CAR_Public/180314.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


              Wednesday, March 14, 2018, Vol. 20, No. 53



                            Headlines


ADVANCED DRAINAGE: "Hayes" Remanded to Calif. State Court
ADVANCIAL FEDERAL: "Matirne" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages under FLSA
AETERNA ZENTARIS: "Li" Suit Seeks Certification of Class
ALDOUS & ASSOCIATES: "Powell" Suit Brought Before 3rd Cir.
ALLIED INTERNATIONAL: Placeholder Class Certification Bid Stayed

AMBASSADOR COLLEGE: Faces "Murray" Suit in E.D. New York
AMERICAN MEDICAL: Caldera Seeks to Notify Class Members
ASCENT MORTGAGE: Roberts Sues over Unsolicited Text Messages
ATLAS VAN: 7th Cir. Affirms Summary Judgment in "Mervyn" Suit
BAREBURGER INC: Faces "Fischler" Suit in E.D. New York

BAYADA HOME: Ivanovs & Hoffman Seek to Notify Class Members
BAYER CORP: Court Narrows Claims in "Jordan" Suit
BELLICUM PHARMA: "Kakkar" Suit Seeks Damages Under Exchange Act
BENTON, AR: Court Dismisses "Lewis" Appeal
BLUESTONE COAL: Court Granted Class Certification

BRIGHT LAUNDRY: Faces "Baten" Suit in S.D. New York
BROOKDALE SENIOR LIVING: Faces "Bishop" Suit in S.D. New York
CACAFE INC: "Marino" Suit Seeks to Certify Class & Subclass
CB&I GROUP: "Uselton" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA
CITIZENS BANK: Court Denies Class Certification Bid in "Fawcett"

CLEAN CITY: "Lawson" Suit Alleges FLSA Violations
COLUMBIA GAS: Wins Partial Summary Judgment in "Baatz"
CONSOLIDATED WORLD: "Bakov" Class Certification Bid Denied
COOK COUNTY, IL: "Vargas" Suit Seeks to Certify Sheriff Class
CORNING INCORPORATED: Woods-Early Sues over Race Discrimination

CREDIT COLLECTION: "Schneider" Placeholder Class Cert. Bid Okayed
CSO FINANCIAL: Settlement in "Bowen" Suit Has Prelim Approval
D.O.S. PIZZA: Page Sues over Wage and Hour Law Violations
DEFENDERS INC: Seeks 3rd Circuit Review of Ruling in "Walsh" Suit
D.J.D. RESTAURANT: Faces "Martinez" Suit in E.D. New York

EAST SIDE PIZZA: Faces "Clemente" Suit in S.D. New York
EDGE FITNESS: "McArthur" Suit Seeks Conditional Certification
EMERALD LAWNS: "Arce" Suit Seeks to Certify Technicians Class
ENAGIC USA: Scheduling Conference in "Makaron" Moved to April 2
ENHANCED RECOVERY: "Gajewski" Placeholder Class Cert. Bid Granted

ENRICH FINANCIAL: Bid for Class Certification Denied as Moot
FARMERS INSURANCE: Court Grants Bid to Certify Class in "Deluca"
FERGUSON, MO: "Fant" Suit Brought Before 8th Circuit Court
FERGUSON, MO: Loses Bid to Dismiss 1st Amended "Fant" Suit
FIRST BANCTRUST: "Parshall" Suit Alleges Exchange Act Violation

FLORIDA: Court Denies TRO Bid in "Paulcin" Suit
FORD MOTOR: Wins Partial Summary Judgment in MyFord Touch Suit
FUNKO INC: "Surratt" Suit Moved to W.D. Washington
FUNKO INC: Ronald and Maxine Suit Moved to W.D. Washington
GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY: McGuires Sue over Retirement Plan Losses

GLOBAL STAFFING: "Horton" Suit May Proceed as Collective Action
GLOBAL PAYMENTS: Can Compel Arbitration in "Morgan" Suit
GLOBAL TELLINK: James, et al., Seek to Certify Class
GOOGLE LLC: Appeal Filed in Marshall's Locksmith Suit
HARRIS COUNTY, TX: Prelim Injunction in "ODonnell" Vacated

HER IMPORTS: Ward Sues over Unwanted Autodialed Text Messages
IC SYSTEM: Amended Bid for Class Cert. Denied without Prejudice
IDEOLOGY ENTERTAINMENT: Fails to Pay Medical Insurance Premiums
INTELLICHECK LLC: May 10 "Cunha" Class Certification Hearing
IVEL INTL: Officers Engage in Side Cash Deals, Suit Says

K12 INC: Movants Seek Class Certification in Securities Case
KEYES COMPANY: Grigorian Seeks to Certify 2 Classes
KINGSLEY CONSTRUCTORS: Deweese Seeks to Certify Welders Class
LEE COUNTY, FL: J. Thompson's Bid to Sever from "Gittens" Denied
LIFESTREAM BEHAVIORAL: "Velez" Suit Seeks Back Pay under FLSA

LINEAGE LOGISTICS: Fails to Pay Overtime Wage, Williams Says
MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL: 3 Petitions for Writ Filed in "Wyckoff"
MARKETECH: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss TCPA Suit
MIDLAND CREDIT: Court Stays "Bushberger" Class Certification Bid
MDL 2818: Suits Over Defective AC Transferred to in E.D. Mich.

MERCK & CO: Teaches Fund Alleges Monopoly of Zetia Drug Sales
MERCK & CO: Sergeants Benevolent Sues over Zetia Drug Sales
MIMEDX GROUP: Share Price Artificially Inflated, MacPhee Says
NATIONAL CREDIT: "Woods" Placeholder Class Cert. Bid Shelved
NATIONWIDE CREDIT: "Nolet" Placeholder Class Cert. Bid Stayed

NATIONAL OILWELL: Villarreal Seeks Unpaid Overtime under FLSA
NCI GROUP: To Pay $150K Penalties to LWDA, PAGA Rep. in "Jordan"
NEW IEM: Violates California Labor Code, Woody Says
NEW YORK, NY: Cho Appeals S.D.N.Y. Decision to Second Circuit
NEW YORK UNIVERSITY: Court Certifies "Sacerdote" ERISA Class

NUTRACEUTICAL CORP: Four Petitions for Writ Filed in Supreme Ct.
OCWEN FINANCIAL: Fauley et al. Seek to Certify Homeowners Class
OCWEN FINANCIAL: Fauley et. al. Seek to Certify Class
OLYMPIC FLAME: Court Wants Amended Suit Filed in "Blake" Case
ONE PLANET: Court Granted Class Certification in "Johansen"

OVER-EASY INC: Perez Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages under FLSA
PACIFIC MARITIME: Violates California Labor Code, Wheeler Says
PALM BEACH CREDIT: Witham Sues over Debt Collection Practices
PATENAUDE & FELIX: "Untershine" Class Cert. Bid Put On Hold
PCL CONSTRUCTION: Power Outage Suit Stay Extended to March 19

PETCO ANIMAL: Court Grants "Kellgren" Settlement Final Approval
PF CHANG'S: "Esry" Suit Seeks Minimum Wages under FLSA
PLAINS ALL AMERICAN: "Andrews" Suit Seeks to Certify Subclass
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: "Filiault" Suit Moved to Dist. of Connecticut
PRIMELENDING: Seeks 8th Cir. Review of Order in "Shockley" Suit

RBC BANK: 11th Cir. Affirms Denial of Arbitration Bid in "Dasher"
RCL MANAGEMENT: "Morgan" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA
RECEIVABLE MANAGEMENT: "Maniaci" Class Certification Bid Stayed
RECONSTRUCTIVE ORTHOPAEDIC: Wolfington Files 2nd 3rd Cir. Appeal
REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION: Class Cert. Hearing Continued to May 9

RELIANCE TRUST: Court Certifies Class in "Nistra" ERISA Suit
SANDERSON FARMS: Gamm Appeals Order & Judgment to Second Circuit
SEAN MARLER: Woods, et al. Seek to Certify Inmates Class
SETURUS INC: Baxas Ask Court to Set Class Certification Hearing
SHAMROCK FOODS: "Ruiz" Suit Seeks to Certify Class

STATE COLLECTION: "Fetai" Placeholder Bid for Class Cert. Stayed
STATE FARM: Sos Seeks to Certify Florida & Multistate Classes
STATESERV MEDICAL: Court Certifies Background Check Class
THAG LLC: Appellate Court Affirms Arbitration Ruling in "Emory"
TOOTSIE ROLL: Gordon Seeks to Certify Consumers Class

TOWNE NURSING: Bailey Seeks Minimum Wage, OT under Labor Law
TOWNE PUB: Seeks Summary Judgment in Maxum Indemnity Suit
TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR: Trax & Cilley Sue over Debt Collection
TRUGREEN INC: Morris et al. Seek to Notify Class Members
UNITED STATES: Bid to Enforce "Daniel" Settlement Partly Granted

UTOPIA HOME: "Harrison" Suit Seeks Minimum Wages under Labor Law
VELOCITY INVESTMENTS: "Cerveny" Class Certification Bid Stayed
VIRGINIA: Court Narrows Claims in "Riggleman" Suit
WASHINGTON: "Denton" May Not Yet Proceed in Forma Pauperis
WEN MEI: Court Adopts Recommendation to Dismiss "Zhang" Suit

WESTERN RANGE: 2nd Amended "Castillo" Dismissed w/o Prejudice
XL HEALTH: "Mantilla" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
YAHOO! INC: Court Decertifies Class in "Johnson" TCPA Suit
YAHOO INC: Johnson Seeks to Reconsider Order to Decertify Class
WAL-MART STORES: Garcia Seeks to Certify Classes and Subclass





                            *********


ADVANCED DRAINAGE: "Hayes" Remanded to Calif. State Court
---------------------------------------------------------
Judge Dale A. Drozd of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of California granted the parties' stipulation remanding
the case, ALVIN HAYES, Plaintiff, v. ADVANCED DRAINAGE SYSTEMS,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-00798-DAD-JLT (E.D. Cal.) back
to the Kern County Superior Court.

The matter was removed to the Court from Kern County Superior
Court on June 12, 2017 on the basis of diversity under the Class
Action Fairness Act ("CAFA").  On July 7, 2017, the Plaintiff
filed a motion to remand, claiming that the amount in
controversy, which under CAFA must exceed $5 million, was not
satisfied in the case.

The Court heard oral argument on the motion on Aug. 15, 2017.  On
Feb. 13, 2018, the parties filed a stipulation noting that they
had settled the matter for an amount less than the jurisdictional
threshold under CAFA, and jointly requested that the Court
remands the case back to the Kern County Superior Court.

Judge Drozd therefore accepted the stipulation of the parties and
directed that the matter be remanded to the Kern County Superior
Court.  Accordingly, he directed the Clerk of the Court to
terminate any pending motions and close the case.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 14, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/kjM14V from Leagle.com.

Alvin Hayes, individually, and on behalf of other members of the
general public similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by
Daniel J. Park -- dpark@justicelawcorp.com -- Justice Law
Corporation & Douglas Han -- dhan@justicelawcorp.com -- Justice
Law Corporation.

Advanced Drainage Systems, Inc., a California corporation,
Defendant, represented by Andrew C. Smith -- acsmith@vorys.com --
Vorys Sater Seymour and Pease LLP, pro hac vice, Elizabeth A.
Cramer -- eacramer@vorys.com -- Vorys Sater Seymour and Pease
LLP, pro hac vice, Michael J. Ball -- mjball@vorys.com -- Vorys
Sater Seymour and Pease LLP, pro hac vice & Kathy H. Gao --
kgao@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP.


ADVANCIAL FEDERAL: "Matirne" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
KATTY MATIRNE, the Plaintiff, v. ADVANCIAL FED, the Defendant,
Case No. (S.D. Fla., Feb. 21, 2018), seeks to recover employment
compensation, benefits, damages, statutory penalties, attorney
fees and expenses, pre and post judgment interest, costs and such
other legal or equitable relief as the court may deem appropriate
under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by Advancial as a Business Relations
Officer in Lafayette, Louisiana for nine years prior to her
termination on December 5, 2016. Prior November 21, 2016
Advancial paid Plaintiff and similarly situated employees a fixed
salary and classified them as "Exempt" from the overtime pay
requirements of the FLSA. The primary job responsibility of
Plaintiff and all other Business Relations Officers was promotion
of Advancial's financial services products, including auto
financing, mortgages, credit card accounts, savings accounts, and
checking accounts.

The Plaintiff and similarly situated Business Relations Officers
met with employees of Selected Employer Groups identified by
their Business Development Manager, distributed promotional
literature, answered questions about Advancial's financial
products, accepted applications for accounts and required initial
deposits, and delivered the paperwork to Advancial branch
locations for processing. Business Relations Officers engaged
primarily in promotion of an employer's financial products are
not exempt from the overtime pay requirements of the FLSA. The
Plaintiff and similarly situated employees customarily and
regularly worked more than 40 hours in a work week.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher L. Zaunbrecher, Esq.
          413 Travis Street, Suite 200
          Post Office Drawer 51367
          Lafayette, LA 70505-1367
          Telephone: (337) 237 4070
          Facsimile: (337) 233 8719


AETERNA ZENTARIS: "Li" Suit Seeks Certification of Class
--------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled BING LI, Individually and On Behalf of All
others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. AETERNA ZENTARIS,
INC., et al., the Defendants, Case No. 3:14-cv-07081-PGS-TJB
(D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Peter G. Sheridan entered an order:

   1. granting Lead Plaintiffs' motion for class certification
      of;

      "individuals who purchased Aeterna securities from August
      30, 2011 through November 6, 2014, who did not sell their
      securities prior to November 6, 2014";

   2. appointing Lead Plaintiffs Dinh, Khodavandi, and
      Vizirgianakis as Class Representatives;

   3. appointing Rosen law Firm, P.A. and Glancy Prongay & Murray
      LLP as Co-Lead Counsel for the Class; and appointing Byrne,
      Cecchi. Olstein, Brody & Agnello as Liaison Counsel for the
      Class.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=qf711jQi


ALDOUS & ASSOCIATES: "Powell" Suit Brought Before 3rd Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned styled as Fitzroy Powell, on behalf of himself
and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Aldous & Associates,
Defendant, Case No. 18-1461, was brought before the United States
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit on March 6, 2018.

Aldous & Associates focuses on debt collection through voluntary
means and, if necessary, post judgment work.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Joseph K. Jones, Esq.
   375 Passaic Avenue
   Fairfield, NJ 07004
   Tel: 973-227-5900

The Defendant is represented by:

   Aleksander P. Powietrzynski, Esq.
   Winston & Winston
   750 Third Avenue, Suite 978
   New York, NY 10017
   Tel: 212-922-9483


ALLIED INTERNATIONAL: Placeholder Class Certification Bid Stayed
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled MORGAN OTTMANN, the Plaintiff, v. ALLIED
INTERNATIONAL CREDIT CORP (US), Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-
00136-WED (E.D. Wisc.), the Hon. Judge William E. Duffin entered
an order grating plaintiff's motion to stay further proceedings
for class certification.

Judge Duffin held that the parties are relieved from the
automatic briefing schedule set forth in Civil Local Rule 7(b)
and (c). Moreover, for administrative purposes, it is necessary
that the Clerk terminate the plaintiff's motion for class
certification. However, the class certification motion will be
regarded as pending to serve its protective purpose under
Damasco.

In Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891, 896 (7th Cir. 2011),
the court suggested that class-action plaintiffs "move to certify
the class at the same time that they file their complaint." Id.
"The pendency of that motion protects a putative class from
attempts to buy off the named plaintiffs." Id. However, because
parties are generally unprepared to proceed with a motion for
class certification at the beginning of a case, the Damasco court
suggested that the parties "ask the district court to delay its
ruling to provide time for additional discovery or
investigation."

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=6UQX3UpK


AMBASSADOR COLLEGE: Faces "Murray" Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ambassador College
Bookstores Inc. The case is styled as Ava Dawn Murray,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly-situated,
Plaintiff v. Ambassador College Bookstores Inc., Defendant, Case
No. 2:18-cv-01388 (E.D. N.Y., March 6, 2018).

Ambassador College Bookstores, Inc. provides book fulfillment and
management services to schools and colleges. Its services include
management and operation of brick and mortar bookstores, virtual
bookstores, and auto fill services.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


AMERICAN MEDICAL: Caldera Seeks to Notify Class Members
-------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled ARMANDO CALDERA, Individually and On Behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN
MEDICAL COLLECTION AGENCY, a.k.a. RETRIEVAL-MASTERS CREDITORS
BUREAU, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-00381-CBM-AJW (C.D.
Cal.), the Plaintiff will move the Court on March 27, 2018, for
an Order approving Notice of Certification to Class and Notice
Plan.

A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=it8zWjOj

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
          Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
          Thomas E. Wheeler, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
          21550 Oxnard St, Suite 780
          Woodland Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone: (877) 206 4741
          Facsimile: (866) 633 0228
          E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
                  abacon@toddflaw.com
                  twheeler@toddflaw.com


ASCENT MORTGAGE: Roberts Sues over Unsolicited Text Messages
------------------------------------------------------------
PATRICK ROBERTS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. ASCENT MORTGAGE RESOURCE GROUP LLC
and CHRISTOPHER DANIEL ROBINSON, the Defendants, Case No. 2:18-
cv-00413-MCE-CKD (E.D. Cal., Feb. 23, 2018), seeks damages and
injunctive relief for himself and all other similarly situated.

The Plaintiff brings this action against Defendants to stop their
practice of sending unsolicited text messages to consumers. In
particular, Defendants text consumers' cellular telephones using
an automatic telephone dialing system in order to deliver
telemarketing messages without their prior express written
consent in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

According to the complaint, Defendants engaged in
telemarketing/advertising, directly and/or through its authorized
agents acting on Defendants' behalf, by text messaging cellular
telephone numbers throughout California and the greater United
States after October 16, 2013, using both an automatic telephone
dialing system to deliver a message or short message service
without the prior unambiguous written express consent of the
called party.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
          Scott A. Bursor, 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
                  scott@bursor.com


ATLAS VAN: 7th Cir. Affirms Summary Judgment in "Mervyn" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, THOMAS MERVYN, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ATLAS VAN LINES,
INCORPORATED, et al., Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 17-2036 (7th
Cir.), Judge William Joseph Bauer of the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Seventh Circuit affirmed district court's grant of
summary judgment in favor of Atlas and Ace World Wide Moving,
Inc.

Atlas, an authorized interstate transporter of household goods,
contracts with agents to perform its shipments.  One of its many
agents, Ace, leases trucks and driving services from owner-
operators.  In 2009, owner-operator Mervyn entered into a lease
agreement with Ace to haul shipments for Atlas.

Mervyn brought a purported class action lawsuit in the Northern
District of Illinois against Atlas and Ace on May 14, 2013.  He
alleged state law breach of contract, claiming that he was not
fully compensated according to the plain terms of the lease; as
well as violations of the Truth-In-Leasing regulations under 49
C.F.R. Section 376.12(d), claiming that his compensation for the
linehaul and fuel surcharge were not "clearly stated" in the
lease.  The case was assigned to Judge Ronald J. Guzman.

Mervyn had brought a purported class action suit in 2011 raising
virtually identical claims against Atlas and another one of its
agents.  That case was filed in the Northern District of Illinois
and assigned to Judge Gary Feinerman.

Mervyn advances two claims that are necessarily inconsistent:
that he was not paid according to the plain terms of the lease;
and that the lease violated the Truth-In-Leasing regulations
because the terms were not "clearly stated."  According to
Mervyn, he was not paid according to the lease because Atlas' and
Ace's application of the EBLD reduced his compensation for the
linehaul charge.  Under this theory, he should have been paid 58%
of what was billed to the customer, not 58% of that amount after
applying the effective bottom line discount ("EBLD").  For the
fuel surcharge, Mervyn argues that he was owed 100% of the tariff
rate, not 100% of what the customer ultimately paid.

Before a class was certified, Judge Feinerman granted a motion
for summary judgment in favor of the Defendants on March 31,
2016.

Shortly after Judge Feinerman issued his opinion, Judge Guzman
suspended briefing on class certification and ordered briefing on
Atlas and Ace's motion for summary judgment.  On April 20, 2017,
Judge Guzman granted summary judgment in favor of Atlas and Ace.

The district court held that Mervyn's failure to comply with
Paragraph 11(f) barred the breach of contract claims.  Because
the financial entries are presumed correct if not disputed within
30 days according to the lease, Mervyn could not challenge their
accuracy.  Moreover, the court found that even if Paragraph 11(f)
did not bar Mervyn's breach of contract claims, they still would
fail because Mervyn was paid according to the terms of the lease
agreement.  The court also ruled that the claims under the Truth-
In-Leasing regulations failed since they were based on the breach
of contract claims.  Mervyn appeals.

Judge Bauer finds that regardless of whether Paragraph 11(f) bars
Mervyn's breach of contract claims, the claims fail on the merits
because Mervyn was compensated according to the plain and
ordinary terms of the lease.  As for Mervyn's argument that he
was not fully compensated for the linehaul charge, he finds that
the lease specifically states that Linehaul and accessorial
service charges will be determined by applying the EBLD.
Application of the EBLD was explicitly contemplated in the lease,
and Ace paid him accordingly: 58% of what was billed to the
customer after applying the EBLD.  The Judge says Mervyn cannot
simply point to "Linehaul 58%" in Schedule B-1 and ignore the
plain language directly above it stating that the EBLD,
determined by Atlas' rules, would be applied to the linehaul
charge.  It is undisputed that Mervyn was paid 100% of the fuel
surcharge that the customer paid to Atlas, and in turn, to Ace.

Mervyn argues that he was entitled to 100% of the tariff rate,
which was not charged to the customer.  But the Judge finds that
there is nothing in the lease, or in Schedule B-1, that would
allow for such an interpretation.  The plain language of Schedule
B-1 only states, as it relates to fuel surcharge, "Fuel Surcharge
100%."  That is precisely what Mervyn received: 100% of what the
customer paid for the fuel surcharge.

Finally, the Judge finds that the district court did not err in
granting summary judgment to Atlas and Ace on Mervyn's claims
under the Truth-In-Leasing regulations.  Mervyn's arguments in
the district court and on appeal for these claims were
necessarily premised on a breach of the lease.  Since he
concludes that Mervyn's breach of contract claims fail and that
he was paid according to the plain terms of the lease, his claims
under the Truth-In-Leasing regulations also fail.

For these reasons, Judge Bauer affirmed the district court's
grant of summary judgment in favor of Atlas and Ace.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 14, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/JLc3N8 from Leagle.com.

Joel D. Bertocchi -- jbertocchi@hinshawlaw.com -- for Defendant-
Appellee.

Marvin A. Miller -- mmiller@millerlawllc.com -- for Plaintiff-
Appellant.

David H. Levitt -- dlevitt@hinshawlaw.com -- for Defendant-
Appellee.

Thomas Joseph Wiegand -- twiegand@mololamken.com -- for
Defendant-Appellee.

Edward D. McNamara, Jr., for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Andrew Szot -- aszot@millerlawllc.com -- for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Justin Weiner -- jweiner@mololamken.com -- for Defendant-
Appellee.

Sarah Justine Newman -- snewman@mololamken.com -- for Defendant-
Appellee.

Kevin Peter Roddy -- kroddy@wilentz.com -- for Plaintiff-
Appellant.

Michael G. Pattillo, Jr. -- mpattillo@mololamken.com -- for
Defendant-Appellee.


BAREBURGER INC: Faces "Fischler" Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bareburger, Inc.
The case is styled as Brian Fischler, individually and on behalf
of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Bareburger,
Inc. and Bareburger Group LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-01411
(E.D. N.Y., March 6, 2018).

Bareburger, Inc is a privately held company in Port Washington,
NY and is a Single Location business. Categorized under Hamburger
and Hot Dog Stands.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Douglas Brian Lipsky, Esq.
   Lipsky Lowe LLP
   630 Third Avenue
   Fifth Floor
   New York, NY 10017
   Tel: (212) 392-4772
   Fax: (212) 444-1030
   Email: doug@lipskylowe.com


BAYADA HOME: Ivanovs & Hoffman Seek to Notify Class Members
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled SONYA IVANOVS and KATIE HOFFMAN, on behalf
of themselves and all other similarly situated employees, the
Plaintiffs, v. BAYADA HOME HEALTH CARE, INC., the Defendant, Case
No. 1:17-cv-01742-NLH-AMD (D.N.J.), the Plaintiffs will move the
Court, on a date and time to be determined by the Court, for an
order permitting the issuance of notice pursuant to Section 16(b)
of the Fair Labor Standards Act and requiring Defendant to
produce an electronic list of potential Opt-Ins for each sub-
class, along with their contact information.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=yItC5sjS

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Palitz, Esq.
          SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A
          830 3rd Avenue, 5th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (800) 616 4000
          Facsimile: (561) 447 8831

               - and -

          Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq.
          Alan L. Quiles, Esq.
          SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A
          1515 South Federal Highway, Suite 404
          Boca Raton, FL 33432
          Telephone: (561) 447 8888
          Facsimile: (561) 447 8831
          E-mail: gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com
                  aquiles@shavitzlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Michael Homans, Esq.
          HOMANS PECK, LLC
          1835 Market Street, Suite 1050
          Philadelphia, PA 19103


BAYER CORP: Court Narrows Claims in "Jordan" Suit
-------------------------------------------------
In the case, LAVETA JORDAN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. BAYER
CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, Case No. 4:17-cv-00865-AGF (E.D.
Mo.), Judge Audrey F. Fleissig of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division, (i) denied the
Plaintiffs' motion to remand, (ii) granted in part and denied in
part Bayer's motion to dismiss, (iii) denied the Plaintiffs'
motion to stay, and (iv) denied as moot Bayer's motion to sever
and motion for oral argument.

The products liability action has a long and complex procedural
history.  It was originally filed in the City of St. Louis,
Missouri, by 94 Plaintiffs from 27 different states, including
seven Plaintiffs who are citizens of Missouri, against Bayer,
alleging that Bayer's product, Essure, caused them harm.

Bayer Corp. is a citizen of New Jersey and Indiana; Bayer
Healthcare, LLC, is a citizen of Delaware, Pennsylvania, New
Jersey, Germany, and the Netherlands; Bayer Essure, Inc. and
Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., are citizens of Delaware
and New Jersey; and Bayer A.G. is a German corporation.  Bayer
removed the case to the Court on March 9, 2017, on the basis of
diversity jurisdiction and federal question jurisdiction.

The Court previously issued a Memorandum and Order granting
Bayer's motion to dismiss as to the claims of all the non-
Missouri Plaintiffs for lack of personal jurisdiction.  Most
recently, the Court granted the Plaintiffs' motion to amend their
complaint to include the non-Missouri Plaintiffs and add
allegations that they believed would allow the Court to exercise
personal jurisdiction over the non-Missouri Plaintiffs' claims
against Bayer.

Specifically, the amended complaint added allegations that Bayer
used St. Louis as a center to develop, create a marketing
strategy for, label, or work on the regulatory approval of
Essure; that several premarket clinical studies for Essure's pre-
market approval occurred in Missouri hospitals; and that St.
Louis was key to Bayer's national marketing plan.

The Plaintiffs then filed a motion to remand, arguing that the
Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the action because
there is no complete diversity of citizenship, the Class Action
Fairness Act does not provide the Court with jurisdiction, and
the Court does not have federal question jurisdiction.  Bayer
argues in response that the Court should first evaluate personal
jurisdiction as to the non-Missouri Plaintiffs and dismiss their
claims for lack of personal jurisdiction.  Bayer filed a motion
to dismiss, advancing similar arguments regarding personal
jurisdiction and arguing that all of the Plaintiffs' claims are
preempted.

