, State of
Illinois. The Church currently rents space from a Chicago public
school namely, Jensen Scholastic Academy Elementary School on the
city's westside, where it holds church services on Sunday and
through the week.

The Defendant, the Board of Education of the City of Chicago,
issued a general invitation to the public for the solicitation of
bids for the purchase of Chicago public schools that were closed
in 2013. The defendant is the legal title holder of record for
the schools that were listed for sale by the Board.

During the walk through, the Church was informed by a
representative of the Board that the subject properties had been
looted, meaning the electrical, mechanical, plumbing and air
conditioning units, etc., were stolen from the properties and had
to be either repaired or replaced.  The Church considered this
expense before it submitted its proposal and offer to the Board
to purchase the Armstrong School and Annex building from the
Board that its bid had been accepted but discovered it through
reading an on line issue of DNA info Chicago. Shortly thereafter,
the Church tendered a cashier's check to the Board in the amount
of $25,000 or 10% of the amount of the bid. The Board executed
the agreement and retained the money thereby creating a legally
enforceable contract.

On or about June 9, 2017, or several months after acceptance of
the Church's bid, the Board emailed the Church the following
documents: "Louis Armstrong School Assessment Report"; "floor
plans"; and, the "Illinois Department of Public Health, AHERA
Three-Year Reinspection, Asbestos Abatement Program School
Information Form and Report".

The Three-Year Reinspection Report ("Report") is a 76-page
document that identified asbestos-containing materials at the
Armstrong school.  The Church did not know, nor could it have
known about the presence of asbestos in the Armstrong school.
The Board's bid solicitation alleged that all attachments, and
any clarifications and addenda to the bid solicitation were
available for download from the Board's website at:
http://www.csc.cps.kl2.il.us/purchasing/bidopenings.html
However, the Church maintains that the Web site did not work when
it accessed it, and that there were no documents to be obtained
therefrom. The site has since been disabled.

The Church reasonably relied upon the Board's written
representations in its bid solicitation because it knew that it
would receive a quit-claim deed and that the as-is/where-is
language meant that nothing was concealed from the Church which
was known to the Board that would make the subject properties
undesirable. Moreover, the Church asserts that if the report had
been disclosed to it during the initial or pre-bid process, and
not months later after the Board had accepted its offer to
purchase the properties, then it would have had the option of not
placing a bid on the subject properties altogether, or even
perhaps, bidding lower than what was submitted, or ask that the
Board deed the property to it for a nominal consideration to
offset the cost of abatement, or as the seller assume the cost.
The consequence of the concealment and late disclosure of the
report resulted in the Church having to suffer substantial
monetary damages and the loss of its bargain for which the Board
has disclaimed liability.

The Board denied responsibility, stating that the conveyance of
the property was made on an "as-is/where-is" basis. The Board's
disclaimer clause seeks to protect the Board from its fraudulent
or negligent concealment of asbestos which is a known health
hazard to the public.

The Complaint contends that the law in Illinois is well settled
that "as is" language in a real estate sale contract does not
shield a seller from liability for fraud nor does it shield a
seller who has fraudulently misrepresented the condition of
property or who has intentionally concealed known facts. A seller
of real estate who knows of facts materially affecting the value
or desirability of property which are known or accessible only to
him is under a duty to disclose them to the buyer. The Church has
amicably sought to resolve the matter with the Board through
Terrance L. Diamond of Neal and Leroy, LLC, the law firm
designated by the Board to close the real estate transaction, but
to no avail.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert Sharp, Jr., Esq.
          ATTORNEYS FOR CHRIST
          N. LaSalle Street, Suite 3700
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (773) 727 8181
          Facsimile: (877) 200 3015


COLLECTO INC: Winship Sues over Debt Collection
-----------------------------------------------
MELISSA WINSHIP, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. COLLECTO, INC., d/b/a as EOS CCA; US ASSET
MANAGEMENT, INC.; and JOHN DOES 1-25, Case No. 1:18-cv-01328-RMB-
KMW (D.N.J., Jan. 30, 2018) seeks to stop the Defendants' unfair
and unconscionable means to collect debt.

Collecto, Inc., doing business as EOS/CCA, Inc., operates as a
debt management and recovery resource company. It offers
receivables collection services for banks, colleges and
universities, student loan lenders, telecommunications companies,
and other companies. The company was founded in 1991 and is
headquartered in Norwell, Massachusetts. As of February 23, 2001,
Collecto, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of EOS Holding GmbH. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


COLORADO: 10th Cir. Orders Enforcement of $50 Award in "Moore"
--------------------------------------------------------------
L.R. Moore appeals an order arises out of a class action, Montez
v. Hickenlooper.

Montez was filed in the early 1990s by Colorado state prisoners
who alleged that state officials were committing ongoing
violations of disabled prisoners' rights under the Americans with
Disabilities Act, the Rehabilitation Act, and 42 U.S.C. Section
1983.  In 2003, the parties entered into a consent decree, called
a "Remedial Plan," setting forth the actions Defendants would
take to bring the state prison system into compliance with the
applicable statutes and establishing a procedure through which
individual inmates could bring damage claims for injuries
incurred.  Specifically, the consent decree provided that the
damage claims of individual class members would be determined by
a special master, subject to abuse-of-discretion review by the
district court.

This class action resulted in presentation of individual damage
claims to a special master. One of these claims was decided
twelve years ago. The claimant, Mr. L.R. Moore, obtained a
monetary award, but he has never been paid.  He complains not
only of the nonpayment but also of the failure to replace a
stolen wheelchair and the inability to participate in settlement
talks involving the class as a whole. The district court denied
relief.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirms in part
and reverses in part.

In part, Mr. Moore seeks enforcement of the $50 award.  The
defendants acknowledge that they have not paid the award and do
not question the enforceability of the award or the court's
authority to order payment.  Instead, the defendants contend that
they can wait to pay until Mr. Moore completes an accurate W-9
tax form, which he has not done.  The district court agreed with
the defendants, and the Tenth Circuit engages in de novo review.

In conducting this review, the Tenth Circuit concludes that the
district court erred. The W-9 is an IRS form submitted to a payee
by an individual or entity "who is required to file an
information return with the IRS." R. Vol. II, at 147. But the
defendants have not identified any requirement to file an
information return for the payment to Mr. Moore. Cf. IRS Pub.
583, Information for Business Taxpayers, 1988 WL 485178, at *6
(rev. Nov. 1988) (stating circumstances in which an information
return is required).

But assuming that an information return is required and that the
payment is reportable. In these circumstances, the Internal
Revenue Code identifies steps that the payor can take in the
absence of a W-9 form. These steps include actions such as adding
backup withholding in certain circumstances. See 26 U.S.C. Sec.
3406(a); see IRS Pub. 1281 (Rev. 3-2017), Backup Withholding for
Missing and Incorrect Name/TIN(s), 2017 WL 4317150, at *3.
Instead of taking these steps, however, the defendants
unilaterally disobeyed the special master's order without
explaining the need for a W-9 form before paying the award. In
the absence of such an explanation, the district court erred in
failing to order enforcement of the $50 award.

In the 2005 proceeding, Mr. Moore complained that his custom-made
wheelchair had been stolen by prison staff and was never replaced
with an equivalent model. The defendants responded that they were
in the process of providing Mr. Moore with a new wheelchair, and
the special master declined to order relief on Mr. Moore's
complaint about his wheelchair. The defendants provided a
wheelchair, but Mr. Moore alleges that the replacement was
inadequate.

With the passage of twelve years, it is too late for Mr. Moore to
appeal the special master's 2005 order on the ground that it
should have specified the type of wheelchair to be provided. See
Order, filed Mar. 23, 2010, ECF No. 4381 (setting April 16, 2010,
as the deadline for "any pro se compliance/enforcement claims for
individual . . . injunctive or equitable relief" under the 2003
remedial plan). And he cannot obtain relief by enforcing the 2005
award because that award did not include relief on the claim
involving the wheelchair. Thus, the district court did not err in
sustaining the 2016 objection involving the wheelchair.

The appeals case is LEWIS ROGER MOORE, Claimant-Appellant, and
JESSE F. MONTEZ; DAVID BRYAN; GEORGE KARL; GILPIN EUGENE; JOHN
ARMINTROUT; KENNETH GARCIA; RICHARD K. ALLEN; JIMMY R. BULGIER,
as representatives of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. JOHN HICKENLOOPER; FRANK GUNTER, Former
Executive Director of the Colorado Department of Corrections; BEN
JOHNSON, Former Warden of Colorado Territorial Correctional
Facility; CHERYL SMITH, Medical Administrator at CTCF; ARI
ZAVARAS, Executive Director of Colorado Department of
Corrections; BOB FURLONG, Warden of Limon Correctional Facility;
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; BILL PRICE, Warden of the Arkansas
Valley Correctional Center; R. MARK McDUFF, Warden of the
Arrowhead Correctional Center, the Four Mile Correctional
Facility, the Skyline Correctional Center, and the Pre-Release
Correctional Center; GARY NEET, Warden of the Buena Vista
Correctional Facility; WARREN DIESSLIN, Former Warden of the
Buena Vista Correctional Facility; FRANK MILLER, Warden of the
Centennial Correctional Facility; DONICE NEAL, Warden of the
Colorado State Penitentiary; MARK WILLIAMS, Warden of the
Colorado Women's Facility; MARK McKINNA, Warden of the Colorado
Territorial Correctional Facility; J FRANK RICE, Warden of the
Denver Reception and Diagnostic Center; LARRY EMBRY, Warden of
the Fremont Correctional Facility; TOM COOPER, Former Warden of
the Fremont Correctional Facility; BILL BOGGS, Warden of the
Rifle Correctional Facility; BILL BOKROS, Warden of the Pueblo
Minimum Center; DAVID HOLT, Medical Administrator; JEAN MOLTZ,
Medical Administrator; RON JOHNSON, Medical Administrator; DON
LAWSON, Administration Director; BOB MOORE, Medical Supervisor;
RONALD G PIERCE; JOHN DOES, Current and Former Wardens of any
correctional facility maintained, operated or controlled by the
Colorado Department of Corrections; JOHN ROES, Defendants-
Appellees, No. 17-1115 (10th Cir.)

A full-text copy of the Tenth Circuit's January 22, 2018 Order
and Judgment is available at https://tinyurl.com/y7ykmxar from
Leagle.com.


COMCAST CABLE: Hodges Sues over Subscribers' Personal Info
----------------------------------------------------------
Brandon Hodges, for himself, and all others similarly situated,
the Plaintiff, v. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company; and Does 1-50, inclusive, the
Defendants, Case No. RG18893264 (Cal. Super. Ct., Feb. 21, 2018),
seeks injunctive relief requiring Comcast to clearly and
conspicuously notify cable subscribers in writing, at the
requisite times, of the period during which it maintains
Plaintiff's personally identifiable information, including video
activity data and demographic data.

According to the complaint, Comcast's treatment of personally
identifiable video activity data and demographic data violates
several provisions of the Cable Communications Policy Act of
1984. Comcast is subject to the Cable Act's protections for
subscriber privacy set forth in 47 U.S.C. section because it is a
"cable operator" as the term is defined in 47 15 11 u.s.c.
section 551 (a)(2)(C). The Cable Act requires cable operators to
provide written notice to their 17 11 subscribers, upon
contracting and annually thereafter, "which clearly and
conspicuously informs 18 11 the subscriber of-", among other
things, "the period during which [PII collected with respectto
the subscriber] will be maintained by the cable operator"

Throughout the relevant period, Comcast's Privacy Notice has
failed to clearly and conspicuously tell subscribers how long
Comcast would maintain their personally identifiable information,
including video activity data and demographic data. Instead, the
Privacy Notice opaquely states that Comcast maintains information
that personally identifies the subscriber while he or she
subscribes to one or more of Comcast's services and for a period
of time after the subscriber no longer subscribes to a Comcast
service "if the information is necessary for the purposes for
which it was collected or to satisfy legal requirements." This
statement does not disclose how long Comcast maintains
subscribers' PII Comcast's cable system automatically, generates,
transmits, and collects data about subscribers' cable television
viewing activity ("video activity data"), including which
channels, programs, and advertisements subscribers view and for
how long.

Comcast also collects personally identifiable demographic data
about its subscribers, including their age, gender, presence and
age of children, education, occupation, ethnicity, marital
status, household size, property ownership,
mortgage/loan/insurance data, automotive ownership, general
interests, magazine subscriptions, and wealth/financial status.
This data is personally identifiable because it is linked to and
concerns a particular subscriber. Comcast maintains this
information in its audience database and uses it for a variety of
advertising purposes including, inter alia, measuring the
popularity of programs among subscribers based on their
characteristics and targeting advertisements to specific
households and groups of households based on their
characteristics.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ray E. Gallo, Esq.
          Dominic Valerian, Esq.
          GALLOLLP
          1299 Fourth St., Suite 505
          San Rafael, CA 94901
          Telephone: (415) 257 8800
          E-mail: rgallo@gallo.law
                  dvalerian@gallo.law

               - and -

          Hank Bates, Esq.
          CARNEY, BA TES & PULLIAM, PLLC
          519 West 7th Street
          Little Rock, AR 72201
          Telephone: (501) 312 8500
          E-mail: hbates@cbplaw.com


CORNING INCORPORATED: Faces "Read" Suit in W.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
John Read, Thomas R. McGrew, Jr., Suzanne Annunziata, Francis A.
Annunziata, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. Corning Incorporated, Corning Homes,
Inc., John Does, Defendants, 6:18-cv-06131-DGL (W.D.N.Y., Feb. 9,
2018). The case is assigned to Judge David G. Larimer.

Corning Incorporated manufactures and sells specialty glasses,
ceramics, and related materials in North America, the Asia
Pacific, Europe, and internationally. The company was formerly
known as Corning Glass Works and changed its name to Corning
Incorporated in April 1989. Corning Incorporated was founded in
1851 and is headquartered in Corning, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Alan J. Knauf, Esq.
          KNAUF SHAW LLP
          1400 Crossroads Building
          Rochester, NY 14614
          Telephone: (585) 546-8430
          Facsimile: (585) 546-4324
          E-mail: aknauf@nyenvlaw.com


DISNEY STORE: Faces "Burbon" Suit in. S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action suit has been filed against Disney Store USA, LLC.
The case is captioned as Luc Burbon, individually and on behalf
of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Disney
Store USA, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-01117-JPO (S.D.N.Y.,
Feb. 7, 2018). The case is assigned to Judge J. Paul Oetken,
referred to Magistrate Judge Kevin Nathaniel Fox.

Disney Store USA LLC operates as entertainment and media company.
The company provides clothes, toys, home decor, movies, music,
books, and video games for children. Disney Store USA is located
in the United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

The Defendant is represented by:

          Samuel Sverdlov, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW LLP (NYC)
          620 Eighth Avenue
          New York, NY 10018-1405
          Telephone: (516) 476-5703
          E-mail: ssverdlov@seyfarth.com


DST SYSTEMS: Scott Balks at SS&C Technologies Merger Deal
---------------------------------------------------------
BRIAN SCOTT, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. DST SYSTEMS, INC., STEPHEN C. HOOLEY,
GARY D. FORSEE, CHARLES EDGAR HALDEMAN, SAMUEL G. LISS, JEROME H.
BAILEY, JOSEPH C. ANTONELLIS, LOWELL L. BRYAN, and LYNN DORSEY
BLEIL, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-00286-UNA (D. Del., Feb.
20, 2018), seeks to enjoin Defendants from holding the
stockholders vote on a proposed merger between DST Systems and
certain affiliates of SS&C Technologies, Inc. and taking any
steps to consummate a Proposed Merger unless, and until, material
information is disclosed to DST Systems shareholders sufficiently
in advance of the vote on the proposed merger or, in the event
the proposed merger is consummated, to recover damages resulting
from the Defendants' violations of the Exchange Act.

The action is brought as a class action by Plaintiff on behalf of
himself and the other public holders of the common stock of DST
Systems, Inc. against the Company and the members of the
Company's board of directors for their violations of Sections
14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

On January 11, 2018, the Board caused the Company to enter into
an agreement and plan of merger, pursuant to which the Company's
shareholders stand to receive $84.00 in cash for each share of
DST Systems stock they own, representing $5.4 billion in
enterprise value.

On February 7, 2018, to convince DST Systems shareholders to vote
in favor of the Proposed Merger, the Board authorized the filing
of a materially incomplete and misleading preliminary proxy
statement with the Securities and Exchange Commission, in
violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The
materially incomplete and misleading Proxy independently violates
both Regulation G, each of which constitutes a violation of
Section 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

While touting the fairness of the Merger Consideration to the
Company's shareholders in the Proxy, Defendants have failed to
disclose certain material information that is necessary for
shareholders to properly assess the fairness of the Proposed
Merger, thereby violating SEC rules and regulations and rendering
certain statements in the Proxy materially incomplete and
misleading.

In particular, the Proxy contains materially incomplete and
misleading information concerning the financial forecasts for the
Company that were prepared by the Company and relied upon by the
Board in recommending the Company's shareholders vote in favor of
the Proposed Merger. The financial forecasts were also utilized
by DST Systems' financial advisor, Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner
& Smith Incorporated, in conducting the valuation analyses in
support of its fairness opinion.

It is imperative that the material information that has been
omitted from the Proxy is disclosed prior to the forthcoming
stockholder vote to allow the Company's stockholders to make an
informed decision regarding the Proposed Merger. For these
reasons, and as set forth in detail herein, Plaintiff asserts
claims against Defendants for violations of Sections 14(a) and
20(a) of the Exchange Act.

DST Systems, Inc. is an American provider of advisory, technology
and operations outsourcing to the financial and healthcare
industries, with more than 13,000 employees worldwide.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nadeem Faruqi, Esq.
          James M. Wilson, Jr., Esq.
          Michael Van Gorder, Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
          685 Third Ave., 26th Fl.
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 983-9330
          E-mail: nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com
                  jwilson@faruqilaw.com
                  mvangorder@faruqilaw.com


DYNAMIC RECOVERY: "Siddiqi" Bid for Class Certification Nixed
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled Shabih Siddiqi, the Plaintiff, v. Dynamic
Recovery Solutions, LLC, et al., the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-
06126 (N.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Robert M. Dow Jr. held that the
status hearing is continued to July 10, 2018 at 9:00 a.m.
Plaintiff's motion for class certification is stricken without
prejudice to refiling at a later date.