Rather than responding to the motion to dismiss, the Plaintiffs
moved to stay proceedings pending the Court's ruling on their
motion to remand.  In the event that their motion to stay is not
granted, the Plaintiffs ask the Court to grant limited
jurisdictional discovery.  Lastly, in the event the motion to
stay is not granted, the Plaintiffs also seek an extension of
time for them to respond to the motion to dismiss.  Recently,
Bayer filed a motion to sever the claims of the non-Missouri
Plaintiffs and a motion for oral argument on Bayer's motion to
dismiss and motion to remand.

Judge Fleissig finds that the Plaintiffs have failed adequately
to explain why disposition of Bayer's motion to dismiss on
jurisdictional grounds should be delayed while their motion to
remand is pending, particularly in light of the fact that the
arguments as to personal jurisdiction in both motions overlap
significantly.  Moreover, he finds that the Plaintiffs fail to
make out a clear case of hardship or inequity.

Therefore, the Judge will deny the motion to stay.  He will also
deny the Plaintiffs' request to conduct jurisdictional discovery
because the facts sought to be discovered by the Plaintiffs would
not result in the Court being able to exercise personal
jurisdiction over the non-Missouri Plaintiffs' claims.  Lastly,
he will deny the Plaintiffs' request for an extension of time to
respond to the motion to dismiss as it relates to Bayer's motion
to dismiss the non-Missouri Plaintiffs for lack of personal
jurisdiction.  Moreover, the issue has been exhaustively briefed
by both parties.

The Judge also finds that the non-Missouri Plaintiffs do not
allege that they saw Essure advertising in Missouri or that they
participated in the clinical trials taking place in Missouri.
That Missouri happened to be Essure's first marketed area has no
bearing on the non-Missouri Plaintiffs' claims where those
Plaintiffs did not see marketing in Missouri, were not prescribed
Essure in Missouri, did not purchase Essure in Missouri, and were
not injured by Essure in Missouri.  Indeed, the Judge says, these
allegations are simply too attenuated to serve as a basis for
specific personal jurisdiction over Bayer.  Therefore, he will
grant Bayer's motion to dismiss the non-Missouri Plaintiffs from
the action.

However, Bayer also argues in support of its motion to dismiss
that the entire complaint should be dismissed because the claims
are preempted by federal law, the Plaintiffs fail to plead facts
to show causation or reliance, and Plaintiffs failed to plead
fraud with sufficient particularity.  The Judge granted the
Plaintiffs leave to address the merits of these additional
arguments before the Court fully adjudicates the motion to
dismiss.

Because the Judge is granting dismissal of the non-Missouri
Plaintiffs' claims for lack of personal jurisdiction, the
remaining Plaintiffs and the Defendants are diverse from one
another and the Court has subject matter jurisdiction.  As such,
Judge Feissig will deny the Plaintiffs' motion to remand.

Finally, in light of his ruling on Bayer's motion to dismiss and
the Plaintiffs' motion to remand, the Judge will deny as moot
Bayer's motion to sever and motion for oral argument.

Accordingly, Judge Fleissig denied the Plaintiffs' motion to
stay.  He granted in part Bayer's motion to dismiss with respect
to personal jurisdiction.  The claims of the non-Missouri
Plaintiffs, except Plaintiff Dischbein, are dismissed for lack of
personal jurisdiction.  He held in abeyance Bayer's motion to
dismiss to the extent it raises grounds other than personal
jurisdiction.

The Judge also denied the Plaintiffs' motion to remand and denied
as moot Bayer's motion to sever and motion for oral argument.  He
granted Bayer's motion for leave to file redacted copies of
Exhibits B, C, D, and E to Bayer's Opposition to the Plaintiffs'
motion for reconsideration.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 13, 2018 Memorandum and
Order is available at https://is.gd/DK1I2u from Leagle.com.

Laveta Jordan, Jennifer Baggett, Cheryl Denbow, Jennifer
Dischbein, Tiffany Queen, Erica Ware, Michelle Weedman & Lavena
Wilkerson, Plaintiffs, represented by Eric D. Holland --
eholland@allfela.com -- HOLLAND LAW FIRM LLC, Gregory J. Bubalo,
BUBALO GOODE PLC, Katherine Ann Dunnington, BUBALO GOODE PLC &
Randall S. Crompton -- scrompton@allfela.com -- HOLLAND LAW FIRM
LLC.

Bayer Corp., Bayer Healthcare LLC, Bayer Essure, Inc., formerly
known as Conceptus, Inc. & Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals,
Inc., Defendants, represented by Christopher Artley Eiswerth --
CEISWERTH@SIDLEY.COM -- SIDLEY AUSTIN, LLP, Gerard T. Noce --
gnoce@heplerbroom.com -- HEPLER BROOM & W. Jason Rankin --
jrankin@heplerbroom.com -- HEPLER BROOM.


BELLICUM PHARMA: "Kakkar" Suit Seeks Damages Under Exchange Act
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nipun Kakkar, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Bellicum Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Richard A. Fair, and
Alan A. Musso, Case No. 4:18-cv-00338 (S.D. Tex., February 6,
2018), seeks to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations
of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Plaintiff Nipun Kakkar acquired Bellicum securities at
artificially inflated prices during the Class Period and was
damaged upon the revelation of alleged corrective disclosures,
says the complaint.

Bellicum operates as a clinical stage biopharmaceutical company.
The Company focuses on discovering and developing novel cellular
immunotherapies for various forms of cancer. Bellicum
Pharmaceuticals operates in the United States.

Defendant Richard A. Fair has served as the Company's Chief
Executive Officer, President and Director since January 2017.

Defendant Alan A. Musso has served as the Company's Chief
Financial Officer and Treasurer since November 2014. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Willie C. Briscoe, Esq.
      The Briscoe Law Firm, PLLC
      3131 McKinney Avenue, Suite 600
      Dallas, TX 75204
      Tel: (214) 643-6011
      Fax: (281) 254-7789
      E-mail: wbriscoe@thebriscoelawfirm.com

          - and -

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


BENTON, AR: Court Dismisses "Lewis" Appeal
------------------------------------------
In the case, R. DAVID LEWIS, AL STUKENBORG, AND PHILLIP WISE,
Appellants, v. CITY OF BENTON, Appellee, Case No. CV-17-695 (Ark.
App.), Judge Phillip T. Whiteaker of the Court of Appeals of
Arkansas, Division IV, dismissed without prejudice the
Appellants' appeal on the trial court's order adjudicating only
three claims, and denying their request for quiet title and for
an injunction.

The Plaintiffs sued the City of Benton over a land dispute and an
ordinance governing property under and around Lake Norrell in
Saline County, Arkansas.  They sued initially seeking a temporary
and permanent injunction enjoining the City from enforcement of
an ordinance and an order quieting title to land in the
landowners based on three theories: (1) that the City lacked the
authority to legislate matters concerning Lake Norrell, which is
located outside its jurisdictional corporate limits; (2) that the
1952 deeds transferring the title to the land under Lake Norrell
to the City were void for vagueness and title should revert to
the landowners surrounding the lake, and (3) that the ordinance
regulating water quality in Lake Norrell exceeded the police
power of the City. To these claims, the City generally denied the
allegations and responded that it owned Lake Norrell.

The Plaintiffs filed amended complaints reasserting some of the
same allegations as the original complaint but changing or
dropping others.  The amended complaints did not incorporate by
reference any of the previous complaints filed by the parties.
The Plaintiffs' second amended complaint did add an averment that
the City's permitting fees amounted to taxation without
representation.  For the most part, however, the amended
complaints added new claims that pertained only to Lewis.
Specifically, Lewis claimed that he was the rightful owner of the
land below Lake Norrell pursuant to a 2013 quitclaim deed from
one of the City's predecessor in interests -- a corporation
previously dissolved in 1975 but reincorporated by Lewis in 2013.
As a result, he requested payment of a reasonable fee from the
City to Lewis for its taking and selling of his water in Lake
Norrell.

Ultimately, the court entered an order adjudicating only three
claims: (i) that the 1952 deeds transferring title of the
disputed property to the City of Benton were not void for
vagueness; (iii) that separate Plaintiff, R. David Lewis, did not
acquire title to the disputed property through the 2013 deed from
the City's purported predecessor in title; and (3) that the
City's ordinance regulating Lake Norrell was proper.  The court
denied the Plaintiffs' request for quiet title and for an
injunction.  The appeal followed.

Judge Whiteaker finds that the progress of the case with respect
to the claims and parties involved is less than clear.  What is
clear from the record, however, is that it fails to reflect that
Bartlett's interest in the litigation has been formally resolved
by the trial court.  Absent certification under Rule 54(b), any
judgment that adjudicates fewer than all the claims or the rights
and liabilities of fewer than all the parties will not terminate
the action.  No such certification was made in the case.  Because
the Appellants are appealing from an order that is not final and
there is no Rule 54(b) certification, the Judge dismissed without
prejudice their appeal.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 14, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/JSmcEh from Leagle.com.

R. David Lewis, for appellants.

Jensen Young & Houston, PLLC by: Brent Houston -- bhouston@bbc-
legal.com -- for appellee.


BLUESTONE COAL: Court Granted Class Certification
-------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled G. TREADWAY, et al., the Plaintiffs, v.
BLUESTONE COAL CORP., et al., the Defendants, Case No. 5:16-cv-
12149 (S.D. W.Va.), the Hon. Judge Irene Berger entered an order:

   1. granting the motion to certify class of:

      "all persons who were terminated from full-time employment,
      or were subject to a reduction in force as full-time
      employees, at the Burke Mountain Strip Mine by the
      Bluestone Coal Corporation, Bluestone Industries, Inc., or
      Mechel Bluestone, Inc., from December 27, 2011 through
      March 26, 2012";

   2. appointing Plaintiffs Frank G. Treadway, Joey Clark
      Hatfield, and Charles W. Hensley as Class Representatives;

   3. appointing jointly as Class counsel: Bren L. Pomponio and
      Samuel B. Petsonk of Mountain State Justice, Inc.

   4. permitting discovery as to possible modification of the
      class definition as well as to the merits of the case, and
      will entertain future motions for modification of the class
      definition.

   6. directing Plaintiff to submit to the Court a proposed Class
      notice document after conferring with opposing counsel; and

   7. directing Clerk to send a copy of this Order to counsel of
      record and to any unrepresented party.

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


BRIGHT LAUNDRY: Faces "Baten" Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bright Laundry Land
Corp. The case is styled as Estela Baten and Reyna Baten,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. Bright Laundry Land Corp. doing business as: Bright
Laundry Land, Michael Myint and Lay Na Myint, Defendants, Case
No. 1:18-cv-02034 (S.D. N.Y., March 6, 2018).

Bright Laundry Land Corp. offers laundry and garments
services.[BN]

The Plaintiffs appear PRO SE.


BROOKDALE SENIOR LIVING: Faces "Bishop" Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Brookdale Senior
Living Communities Inc. The case is styled as Cedric Bishop, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Brookdale Senior Living Communities Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:18-cv-02014 (S.D. N.Y., March 6, 2018).

Brookdale Living Communities, Inc. offers senior independent and
assisted living services to the elderly people through its
facilities.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq.
   Cohen & Mizrahi LLP
   300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
   Brooklyn, NY 11201
   Tel: (917) 299-6612
   Fax: (929) 575-4195
   Email: joseph@cml.legal


CACAFE INC: "Marino" Suit Seeks to Certify Class & Subclass
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled LEONA MARINO on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. CACAFE, INC., JANE
ZHENG, TED CHAO; COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, CLUB DEMONSTRATION
SERVICES, INC., and DOES 1 through 10 inclusive, the Defendants,
Case No. 4:16-cv-06291-YGR (N.D. Cal.), Plaintiff will move the
Court on May 8, 2018, to:

   1. certify a class consisting of:

      "all persons who worked for Defendants in the State of
      California from October 31, 2012 through the final
      disposition of this case as CACafe In-store Demonstrators
      and similar or related positions, during periods when they
      were being paid exclusively on a per-product-sold basis";
      and

   2. certify two California subclasses:

      "(i) All California Class members who are no longer
      employed by Defendants, and have not been employed there
      for at least 72 hours (Waiting Time Subclass); and (ii) all
      California Class members who are currently employed by
      Defendants or were employed by Defendants within the year
      preceding the filing of the initial complaint in this
      action (Penalty Subclass).

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

Attorneys for Plaintiff Leona Marino Individually and all others
similarly situated:

          Bryan Schwartz, Esq.
          Eduard Meleshinsky, Esq.
          BRYAN SCHWARTZ LAW
          1330 Broadway, Suite 1630
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 444 9300
          Facsimile: (510) 444 9301
          E-mail: bryan@bryanschwartzlaw.com
                  eduard@bryanschwartzlaw.com


CB&I GROUP: "Uselton" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------
SAMUEL USELTON AND KURT WESTERMAN, individually and on behalf of
all other similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiff, v. CB&I
GROUP, INC., AND SHAW SERVICES, L.L.C., the Defendant, Case No.
3:18-cv-00177-JWD-EWD (M.D. La., Feb. 23, 2018), seeks to recover
overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs and several putative
members of this collective action class were employed and worked
in this district while being subject to the defendant's unlawful
payroll scheme. The Defendants paid Plaintiffs and the putative
collective action class by the hour for their work. Despite
Defendants' practice of paying Plaintiffs by the hour, Defendants
represented to Plaintiffs that they were compensated on a salary
basis.

The Defendants directed Plaintiffs and the putative collective
action class as to how, when, and where to perform their work.
The Plaintiffs and the collective action members were all
employees of the Defendants during the time period to which this
action pertains. The Defendants have willfully refused to pay
overtime to Plaintiffs and the collective action members they
seek to represent for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per
week.

CBI Group, Inc. is a professional search and recruiting firm
serving the Architectural Engineering Industry since 1983.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          James R. Bullman, Esq.
          Randall E. Estes, Esq.
          Daniel B. Davis, Esq.
          James R. Bullman, Esq.
          ESTES DAVIS LAW, LLC
          850 North Boulevard
          Baton Rouge, LA 70802
          Telephone: (225) 336 3394
          Facsimile: (225) 384 5419
          E-mail: james@estesdavislaw.com


CITIZENS BANK: Court Denies Class Certification Bid in "Fawcett"
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled Barbara Fawcett, Individually and on behalf
of all Others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. CITIZENS
BANK, N.A., the Defendant, Case No. 4:17-cv-11043-TSH (D. Mass.),
the Hon. Judge Timothy S. Hillman denied Plaintiff's motion for
class certification and to hold motion in abeyance pending class
discovery, without prejudice.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=ZQnXEJ9E


CLEAN CITY: "Lawson" Suit Alleges FLSA Violations
-------------------------------------------------
Charity Lawson, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Clean City, Ltd. dba Peaches of Atlanta,
and Cornelius L. Stephens, Case No. 1:18-cv-00579 (N.D. Ga.,
February 6, 2018), is brought against the Defendants for wage
violations under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff Charity Lawson worked as entertainer/dancer for the
Defendants starting June 2014.

Defendant Clean City, Ltd. dba Peaches of Atlanta operates an
adult entertainment club in Georgia.

Defendant, Cornelius L. Stephens, is the President and Manager of
Peaches of Atlanta. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Carlos V. Leach, Esq.
      The Leach Firm, P.A.
      1950 Lee Road, Suite 213
      Winter Park, FL 32789
      Tel: (407) 574-4999
      Fax: (833) 423-5864
      E-mail: cleach@theleachfirm.com


COLUMBIA GAS: Wins Partial Summary Judgment in "Baatz"
------------------------------------------------------
In the case, RICHARD BAATZ, et. al., Plaintiffs, v. COLUMBIA GAS
TRANSMISSION, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:14-cv-505 (N.D. Ohio),
Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Parker of the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, granted in part
and deferred in part Columbia's motion for summary judgment, and
denied the Landowners' motion for partial summary judgment.

The Plaintiffs in the action are the owners of residential lots
in Medina County, Ohio.  The Defendant is a wholesale producer
and distributor of natural gas which established a 10,000 acre
underground natural gas storage facility in the Clinton sandstone
formation in Medina County.

Columbia was authorized -- and required -- to construct and
operate the Medina Storage Field by the former Federal Power
Commission in 1958, and it has stored natural gas in that
facility since 1959.  Federal law authorizes natural gas facility
operators to take property by eminent domain to accomplish the
purposes set forth in certificates of public convenience and
necessity under the Natural Gas Act.  Despite receiving a
certificate in 1958 and operating the Medina Storage Field since
1959, Columbia did not seek to acquire underground gas storage
easements under the Landowners' properties until 2014.

The Landowners instituted the action on March 5, 2014.  They
asserted claims similar to those alleged in an earlier-filed
putative class action case in the Southern District of Ohio,
Wilson et al v. Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC.  None of the
Plaintiffs in the case was an original party in Wilson; but
Columbia is the Defendant in both cases.

The Landowners sued for trespass and unjust enrichment damages.
The Landowners premise their trespass and unjust enrichment
claims on the contention that Columbia had no right to store
natural gas beneath their properties prior to the acquisition of
property rights by eminent domain.

In Count One, the Landowners claim that Columbia maliciously
trespassed and should be liable for nominal, compensatory, and
punitive damages and for attorney fees.  Count Two asserts that
Columbia has been unjustly enriched by being able to store
natural gas beneath their properties without cost since 1959.
The Landowners claim Columbia should be required to disgorge what
it would have paid for such gas storage, or the net profit it
earned from storing natural gas beneath their properties.  They
also impliedly claim Columbia was unjustly enriched by retaining
the money it would have paid as just compensation for its taking
of their properties.

Columbia has moved for summary judgment on the Landowners claims.
The Landowners have also moved for partial summary judgment,
seeking a liability determination that Columbia has trespassed on
each of the Landowners' properties since 1959 and a declaration
that the trespass was malicious.

Magistrate Judge Parker finds that because the Landowners have no
evidence that Columbia's conduct has caused actual damage to
Landowners' properties or has in any way interfered with
Landowners' use or anticipated use of their properties, and
because Columbia's construction and operation of the Medina
Storage Field was mandated by federal agency action, Columbia
cannot be liable to the Landowners for trespass.

In addition, because Landowners will receive just compensation
for Columbia's taking in a companion action, Columbia's only
potential liability on an unjust enrichment claim is for interest
on the just compensation amount it is required to pay.

For these reasons, the Magistrate Judge granted Columbia's motion
for summary judgment on Count One of the Plaintiffs' second
amended complaint.  He denied the Landowners' motion for partial
summary judgment on Count One of their complaint and on their
request for a determination that Columbia's trespass was
malicious.

Magistrate Judge Parker directed that the parties:

     a. will submit an agreed calculation of the amount of
prejudgment interest that would be due on the just compensation
amounts determined by the Booth Commission from May 5, 2008
through the date of payment of the just compensation amounts;

     b. will file a joint listing of the Plaintiffs in the action
who own properties located above the Certificated Medina Storage
Field established by the 1987 Certificate.  Said filing will also
separately list those Plaintiffs who do not own property above
the Medina Storage Field; and

     c. will file either a joint position statement or separate
position statements on whether the interest amount agreed to as
required will be added to the judgment to be entered in Booth or
will be awarded as damages on the Plaintiffs' Count Two unjust
enrichment claim in the action.  Should the latter approach be
taken, the Court will enter summary judgment on the unjust
enrichment claim in favor of those Plaintiffs identified in the
list submitted who own land above the Medina Storage Field.

The Magistrate Judge deferred ruling on Columbia's motion for
summary judgment on the Count Two unjust enrichment claim until
the foregoing requirements are accomplished.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 14, 2018 Amended Memorandum
of Opinion and Order is available at https://is.gd/3ani04 from
Leagle.com.

Richard Baatz, Laurie Baatz, Ramsey Atlasy, Kimberly Atlasy,
Richard Reuss, Karen Shrimpton, Jesse Saksa, Melissa Saksa, Susan
M Lee, Richard Sunderman, Alfredo Cipro, Tina Cipro, John Racco,
Laurie Racco, Robert Newman, Anna Newman, Joseph Kostohryz, Lisa
Kostohryz, John Schaller, Kelly Schaller, Gregory Roten, Stacey
Roten, Kevin Swantek, Wendy Swantek, Bradley Klingbeil, Brooke
Klingbeil, Arliss Eierdam, Paul Eierdam, William Cogar, Kathrine
Cogar, George Rogers, Ellen Rogers, Nancy Louise Swartz, Trustee,
Erik Booth, State ex rel, Brianne S. Booth, State ex rel, Jeff R.
Sanderson, State ex rel, Rosemary R Sanderson, State ex rel,
Michelle E. Key (Doran), State ex rel, Nicholas Doran, State ex
rel, Patricia Kell, State ex rel, Donald Kell, State ex rel,
April Smith, State ex rel, Matthew Smith, State ex rel, John
Stricker, State ex rel, Kathleen Stricker, State ex rel, Kathryn
Zandarski-Bacho, State ex rel, Yang Zhang, State ex rel, Johnny
McNutt, State ex rel, Anna McNutt, State ex rel, Dustin Holtz,
State ex rel & Peggy Holtz, State ex rel, Plaintiffs, represented
by Ricky L. Ferrara & Daniel F. Lindner --
daniel@justuslawyers.com.

Columbia Gas Transmission LLC, Defendant, represented by Branden
P. Moore -- bmoore@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuire Woods, Jodie
Herrmann Lawson -- jlawson@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuire Woods,
Michael L. Snyder -- msnyder@beneschlaw.com -- Benesch,
Friedlander, Coplan & Aronoff, Paul K. Stockman --
pstockman@mcguirewoods.com -- Kazmarek Mowrey Cloud Laseter,
Yvette G. Harmon -- yharmon@mcguirewoodsemeritus.com -- McGuire
Woods, Alexander M. Madrid -- amadrid@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuire
Woods & Leonard J. Marsico -- lmarsico@mcguirewoods.com --
McGuire Woods.

David Rosenblum Cohen, Master Commissioner, pro se.

Darius W. Dynkowski, Master Commissioner, pro se.

Clifford C. Masch, Master Commissioner, pro se.

Emily L. Braman, Master Commissioner, pro se.

Gregory M. Travalio, Master Commissioner, pro se.


CONSOLIDATED WORLD: "Bakov" Class Certification Bid Denied
----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled Angel Bakov, et al., the Plaintiffs, v.
Consolidated World Travel, et al., the Defendants, Case No. 1:15-
cv-02980 (N.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Harry D. Leinenweber entered
an order denying without prejudice as premature Plaintiffs'
Motion for Class Certification and Plaintiffs' Motion to Continue
the Motion for Class Certification.

According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on March 1, 2018,
Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification and Plaintiffs' Motion
to Continue the Motion for Class Certification are denied without
prejudice as premature, given that the Seventh Circuit overruled
Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891, 895 (7th Cir. 2011),
in Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir.
2015).

A copy of the Docket Entry is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=VIw2j5aq


COOK COUNTY, IL: "Vargas" Suit Seeks to Certify Sheriff Class
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled JOSE VARGAS, JOEL MIRELES, and JUAN LICEA,
the PLAINTIFFS, v. COOK COUNTY SHERIFF'S MERIT BOARD, THOMAS DART
ET AL., the DEFENDANTS, Case No. 1:18-cv-01598 (N.D. Ill.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to certify a class of:

   "all Cook County Sheriff's Department officers with
   disciplinary actions before the illegally-constituted Cook
   County Sheriff's Merit Board, on or before December 12, 2017."

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Arthur S. Gold, Esq.
          GOLD & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
          55 W Monroe Street, Suite 2300
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 372 0777
          Facsimile: (312) 372 0778
          E-mail: asg@gcjustice.com

               - and -

          Christopher Cooper, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF CHRISTOPHER COOPER, INC.
          79 West Monroe Street, Suite 1213
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 473 2968
          Facsimile: (219) 228 4396
          E-mail: cooperlaw3234@gmail.com

               - and -

          Cass T. Casper, Esq.
          TALON LAW, LLC
          1153 West Lunt Avenue, Suite 253,
          Chicago, IL 60626
          Telephone: (312) 351 2478
          Facsimile: (312) 276 4930
          E-mail: ctc@talonlaw.com


CORNING INCORPORATED: Woods-Early Sues over Race Discrimination
---------------------------------------------------------------
YULONDA WOODS-EARLY, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. CORNING INCORPORATED, the Defendant,
Case No. 6:18-cv-06162 (W.D.N.Y., Feb. 23, 2018), seeks to
recover compensatory damages caused by Defendant's unlawful
retaliatory conduct in violation of the New York State Human
Rights Law.

Corning, a multinational technology company specializing in
designing and manufacturing materials for industrial and
scientific applications, claims on its website that one of
its priorities "is to expand leadership opportunities for
Corning's diverse emerging talent." Unfortunately, the Company's
public messaging regarding diversity efforts could not be further
from the experiences of the Black and female professionals upon
whom Corning relies to design and engineer its products, as well
as to conduct market research and strategy.

Contrary to the narrative offered on the Company's website,
Corning has not only failed to provide the same opportunity for
advancement to Black and female professionals but has perpetuated
this systemic discrimination throughout the Company, even in the
face of numerous complaints and data highlighting this widespread
issue.

Specifically, Corning has a practice of placing Black
professionals in nontraditional roles that start at lower
salaries than similar, traditional roles for which Black
professionals are qualified. These Black professionals not only
start at lower salaries, but they struggle to advance to higher-
paying positions because the non-traditional roles in which they
are placed offer no steady stream of work assignments or track
for promotion to a senior role. Most critically, Corning
maintains company-wide common policy and practice of consistently
rounding down the performance review scores of Black and female
professionals, while rounding up the performance review scores of
their non-Black and male comparators.

As such, regardless of whether they work in traditional or non-
traditional roles, Black and female professionals are
disproportionately given lower performance review scores -- or no
performance review scores at all -- again ensuring that they are
taken out of the track for promotions and raises in compensation.
Indeed, Corning systematically pays Black and female
professionals less than their non-Black and male peers, despite
the fact that they perform equal work, under similar working
conditions, on jobs requiring equal skill, effort, and
responsibility.

Dr. Woods-Early, a Black woman, and others at Corning have
presented the Company with hard data showing the effect of its
discriminatory practices, but Corning has brushed these findings
under the rug rather than addressing the problem. Having had her
efforts to effect broader change at the Company stymied, in 2014,
Dr. Woods-Early complained several times about the Company's
discriminatory performance review, promotion, and compensation
practices, as they had been applied specifically to her.

As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's unlawful
discriminatory conduct in violation of the NYSHRL, Plaintiff has
suffered, and continues to suffer, monetary and/or economic harm,
including, inter alia, loss of future income, compensation, and
benefits for which she is entitled to an award of damages.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff, the Proposed EPA Collective, and the
Proposed Classes:

          Innessa Melamed Huot, Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
          685 Third Avenue, 26th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 983 9330
          Facsimile: (212) 983 9331
          E-mail: ihuot@faruqilaw.com


CREDIT COLLECTION: "Schneider" Placeholder Class Cert. Bid Okayed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled MARY SCHNEIDER, the Plaintiff, v. CREDIT
COLLECTION SERVICES, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-01736-
WED (E.D. Wisc.), the Hon. Judge William E. Duffin entered an
order granting plaintiff's motion to stay further proceedings for
class certification.

The Court said, "The parties are relieved from the automatic
briefing schedule set forth in Civil Local Rule 7(b) and (c).
Moreover, for administrative purposes, it is necessary that the
Clerk terminate the plaintiff's motion for class certification.
However, this motion will be regarded as pending to serve its
protective purpose under Damasco."

In Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891, 896 (7th Cir. 2011),
the court suggested that class-action plaintiffs "move to certify
the class at the same time that they file their complaint." Id.
"The pendency of that motion protects a putative class from
attempts to buy off the named plaintiffs." Id. However, because
parties are generally unprepared to proceed with a motion for
class certification at the beginning of a case, the Damasco court
suggested that the parties "ask the district court to delay its
ruling to provide time for additional discovery or
investigation."

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=2V3jYTg5


CSO FINANCIAL: Settlement in "Bowen" Suit Has Prelim Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DUANE BOWEN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CSO FINANCIAL,
INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. C17-0677-JCC (W.D. Wash.),
Judge John C. Coughenour of the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Washington, Seattle, granted the Plaintiffs'
unopposed motion for an order preliminarily approving the
settlement of the action and the parties' settlement agreement.

Judge Coughenour finds that the Agreement (i) resulted from
extensive arm's-length negotiations, with participation of an
experienced mediator; and (ii) is sufficient to warrant notice
thereof to members of the Plaintiff Class and the Final Approval
Hearing.

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(1) and (b)(3),
and for purposes of settlement only, the Judge certified the
Plaintiff Class of all persons who allegedly wrote a dishonored
check for payment in Washington to whom any Defendant attempted
to collect that dishonored check between Feb. 9, 2013 and Sept.
1, 2015 and/or Feb. 9, 2016 and Sept. 27, 2016.

He also certified the CPA Sub-Class of all persons in the
Plaintiff Class who meet both of the following criteria: (i) The
Class Member's Account was assigned on or before Sept. 1, 2015;
and (2) on or after Feb. 9, 2013, any Defendant attempted to
collect the Account.

He also certified the FDCPA Sub-Class of all persons in the
Plaintiff Class who meet both of the following criteria: (i) The
Class Member's Account is based upon a dishonored check written
primarily for personal, family, or household purposes; and (ii)
between Feb. 9, 2016 and Sept. 27, 2016, any Defendant sent a
notice of dishonor to the Class Member in an attempt to collect
the Account.

The Judge appointed Garden City Group, LLC ("GCG") as the
administrator of the settlement, who will fulfill the functions,
duties, and responsibilities of the administrator as set forth in
the Agreement and the Order.  He approved the proposed forms of
notice and notice plan for giving direct notice to the Plaintiff
Class by U.S. Mail as set forth in the Agreement and its attached
exhibits.

Pursuant to the Agreement, GCG will provide individual notice via
U.S. Mail to the most recent address for each Class Member
reflected in the records produced by Defendant CSO in the Action,
as updated by GCG through the National Change of Address system,
no later than March 16, 2018, which is 30 days following entry of
the Order.  GCG will also set up a Settlement Website.

The Members of the Class may exclude themselves from the
Plaintiff Settlement Class by advising GCG no later than May 15,
2018, which is 60 days after the Notice Deadline.  Any Settlement
Class Member who desires to object to the fairness of the
settlement must file by May 15, 2018, which is 60 days after the
Notice Deadline.

Anyone who properly objects may appear at the Final Approval
Hearing, including through an attorney hired at the objector's
expense.  Such objectors or their attorneys intending to appear
at the Final Approval Hearing must file a notice of appearance
with the Court no later than 10 days prior to the Final Approval
Hearing.  The Class Counsel will file responses to any valid
objections no later than 14 days prior to the Final Approval
Hearing.  The Defendants' counsel also may file responses, but no
later than 14 days prior to the Final Approval Hearing.

The Final Approval Hearing is scheduled for July 10, 2018 at 9:00
a.m.  All memoranda and other submissions in support of the Final
Approval Order and Final Judgment and this settlement will be
filed no later than 14 days prior to the Final Approval Hearing,
including proof of compliance with the notice provisions of the
Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 ("CAFA").  All notice and
settlement administration expenses will be paid separately from
the Settlement Fund pursuant to the Agreement.

On or before 30 days after the Notice Deadline, the Class Counsel
will file and serve an application for an award of attorneys'
fees and out-of-pocket costs, and an application for service
awards to the Representative Plaintiffs.  The application will be
posted on the Settlement Website within 24 hours after the day it
is filed.

On or before 14 days prior to the Final Approval Hearing, the
Class Counsel will file and serve a motion for final approval and
responses to any objections.

The Action is stayed until further ordered by the Court, except
such actions and proceedings that may be necessary to implement
the settlement and Order.

The following timeline will govern proceedings through the Final
Approval Hearing:

    a. Feb. 24, 2018 (10 days after entry of the Order) -
Deadline for GCG to serve CAFA Notice

    b. March 16, 2018 (30 after entry of the Order) - Deadline to
mail notice

    c. March 16, 2018 (30 days after entry of the Order) -
Deadline to make the settlement website available

    d. April 15, 2018 (30 days after Notice Deadline - Deadline
for the Class Counsel to file their motion for attorneys' fees,
costs, and incentive award to the class representative

    e. May 15, 2018 (60 days after Notice Deadline) - Deadline
for the Class Members to submit exclusion requests or objections

    g. June 26, 2018 (14 days before Final Approval Hearing) -
Deadline to file responses to objections and motion for final
approval

    h. July 10, 2018 (At the Court's convenience but no earlier
than 120 days after entry of the order) - Final Approval Hearing

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 14, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/xfgpJc from Leagle.com.

Duane Bowen, on behalf of themselves and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Amanda Maier, on behalf of themselves and on
behalf of others similarly situated, Kathleen Muller, on behalf
of themselves and on behalf of others similarly situated & Luis A
Ortiz, on behalf of themselves and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Beth E. Terrell --
bterrell@terrellmarshall.com -- TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC,
Blythe H. Chandler -- bchandler@terrellmarshall.com -- TERRELL
MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC, Elizabeth Anne Adams --
eadams@terrellmarshall.com -- TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC,
Paul Arons, LAW OFFICE OF PAUL ARONS & Samuel R. Leonard, LEONARD
LAW.

CSO Financial Inc, also known as, Defendant, represented by
Jeffrey I. Hasson, HASSON LAW, LLC.

J. Michael Unfred, doing business as, Defendant, represented by
Keith M. Liguori -- kliguori@davisrothwell.com -- DAVIS ROTHWELL
EARLE & XOCHIHUA, Patrick N. Rothwell --
prothwell@davisrothwell.com -- DAVIS ROTHWELL EARLE & XOCHIHUA &
Suzanne K. Pierce -- spierce@davisrothwell.com -- DAVIS ROTHWELL
EARLE & XOCHIHUA.


D.O.S. PIZZA: Page Sues over Wage and Hour Law Violations
---------------------------------------------------------
LEMUEL AGUST PAGE, an individual, on behalf of herself and others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. D.O.S. PIZZA, INC.; and
DOES 1 thru 50, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC695275
(Cal. Super. Ct., Feb. 23, 2018), seeks to recover compensatory
damages in the amount of Plaintiffs and each Proposed Class
Members' hourly wage for each rest period and/or meal period
missed or taken late from at least four years prior to the filing
of this action to the present as may be prove.

According to the complaint, from at least 4 years prior to the
filing of this action and continuing to the present, Defendant
has had a consistent policy of failing to inform Proposed Class
Members of their right to take meal periods by way of a lawful
policy and requiring Proposed Class Members within the State of
California, including Plaintiff, to work at least five hours
without a meal period and failing to pay such employees one hour
of pay at the employees' regular rate of compensation for each
workday that the meal period is not provided or provided after
five hours, as required by California state wage and hour
laws.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Eric B. Kingsley, Esq.
          Liane Katzenstein Ly, Esq.
          Ari J. Stiller, Esq.
          KINGSLEY & KINGSLEY, APC
          16133 Ventura Blvd., Suite 1200
          Encino, CA 91436
          Telephone: (818) 990 8300
          Facsimile: (818) 990 2903
          E-mail: eric@kingsleykingsley.com
                  liane@kingsleykingsley.com
                  ari@kingsleykingsley.com

               - and -

          Emil Davtyan, Esq.
          DAVTYAN PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION
          21900 Burbank Blvd, 3rd Floor
          Woodland Hills, CA 91306
          Telephone: (818) 992 2935
          Facsimile: (818) 975 5525
          E-mail: emil@davtyanlaw.com


DEFENDERS INC: Seeks 3rd Circuit Review of Ruling in "Walsh" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants ADT Security Services Inc. and Defenders Inc. filed an
appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit entitled Norman Walsh
v. Defenders Inc., et al., Case No. 2-16-cv-00753, in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, on Dec. 23,
2015, the Plaintiff filed an initial complaint in state court.
On February 4, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an amended complaint.
The crux of the Plaintiff's allegation is that the Defendants
"buried" unlawful provisions in its consumer contracts in
violation of numerous New Jersey laws.  Defendant Defenders,
Inc., removed the action to the District Court on February 11,
2016, asserting federal diversity jurisdiction under the Class
Action Fairness Act.

The appellate case is captioned as Norman Walsh v. Defenders
Inc., et al., Case No. 18-8009, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Respondent NORMAN WALSH, on behalf of himself and
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Yongmoon Kim, Esq.
          KIM LAW FIRM
          411 Hackensack Avenue
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Telephone: (201) 273-7117
          E-mail: rkim@thekimlawfirmllc.com

               - and -

          Henry P. Wolfe, Esq.
          THE WOLF LAW FIRM
          1520 U.S. Highway 130, Suite 101
          North Brunswick, NJ 08902
          Telephone: (732) 545-7900
          E-mail: hwolfe@wolflawfirm.net

Defendants-Petitioners DEFENDERS INC., DBA Protect Your Home, and
ADT SECURITY SERVICES INC. are represented by:

          Charles C. Eblen, Esq.
          SHOOK HARDY & BACON L.L.P.
          2555 Grand Boulevard
          Kansas City, MO 64108
          Telephone: (816) 474-6550
          Facsimile: (816) 421-5547
          E-mail: ceblen@shb.com

               - and -

          Katherine O. Mowll, Esq.
          SHOOK HARDY & BACON L.L.P.
          Two Commerce Square
          2001 Market Street, Suite 3000
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 278-2555


D.J.D. RESTAURANT: Faces "Martinez" Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against D.J.D. Restaurant
Associates, LLC. The case is styled as Pedro Martinez,
individually and as the representative of a class of similarly
situated persons, Plaintiff v. D.J.D. Restaurant Associates, LLC
also known as: Three Kings Restaurant Group doing business as:
Talde Brooklyn, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-01382 (E.D. N.Y.,
March 6, 2018).

D.J.D. Restaurant Associates, LLC is engaged in the restaurant
and bar services.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


EAST SIDE PIZZA: Faces "Clemente" Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against East Side Pizza
Corp. The case is styled as Domingo Roberto Ramirez Clemente,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. East Side Pizza Corp. doing business as: La Mia
Pizza, H&A Pizza Corp. doing business as: La Mia Pizza, Amore
Pizza Corp. doing business as: La Mia Pizza, La Mia Pizza &
Restaurant Corp. doing business as: La Mia Pizza, Gazar&Batates
Food, Inc. doing business as: La Mia Pizza, Hesham M Attia,
Richard Attia also known as: Richie, Mohamed Morsi, Abdellatif
Mahmoud, Jim Heckler and Khair Muhana, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-
cv-02036 (S.D. N.Y., March 6, 2018).

East Side Pizza Corp. is engaged in the restaurant industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


EDGE FITNESS: "McArthur" Suit Seeks Conditional Certification
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled Melissa McArthur, individually and
on behalf of other similarly situated individuals, the
Plaintiffs, v. Edge Fitness, LLC., the Defendant, Case No. 3:17-
cv-01554-JAM (D. Conn.), the Plaintiffs move for conditional
certification of an "opt-in" collective action, issuance of
notice to all full-time Membership Advisors employed by
Defendants at any time within three years from the date of filing
of this action (September 15, 2014 forward), and an Order that
Defendants produce the names, last known addresses and email
addresses.

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

Attorney for Plaintiffs:

          Richard E. Hayber, Esq.
          HAYBER LAW FIRM, LLC
          221 Main Street, Suite 502
          Hartford, CT 06106
          Telephone: (860) 522 8888
          Facsimile: (860) 218 9555
          E-mail: rhayber@hayberlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Michael T. Petela, Jr., Esq.
          THE HAYBER LAW FIRM, LLC
          221 Main Street, Suite 502
          Hartford, CT 06106
          Telephone: (860) 522 8888
          Facsimile: (860) 218 9555
          E-mail: mpetela@hayberlawfirm.com


EMERALD LAWNS: "Arce" Suit Seeks to Certify Technicians Class
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled AMONDO ARCE AND BERNARD WILLIAMS on behalf
of themselves and a class of those similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, v. EMERALD LAWNS, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-
cv-00900-SS (W.D. Tex.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
conditionally certify a class, authorize counsel for the
Plaintiffs to send the Notice and Consent, to the following group
of individuals:

   "all current and former individuals who worked as Spray
   Technicians for Defendant for the past three years who were
   not paid at the rate of at least one-and-one-half of their
   regular rates of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40
   hours in a workweek."

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=0TB4Yt7W

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kell A. Simon, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF KELL A. SIMON
          902 East 5th Street
          Austin, Texas 78702
          Telephone: (512) 898 9662
          Facsimile: (512) 368 9144

The Defendant is represented by:

          Devin Bradley Black, Esq.
          710 Settlement Street
          Cedar Park, Texas 78613
          Telephone: (512) 842 9690
          Facsimile: (512) 717 4912
          E-mail: dblack@blacklawtx.com


ENAGIC USA: Scheduling Conference in "Makaron" Moved to April 2
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled EDWARD MAKARON, the Plaintiff, v. ENAGIC
USA, INC, the Defendant, Case No. 2:15-cv-05145-DDP-E (C.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Dean D. Pregerson entered an order
continuing plaintiff's motion to certify class.

The Court said, "The Scheduling Conference is continued for April
2, 2018 at 1:30 p.m. The parties are to file new proposed dates
as required by the Joint Report Rule 26(f) report on or before
March 19, 2018."

A copy of the Civil Minutes Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=cJ8hAKRi


ENHANCED RECOVERY: "Gajewski" Placeholder Class Cert. Bid Granted
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled JENNIFER GAJEWSKI and LUISA AVILES, the
Plaintiffs, v. ENHANCED RECOVERY COMPANY, LLC, the Defendant,
Case No. 2:18-cv-00180-WED (E.D. Wisc.), the Hon. Judge William
E. Duffin entered an order granting plaintiff's motion to stay
further proceedings for class certification.

The Court said, "The parties are relieved from the automatic
briefing schedule set forth in Civil Local Rule 7(b) and (c).
Moreover, for administrative purposes, it is necessary that the
Clerk terminate the plaintiff's motion for class certification.
However, this motion will be regarded as pending to serve its
protective purpose under Damasco."

In Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891, 896 (7th Cir. 2011),
the court suggested that class-action plaintiffs "move to certify
the class at the same time that they file their complaint." Id.
"The pendency of that motion protects a putative class from
attempts to buy off the named plaintiffs." Id. However, because
parties are generally unprepared to proceed with a motion for
class certification at the beginning of a case, the Damasco court
suggested that the parties "ask the district court to delay its
ruling to provide time for additional discovery or
investigation."

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


ENRICH FINANCIAL: Bid for Class Certification Denied as Moot
------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled Lolita Aleksanian & Allen Issagholian, et
al., the Plaintiff, v. Enrich Financial, Inc., the Defendant,
Case No. 2:17-cv-02359-DMG-KS (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Dolly
M. Gee entered an order:

   1. dismissing the action without prejudice for lack of subject
      matter jurisdiction; and

   2. denying Plaintiffs' motion for class certification as moot
      and vacating all scheduled dates and deadlines.

According to the civil minutes, Plaintiffs' discovery has
revealed that Defendant has no clients outside of the State of
California and that, in fact, Defendant refuses to take on
clients who live outside of the State. This extinguishes the
Court's subject matter jurisdiction over this case under CAFA's
local controversy exception. If this is correct, the Court is
required to decline to exercise jurisdiction. See id. ("A
district court shall decline to exercise jurisdiction" when the
defendant and more than two-thirds of the members of the proposed
plaintiff classes are citizens of the State in which the action
was originally filed (emphasis added)); see also 28 U.S.C.
section 1332(d)(7) ("Citizenship of the members of the proposed
plaintiff classes shall be determined for purposes of paragraphs
[d](2) through [d](6) as of the date of filing of the complaint
or amended complaint.".

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


FARMERS INSURANCE: Court Grants Bid to Certify Class in "Deluca"
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled DAVID DELUCA, et al., the Plaintiffs, v.
FARMERS INSURANCE EXCHANGE, et al., the Defendants, Case No.
3:17-cv-00034-EDL (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Elizabeth D.
Laporte entered an order granting Plaintiffs' motion to certify a
class as to the California state law claims:

"all persons who were, are or will be employed by Defendants in
the State of California as special investigators, senior special
investigators, or general special investigators, other than those
in the "Nationals" group, at any time within four (4) years prior
to the date of the filing of this Complaint through the date of
final disposition of this action who were, are, or will be
classified as exempt from overtime pay under applicable law."

The Court said, "Plaintiffs have put forward sufficient evidence
to demonstrate that they and their counsel are adequate
representatives because they have no conflict of interest with
the absent members of the class, and there is no indication that
they will not prosecute the action vigorously. Plaintiffs
have responded to written discovery, appeared for depositions
(including Plaintiff Francis's efforts to travel from his home in
Ireland to San Francisco to give testimony), and represent that
they have been in frequent contact with their counsel.
Plaintiffs' counsel and their firm appear to be adequately
experienced to represent Plaintiffs in a class action, as they
have litigated class and collective wage and hour cases across
the country, including representation of the plaintiffs in
similar litigation in Fenton. Defendants do not contest that
Plaintiffs and their counsel are adequate. Accordingly,
Plaintiffs have satisfied the adequacy requirement of Rule
23(a)."

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=V989SnOY


FERGUSON, MO: "Fant" Suit Brought Before 8th Circuit Court
----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Keilee Fant, Roelif Carter, Allison Nelson,
Herbert Nelson, Jr., Alfred Morris, Anthony Kimble, Donyale
Thomas, Shameika Morris, Daniel Jenkins, Ronnie Tucker, Tonya
DeBerry, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs/Appellees v. City of Ferguson, Missouri,
Defendant/Appellant, Case No. 18-1472 was brought before the
United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit on March 6,
2018.

Ferguson is a city in St. Louis County, Missouri, United States.
It is part of the Greater St. Louis metropolitan area.[BN]

The Plaintiffs/Appellees are represented by:

   Nathaniel R. Carroll, Esq.
   ARCH CITY DEFENDERS
   2nd Floor
   1210 Locust Street
   Saint Louis, MO 63103
   Tel: 314-361-8834
        855-724-2489

      - and -

   Alexander G. Karakatsanis, Esq.
   CIVIL RIGHTS CORPS
   916 G Street NW, Suite 701
   Washington, DC 20001
   Tel: 202-681-2409

      - and -

   Blake A. Strode, Esq.
   ARCH CITY DEFENDERS
   2nd Floor
   1210 Locust Street
   Saint Louis, MO 63103
   Tel: 314-361-8834
        855-724-2489

      - and -

   Andrew E. Tomback, Esq.
   WHITE & CASE
   1155 Avenue of the Americas
   New York, NY 10036-0000
   Tel: 212-819-8200

The Defendant/Appellant is represented by:

   Jeffrey Joseph Brinker, Esq.
   BRINKER & DOYEN
   5th Floor
   34 N. Meramec Avenue
   Saint Louis, MO 63105-0000
   Tel: 314-863-6311
        314-863-6311

      - and -

   Peter J. Dunne, Esq.
   PITZER & SNODGRASS
   100 S. Fourth Street, Suite 400
   Saint Louis, MO 63102

      - and -

   John M. Reeves, Esq.
   BRINKER & DOYEN
   5th Floor
   34 N. Meramec Avenue
   Saint Louis, MO 63105-0000
   Tel: 314-863-6311
        314-754-6005

       - and -

   Michelle Victoria Stallings, Esq.
   BRINKER & DOYEN
   5th Floor
   34 N. Meramec Avenue
   Saint Louis, MO 63105-0000
   Tel: 314-863-6311


FERGUSON, MO: Loses Bid to Dismiss 1st Amended "Fant" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, KEILEE FANT, et al., Plaintiffs, v. THE CITY OF
FERGUSON, Defendant, Case No. 4:15-CV-00253-AGF (E.D. Mo.),
Magistrate Judge Audrey G. Fleissig of the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division, denied
both the Defendant's corrected motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs'
first amended complaint, and motion for a hearing.

The Plaintiffs in the putative class action claim that they have
been jailed by the Defendant on numerous occasions because they
were unable to pay cash bonds or other debts owed to the City
resulting from their traffic and other minor offenses.  They
allege that, in violation of the United States Constitution and
as a matter of the City's policies and practices, they were not
afforded counsel, any inquiry into their ability to pay, or a
neutral finding of probable cause in a prompt manner; and they
were held in jail indefinitely, in overcrowded and unsanitary
conditions, until they or their friends or family members could
make a monetary payment sufficient to satisfy the City.  The
Plaintiffs' amended complaint asserts seven claims pursuant to 42
U.S.C. Section 1983, under the Fourth, Sixth, and Fourteenth
Amendments.

The City moves to dismiss, on sovereign immunity grounds, all
claims in the Plaintiffs' first amended complaint except the
claim relating to conditions of confinement (Count IV).  For the
reasons set forth below, the Court will deny the City's motion.

It is the third motion to dismiss filed by the City, and the
motion asserts arguments similar to the ones raised in a prior
motion, but reframes them in terms of sovereign immunity.  In
short, the City argues that the Plaintiffs' constitutional
challenges are directed to the conduct of the municipal court
only, and that, therefore, their claims are barred by the
Eleventh Amendment's sovereign immunity doctrine because the
municipal court is an arm of the state under Missouri law.

As Magistrate Judge Fleissig has held in the case, and as other
judges in this District have held with respect to nearly
identical complaints and motions to dismiss, the complaint here
alleges that the challenged conduct was and is driven by policies
and practices implemented by the City for the purpose of
increasing revenue.  In addition to conduct undertaken by the
municipal court, the complaint alleges that the City's unlawful
policies and practices are executed through its clerk, police
department, and city attorney, all of whom act under the
authority of the city council.  Thus, the Magistrate Judge finds
that the complaint sufficiently claims that the Plaintiffs were
subjected to unlawful conduct carried out pursuant to the
unconstitutional policies and practices of the City, which is not
entitled to Eleventh Amendment protection.

In addition, the City's argument that the doctrines of absolute
judicial, prosecutorial, and quasi-judicial immunity bar the
Plaintiffs' municipal liability claims likewise fails.  Although
the City attempts to limit potential liability to individual
actors, such as the municipal judge, court clerk, prosecutor, and
police officers to whom these immunity doctrines may apply, the
amended complaint alleges that it was the City's unconstitutional
policies, practices, and procedures that drove the unlawful
conduct. Unlike government officials, municipalities do not enjoy
absolute or qualified immunity from constitutional claims brought
under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983.

Finally, the City correctly asserts that, where a plaintiff
brings his Section 1983 claims under a theory of municipal
liability based on the decision of an official responsible for
establishing final policy, the identification of the final
policymaker is itself a legal question to be resolved by the
trial judge before the case is submitted to the jury.  But even
if identification of the policymaker is ultimately required in
the case based on the theories of municipal liability asserted,
the Magistrate Judge does not believe that it is required at this
stage.

For the reasons she stated, Magistrate Judge Fleissig denied both
the Defendant's corrected motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' first
amended complaint, and motion for a hearing.  The Judge lifted
the stay previously entered, and, no later than seven days from
the date of the Memorandum and Order, the parties will  submit a
joint proposed scheduling plan for the remainder of the
litigation, which addresses the filing deadline and briefing
schedule for any motion for class certification; the parties'
positions concerning the referral of this action to mediation and
when such a referral would be most productive; and any other
appropriate deadlines and dates in the current Case Management
Order, including a proposed trial date.

The Magistrate Judge vacate the current trial setting of April 9,
2018, to be reset as appropriate in accordance with the parties'
joint proposed scheduling plan.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 13, 2018 Memorandum and
Order is available at https://is.gd/rpUG1T from Leagle.com.

Keilee Fant, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Roelif Carter, Allison Nelson, Herbert Nelson, Jr.,
Alfred Morris, Anthony Kimble, Donyale Thomas, Shameika Morris,
Daniel Jenkins, Ronnie Tucker & Tonya DeBerry, Plaintiffs,
represented by Alexander G. Karakatsanis --
alec@equaljusticeunderlaw.org -- CIVIL RIGHTS CORPS, Andrew
Ernest Tomback -- andrew.tomback@whitecase.com -- WHITE AND CASE,
pro hac vice, Brendan D. Roediger -- broedige@slu.edu -- ST.
LOUIS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW, John J. Ammann --
ammannjj@slu.edu -- ST. LOUIS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW, Michael-
John Voss --  mjvoss@archcitydefenders.org -- ARCHCITY DEFENDERS,
Thomas B. Harvey -- tharvey@archcitydefenders.org -- ARCHCITY
DEFENDERS, Alice Tsier -- atsier@whitecase.com -- WHITE AND CASE,
pro hac vice, Blake Alexander Strode --
bstrode@archcitydefenders.org -- ARCHCITY DEFENDERS, Dorian K.
Panchyson, WHITE AND CASE, pro hac vice, Lawrence Crane
Moscowitz, WHITE AND CASE, pro hac vice, Margaret Jane Spicer,
WHITE AND CASE, pro hac vice, Martin Bingham Sawyer, WHITE AND
CASE, pro hac vice, Nthaniel Richard Carroll --
ncarroll@archcitydefenders.org -- ARCHCITY DEFENDERS, Sima Atri,
ARCHCITY DEFENDERS, Sonia Williams Murphy --
smurphy@whitecase.com -- WHITE AND CASE, pro hac vice & Vivake
Prasad, WHITE AND CASE, pro hac vice.

City of Ferguson, Missouri, Defendant, represented by John
Michael Reeves, Jr. -- jreeves@brinkerdoyen.com -- Brinker &
Doyen, L.L.P., Aarnarian (Apollo) D. Carey --
acarey@lewisrice.com -- LEWIS RICE, LLC, Jeffrey J. Brinker --
jbrinker@brinkerdoyen.com -- BRINKER AND DOYEN LLP, Maurice B.
Graham, GRAY AND RITTER, P.C., Michelle V. Stallings --
MVS@brinkerdoyen.com -- BRINKER AND DOYEN LLP & Ronald A. Norwood
-- rnorwood@lewisrice.com -- LEWIS RICE, LLC.


FIRST BANCTRUST: "Parshall" Suit Alleges Exchange Act Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Parshall, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. First BancTrust Corporation, et al., Case No. 1:18-
cv-00218 (D. Del., February 6, 2018), is brought against the
Defendants for violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

This action stems from a proposed transaction announced on
December 11, 2017, pursuant to which First BancTrust Corporation
will be acquired by First Mid-Illinois Bancshares, Inc. and its
wholly owned subsidiary, Project Hawks Merger Sub LLC.

The Plaintiff alleged that the Registration Statement filed by
the Defendants on January 22, 2018, omits material information
with respect to the Proposed Transaction, which renders the
Registration Statement false and misleading.

The Plaintiff Paul Parshall is, and has been continuously
throughout all times relevant hereto, the owner of First Bank
common stock.

Defendant First Bank is a Delaware corporation and maintains its
principal executive offices at 114 West Church Street, Champaign,
Illinois 61824.  First Bank's common stock is traded on the OTCQX
market under the ticker symbol "FIRT."  First Bank is a party to
the Merger Agreement.