A copy of the Docket Entry is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=n2lDjA9J


EDELMAN FINANCIAL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, "Brown" Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JAYME BROWN, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. EDELMAN FINANCIAL SERVICES, LLC; and DOES
1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 8:18-cv-00214-JVS-
JDE (C.D. Cal., Feb. 7, 2018) is an action against the Defendants
for unpaid regular hours, overtime hours, minimum wages, wages
for missed meal and rest periods.

Edelman Financial Services LLC is a privately owned investment
manager. It provides its services to individuals, trusts,
estates, charitable organizations, foundations, pensions,
retirement, and profit sharing plans, institutions, and small
businesses. The firm operates as a subsidiary of The Edelman
Financial Center, LLC. Edelman Financial Services LLC was founded
in 1986, and is based in Fairfax, Virginia. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian D. Chase, Esq.
          Jerusalem F. Beligan, Esq.
          Daniel J. Hyun, Esq.
          BISNAR|CHASE LLP
          1301 Dove Street, Suite 120
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Telephone: (949) 752-2999
          Facsimile: (949) 752-2777
          E-mail: bchase@bisnarchase.com
                  jbeligan@bisnarchase.com
                  dhyun@bisnarchase.com


ENERMEX INTERNATIONAL: "Serrato" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
--------------------------------------------------------
JOSE SERRATO, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. ENERMEX INTERNATIONAL, INC., ENERMEX
RENTALS & SERVICE LLC and EDGAR H. PADILLA, the Defendants, Case
No. 4:18-cv-00548 (S.D. Tex., Feb. 22, 2018), seeks to recover
overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

According to the complaint, Enermex violated the FLSA by
employing Serrato and other similarly situated nonexempt
employees "for a workweek longer than 40 hours [but refusing to
compensate them] for [their] employment in excess of 40 hours at
a rate not less than one and one-half times the regular rate at
which [they are or were] employed. Enermex violated the FLSA by
failing to maintain accurate time and pay records for Serrato
and other similarly situated nonexempt employees as required by
29 U.S.C. section 211(c) and 29 C.F.R. pt. 516.

Enermex is a UK Mexican Partnership with corporate offices in
Mexico City and London, developed and structured to provide
mutually equitable partnerships and commercial relationships.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Melissa Moore, Esq.
          Curt Hesse, Esq.
          Bridget Davidson, Esq.
          MOORE & ASSOCIATES
          Lyric Center
          440 Louisiana Street, Suite 675
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (713) 222 6775
          Facsimile: (713) 222 6739


ENHANCED RECOVERY: "Eady" Suit Seeks to Certify 3 Classes
---------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled DEMONTA EADY and DEBORAH EVANS, CASE NO.
3:17-cv-01008-TJC-PDB, the Plaintiff, v. ENHANCED RECOVERY
COMPANY, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-01008-TJC-PDB (M.D.
Fla.), the Plaintiffs seek the Court to certify three classes:

Telephone Consumer Protection Act Class:

   "all individuals in the United States, to whom ERC -- between
   August 6, 2014 through the date of class certification --
   placed a call using the HCI System to such individual's
   cellular telephone and where ERC lacked prior express consent
   to make the call. Plaintiffs seek to establish on behalf of
   the TCPA Class that the HCI System is an "ATDS" under
   47 U.S.C. section 227(a)(1) and enjoin ERC from continuing to
   use it to call the TCPA Class";

Fair Debt Collection Practices Act Class:

   "all individuals in the United States, to whom ERC -- between
   August 28, 2016 through the date of class certification --
   placed a call using the HCI System in an attempt to collect a
   consumer debt and where ERC had placed at least 10 such calls
   to the individual at the same number over the prior two-week
   period";

Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act:

   "all individuals in the United States, to whom ERC -- between
   August 28, 2015 through the date of class certification --
   placed a call using the HCI System in an attempt to collect a
   consumer debt and where ERC had placed at least 10 such calls
   to the individual at the same number over the prior two-week
   period."

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=3PyUVK9P

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David McDevitt, Esq.
          THOMPSON CONSUMER LAW GROUP, PLLC
          5235 E. Southern Ave., D106-618
          Mesa, AZ 85206
          Telephone: (602) 845 5969
          Facsimile: (866) 317 2674
          E-mail: dmcdevitt@thompsonconsumerlaw.com


EQUIFAX INC: Faces "Carter" Suit in N.D. Georgia
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Equifax Inc., and
Equifax Information Services, LLC. The case is captioned as
Shawnette Carter and Aleida Ruiz, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Equifax Inc.; and Equifax
Information Services, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-00626-TWT
(N.D. Ga., Feb. 9, 2018). The case is assigned to Judge Thomas W.
Thrash, Jr. The "Carter" suit is a member case in the multi-
district litigation proceeding, MDL No. 2800.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Danielle Anne Fuschetti, Esq.
          SANFORD HEISLER SHARP, LLP -CA
          111 Sutter Street, Suite 975
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 795-2022
          Facsimile: (415) 795-2021

               - and -

          Edward Dewey Chapin, Esq.
          SANFORD HEISLER SHARP, LLP -CA
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1700
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 577-4253
          Facsimile: (619) 577-4250

               - and -

          Jason Paul Sander, Esq.
          JASON SANDER, ATTORNEY AT LAW
          4314 Feagan Street
          Houston, TX 77007
          Telephone: (713) 899-9784
          E-mail: sanderjason@hotmail.com

               - and -

          Kevin Hunter Sharp, Esq.
          SANFORD HEISLER SHARP, LLP
          611 Commerce St., Suite 3100
          Nashville, TN 97203
          Telephone: (615) 434-7001
          Facsimile: (615) 434-7020


ERELEVANCE CORPORATION: Removes "Jaffe" Suit to N.D. Illinois
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Defendant in the case of Olwen Jaffe, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. eRelevance
Corporation, Defendant, filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from
the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois (Case No. 2018-ch-
00268) to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois and assigned Case No. 1:18-cv-00994 (N.D. Ill., Feb. 7,
2018).

eRelevance Corporation, Inc. provides a technology-enabled
marketing automation service to small- and medium-sized
businesses. The company users multiple digital communication
channels, including email, text, Web, social, and automated
conversations through an application and text messaging to
generate leads. It serves healthcare, marketing, and real estate
industries. The company was founded in 2013 and is based in
Austin, Texas. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Louis Gerbie, Esq.
          MCGUIRE LAW, P.C.
          55 W. Wacker, 9th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 893-7002
          E-mail: dgerbie@mcgpc.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Jonathan Booker Cifonelli, Esq.
          PUGH JONES & JOHNSON, P.C.
          180 North LaSalle St., Suite 3400
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 768-7800
          E-mail: jcifonelli@pjjlaw.com

               - and -

          Walter Jones , Jr., Esq.
          PUGH JONES & JOHNSON, P.C.
          180 North LaSalle Street, Suite 3400
          Chicago, IL 60601-2700
          Telephone: (312) 768-7800
          E-mail: wjones@pjjlaw.com

               - and -

          Zeke Nathaniel Katz, Esq.
          PUGH JONES & JOHNSON
          180 N LaSalle St, Suite 3400
          Telephone: Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 768-7800
          E-mail: zkatz@pjjlaw.com


ESSEX TECHNOLOGY: "Nowell" Suit Alleges Violation of FCRA
---------------------------------------------------------
Brian Nowell, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Essex Technology Group, LLC doing business
as Bargain Hunt; and Does 1 through 20, inclusive, Case No. 1:18-
cv-00623-MLB-JFK (N.D. Ga., Feb. 9, 2018) alleges violation of
the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The case is assigned to Judge
Michael L. Brown and referred to Magistrate Judge Janet F. King.

Essex Technology Group, Inc. provides business information and
security solutions. The company was founded in 1994 and is based
in Rochelle Park, New Jersey. Essex Technology Group, Inc. is a
prior subsidiary of The Janis Group, Inc. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Chant Yedalian, Esq.
          CHANT & COMPANY
          1010 N, Central Avenue
          Glendale, CA 91202

               - and -

          Charles Austin Gower , Jr.
          CHARLES A. GOWER, P.C.
          P.O. Box 5509
          1425 Wynnton Road
          Columbus, GA 31906
          Telephone: (706) 324-5685
          E-mail: austin@cagower.com

               - and -

          Shaun Patrick O'Hara, Esq.
          CHARLES A. GOWER, P.C.
          P.O. Box 5509
          1425 Wynnton Road
          Columbus, GA 31906
          Telephone: (706) 324-5685
          E-mail: shaun@cagower.com


EXPEDIA INC: Buckeye Tree, et al. Seek to Certify Class
-------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled BUCKEYE TREE LODGE AND SEQUOIA VILLAGE INN,
LLC, a California limited liability company, and 2020 O STREET
CORPORATION, INC, D/B/A THE MANSION ON O STREET, individually and
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, v. EXPEDIA, INC., a Washington corporation;
HOTELS.COM, L.P., a Texas limited partnership; HOTELS.COM GP,
LLC, a Texas limited liability company; ORBITZ, LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company; VENERE NET S.R.L DBA VENERE NET, LLC,
an Italian limited liability company; and EXPEDIA AUSTRALIA
INVESTMENTS PTY LTD., an Australian private company, the
Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-04721-VC (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs
will move the Court on May 17, 2018, for an order:

   1. certifying a class of:

      "all hotels, lodges, inns, and motels located in the United
      States whose names appeared on Expedia.com, Hotels.com,
      Orbitz.com, or Travelocity.com (1) with whom Defendants
      did not have a booking agreement, or (2) with whom
      Defendants had a booking agreement to sell a specified
      number of rooms and whose names continued to appear on
      Expedia.com, Hotels.com, Orbitz.com, or Travelocity.com
      even after Defendants had sold the specified number of
      rooms, since August 17, 2012";

   2. appointing Buckeye Tree Lodge and Sequoia Village Inn, LLC,
      and 2020 O Street Corporation, Inc., d/b/a/ The Mansion on
      O Street, as the Class Representatives; and

   3. appointing the law firms of Patterson Law Group, APC, and
      Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca LLP as Class Counsel.

A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=qX2q7sF5

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          James R. Patterson, Esq.
          Allison H. Goddard, Esq.
          Jacquelyn E. Quinn, Esq.
          PATTERSON LAW GROUP
          1350 Columbia Street, Suite 603
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 756 6990
          Facsimile: (619) 756 6991
          E-mail: jim@pattersonlawgroup.com
                  ali@pattersonlawgroup.com
                  jackie@pattersonlawgroup.com

               - and -

          CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP

               - and -

          PRATT & ASSOCIATES

               - and -

          RICHA LAW GROUP, P.C.


FAIRMONT FUNDING: Azulay Sues over Mortgage Loan Fraud
------------------------------------------------------
ZIV AZULAY, the Plaintiff, v. FAIRMONT FUNDING LTD., MORTGAGE
ELETRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS INC., GMAC MORTGAGE LLC., GREEN
TREE SERVICING LLC., DITECH FINANCIAL LLC., MTGLQ INVESTORS LP.,
THEIR HEIRS, SUCCESSORS AND SUCCESSORS IN INTEREST, COLLECTIVELY,
the Defendants, Case No. 1480-18 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Feb. 21, 2018),
seeks to recover damages caused by Defendants relating to
foreclosure action on the grounds of fraud, misrepresentation,
and negligent misrepresentation.

According to the complaint, on or about September 9, 2008, the
plaintiff entered into a mortgage loan with the defendant
Fairmont Funding Ltd. On or about September 9, 2008 the mortgage
was assigned to MERS Inc., as NOMINEE for "Recording Purposes
Only," for Faim1ont Funding Ltd. There was and is, no recorded
"Power of Attorney" from Fairmont Funding Ltd to MERS Inc.,
granting MERS Inc., the power or rights to transfer the
instrument by assignment or otherwise, to third-parties, as MERS
Inc., only was appointed as "NOMINEE for Recording Purposes Only"
for Freemont Funding Ltd. This "language" was carefully crafted
to ensure that the "power" and "rights" of assignment and or
transfer remained with Fairmont Funding who is the Originator and
Owner of said mortgage, while MERS Inc., was the central depot
for appointing Loan Servicers.

On or about September 9, 2008, there was a loan modification by
Freemont Funding Ltd., through MERS Inc., on behalf of the
plaintiff, and MERS Inc., still acted as NOMINEE for "recording
purposes ONLY" for and on-behalf of Freemont Funding LTD.
15. This again clearly establishes said fact, that the said loan
was owned, controlled and operated by that "lender" who retained
full authority and rights to the loan.

On or about April 17, 2009, Fairmont Funding Ltd., as assignor
assigns the mortgage to MERS Inc., in a purported "gap"
assignment; whereby MERS Inc., was again acting "solely as
NOMINEE for Fairmont funding Ltd. This assignment was recorded
three years after the modification, in June of 2009, and the
"gap" assignment was signed by Elpiniki M. Bechakas who
apparently is NOT a MERS Inc., employee.

The Plaintiffs and putative Class members seeks to recover actual
damages they have sustained as a result of the improper filing of
foreclosure suits and the improper filing of the Mortgage
Assignments.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Derek Warner, Esq.
          195 Montague Street, Suite 1229
          Brooklyn, NY 11201
          Telephone: (929) 377 7211
          Facsimile: (347) 707 7004


FCA US: Vaugn Sues over Defective Chrysler 2017 Pacifica Vans
-------------------------------------------------------------
BARBARA VAUGN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FCA US LLC, Defendant, Case No. 5:18-cv-
00065-JSM-PRL (M.D. Fla., Feb. 9, 2018) alleges that Defendant's
Chrysler 2017 Pacifica minivans contain a serious safety defect
that causes the vehicle's engine to shut off, idle only, or
prevent acceleration.

FCA US LLC, together with its subsidiaries, designs, engineers,
manufactures, distributes, and sells vehicles primarily in the
United States. The company offers passenger cars; utility
vehicles, including sport utility and crossover vehicles;
minivans; trucks; and commercial vans under the Chrysler, Dodge,
Jeep, and Ram brand names. It also distributes Fiat-brand
vehicles and service parts; sells Mopar branded service parts and
accessories; and provides service contracts to consumers, and
contract manufacturing services to other vehicle manufacturers.
The company was formerly known as Chrysler Group LLC and changed
its name to FCA US LLC in December 2014. The company is
headquartered in Auburn Hills, Michigan. FCA US LLC is a
subsidiary of FCA North America Holdings LLC. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Timothy G. Blood, Esq.
          Thomas J. O'Reardon, Esq.
          Paula R. Brown, Esq.
          BLOOD HURST & O'REARDON, LLP
          501 West Broadway, Suite 1490
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 338-1100
          E-mail: tblood@bholaw.com
                  toreardon@bholaw.com
                  pbrown@bholaw.com

               - and -

          Ben Barnow, Esq.
          Erich P. Schork, Esq.
          1 North LaSalle Street, Suite 6400
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 621-2000
          Facsimile: (312) 641-5504
          E-mail: b.barnow@barnowlaw.com
                  e.schork@barnowlaw.com

               - and -

          T. Michael Morgan, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
          20 North Orange Ave., Suite 1600
          Orlando, FL 32801
          Telephone: (407) 420-1414
          Facsimile: (407) 641-5846
          E-mail: mmorgan@forthepeople.com


FEDEX FREIGHT: Pina Seeks to Certify Operations Supervisors Class
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled GUILLERMO PINA, on behalf of himself and
al1 others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. FEDEX FREIGHT, INC.,
the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-24274-FAM (S.D. Fla.), the
Plaintiff moves the Court to conditionally certify and authorize
Plaintiff to mail and e-mail Notice of this lawsuit and Consent
to Become a Party Plaintiff to:

   A. Operations Supervisors who performed work for Defendants
      nationwide during the last three years prior to the filing
      of Plaintiff's complaint until present who: (1) were
      classified as "exempt" from the Fair Labor Standards Act's
      overtime provisions;

   B. who were subject to Defendant's "Exemption"; and

   C. who were not paid proper overtime compensation (i.e. for
      the hours over 40 during any work week of their employment
      within the applicable statute of limitations period.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Peter Michael Hoogerwoerd, Esq.
          Nathaly Lewis, Esq.
          REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
          44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200
          Miami, FL 33130
          Telephone: (305) 416 5000
          Facsimile: (305) 416 5005
          E-mail: pmh@rgpattorneys.com
                  nl@rgpattorneys.com

Counsel for Defendant:

          Joyce Ackerbaum Cox, Esq.
          Meagan L. Martin, Esq.
          BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
          Post office Box 112
          Orlando FL 32802
          Telephone: (407) 649 4000
          Facsimile: (407)841 0168
          E-mail: jacox@bakerlaw.com
                  mmartin@bakerlaw.com


FRENCH BREAD: "Gonzalez" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Fernando Gonzalez, Gregorio Castillo, Morris Garcia, and Jose
Morales, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated,
the Plaintiffs, v. The French Bread Factory, Inc., the Defendant,
Case No. 1:18-cv-00201-LO-JFA (E.D. Va., Feb. 22, 2018), seeks to
recover unpaid overtime in violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act of 1938.

The Plaintiffs were blue collar workers who drove small delivery
vans and made local deliveries of baked goods. The Plaintiffs
regularly work more than 40 hours per week. Gonzalez
typically begins work as early as 1:15 a.m. and gets Plaintiffs
have had weeks in which they worked more than their typical
number of hours. Until recently, Plaintiffs Gonzalez, Garcia, and
Morales were paid a weekly salary. While being paid a salary,
they received no overtime compensation for working more than 40
hours per week.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          Philip Justus Dean, Esq.
          Craig Juraj Curwood, Esq.
          CURWOOD LAW FIRM
          530 E. Main Street, Suite 710
          Richmond, VA 23219
          Telephone: (804) 788 0808
          Facsimile: (804) 767 6777
          E-mail: pdean@curwoodlaw.com
                  ccurwood@curwoodlaw.com


FUJIFILM HOLDINGS: Lowinger Balks at Xerox Merger Deal
------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT LOWINGER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. FUJIFILM HOLDINGS CORP., XEROX CORP.,
JEFF JACOBSON, GREGORY Q. BROWN, JOSEPH J. ECHEVARRIA, WILLIAM
CURT HUNTER, ROBERT J. KEEGAN, CHERYL GORDON KRONGARD, CHARLES
PRINCE, ANN N. REESE, STEPHEN H. RUSCKOWSKI and SARA MARTINEZ
TUCKER, the Defendants, Case No. 650824/2018 (N.Y. Sup., Feb. 20,
2018), seeks to enjoin a change of control transaction and
fraudulent scheme whereby Fuji will acquire majority ownership
and control of Xerox, for virtually no money out of pocket.

According to the complaint, the transaction is largely a result
of Defendants seeking to insulate themselves from actions of Carl
C. Icahn and Darwin Deason, two of Xerox's largest shareholders
who have stated dissatisfaction with the Company's direction and
management, and who are seek to make changes. Rather than address
the legitimate concerns of Icahn and Deason, Defendants are
seemingly destroying shareholder value and jettisoning the
Company's potential value to entrench and enrich themselves. The
Director Defendants, a majority of whom have secured for
themselves officer or director positions with the new combined
entity, have breached their fiduciary duties to Plaintiff and all
other Xerox shareholders by negotiating and approving a
transaction that dramatically undervalues Xerox, provides a
wholly inadequate control premium, if any, and disproportionately
favors Fuji. If the deal is consummated, Xerox shareholders will
be virtually powerless over the future direction of their
investment and will have no opportunity to receive a true control
premium for their shares.

The lawsuit says Xerox and the Director Defendants are using
their long-standing, joint venture agreements with Fuji as an
excuse to justify this one-sided transaction. The joint venture
agreements contain a "crown jewel" lock-up right that allows Fuji
to control Xerox's intellectual property and manufacturing rights
in the $36 billion Asia-Pacific market in the event Xerox were to
sell just 30% of the Company to a competitor. This effectively
blocks any chance of a transparent and fair sale process.
Shockingly, Xerox and the Director Defendants fraudulently
concealed this material fact from shareholders and other
investors for almost 17 years, and did not reveal it until after
the transaction with Fuji was announced.

Fuji, however, handed Xerox and the Director Defendants a golden
opportunity to terminate the joint venture agreements through
Fuji's participation in a "WorldCom"-like accounting scandal at
Fuji Xerox Co., Ltd., the Fuji-Xerox joint venture. In July
2017, Fuji released a more than 200-page independent
investigation committee report that contained stunning findings
and sharply criticized Fuji for its prominent role in
contributing to the accounting scandal, given the substantial
control Fuji had over Fuji Xerox's operations. As a result of the
misconduct by Fuji and Fuji Xerox, Xerox had the right to
terminate the joint venture agreements. The self-interested
Director Defendants, however, ignored the opportunity or
deliberately chose not to terminate the joint venture agreements.
Had the Director Defendants terminated the joint venture
agreements, they would have been able to engage in a fair and
equitable bidding process and achieve a fair value and control
premium for Xerox shareholders.

According to the lawsuit, if the proposed Transaction is
permitted to be consummated, the opportunity for Xerox
shareholders to benefit from a full and fair market check and to
receive a superior control premium will be lost forever because
the improper, but terminable, lock-up rights Fuji has under the
joint venture agreements will become permanent.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert Lowinger, Esq.
          Mark Levine, Esq.
          Aaron L Brody, Esq.
          Michael Klein, Esq.
          STULL, STULL & BRODY
          6 East 45th Street
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 687 7230
          Facsimile: (212) 490 2022


GET AROUND INC: Ponciano Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code
------------------------------------------------------------
AMANDA PONCIANO, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. GET AROUND, INC., a Delaware
Corporation RESTITUTION, the Defendant, Case No. CGC-18-564459
(Cal. Super. Ct., Feb. 20, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid wages,
including overtime compensation under the California Labor Code.

The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant has had a policy of
misclassifying non-exempt employees as independent contractors,
thereby: (1) unlawfully failing to provide Plaintiff and
similarly situated employees with overtime premiums for all hours
worked in excess of eight in a day or 40 in a week; (2)
unlawfully failing to provide Plaintiff and similarly situated
employees with timely, statutorily-mandated meal and rest periods
and/or failing to properly compensate them for meal and rest
period violations; (3) willfully failing to provide Plaintiff and
similarly situated employees with wages for hours worked on a
weekly or semi-monthly basis; (4) willfully failing to provide
Plaintiff and similarly situated employees with accurate semi-
month itemized wage statements; (5) willfully failing to pay
compensation owed in a prompt and timely manner to Plaintiff and
similarly situated employees whose employment with Defendants has
terminated; (6) failing to reimburse mandatory employee expenses;
and (7) violating California's Unfair Competition Law.

Getaround is an online car sharing or peer-to-peer carsharing
service that allows drivers to rent cars from private car owners,
and owners to rent out their cars for payment.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Rory Quintana, Esq.
          Ramsey Hanafi, Esq.
          QUINTANA HANAFI, LLP
          870 Market Street, Suite 1115
          Telephone: (415) 504 3121
          Facsimile: (415) 233-8770
          E-mail: info@qhplaw.com


GLYNN COUNTY, GA: "Coleman" Summary Ruling Partly Affirmed
----------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Georgia, Fourth Division, issued an
Opinion affirming in part and reversing in part the trial court's
judgment denying Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment in the
appeals cases captioned Plaintiffs' Motion for COLEMAN, et al.,
v. GLYNN COUNTY, GEORGIA; COLEMAN, et al., v. GLYNN COUNTY,
GEORGIA; COLEMAN, et al., v. GLYNN COUNTY, GEORGIA; A17A1843,
A17A1844, A17A1845 (Ga. App.).

The Colemans purchased certain real property in Glynn County
known as Tax Parcel Number 04-01187.  The Colemans applied for
the Exemption on February 1, 2006.  Their application was granted
in 2006, and the Colemans' homestead exemption was in effect for
the 2006 tax year.  However, Glynn County used and continues to
use 2006, as opposed to 2005, as the base year for calculating
the amount of their homestead exemption.  The assessed value for
the property in 2006 was $133,800, whereas the assessed value of
the property in 2005 was $70,006.

Plaintiffs filed three class action lawsuits on behalf of
themselves and all taxpayers similarly situated seeking refunds
for taxes that were overpaid based on Glynn County's incorrect
application of a local homestead exemption.  On the parties'
cross-motions for summary judgment in each case, the trial court
entered a consolidated order denying the Colemans' motion and
granting summary judgment to Glynn County.

In Case Nos. A17A1843, A17A1844, and A17A1845, the primary issue
on appeal is whether the trial court erred in construing the
terms of the homestead exemption.  A secondary issue is whether
the trial court erred in barring a portion of the asserted
claims.

The record shows that in 2000 the Georgia Legislature passed
House Bills 1690 and 1691, which were local legislation providing
the residents of Glynn County with a homestead exemption from ad
valorem property taxes for county and school purposes
(hereinafter collectively referred to as the "Act" or the
"Exemption").

The Ga. App. finds that the Act specifically defines the term
base year as the taxable year immediately preceding the taxable
year in which the exemption under the Act is first granted to the
most recent owner of such homestead.  The Colemans purchased
their property in 2005; in so doing, they were certainly liable
for a portion of the taxes in the 2005 tax year.  Further, the
Colemans applied for and were granted the Exemption in 2006,
which was applicable for the 2006 tax year.  Under a plain
reading of the clear language of the Act, the term "base year"
must be construed to mean the taxable year preceding the taxable
year in which the homestead exemption was granted to the
applicant. As to the Colemans, the correct base year for the
purposes of the Exemption is 2005.

In granting summary judgment to Glynn County, the trial court
appeared to engraft language onto the Act which would require an
applicant for the Exemption to be the owner of the qualifying
property on January 1 of the base year, to apply for the
homestead exemption in the base year, and to maintain their
application until the following tax year in order to receive the
Exemption.  There is simply no reasonable authorization for such
an interpretation in this case.  Based on the plain language of
the Act, the base year is merely the taxable year immediately
preceding the taxable year in which the applicant was the owner
of the property on January 1 in other words, the year prior to
the year in which the homestead exemption was granted.

The trial court's summary judgment with regard to this issue in
Case Nos. A17A1843, A17A1844, and A17A1845 must be reversed.

The Colemans next contend that the trial court erred: (i) in
holding that they are barred from seeking a refund of taxes
overpaid prior to 2008; and (ii) in holding that the class
members would be barred from seeking a refund of taxes overpaid
prior to 2010.

As governmental bodies, the counties of this State are entitled
to sovereign immunity and, thus, are not subject to suit for any
cause of action unless provided for by statute. OCGA Section 48-
5-380 is the statute under which taxpayers may seek refunds from
counties and municipalities. The statutory authorization to bring
an action for a tax refund in superior court against a county is
an express waiver of sovereign immunity, and the county's consent
to be sued for a tax refund must be strictly construed.

Under the respective versions of OCGA Section 48-5-380 that apply
to the class-action lawsuits at issue, a taxpayer may request a
refund of illegally and erroneously assessed taxes or overpaid
taxes from the county within three years of the payment of such
taxes and then file suit if such refund request is denied or not
timely addressed within a specified time period.

As the record shows that the Colemans filed the first class-
action lawsuit on November 20, 2012, the class members would only
be barred from recovering tax refunds for payments made prior to
November 20, 2009. Accordingly, the trial court erred in
establishing 2010 as the cut-off point for the class members'
claims.

Lastly, the Colemans contend that any refunds for tax payments
they and the class members made that fall outside of the three-
year window under OCGA Section 48-5-380 (b) may nevertheless be
recoverable by way of mandamus, equity, injunction, or
declaratory relief.

The Court disagrees.

In order to obtain mandamus relief, a claimant must establish
that (1) no other adequate legal remedy is available to
effectuate the relief sought; and (2) the applicant has a clear
legal right to such relief.  Here, neither the Colemans nor the
class members have a clear legal right to any tax refunds for
payments made outside the three-year window provided in OCGA
Section 48-5-380 (b). To hold otherwise would render the
provisions of OCGA Section 48-5-380 (b) meaningless.

A full-text copy of the Ga. App.'s January 22, 2018 Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y769557g from Leagle.com.

Lacey Lee Houghton -- lhoughton@robertstate.com -- for Appellant.
Laura Elizabeth Roberts, 5 Glynn AvenuePost Office Box
220Brunswick, GA 31521, for Appellant.

James L. Roberts, IV, 2487 DEMERE ROAD SUITE 400, ST. SIMONS
ISLAND, GA 31522, for Appellant.

Jason Monroe Tate, 2487 DEMERE ROAD SUITE 400, ST. SIMONS ISLAND,
GA 31522, for Appellant.

Gregory Todd Carter, Strickland & Watkins LLP, PO Box 220,
Brunswick, Georgia 31521, for Appellee.

Emily Rose Hancock, 5 Glynn Avenue, Brunswick, Georgia 31520 for
Appellee.

Aaron Wylie Mumford, 701 2nd St., Brunswick, GA 31520, for
Appellee.


GSP TRANSPORTATION: "Campbell" Suit Seeks to Certify Class
----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled SUSAN CAMPBELL, Individually, on behalf of
herself and on behalf of all other similarly situated current and
former employees, the Plaintiff, v. GSP TRANSPORTATION, INC., a
South Carolina Corporation, d/b/a Thrifty Rental Car Franchisee,
Dollar Rental Car Franchisee and Hertz Rental Car Franchisee; and
JEFF SCHOEPFEL, Individually, Case No. 1:17-cv-00045 (E.D.
Tenn.), the Plaintiffs move the Court to:

   1. authorize this case to proceed as a collective action
      against Defendant GSP Transportation, Inc. and Jeff
      Schopfel for overtime wage violations under the Fair Labor
      Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. section 216(b), on behalf of
      Defendants managers who were misclassified as exempt from
      the overtime requirements of the FLSA during the last three
      years who were subject to Defendant's practice requiring
      suffering and permitting Plaintiffs to work over 40 hours
      per week without overtime compensation;

   2. issue an Order directing Defendant to immediately provide a
      list of names, last known addresses, and last known
      telephone numbers for all putative class members within the
      last three years;

   3. issue an Order that notice be prominently posted at each of
      Defendant's locations where putative class members work,
      attached to current hourly employees' next scheduled pay
      check, and be mailed to the hourly employees so that they
      can assert their claims on a timely basis as part of this
      litigation; and

   4. order that the Opt-In Plaintiffs' Consent Forms be deemed
      "filed" on the date they are postmarked.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gordon E. Jackson, Esq.
          James L. Holt, Jr., Esq.
          J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
          Paula R. Jackson, Esq.
          JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER & HOLT
          262 German Oak Drive
          Memphis, TN 38018
          Telephone: (901) 754 8001
          Facsimile: (901) 754 8524
          E-mail: gjackson@jsyc.com
                  rbryant@jsyc.com
                  pjackson@jsyc.com


HMR OF ALABAMA: Court Dismisses "Cooley" Wage and Hour Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Alabama, Middle Division, issued a Memorandum Opinion granting
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the case captioned JACQUELINE
COOLEY, et al., Plaintiffs, v. HMR OF ALABAMA, INC. d/b/a Robert
L. Howard Veterans Home, Defendant, Case No. 4:16-CV-01432-VEH
(N.D. Ala.).

Plaintiffs alleged in their Amended Complaint that the Defendant,
HMR of Alabama, Inc., d/b/a Robert L. Howard Veterans Home (HMR),
violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), by failing to pay
them straight-time and/or overtime for work they performed during
their unpaid lunch periods, and allegedly docking their work
hours by 30 minutes for a meal period even if the Plaintiffs did
not take a meal break.  The Plaintiffs also allege that the
Defendant owes them compensation pursuant to the theories of
Quantum Meruit and Work and Labor Done (Count Two).

The Defendant argues that the Plaintiffs have failed to comply
with the Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order directing them to
identify the type of compensable work performed in order to state
a claim under the FLSA and have failed to allege the essential
element of a quantum meruit claim that the Plaintiffs had an
expectation of compensation.

Plaintiffs, when they did take a lunch break, the Defendant
routinely did not ensure that Plaintiffs were completely relieved
of their work duties during their uncompensated meal breaks.
Instead, during their lunch breaks, each plaintiff cared for
patient needs and tended to patients. The Amended Complaint
alleges that each Plaintiff worked multiple hours per workweek
for which they received no compensation whatsoever.

Without more detail, the allegations that each Plaintiff cared
for patient needs and tended to patients, are inadequate vague
allegations stating nothing more than the general
responsibilities of a CNA and/or an LPN. Furthermore, it is not
plausible that employees with the titles of Driver/Driver
Coordinator and Concierge would be engaged in such conduct.

In addition, some Plaintiffs were employed in the dual capacity
positions of CNA/Concierge, CNA/Driver, CNA/Unit Clerk, and
CNA/Machine Operator. The lack of specifics in the Amended
Complaint makes it impossible to tell in what capacity the
Plaintiffs who held these dual-capacity jobs were working during
their lunch breaks.

The Plaintiffs are in the best position to state the work they
did during their uncompensated meal breaks, and have not done so.
Count One will be dismissed.

In Iraola & CIA, S.A. v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 325 F.3d 1274
(11th Cir. 2003) the Eleventh Circuit addressed this very issue
in the context of a quantum meruit claim under Georgia law
stating: "The plaintiff did not allege that it rendered its
services in anticipation of compensation from the defendant."

The Georgia Court of Appeals has stated that a recovery on a
quantum meruit basis may not be obtained where the services (even
if beneficial) are rendered with no anticipation that
compensation is to be received. The law will not imply a promise
to pay for services contrary to the intention of the parties.
There can be no recovery for services rendered voluntarily and
with no expectation at the time of the rendition that they will
be compensated.

The Plaintiffs do not cite, and this Court has not found, even a
conclusory allegation in the Amended Complaint that the
Plaintiffs expected to be paid for services which they performed
on their meal breaks.  Furthermore, no facts are pleaded which
plausibly support such an allegation. Indeed, the Amended
Complaint Employee Handbook, in which it automatically deducted a
30-minute uncompensated meal break per workday, from a non-exempt
employee's workweek and that the Plaintiffs performed regular
work responsibilities during the time designated as their
uncompensated meal breaks.  Count Two will be dismissed.

A full-text copy of the District Court's January 22, 2018
Memorandum Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/y7hxqzpq
from Leagle.com.

Jacqueline Cooley, Heather Adams, Rosie Boyd, Ebony Byers,
Shakelia Calhoun, Kimberly Campbell, Myrania Carlton, Jewell
Chandler, Jalysa Embry, April Evans, Voncel Freeman, Leasa
Gowers, Tasha Harris, Cecelia Hawkins, Elleon Herring, Almelia
Hill, Johnnie Hollis, Shanelle Hurrell, Regina Isaac, Travis Ivy,
Angela Jones, Santrecia Kelley, Sarah Marbury, Angela McCray,
Margaret Mixon, Vanessa Moten, Patricia Parks, Denetha Petty,
Betty Phillips, Patricia Robinson, Toinetta Sutton, Chervon
Tanner, Treneia Toyer, Clarissa Truss, Sujutoria Truss, Cameka
Turner, David Vaughan, Debra Vaughan, Jill Vaughan, Patricia
Wallace, Constance Williams, Angela Wilson, Ruby Wilson & Andrea
Wood, Plaintiffs, represented by Michael K. Beard, MARSH RICKARD
& BRYAN PC, Allen Durham Arnold, FONTENEAU & ARNOLD LLC, Jane L.
Mauzy, MARSH RICKARD & BRYAN PC, Kira Y. Fonteneau, FONTENEAU AND
ARNOLD LLC &Richard J. Riley, MARSH, RICKARD & BRYAN P.C.,. 800
Shades Creek Parkway. Suite 600-D. Birmingham, Alabama 35209.