The Individual Defendants are officers and directors of First
Bank. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brian D. Long, Esq.
      Gina M. Serra, Esq.
      300 Delaware Avenue, Ste 1220
      Wilmington, DE 19801
      Tel: (302) 295-5310
      Fax: (302) 654-7530
      E-mail: bdl@rl-legal.com
              gms@rl-legal.com


FLORIDA: Court Denies TRO Bid in "Paulcin" Suit
-----------------------------------------------
In the case, ROPHET PAULCIN, Plaintiff, v. SECRETARY, DOC,
WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES, INC., TOM REIMERS, JOHN DOE, J. WILLIS,
K. WILLIAMS, R. COLLINS, M. KING, J. LICATA, J. REID, J.
BRUSSELL, J. POLICARD, S. MATTHEWSON, JOHN DOE, A. R. GOLDSTEIN,
K. BLANKENSHIP, A. OZUAL, A. CAMPBELL, C. NIES, C. JOHNSON, K.
ROACH, B. R. GALLAGHER, H. GUIDA, B. COPE, FNU ZIAGLER and FNU
JOHNSON, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-232-FtM-99MRM (M.D. Fla.),
Judge Sheri Polster Chappell of the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Florida, Fort Myers Division, denied the
Plaintiff's Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Class
Action.

The Plaintiff, a state prisoner incarcerated in the Department of
Corrections, alleges that he is in threat of imminent death or
great bodily harm and will suffer substantial irrevocable harm if
his motion for extraordinary relief is not granted.  The
Plaintiff suffers from various mental health disorders and has
committed many acts of self-harm. On Jan. 23 or 29, 2017, Gang
members at Charlotte Correctional Institution stabbed the
Plaintiff in the head.  The Plaintiff was transferred to Martin
Correctional Institution on Feb. 14, 2017.  While there, he was
repeatedly threatened and eventually assaulted by members of the
same gang in April 2017.  After a suicide attempt, he was
recommended for transfer to a crisis stabilization unit; and, on
April 24, 2017, was housed back in Charlotte Correctional.

The Plaintiff notified correctional officials at Charlotte of the
previous stabbing but officials took no action.  On April 26,
2017, the Plaintiff was assaulted and stabbed multiple times by a
gang member.  On May 8, 2017, he was transferred to Dade
Correctional Institution.

The Plaintiff seeks, inter alia, to be placed on "house alone
status" and transferred to a "constitutionally safe prison," and
in particular, not be transferred back to either Martin or
Charlotte Correctional Institutions.  According to an exhibit
attached to the Motion, the Institutional Classification Team
recommended and the State Classification Officer approved the
Plaintiff for a resolve protection transfer on May 4, 2017, and
the Plaintiff was transferred from Charlotte Correctional
Institution to Dade Correctional Institution.

Based on the date that the Plaintiff's Motion was filed -- Aug.
14, 2017, Judge Chappell finds that the Plaintiff's request for a
transfer to a facility other than Charlotte Correctional or
Martin Correctional appeared moot.  Based on a review of the
Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint, the return address on the
motion last-filed by the Plaintiff, and the Department of
Corrections' Offender Network site, the Plaintiff is again housed
back in Charlotte Correctional Institution.  As a result, the
Judge will direct the Secretary of the Florida Department of
Corrections to respond to the Plaintiff's Motion.

As for the Plaintiff's request for class certification, the Judge
says the Plaintiff as a pro se litigant, cannot represent his
fellow inmates in a class action, given that it is plain error to
permit an imprisoned litigant who is unassisted by counsel to
represent his fellow inmates in a class action.

Accordingly, Judge Chappell directed the Secretary of the Florida
Department of Corrections to file a response to the Plaintiff's
construed Motion for Preliminary Injunction on or before Feb. 23,
2018.  She deferred the Plaintiff's Motion for Temporary
Restraining Order, construed as a Motion for Preliminary
Injunction, pending a response from the Attorney General.  She
will rule on the papers without a hearing. The Judge denied the
Plaintiff's Motion for Class Action.  Finally, she directed the
Clerk to immediately serve a copy of the Order on the Secretary
for the Florida Department of Corrections, Attorney General, and
the Warden at Charlotte Correctional by facsimile or electronic
means.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 13, 2018 Opinion and Order
is available at https://is.gd/SLxVgo from Leagle.com.


FORD MOTOR: Wins Partial Summary Judgment in MyFord Touch Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE MYFORD TOUCH CONSUMER LITIGATION, Case No. 13-
cv-03072-EMC (N.D. Cal.), Judge Edward M. Chen of the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California granted in
part and denied in part Ford's motion for summary judgment on the
classwide express and implied warranty claims as well as a number
of individual fraud and consumer protection claims.

The Plaintiffs and the Class Members purchased vehicles from Ford
that were equipped by MyFord Touch ("MFT"), an "infotainment"
system.  The gravamen of their allegations is that the MFT system
suffered from an underlying, systemic defect in its base software
that caused numerous problems.  In general, these involved
failure of navigation systems, failure of Bluetooth connectivity
and hands-free systems, failure of the climate control system,
frequent freezes and lock-ups, the failure of the back-up camera
including images that froze in place, and so on.  When
malfunctions occurred, certain vehicle features allegedly became
inoperable because MFT was the only way to utilize them.
Further, the Plaintiffs allege that the malfunctions distract
drivers and therefore cause unreasonable safety risks.

MFT is powered by an operating system known as Ford SYNC, which
is also the name given to Ford's first generation MFT system.
Vehicles with MFT cost more than those without it, though the
precise cost is disputed.  The Plaintiffs allege that Ford has
not yet fixed the problem with MFT, though Ford claims that one
of its post-Class Period software updates in 2013 made MFT "first
in class," and that other software updates issued during the
Class Period improved MFT's functionality.  Ford's vehicles were
covered by a limited express warranty.

The Plaintiffs seek to recover damages on behalf of the certified
classes in the form of the diminution in value caused to their
vehicles by the defect.  The following claims have been certified
for class treatment: (i) California Breach of Implied Warranty,
Breach of Express Warranty Song-Beverly Act, and Unfair
Competition Law; (ii) Colorado Strict Product Liability; (iii)
Massachusetts Breach of Implied Warranty and Massachusetts
Consumer Protection Act; (iv) New Jersey Breach of Implied
Warrant; (v) North Carolina Breach of Implied Warranty; (vi) Ohio
Breach of Implied Warranty and Negligence; (vii) Virginia Breach
of Implied Warrant; and (viii) Washington Breach of Express
Warranty.

The classes are defined to include all persons or entities who
purchased or leased a Ford or a Lincoln vehicle in the applicable
state from Ford or through a Ford dealership before Aug. 9, 2013,
which vehicle was equipped with a MyFord Touch or MyLincoln Touch
in-car communication and entertainment system.

The Plaintiffs' various claims alleging fraud and fraudulent
omission were not certified by the Court, nor were express
warranty claims under the laws of Iowa, Massachusetts, New
Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, and Virginia.  However,
several of the non-class claims remain in the case on an
individual basis.

Ford now moves for summary judgment on the classwide express and
implied warranty claims as well as a number of individual fraud
and consumer protection claims.

Judge Chen granted in part and denied in part Ford's motion.  He
granted Ford's motion as follows:

     a. on the California Class' implied warranty of
merchantability claims under the Song-Beverly Act, the motion is
granted with respect to used car purchasers because the
Plaintiffs have not presented evidence to support an inference
that Ford acted as a distributor or retailer, such as through an
agency relationship with its authorized dealers;

     b. on the Colorado Class' strict product liability claim,
the motion granted because the claim is precluded by the economic
loss rule; and

     c. for Plaintiff Center for Defensive Driving ("CDD")'s
California Consumer Legal Remedies Act claim, the motion is
granted because CDD is not a consumer within the meaning of the
statute.

The Judge denied Ford's motion as follows:

     a. Implied Warranty: With respect to new vehicles, the
Plaintiffs have introduced sufficient evidence for a reasonable
jury to conclude that the vehicles were unmerchantable and that
the defects manifested within one year.  Ford's disclaimer for
vehicles used for business purposes is not conspicuous and
therefore unenforceable with respect to vehicle use for business
or commercial purposes.

     b. Express Warranty: Ford has not established that classwide
summary judgment for failure to exhaust two repair attempts is
appropriate where its own evidence indicates that at least some
class members satisfied that requirement.  Plaintiffs Kirchoff
and Mitchell have demonstrated that a genuine issue of material
fact exists as to whether they exhausted two repair attempts in
connection with the MFT defect.

     c. Ohio Negligence Class Claim: With respect to the Ohio
Class's negligence claim, the Plaintiffs have introduced
sufficient evidence for a jury to conclude that Ford breached its
duty to design a reasonably safe product, thereby causing
economic harm to class members.

     d. California UCL Class Claim: With respect to the
California Class' UCL claim, the Judge certified the non-fraud
breach of warranty theories for class treatment, so the UCL claim
may proceed consistent with the Court's holdings regarding
implied and express warranty.

     e. Plaintiff Creed: Plaintiff Creed may pursue a claim under
the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act because a jury could
conclude he purchased his vehicle for primarily personal reasons
and his demand letter was sufficient.

     f. Expert Damages Models: Mr. Boedeker and Dr. Arnold's
damages models are adequate under Daubert and Comcast to project
classwide damages for breach of implied and express warranty.

     g. Individual Fraud Claims: Plaintiffs Rodriguez, Ervin, and
Mitchell-Jones have presented sufficient evidence for a jury to
conclude that they justifiably relied on Ford's omissions
concerning the MFT defect when they purchased their vehicle.

Judge Chen's Order disposes of Docket No. 341.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 14, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/i3E3Jc from Leagle.com.

Jennifer Whalen, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Adam J. Levitt --
alevitt@dlcfirm.com -- DiCello Levitt & Casey LLC, Cory Steven
Fein, Attorney at Law, Craig Ripley Spiegel, Esq. --
craigs@hbsslaw.com -- Jason Allen Zweig, Esq. --
jasonz@hbsslaw.com -- Catherine Gannon, Esq. --
catherineg@hbsslaw.com -- Jeff D. Friedman, Esq. --
jefff@hbsslaw.com -- Jeniphr A.E. Breckenridge, Esq. --
jeniphr@hbsslaw.com -- Shelby Smith, Esq. -- shelby@hbsslaw.com -
- Steve W. Berman, Esq. -- steve@hbsslaw.com -- and -- Tyler S.
Weaver, Esq. -- tyler@hbsslaw.com -- HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO
LLP -- Cynthia B. Chapman, Esq. -- cbc@caddellchapman.com -- and
-- Michael A. Caddell, Esq. -- mac@cadellchapman.com -- CADDELL &
CHAPMAN -- Benjamin F. Johns, Esq. -- BenJohns@chimicles.com --
CHIMICLES & TIKELLIS LLP -- Jeffrey Scott Goldenberg, Esq. --
jgoldenberg@gs-legal.com -- GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER, LPA -- Joseph
Bryce Kenney, Esq. -- jbk@mccunewright.com -- and -- Joseph G.
Sauder, Esq. -- jgs@mccunewright.com -- MCCUNEWRIGHT, LLP --
Vincent Louis DiTommaso, Esq. -- vdt@ditommasolaw.com --
DITOMMASO LUBIN, P.C.

Thomas Mitchell, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Craig Ripley
Spiegel, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Benjamin F. Johns,
Chimicles & Tikellis LLP, pro hac vice, Jeff D. Friedman, Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Joseph B. Kennedy, One Harverford
Centre, pro hac vice, Mark Philip Pifko, Baron & Budd, P.C.,
Nicholas E. Chimicles, Chimicles and Tikellis LLP, pro hac vice,
Roland K. Tellis, Baron Budd, P.C., Stephanie Elena Saunders,
Chimicles and Tikellis LLP, pro hac vice, Steve W. Berman, Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice & Vincent Louis DiTommaso,
DiTommaso Lubin, P.C..

Joe D'Aguanno, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Deb Makowski, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Jose Randy Rodriguez, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated & Michael Ervin,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, represented by Adam J. Levitt, DiCello Levitt & Casey
LLC, Craig Ripley Spiegel, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Shana
E. Scarlett, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Benjamin F. Johns,
Chimicles & Tikellis LLP, pro hac vice, Gregory Michael Travalio,
Isaac, Wiles, Burkholder Teetor, LLC, pro hac vice, Jason Allen
Zweig, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Jeff D. Friedman, Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Joseph B. Kennedy, One Harverford
Centre, pro hac vice, Mark Philip Pifko, Baron & Budd, P.C.,
Nicholas E. Chimicles, Chimicles and Tikellis LLP, pro hac vice,
Roland K. Tellis, Baron Budd, P.C., Shelby Smith, Hagens Berman,
pro hac vice, Stephanie Elena Saunders, Chimicles and Tikellis
LLP, pro hac vice, Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
LLP, pro hac vice & Vincent Louis DiTommaso, DiTommaso Lubin,
P.C.

Ford Motor Company is represented by Randall W. Edwards, Esq. --
redwards@omm.com -- Brian Christopher Anderson, Esq. --
banderson@omm.com -- David Richard Dorey, Esq. -- ddorey@omm.com
-- Edmundo Clay Marquez, Esq. -- emarquez@omm.com -- and -- Scott
M. Hammack, Esq. -- shammack@omm.com -- O'MELVENY AND MYERS --
Janet L. Conigliaro, Esq. -- jconigliaro@dykema.com -- DYKEMA --
Warren Earl Platt, Esq. -- wplatt@swlaw.com -- SNELL AND WILMER
LLP.


FUNKO INC: "Surratt" Suit Moved to W.D. Washington
--------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL SURRATT, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. FUNKO, INC.; BRIAN
MARIOTTI; RUSSELL NICKEL; KEN BROTMAN; GINO DELLOMO; CHARLES
DENSON; DIANE IRVINE; ADAM KRIGER; RICHARD MCNALLY; GOLDMAN,
SACHS & CO.; J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC; MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE,
FENNER & SMITH INCORPORATED; PIPER JAFFRAY & CO.; JEFFERIES LLC;
STIFEL, NICOLAUS & COMPANY, INCORPORATED; BMO CAPITAL MARKETS
CORP.; and SUNTRUST ROBINSON HUMPHREY, INC., the Defendants, Case
No. 18-2-01264-3 SEA, was removed from the Superior Court of
Washington in and for King to the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington (Seattle).

Funko is an American company that manufactures licensed pop
culture toys. Funko is most known for producing licensed vinyl
figures and bobbleheads.[BN]

Attorneys for Defendants Funko, Inc., Brian Mariotti, Russell
Nickel, Ken Brotman, Gino Dellomo, Charles Denson, Diane Irvine,
Adam Kriger, and Richard McNally

          Stephen C. Willey, Esq.
          SAVITT BRUCE & WILLEY LLP
          1425 Fourth Avenue, Suite 800
          Seattle, Washington 98101-2272
          Telephone: (206) 749 0500
          Facsimile: (206) 749 0600
          E-mail: swilley@sbwllp.com

               - and -

          Benjamin Naftalis, Esq.
          Kevin McDonough, Esq.
          LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
          885 Third Avenue
          New York, NY 10022-4834
          Telephone: (212) 906 1246
          Facsimile: (212) 751 4864
          E-mail: benjamin.naftalis@lw.com
                  kevin.mcdonough@lw.com


FUNKO INC: Ronald and Maxine Suit Moved to W.D. Washington
----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned as THE RONALD AND MAXINE LINDE
FOUNDATION, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. FUNKO, INC.; BRIAN MARIOTTI; RUSSELL
NICKEL; KEN BROTMAN; GINO DELLOMO; ADAM KRIGER; RICHARD MCNALLY;
CHARLES DENSON; DIANE IRVINE; GOLDMAN SACHS & CO.; J.P. MORGAN
SECURITIES LLC; MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH
INCORPORATED; ACON INVESTMENTS, L.L.C.; and FUNDAMENTAL CAPITAL,
LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 18-2-01582-1 SEA, the Defendants
removed the case from the Superior Court of Washington in and for
King County to the United States District Court for the Western
District of Washington. The Western District of Washington Court
Clerk assigned Case no. 2:18-cv-00282 to the proceeding.

Funko is an American company that manufactures licensed pop
culture toys. Funko is most known for producing licensed vinyl
figures and bobbleheads.[BN]

Attorneys for Defendants Funko, Inc.; Brian Mariotti; Russell
Nickel; Ken Brotman; Gino Dellomo; Adam Kriger; Richard McNally;
Charles Denson; and Diane Irvine:

          Stephen C. Willey, Esq.
          SAVITT BRUCE & WILLEY LLP
          1425 Fourth Avenue, Suite 800
          Seattle, Washington 98101-2272
          Telephone: (206) 749 0500
          Facsimile: (206) 749 0600
          E-mail: swilley@sbwllp.com

               - and -

          Benjamin Naftalis, Esq.
          Kevin McDonough, Esq.
          LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
          885 Third Avenue
          New York, NY 10022-4834
          Telephone: (212) 906 1246
          Facsimile: (212) 751 4864
          E-mail: benjamin.naftalis@lw.com
                  kevin.mcdonough@lw.com


GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY: McGuires Sue over Retirement Plan Losses
---------------------------------------------------------------
DARRELL WILCOX and MICHAEL MCGUIRE, individually and as
representatives of a class of participants and beneficiaries in
and on behalf of the GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY DEFINED CONTRIBUTION
RETIREMENT PLAN, the GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY VOLUNTARY CONTRIBUTION
RETIREMENT PLAN, the Plaintiffs, v. GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY,
CHRISTOPHER AUGOSTINI, and GEOFF CHATAS, the Defendants, Case No.
1:18-cv-00422 (D. D.C., Feb. 23, 2018), seeks to enforce
Defendants' personal liability under 29 U.S.C. section 1109(a)
and to restore to retirement plans all losses resulting from each
breach of fiduciary duty.

According to the complaint, the duties of loyalty and prudence
are among the highest known to the law and require fiduciaries to
perform their obligations solely in the best interests of the
participants and beneficiaries. As fiduciaries to the Plans,
Defendants were obligated to act for the exclusive benefit of
participants and beneficiaries in the Plans like Plaintiffs for
the sole purpose of providing them retirement benefits. One of
the principal functions of a fiduciary in participant-directed
individual account retirement plans like the Plans is the
selection of designated investment alternatives into which plan
participants can direct the investment of their retirement
savings accounts. "[T]he [US] Department [of Labor] points out
that the act of limiting or designating investment options which
are intended to constitute all or part of the investment universe
of an ERISA Section 404(c) plan is a fiduciary function."

Another critical function of a retirement plan's named
fiduciaries is to ensure that plan expenses are reasonable in
relation to the services being provided to plan investors like
Plaintiffs. "When the fees for services are paid out of plan
assets, fiduciaries will want to understand the fees and expenses
charged and the services provided. While the law does not specify
a permissible level of fees, it does require that fees charged to
a plan be 'reasonable." Because the marketplace for retirement
plan services is established and competitive and because the
Plans have over a billion dollars in assets, the Plans have
tremendous bargaining power to demand low-cost administrative and
investment management services and well-performing investment
funds.

But instead of leveraging the Plans' substantial bargaining power
to benefit participants and beneficiaries, Defendants failed
adequately to evaluate and monitor the Plans' Final Regulation
Regarding Participant Directed Individual Account Plans (ERISA
section 404(c) Plans), 57 Fed. Reg. 46906, 46924, n.27 (Oct. 13,
1992).

Defendants' first breach of duty was to fail to select a
suitable, single service provider to provide administrative and
recordkeeping services to the Plans in exchange for a reasonable
amount of compensation. Rather than negotiating a separate,
reasonable and fixed fee for recordkeeping with a single
administrative provider to the Plans, Defendants continuously
retained three different service providers -- the Teachers
Insurance and Annuity Association of America and College
Retirement Equities Fund ("TIAA-CREF" or "TIAA"), The Vanguard
Group and/or Vanguard Fiduciary Trust Company ("Vanguard") and
Fidelity Investments ("Fidelity"). Each of these recordkeepers
supplied the Plans with a separate menu of investment choices
including mutual fund share classes that charged higher fees than
(i) other less expensive investment alternatives that offered the
same investment strategies or (ii) less expensive share classes
of the exact same investment fund, or (iii) both.

Fees for administrative services were charged and paid to these
three companies as a percentage of the overall expenses paid for
investing in the various investment options offered within the
Plans (including expensive choices and/or share classes). As a
result, Plaintiffs paid asset-based fees for administrative
services, which continued to increase as the value of their
accounts increased through additional contributions and
investment returns even though no additional services were being
provided to Plaintiffs as their fees went up. Each of these three
platform providers maintained separate and exclusive menus of
investment choices, effectively creating three investing segments
for each of the Plans: a TIAA segment, a Vanguard segment and a
Fidelity segment. Plaintiffs and other investors in the Plans had
to choose from among the three and could invest in only the
investment choices available in one of these three segments. For
instance, a participant in the Plans could not invest
simultaneously in both the TIAA and Vanguard investment choices.

The sheer volume of three hundred total investment choices for
retirement investors like Plaintiffs indicates that Defendants
failed properly to monitor and evaluate the historical
performance and expense of each of these funds, compare that
historical performance and expense to a peer group of funds
and/or even compare the three segments against one another.
Defendants have done what the US Department of Labor ("DOL") and
at least one federal appellate court have warned against: stuff
retirement plans' investment menus with hundreds of possible
investments and then shift to the retirement plans' participants
the responsibility for choosing among this vast array. This
strategy chosen by Defendants results in the inclusion of many
investment alternatives that a responsible fiduciary should
exclude and which unreasonably burdens plan participants who do
not have the resources to pre-screen investment alternatives in
the way Defendants do.

In addition, Defendants selected and maintained investment
options for the Plans that historically and consistently
underperformed their benchmarks and charged excessive fees. There
is further evidence of a flawed fiduciary process here: namely,
approval of a TIAA loan program for University employees who
elected to borrow against their retirement plan savings. This
program (i) required excessive collateral as security for
repayment of these loans, (ii) required an illegal transfer of
plan assets to TIAA as collateral for the loan repayment when no
such transfer is necessary or permitted, and (iii) violated DOL
rules for retirement plan participant loan programs.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          Garrett W. Wotkyns, Esq.
          John J. Nestico, Esq.
          Michael McKay, Esq.
          Todd M. Schneider, Esq.
          Kyles G. Bates, Esq.
          James A. Bloom, Esq.
          SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY WOTKYNS LLP
          8501 N. Scottsdale Road, Suite 270
          Scottsdale, AZ 85253
          Telephone: (480) 428 0145
          Facsimile: (866) 505 8036
          E-mail: gwotkyns@schneiderwallace.com
                  mmckay@schneiderwallace.com
                  jnestico@schneiderwallace.com
                  tschneider@schneiderwallace.com
                  kbates@schneiderwallace.com
                  jbloom@schneiderwallace.com

               - and -

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


GLOBAL STAFFING: "Horton" Suit May Proceed as Collective Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled DAMIAN HORTON, the Plaintiff, v. GLOBAL
STAFFING SOLUTIONS LLC ET AL., the Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-
12609-EEF-JVM (E.D. La.), the Court entered an order granting
Plaintiff's motion to proceed as a collective action and for
court-authorized notice to potential opt-in plaintiffs in this
collective action under 29 U.S.C. section 216(b).

The class of potential opt-in plaintiffs entitled to notice is
defined as:

   "all individuals employed by Global Staffing Solutions, LLC at
   any time between November 16, 2014 and 60 days from the
   mailing of this notice, who were not timely paid for all hours
   worked, including overtime and minimum wage."

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


GLOBAL PAYMENTS: Can Compel Arbitration in "Morgan" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Judge John A. Mendez of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of California granted the Defendant's motion to compel
the Plaintiff to submit her class claim to arbitration and to
stay or dismiss the case, DIANE MORGAN, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. GLOBAL
PAYMENTS CHECK SERVICES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-01771-
JAM-CMK (E.D. Cal.).

On Sept. 17, 2016, the Plaintiff visited a casino that
participates in the Defendant's VIP Preferred Program.  The VIP
Program allows customers to electronically debit funds through
certain merchants with funds guaranteed by Global Payments
entities.  Before using the VIP program at the participating
casino, the Plaintiff signed the Defendant's VIP Preferred Check
Cashing & EFT Enrollment Form.

The Plaintiff denies reviewing or receiving a copy of the
referenced Terms of Service ("TOS") or visiting the
www.vippreferred.com website prior to filing the action.  But she
does not contest that she signed the Enrollment Form.

The link to www.vippreferred.com always has the most current
version of the TOS and was printed on the Enrollment Form, which
allowed members to review the Defendant's TOS on a mobile device
before signing the Enrollment Form or at any time thereafter.
The TOS in place when the Plaintiff signed the Enrollment Form
contained an arbitration provision.  The Arbitration Clause
remained substantially unchanged as of November 2017.

In December 2016 and January 2017, the Plaintiff received five
separate calls on her cellphone from the Defendant for allegedly
defaulting on her obligations to re-pay a portion of the funds
advanced to her using the VIP Program.  She alleges that those
calls were recorded without her knowledge or consent in violation
of California Penal Code Section 632.7.

The Defendant moves to dismiss (or alternatively, stay) and
compel arbitration, arguing the Plaintiff's signing the
Enrollment Form constitutes an agreement to arbitrate any dispute
relating to the TOS or the VIP Program.  It further contends that
the parties expressly agreed to delegate the threshold issues of
arbitrability (including validity and scope) to the arbitrator.

Judge Mendez agrees with the Defendant.  He finds that the
Plaintiff does not contest that she signed the Enrollment Form,
which states that she received and agreed to the TOS' terms and
conditions.  And the Plaintiff's failure to recall, and denial
of, receiving the TOS before she signed the Enrollment Form does
not negate her agreement to the TOS's terms and conditions.  The
Plaintiff's signature on the Enrollment Form means she agreed to
arbitrate arbitrability, despite what she may not currently
recall.  Because the parties delegated arbitrability to an
arbitrator, the Judge's inquiry ends and he must, as he does,
direct the parties to proceed to arbitration so an arbitrator can
determine arbitrability.

The Judge issued its Order re Filing Requirements on Aug. 24,
2017.  The Order limits memoranda in support of and in opposition
to motions to dismiss to 15 pages and reply memoranda in support
of motions to dismiss to five pages.  The Order also states that
an attorney who exceeds the page limits must pay monetary
sanctions of $50 per page and that the Court will not consider
any arguments made past the page limit.  The Plaintiff's
opposition memorandum exceeds the page limit by three pages.  The
Judge has not considered any arguments made after page 15 of the
opposition brief.  He ordered the Plaintiff's counsel to pay $150
in sanctions.  The sanctions will be paid to the Clerk of the
Court within five days of the date of the Order.

For the reasons set forth, Judge Mendez granted the Defendant's
motion to compel arbitration and dismissed the action without
prejudice.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 14, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/O7k3It from Leagle.com.

Diane Morgan, Plaintiff, represented by Mona Amini, Kazerouni Law
Group APC & Seyed Abbas Kazerounian -- ak@kazlg.com -- Kazerouni
Law Group, APC.

Global Payments Check Services, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Kristapor Vartanian -- kvartanian@kcozlaw.com -- Kabat Chapman &
Ozmer LLP & Ryan D. Watstein -- rwatstein@kcozlaw.com -- Kabat
Chapman & Ozmer LLP, pro hac vice.


GLOBAL TELLINK: James, et al., Seek to Certify Class
----------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled BOBBIE JAMES, et al. on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v.
GLOBAL TEL*LINK CORPORATION, INMATE TELEPHONE SERVICE, and DSI-
ITI LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 2:13-cv-04989-WJM-MF (D.N.J.),
Plaintiffs will move the Hon. William J. Martini for an Order to
certifying a class.

A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=a6WlAvua

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James E. Cecchi, Esq.
          Lindsey H. Taylor, Esq.
          CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO
          5 Becker Farm Road
          Roseland, New Jersey 07068
          Telephone: (973) 994 1700

               - and -

          Justin P. Walder, Esq.
          James A. Plaisted, Esq.
          PASHMAN STEIN WALDER HAYDEN
          Court Plaza South
          21 Main Street, Suite 200
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Telephone (201) 488 8200


GOOGLE LLC: Appeal Filed in Marshall's Locksmith Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Marshall's Locksmith Service, et al., seek review of a
decision entered by the District Court in their lawsuit styled
Marshall's Locksmith Service, et al. v. Google, LLC, et al., Case
No. 1:16-cv-02360-TNM, in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Columbia.

The Plaintiffs-Appellants are A Better Choice Lock & Key LLC,
Baldino's Lock & Key Service, Inc., Berkeley Lock and
Institutional Supply, Inc., Michael X. Bronzell, CLS Locksmith
LLC, Dawson Safe & Lock Services, Inc., Grah Safe & Lock Inc.,
Joe East Enterprises, Inc., Keyway Lock & Security Company Inc.,
Mank Limited, Mank, Inc., Marshall's Locksmith Service Inc., Mrs.
Locksmith Incorporated and Redford Lock Company, Inc.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, a group of
13 locksmith operations from 11 states and Washington DC have
joined Baldino's Lock & Key of Newington, Virginia, in the
District Court in an amended complaint alleging that the three
major search engines, Google, Bing, and Yahoo, which together
dominate the search market, flood their search results with false
listings and fictitious map business addresses.

The appellate case is captioned as Marshall's Locksmith Service,
et al. v. Google, LLC, et al., Case No. 18-7018, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

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

   -- Letter sent regarding attorney membership to Jeffrey
      Waintroob Roberts for Marshall's Locksmith Service Inc.,
      CLS Locksmith LLC, Mank Limited, Joe East Enterprises,
      Inc., Mrs. Locksmith Incorporated, Michael X. Bronzell,
      Dawson Safe & Lock Services, Inc., Berkeley Lock and
      Institutional Supply, Inc., Keyway Lock & Security Company
      Inc., Mank, Inc., Redford Lock Company, Inc., Grah Safe &
      Lock Inc., A Better Choice Lock & Key LLC and Baldino's
      Lock & Key Service, Inc.  Application for Admission was due
      March 5, 2018;

   -- Letter sent regarding attorney membership to Taylor T.
      Lankford for Google, LLC.  Application for Admission was
due
      March 5, 2018;

   -- Letter sent regarding attorney membership to Jeffrey A.
      Jaeckel for Yahoo! Inc.  Application for Admission was due
      March 5, 2018;

   -- Letter sent regarding attorney membership to Amy Ray for
      Microsoft Corporation.  Application for Admission was due
on
      March 5, 2018;

   -- Appellant docketing statement was due on March 5, 2018;

   -- Appellant certificate as to parties was due on March 5,
      2018;

   -- Appellant statement of issues was due on March 5, 2018;

   -- Appellant underlying decision was due on March 5, 2018;

   -- Appellant deferred appendix statement was due on March 5,
      2018;

   -- Appellant notice of appearance was due on March 5, 2018;

   -- Appellant transcript status report was due on March 5,
2018;

   -- Appellant procedural motions were due on March 5, 2018;

   -- Appellant dispositive motions are due on March 19, 2018;

   -- Appellee certificate as to parties was due on March 5,
2018;

   -- Appellee entry of appearance was due on March 5, 2018;

   -- Appellee procedural motions were due on March 5, 2018;

   -- Appellee dispositive motions are due on March 19, 2018.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants Marshall's Locksmith Service Inc.; CLS
Locksmith LLC; Mank Limited; Joe East Enterprises, Inc.; Mrs.
Locksmith Incorporated; Michael X. Bronzell; Dawson Safe & Lock
Services, Inc.; Berkeley Lock and Institutional Supply, Inc.;
Keyway Lock & Security Company Inc.; Mank, Inc.; Redford Lock
Company, Inc.; Grah Safe & Lock Inc.; A Better Choice Lock & Key
LLC; and Baldino's Lock & Key Service, Inc., for themselves and
all others similarly situated, are represented by:

          Jeffrey Waintroob Roberts, Esq.
          ROBERTS ATTORNEYS, P.A.
          4440 PGA Boulevard, Suite 204
          Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
          Telephone: (561) 360-2737
          E-mail: Jeff@RobertsAttorneys.com

Defendants-Appellees Google, LLC, and Alphabet, Inc., are
represented by:

          Taylor T. Lankford, Esq.
          KING & SPALDING LLP
          1700 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 200
          Washington, DC 20006-4706
          Telephone: (202) 737-0500
          Facsimile: (202) 626-3737
          E-mail: tlankford@kslaw.com

Defendant-Appellee Yahoo! Inc. is represented by:

          Jeffrey A. Jaeckel, Esq.
          MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
          2000 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 6000
          Washington, DC 20006-1888
          Telephone: (202) 887-1500
          E-mail: JJaeckel@mofo.com

Defendant-Appellee Microsoft Corporation is represented by:

          Amy Ray, Esq.
          CADWALADER, WICKERSHAM & TAFT LLP
          700 6th Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20001
          Telephone: (202) 862-2200
          E-mail: amy.ray@cwt.com


HARRIS COUNTY, TX: Prelim Injunction in "ODonnell" Vacated
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MARANDA LYNN ODONNELL, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. HARRIS
COUNTY, TEXAS; ERIC STEWART HAGSTETTE; JOSEPH LICATA, III; RONALD
NICHOLAS; BLANCA ESTELA VILLAGOMEZ; JILL WALLACE; PAULA GOODHART;
BILL HARMON; NATALIE C. FLEMNG; JOHN CLINTON; MARGARET HARRIS;
LARRY STANDLEY; PAM DERBYSHIRE; JAY KARAHAN; JUDGE ANALIA
WILKERSON; DAN SPJUT; JUDGE DIANE BULL; JUDGE ROBIN BROWN; DONALD
SMYTH; JEAN HUGHES, Defendants-Appellants LOETHA SHANTA McGRUDER;
ROBERT RYAN FORD, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS;
JILL WALLACE; ERIC STEWART HAGSTETTE; JOSEPH LICATA, III; RONALD
NICHOLAS; BLANCA ESTELA VILLAGOMEZ, Defendants-Appellants, Case
No. 17-20333 (5th Cir.), Judge Edith Brown Clement of the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district
court's conclusions of law except its conclusion that the County
Sheriff may be sued under Section 1983 and its determination of
the specific procedural protections owed under procedural due
process.

ODonnell brought a class action suit against Harris County,
Texas, and a number of its officials -- including County Judges,
Hearing Officers, and the Sheriff -- under 42 U.S.C. Section
1983.  ODonnell alleged the County's system of setting bail for
indigent misdemeanor arrestees violated Texas statutory and
constitutional law, as well as the equal protection and due
process clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment.

ODonnell moved for a preliminary injunction, and the County moved
for summary judgment.  After eight days of hearings, at which the
parties presented numerous fact and expert witnesses and
voluminous written evidence, the district court denied the
County's summary judgment motion and granted ODonnell's motion
for a preliminary injunction.  The County then applied to the
Appellate Court for a stay of the injunction pending appeal, but
the motion was denied, and the injunction went into effect.

Before the Court now is the County's appeal, seeking vacatur of
the injunction and raising numerous legal challenges, including
liability of County Judges and Sheriff under Section 1983,
Younger abstention, and the County's Eighth Amendment Argument.

Judge Clement affirmed most of the district court's rulings,
including its conclusion that ODonnell established a likelihood
of success on the merits of its claims that the County's policies
violate procedural due process and equal protection.  He
disagrees, however, with the district court's analysis in three
respects:  First, its definition of ODonnell's liberty interest
under due process was too broad, and the procedures it required
to protect that interest were too onerous.  Second, it erred by
concluding that the County Sheriff can be sued under Section
1983.  Finally, the district court's injunction was overbroad.
As a result, the Judge dismissed the Sheriff from the suit,
vacated the injunction, and ordered the district court to modify
its terms in a manner consistent with the Opinion.  He also
stayed the vacatur pending implementation of the revised
injunction, so as to maintain a stable status quo.

The following represents the sort of modification that would be
appropriate, although Judge Clement left the details to the
district court's discretion.  He ordered the following relief, to
take effect within 30 days, unless those enjoined move for and
show good cause for a reasonable, brief extension.  Any motions
for extension will be set for prompt hearing and resolution.

     a. Harris County is enjoined from imposing prescheduled bail
amounts as a condition of release on arrestees who attest that
they cannot afford such amounts without providing an adequate
process for ensuring that there is individual consideration for
each arrestee of whether another amount or condition provides
sufficient sureties.

     b. Pretrial Services officers, as County employees and
subject to its policies, must verify an arrestee's ability to pay
a prescheduled financial condition of release by an affidavit,
and must explain to arrestees the nature and significance of the
verification process.

     c. The purpose of the explanation is to provide the notice
due process requires that a misdemeanor defendant's state
constitutional right to be bailable by sufficient sureties is at
stake in the proceedings.  Pretrial Services may administer
either the form of the affidavit currently used to determine
eligibility for appointed counsel or the adapted form that Dr.
VanNostrand testified was prepared for Pretrial Services to be
administered by July 1, 2017, if they comply with the below
guidelines.  Pretrial Services must deliver completed affidavits
to the Harris County Sheriff's Office before a declarant's
probable cause hearing.

     d. The affidavit must give the misdemeanor arrestee
sufficient opportunity to declare under penalty of perjury, after
the significance of the information has been explained, the
maximum amount of financial security the arrestee would be able
to post or pay up front within 24 hours of arrest.  The affidavit
should ask the arrestee to provide details about their financial
situation sufficient to help the County make reliable
determinations regarding the amount of bail that would provide
sufficient sureties, including: 1) arrestee and spouse's income
from employment, real property, interest and dividends, gifts,
alimony, child support, retirement, disability, unemployment
payments, public-assistance, and other sources; 2) arrestee and
spouse's employment history for the prior two years and gross
monthly pay; 3) arrestee and spouse's present cash available and
any financial institutions where cash is held; 4) assets owned,
e.g., real estate and motor vehicles; 5) money owed to arrestee
and spouse; 6) dependents of arrestee and spouse, and their ages;
7) estimation of itemized monthly expenses; 8) taxes and legal
costs; 9) expected major changes in income or expenses; 10)
additional information the arrestee wishes to provide to help
explain the inability to pay.

          The question is neither the arrestee's immediate
ability to pay with cash on hand, nor what assets the arrestee
could eventually produce after a period of pretrial detention.
The question is what amount the arrestee could reasonably pay
within 24 hours of his or her arrest, from any source, including
the contributions of family and friends.

     e. The purpose of the requirement is to provide a better,
easier, and faster way to get the information needed to determine
a misdemeanor defendant's ability to pay.  The Hearing Officers
and County Judges testified that they presently do not know who
has the ability to pay.  The affidavit can be completed within 24
hours after arrest; the current process of verifying references
by phone extends for days after arrest.

     f. The Court does not order relief against the Hearing
Officers or against the County Judges in their judicial or
legislative capacities.

     g. Misdemeanor defendants who are not subject to: (1) formal
holds preventing their release from detention; (2) pending
mental-health evaluations to determine competency; or (3)
pretrial preventive detention orders for violating a condition of
release for a crime of family violence, have a constitutionally
protected state-created liberty interest in being bailable by
sufficient sureties before trial.

          If a misdemeanor defendant has executed an affidavit
showing an inability to pay prescheduled money bail and has not
been released either: (1) on an unsecured personal bond with
nonfinancial conditions of release; or (2) on a secured money
bond for which the defendant could pay a commercial surety's
premium, as indicated on the affidavit, then the defendant is
entitled to a hearing within 48 hours of arrest in which an
impartial decision-maker conducts an individual assessment of
whether another amount of bail or other condition provides
sufficient sureties.

          At the hearing, the arrestee must have an opportunity
to describe evidence in his or her favor, and to respond to
evidence described or presented by law enforcement.  If the
decision-maker declines to lower bail from the prescheduled
amount to an amount the arrestee is able to pay, then the
decision-maker must provide written factual findings or factual
findings on the record explaining the reason for the decision,
and the County must provide the arrestee with a formal
adversarial bail review hearing before a County Judge.

          The Harris County Sheriff is therefore authorized to
decline to enforce orders requiring payment of prescheduled bail
amounts as a condition of release for said defendants if the
orders are not accompanied by a record showing that the required
individual assessment was made and an opportunity for formal
review was provided.  All nonfinancial conditions of release
ordered by the Hearing Officers, including protective orders,
drug testing, alcohol intake ignition locks, or GPS monitoring,
will remain in effect.

     h. The purpose of this requirement is to provide timely
protection for the state-created liberty interest in being
bailable by sufficient sureties and to prevent the automatic
imposition of prescheduled bail amounts without an adequate
process for ensuring that there is individualized consideration
of whether another amount or condition provides sufficient
sureties.

     i. To enforce the 48-hour timeline, the County must make a
weekly report to the district court of misdemeanor defendants
identified above for whom a timely individual assessment has not
been held.  The County must also notify the defendant's counsel
and/or next of kin of the delay. A pattern of delays might
warrant further relief from the district court.  Because the
court recognizes that the County might need additional time to
comply with this requirement, the County may propose a reasonable
timeline for doing so.

     j. The purpose of this requirement is to give timely
protection to the state-created liberty interest in being
bailable by sufficient sureties by enforcing federal standards
indicating that 48 hours is a reasonable timeframe for completing
the administrative incidents to arrest.  The 48-hour requirement
is intended to address the endemic problem of misdemeanor
arrestees being detained until case disposition and pleading
guilty to secure faster release from pretrial detention.

     k. For misdemeanor defendants who are subject to formal
holds and who have executed an affidavit showing an inability to
pay the prescheduled financial condition of release, the Sheriff
must treat the limitations period on their holds as beginning to
run the earliest of: (1) after the probable cause hearing; or (2)
24 hours after arrest.  The purpose of this requirement is to
ensure that misdemeanor defendants are not prevented from or
delayed in addressing their holds because they are indigent and
therefore cannot pay a prescheduled financial condition of
release.

     l. Misdemeanor defendants who do not appear competent to
execute an affidavit may be evaluated under the procedures set
out in the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article 16.22.  If
competence is found, the misdemeanor defendant is covered by the
relief the court orders, with the exception that the 48-hour
period begins to run from the finding of competence rather than
from the time of arrest.  As under Article 16.22, nothing in the
order prevents the misdemeanor arrestee from being released on
secured bail or unsecured personal bond pending the evaluation.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 14, 2018 Opinion is
available at https://is.gd/zg68n6 from Leagle.com.

Charles Justin Cooper -- ccooper@cooperkirk.com -- for Defendant-
Appellant.

Murray Jules Fogler -- mfogler@fbfog.com -- for Defendant-
Appellant.

John E. O'Neill, for Defendant-Appellant.

Bruce Stephen Powers, for Defendant-Appellant.

George Allan Van Fleet, for Defendant-Appellant.

Stacy R. Obenhaus, for Defendant-Appellant.

Carter Glasgow Phillips, for Defendant-Appellant.

Neal Manne -- nmanne@SusmanGodfrey.com -- for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Sheryl Anne Falk, for Defendant-Appellant.

Seth Paul Waxman -- seth.waxman@wilmerhale.com -- for Plaintiff-
Appellee.

Jonathan Lee Marcus, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Mike Anthony Stafford, for Defendant-Appellant.

Joseph David Hughes -- jhughes@kleinlaw.com -- for Defendant-
Appellant.

Rebecca Bernhardt -- bernhard.rebecca@dorsey.com -- for
Plaintiff-Appellee.

Jared Brandon Caplan -- jcaplan@bradley.com -- for Plaintiff-
Appellee.

Ilya Shapiro -- ishapiro@cato.org -- for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Nicole Wignall DeBorde, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Alexandra Giselle White -- lwhite@SusmanGodfrey.com -- for
Plaintiff-Appellee.

Paul D. Clement -- paul.clement@kirkland.com -- for Plaintiff-
Appellee.

Thomas Royal Phillips -- tom.phillips@bakerbotts.com -- for
Plaintiff-Appellee.


HER IMPORTS: Ward Sues over Unwanted Autodialed Text Messages
-------------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH WARD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. HER IMPORTS, a Nevada corporation,
the Defendant, Case No. 6:18-cv-06163 (W.D.N.Y., Feb. 23, 2018),
seeks to stop Defendant's practice of sending unwanted autodialed
text messages to cellular telephones without consent, to stop the
sending of text messages to consumers registered on the do not
call registry and for continuing to send text messages to
consumers despite their stop requests, and to obtain redress,
including injunctive relief, for all persons injured by its
conduct.

According to the complaint, the Defendant sells hair extensions,
hair care products and beauty accessories all across North
America. Unfortunately for consumers, Defendant sends text
messages to consumers who have not signed up for Defendant's
services. That is, in an attempt to solicit a response from
consumers who have not signed up for Defendant's services, and to
ultimately increase Defendant's revenue by encouraging consumers
to purchase its services, Defendant conducted (and continues to
conduct) a wide-scale solicitation campaign that features the
sending of repeated unsolicited text messages to consumers'
cellular telephones -- without prior written express consent, all
in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C.
section 227 (the "TCPA").

For many marketers, text message marketing is highly profitable
since their open rate is significantly higher than email.
However, marketers must comply with the TCPA before sending out
text messages to consumers. Yet, in violation of the TCPA,
Defendant fails to obtain any prior express written consent to
send solicitation text messages to consumers' cellular telephone
numbers. Even worse, when consumers attempt to opt-out by
replying STOP to the text messages, Defendant continues to send
them solicitation text messages despite their stop requests.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Putative Classes:

          Ross H. Schmierer, Esq.
          DeNITTIS OSEFCHEN PRINCE, P.C.
          315 Madison Avenue, 3rd Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (646) 979 3642
          Facsimile: (856) 797 9978
          E-mail: rschmierer@denittislaw.com

               - and -

          Stefan Coleman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF STEFAN COLEMAN, P.A.
          5 Penn Plaza, 23rd Floor
          New York, NY 10001
          Telephone: (877) 333 9427
          Facsimile: (888) 498 8946
          E-mail: law@stefancoleman.com


IC SYSTEM: Amended Bid for Class Cert. Denied without Prejudice
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled Zygmunt Serafin, the Plaintiff, v. IC
System, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 2015-cv-1340 (E.D. Wisc.),
the Hon. Judge Pamela Pepper entered an order:

   1. denying without prejudice plaintiff's amended motion for
      class certification;

   2. denying as moot portion of plaintiff's September 13, 2016
      motion that asks the court to stay briefing on summary
      judgment;

   3. granting plaintiff's Rule 7(h) expedited, non-dispositive
      motion to seal references to material designated by
      defendant as "confidential";

   4. granting plaintiff's motion for leave to file an amended
      Complaint; and

   5. directing clerk's office to docket the document, and
      ordering that document shall be the operative complaint in
      the case.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=zp0PnwUX

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John Blythin, Esq.
          Ben Slatsky, Esq.
          ADEMI & O'REILLY LLP
          3620 E Layton Ave 103,
          Cudahy, WI 53110
          Telephone: (414) 482 8000
          Facsimile: (414) 482 8001
          E-mail: jblythin@ademilaw.com
                  bslatsky@ademilaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Elizabeth Odian, Esq.
          HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP
          100 East Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 2600
          Milwaukee, WI 53202
          Telephone: (414) 225 4806


IDEOLOGY ENTERTAINMENT: Fails to Pay Medical Insurance Premiums
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joshua Gunther on behalf of themselves individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Ideology Entertainment, LLC and Fred Latsko, the Defendants, Case
No. 2018-L-001962 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty., Feb. 23, 2018),
seeks to recover Compensatory damages sufficient to make
Plaintiff, and all similarly situated individuals whole, for
their wrongfully deducted wages.

According to the complaint, Ideology operates a number of Chicago
area restaurants and was organized as an Illinois limited
liability company in February 20, 2013. Ideology is a manager-
managed limited liability company which is managed Latsko. Prior
to November 1, 2017, Plaintiff worked as a cook for "La Storia,"
a restaurant owned and operated by Ideology.

The Plaintiff, and other similarly situated individuals, entered
into employment agreements within the meaning of the Illinois
Wage Payment and Collections Act, with Defendant providing for,
inter alia, deductions to be made from Plaintiffs' paychecks in
exchange for the enrollment within, and inurement of benefits
from, certain benefits programs, including, inter alia, health
insurance to be provided by Blue Cross Blue Shield of Illinois.

On, or about, November 1, 2017, Plaintiff was diagnosed with
cancer. Since diagnosis, Plaintiff has required multiple medical
services including, inter alia, surgery and treatment for
seizures, which were rendered by Northwestern Medical. Shortly
after provision of the aforementioned medical services, Plaintiff
was notified through a bill issued by Northwestern Medical that
Blue Cross Blue Shield of Illinois was not covering the cost of
Plaintiff's medical services to coverage being terminated due to
Ideology's failure to pay medical insurance premiums.

These deductions (a) were not put towards their described
purposes; and/or (b) did not effective inure for those described
purposes to the benefit of Plaintiff, and similarly situated
individuals. As a result, the Plaintiff, and potentially
similarly situated individuals, were injured by both the
conversion of their wages; the absence of inurement of employee
benefits the wage deductions were purportedly made for; and the
incurring of medical expenses caused by non-coverage by the
various benefits programs they had anticipated being covered by
vis a vis their wage deductions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott Kane Stukel, Esq.
          CAMERON & KANE, LLC
          2864 N. Milwaukee Ave.
          Chicago, IL 60618
          Telephone No.: (872) 588 0727
          Facsimile No.: (312) 268 7478
          E-mail: scott@cameronandkane.com


INTELLICHECK LLC: May 10 "Cunha" Class Certification Hearing
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JAMES CUNHA, an individual, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. INTELLICHECK, LLC,
a California Limited Liability Company; PROPACIFIC FRESH, INC., a
California Corporation; and Does 1 through 100, Defendants, Case
No. 3:17-cv-00597-JST (N.D. Cal.), Judge John S. Tigar of the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San
Francisco Division, has entered an order continuing the class
certification briefing by two weeks.

Cunha filed his Class Action Complaint on Dec. 20, 2016 in the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of
Humboldt.  On Feb. 6, 2017, Chico Produce removed the action to
the Court.

On May 25, 2017, the Court heard Chico Produce's second Motion to
Dismiss, which was granted in part and denied in part.  On June
17, 2017, the Court issued a Scheduling Order stating that the
Plaintiff had until Feb. 13, 2018 to file his Motion for Class
Certification.

On Sept. 18, 2017, Chico Produce served its responses to the
Plaintiff's First Set of Interrogatories.  In those responses,
Chico Produce stated that 47 people had signed the same
authorization and disclosure forms as the Plaintiff as part of
their application for employment with Chico Produce.  On Oct. 10,
2017, Chico Produce produced a list of 47 individuals who it
identified as members of the putative class.

On Oct. 13, 2017, the Parties filed two separate Joint Letter
Briefs regarding Chico Produce's responses to the Plaintiff's
First Set of Interrogatories, which were referred to the
Magistrate.

On Nov. 16, 2017, the Parties were ordered to attend proceedings
in front of the Hon. Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero, and the
Parties agreed that Chico Produce would produce amended responses
to discovery and produce additional documents.  On Dec. 22, 2017,
pursuant to the Parties' agreement, Chico Produce served amended
responses to the Plaintiff's First Set of Interrogatories.  In
the responses served on Dec. 22, 2017, Chico Produce stated that
92 individuals had undergone a consumer report as part of their
application for employment with Chico Produce.  Additionally, on
Dec. 22, 2017, Chico Produce produced 334 pages of documents.  It
did not update the Oct. 10, 2017 class list at that time.

On Jan. 26, 2018, the Parties submitted a Letter Briefs regarding
the Plaintiff's Responses to Chico Produce's written discovery.
On Feb. 2, 2018, the Parties and the Court held a Case Management
Conference where the Plaintiff raised his concerns regarding
discovery the disparity in the number of class members stated by
Chico Produce in its various responses.  Chico Produce also
raised discovery issues.  As a result, the Court scheduled Feb.
14, 2018 as the date by which the Parties will submit a Joint
Letter Brief on their discovery issues to the Magistrate.

On Feb. 9, 2018, the Magistrate issued an order requiring the
Parties to attend a discovery conference on Feb. 23, 2018
regarding the Letter Briefs filed on Jan. 26, 2018.  The
Magistrate's order also stated that it would seek to resolve the
issues raised at the Feb. 2, 2018 Case Management Conference on
Feb. 23, 2018.  The Court's clerk has stated that the Magistrate
will not require any letter briefs until after the Feb. 23, 2018
meet and confer session, and only then to address any unresolved
issues.

As a result, the Magistrate's conference set for Feb. 23, 2018
may very well resolve several discovery disputes that will impact
the Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification, as well as the
Defendant's defenses to Plaintiff's Motion.  Further, the Parties
are currently exploring deposition dates for Chico Produce's
30(b)(6) witness on or shortly after Feb. 27, 2018.

Thus, to allow the Parties to complete discovery, and to resolve
all ongoing discovery disputes, the Parties requested the Court
to modify the Scheduling Order, and Judge Tigar granted, as
follows:

   Deadline to File Class
   Certification Motion                March 9, 2018

   Deadline to File Opposition
   to Class Certification              April 6, 2018

   Deadline to File Class
   Certification Reply                 April 20, 2018

   Class Certification Hearing           May 10, 2018

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 14, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/BMCVjk from Leagle.com.

James Cunha, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Patrick Nathaniel
Keegan -- pkeegan@keeganbaker.com -- Keegan & Baker, LLP, James
Michael Treglio, Keegan & Baker, LLP & Walter Lewis Haines --
walter@whaines.com -- United Employees Law Group, P.C.

Chico Produce, Inc., a California Corporation, Defendant,
represented by Derek Stanley Sachs -- sachs@lbbslaw.com -- Lewis
Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP, Ashley Nicole Arnett --
Ashley.Arnett@lewisbrisbois.com -- Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard and
Smith LLP & Sharon G. Gelbart -- Sharon.Gelbart@lewisbrisbois.com
-- Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP.


IVEL INTL: Officers Engage in Side Cash Deals, Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------
ADOLFO COST a shareholder of IVEL INTERNATIONAL INC. Suing in the
right of IVEL INTERNATIONAL INC., the Plaintiff, v. IVEL
INTERNATIONAL INC. And BORRIS GOYKHMAR and BRIGID BERRY, the
Defendants, Case No. 650868/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Feb. 23, 2018),
seeks to recover damages including monies, properties and profits
wrongfully misappropriated, gained, or received by Defendants.

According to the complaint, Berry was appointed Secretary and
Treasurer by the Board in 2002, Borris was appointed Vice-
President by the Board in 2002. Borris and Berry, are and were at
all times, the owner of approximately 25% of Ivel Shares each.
The Defendants by virtue of their positions, their ownership and
control of shares of Ivel, have dominated and controlled Ivel and
its Board of Directors with respect to tire business and affairs
of Ivel, and in particular the acts and transactions alleged.

The Controlling Defendants have conspired to completely removed
Plaintiff from tire business. The Controlling Defendants have
frozen Plaintiff out of his share of the Corporations profits, as
well as not paid him his salary in over a year. Plaintiff has not
received any money from the Corporation since December 2016. At
work, Plaintiff is ignored, verbally abused, and isolated from
any business interaction by the Controlling Defendants.

The Controlling Defendants have blocked Plaintiff from fee
corporate books and records, communication with clients,
databases, and client lists. Controlling Defendants have started
their own side businesses stealing, diverting and using Ivel's
resources for their own personal gain.