HMR of Alabama, Inc., doing business as Robert L. Howard Veterans
Home, Defendant, represented by Wesley C. Redmond --
wredmond@fordharrison.com -- FORD HARRISON LLP & Susan W. Bullock
-- sbullock@fordharrison.com -- FORD HARRISON LLP.


HOLLAND LP: Fails to Pay for Overtime Work, "Thomas" Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
AUBREY THOMAS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. HOLLAND LP, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-
00563 (N.D. Ill., Jan. 25, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and
Illinois Minimum Wage Law.

Defendant paid Plaintiff $1,250 per week at the inception of his
employment. Most recently, Defendant paid Plaintiff $1,294.40 per
week.

During the first year of Plaintiff's employment, Defendant on
occasion also paid Plaintiff a bonus of approximately 6 cents per
foot for jobs in which Plaintiff worked more than 1 mile per day.
In addition, Defendant paid Plaintiff an annual company
performance bonus in the amount of approximately $400.

Until July 2017, Defendant stated on Plaintiff's Earning
Statements a rate per hour. For example, Plaintiff's July 21,
2017 Earning Statement shows his regular earnings rate is $32.36
for 80 hours. Plaintiff thus works more than 40 hours per week in
one or more work weeks.

Ms. Thomas worked for Defendant as a salaried Superintendent at
Defendant's railroad welding and railroad services company.

Holland, L.P. provides electric flash-butt rail welding services.
It offers mobile welding services, such as rail team welding,
repair welding, turnout welding, roller line welding, portable
plant welding, and transit system solutions; fixed plant welding
services; and thermite welding services. The company was founded
in 1935 and is based in Crete, Illinois. Holland, L.P. operates
as a subsidiary of Curran Group, Inc. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Douglas M. Werman, Esq.
          Maureen A. Salas, Esq.
          Sarah J. Arendt, Esq.
          WERMAN SALAS P.C.
          77 W. Washington, Suite 1402
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 419-1008


HOME DEPOT: "Manopla" Suit Seeks to Certify Class
-------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled AARON MANOPLA and EVELYN MANOPLA, on behalf
of themselves and all other similarly situated, the Plaintiffs,
v. HOME DEPOT USA, INC., ATLANTIC WATER PRODUCTS and JOHN DOES 1-
25, the Defendants, Case No. 3:15-cv-01120-PGS-TJB (D.N.J.), the
Plaintiffs move the Court to certify a class.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=da7TKdwV

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ross H. Schmierer, Esq.
          DENITTIS OSEFCHEN PRINCE, P.C.
          525 Route 73 North, Suite 410
          Marlton, NJ 08053
          Telephone: (856) 797 9951
          E-mail: rschmierer@denittislaw.com

The Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman, P.C. and Marcus & Zelman,
LLC, also serve as counsel to the Plaintiffs.


HOME DEPOT: 4th Cir. Affirms Remand of "Jackson" to State Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit, issued an
Opinion affirming the District Court's Order remanding to state
court the case captioned GEORGE W. JACKSON, Third Party
Plaintiff-Appellee, v. HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INCORPORATED, Third
Party Defendant-Appellant, and CAROLINA WATER SYSTEMS, INC.;
CITIBANK, N.A., Defendants, No. 17-1627 (4th Cir.).

Third-Party Defendant Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., filed a Petition
for Permission to Appeal the district court's order remanding
this case to state court.

Citibank, N.A., filed a debt collection action against George W.
Jackson in the District Court Division of the General Court of
Justice of Mecklenburg County, North Carolina.  Citibank alleged
that Jackson failed to pay for a water treatment system he
purchased using a Citibank-issued credit card.

Jackson filed an Answer in which he asserted a counterclaim
against Citibank and third-party class action claims against Home
Depot and Carolina Water Systems, Inc. (CWS). Jackson alleged
that Home Depot and CWS engaged in unfair and deceptive trade
practices by misleading customers about their water treatment
systems, and that Citibank was "jointly and severally liable to
him because Home Depot directly sold or assigned the transaction
to" Citibank.

Home Depot filed a notice of removal citing federal jurisdiction
under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA).

The district court denied Home Depot's motion to realign because
it concluded that this was not a case where there are
antagonistic parties on the same side, and granted Jackson's
motion to remand because Home Depot did not meet the removal
statute's definition of defendant.

Under the general removal statute, any civil action brought in a
State court of which the district courts of the United States
have original jurisdiction may be removed by the defendant or the
defendants" to the appropriate district court.

The Fourth Circuit has also held that CAFA's expanded removal
authority does not allow removal of a class action counterclaim
asserted against an additional counter-defendant.

Palisades Collections LLC v. Shorts, 552 F.3d 327, 331 (4th Cir.
2008) also held that an additional counter-defendant was not any
defendant entitled to removal under Section 1453(b). First, it
concluded that because an additional counter-defendant was not
the defendant or the defendants under Section 1441(a), it could
not be any defendant under Section 1453(b).  It reasoned that any
did not change the meaning of defendant, and that the inclusion
of any at most allowed removal by a party that met the existing
definition of defendant.  Second, it examined the text of Section
1453(b) and concluded that the two references to any defendant
eliminated specific removal restrictions but did not expand the
definition of defendant.

Home Depot first argues that Palisades does not survive Dart
Cherokee because the Supreme Court's rejection of the anti-
removal presumption in Dart Cherokee undermines Palisades's
reasoning" and calls into question the application of Shamrock
Oil under CAFA because of the unique federalism interests present
in class action cases.

The Court disagrees.

The Court holds that the Supreme Court has not called into
question Palisades's conclusion that an additional counter-
defendant is not entitled to remove under Section 1441(a) or
Section 1453(b), nor has it abandoned Shamrock Oil's definition
of defendant" in the class action context.

In Dart Cherokee, the Supreme Court held that a defendant's
notice of removal need only include a plausible allegation that
the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional threshold.
In so holding, the Supreme Court remarked that no anti-removal
presumption attends cases invoking CAFA, which Congress enacted
to facilitate adjudication of certain class actions in federal
court.

A full-text copy of the Fourth Circuit's January 22, 2018 Opinion
is available at https://tinyurl.com/y7w3r5pk from Leagle.com.

ARGUED: Sidney Stewart Haskins, II -- shaskins@kslaw.com -- KING
& SPALDING, LLP, Atlanta, Georgia, for Appellant.

David Kevin Lietz, VARNELL & WARWICK, P.A., Lady Lake, Florida,
for Appellee.

ON BRIEF: Merritt McAlister -- mmcalister@kslaw.com -- J. Andrew
Pratt -- apratt@kslaw.com -- Zheyao Li -- zli@kslaw.com --
Atlanta, Georgia, Antonio E. Lewis, KING & SPALDING, LLP,
Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant.

Daniel K. Bryson -- dan@wbmllp.com -- WHITFIELD, BRYSON & MASON,
LLP, Raleigh, North Carolina; Rashad Blossom --
rblossom@blossomlaw.com -- com BLOSSOM LAW PLLC, Charlotte, North
Carolina; Janet R. Varnell -- jvarnell@varnellandwarwick.com --
VARNELL & WARWICK, P.A., Lady Lake, Florida, for Appellee.


HUFFS RESTAURANT: "Garvin" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages
--------------------------------------------------
Judy Garvin, an individual, the Plaintiff, v. Huffs Family
Restaurant, an unknown California business entity; Gaylee Duhem,
an individual; Aurelio Delgado Franco, an individual; and DOES 1
through 10, the Defendants, Case No. BC69514 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
Feb. 22, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid wages under California
Labor Code.

The Plaintiff is a former employee at Huff's. She worked as a
waitress there from October 1990 to October 2017. The Plaintiff
is informed and believes Huff's is owned by both Duhem and
Franco. Duhem became owner or part owner of Huff's sometime in
2012. Prior to Duhem's takeover of the business. Huff's was a
pleasant, fair place to work. The tips were good, and the
management treated employees with respect. This is evidenced by
Plaintiff's 22 years of continual employment prior to Duhem's
takeover.

According to the complaint, after the takeover, the culture at
Huff's changed significantly. Not only did Duhem verbally
humiliate the staff in front of customers for trivial, perceived
slights, but started cutting the hours of employees for the
reasons below.

The Plaintiff alleges that Plaintiff and other class members
regularly worked more than five hours per shift and were entitled
to a meal period of not less than 30 minutes without duty. The
Plaintiff further alleges that other class members regularly
worked more than 10 hours per shift and were entitled to a second
meal period of not less than 30 minutes without duty.

After the takeover, Duhem attempted to increase Huff's revenue by
expanding its catering business. In order to accomplish this, she
started cutting the hours of all staff so that they could be used
as part of the off-the-books catering business.

This was done to personally enrich Duhem at the expense of the
rest of the staff; if they didn't agree to participate in the
off-the-books catering arm of Huff's for an amount well below
minimum wage, their hours were cut significantly. The Plaintiff
refused to participate in the catering business because (1)
Duhem refused to pay minimum wage for the catering work and (2)
the catering work took time away from the more lucrative
waitressing work, the income from which Plaintiff needed to
survive.

As a result, Plaintiff's hours were cut from 25+ hours a week, to
8 hours a week, to 9 hours a week, to nothing. Duhem also
exploited her employees in other ways. Duhem forced Plaintiff and
all other staff members to arrive for their morning shifts at 5AM
to prepare the restaurant for opening at 6AM.

However, Duhem would only pay Plaintiff for her time starting at
5:30 AM. Over the five years Plaintiff was employed at Huff's
under the control of Duhem, she and other employees worked for
hundreds of hours without pay, in violation of California law.

Duhem would arrive at 5AM with the other employees to unlock the
door to the restaurant for the staff to enter and prepare it for
opening, but never paid Plaintiff or the other employees that
extra half hour for their time spent opening the restaurant. She
therefore knew employees were working without being paid but
still forced them to work the unpaid hours. Duhem also forced
Plaintiff to routinely work 7 to 8 hour shifts without meal or
rest breaks, in violation of California law. Plaintiff spent
hundreds of hours working without breaks since Duhem's takeover
in 2012.

Huff's is a restaurant operating in Long Beach, California. It is
not registered with the Secretary of State and appears to be
operating as a tradename for two individuals and is therefore
either a sole proprietorship or unlicensed partnership.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Benjamin D. Petiprin, Esq.
          SPRETER & PETIPRIN, APC
          17011 Beach Blvd, Ste 900
          Huntington Beach, CA 92647-5998
          Tel: (714) 475-7801
          Fax: (714) 276-1424
          E-mail: ben@spreterlaw.com


HUGO BOSS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, "Chavez" Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------
Jesus Chavez, as an individual and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Hugo Boss Retail, Inc. and Does
1 through 50, Defendants, Case No. 18CV322644 (Cal. Super., Santa
Clara Cty., Jan. 31, 2018), is an action against the Defendants
for unpaid regular hours, overtime hours, minimum wages, wages
for missed meal and res periods.

Hugo Boss USA, Inc. designs, manufactures, and distributes
fashion wear, accessories, and fragrances for men and women under
BOSS and HUGO brands. It offers clothing, such as suits, tuxedos,
formal wear, sports coats and vests, over coats, shirts, pants,
polo shirts, T-shirts, sweaters and sweat shirts, jackets, jeans,
casual pants and shorts, loungewear, swimwear, and underwear for
men; and dresses, blouses and tops, suits, blazers, skirts, dress
pants, jackets and coats, sweaters, jeans and casual pants for
women. The company also provides tuxedo shoes, sneakers, casual
shoes, boots, and leather accessories; children's fashion;
licensed fragrances and perfumes; accessories, such as bags and
luggage, wallets, watches and jewelry, socks, ties and bow ties,
belts, hats, gloves, scarves, eyewear, home textiles, umbrellas,
and writing instruments. It sells its products online, as well as
through its own retail stores and outlets in the United States.
The company was incorporated in 1988 and is based in New York,
New York. Hugo Boss USA, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of Hugo
Boss AG. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Paul K. Haines, Esq.
          Tuvia Korobkin, Esq.
          Stacey M. Shim, Esq.
          HAINES LAW GROUP, APC
          2274 East Maple Avenue
          El Segundo, CA 90245
          Telephone: (424) 292-2350
          Facsimile: (424) 292-2355
          E-mail: phaines@haineslawgroup.com
                  tkorobkin@haineslawgroup.com
                  sshim@haineslawgroup.com

               - and -

          Scott M. Lidman, Esq.
          Elizabeth Nguyen, Esq.
          LIDMAN LAW, APC
          222 N. Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 1550
          El Segundo, CA 90245
          Telephone: (424) 322-4772
          Facsimile: (424) 322-4775
          E-mail: slidman@lidmanlaw.com
                  enguyen@lidmanlaw.com


HYUNDAI CAPITAL: Made Unsolicited Calls, Sloatman Says
------------------------------------------------------
JOHN SLOATMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. HYUNDAI CAPITAL AMERICA; and DOES 1
through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. BC 693632 (Cal.
Super., Los Angeles Cty., Feb. 9, 2018) alleges that Defendants
have made unsolicited calls in violation of the California Penal
Code.

Plaintiff alleged that Defendants made a recording of a call and
fails to disclose to the Plaintiff that the call was being
recorded.

Hyundai Capital America, Inc. provides auto lending solutions and
financial products for individuals and businesses in the United
States. The company offers consumer vehicle financing and leasing
financing services, as well as dealer inventory and facility
financing services. It primarily serves Kia and Hyundai dealers.
The company is headquartered in Irvine, California. Hyundai
Capital America, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of Hyundai Motor
America, Inc. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ILLUMINA INC: Court Narrows Claims in Securities Fraud Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
California issued an order granting in part and denying in part
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the case captioned IN RE ILLUMINA,
INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 3:16-cv-3044-L-KSC (S.D.
Cal.).

Defendant Illumina Inc. is a publically traded company that is
engaged in the business of providing genetic sequencing products
to customers in the medical, academic, and pharmaceutical
industries.  Customers use Illumina's products to sequence DNA
for purposes of genetic analysis. Of special relevance to this
motion, Illumina's product line includes three different
sequencing systems: the HiSeq, the HiSeq X, and the NextSeq.

The Plaintiff in this case is Natissisa Enterprises Ltd., an
institutional investor that sold Illumina stock at a loss of
about $1 million. Plaintiff alleges that the stock market tracked
many of the above statements. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges
that the forecasts caused Illumina stock to jump from $150.10 per
share to $162.25 per share the next day, on unusually high-volume
trading.  Plaintiff further alleges that the corrective
disclosure on announcing the 2016Q3 earnings miss, caused
Illumina stock to fall from $184.35 per share to $136.18 per
share within forty-eight hours, again on unusually high-volume
trading.

Plaintiff, on behalf of itself and other harmed investors, filed
an amended class action complaint against Defendants alleging
securities fraud in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The primary statements at issue are Defendants' financial
forecasts.  Defendants forecasted that third quarter revenue
would fall in the $625 to $630 million dollar range; earnings per
share would raise to as much as $3.58; and part of this growth
would stem from increasingly strong HiSeq sales.

Defendants argue these statements fall under the first prong of
the Safe Harbor because they are forward looking statements
identified as such and accompanied by meaningful cautionary
language. Plaintiff disagrees, arguing that the Safe Harbor is
inapplicable because meaningful cautionary language did not
accompany the statements at issue.

Defendants are correct. Plaintiff has not proven that Defendants
had actual knowledge that they would fail to hit their earnings
guidance. It is possible that Defendants believed they could hit
their earnings forecast notwithstanding lower HiSeq sales.
However, to survive this Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)6 motion, Plaintiff
need not prove anything. It is sufficient if Plaintiff plausibly
alleges facts showing that deliberate recklessness or an
intention to deceive is no less likely an explanation of
Defendants' motivation than an innocent explanation-such as a
good faith belief that the projections would prove accurate.

Taken together, this before-the-fact knowledge of lower HiSeq
sales and after-the-fact statement recognizing a trend toward
customers favoring certain features of the NextSeq systems
plausibly suggest the following: Defendants knew HiSeq sales were
in a state of decline at the time they forecasted an increase in
HiSeq sales. Because Defendants justified their overall earnings
guidance in part on increased HiSeq sales, the Court finds for
purpose of this motion that Plaintiff has adequately alleged that
Defendants knew their earnings guidance was misguided.

The Court denies Defendants' motion to dismiss as to the earnings
projections and the underpinning assumptions regarding HiSeq
sales.

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants misrepresented that they had
adequate internal controls over financial reporting and could
accurately forecast future performance.

Plaintiff's argument is unpersuasive. The SOX certification makes
no representation as to the soundness of Defendants' forecasting
procedures. Indeed, the only statements Defendants appear to have
made regarding their ability to forecast future results are
boilerplate cautions to the effect that such forecasts can prove
inaccurate. As to historical results and internal controls,
Plaintiff's allegations are mere conclusions that fail to
identify any reported historical results that were inaccurate or
any internal control that failed. Accordingly, the Court grants
Defendants' motion with respect to claims based on the SOX
certification and representations about Defendants' ability to
provide accurate financial reporting and forecasting.

The Court grants in part and denies in part Defendants' motion as
follows: Plaintiff's Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) claims based
on the Sarbanes Oxley certification and representations about
Defendants' ability to provide accurate financial reporting and
forecasting are dismissed without prejudice. If Plaintiff chooses
to file an amended complaint, it must do so within twenty-one
days of the entry of this order.

Plaintiff's Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) claims based on
Defendants' earnings projections and the underpinning assumptions
regarding HiSeq sales may proceed.

A full-text copy of the District Court's January 22, 2018 Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/y8ehfjth from Leagle.com.

Yi Fan Chen & Frontline Global Trading Pte. Ltd., Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs,
represented by Robert Vincent Prongay -- rprongay@glancylaw.com -
- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP.