Controlling Defendants have engaged in side cash deals in breach
of their fiduciary duty to Ivel. Controlling Defendants are
subleasing the Ivel owned space to subtenants without subtenants
paying market value rent, and without the knowledge of the
landlord, which, puts Ivel in legal jeopardy. The Plaintiff has
made no demand on the Board of Directors of Ivel to take action;
with respect to the wrongs alleged since the majority of Ivels
Board participated in, authorized and approved the acts and
transactions complained and are liable therefore. The directors
are defendants in in this action.  The Plaintiff has no adequate
remedy at law. The Plaintiff has been refused access to the books
and records, and has been unable to ascertain same.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jacob Pleitman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL ALBER
          2061 Deer Park Avenue
          Dew Park, NY 11729
          Telephone: (631) 242 7801


K12 INC: Movants Seek Class Certification in Securities Case
------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit RE K12 INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No.
4:16-cv-04069-PJH (N.D. Cal.), the movants will seek a Court
Order at a September 12, 2018 hearing:

   1. certifying a class of:

      "all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise
      acquired securities of K12, Inc. during the period October
      10, 2013 and October 27, 2015, inclusive"; and

   2. appointing Lead Plaintiffs Dr. Mark Beadle and Babulal
      Tarapara as Class Representatives, and appointing Glancy
      Prongay & Murray LLP as Class Counsel.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=GMsSJ055

Lead Counsel for Lead Plaintiffs and the Putative Class:

          Kevin F. Ruf, Esq.
          Kara M. Wolke, Esq.
          Leanne H. Solish, Esq.
          Melissa C. Wright, Esq.
          GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 201 9150
          Facsimile: (310) 201 9160
          E-mail: info@glancylaw.com


KEYES COMPANY: Grigorian Seeks to Certify 2 Classes
---------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled MARIAM GRIGORIAN, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. THE
KEYES COMPANY, a Florida corporation, the Defendant, Case No.
1:17-cv-23943-UU (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for
order:

   1. granting class certification of:

      Applicant Texts Class:

      "all persons within the United States who were sent
      Applicant Texts from Defendant or anyone on Defendant's
      behalf, to said person's cellular telephone number, without
      emergency purpose and without the recipient's prior
      consent"; and

      Passing List Texts Class:

      "all persons within the United States who were sent Passing
      List Texts from Defendant or anyone on Defendant's behalf,
      to said person's cellular telephone number, without
      emergency purpose and without the recipient's prior
      consent.

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

   2. appointing her as representative of the Class;

   3. appointing Kopelowitz Ostrow Ferguson Weiselberg Gilbert
      and Hiraldo P.A. as class counsel; and

   4. establishing a deadline for submission of the proposed
      class notice and notice plan.

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

Attorneys for Plaintiff and all others similarly situated:

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

               - and -

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


KINGSLEY CONSTRUCTORS: Deweese Seeks to Certify Welders Class
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled KYLE DEWEESE, Individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. KINGSLEY
CONSTRUCTORS, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 5:17-cv-01221-OLG
(W.D. Tex.), the Plaintiff asks the court a conditional
certification of a collective action consisting of:

   "all Pipeline Welders Who Worked for Kingsley Constructors,
   Inc., At Any Time During the Past Three Years Through the
   Present, And Were Paid Hourly But No Overtime Compensation for
   All Hours Worked Over Forty in Each Workweek."

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

Attorneys in Charge for Plaintiffs and the Putative Class
Members:

          Clif Alexander, Esq.
          Lauren E. Braddy, Esq.
          ANDERSON2X, PLLC
          819 N. Upper Broadway
          Corpus Christi, TX 78401
          Telephone: (361) 452 1279
          Facsimile: (361) 452 1284
          E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com
                  lauren@a2xlaw.com


LEE COUNTY, FL: J. Thompson's Bid to Sever from "Gittens" Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, GWYNETTA GITTENS, DR. JERALD THOMPSON, STEPHANIE
LAWRENCE and PRESTON TOWNS, Plaintiffs, v. THE SCHOOL BOARD OF
LEE COUNTY, FLORIDA, Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-412-FtM-99MRM
(M.D. Fla.), Judge Sheri Polster Chappell of the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of Florida, Fort Myers Division,
denied Dr. Jerald Thompson's unopposed motion to sever himself
from the case and have the Court create a new case file so he may
proceed on his individual case only.

The Plaintiffs, who are African-American, allege that they
applied but were not chosen for various administrative positions
with the administration of the School Board of Lee County.  They
also claim that the School Board has a pattern and practice of
refusing to hire well-qualified, African-American employees to
administrative positions.

Since the inception of the case, Dr. Thompson has been a named
Plaintiff.  The Plaintiffs at first moved for class
certification, which the Court denied.  Attorney Benjamin Yormak
withdrew from representing Dr. Thompson in August 2017, and the
new counsel entered an appearance on Dr. Thompson's behalf on
Jan. 29, 2018.  The Counsel, shortly thereafter, filed the Motion
to Sever.

Dr. Thompson's new counsel argues that the Plaintiffs only
initially joined in one action to establish a class action, which
has been denied, and proceeding as a group of four individual
Plaintiffs does not satisfy the Federal Rule's standard for
joinder of parties.  He states that the claims of each Plaintiff
are factually distinct from those of all other Plaintiffs, and do
not arise out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of
transactions or occurrences so that there was initially a
misjoinder of parties that can be remedied only by severance.
Dr. Thompson also asserts that the Plaintiffs' claims are
distinct and will require the testimony of different witnesses
and documents and the counsel have different strategies for
presenting their cases, which would cause prejudice.

The Amended Complaint cites a district-wide policy designed to
discriminate against well-qualified African American employees to
administrative positions, and that each Plaintiff was allegedly
subjected to such a policy.  Thus, Chappell finds that the claims
of each the Plaintiff arise out of the same series of
transactions or occurrences.  Therefore, common questions of law
and fact exist as the Plaintiffs seek relief based on the same
series of discriminatory actions by one decision-maker -- the
School Board of Lee County.  And although Dr. Thompson summarily
states that prejudice will result, and his co-Plaintiffs have
offered no response in opposition, he fails to explain how
prejudice would outweigh the convenience and judicial economy of
keeping all the Plaintiffs in one case and proceeding through
discovery in one case.

The Judge states there is no doubt an overlap of witnesses common
to all parties and Dr. Thompson has offered no evidence or
argument to the contrary.  Dr. Thompson may always move to sever
one or more issues or claims from his case for trial under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(b).

Accordingly, Judge Chappell denied Dr. Thompson's Unopposed
Motion to Sever.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 13, 2018 Opinion and Order
is available at https://is.gd/VvPQ8g from Leagle.com.

Gwynetta Gittens, an individual, Stephanie Lawrence, an
individual and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals &
Preston Towns, an individual and on behalf of all similarly
situated individuals, Plaintiffs, represented by Benjamin H.
Yormak -- byormak@yormaklaw.com -- Yormak Disability Law Group.

Dr. Jerald Thompson, an individual and on behalf of all similarly
situated individuals, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas L. Wilson
-- douglaswilson@earthlink.net -- Wilson Law Firm.

The School Board of Lee County, Florida, a political subdivision
of the State of Florida, Defendant, represented by Richard Barton
Akin, II -- richard.akin@henlaw.com -- Henderson, Franklin,
Starnes & Holt, PA & Suzanne Makayla Boy --
suzanne.boy@henlaw.com -- Henderson, Franklin, Starnes & Holt,
PA.


LIFESTREAM BEHAVIORAL: "Velez" Suit Seeks Back Pay under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
FRANCIS VELEZ, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. LIFESTREAM BEHAVIORAL CENTER, INC.,
the Defendant, Case No. 5:18-cv-00094-JSM-PRL (M.D. Fla., Feb.
23, 2018), seeks to recover back pay, compensatory and liquidated
damages, attorney fees, costs of litigation and other relief
under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, in 2008, Defendant hired Plaintiff to
work as a recovery specialist who was responsible for working
with clients who were recovering from drug addictions. His job
involved him being in the field and transporting clients so they
could perform task such as shopping groceries as well as
completing paper work. The Plaintiff worked through his lunch,
but has a one hour meal break deducted from his pay. In addition,
the Plaintiff received no compensation.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew W. Birk, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF MATTHEW BIRK
          309 NE 1st Street
          Gainsville, FL 32601
          Telephone: (352) 244 2069
          Facsimile: (352) 372 3464
          E-mail: mbirk@gainesvilleemploymentlaw.com


LINEAGE LOGISTICS: Fails to Pay Overtime Wage, Williams Says
------------------------------------------------------------
RACINE WILLIAMS & JAPHETH WARNER, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. LINEAGE
LOGISTICS, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-02091 (D. Kan.,
Feb. 23, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs and all other similarly situated employees worked
for Lineage as non-exempt hourly employees who received incentive
bonuses in any workweek in which overtime was worked within the
preceding statutory period. The Plaintiff worked at Lineage's
location in Edwardsville, KS as a non-exempt hourly employee
eligible for bonuses. The Plaintiff Japheth Warner worked at
Lineage's location in Edwardsville, KS as a non-exempt hourly
employee eligible for bonuses. Pursuant to Lineage's company-wide
policies, practices, and/or procedures, Defendant failed to pay
Plaintiff Williams, Plaintiff Warner, and other similarly
situated non-exempt hourly employees the proper amount of
overtime compensation due and owing pursuant to the FLSA.

The Defendant's systematic violations of the FLSA were willful in
that Defendant either knew that its policies, practices, and/or
procedures violated the FLSA or acted with reckless disregard as
to whether or not their policies complied with the law.

Lineage Logistics is a port warehousing, logistics, and cold
storage company delivering sophisticated, customized and
dependable cold chain solutions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kathryn S. Rickley, Esq.
          Matthew E. Osman, Esq.
          OSMAN & SMAY LLP
          8500 W. 110th St., Ste. 330
          Overland Park, KS 66210
          Telephone: (913) 667 9243
          Facsimile: (866) 470 9243
          E-mail: krickley@workerwagerights.com
                  mosman@workerwagerights.com


MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL: 3 Petitions for Writ Filed in "Wyckoff"
--------------------------------------------------------------
Three petitions for a writ of certiorari were separately filed on
January 29, 2018, in the lawsuit titled Jordan Wyckoff, et al.,
Petitioners v. Office of the Commissioner of Baseball, dba Major
League Baseball, et al., Respondents, Case No. 17-1079, in the
Supreme Court of United States.

Responses to the Petitions were due March 2, 2018.

The Lower Court Case is entitled Jordan Wyckoff, et al.,
Petitioners v. Office of the Commissioner of Baseball, dba Major
League Baseball, et al., Respondents, Case No. 16-3795-cv, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the United
States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued an Order
affirming the District Court's dismissal of the Plaintiff's class
action suit alleging violations of Sherman Act and New York's
Donnelly Act in the case captioned JORDAN WYCKOFF, Individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, DARWIN COX,
Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF BASEBALL,
an unincorporated association doing business as MAJOR LEAGUE
BASEBALL, et al., Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 16-3795-cv (2nd
Cir.).

Plaintiffs-Appellants Jordan Wyckoff, individually and on behalf
of other professional baseball scouts, and Darwin Cox appeal from
the judgment of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York.

The Plaintiffs argue primarily that the Defendants conspired to
decrease competition in the labor market for professional
baseball scouts in violation of the Sherman Act and New York's
Donnelly Act.  Moreover, they argue that the District Court erred
by ignoring factual allegations indicating that the professional
baseball scouts' claims fall outside professional baseball's
long-recognized exemption from antitrust regulation.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Petitioners Jordan Wyckoff, et al., are represented
by:

          Robert L. King, Esq.
          KOREIN TILLERY LLC
          505 North 7th Street, Suite 3600
          St. Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: (314) 241-4844
          E-mail: rking@koreintillery.com


MARKETECH: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss TCPA Suit
------------------------------------------------
In the case, JT'S FRAMES, INC., Plaintiff, v. JESSE CASARES, et
al., Defendants, Case No. 16-cv-2504 (N.D. Ill.), Judge Robert M.
Dow, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division, granted the Plaintiff's motion to
take limited jurisdictional discovery, and denied without
prejudice the Marketech Defendants' motion to dismiss.

The Plaintiff brings the proposed class action against the
Defendants for alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act of 1991, as amended by the Junk Fax Prevention Act
of 2005 ("JFPA").

The Plaintiff alleges that between Sept. 20 and Oct. 6, 2015, a
fax advertisement was transmitted to the Plaintiff's fax number
by the Defendants utilizing a telephone facsimile machine,
computer, or other device.  The Fax is an advertisement of a
Texas travel agency owned and operated by Defendants Jesse
Casares, Joe Casares, and Zabeleta promoting an "End of Summer
Super Sale" for a variety of vacation destinations.  The Fax
transmitted successfully and a copy of it was printed from the
Plaintiff's fax machine, using his paper and ink toner.

Based on these allegations, the Plaintiff alleges a single claim
against all the Defendants for violation of the JFPA.  He alleges
that the Fax was unsolicited and that each Defendant had a high
degree of involvement in sending the Fax.  The Plaintiff also
alleges that the Fax did not have the opt-out notice that is
required to maintain an affirmative defense under the JFPA.

Currently before the Court is the Marketech Defendants' motion to
dismiss the Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint ("SAC") for lack
of subject matter jurisdiction, lack of personal jurisdiction,
and failure to state a claim, as well as the Plaintiff's motion
to take limited jurisdictional discovery.

Judge Dow finds that the Marketech Defendants do not allege, nor
provide any evidence that, the Plaintiff purchased its fax
machine and fax machine supplies simply to receive junk faxes and
file JFPA claims.  To the contrary, the Plaintiff alleges that it
received an unsolicited Fax from the Marketech Defendants, which
used his fax paper and toner, caused wear and tear on its fax
machine, and tied up its fax line.  For these reasons, dismissal
for lack of subject matter jurisdiction would not be warranted
even if Stoops v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. were binding on the
Court.

After considering the parties' arguments and evidence, the Judge
concludes that, although it is a close call, the Plaintiff should
be allowed limited jurisdictional discovery to explore the
Marketech Defendants' involvement (if any) with the Fax that
forms the basis of the Plaintiff's SAC.  He says the factual
record is ambiguous or unclear on the jurisdiction issue, and
therefore will grant the Plaintiff's motion to take limited
discovery directed at personal jurisdiction.  The Judge will deny
the Marketech Defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of personal
jurisdiction, without prejudice to their ability to renew the
motion following jurisdictional discovery.

Because the threshold issue of personal jurisdiction remains
unresolved, Judge Dow says he needs not and should not reach the
Marketech Defendants' Rule 12(b)(6) motion.  He notes,
nonetheless, that the Marketech Defendants' attempt to use
Tessler and Kamenetsky's declarations to contradict the SAC's
allegations concerning the Marketech Defendants' role in
transmitting the Fax is improper.  A Rule 12(b)(6) motion
challenges the legal sufficiency of the complaint, and therefore
in ruling on such a motion to Court must accept as true all of
the well-pleaded facts in the complaint and draw all reasonable
inferences in favor of the Plaintiff.

For these reasons, Judge Dow granted the Plaintiff's motion to
take limited jurisdictional discovery and denied the Marketech
Defendants' motion to dismiss without prejudice to renewal
following jurisdictional discovery.  He set the case for status
hearing on March 6, 2018.  The parties are directed to file a
proposed schedule for jurisdictional discovery no later than
March 1, 2018.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 13, 2018 Memorandum Opinion
and Order is available at https://is.gd/oLGKkO from Leagle.com.

JT's Frames, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Brian J. Wanca --
bwanca@andersonwanca.com -- Anderson & Wanca, Ross Michael Good -
- rgood@andersonwanca.com -- Anderson Wanca, Ryan M. Kelly --
rkelly@andersonwanca.com -- Anderson & Wanca & Wallace Cyril
Solberg -- wsolberg@andersonwanca.com -- Anderson Wanca.

Marketech d/b/a Interfax.net, Avigdor Tessler & Jay M Kamenetsky,
Defendants, represented by Gary Edward Hood --
ghood@polsinelli.com -- Polsinelli PC, Mark Thomas Deming --
mdeming@polsinelli.com -- Polsinelli PC, Matthew Frontz --
mfrontz@polsinelli.com -- POLSINELLI PC, pro hac vice & Rodney L.
Lewis -- rodneylewis@polsinelli.com -- Polsinelli PC.


MIDLAND CREDIT: Court Stays "Bushberger" Class Certification Bid
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled TERESA BUSHBERGER, the Plaintiff, v.
MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-
01468-WED (E.D. Wisc.), the Hon. Judge William E. Duffin entered
an order granting plaintiff's motion to stay further proceedings
for class certification.

The Court said, "The parties are relieved from the automatic
briefing schedule set forth in Civil Local Rule 7(b) and (c).
Moreover, for administrative purposes, it is necessary that the
Clerk terminate the plaintiff's motion for class certification.
However, this motion will be regarded as pending to serve its
protective purpose under Damasco."

In Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891, 896 (7th Cir. 2011),
the court suggested that class-action plaintiffs "move to certify
the class at the same time that they file their complaint." Id.
"The pendency of that motion protects a putative class from
attempts to buy off the named plaintiffs." Id. However, because
parties are generally unprepared to proceed with a motion for
class certification at the beginning of a case, the Damasco court
suggested that the parties "ask the district court to delay its
ruling to provide time for additional discovery or
investigation."

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=JYWAR2BQ


MDL 2818: Suits Over Defective AC Transferred to in E.D. Mich.
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: GENERAL MOTORS CORP AIR CONDITIONING
MARKETING AND SALES PRACTICES LITIGATION, MDL No. 2818, Judge
Sarah S. Vance of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation (a) transferred the following four actions: (i)
JENKINS, ET AL. v. GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY, C.A. No. 3:17-05864
18-10507 (N.D. Cal.), (ii) TANGARA, ET AL. v. GENERAL MOTORS LLC,
C.A. No. 4:17-12786 (E.D. Mich.), (iii) WON v. GENERAL MOTORS
COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 1:17-04819 18-10508 (E.D. N.Y.), and
(iv) BELL, ET AL. v. GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY, C.A. No. 2:17-00183
18-10509 (N.D. Tex.); and those pending outside of the Eastern
District of Michigan to the Eastern District of Michigan, and (b)
with the consent of that court, assigned to Judge Matthew F.
Leitman for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings with
the action pending there and the four actions.

The Defendants move under 28 U.S.C. Section 1407 to centralize
the litigation concerning allegedly defective vehicle air
conditioning systems in the Eastern District of Michigan.  The
Plaintiffs in the Eastern District of Michigan action support
GM's motion in its entirety.

The litigation consists of four actions pending in four
districts, as listed.  No party opposes centralization.  The
Plaintiffs in the Northern District of California Jenkins action
and the Northern District of Texas Bell action support
centralization in the Eastern District of Michigan and suggest,
respectively, alternative transferee districts of the Northern
District of California and the Northern District of Texas.  The
Plaintiffs in a Western District of Texas potential tag-along
action support centralization in the Western District of Texas.

After considering the argument of counsel, Judge Vance finds that
the actions in the litigation involve common questions of fact,
and that centralization in the Eastern District of Michigan will
serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote
the just and efficient conduct of the litigation.  The actions
involve common factual issues arising from three similar putative
nationwide class actions and one putative California statewide
class action that concern the design, manufacture and performance
of the air conditioners in several models of GM vehicles,
spanning model years from 2014-2017.  Centralization will
eliminate duplicative discovery; avoid inconsistent pretrial
rulings, particularly on class certification; and conserve the
resources of the parties, their counsel and the judiciary.

The Judge is persuaded that the Eastern District of Michigan is
an appropriate transferee district.  The district, which enjoys
the support of most responding parties, is where relevant
documents and witnesses may be found, inasmuch as defendant GM is
based there.  Further, the district offers a readily accessible
and convenient transferee forum.  She is confident that Judge
Leitman, who already has taken initial steps to organize the
cases before him, will steer the litigation on a prudent course.

Judge Vance therefore ordered that the actions listed and pending
outside of the Eastern District of Michigan are transferred to
the Eastern District of Michigan and, with the consent of that
court, assigned to Judge Leitman for coordinated or consolidated
pretrial proceedings with the action pending there and the four
actions.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 13, 2018 Transfer Order is
available at https://is.gd/hjkfdO from Leagle.com.


MERCK & CO: Teaches Fund Alleges Monopoly of Zetia Drug Sales
-------------------------------------------------------------
PHILADELPHIA FEDERATION OF TEACHERS HEALTH AND WELFARE FUND
individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. MERCK & CO., INC.; MERCK SHARP & DOHME
CORP.; SCHERING-PLOUGH CORP.; SCHERING CORP.; MSP SINGAPORE CO.
LLC; GLENMARK PHARMACEUTICALS, LTD.; GLENMARK GENERICS INC.,
U.S.A.; and PAR PHARMACEUTICAL, INC., the Defendants, Case No.
1:18-cv-01216 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 23, 2018), seeks to recover damages
caused by Defendants Merck, Glenmark, and Par to make billions of
dollars by delaying competition in the cholesterol-reducing drug
ezetimibe.

According to the complaint, Merck earned handsome returns off of
the branded version of this drug, Zetia, for years. Glenmark
aimed to challenge Merck's monopoly and sell generic Zetia and
applied to the FDA for the right to do so. Prospects for
competition benefiting consumers looked bright. Merck sued for
patent infringement, and Glenmark responded that the patents
underlying Zetia were invalid and had been obtained through
fraud. Then, on the eve of trial, with all signs pointing to a
win for Glenmark, the parties settled. The resulting sweetheart
deal involved an agreement that Glenmark and Par, Glenmark's U.S.
distributor, would forego competing for five years, leaving Merck
as the entrenched monopolist, and that when it was their turn to
dominate the market, Merck would return the favor by not
competing with its own "authorized generic" Zetia. All three have
reaped enormous rewards from their illegal conspiracy, and at the
expense of PFTHW and those similarly situated.

In 2006, Glenmark was the first generic manufacturer to seek FDA
approval to market generic Zetia, and shortly after, in 2006,
Merck sued, alleging infringement of the RE'721 patent. Glenmark
argued the RE'721 patent was unenforceable due to inequitable
conduct before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office: Glenmark
alleged that Merck intentionally and deceptively failed to tell
the PTO that compounds claimed in the RE'721 patent were
metabolites of compounds Merck publicly disclosed years earlier,
and thus the patent was invalid under the doctrine of "inherent
anticipation." Glenmark also alleged that Merck withheld
references that would have, at minimum, caused the examiner to
ask questions about metabolites. Glenmark also argued that --
separate and apart from inequitable conduct -- this inherency
rendered the RE'721 patent invalid for anticipation. (Merck knew
well the dangers of inherency, and later conceded the invalidity
of the RE'721 patent.) Had the case resulted in a decision on the
ultimate merits, Glenmark would have prevailed.

Rather than proceed to trial, Merck decided to settle. The
Supreme Court holds that resolving patent infringement litigation
by having the plaintiff make a large and unjustified payment to
the allegedly infringing defendant violates federal antitrust law
(assuming the other elements are satisfied). Nevertheless, Merck
paid Glenmark to stay out of the market for almost five years.
Merck's payment took the form of an agreement that included, at a
minimum, a promise from Merck not to launch its own generic
version of Zetia (called an "authorized generic"). A week before
Glenmark publicized its settlement with Merck, while litigation
was still pending, it announced having received a payment from
Par for the exclusive rights to market, sell, and distribute
generic Zetia in the United States. Merck's no-authorized generic
("no-AG") promise was worth an additional $800 million in sales
to Glenmark and Par.

As the first company to apply to market generic Zetia (i.e., the
"first filer"), Glenmark earned the right to keep other generic
companies off the market for 180 days; this was its statutory
reward. But Glenmark and Par could not keep Merck from selling a
generic. Brand companies launch authorized generics, particularly
during a first filer's so-called 180-day exclusivity period, in
an effort to staunch the massive loss of revenue attending
generic entry. The brand's authorized generic takes up to 50% of
generic sales away from the first filer. So even though
authorized generics selling at a lower price point than the
brand, they let the brand hold on to sales that it otherwise
would lose. In the absence of Merck's large and unjustified
payment in the form of a no-AG promise, Par and Merck each would
have launched a generic version of Zetia as early as December 6,
2011 and, in any event, well before December 12, 2016. Additional
generics would have launched six months later. The presence of so
many generics would have driven prices down to competitive
levels.

Plaintiff and the indirect purchaser Classes have been injured by
Merck, Glenmark, and Par's conduct. In the absence of the
unlawful agreement, Class members would have been able to buy
less-expensive generic Zetia instead of branded Zetia from as
early as December 6, 2011 through the present. The Classes have
likely paid hundreds of millions in overcharges as a result of
Merck and Glenmark's unlawful agreement with Par's knowing
acquiescence and acts to further and exacerbate its effects.

Merck & Co. is an American pharmaceutical company and one of the
largest pharmaceutical companies in the world.[BN]

Attorneys for Philadelphia Federation of Teachers Health and
Welfare Fund and the Proposed Classes:

          Jonathan D. Selbin, Esq.
          Eric B. Fastiff, Esq.
          Lin Y. Chan, Esq.
          Adam Gitlin, Esq.
          Kelly K. McNabb, Esq.
          David T. Rudolph, Esq.
          LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
          250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor
          New York, NY 10013
          Telephone: (212) 355 9500
          Facsimile: (212) 355 9592
          E-mail: jselbin@lchb.com
                  kmcnabb@lchb.com
                  efastiff@lchb.com
                  lchan@lchb.com
                  drudolph@lchb.com
                  agitlin@lchb.com

               - and -

          Marc H. Edelson, Esq.
          EDELSON & ASSOCIATES, LLC
          3 Terry Drive, Suite 205
          Newtown, PA 18940
          Telephone: (215) 867 2399
          Facsimile: (267) 685 0676
          E-mail: medelson@edelson-law.com


MERCK & CO: Sergeants Benevolent Sues over Zetia Drug Sales
-----------------------------------------------------------
SERGEANTS BENEVOLENT ASSOCIATION HEALTH & WELFARE FUND, on behalf
of itself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
MERCK & CO., INC.; MERCK SHARP & DOHME CORP.; MSP SINGAPORE CO.
LLC; GLENMARK PHARMACEUTICALS, LTD.; and GLENMARK GENERICS INC.,
U.S.A., the Defendants, Case No. 2:18cv108 (E.D. Va., Feb. 23,
2018), is a civil antitrust action on behalf of a proposed Class
of end-payors whoindirectly purchased, reimbursed, or otherwise
paid for Zetia, a cholesterol drug that counteracts plaque
development in arteries. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages
incurred as a result of Merck and Glenmark's illegal agreement
not to compete in the Zetia market.

Zetia's annual sales ranged from $1 billion to $2.6 billion
between 2010 and 2016. Merck, which developed Zetia in the early
1990s, obtained patent protection for it in a series of patents,
including U.S. Patent No. RE37,721 (the "RE'721 patent").
Glenmark sought to bring a generic version of Zetia to market in
October 2006. Merck sued Glenmark for infringement of the RE'721
patent, and Glenmark counterclaimed that the RE'721 patent was
invalid and unenforceable. Glenmark cited evidence that key
claims relating to patented compounds were invalid because Merck
had disclosed them previously. Four of Glenmark's counterclaims
-- for anticipation, obviousness, double-patenting, and
inequitable conduct -- invoked similarities between the RE'721
patent and earlier Merck patents or patent applications. In a
partial summary judgment order, the patent court invalidated four
of the 13 claims in the RE'721 patent. Had the case proceeded to
trial, Glenmark would have prevailed and obtained an order
invalidating the remaining claims.

Merck and Glenmark settled the patent litigation on May 10, 2010,
before trial. As part of the settlement, they stipulated to
vacatur of the court's order invalidating four of the claims in
the patent. Glenmark agreed to refrain from selling a generic
version of Zetia for several years -- until December 12, 2016.
Merck, in exchange, agreed not to launch its own generic version
of Zetia -- an "authorized generic" -- until 180 days after
Glenmark entered the market. Under the Hatch-Waxman Act, because
Glenmark was the first firm to receive FDA approval of generic
Zetia, no other firm could sell generic Zetia during this 180-day
period.

The parties thus traded monopoly for monopoly. Merck avoided
patent invalidation and retained its lucrative Zetia monopoly
until Glenmark entered with its generic product. Glenmark gained
a 180-day monopoly over generic Zetia. Defendants' transfer of
wealth came at the expense of Zetia purchasers. Not until June
12, 2017, were competing generic versions of Zetia sold.
Purchasers were harmed twice -- first during the extended period
of brand exclusivity Merck gained from Glenmark's agreement to
postpone generic entry, and again during the six months in which
Glenmark enjoyed generic exclusivity due to Merck's agreement not
to launch an authorized generic version of Zetia.

Absent their agreement not to compete, Glenmark and Merck each
would have launched a generic version of Zetia as early as
December 6, 2011, and in any event well before December 12, 2016.
Additional generics would have entered this market six months
after that, well before June 12, 2017. The presence of multiple
generic products would have caused Zetia prices to decline to
competitive levels. Merck and Glenmark's anticompetitive
agreement injured the Class by causing Zetia end-payors to pay
tens of millions of dollars in unlawful overcharges.

Merck & Co. is an American pharmaceutical company and one of the
largest pharmaceutical companies in the world.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Wyatt B. Durrette, Jr., Esq.
          Christine A. Williams, Esq.
          Kevin J. Funk, Esq.
          DURRETTE, ARKEMA, GERSON & GILL PC
          1111 East Main Street, 16th Floor
          Richmond, VA 23219
          Telephone: (804) 775 6900
          Facsimile: (804) 775 6911
          E-mail: wdurrette@dagglaw.com
                  cwilliams@dagglaw.com
                  kfunk@dagglaw.com

               - and -

          Daniel C. Girard, Esq.
          Dena C. Sharp, Esq.
          Jordan Elias, Esq.
          Adam E. Polk, Esq.
          GIRARD GIBBS LLP
          601 California Street, 14th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: 415 981 4800
          Facsimile: 415 981 4846
          E-mail: dcg@girardgibbs.com
                  chc@girardgibbs.com
                  je@girardgibbs.com
                  aep@girardgibbs.com

               - and -

          Peter Safirstein, Esq.
          SAFIRSTEIN METCALF LLP
          1250 Broadway, 27th Floor
          New York, NY 10001
          Telephone: 212 201 2845
          E-mail: psafirstein@safirsteinmetcalf.com


MIMEDX GROUP: Share Price Artificially Inflated, MacPhee Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
NORMAN MACPHEE, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. MIMEDX GROUP, INC., MICHAEL
J. SENKEN, and PARKER H. PETIT, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-
00830-ELR (N.D. Ga., Feb. 23, 2018), seeks to recover damages
caused by Defendants' artificially inflated prices under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The case is a federal securities class action on behalf of all
investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Defendant MiMedx
Group, Inc. common stock between March 7, 2013 through February
19, 2018. MiMedx is a medical device development and supply
company, utilizing a number of different distributors to deliver
its products. Among those distributors is AvKARE, Inc. -- a
federal contractor. Through MiMedx's distribution agreement with
AvKARE, the Company was able to order products directly to
Department of Veterans Affairs hospitals at will. The revenues
derived from MiMedx's distribution agreement with AvKARE made up
a significant portion of the Company's total revenues. In 2013,
for example, 56% of the Company's total revenues were
attributable to its agreement with AvKARE.

In December 2016, two former employees of MiMedx filed a
complaint against the Company, alleging, among other things,
retaliatory termination by MiMedx after reporting fraudulent
revenue recognition practices. In particular, those employees
alleged that MiMedx had engaged in a "channel-stuffing scheme" to
"fraudulently recognize revenue [purportedly earned under its
distribution agreement with AvKARE] in its certified financial
statements before the revenue had been realized or realizable and
earned." The Company denied those claims and, in fact, sued the
employees for tortious interference, among other things.

In September 2017 several market research analysts published
reports which, among other things, focused on the allegedly
fraudulent revenue recognition practices of MiMedx alleged in the
Whistleblower Action. Again, MiMedx denied these allegations and
sued each of the research companies for, among other things,
libel, slander, and defamation.

Then, on February 20, 2018 -- after months of denying that it had
engaged in a fraudulent revenue scheme -- MiMedx disclosed an
"internal investigation into current and prior-period matters
relating to allegations regarding certain sales and distribution
practices at the Company," and with regard to "the accounting
treatment of certain distributor contracts." The Company further
announced that, because of this internal investigation, it would
delay the release of its fourth quarter and fiscal year 2017
financial results. On this news, MiMedx's share price plunged
more than 39% to close at $8.75 on February 8, 2018, from its
previous close of $14.47, causing tens of millions of dollars in
losses to investors.

Throughout the Class Period, Defendants made false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that (i) MiMedx was engaged
in a "channel-stuffing" scheme designed to inappropriately
recognize revenue that had not yet been realized; (ii) the
Company lacked adequate internal controls over financial
reporting; and (iii) that as a result of the foregoing, MiMedx's
publicly disseminated financial statements were materially false
and misleading.

MiMedx Group, incorporated on February 28, 2008, is an integrated
developer, processor and marketer of regenerative biomaterial
products and bioimplants human placental tissue, skin and
bone.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Corey D. Holzer, Esq.
          Marshall P. Dees, Esq.
          Alexandria P. Rankin, Esq.
          HOLZER & HOLZER, LLC
          1200 Ashwood Parkway, Suite 410
          Atlanta, GA 30338
          Telephone: (770) 392 0090
          Facsimile: (770) 392 0029

               - and -

          Jeffrey C. Block, Esq.
          Bradley J. Vettraino, Esq.
          BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
          155 Federal Street, Suite 400
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: 617 398 5600
          Facsimile: 617 507 6020
          E-mail: Jeff@blockesq.com
                  Bradley@blockesq.com


NATIONAL CREDIT: "Woods" Placeholder Class Cert. Bid Shelved
------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled LETICIA WOODS, the Plaintiff, v. NATIONAL
CREDIT ADJUSTERS, LLC and REVIVER FINANCIAL, LLC, the Defendants,
Case No. 2:18-cv-00248-WED (E.D. Wisc.), the Hon. Judge William
E. Duffin entered an order granting plaintiff's motion to stay
further proceedings for class certification.

The Court said, "The parties are relieved from the automatic
briefing schedule set forth in Civil Local Rule 7(b) and (c).
Moreover, for administrative purposes, it is necessary that the
Clerk terminate the plaintiff's motion for class certification.
However, this motion will be regarded as pending to serve its
protective purpose under Damasco."

In Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891, 896 (7th Cir. 2011),
the court suggested that class-action plaintiffs "move to certify
the class at the same time that they file their complaint." Id.
"The pendency of that motion protects a putative class from
attempts to buy off the named plaintiffs." However, because
parties are generally unprepared to proceed with a motion for
class certification at the beginning of a case, the Damasco court
suggested that the parties "ask the district court to delay its
ruling to provide time for additional discovery or
investigation."

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


NATIONWIDE CREDIT: "Nolet" Placeholder Class Cert. Bid Stayed
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled LORALIE NOLET, the Plaintiff, v. NATIONWIDE
CREDIT, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-01400-WED (E.D.
Wisc.), the Hon. Judge William E. Duffin entered an order
granting plaintiff's motion to stay further proceedings for class
certification.

The Court said, "The parties are relieved from the automatic
briefing schedule set forth in Civil Local Rule 7(b) and (c).
Moreover, for administrative purposes, it is necessary that the
Clerk terminate the plaintiff's motion for class certification.
However, this motion will be regarded as pending to serve its
protective purpose under Damasco."

In Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891, 896 (7th Cir. 2011),
the court suggested that class-action plaintiffs "move to certify
the class at the same time that they file their complaint." Id.
"The pendency of that motion protects a putative class from
attempts to buy off the named plaintiffs." Id. However, because
parties are generally unprepared to proceed with a motion for
class certification at the beginning of a case, the Damasco court
suggested that the parties "ask the district court to delay its
ruling to provide time for additional discovery or
investigation."

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=bYqa23eI


NATIONAL OILWELL: Villarreal Seeks Unpaid Overtime under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
JUAN VILLARREAL, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. NATIONAL OILWELL VARCO,
L.P. and NOV GP HOLDING, L.P., the Defendants, Case No. 4:18-cv-
00570 (S.D. Tex., Feb. 23, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants violated the FLSA by
employing Plaintiff and other similarly situated nonexempt
employees "for a workweek longer than forty hours [but refusing
to compensate them] for [their] employment in excess of [forty]
hours at a rate not less than one and one-half times the regular
rate at which [they are or were] employed.

The Defendants also violated the FLSA by failing to maintain
accurate time and pay records for Plaintiff and other similarly
situated nonexempt employees as required by 29 U.S.C. section
211(c) and 29 C.F.R. pt. 516. The Plaintiff brings this
collective action under section 216(b) of the FLSA on behalf of
himself and all other similarly situated employees in order to
recover unpaid overtime wages.

National Oilwell provides the technical expertise, equipment, and
operational support for drilling and production to the oil and
gas industry. It offers rig systems in the areas of aftermarket,
land, and offshore; and completion and production solutions,
including completion tools and fiber glass systems.[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


NCI GROUP: To Pay $150K Penalties to LWDA, PAGA Rep. in "Jordan"
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ANTHONY JORDAN, individually, an on behalf of
himself and all similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. NCI GROUP,
INC., a Nevada The Corporation; and DOES 1-50, inclusive,
Defendant, Case No. 5:16-cv-01701-JVS-SP (C.D. Cal.), Judge James
V. Selna of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California, Southern Division granted parties' joint request for
approval of the Stipulation re: Settlement of Representative
Action.

In accordance with the Settlement which he has reviewed,
approved, and found fair, just, reasonable and adequate for the
reasons set forth in the Court's Order dated Jan. 5, 2018, and
with no objection received from the California Labor Workforce
Development Agency ("LWDA"), Judge Selna ordered that the
penalties in the amount of $150,000 in the aggregate are to be
paid by the Defendant and be allocated as follows: (i) 75% (i.e.,
$112,500) to LWDA, and 25% (i.e., $37,500) to the PAGA
Representative.  The Defendant will make the payments to the
LWDA, the PAGA Representative and the Plaintiff's counsel within
the time frame set forth in the Settlement.

In addition to the payments set forth, the Defendant is directed
to pay to the Plaintiff's counsel the sum of $100,000 for costs
and as reasonable attorney's fees in connection with prosecuting
the Resolved Claims.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 14, 2018 Judgment is
available at https://is.gd/0Vhw5s from Leagle.com.

Anthony Jordan, individually, and on behalf of himself and all
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Jared Hague --
jared@suttonhague.com -- Sutton Hague Law Corporation, Joseph
Vidal Macias -- joseph.macias@maximintegrated.com -- Sutton Hague
Law Corporation, Michael R. Crosner -- mike@crosnerlegal.com --
Crosner Legal PC, S. Brett Sutton -- brett@suttonhague.com --
Sutton Hague Law Corporation & Zachary Crosner --
zach@crosnerlegal.com -- Crosner Legal PC.

NCI Group, Inc., a Texas Corporation, Defendant, represented by
Martin D. Bern -- Martin.Bern@mto.com -- Munger Tolles & Olson,
Bobby Gray, Munger Tolles and Olson LLP, C. Hunter Hayes --
Hunter.Hayes@mto.com -- Munger Tolles and Olson LLP & Malcolm A.
Heinicke -- Malcolm.Heinicke@mto.com -- Munger Tolles and Olson
LLP.


NEW IEM: Violates California Labor Code, Woody Says
---------------------------------------------------
JOHN WOODY, as an individual and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. THE NEW IEM, LLC, a Limited
Liability Company, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, the
Defendants, Case No. RG18896132 (Cal. Super. Ct., Feb. 23, 2018),
seeks to recover damages caused by Defendants violations of the
California Labor Code.

This complaint challenges systemic illegal employment practices
resulting in violations of the California Labor Code against
employees of Defendants. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants,
jointly and severally, have acted intentionally and with
deliberate indifference and conscious disregard to the rights of
all employees for failure to provide accurate wage statements to
Plaintiff and Class Members.

The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have engaged in, among
other things a system of willful violations of the California
Labor Code by creating and maintaining policies, practices and
customs that knowingly employees the above stated rights and
benefits.

The New IEM, LLC, doing business as Industrial Electric
Manufacturing, manufactures electrical equipment. The Company
offers unit substations, custom assemblies, remote monitoring,
critical power systems, energy storage, shore power panels, and
generator control switchgear products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Larry W. Lee, Esq.
          Nick Rosenthal, Esq.
          DIVERSITY LAW GROUP, P.C.
          515 S. Figueroa St., Suite 1250
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 488 6555
          Facsimile: (213) 488 6554
          E-mail: lwlee@diversitylaw.com

               - and -

          Edward W. Choi, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF CHOI & ASSOCIATES
          515 S. Figueroa St., Suite 1250
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 381 1515
          Facsimile: (213) 465 4885
          E-mail: edward.choi@choiandassociates.com

               - and -

          William L. Marder, Esq.
          POLARIS LAW GROUP
          San Benito Street, Suite 200
          Hollister, CA 95023
          Telephone: (831) 531 4214
          Facsimile: (831) 634 0333

               - and -

          Dennis S. Hyun, Esq.
          HYUN LEGAL, APC
          S. Figueroa Street, Suite 1250
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 488 6555
          Facsimile: (213) 488 6554


NEW YORK, NY: Cho Appeals S.D.N.Y. Decision to Second Circuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Sung Cho, David Diaz, Jameelah El-Shabazz and Nagle
Washrite LLC filed an appeal from a District Court opinion dated
January 12, 2018, and District Court Clerk's judgment dated
January 17, 2018, issued in their lawsuit titled Cho, et al. v.
City of New York, et al., Case No. 16-cv-7961, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York (New York
City).

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
was filed by a Manhattan laundry owner and two apartment tenants
accusing the New York Police Department of misusing nuisance laws
to bully hundreds of people into waiving their constitutional
rights to avoid evictions.

The suit, filed by the Institute for Justice in Arlington,
Virginia, targets laws that give officials the power to shut down
a location used for criminal activity. It says the threat of
closure is used in situations where there is no proof of
wrongdoing to get people to comply with police demands.

One of the Plaintiffs, Sung Cho, was allegedly pressured to allow
police access to his security cameras and consent to future fines
and searches after a 2013 police undercover sale of stolen
electronics in his Inwood laundry.

Two Bronx residential tenants who joined the case were forced to
exclude family members from their apartments after police drug
searches that led to no criminal charges, because they didn't
want to face a court proceeding on short notice to evict
everyone, the suit said.

The appellate case is captioned as Cho, et al. v. City of New
York, et al., Case No. 18-337, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants Sung Cho, Individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated; Nagle Washrite LLC, Individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated; David Diaz,
Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated; and
Jameelah El-Shabazz, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, are represented by:

          Robert Johnson, Esq.
          INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE
          901 North Glebe Road
          Arlington, VA 22203
          Telephone: (703) 682-9320
          Facsimile: (703) 682-9321
          E-mail: rjohnson@ij.org

Defendants-Appellees City of New York; Mayor Bill de Blasio, in
his official capacity as Mayor of the City of New York; New York
City Police Department; Police Commissioner James P. O'Neill, in
his official capacity as New York City Police Commissioner; New
York City Law Department; and Zachary W. Carter, in his official
capacity as Corporation Counsel of the City of New York, are
represented by:

          Zachary W. Carter, Esq.
          NEW YORK CITY LAW DEPARTMENT
          100 Church Street
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (2120 356-1000
          Facsimile: (212) 356-1148
          E-mail: zcarter@law.nyc.gov


NEW YORK UNIVERSITY: Court Certifies "Sacerdote" ERISA Class
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DR. ALAN SACERDOTE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. NEW YORK
UNIVERSITY, Defendant, Case No. 16-cv-6284 (KBF) (S.D. N.Y.),
Judge Katherine B. Forrest of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York granted the Plaintiffs' motion for
class certification.

The lawsuit, commenced in 2016, alleges that NYU violated various
provisions of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974
("ERISA").  Specifically, the Plaintiffs allege that NYU breached
its fiduciary duty in maintaining its two employee retirement
plans, the New York University Retirement Plan for Members of the
Faculty, Professional Research Staff, and Administration
("Faculty Plan") and the NYU School of Medicine Retirement Plan
for Members of the Faculty, Professional Research Staff and
Administration ("Medical Plan"), both of which are defined
contribution, individual account, employee pension benefit plans.

The instant action is one of a number of cases filed in district
courts across the country by the same counsel alleging that
university pension plans, known as "403(b) plans," typically with
significant assets, have not been managed prudently or for the
exclusive purpose of providing benefits to participants and their
beneficiaries, in violation of ERISA.

The Plaintiffs initially alleged breaches of NYU's fiduciary
duties of loyalty and prudence, based on a number of allegations.
Two of the Plaintiffs' initial claims remain, both of which
relate to an alleged breach of the Defendant's duty of prudence:
the first is an alleged breach relating to procedural
deficiencies with regard to recordkeeping, administrative fees,
and revenue-sharing; the second is an alleged breach relating to
the Defendant's decision-making process as to certain plan
options.

There are seven named Plaintiffs in the action: Dr. Sacerdote,
Dr. Herbert Samuels, Mark Crispin Miller, Patrick Lamson-Hall,
Marie E. Monaco, Dr. Shulamith Lala Straussner, and James B.
Brown. Sacerdote is a clinical professor at the NYU School of
Medicine.  Samuels is a professor of pharmacology and a professor
of medicine at the NYU School of medicine.  Miller is a professor
of media, culture, and communication at NYU.  Lamson-Hall is an
adjunct instructor and research scholar at NYU Stern Urbanization
Project.  Monaco is an associate professor in the department of
neuroscience and physiology at NYU School of Medicine.
Straussner is a professor of social work at NYU.  Brown is an
associate professor at NYU's Tisch School of Arts.  Sacerdote,
Samuels, and Monaco are participants in the Medical Plan, while
Miller, Lamson-Hall, Strassuner, and Brown are participants in
the Faculty Plan.

These seven named Plaintiffs seek to represent a putative class
of at least 20,000 individuals, defined as all participants and
beneficiaries of the NYU School of Medicine Retirement Plan for
Members of the Faculty, Professional Research Staff and
Administration and the New York University Retirement Plan for
Members of the Faculty, Professional Research Staff and
Administration from Aug. 9, 2010, through the date of judgment,
excluding the Defendant and any participant who is a fiduciary to
the Plans.

Pending before the Court is the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.

Judge Forrest finds that the Plaintiffs have satisfied the Rule
23(a) and Rule 23(b)(1) requirements.  Accordingly, she granted
the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.

The Judge certified the class of all participants and
beneficiaries of the NYU School of Medicine Retirement Plan for
Members of the Faculty, Professional Research Staff and
Administration and the New York University Retirement Plan for
Members of the Faculty, Professional Research Staff and
Administration from Aug. 9, 2010, through the date of judgment,
excluding the Defendant and any participant who is a fiduciary to
the Plans.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 13, 2018 Opinion and Order
is available at https://is.gd/nl5S7k from Leagle.com.

Dr. Alan Sacerdote, individually and as representatives of a
class of participants and beneficiaries on behalf of the NYU
School of Medicine Retirement Plan for Members of the Faculty,
Professional Research Staff and Administration and the New York
University Retirement..., Plaintiff, represented by Andrew
Dickens Schlichter -- sbd@uselaws.com -- Schlichter Bogard &
Denton, LLP, Jerome J. Schlichter, Schlichter Bogard & Denton,
LLP, pro hac vice, Ethan Dail Hatch, Schlichter Bogard & Denton,
LLP, Heather Lea, Schlichter Bogard & Denton, LLP, pro hac vice,
James Redd, IV, Schlichter Bogard & Denton, LLP, pro hac vice,
Joel D. Rohlf, Schlichter Bogard & Denton, LLP, Michael A. Wolff,
Schlichter Bogard & Denton, LLP, pro hac vice, Scott A. Bumb,
Schlichter Bogard & Denton, LLP, Stephen Mark Hoeplinger,
Schlichter Bogard & Denton, LLP, pro hac vice & Troy A. Doles,
Schlichter Bogard & Denton, LLP, pro hac vice.

Dr. Herbert Samuels, individually and as representatives of a
class of participants and beneficiaries on behalf of the NYU
School of Medicine Retirement Plan for Members of the Faculty,
Professional Research Staff and Administration and the New York
University Retirement..., Mark Crispin Miller, individually and
as representatives of a class of participants and beneficiaries
on behalf of the NYU School of Medicine Retirement Plan for
Members of the Faculty, Professional Research Staff and
Administration and the New York University Retirement..., Marie
E. Monaco, individually and as representatives of a class of
participants and beneficiaries on behalf of the NYU School of
Medicine Retirement Plan for Members of the Faculty, Professional
Research Staff and Administration and the New York University
Retirement... & Dr. Shulamith Lala Straussner, individually and
as representatives of a class of participants and beneficiaries
on behalf of the NYU School of Medicine Retirement Plan for
Members of the Faculty, Professional Research Staff and
Administration and the New York University Retirement...,
Plaintiffs, represented by Andrew Dickens Schlichter, Schlichter
Bogard & Denton, LLP, Jerome J. Schlichter, Schlichter Bogard &
Denton, LLP, pro hac vice, Ethan Dail Hatch, Schlichter Bogard &
Denton, LLP, Heather Lea, Schlichter Bogard & Denton, LLP, pro
hac vice, James Redd, IV, Schlichter Bogard & Denton, LLP, pro
hac vice, Joel D. Rohlf, Schlichter Bogard & Denton, LLP, Michael
A. Wolff, Schlichter Bogard & Denton, LLP, pro hac vice, Stephen
Mark Hoeplinger, Schlichter Bogard & Denton, LLP, pro hac vice &
Troy A. Doles, Schlichter Bogard & Denton, LLP, pro hac vice.

Patrick Lamson-Hall, individually and as representatives of a
class of participants and beneficiaries on behalf of the NYU
School of Medicine Retirement Plan for Members of the Faculty,
Professional Research Staff and Administration and the New York
University Retirement..., Plaintiff, represented by Andrew
Dickens Schlichter, Schlichter Bogard & Denton, LLP, Jerome J.
Schlichter, Schlichter Bogard & Denton, LLP, pro hac vice, Ethan
Dail Hatch, Schlichter Bogard & Denton, LLP, Heather Lea,
Schlichter Bogard & Denton, LLP, pro hac vice, James Redd, IV,
Schlichter Bogard & Denton, LLP, pro hac vice, Joel D. Rohlf,
Schlichter Bogard & Denton, LLP, Michael A. Wolff, Schlichter
Bogard & Denton, LLP, pro hac vice, Stephen Mark Hoeplinger,
Schlichter Bogard & Denton, LLP, pro hac vice & Troy A. Doles,
Schlichter Bogard & Denton, LLP, pro hac vice.

James B Brown, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Dickens
Schlichter, Schlichter Bogard & Denton, LLP, Ethan Dail Hatch,
Schlichter Bogard & Denton, LLP, Joel D. Rohlf, Schlichter Bogard
& Denton, LLP & Jerome J. Schlichter, Schlichter Bogard & Denton,
LLP.

New York University, Defendant, represented by Mark Muedeking --
mark.muedeking@dlapiper.com -- DLA Piper US LLP, Adam J. Pie --
adam.pie@dlapiper.com -- DLA Piper US LLP, Brian S. Kaplan --
brian.kaplan@dlapiper.com -- DLA Piper US LLP, David E. Dyson --
david.dyson@dlapiper.com -- DLA Piper US LLP, Evan David Parness
-- evan.parness@dlapiper.com -- DLA Piper US LLP, Harry Paul Rudo
-- harry.rudo@dlapiper.com -- DLA Piper US LLP, Ian Taylor --
ian.taylor@dlapiper.com -- DLA Piper US LLP, Jennifer Squillario
-- jennifer.squillario@dlapiper.com -- DLA Piper US LLP & Julie
Ben-Zev -- julie.benzev@dlapiper.com -- DLA Piper US LLP.


NUTRACEUTICAL CORP: Four Petitions for Writ Filed in Supreme Ct.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Four petitions for a writ of certiorari were separately filed on
February 1, 2018, in the lawsuit styled Nutraceutical
Corporation, Petitioner v. Troy Lambert, Respondent, Case No. 17-
1094, in the Supreme Court of United States.

Responses to the Petitions were due on March 7, 2018.

The lower court case is titled Nutraceutical Corporation v. Troy
Lambert, Case No. 15-56423, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Kristin Ann
Shepard, Esq. -- kshepard@carltonfields.com -- and Paul Williams,
Esq. -- pwilliams@carltonfields.com -- of Carlton Fields, in an
article for JDSupra, wrote that within 10 days after the district
court decertified a Rule 23(b)(3) aphrodisiac dietary supplement
class for failure to show a class wide method for calculating
damages, plaintiff orally advised the court of his intention to
seek reconsideration.  The District Court then set a 10-day
deadline for filing a motion for reconsideration -- in other
words, 20 days after the decertification order.

According to one of the Petitions, the question presented is: did
the Ninth Circuit err by holding that equitable exceptions apply
to mandatory claim-processing rules and excusing a party's
failure to timely file a petition for permission to appeal, or a
motion for reconsideration, within the Rule 23(f) deadline?  As
the Ninth Circuit acknowledged, its decision conflicts with other
United States Circuit Courts of Appeals that have considered this
issue (the Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Seventh, Tenth, and
Eleventh Circuits).

Plaintiff-Respondent Troy Lambert filed the underlying class
action against Nutraceutical on March 14, 2013, for alleged
violations of California's false advertising and unfair
competition laws arising out of Nutraceutical's sale of a dietary
supplement.[BN]

Defendant-Petitioner Nutraceutical Corporation is represented by:

          John Charles Hueston, Esq.
          HUESTON HENNIGAN LLP
          523 West 6th Street, Suite 400
          Los Angeles, CA 90014
          Telephone: (213) 788-4340
          E-mail: jhueston@hueston.com


OCWEN FINANCIAL: Fauley et al. Seek to Certify Homeowners Class
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, THE STATE
OF FLORIDA, Department of Legal Affairs, the Plaintiff, v. OCWEN
FINANCIAL CORPORATION, a Florida corporation, OCWEN MORTGAG
SERVICING, INC., a U .S. Virgin Islands Corporation, and OCWEN
LOAN SERVICING, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, the
Defendants, Case No. 9:17-cv-80496-KAM (S.D. Fla.), Robynne A.
Fauley, Catherine Gebhardt, Marcia A. Swift, Rhonda Hardwick,
Tuli Molina-Wohl, and Denise Subramaniam, in behalf of
[them]selves and others similarly situated, move to certify a
Plaintiff Intervenors class, consisting of:

"dozens to potentially thousands of homeowners illegally
foreclosed upon by LNV Corporation, a Nevada corporation solely
owned by politically powerful multibillionaire Daniel Andrew Beal
whose purported mortgage servicer, MGC Mortgage lnc. is a
successor to Litton Loan Servicing LP, a subsidiary of Defendant
Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC."

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=5rhL0AKV

The Plaintiffs appear pro se.

Attorneys for Defendants: Erick Haynie, Gabrielle Richards,
Jeffrey Peterson, and Perkins Coie LLP:

          Nena Cook, Esq.
          Stacey E. Mark, Esq.
          ATER WYNNE LLP
          l33 l N.W . Lovejoy Street, Suite 900
          Portland, OR 97209-3280
          Tel: (503) 226-1 19l ; Fax: (503) 226-0079
          E-mail: nc@aterwynne.com
                  sem@aterwynne.com


OCWEN FINANCIAL: Fauley et. al. Seek to Certify Class
-----------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU, the
Plaintiff OCWEN FINANCIAL CORPORATION, OCWEN MORTGAGE SERVICE,
INC.; AND OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC, the Defendants, Case No.
9:17-CV-80495 (S.D. Fla.), .), Robynne A. Fauley, Catherine
Gebhardt, Marcia A. Swift, Rhonda Hardwick, Tuli Molina-Wohl, and
Denise Subramaniam, in behalf of [them]selves and others
similarly situated, move to certify Plaintiff Intervenors class,
consisting of:

   "dozens to potentially thousands of homeowners illegally
   foreclosed upon by LNV Corporation, a Nevada corporation
   solely owned by politically powerful multibillionaire Daniel
   Andrew Beal whose purported mortgage servicer, MGC Mortgage
   Inc. is a successor to Litton Loan Servicing LP, a subsidiary
   of Defendant Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC."