Natissisa Enterprise Ltd., Plaintiff, represented by Adam C.
McCall -- amccall@zlk.com -- Levi & Korsinsky, LLP.

James McLeod, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, represented by J. Alexander Hood, II --
ahood@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice, Jennifer Pafiti
-- jpafiti@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP & Jeremy A. Lieberman --
jalieberman@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice.

Illumina, Inc., Defendant, represented by David A. Kronig --
dkronig@cov.com -- Covington and Burling LLP, pro hac vice, Mark
Chen -- mychen@cov.com -- Covington & Burling LLP & Mark Putnam
Gimbel -- mgimbel@cov.com -- Covington and Burling LLP, pro hac
vice.

Batali and Greenwald, Movant, represented by Laurence M. Rosen --
lrosen@rosenlegal.com -- The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.


IMPRESA AEROSPACE: Gutierrez Seeks OT Wages Under Labor Code
------------------------------------------------------------
SANDRA GUTIERREZ, individually, and on behalf of other members of
the general public similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. IMPRESA
AEROSPACE, LLC, a California limited liability company; and DOES
1 through 100, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC694784 (Cal.
Super. Ct., Feb. 20, 2018), seeks to recover regular and/or
overtime wages under Labor Code.

According to the complaint, Defendants, jointly and severally,
employed Plaintiff as an hourly-paid, nonexempt employee from
approximately September 2013 to approximately October 2014, in
the State of California, County of Los Angeles. Plaintiff and the
other class members worked over eight hours in a day, and/or 40
hours in a week during their employment with Defendants.

The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants engaged in a pattern and
practice of wage abuse against their hourly-paid or non-exempt
employees within the State of California. This pattern and
practice involved, inter alia, foiling to pay them for all
regular and/or overtime wages earned and for missed meal periods
and rest breaks in violation of California law.[BN]

Impresa Aerospace, LLC designs, manufactures, and supplies
precision sheet metal parts, CNC-machined components, and
assemblies for commercial jets, regional and business aircraft,
military aircraft, and civil/military helicopters. The company's
services include sheet metal fabrication, hydroform pressing,
brake.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


INNOVAK INTERNATIONAL: All Pending Bids Denied in "Bohannan" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled MELISSA BOHANNAN, et al., the Plaintiffs,
v. INNOVAK INTERNATIONAL, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-
00272-WKW-WC (M.D. Ala.), the Hon. Judge Keith Watkins entered an
order denying all pending motions without prejudice with leave
for the parties to renew, if necessary, after the stay is lifted.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=JmgkOva6


INTERNATIONAL PITA: Nevarez Seeks Unpaid OT under Labor Code
------------------------------------------------------------
SERGIO NEVAREZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, and as representatives of other aggrieved
Employees, the Plaintiff, v. INTERNATIONAL PITA BREAD, INC., a
California Corporation; and DOES 1 through 250, inclusive, the
Defendants, Case No. BC695071 (Cal. Super. Ct., Feb. 22, 2018),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime under California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the Defendant willfully misclassified
its employees as independent contractors to avoid properly paying
them for their services and providing them with all benefits to
which employees are entitled, including breaks and overtime,
despite the fact they were clearly employees. The Plaintiff and
Class members used Defendant's equipment and Defendant controlled
the hours and days worked and work completed and the services
performed were a necessary part of its regular business.
Plaintiff worked six days per week and at least 8 hours per day.
Despite this, Plaintiff was paid in cash at a flat rate of $600
per week regardless of the number of hours worked. The other
Class members were subject to the same conduct regarding their
compensation being paid in cash without any deductions and not
being based, on actual hours worked. Despite the complete control
over Plaintiff and Aggrieved Employees and the work they
performed, they were misclassified as independent contractors in
violation of California Labor Code.

The company makes and distributes pita bread to markets and
restaurants.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gary R. Carlin, Esq.
          Brent S. Buchsbaum, Esq.
          Laurel N. Haag, Esq.
          Ian M. Silvers, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF CARLIN & BUCHSBAUM LLP FILED
          555 East Ocean Boulevard, Suite 818
          Long Beach, CA 90802
          Telephone: (562) 432 8933
          Facsimile: (562) 435 1656
          E-mail:gary@carlinbuchsbaum.com
                 brent@carlinbuchsbaum.com
                 laurel@carlinbuchsbaum.com
                 ian@carlinbuchsbaum.com


INTERNATIONAL QUALITY: "Williamson" Suit Moved to S.D. Ohio
-----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Shonda Williamson, individually
and on behalf of others members of the general public similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. International Quality Healthcare,
Defendant, was moved from the Southern District of Ohio Eastern
Division (Case No. 2:17-cv-667) to the Southern District of Ohio
Western Division Dayton (Case No. 3:18-cv-00035-WHR), on Jan. 31,
2018.

Shonda Williamson, individually and on behalf of others members
of the general public similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
International Quality Healthcare, Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-667
(S.D. Ohio, Jul. 31, 2017) is brought against the Defendant for
failure to pay the minimum wage rate for all hours worked and the
required overtime premium rate for all hours worked over 40 per
week, in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Plaintiff Shonda Williamson was employed as a home health aide
from 2016 until approximately July 2017.

International Quality Healthcare Corporation is a home care
staffing agency of direct care workers for the developmentally
disabled, the elderly, and any other individual in need of
assistance. It provides services in the following areas: home
health aide services, skill nurse services, social work, and
rehabilitation services. Defendant operates and controls an
enterprise and employs employees engaged in commerce or in the
production of goods for commerce, or has had employees handling,
selling, or otherwise working on goods or materials that have
been moved in or produced for commerce by any person. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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


JEREMY REVITCH: Revitch Sues over Unsolicited Telephone Calls
-------------------------------------------------------------
JEREMY REVITCH, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. DIRECTV, LLC, the Defendant, Case No.
3:18-cv-01127 (N.D. Cal., Feb. 21, 2018), seeks injunctive relief
and statutory damages arising out of and relating to DirecTV,
LLC, negligently, knowingly, and willfully contacting Plaintiff
and class members on their telephones using an artificial or
prerecorded voice without their prior express written consent
within the meaning of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

According to the complaint, prior to the calls, Plaintiff never
had any contact with Defendant. Plaintiff never consented in
writing, or otherwise, to receive autodialed calls or prerecorded
messages from Defendant to his cellphone. The Plaintiff never
provided Defendant with his telephone number.

The Plaintiff was harmed by the prerecorded call at issue in the
form of the aggravation, nuisance, trespass, waste of time and
invasion of privacy that necessarily accompanies the receipt of
unwanted telephone calls; depletion of battery life resulting
from unwanted incoming calls; and violations of his statutory
rights. There are numerous online consumer complaints from people
who never sought Defendant's services, but who, like Plaintiff,
received unsolicited telemarking calls from Defendant.

DirecTV is an American direct broadcast satellite service
provider based in El Segundo, California and is a subsidiary of
AT&T.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
          Joel D. Smith, Esq.
          Yeremey O. Krivoshey, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
          Walnut Creek, CA 94596
          Telephone: (925) 300 4455
          Facsimile: (925) 407 2700
          E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com
                  jsmith@bursor.com
                  ykrivoshey@bursor.com


JKB FINANCIAL: Faces "Salinas" Suit in California
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against JKB Financial Inc.
The case is captioned as Christopher Salinas, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Jason
Bartlett; Does 1 to 100; JKB Financial Inc.; Osborne William;
Dave Roberts; US Educational Financial Solutions Inc, Defendants,
Case No. 34-2018-00226913-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super., Sacramento
Cty., Feb. 9, 2018).

JKB Financial Inc. provides debt relief services in Roseville,
California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by Galen T Shimoda, Esq.


JOHN DOES: Samuel Sues over VIX-Linked Instruments Price-Fixing
---------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID SAMUEL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. JOHN DOES, the Defendants, Case No.
1:18-cv-01593 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 21, 2018), seeks to recover damages
arising from Defendants' misconduct, including such trebled
damages as provided by law, and injunctive relief enjoining the
continuation of alleged manipulation of prices of VIX-Linked
Instruments.

According to the complaint, since its creation in 1993, the Cboe
Volatility Index has emerged as an important financial indicator
of market sentiment and volatility. Frequently referred to as the
"fear gauge," VIX purports to measure expected thirty-day market
volatility based on the real-time pricing of S&P 500 Index option
contracts ("SPX Options") listed for trading on the Cboe Options
Exchange ("Cboe"). Given that investors cannot invest directly in
VIX, interest in financial instruments related to expected market
volatility spawned the creation of VIX-linked futures ("VIX
Futures") in 2004 and VIX-linked options ("VIX Options") in 2006.
While VIX Options trade on the Cboe, VIX Futures trade on the
Cboe Futures Exchange ("CFE").

More recently, billions of dollars in exchange-traded funds and
exchange-traded notes linked to the pricing of VIX Futures ("VIX-
Linked ETFs & ETNs") have been introduced to the market. These
VIX-Linked ETFs & ETNs -- which provide investors with easier
access to financial instruments related to expected market
volatility and allow investors to bet that the prices of VIX
Futures will either increase or decrease -- include, inter alia:
VelocityShares Daily Inverse VIX Short-Term ETN; VelocityShares
Daily 2x VIX Short-Term ETN; ProShares Short VIX Short-Term
Futures ETF; ProShares Ultra VIX Short-Term Futures ETF; and
iPath S&P 500 VIX Short-Term Futures ETN. VIX Futures, VIX
Options, and VIX-Linked ETFs & ETNs are collectively referred to
as "VIX-Linked Instruments."

Given that the VIX price is calculated based on the movement of
real-time bid/ask quotes for SPX Options, and in some instances
the actual prices of SPX Options, the pricing of VIX-Linked
Instruments is subject to market manipulation by investors
targeting the SPX Option market and the calculation of VIX. For
example, in a recent research paper, Professor John M. Griffin of
the McCombs School of Business at The University of Texas at
Austin observed "highly statistically and economically
significant trading volume spikes" in SPX Options during the
monthly trading window in which the VIX price used to settle
expiring VIX Futures and VIX Options is calculated. As explained
by Prof. Griffin, "[t]he most natural explanation for these
patterns appears to be attempted manipulation." Similarly, an
anonymous whistleblower submitted a letter on February 12, 2018,
to the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity
Futures TradingCommission alleging that a "flaw [in the
calculation of VIX] allows trading firms with sophisticated
algorithms to move the VIX up or down by simply posting quotes on
[SPX Options] and without needing to physically engage in any
trading or deploying any capital." According to the Whistleblower
Letter, this manipulative activity "has led to multiple billions
in profits effectively [being] taken away from institutional and
retail investors."

According to a report from The Financial Times on February 13,
2018, Defendants' manipulative conduct has attracted the
attention of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, which
is investigating whether Defendants "influence[d] prices of
derivatives based on the [VIX] benchmark." The Defendants
colluded with each other to manipulate the prices of VIX-Linked
Instruments. No one Defendant was capable of unilaterally
manipulating the prices of VIX-Linked Instruments without fearing
that ordinary market forces would counteract its efforts or that
the other Defendants would manipulate the prices of VIX-Linked
Instruments in an opposite direction -- thereby causing harm to
the Defendant's investment positions. Defendants' manipulative
conduct -- which violates Section 1 of the Sherman Act, has
caused, and continues to cause, injury to investors in VIX-Linked
Instruments.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff David Samuel and the
Proposed Class:

          Sharan Nirmul, Esq.
          Joseph H. Meltzer, Esq.
          Kimberly A. Justice, Esq.
          Geoffrey C. Jarvis, Esq.
          Samantha Holbrook, Esq.
          KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, PA 19087
          Telephone: (610) 667 7706
          Facsimile: (610) 667 7056
          E-mail: jmeltzer@ktmc.com
                  snirmul@ktmc.com
                  kjustice@ktmc.com
                  gjarvis@ktmc.com
                  sholbrook@ktmc.com


JULIE JONES: Plaintiffs Win More Time to Respond to Dismissal Bid
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled NYKA O'CONNOR, v. JULIE JONES, et al., the
Defendants, Case No. 3:15-cv-01387-TJC-JBT (M.D. Fla.), the Hon.
Judge Timothy Corrigan entered an order:

   1. grating Plaintiff's requests for an extension of time to
      respond to Defendant Jones' motion to dismiss and to file a
      motion for discovery, and accepting Plaintiff's response
      and motion as timely filed;

   2. granting Defendants Shah and Contarini's requests for an
      extension of time to respond to Plaintiff's motions and
      accepting their responses as timely filed;

   3. striking Plaintiff's filings;

   4. denying Plaintiff's Motion to Clarify, in which he seeks to
      clarify his motion, as moot because that motion has been
      stricken;

   5. denying as moot Plaintiff's Motion to Waive Security and
      Notice of Prospective Injunction and Declaratory Judgment
      Motions in the Eleventh Circuit, to which Defendants
      Contarini and Shah responded in opposition;

   6. denying Plaintiff's Motion to Certify a Class Action and
      Appoint Counsel, that is opposed by Defendants Shah and
      Contarini;

   7. denying Plaintiff's Motion to provide Copy of Current
      Menus, in which Plaintiff requests he and this Court be
      provided with a copy of all menus and that the menus be
      posted in all segregated units of the Florida Department of
      Corrections and given to all inmate;

   8. denying Plaintiff's "Affidavit, Supplement to Pending
      Pleadings, Motion to Save Videos & Audios and Notice, with
      Need for Class Action Status, with Counsel Appointment, and
      Notice of Hunger Strike & Declaratory Judgment Requested";

   9. denying Plaintiff's "Affidavit, Notice & Request to Save
      Videos-Audios"; and

   10. granting Plaintiff's Motion to Expedite and Rule to the
      extent that the Court has entered this Order ruling on
      certain pending motions.

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


KENNETH REES: India Banks Bid for Class Certification Denied
------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled INDIA BANKS, the Plaintiff, v. KENNETH
REES, et al., the Defendants, Case No. 8:17-cv-02201-SDM-AAS
(M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Amanda Arnold Sansone entered an
order on February 21, 2018:

   1. granting Parties' Joint Motion for Order Continuing
      Discovery Deadlines and Deadlines for Responses to Pending
      Motions;

   2. cancelling preliminary conference currently scheduled for
      March 8, 2018, counsel shall contact the undersigned's
      chambers at 813-301-5782, to reschedule when appropriate;
      and

   3. denying Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification without
      prejudice.

The amended case deadlines are as follows:

   a. March 2, 2018 - deadline for Plaintiff's Amended Complaint;

   b. March 16, 2018 - deadline for Defendants' Motions to
      Dismiss the Amended Complaint and to Compel Arbitration;

   c. March 30, 2018 - deadline for Plaintiff's responses to
      Defendants' Motions to Dismiss and to Compel Arbitration;

   d. April 13, 2018 - deadline for the parties' responses to all
      currently outstanding written discovery requests;

   e. May 4, 2018 - deadline for class certification discovery;
      and

   f. May 18, 2018 - deadline for Plaintiff's class certification
      motion.

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


LESCONCIERGES INC: Pivirotto Seeks Overtime Pay
-----------------------------------------------
VINCENT PIVIROTTO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. LESCONCIERGES, INC.,
SERVICE CONCIERGE SAS (DBA JOHN PAUL), TRINET GROUP INC., AND
DOES 1-10, the Defendants, Case No. CGC-18-564456 (Cal. Super.
Ct., Feb. 20, 2018), seeks to recover overtime pay under
California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff accepted a full-time
position in sales and service in January 2016. The Plaintiff's
first several weeks at work consisted of one-on-one training with
company materials during the day, and 2-4 hours of additional
study each day in the evenings. The evening study was required in
order to pass testing required for work each week. During these
weeks Plaintiff was advised that: 1) the long training hours
(average 65 hour weeks) were outside what would become an
expected 40 hour work week, and 2) all training hours were to be
paid. Plaintiff was further advised that training period would be
extended for 6-8 weeks, as the company was having to introduce
voluminous compliance material that all employees would have to
be trained or retrained on. Ultimately however, Plaintiff was not
paid for the required after-work hours as promised.

LesConcierges, Inc. provides concierge services and solutions for
various organizations worldwide. Its services include
recommending and booking restaurant reservations; booking event
tickets; organizing a rejuvenating getaway or family vacations;
researching from wireless plans to a vintage wine; and creating
reminders.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alec Segarich, Esq.
          Jason S. Lohr, Esq.
          LOHR RIPAMONTI & SEGARICH LLP
          140 Geary Street, 4th Fl.
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: ( 415) 683-7266
          E-mail: alec.segarich@rllp.com
                  jason.lohr@lrllp.com


LOUISIANA: Commission Frederick Faces "Murphy" Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Thomas Frederick.
The case is captioned as Sheila Ann Murphy, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Thomas
Frederick, Commissioner; Kristian Earles, Chief Judge of 15th
JDC; Mark Garber, Defendants, Case No. 6:18-cv-00159-UDJ-CBW
(W.D. La., Feb. 7, 2018). The case has been referred to
Magistrate Judge Carol B Whitehurst. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Charles L Gerstein, Esq.
          CIVIL RIGHTS CORPS
          910 17th St NW Ste 500
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 670-4809
          E-mail: charlie@civilrightscorps.org

               - and -

          Eric A Foley, Esq.
          RODERICK & SOLANGE MACARTHUR JUSTICE CENTER
          4400 S Carrollton Ave
          New Orleans, LA 70119
          Telephone: (504) 620-2259
          Facsimile: (504) 208-3133
          E-mail: eric.foley@macarthurjustice.org

               - and -

          Katharine Murphy Schwartzmann, Esq.
          RODERICK & SOLANGE MACARTHUR JUSTICE CENTER
          4400 S Carrollton Ave
          New Orleans, LA 70119
          Telephone: (504) 620-2259
          Facsimile: (504) 208-3133
          E-mail: katie.schwartzmann@macarthurjustice.org

               - and -

          William P Quigley, Esq.
          LOYOLA UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW
          7214 St Charles Ave
          New Orleans, LA 70118
          Telephone: (504) 710-3074
          Facsimile: (504) 861-5440
          E-mail: quigley77@gmail.com


M.L. ZAGER: Accused of Wrongful Conduct over Debt Collection
------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Robson, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. M.L. Zager, P.C., Defendant,
Case No. 2:18-cv-00905-LDW-ARL (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 10, 2018) seeks to
stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a
debt. The case is assigned to Judge Leonard D. Wexler and
referred to Magistrate Judge Arlene R. Lindsay.

M.L. Zager, P.C. -- http://www.mzager.com/-- is a full-service,
debt collection law firm with 38 years of experience. The firm
combine professional, efficient and traditional debt collection
techniques with the additional impact and effect of a law firm.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mitchell L. Pashkin, Esq.
          775 Park Avenue, Ste. 255
          Huntington, NY 11743
          Telephone: (631) 629-7709
          E-mail: mpash@verizon.net


MAGNOLIA HI-FI: "Bonomi" Suit Moved to Southern Dist. of Florida
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Leonardo Bonomi and other
similarly-situated individuals, the Plaintiff, v. Magnolia Hi-Fi,
LLC, a Foreign Limited Liability Company, Case No. 17-022803-CA,
was removed from the 11th Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade
County, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida (Miami) on Feb. 22, 2018. The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 1:18-cv-20691-JLK to the proceeding. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Senior Judge James Lawrence King.

Magnolia Hi-Fi, LLC sells audio, TV and video, furniture, home
integration, and accessories. The company offers AV receivers, AV
separates, speakers, soundbars, CD players and turntables,
wireless and streaming audio products, and shelf systems and iPod
docks.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

Attorneys for Defendant:

          Jennifer Monrose Moore, Esq.
          OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART PC
          100 North Tampa Street, Suite 3600
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 289 1247
          Facsimile: (813) 289 6530
          E-mail: jennifer.moore@ogletreedeakins.com


MANNA PRO: Rabbit Food Products Contain Corn, Hale Complains
------------------------------------------------------------
ASHLEY HALE individually, and on behalf of other members of the
general public similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MANNA PRO
PRODUCTS, LLC; DOES 1-10, INCLUSIVE, Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-
00209-KJM-DB (E.D. Cal., Jan. 30, 2018) alleges that the
Defendant's Select Series rabbit food was clearly marked with a
label stating "Contains No Corn: Helps Reduce The Risk of
Digestive Disorders." The ingredients label similarly omitted any
reference to corn as an ingredient in the bag that Plaintiff had
purchased. In fact, a lot of corn was mixed in with the rabbit
pellets despite the clear labeling. Plaintiff picked out at least
a half of cup of corn, by hand, from her purchase of the bag of
rabbit food.

Manna Pro Products, LLC manufactures and markets animal feeds for
animal health and nutrition. It offers products for equines,
rabbits, goats, poultry, companion animals, cattle, and young
animals. The company also provides dog and cat supplements; and
products for leather care and fly control. It sells its products
through dealers and online retailers in the United States. Manna
Pro Products, LLC was founded in 1985 and is based in
Chesterfield, Missouri. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MATSU CORP: "Zhen Zhu" Suit Alleges FLSA and CMWA Violations
------------------------------------------------------------
Gui Zhen Zhu, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated
v. Matsu Corp dba Matsu, Matsu Grill Co. LLC dba Matsuri, Kimming
Marty Cheng, and Ziqiao Cao aka Michael Cao, Case No. 3:18-cv-
00203 (D. Conn., February 2, 2018), is brought against the
Defendant for violations of the Federal Labor Standards Act and
the Connecticut Minimum Wage Act.

From November 2012 to February 29, 2016, Plaintiff Gui Zhen Zhu
worked as a packer for Matsu Corp dba Matsu, located at 33 Jesup
Road, Westport, CT 60880 as a packer.

The Corporate Defendants that do business as Matsu Corp dba Matsu
and Matsu Grill Co. LLC dba Matsuri are joint employers of
Plaintiff and constitute an enterprise insofar as the two
establishments share employees, including deliverymen who are
required to deliver for both restaurants, regardless of which
store the customers ordered from, while paying these employees
from their respective Corporate Defendant employers, and same
ownership and management by Owner/Operator Defendants. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gary Phelan, Esq.
      MITCHELL & SHEAHAN, P.C.
      80 Ferry Blvd., Suite 216
      Stratford, CT 06615
      Tel: (203) 873-0240
      E-mail: gphelan@mitchellandsheahan.com


MONSANTO COMPANY: "Hoskins" Suit Moved to N.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------
The class action of RICKY HOSKINS and CHARLENE HOSKINS,
individually and on behalf of their minor child, T.H., Plaintiffs
v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 4:17-cv-02945 (E.D. Mo.,
Jan. 10, 2018), was moved to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, and assigned Case No. 3:18-cv-
00665-VC (N.D. Cal., Jan. 30, 2018). The case is assigned to
Judge Vince Chhabria. The "Hoskins" suit is a member case in the
multi-district litigation proceeding, In re: Roundup Products
Liability Litigation (MDL No. 2741).

The Hoskins seek compensatory damages as a result of Plaintiffs'
use of, and exposure to, Roundup products which caused or was a
substantial contributing factor in causing Plaintiffs to suffer
from cancer.

Plaintiffs used Roundup beginning in 2006 and continued to use it
until 2016. For years, Plaintiffs sprayed Roundup on a regular
basis. Plaintiffs followed all safety and precautionary warnings
during the course of use. Plaintiff was subsequently diagnosed
with Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma. The development of Plaintiffs' Non-
Hodgkin Lymphoma was proximately and actually caused by exposure
to Defendant Roundup products.

Monsanto Company, together with its subsidiaries, provides
agricultural products for farmers worldwide. It operates in two
segments, Seeds and Genomics, and Agricultural Productivity. The
company markets its products through distributors, independent
retailers and dealers, agricultural cooperatives, plant raisers,
and agents, as well as directly to farmers. The company was
formerly known as Monsanto Ag Company and changed its name to
Monsanto Company in March 2000. Monsanto Company was founded in
2000 and is based in St. Louis, Missouri. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


MONTERREY SECURITY: Lee Seeks Unpaid Wages
------------------------------------------
KIM LEE, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated,
the Plaintiff, v. MONTERREY SECURITY CONSULTANTS, INC., the
Defendant, Case No.2018CH2246 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook County, Feb.
21, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid wages, interest, statutory
penalties, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Wage
Ordinance.

The Plaintiff Kim Lee, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, complains against Defendants Monterrey
Security Consultants, Inc., alleging claims under the City, of
Chicago Minimum Wage Ordinance.

The Defendant is a security guard company that operates in the
City of Chicago and other cities. This complaint arises out of
Defendant's policy and practice of charging its low-wage workers
$262 for the cost of a uniform through payroll deductions,
resulting in workers being paid below the City of Chicago minimum
wage.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew J. Piers, Esq.
          Christopher J. Wilmes, Esq.
          HUGHES, SOCOL, PIERS, RESNICK & DYM, LTD.
          70 West Madison Street, Suite 4000
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 580 0100
          E-mail: mpiers@hsplegal.com
                  cwilmes@hsplegal.com


MURATA MANUFACTURING: Cambridge Alleges Price-Fixing of Inductors
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Cambridge Capital Corporation, Plaintiff v. Murata Manufacturing
Co., Ltd.; Murata Electronics North America, Inc.; Panasonic
Corporation; Panasonic Corporation Of North America; Panasonic
Industrial Devices Corporation Of America; Sumida Corporation;
Sumida Electric Co., Ltd.; Sumida America Components, Inc.; Taiyo
Yuden Co., Ltd.; Taiyo Yuden (U.S.A.) Inc.; Tdk Corporation; Tdk-
Epc Corporation; Tdk Corporation Of America, and Tdk U.S.A.
Corporation, Defendants, Case No. 5:18-cv-00686-EJD, (N.D. Cal.,
Jan. 31, 2018), is brought against the Defendants for damages
injunctive relief under the antitrust laws of the U.S.  Plaintiff
alleges price-fixing of inductors sold in the U.S.

Murata Manufacturing Co., Ltd. designs, manufactures, and sells
electronic components in Japan and internationally. It offers
capacitors, inductors, noise suppression products/EMI suppression
filters/ESD protection devices, resistors, thermistors, sensors,
timing devices, quartz devices, sound components, power devices,
small energy devices, micro mechatronics, RFID/NFC devices,
matching devices, baluns, couplers, filters, phase shifters, RF
switches, front-end modules, SAW components, connectors,
antennas, isolators, RF modules, ultra-low-power short-range RFIC
products, substrates, and ionizer modules. The company provides
its products for use in health care equipment, mobile
communications, industrial equipment, business machines, personal
computers, and AV equipment, as well as smart home, automotive,
network, data center, lighting, and security and safety
applications. Murata Manufacturing Co., Ltd. was founded in 1944
and is headquartered in Nagaokakyo, Japan.

Murata Electronics North America, Inc. researches, designs,
manufactures, and sells ceramic based passive electronic
components and devices. It offers capacitors, noise suppression
products/EMI suppression filters, inductors (coils), resistors,
RF components, saw based components, low-power RF ICS, RF
modules/wireless connectivity platforms, timing devices, sensors,
thermistors, power devices and supplies, sound components,
micromechatronics, ceramic applied products, RFID/NFC devices,
matching devices, couplers, crystal and ceramic filters,
connectors, isolators, switches, front-end modules, substrates,
and ionizers/active oxygen modules (ozonizers); and filters for
communication equipment and audio visual equipment. The company
offers products for mobile device/network/wireless communication,
automotive, transportation, consumer goods, energy, healthcare
equipment, data management, lighting, automation, security and
safety, and industrial applications. It sells products through
authorized distributors and sales representatives in the
Americas, Europe, the Middle East, Africa, the Southeast Asia,
and South Asia. The company was founded in 1965 and is based in
Smyrna, Georgia. Murata Electronics North America, Inc. operates
as a subsidiary of Murata Manufacturing Co., Ltd.

Panasonic Corporation, together with its subsidiaries, develops,
produces, sells, and services electrical and electronic products
under the Panasonic brand name worldwide. It operates through
Appliances, Eco Solutions, Connected Solutions, Automotive &
Industrial Systems, and Other segments. The Appliances segment
offers air conditioners, TVs, refrigerators, washing machines,
personal care products, microwave ovens, digital cameras, home
audio equipment, video equipment, fixed-phones, vacuum cleaners,
rice cookers, show cases, compressors, fuel cells, etc. The Eco
Solutions segment provides lighting fixtures, lamps, wiring
devices, solar photovoltaic systems, water related products,
interior and exterior furnishing materials, ventilation and air
conditioning equipment, air purifiers, bicycles, nursing care
related products, etc. The Connected Solutions segment offers in-
flight entertainment systems and connectivity, electronic
components mounting machines, welding equipment, PCs and tablets,
projectors, broadcast and professional AV systems, surveillance
cameras, etc. The Automotive & Industrial Systems segment
provides automotive use infotainment systems, electrical
components, automotive mirrors, lithium ion and automotive
batteries, dry batteries, automation controls, electric motors,
electronic components, electronic materials, semiconductors, LCD
panels, etc. The Others segment provides detached housing
construction, apartment housing leasing services, etc.;
undertakes remodeling contract works; sells land, properties, and
condominiums; offers real estate brokerage, leasing, and
management services; and manufactures and sells system materials
for industrial housing. The company offers its products to
business and industrial customers, and consumers. The company was
formerly known as Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. and
changed its name to Panasonic Corporation in 2008. Panasonic
Corporation was founded in 1918 and is headquartered in Kadoma,
Japan.

Panasonic Corporation of North America, Inc. develops,
manufactures, markets, sells, and services digital and other
electronics products for consumer, business, and industrial use
in North America. It offers consumer products, such as
televisions, headphones, home theaters, sound bars, stereos,
portable speakers, streaming video products, Blu-ray/DVD players,
accessories, cameras/camcorders, and home monitoring/home office
products; shavers, trimmers, body grooming products, replacement
blades, and accessories for men; hair care, hair removal, and
skin care products, as well as replacement blades/accessories for
women; and health and wellness products. It also offers
audio/video technology, automotive, commercial/industrial,
healthcare and life science, office technology, professional
video, and video surveillance solutions; heating/ventilation/air-
conditioning (HVAC) and solar products; and computers/tablets. In
addition, it offers capacitors, electromechanical products,
wireless connectivity products, industrial automation products,
batteries, resistors/inductors, relays/connectors, HVAC/R and
appliance devices, storage media, sensors, semiconductors, and
circuit/thermal protection products for industrial customers;
provides P.180, an end-to-end connectivity service platform; and
develops a drowsiness-control technology for detecting and
predicting a person's level of drowsiness prior to driving.
Further, it offers its products online. The company has strategic
partnerships with Younicos and Enphase Energy Inc.; and a
strategic collaboration with Ericsson to deliver sustainable
energy solutions for mobile operators, tower companies, and
others. The company was formerly known as Matsushita Electric
Corporation of America, Inc. and changed its name to Panasonic
Corporation of North America, Inc. in 2005. The company was
founded in 1959 and is based in Newark, New Jersey. Panasonic
Corporation of North America, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of
Panasonic Corporation.

Panasonic Industrial Devices Sales Company of America
manufactures, markets, and sells electronic components for
industrial applications. The company offers products, such as
capacitors, circuit protection, magnetics, resistors,
electromechanical switches, wireless communication modules,
relays and i/o modules, interconnect connectors, frequency
controls, magnetic inductors, transformers, discrete
semiconductor, diode, opto discrete, power discrete, transistors,
semiconductor IC, linear, memory, opto, power, power management,
sensor, and std logic products. It also provides filters and
resonators, high frequency components, RF modules, audio
components, power supplies, printed wiring boards and devices,
and thermal protection products for original equipment
manufacturers of high-tech electronic products. The company was
formerly known as Panasonic Industrial Company and changed its
name to Panasonic Industrial Devices Sales Company of America on
January 1, 2012. The company is based in Secaucus, New Jersey.
Panasonic Industrial Devices Sales Company of America operates as
a subsidiary of Panasonic Corporation of North America.

Sumida Corporation designs, manufactures, and electronic
components and modules for consumer electronics, automotive, and
industrial markets in Japan, rest of Asia, Europe, and North and
South America. It offers power and IF inductors, including
surface mount, through hole, and LPF coils for digital
amplifiers, as well as RF chip inductors; and power transformers,
such as surface mount, through hole, and PoE transformers, as
well as switching mode power supplies, reactors, and wireless
power transfer coils. The company also provides signal magnetics
comprising RF/communication, radio frequency identification tags,
antenna, and other products; EMC coils consisting of AC
powerline, DC powerline, normal mode chokes, and common mode
chokes; sensors and actuators, including rotor position sensors,
ABS coils, solenoid coils, and piezo motors; and power modules,
such as point of load power conversion modules for communications
and industrial applications, DSP and FPGA power systems, and
other high density distributed power systems. In addition, it
offers automotive modules comprising xenon ignitors, choke
modules for inverters, module components, component carriers,
power conversion modules, and components and modules; ceramic
based passive components, electronic manufacturing services, and
flexible flat cables; and components for medical equipment, such
as network isolation and isolation transformers. The company was
formerly known as Sumida Electric Co., Ltd and changed its name
to Sumida Corporation in June 2000. Sumida Corporation was
founded in 1956 and is headquartered in Tokyo, Japan.
Sumida America Components Inc. manufactures electronic equipment.
The Company offers manufacturing of electronic components such as
antennas, switches, and waveguides. Sumida serves customers
worldwide.

Taiyo Yuden Co., Ltd. develops, manufactures, and sells
electronic components worldwide. It offers multilayer ceramic
capacitors for use in smartphones, automobiles, and other
devices; ferrite and applied products, such as wire-wound chip
inductors, multilayer chip inductors, ferrite bead inductors, and
common-mode choke coils for use in electronic equipment;
integrated modules and devices comprising FBAR/SAW devices for
mobile communications, power supply modules, high-frequency
modules, and embedded-parts multilayer wiring substrates; and
other electronic components, such as lithium ion and polyacene
capacitors for use as backup power equipment for smart meters and
other similar products, as well as peak current assistance for
LED flashes. The company also provides noise suppression parts,
such as bead inductors, multilayer EMI suppression filters, and
ring varistors; chip antennas; energy devices; aluminum
electrolytic capacitors; balun transformers; and wireless
modules. Taiyo Yuden Co., Ltd. was founded in 1950 and is
headquartered in Tokyo, Japan. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd A. Seaver, Esq.
          Joseph A. Tabacco, Jr., Esq.
          Sarah Khoransanee Mcgrath
          BERMAN TABACCO
          44 Montgomery Street, Suite 650
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 433-3200
          Facsimile: (415) 433-6382
          E-mail: jtabacco@bermantabacco.com
                  tseaver@bermatabacco.com
                  jmoy@bermantabcco.com
                  smcgrath@bermantabacco.com

                - and -

          Marc Greenspon, Esq.
          One Liberty Square
          Boston, MA 02109
          Telephone: (617) 542- 8300
          Facsimile: (617) 542-1194
          E-mail: mgreenspon@bermantabacco.com

               - and -

          Vincent Briganti, Esq.
          Barbara Hart, Esq.
          LOWEY DANNENBERG P.C.
          White Plains Plaza
          44 South Broadway, Suite 1100
          White Plains, NY 10601
          Telephone: (914) 997-0500
          Facsimile: (914) 997-0035
          E-mail: vbriganti@lowey.com
                  bhart@lowey.com


NATIONAL GAS: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Moore" Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
GEORGE MOORE, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. NATIONAL GAS & ELECTRIC, LLC; and JOHN DOE
CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00666 (N.D. Ill., Jan.
30, 2018) seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of making
unsolicited calls.

National Gas & Electric, LLC supplies electricity and natural gas
for homes and businesses in Illinois, Ohio, Maryland, and New
York. The company is based in Houston, Texas. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian K. Murphy, Esq.
          MURRAY MURPHY MOUL + BASIL LLP
          1114 Dublin Road
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Telephone: (614) 488-0400
          Facsimile: (614) 488-0401
          E-mail: murphy@mmmb.com

               - and -

          Lauren E. Snyder, Esq.
          MURRAY MURPHY MOUL + BASIL LLP
          1350 N. Wells Street, Apt. A214
          Chicago, IL 60610
          Telephone: (419) 344-1146
          E-mail: lauren.elizabeth.snyder@gmail.com

               - and -

          Edward A. Broderick, Esq.
          Anthony I. Paronich, Esq.
          BRODERICK & PARONICH, P.C.
          99 High St., Suite 304
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (508) 221-1510
          E-mail: anthony@broderick-law.com
                  ted@broderick-law.com

               - and -

          Matthew P. McCue, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF MATTHEW P. MCCUE
          1 South Avenue, Suite 3
          Natick, MA 01760
          Telephone: (508) 655-1415
          E-mail: mmccue@massattorneys.net


NORDIC NATURALS: Elikman Sues over Mislabeling of Probiotics
------------------------------------------------------------
LYUBOV ELIKMAN, individually and on behalf of a class of
similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiff, v. NORDIC
NATURALS, INC., and NORDIC NATURALS MFG., INC., California
corporations, the Defendants, Case No. 2018-CH-02319 (Ill. Cir.
Ct., Cook County, Feb. 21, 2018), seeks damages, restitution and
injunctive relief against NORDIC for false and deceptive
representations of the amount of probiotics (the key ingredient
of the product), mislabeling and consumer fraud.

The Plaintiff brings this Class Action Complaint and Demand for
Jury Trial against Defendants to redress NORDIC's sale of the
product that was falsely advertised as having 15 billion colony
forming units (CFU) of probiotics per serving/capsule where in
fact the actual amount of probiotics contained in each
serving/capsule of "NORDIC FLORA PROBIOTIC WOMEN" product was
FIVE HUNDRED EIGHT ONE THOUSAND (581,000) TIMES less than
represented by NORDIC on the packaging of its product.

Nordic Naturals, Inc. produces and supplies fish oils for
children, and dogs and cats. It offers omega products, vitamins,
and gummies for children. The company offers its products in
various flavors, concentrations, and delivery forms for heart,
brain and mood, eyes, back and joints, and immune response.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yevgeniy "Eugene" I. Turin, Sr.
          EUGENE TURIN LAW
          102 N. Milwaukee, S 312
          Deerfield, IL 60015
          Telephone: 847.656.3323
          E-mail: attomey@eugeneturinlaw.com


NORTH SHORE AGENCY: Veytsman Sues over Debt Collection
------------------------------------------------------
VICTORIA VEYTSMAN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NORTH SHORE AGENCY, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. Case No. 2:18-cv-01782-JLL-SCM (D.N.J., Feb.
7, 2018) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable
means to collect a debt. The case is assigned to Chief Judge Jose
L. Linares, and referred to Magistrate Judge Steven C. Mannion.

North Shore Agency, LLC provides receivables management solutions
in the United States and Canada. The company offers a range of
outsourced billing and collection services, including first party
billing; first party and third party collection letters; mailing
services and postal expertise; contingency collection programs;
e-commerce solutions, including electronic bill presentment and
payment, e-payment processing, e-dunning, e-statements, e-
collection, e-order confirmations, and e-product announcements;
client support programs; and compliance with statutory
requirements. The company was founded in 1971 and is based in
Melville, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Salim Katach, Esq.
          VARACALLI & HAMRA, LLP
          32 Broadway, Suite 1818
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (646) 590-0571
          E-mail: skatach@svhllp.com


OCWEN LOAN: Seeks to Deny Certification of "Stromberg" Class
------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled BONNIE LYNNE STROMBERG, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC, MORGAN STANLEY PRIVATE BANK, N.A., RBS
CITIZENS, N.A., and DOE DEFENDANTS 1-50, the Defendants, Case No.
3:15-cv-04719-JST (N.D. Cal.), the Defendants ask the Court to
deny class certification of:

   "all persons with loans secured by a deed of trust on real
    property located in the state of California whose loan
    obligations were satisfied within one year and thirty days
    prior to the filing of this action, where (1) Ocwen was the
    servicer of the loan as of the date on which the obligations
    under Cal. Civ. Code Sec. 2941(b) arose; (2) MSPB, Citizens,
    Ocwen or one of Defendant Does 1 - 50 was the beneficiary or
    assignee of the deed of trust as of the date on which the
    obligations under Cal. Civ. Code Sec. 2941(b) arose; and (3)
    neither the beneficiary, the assignee of the beneficiary, nor
    Ocwen, the agent of the beneficiary and/or the assignee,
    executed and delivered to the trustee, within thirty calendar
    (30) days after the loan obligation was satisfied, the
    original note, deed of trust and request for a full
    reconveyance and such other documents as may be have been
    necessary to reconvey, or cause to be reconveyed, the deed of
    trust".

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=kw3X9A7s

Attorneys for Defendants

          John B. Sullivan, Esq.
          Mark D. Lonergan, Esq.
          Michael J. Steiner, Esq.
          Joseph W. Guzzetta, Esq.
          SEVERSON & WERSON
          A Professional Corporation
          One Embarcadero Center, Suite 2600
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 398-3344
          Facsimile: (415) 956-0439
          E-mail: mjs@severson.com
                  jwg@severson.com
                  jdi@severson.com


PALMER & REIFLER: "Cook" Suit Seeks to Certify 3 Classes
--------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled THOMAS COOK and EMANUEL BERMUDEZ,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, v. PALMER, REIFLER & ASSOCIATES, and WAL-MART STORES,
INC., the Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-00673-BJD-JRK (M.D. Fla.),
the Plaintiff asks the Court to certify the three classes:

Wrong-Number Class:

   "(1) all persons in the United States (2) to whose cellular
   telephone number (3) PRA placed or caused to be placed a non-
   emergency telephone call (4) on behalf of Wal-Mart (5) using
   an artificial or prerecorded voice (6) within 4 years of the
   complaint (7) where PRA called the wrong number, such as where
   PRA listed that number on its Wrong Number List";

Call after Wrong-Number Notation Class:

   "(1) all persons in the United States (2) to whose cellular
   telephone number (3) PRA placed or caused to be placed a non-
   emergency telephone call (4) on behalf of Wal-Mart (5) using
   an artificial or prerecorded voice (6) within 4 years of the
   complaint (7) where PRA called the wrong number after it was
   already informed it had the wrong number, such as where the
   number was previously added to PRA's Wrong-Number List";

DNC Class:

   "(1) all persons in the United States (2) to whose cellular
   telephone number (3) PRA placed or caused to be placed a non-
   emergency telephone call (4) on behalf of Wal-Mart (5) using
   an artificial or prerecorded voice (6) within 4 years of the
   complaint (7) where PRA called after receiving a do not call
   request, such as where the number was previously added to
   PRA's Do Not Call List."

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Keith J. Keogh, Esq.
          Amy L. Wells, Esq.
          KEOGH LAW, LTD
          55 West Monroe Street, Suite 3390
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 726 1092
          Facsimile: (312) 726 1093
          E-mail: Keith@KeoghLaw.com
                  Awells@KeoghLaw.com

               - and -

          William Peerce Howard, Esq.
          Amanda J. Allen, Esq.
          THE CONSUMER PROTECTION FIRM
          210-A South MacDill Ave.
          Tampa, FL 33609
          Telephone: (813) 500 1500
          E-mail: Billy@TheConsumerProtectionFirm.com
                  Amanda@TheConsumerProtectionFirm.com


PEAK PROPERTIES: Antjuanyaakins Sues over Rental Agreement
----------------------------------------------------------
ANTJUANYAAKINS, Individually And As Representative of a Class of
Similarly Situated Persons, the Plaintiff, v. PEAK PROPERTIES
LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 2018-CH-02341 (Ill. Cir. Ct. Cook
Cty., Feb. 22, 2018), seeks to recover damages caused by
Defendant violations of the Chicago Residential Landlord and
Tenant Ordinance.

The Plaintiff was a tenant at 1336.5 W. Estes, Unit 1 W, Chicago,
Illinois 60626. The Estes Building has about 43 residential
apartment units. The Defendant served as lessor, authorized
management, and landlord of Plaintiff's dwelling unit and the
Estes Building. Peak Properties LLC also leases and serves as
management of hundreds of other dwelling units in Chicago,
Illinois.

The Defendant was hired and paid by the Owner to manage
Plaintiff's unit and the Estes building. As part of its
management responsibilities, The Defendant prepares and offers
rental agreements and renewals to prospective tenants and tenants
in Chicago. Additionally, Peak Properties prepares and offers
written notices, such as lease termination notices, to its
tenants. On July 7, 2017, Defendant offered Plaintiff a 30 page
rental agreement for her dwelling unit. On February 5, 2018,
Defendant or its authorized Agent served Plaintiff with a "Ten-
Day Notice Of Termination Of Tenancy alleging breach of the
lease.

The "Ten-Day Notice" did not notify Plaintiff that "the rental
agreement will terminate upon a date not less than ten days after
receipt of the notice, unless the breach is remedied by the
tenant within that period of time."  As management and business
practice, Defendant does not provide Chicago tenants any
opportunity to remedy alleged breaches of their lease agreement
within 10 days after receipt of a written notice as mandated by
RLTO Section 5-l 2-l 30(b).

Defendant has offered the same or similar lease with Provision 27
and 10 Day Notice to all of its Chicago tenants, within the last
five years.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          AARON KROLIK LAW OFFICE, P.A.
          225 W. Washington St. Suite 2200
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 924 0278
          Facsimile: (312) 650 8241

               - and -

          MARK SILVERMAN LAW OFFICE LTD.
          225 W. Washington St. Suite 2200
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 775 1015
          Facsimile: (312) 256 2055


PEOPLE'S UNITED: Faces "Delacruz" Suit over Payment of Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against People's United
Financial, Inc. The case is captioned as Emanuel Delacruz,
individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. People's United Financial, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-01157-GHW (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 9, 2018).
The case is assigned to Judge Gregory H. Woods and referred to
Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Peck.

An Initial Conference is set for April 6, 2018 at 3:00 PM, in
Courtroom 12C, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007 before Judge
Gregory H. Woods.

People's United Financial, Inc. operates as the bank holding
company for People's United Bank, National Association that
provides commercial banking, retail banking, and wealth
management services to individual, corporate, and municipal
customers. It operates through a network of 387 branches and 593
ATMs in Connecticut, southeastern New York, Massachusetts,
Vermont, Maine, and New Hampshire. People's United Financial,
Inc. was founded in 1842 and is headquartered in Bridgeport,
Connecticut. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PINNACLE ENTERTAINMENT: Smith Balks at Penn Merger Deal
-------------------------------------------------------
GEORGE SMITH, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. PINNACLE ENTERTAINMENT, INC., ANTHONY
M. SANFILIPPO, CARLOS RUISANCHEZ, CHARLES L. ATWOOD, STEPHEN
COMER, RON HUBERMAN, JAMES L. MARTINEAU, JAYNIE MILLER
STUDENMUND, and DESIREE ROGERS, the Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-
00314 (D. Nev., Feb. 21, 2018), seeks to enjoin Defendants from
holding the shareholder vote on a proposed merger and taking any
steps to consummate the Proposed Merger unless, and until,
material information is disclosed to Pinnacle shareholders
sufficiently in advance of the vote on the Proposed Merger or, in
the event the Proposed Merger is consummated, to recover damages
resulting from the Defendants' violations of the Exchange Act.

This action is brought as a class action by Plaintiff on behalf
of himself and the other public holders of the common stock of
Pinnacle Entertainment, Inc. against the Company and the members
of the Company's board of directors for their violations of
Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in
connection with the proposed merger between Pinnacle and Penn
National Gaming, Inc.

According to the complaint, on December 17, 2017, the Board
caused the Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger,
pursuant to which each outstanding share of Pinnacle common stock
not owned by Pinnacle or its subsidiaries will be converted into
the right to receive 0.42 shares of Penn common stock and $20.00
in cash. On February 8, 2018, to convince Pinnacle shareholders
to vote in favor of the Proposed Merger, the Board authorized the
filing of a materially incomplete and misleading Form S-4
Registration Statement with the Securities and Exchange
Commission, in violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act. The materially incomplete and misleading S-4
independently violates both Regulation G, each of which
constitutes a violation of Section 14(a) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act.

While touting the fairness of the Merger Consideration to the
Company's shareholders in the S-4, Defendants have failed to
disclose certain material information that is necessary for
shareholders to properly assess the fairness of the Proposed
Merger, thereby violating SEC rules and regulations and rendering
certain statements in the S-4 materially incomplete and
misleading. In particular, the S-4 contains materially incomplete
and misleading information concerning the financial projections
for the Company and Penn that were prepared by the Company in
recommending that its shareholders vote in favor of the Proposed
Merger.

The financial projections were also utilized by Pinnacle's
financial advisor, J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, in conducting the
financial analyses in support of its fairness opinion. It is
imperative that the material information that has been omitted
from the S-4 is disclosed prior to the forthcoming vote to allow
the Company's shareholders to make an informed decision regarding
the Proposed Merger.

Pinnacle Entertainment is an American gambling and hospitality
company. It operates 16 casino properties, located in Colorado,
Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada,
Pennsylvania, and Ohio, and a horse track in Texas.[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiff George Smith:

          Martin A. Muckleroy, Esq.
          MUCKLEROY LUNT, LLC
          Nevada Bar No. 9634
          6077 S. Fort Apache Rd., Ste. 140
          Las Vegas, NV 89148
          Telephone: (702) 907 0097
          E-mail: martin@muckleroylunt.com


PROFESSIONAL PLACEMENT: "Safranski" Accord Has Final Court OK
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled KATHY L. SAFRANSKI, the Plaintiff(s), v.
PROFESSIONAL PLACEMENT SERVICES, LLC, the Defendant(s), Case No.
1:17-cv-00129-WCG (E.D. Wisc.), the Hon. Judge William C.
Griesbach entered an order granting unopposed motion to certify
class and granting final approval of the settlement agreement.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=v68FRJyk


PURDUE PHARMA: Minute Men Sues over Sale of Prescription Opioids
----------------------------------------------------------------
MINUTE MEN, INC. and MINUTE MEN SELECT, INC., On behalf of itself
and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. PURDUE
PHARMA L.P. et al., the Defendants, Case No. CV 18 893314 (Ohio
Court of Common Pleas, Cuyahoga County, Feb. 21, 2018), seeks to
recover compensatory damages in an amount sufficient to fairly
and completely compensate Plaintiffs for all damages.

The Defendants manufacture, market, distribute, and sell
prescription opioids, including brand-name drugs like OxyContin
and Percocet, and generics like oxycodone and hydrodone, which
are powerful narcotic painkillers. Historically, because opioids
are highly addictive and debilitating for long term use, they
were used only to treat short-term, acute pain or for palliative
care. However, by the late 1990s, and continuing today, the
Defendants began a marketing campaign designed to persuade
doctors and patients that opioids can and should be employed for
long-term pain treatment. In this Complaint, "long-term" means
opioid use greater than 90 continuous days for non-cancer pain.

In connection with this scheme, the Defendants spent, and
continue to spend, millions of dollars on promotional activities
and materials that falsely deny or trivialize the risks of
opioids, while overstating the benefits of using them for chronic
pain. As to the risks of long-term opioid use, Defendants falsely
and misleadingly: (1) downplayed the serious risk of addiction;
(2) promoted the concept of "pseudoaddiction" and advocated that
the signs of addiction should be treated with more opioids; (3)
exaggerated the effectiveness of screening tools in preventing
addiction; (4) claimed that opioid dependence and withdrawal are
easily managed; (5) denied the risks of higher opioid dosages;
and (6) exaggerated the effectiveness of "abuse-deterrent" opioid
formulations in preventing abuse and addiction. Conversely,
Defendants also falsely touted the benefits of long-term opioid
use, including the supposed ability of opioids to improve
function and quality of life.

Defendants used these messages to reverse the popular and medical
understanding of opioids. They disseminated them directly,
through their sales representatives, and in speaker groups led by
physicians who Defendants recruited for their support of these
marketing messages. Defendants also worked through third parties
they controlled by: (a) funding, assisting, encouraging, and
directing doctors, known as "key opinion leaders"; and (b)
funding, assisting, directing, and encouraging seemingly neutral
and credible professional societies and patient advocacy groups.

Defendants then worked together with this KOLs and Front Groups
to taint the information sources that doctors and patients relied
on for ostensible "neutral" guidance, such as treatment
guidelines, Continuing Medical Education ("CME") programs,
medical conferences and seminars, and scientific articles.
Working individually and collectively, and through these Front
Groups and KOLs, Defendants persuaded doctors and patients that
opioids were not highly addictive and unsafe in most
circumstances for long-term use, but rather that compassionate
treatment of pain required opioids.

Defendants knew their misrepresentations of the risks and
benefits of opioids were not supported by or were directly
contrary to the scientific evidence. The falsity of Defendants'
misrepresentations have been confirmed by the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration and the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, included by the CDC in its Guideline for Prescribing
Opioids for Chronic Pain, issued in 2016 and approved by the FDA.

Opioid manufacturers, including Defendants, Endo Pharmaceuticals,
Inc. and Purdue Pharma L.P., have entered into settlement
agreements with public entities prohibiting them from making many
of the misrepresentations identified in this Complaint. The
Defendants' efforts to promote opioid use were very successful.
Opioids are more and more the prescribed class of drugs; they
generated $11 billion in revenue for drug companies in
2014.

Plaintiff offers a plan, the Minute Men Select, which is a self-
insured Professional Employer Organization. Minute Men Select is
a workers' compensation program that is underwritten by
Plaintiff. Claims are paid through a self-insured fund and
administered by Plaintiff's staff of Case Nurses, Claims Managers
and other workers' compensation professionals. This action is
brought by Plaintiff, on behalf of itself and all other Ohio
self-insured funds that are third party payors of medical costs
and are therefore similarly situated.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Frank Gallucci III, Esq.
          PLEVIN, & GALLUCCI COMPANY, L.P.A.
          55 Public Square, Suite 2222
          Cleveland, OH 44113
          E-mail: FGallucci@pglawyer.com

               - and -

          Paul J. Napoli, Esq.
          Joseph L. Ciaccio, Esq.
          Salvatore C. Badala, Esq.
          NAPOLI SHKOLNIK, PLLC
          400 Broadhollow Road - Suite 350
          E-mail: Melville, NY 11747

               - and -

          James A. Marniella, Esq.
          DEMER & MARNIELLA, LLC
          2 Berea Commons, Suite 200
          Berea, OH 44017
          E-mail: JAMarniella@demerlaw.com


QDI 1: Faces "Lopez" Class Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Wanda Lopez, on her own behalf and others similarly situated v.
QDI 1 LLC d/b/a Ramada Inn, Case No. 6:18-cv-00214-JA-DCI (M.D.
Fla., February 12, 2018), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime wages for work more than 40 hours per
week.

QDI 1 LLC owns and operates the Ramada Inn Near Convention Center
in Orange County, Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kyle J. Lee, Esq.
      LEE LAW, PLLC
      P.O. Box 4476
      Brandon, FL 33509-4476
      Telephone: (813) 343-2813
      E-mail: Kyle@KyleLeeLaw.com


SPIRIT AIRLINES: "Giavasis" Suit Alleges UCL Violations
-------------------------------------------------------
Nikki Giavasis, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Spirit Airlines, Inc. and Does 1-10, Case
No. 2:18-cv-00864 (C.D. Calif., February 2, 2018), is brought
against the Defendant for violations of the Unfair Competition
Law.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant's violations of the law
include, but not limited to, the false advertising, marketing,
representations, and sale of the invalid Class Products to
consumers in California.

Plaintiff Nikki Giavasis is a citizen and resident of the State
of California, County of Los Angeles.

Defendant Spirit Airlines, Inc. is an airline that is engaged in
the sale, marketing, supplying, and distribution of air
transportation at lower costs than its competitors when it in
fact it does not offer the lowest cost among its competitors,
says the complaint. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICAL: Weisberg Sues over TRINTELLIX Program
------------------------------------------------------------
Alan Weisberg, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited;
Takeda Pharmaceuticals America, Inc.; Takeda Pharmaceuticals
International, Inc.; H. Lundbeck a/s; Lundbeck Pharmaceuticals,
LLC; Lundbeck Pharmaceutical Services, LLC; Lunbeck; Lundbeck
US., Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-00784-PA-JC (C.D. Cal., Jan.
31, 2018) seeks money damages and injunctive relief against the
Defendants for breach of contract and violations of State
consumer protection laws.

Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited engages in the research and
development, manufacture, marketing, and sale of pharmaceutical
products worldwide. The company operates in three segments:
Prescription Drug, Consumer Healthcare, and Other. It offers
prescription, OTC, and quasi-drugs; and reagents in various
therapeutic areas, including oncology, gastroenterology, central
nervous system, vaccines, and others. The company is also
involved in clinical diagnostics, chemical products, and other
businesses. Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited has a research
collaboration with Shattuck Labs, Inc. to explore and develop
checkpoint fusion proteins that have the potential to become
immunotherapies; and a collaboration alliance with Stanford
University. It also has collaboration agreements with Samsung
Bioepis Co., Ltd. to jointly fund and co-develop various novel
biologic therapies in unmet disease areas; AstraZeneca PLC to
develop and commercialize MEDI1341, an alpha synuclein antibody
for the treatment of Parkinson's disease; Noile-Immune Biotech
Inc. for the research and development of cancer immunotherapy;
HitGen Ltd for the DNA-encoded library based drug discovery
research; Montreal Neurological Institute to discover and develop
treatments for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis; Denali Therapeutics
to develop and commercialize therapeutic product candidates for
neurodegenerative diseases; and Fujifilm to develop regenerative
medicine product for heart patients. The company was founded in
1781 and is headquartered in Osaka, Japan.

Takeda Pharmaceuticals America, Inc. manufactures pharmaceutical
products. The Company offers products focused on treating serious
diseases and disorders, including bone and joint disorders,
cardiovascular disease, gastroenterology, gynecological disorders
and infectious disease.

H. Lundbeck a/s engages in the research, development, production,
and sale of pharmaceuticals for the treatment of psychiatric and
neurological disorders in Denmark and internationally. Its
products include Abilify Maintena, Brintellix/Trintellix,
Cipralex/Lexapro, Northera, Onfi, Rexulti, Sabril, and Xenazine.
The company offers pharmaceutical products for the treatment of
Alzheimer's disease, depression, Parkinson's disease,
Schizophrenia, alcohol dependence, anxiety, Bipolar I disorder,
Epilepsy, Huntington's disease, and symptomatic neurogenic
orthostatic hypotension. H. Lundbeck A/S sells its products to
distributors of pharmaceuticals, pharmacies, and hospitals. The
company was founded in 1915 and is headquartered in Valby,
Denmark.

Lundbeck Pharmaceuticals, LLC develops and markets psychiatry and
neurology products. The company provides Cipralex for the acute
treatment of depressive episodes, as well as generalized, social,
panic, and obsessive compulsive anxiety disorders; Ebixa for the
treatment of moderate and severe Alzheimer's disease; and Azilect
for the treatment of Parkinson's disease as a monotherapy and as
an adjunct therapy in patients with end-of-dose fluctuations. It
also offers Serdolect for reducing the symptoms of schizophrenia
by inhibiting the actions of neurotransmitters, dopamine, and
serotonin in various areas of the brain; and Circadin, which
provides natural sleep for patients with insomnia, offering a
treatment for their sleep difficulties. The company was founded
in 1993 and is based in Middlesbrough, United Kingdom. Lundbeck
Pharmaceuticals Ltd. operates as a subsidiary of Lundbeck Ltd.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Howard A. Kapp, Esq.
          Law Offices of Howard A. Kapp
          3731 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 514
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Telephone: (213) 927-8000
          Facsimile: (213) 927-8001
          E-mail: howard@kapplaw.com


TGI FRIDAYS: "Williams" Class Certification Bid Tossed
------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled GABRIELLE WILLIAMS and TONYA O'DONOVAN, on
behalf of themselves and all other persons similarly situated,
known and unknown, the Plaintiffs, v. TGI FRIDAYS, INC., the
Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-04286 (N.D. Ill.), the Hon . Judge
Matthew F. Kennelly entered granting TGIF's motion for partial
summary judgment.

The plaintiffs' motion to certify a class action and TGIF's
motion to exclude Madansky's expert testimony are both terminated
as moot. The Court must still resolve O'Donovan's pending IWPCA
claim arising from TGIF's alleged failure to promptly pay her the
vacation compensation she was owed.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=i3lT6Qco


TOLEDO COUNTRY CLUB: "McCullen" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------
Conner McCullen, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. The Toledo Country Club, Case No. 3:18-cv-00276 (N.D.
Ohio, February 2, 2018), is brought against the Defendant for
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, the Ohio
Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act, and the Ohio Prompt Pay Act.

Plaintiff Conner McCullen was employed by Defendant from
approximately June 2017 until approximately December 2017 as a
server.

Defendant the Toledo Country Club is a for-profit corporation
incorporated in the State of Ohio and has its principal place of
business located in Lucas County, Ohio. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

          - and -

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


UBIQUITI NETWORKS: Overstated User Community, Vanderheiden Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
PAUL VANDERHEIDEN, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. UBIQUITI NETWORKS, INC.,
ROBERT J. PERA, KEVIN RADIGAN, CRAIG L. FOSTER and MARK SPRAGG,
the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-01620 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 21, 2018),
seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages in favor of
Plaintiff and the other class members against all Defendants,
jointly and severally, for all damages sustained as a result of
Defendants' false and/or misleading statements and/or failure to
disclose that (i) the number of the Company's purported user
community was drastically overstated; (ii) that it had
exaggerated its publicly reported accounts receivable; and (iii)
that as a result of the foregoing, Ubiquiti's publicly
disseminated financial statements were materially false and
misleading.

The case is a federal securities class action on behalf of all
investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Defendant Ubiquiti
Networks, Inc. common stock between May 9, 2013 and February 20,
2018, inclusive. This action is brought on behalf of the Class
for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

Ubiquiti develops technology platforms for high-capacity
distributed Internet access, unified information technology, and
next-generation consumer electronics for home and personal use.
The Company does not employ a traditional sales force. Instead,
it purports to "drive brand awareness largely through the
company's user community where customers can interface directly
with R&D, marketing, and support." The Company calls this user
community the "Ubiquiti Community." Information previously
disclosed to the market revealed that the size of the "Ubiquiti
Community" was grossly exaggerated, and that the Company has
engaged in fraudulent accounting practices and financial
reporting.

On the news of the SEC subpoenas, Ubiquiti's share price fell
more than 25 percent, from $74.04 at the close of the prior
trading day, to close at $55.28 on February 20, 2018. Prior to
disclosure of the SEC's broad-ranging subpoenas, there was a
partial corrective disclosure on September 18, 2017. On that day
Citron Research issued a report entitled "Cintron Exposes
Ubiquiti Networks," (the "Citron Report") in which Citron
detailed a series of "alarming red flags," indicating that the
Company had been deceiving investors and was engaged in
"corporate fraud," including, among other things, that the
Company had misrepresented the size of its purported "Ubiquiti
Community", as well as its levels of accounts receivable, among
other things. Throughout the Class Period, Defendants made false
and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose
material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations,
and prospects.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          D. Greg. Blankinship, Esq.
          FINKELSTEIN, BLANKINSHIP
          DREI-PERSON & GARBER, LLP
          445 Hamilton Avenue, Suite 605
          White Plains, NY 10601
          Telephone: (914) 298 3280
          Facsimile: (914) 908 6708
          E-mail: gblankinship@fbfglaw.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey C. Block, Esq.
          Thomas W. Kirchofer, Esq.
          Bradley J. Vettraino, Esq.
          155 Federal Street, Suite 400
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617) 398 5600
          Facsimile: (617) 507 3020E
          E-mail: Jeff@blockesq.com
                  Tom@blockesq.com
                  Bradley@blockesq.com


VAL VERDE: "Sehr" Suit Seeks to Certify Nurses Class
----------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled DONALD SEHR, Individually and On Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. VAL VERDE
HOSPITAL CORPORATION d/b/a VAL VERDE REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, the
Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-00065-AM-VRG (W.D. Tex.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to conditionally certify a class and
authorize counsel for Plaintiff to send Notice and Consent forms,
to the following group of individuals:

   "Defendant's current and former nurses who were subject to an
   automatic meal break deduction and worked at VVRMC at any time
   since November 15, 2014."

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=4EdG9APJ

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edmond S. Moreland, Jr., Esq.
          Daniel A. Verrett, Esq.
          MORELAND LAW FIRM, P.C.
          700 West Summit Drive
          Wimberley, TX 78676
          Telephone: (512) 782 0567
          Facsimile: (512) 782 0605
          E-mail: edmond@morelandlaw.com
                  daniel@morelandlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Mr. Scott Brutocao, Esq.
          Mr. Andrew J. Broadaway, Esq.
          CORNELL SMITH MIERL & BRUTOCAO, LLP
          1607 West Avenue
          Austin, TX 78701


WE DRIVE U: Fails to Pay for Overtime Work, "Davis" Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
THOMAS DAVIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. WEDRIVEU, INC.; and DOES 1 through 100,
Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-322578 (Cal. Super., Santa Clara Cty.,
Jan. 30, 2018) is an action against the Defendants for unpaid
regular hours, overtime hours, minimum wages, wages for missed
meal and rest periods.

Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a non-exempt employee
from September 18, 2017 through October 13, 2017. Plaintiff
performed services as a driver for Defendants' customer, Nvidia.

We Drive U Inc was founded in 1988. The company's line of
business includes providing employment services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott M. Lidman, Esq.
          Elizabeth Nguyen, Esq.
          LIDMAN LAW, APC
          222 N. Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 1550
          El Segundo, CA 90245
          Telephone: (424) 322-4772
          Facsimile: (424) 322-4775
          E-mail: slidman@lidmanlaw.com
                  enguyen@lidmanlaw.com

               - and -

          Paul K. Haines, Esq.
          Tuvia Korobkin, Esq.
          Stacey M. Shim, Esq.
          HAINES LAW GROUP, APC
          222 N. Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 1550
          El Segundo, CA 90245
          Telephone: (424) 292-2350
          Facsimile: (424) 292-2355
          E-mail: phaines@haineslawgroup.com
                  tkorobkin@haineslawgroup.com
                  sshim@haineslawgroup.com


WELLS FARGO: Nakamura Seeks to Certify Class of Service Members
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled JIN NAKAMURA, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. WELLS FARGO
BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION d/b/a Wells Fargo Dealer Services,
Inc., the Defendant, Case No 5:17-cv-04029-DDC-GEB. (D. Kan.),
the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an Order:

   1. certifying a class of:

      "all service members who, before the service member entered
      military service, paid a deposit or installment on a loan
      originated, acquired and/or serviced by Defendant, and
      whose motor vehicle subject to the loan was repossessed by
      Defendant while the service member was in military service
      without a court order authorizing the repossession between
      January 1, 2000 and the date this Class is certified by the
      Court";

   2. designating Jin Nakamura as class representative; and

   3. appointing Rex A. Sharp, P.A., Bell Law, LLC, and Waddell
      Law Firm LLC as Class Counsel.

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

Attorneys for Plaintiff and
Proposed Class Counsel:

          Rex A. Sharp, Esq.
          Ryan C. Hudson, Esq.
          Scott Goodger, Esq
          REX A SHARP, P.A.
          5301 W. 75th Street
          Prairie Village, KS 66208
          Telephone: (913) 901 0505
          Facsimile: (913) 901 0419
          E-mail: rsharp@midwest-law.com
                  rhudson@midwest-law.com

               - and -

          Bryce B. Bell, Esq.
          Mark W. Schmitz, Esq.
          BELL LAW, LLC
          2600 Grand Blvd., Suite 580
          Kansas City, MO 64108
          Telephone: (816) 886 8206
          Facsimile: (816) 817 8500
          E-mail: Bryce@BellLawKC.com
                  MS@BellLawKC.com

               - and -

          A. Scott Waddell, Esq.
          WADDELL LAW FIRM LLC
          2600 Grand Blvd., Suite 580
          Kansas City, MO 64108
          Telephone: (816) 914 5365
          Facsimile: (816) 817 8500
          E-mail: scott@aswlawfirm.com


XEROX CORP: Carpenters Pension Fund Balks at Fuji Merger Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------
CARPENTERS PENSION FUND OF ILLINOIS on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. XEROX CORPORATION,
JEFFREY JACOBSON, GREGORY Q. BROWN, JOSEPH J. ECHEVARRIA, WILLIAM
CURT HUNTER, ROBERT J. KEEGAN, CHERYL GORDON KRONGARD, CHARLES O.
PRINCE, ANN N. REESE, STEPHEN H. RUSCKOWSKI, SARA MARTINEZ TUCKER
and FUJIFILM HOLDINGS CORPORATION, the Defendants, Case No.
650841/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Feb. 21, 2018), seeks to enjoin Xerox
Corporation's contractual agreement under the Subscription
Agreement to not amend or terminate the joint venture (or its
corresponding agreements) with Fuji, so that the Company has
maximum flexibility to negotiate a transaction with any
interested party in advance of the stockholder vote.

The case is stockholder class action challenging various breaches
of fiduciary duties by Jacobson and the other members of Xerox's
Board in connection with an unfair change-of-control transaction.
In the Transaction, Jacobson and his fellow directors have agreed
to sell control of Xerox to Fuji for inadequate consideration,
following a rushed and deficient exploration of the Company's
strategic alternatives. Indeed, facing possible ouster in a very
public and potentially embarrassing proxy contest instituted by
two of the Company's three largest shareholders, Jacobson and
other members of the Board quickly searched for an all-
encompassing solution to various problems they were facing.

In the end, they agreed to the Transaction, which will, among
other things: (i) significantly dilute all stockholders'
interests; (ii) entrench Jacobson and at least five other current
Xerox directors in their current positions; and (iii) vest future
control of the Company and the composition of Xerox's Board in
the hands of a long-term ally, Fuji. The foregoing will thus
ensure that stockholders who were calling for a change in Xerox's
leadership and for the Company to free itself from its
entanglements with Fuji will never achieve that goal.

According to the complaint, Xerox's public stockholders face a
choice between two evils at the upcoming stockholder vote on the
Transaction. The market now knows that Xerox has limited ability
to sell itself to anyone other than Fuji. If stockholders vote
down the Transaction, the price of their shares will likely
reflect a discount to the Company's stock price prior to the
announcement of the Transaction. In fact, Xerox shares have
already significantly declined since the Transaction
announcement, notwithstanding market expectations for a $9.80 per
share special cash dividend. Alternatively, stockholders can
approve the Transaction and, thus, effectively terminate the
change-of-control provisions of the joint venture agreements with
Fuji but they also must cede voting control of the Company to
Fuji, along with a 50.1% economic interest in the post-
Transaction entity. In all events, the Board's various breaches
of their fiduciary duties have put Plaintiff and Xerox's other
public stockholders in an untenable position, warranting
injunctive and other relief.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lee Rudy, Esq.
          Eric L. Zagar, Esq.
          J. Daniel Albert, Esq.
          Justin Reliford, Esq.
          KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, PA 19087
          Telephone: (610) 667 7706
          Facsimile: (610) 667 7056

               - and -

          Jay W. Eisenhofer, Esq.
          James J. Sabellav
          GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A.
          485 Lexington Avenue, 29th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (646) 722 8500
          Facsimile: (646) 722 8501

               - and -

          Michael Barry, Esq.
          123 Justison Street, 7th Floor
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 622 7000
          Facsimile: (302) 622 7100




                            *********


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  * * *