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=FtL4LgGV

The Plaintiffs appear pro se.

Attorneys for Defendants: Erick Haynie, Gabrielle Richards,
Jeffrey Peterson, and Perkins Coie LLP:

          Nena Cook, Esq.
          Stacey E. Mark, Esq.
          ATER WYNNE LLP
          l33 l N.W . Lovejoy Street, Suite 900
          Portland, OR 97209-3280
          Tel: (503) 226-1 19l ; Fax: (503) 226-0079
          E-mail: nc@aterwynne.com
                  sem@aterwynne.com


OLYMPIC FLAME: Court Wants Amended Suit Filed in "Blake" Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
A status and motion hearing was held March 1, 2018, in the
lawsuit styled Katelynn Blake, the Plaintiff, v. the Olympic
Flame Inc., doing business as Anastasia's, et al., Case No. 1:17-
cv-09145 (N.D. Ill.).

According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on March 1, 2018,
the Hon. Judge John Robert held that Plaintiff's motion to
certify class is briefed as follows:

     -- Response shall be filed on or before March 29, 2018.

     -- Reply shall be filed on or before April 12, 2018.

     -- Defendant's motion to dismiss is granted as agreed.

     -- Oral motion for leave to file amended complaint is
        granted and shall be filed on or before March 8, 2018.

     -- Motion hearing is set for April 26, 2018 at 9:45 a.m.
        in Courtroom 1203.

A copy of the Docket Entry is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=h6EiOPME


ONE PLANET: Court Granted Class Certification in "Johansen"
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled KEN JOHANSEN, the Plaintiff, v. ONE PLANET
OPS, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-00121-ALM-EPD (S.D.
Ohio), the Hon. Judge Algenon L. Marbley entered an order
granting Plaintiff's motion for class certification.

The Court said, "here, class certification is proper because
consent is, at least as a preliminary matter, determinable on a
classwide basis. Consent was given, if at all, through an online
form. When a TCPA defendant obtains consent in a "uniform manner"
such as an online form, "consent can be resolved on a class-wide
basis." In order to demonstrate that individuals consented to the
calls, Defendants must marshal some evidence of prior express
consent, such as a screenshot of a completed consent form for an
individual plaintiff or a list of IP addresses of individual
plaintiffs who consented to the calls. They have not. As a
result, the Court would not have to do the type of individual
filtering the Sixth Circuit feared in Sandusky Wellness Center.
Instead, this case is similar to Bridging Communities, a case in
which the Sixth Circuit clarified that the "mere mention of a
defense is not enough to defeat the predominance requirement of
Rule 23(b)(3)." 843 F.3d 1119, 1126 (6th Cir. 2016)."

"Certification is proper here," the Court continued, "because the
common issues predominate, but even if OnePlanet's defense later
bars some claims, then this Court "has available adequate
procedural mechanisms" to solve that issue: "For example, it can
place class members with potentially barred claims in a separate
subclass, or exclude them from the class altogether." Id.
(quoting Smilow v. Sw. Bell. Mobile Sys., Inc., 323 F.3d 32, 39-
40 (1st Cir. 2003) (internal quotation marks omitted)). In sum,
all of Defendants' concerns may be resolved at a post-
certification stage if necessary."

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


OVER-EASY INC: Perez Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------
Gustavo Perez, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Over-Easy, Inc., dba La Escarola,
Joseph Mondelli and Armando Vasquez, the Defendants, Case No.
1:18-cv-01369 (N.D. Ill., Feb. 23, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages, and liquidated damages under the Fair Labor
Standards Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, and the Illinois
Wage Payment and Collection Act.

The Defendants own and operate restaurants in Chicago and
vicinity under the name "La Escarola." The Plaintiff and the
persons he seeks to represent are current and former tipped
employees working in Defendants' restaurants.

According to the complaint, La Escarola pays its servers and
other tipped employees a subminimum, hourly wage under the tip-
credit provisions of the FLSA and IMWL. Those statutes permit
employers of tipped employees to pay wages less than the minimum
wage, to take a tip credit -- if employers comply with the
requirements of the tip-credit provisions. The Defendants
willfully disregarded those requirements. Their failure to pay
minimum wage and overtime wages violated the federal and state
minimum wage laws. The Defendants also failed to pay tipped
employees all wages for when due, in violation of the IWPCA.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jorge Sanchez, Esq.
          Baldemar Lopez, Esq.
          LOPEZ & SANCHEZ LLP
          77 W. Washington St., Suite 1313
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 420 6784


PACIFIC MARITIME: Violates California Labor Code, Wheeler Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
ANTHONY WHEELER, as an individual and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. PACIFIC MARITIME
ASSOCIATION, a California domestic nonprofit; and DOES 1 through
50, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. RG18894226 (Cal. Super.
Ct., Feb. 23, 2018), seeks to recover damages or penalties
pursuant to California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the Defendants failed in their
affirmative obligation to provide accurate itemized wage
statements. Pursuant to Labor Code section 226(a)(8), wage
statements must identify the address of the legal entity that is
the employer. The wage statements provided to Plaintiff and Class
members failed to identify the address of the employer.
Additionally, the wage statements should have reflected the
applicable pay period start and end dates, pursuant to Labor Code
section 226(a)(6). However, the wage statements provided by
Defendants failed to identify the pay period start and end date

The Pacific Maritime Association is a non-profit organization
based in San Francisco, California that represents employers of
the shipping industry on the Pacific coast.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Larry W. Lee, Esq.
          Kristen M. Agnew, Esq.
          Nicholas Rosenthal, Esq.
          Mai Tulyathan, Esq.
          DIVERSITY LAW GROUP, P.C.
          515 S. Figueroa St., Suite 1250
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 488 6555
          Facsimile: (213) 488 6554

               - and -

          William L. Marder, Esq.
          POLARIS LAW GROUP LLP
          50l San Benito Street, Suite 200
          Hollister, CA 95023
          Telephone: (831) 531 4214
          Facsimile: (831) 634 0333


PALM BEACH CREDIT: Witham Sues over Debt Collection Practices
-------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERTA WITHAM, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. PALM BEACH CREDIT ADJUSTORS, INC.,
a Florida Corporation, d/b/a FOCUS FINANCIAL SERVICES, the
Defendant, Case No. 9:18-cv-80230-DMM (S.D. Fla., Feb. 23, 2018),
seeks to recover statutory damages under the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

The Defendant sought to collect from Plaintiff an alleged debt
incurred by Plaintiff for personal, family, or household
purposes; more specifically, the debt at issue was a medical
debt. On or about November 21, 2017, Defendant mailed, or caused
to be mailed, an initial written communication in the form of a
demand letter to Plaintiff that sought to collect an alleged debt
due to "Bethesda Hospital West".

The Defendant's Demand Letter states Plaintiff's debt is owed to
"Bethesda Hospital West" which is a Florida registered fictitious
name for Bethesda Hospital, Inc. On or about October 28, 2017
Plaintiff was mailed a statement from "Bethesda Health" that
required payment of the same debt as was the subject of the
Demand Letter, however the statement required the debt be paid to
"Carepayment".

Defendant's Demand Letter falsely and misleadingly pronounces the
verification rights of Plaintiff provided by 15 U.S.C. section
1692g. Any potential bona fide error defense which relies upon
Defendant's mistaken interpretation of the legal duties imposed
upon it by the FDCPA would fail as a matter of law.[BN]

Attorney for Plaintiff:

          Leo W. Desmond, Esq.
          DESMOND LAW FIRM, P.C.
          5070 Highway A1A, Suite D
          Vero Beach, FL 32963
          Telephone: 772 231 9600
          Facsimile: 772 231 0300
          E-mail: lwd@desmondlawfirm.com


PATENAUDE & FELIX: "Untershine" Class Cert. Bid Put On Hold
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled WENDY UNTERSHINE, the Plaintiff, v.
PATENAUDE & FELIX APC, the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-01612-WED
(E.D. Wisc.), the Hon. Judge William E. Duffin entered an order
granting plaintiff's motion to stay further proceedings for class
certification.

The Court said, "The parties are relieved from the automatic
briefing schedule set forth in Civil Local Rule 7(b) and (c).
Moreover, for administrative purposes, it is necessary that the
Clerk terminate the plaintiff's motion for class certification.
However, this motion will be regarded as pending to serve its
protective purpose under Damasco."

In Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891, 896 (7th Cir. 2011),
the court suggested that class-action plaintiffs "move to certify
the class at the same time that they file their complaint." Id.
"The pendency of that motion protects a putative class from
attempts to buy off the named plaintiffs." Id. However, because
parties are generally unprepared to proceed with a motion for
class certification at the beginning of a case, the Damasco court
suggested that the parties "ask the district court to delay its
ruling to provide time for additional discovery or
investigation."

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Zx7YHwPT


PCL CONSTRUCTION: Power Outage Suit Stay Extended to March 19
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: OUTERBANKS POWER OUTAGE LITIGATION. This
Document Relates To: ALL ACTIONS, Case No. 4:17-CV-141-D (E.D.
N.C.), Judge James C. Dever, III of the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of North Carolina, Eastern Division, has
entered an order on the joint request of the parties to Amend the
Interim Case Management Plan and Joint Motion to Stay.
Judge
Dever adopted the parties' proposal.  Accordingly, he ordered
that the stay be extended and all proceedings in the matter will
be stayed up to and including March 19, 2014.  The Defendants
will file their Answer or responsive pleading to the Master Class
Action Complaint, 21 days after the end of the this stay.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 14, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/fxhIJU from Leagle.com.

Island Vibe Cafe, Morning Star Stables, TBM Construction &
Michael Janssen, Plaintiffs, represented by Jean S. Martin, Law
Office of Jean Sutton Martin, PLLC, John A. Yanchunis, Morgan &
Morgan Complex Litigation Group, Joseph G. Sauder --
jgs@mccunewright.com -- McCune Wright Arevalo LLP & Daniel K.
Bryson -- dan@wbmllp.com -- Whitfield, Bryson & Mason, LLP.

Rhonda Derring, Robert Case & Marissa Gross, d/b/a Down Creek
Galleries, Plaintiffs, represented by Daniel K. Bryson,
Whitfield, Bryson & Mason, LLP, Matthew E. Lee -- matt@wbmllp.com
-- Whitfield, Bryson & Mason, LLP, Scott C. Harris --
scott@wbmllp.com -- Whitfield, Bryson & Mason, LLP & Joseph G.
Sauder, McCune Wright Arevalo LLP.

Miss Ocracoke, Inc., Stephen J Wilson, Hatteras Blue, Inc.,
Steven J. Harris, Steven Wright, Charles Edward Hofmann & Alex
Daniel Garrish, Plaintiffs, represented by John R. Taylor,
Zaytoun Law Firm, PLLC, Matthew David Ballew, Zaytoun Law Firm,
PLLC, Robert E. Zaytoun, Zaytoun Law Firm, PLLC, Joseph G.
Sauder, McCune Wright Arevalo LLP & Daniel K. Bryson, Whitfield,
Bryson & Mason, LLP.

Matthew Breveleri, Plaintiff, represented by Jean S. Martin, Law
Office of Jean Sutton Martin, PLLC, Patrick Donovan --
donovan@whafh.com -- Wolf Haldenstein Alder Freeman & Herz LLP,
Thomas H. Burt -- burt@whafh.com -- Wolf Haldenstein Alder
Freeman & Herz LLP, Joseph G. Sauder, McCune Wright Arevalo LLP &
Daniel K. Bryson, Whitfield, Bryson & Mason, LLP.

Thomas Edgar, Nina Edgar, Edward Waas & Jack Lewis, Plaintiffs,
represented by J. Michael Malone, Hendren, Redwine & Malone,
PLLC, Joseph G. Sauder, McCune Wright Arevalo LLP & Daniel K.
Bryson, Whitfield, Bryson & Mason, LLP.

Briggs McEwan, Las Olas, Inc., Tri-V Conery, Inc., Tami Lynette
Gray, d/b/a Family Water Adventures, Daniel Spaventa, Karen
Fitzpatrick & Edwin Fitzpatrick, Plaintiffs, represented by
Dennis C. Rose, Rose Harrison & Gilreath, P.C., John S. Hughes,
Wallace and Graham, P.A., M. Peebles Harrison, Rose Harrison &
Gilreath, P.C., Mona Lisa Wallace, Wallace and Graham, P.A.,
Joseph G. Sauder, McCune Wright Arevalo LLP & Daniel K. Bryson,
Whitfield, Bryson & Mason, LLP.

Mike Warren, William Bailey & Kerry Fitzgerald, Plaintiffs,
represented by Daniel K. Bryson, Whitfield, Bryson & Mason, LLP.

PCL Construction Enterprises, Inc., PCL Civil Constructors, Inc.,
PCL Construction Services, Inc. & PCL Construction Resources
(U.S.A.), Inc., Defendants, represented by Alexandra L. Couch --
acouch@ymwlaw.com -- Yates, McLamb & Weyher, LLP, David Michael
Fothergill -- dfothergill@ymwlaw.com -- Yates, McLamb & Weyher,
LLP & Rodney E. Pettey -- rpettey@ymwlaw.com -- Yates, McLamb &
Weyher, LLP.


PETCO ANIMAL: Court Grants "Kellgren" Settlement Final Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the cases, ERIK KELLGREN, THERESE KOPCHINSKI, and CHRISTINE
LEE, Individually and on Behalf of All Other Persons Similarly
Situated, Plaintiffs, v. PETCO ANIMAL SUPPLIES, INC.; PETCO
HOLDINGS, INC.; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Defendants. MARIA
COTE, Individually and on Behalf of All Other Persons Similarly
Situated, Plaintiffs, v. PETCO ANIMAL SUPPLIES, INC.; PETCO
HOLDINGS, INC., Defendants. DESERIE MICHEL, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. PETCO ANIMAL
SUPPLIES, INC. and PETCO HOLDINGS, INC., Defendants. HEATHER
VARGAS, Individually and on Behalf of All Other Persons Similarly
Situated, Plaintiffs, v. PETCO ANIMAL SUPPLIES, INC.; PETCO
HOLDINGS, INC., Defendants. JAMES HECKER, on Behalf of Himself
and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. PETCO ANIMAL
SUPPLIES, INC., PETCO ANIMAL SUPPLIES STORES, INC., PETCO
HOLDINGS, INC., and DOES 1 TO 100, Inclusive, Defendants. ROBERT
WAGNER, Individually and On Behalf of All Other Persons Similarly
Situated, Plaintiffs, v. PETCO ANIMAL SUPPLIES, INC., PETCO
ANIMAL SUPPLIES STORES, INC., and PETCO HOLDINGS, INC.,
Defendants, Case Nos. 3:13-cv-00644-L-KSC, 3:17-cv-00898-L-KSC,
3:17-cv-01092-L-KSC, 3:17-cv-01561-L-KSC, 3:17-cv-01169-L7-cv-
01793-L-KSC (S.D. Cal.), Judge M. James Lorenz of the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California granted
the Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval of Class and Collective
Action Settlement, Certification of a Settlement Class,
Reimbursement of Attorneys' Fees, Costs, Expenses and Incentive
Awards to Representative Plaintiffs and Judgment.

The Plaintiffs and the Defendants in the consolidated actions
have entered into a Settlement Agreement intended to resolve the
litigation against the Defendants arising out of their alleged
unlawful compensation practices for Assistant Managers ("AMs")
who were classified as exempt and not paid overtime.

The Court was satisfied that the terms and conditions set forth
in the Settlement Agreement were the result of good faith, arms-
length settlement negotiations between competent and experienced
counsel for both the Plaintiffs and the Defendants.  It granted
the Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class and
Collective Action Settlement, Preliminary Certification of a
Settlement Class, Appointment of Class Representatives and Claims
Administrator, Approving Notice and for Final Fairness Hearing
and supporting materials.  It ordered the Notice and Claim Form
and Consent to Join FLSA Action incorporated into the Settlement
Agreement to issue to the Settlement Class in the manner
specified in the Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Approval.

Accordingly, Judge Lorenz granted the Plaintiffs' Motion for
Final Approval.  He certified the following Settlement Class for
purposes of the Settlement only:

     a. Individuals who filed with the Court consents to join the
Kellgren action and who, as of the date of entry of the
Preliminary Approval Order had not withdrawn their consent or had
their claims dismissed;

     b. Individuals who worked in Colorado as an AM for Petco at
any time between Jan. 15, 2014 and June 18, 2016;

     c. Individuals who worked in Illinois as an AM for Petco at
any time between Nov. 23, 2013 and June 18, 2016;

     d. Individuals who worked in Massachusetts as an AM for
Petco at any time between Jan. 31, 2014 and June 18, 2016;

     e. Individuals who worked in New Jersey for Petco as an AM
at any time between April 6, 2015 and June 18, 2016;

     f. Individuals who worked in New York for Petco as an AM at
any time between April 14, 2010 and June 18, 2016;

     g. Individuals who worked in Oregon for Petco as an AM at
any time between Oct. 21, 2014 and June 18, 2016; and

     h. Individuals who worked in Pennsylvania for Petco as an AM
at any time between July 14, 2014 and June 18, 2016.

He awarded the Class Counsel, Klafter Olsen & Lesser LLP and
Hepworth Gershbaum & Roth, PLLC attorneys' fees in the amount of
$2,665,000, and $161,901 in reimbursement of reasonable expenses
incurred in prosecuting the action.  The attorneys' fees and
expenses so awarded will be paid from the Settlement Sum pursuant
to the terms of the Settlement Agreement.

The Judge finds that the services provided by the Named
Plaintiffs to the Settlement Class have conferred a substantial
benefit on the Settlement Class, and directed payment as provided
under the terms of the parties' Settlement Agreement from the
Settlement Sum to Named Plaintiffs Erik Kellgren, Maria Cote,
James Hecker, Therese Kopchinski, Christine Lee, Deserie Michel,
Heather Vargas, and Robert Wagner of $10,000 each as Incentive
Awards.

Following the Effective Date provided for in the Settlement
Agreement and receipt of the Settlement Sum from the Defendants,
as set forth in the Settlement Agreement, the Judge directed the
Claims Administrator to effectuate distribution of the settlement
funds to the Settlement Class Members who made timely and valid
claims in accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement.

He entered Final Judgment in the cases in accordance with the
Settlement Agreement.  These consolidated actions are dismissed
with prejudice.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 13, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/sRzGyr from Leagle.com.

Erik Kellgren, Individually and On Behalf of All Other Persons
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher Michael
Timmel, Klafter Olsen & Lesser LLP, pro hac vice, Fran Lisa
Rudich, Klafter Olsen & Lesser LLP, pro hac vice, Gregg Lander,
Law Offices of Kevin T Barnes, Jason J. Conway, Klafter Olsen &
Lesser, LLP, Jeffrey A. Klafter, Bernstein Litowitz Berger and
Grossman,  pro hac vice, Kevin T. Barnes, Law Offices of Kevin
Barnes, Michael H. Reed, Klafter Olsen & Lesser LLP, pro hac
vice, Rebecca Solomon Predovan, Hepworth Gershbaum & Roth, PLLC,
pro hac vice, Seth R. Lesser, Klafter Olsen & Lesser LLP, pro hac
vice, Charles Gersbhaum, Hepworth, Gershbaum & Roth, PLLC, pro
hac vice, David A. Roth, Hepworth, Gershbaum & Roth, PLLC, pro
hac vice, Marc Hepworth, Hepworth, Gershbaum & Roth PLLC, pro hac
vice, Mathew A. Parker, Hepworth, Gershbaum & Roth, PLLC, pro hac
vice & Michael D. Singer -- msinger@ckslaw.com -- Cohelan, Khoury
& Singer.

Ashleigh Dion, Eva Reed, Matt Gumbs, Kevin Kinsella, Ciarra
Kozak, Denise Acker, Eli Alford, Doris Burgos, Sarah S. Ybarra,
Jose Mariscal, Katherine McDonald, Ronald Powell, Jr., Kimbra
Eberly, Shelly Darling, Jon White, Douglas Kendall, Steven
Tjalas, Shawnna McClurg, Carlos DeJesus, John Dorr, Greg Womack,
Patrick A. Daly, Kevin Clay, Jennifer Boucher, Jonathen Everett,
Jonathan Ocasio, Paul Aucoin, Stacey Reasoner, Heather Booker,
Robin Yocum, Robin Turner, Trevor Mackey, David Churchman, Jay
Archbold, Jamel Thompson, Denise Storms, Katie Webber, Domenick 1
J Roberti, Jennifer Boyce, Calvin Black, II, Mathew Anderson,
Sagun Harper, Nicole A. Fehr, Sunny Martens, Sara L. Yarlott,
Susanna B. Rocha, Davon D. Richardson, Andre Morales, Andrew J.
Roper, Doris Schoenher, Kyle A. Godfrey, Rollini Weibrecht,
Michael Fletcher, Dallas Brown, Laura Sturtevant, Amy M.
Gutfleish, Byron Tankersley, Steven Clifton, Alexander Erickson,
Adam Lehmann, Chloe Anderson, Kevin Valliere, Miriam McNamara,
Charles Kerr, Kevin Wright, Michael Coffey, Geraldine L. Cross,
Giavanna Cargill, Judith Jameson, John Newman, Devin Dalton,
Crystal J. Caro, also known as, Randolph Bell, Sean P. Sullivan,
Crystal Sottile, Linh Le, Juan Pereyra, Susana Paez, Joy Witte,
Jennifer Jeffries, Allan Leidholm, Cheryl Gallinati, Brian
Phipps, Timothy Hanss, Partick Arnold, Nicholeen Antelope, Roy
Mitchell, Daniel R. Crews, Michelle Latour, Dawn Clement, Michael
Murphy, Mary Murphy, Nicholas Kogos, Adrianna Morgan, Jason
Smith, Kelly Sundling, Tara Simoneaux, Alicia Thompson, Robert A.
Przybyla, Marc Lichterman, Christopher T. Holliday, Stewart
Stewart, Jaydn Bynoe, Ashley Cummins, William Hinkel, Patricia
Jones, Kandyce Moralez, Keith Sigman, Leroy Wickham, John Adams,
Jr., Elizabeth Assi, Dave Belden, Marcy Carroll, Kimberly
Crawford, Timothy Eplion, II, Linda N. Goodness, Carin Grimes,
Debbie Hartman, Jacqueline Kelly, Nakia-Ali Mohammed, Brian
Morton, Robyn Napier, Nelson Paine, Monica Petrillo, Matthew
Rodriguez, Christina Russo, William Taylor, Elizabeth Trevino,
Laurie Vrooman, Julia Haight, Matthew Ruszczyk, Bee Ling Withers,
Britney Chaffee, Aaron Babson, Aaron Formeister, Tosha Keller,
Gary Matthews, Brian Moody, Katherine Pekara, Paul Rehberger,
Carissa Ruud, Kristen Slone, Aaron Wall, Barry Goodson, Salvatore
Kennedy, Stacey Mondesir, (Slimmen), Kevin Quint, Felix Rios,
Forsythe Farrah & April Hamm, Plaintiffs, represented by Seth R.
Lesser, Klafter Olsen & Lesser LLP, pro hac vice.

Maria Cote, Individually and on Behalf of All Other Persons
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Fran Lisa Rudich,
Klafter Olsen & Lesser LLP, pro hac vice & Seth R. Lesser,
Klafter Olsen & Lesser LLP, pro hac vice.

Deserie Michel, Plaintiff, represented by Rebecca Solomon
Predovan, Hepworth Gershbaum & Roth, PLLC, pro hac vice.

Heather Vargas, Individually and On Behalf of All Other Persons
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Michael H. Reed,
Klafter Olsen & Lesser LLP, pro hac vice & Seth R. Lesser, Klaftr
Olsen & Lesser LLP, pro hac vice.

James Hecker, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Adam Michael Prom, Wexler
Wallace LLP, Amy Elisabeth Keller, DiCello Levitt & Casey LLC,
Edward A. Wallace -- eaw@wexlerwallace.com -- Wexler Toriseva
Wallace LLP, pro hac vice, Fran Lisa Rudich, Kafter Olsen &
Lesser LLP, pro hac vice, Michael H. Reed, Klafter Olsen & Lesser
LLP, pro hac vice, Rebecca Solomon Predovan, Hepworth Gershbaum &
Roth, PLLC, pro hac vice & Charles Gersbhaum, Hepworth, Gershbaum
& Roth, PLLC, pro hac vice.

Therese Kopchinski, Individually and on Behalf of All Other
Persons Similarly Situated & Christine Lee, Individually and on
Behalf of All Other Persons Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs,
represented by David A. Roth, Hepworth, Gershbaum & Roth, PLLC,
pro hac vice.

Robert Wagner, Individually and On Behalf of All Other Similarly
Situated Perosns, Plaintiff, represented by Brian David Gonzales,
The Law Offices of Brian D. Gonzales.

Petco Animal Supplies, Inc., Defendant, represented by Claudette
G. Wilson -- cwilson@wilsonturnerkosmo.com -- Wilson Turner Kosmo
LLP, Katherine Marie McCray -- kmccray@wilsonturnerkosmo.com --
Wilson Turner Kosmo LLP, Kirsten F. Gallacher --
KGallacher@wilsonturnerkosmo.com -- Wilson Turner Kosmo LLP, Lois
M. Kosch -- lkosch@wilsonturnerkosmo.com -- Wilson Turner Kosmo
LLP, Meryl C. Maneker -- mmaneker@wilsonturnerkosmo.com -- Wilson
Turner Kosmo LLP, Carolina Bravo-Karimi -- cbravo-
karimi@wilsonturnerkosmo.com -- Wilson Turner Kosmo LLP & Krystal
Norris Weaver -- kweaver@wilsonturnerkosmo.com -- Wilson Turner
Kosmo LLP.

Petco Holdings, Inc. LLC, Defendant, represented by Meryl C.
Maneker, Wilson Turner Kosmo LLP.


PF CHANG'S: "Esry" Suit Seeks Minimum Wages under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------
JACQUELINE ESRY, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. PF. CHANG'S CHINA BISTRO,
INC., d/b/a P.F. CHANG'S CHINA BISTRO, the Defendant, Case No.
4:18-cv-00156-JLH (E.D. Ark., Feb. 23, 2018), seeks declaratory
judgment, monetary damages, liquidated damages, prejudgment
interest, and costs, including a reasonable attorney's fee, as a
result of Defendant's failure to pay Plaintiff and all others
similarly situated minimum wages as required by the Fair Labor
Standards Act, and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act.

The case is a class and collective action for wages owed. The
Defendant owns and/or operates a P.F. Chang's China Bistro
restaurant in Pulaski County, 317 South Shackleford Road, Little
Rock, Arkansas 72211 ("P.F. Chang's"). The Plaintiff and other
servers spent more than 20% of their time performing non-tipped
duties for Defendant such as opening and closing the restaurant,
rolling silverware, performing side work, and other non-tipped
duties. Because Plaintiff and other servers spent more than 20%
of their time performing non-tipped duties for Defendant,
Defendant was required to pay Plaintiff and its other servers at
least $7 .25 per hour for their non-tipped work. The Defendant's
policies violate the FLSA because Plaintiff and others similarly
situated are not compensated at a minimum of $7.25 per hour.
Defendant's policies violate the AMWA because Plaintiff and
others similarly situated are not compensated at a minimum of
$8.50 per hour.

P. F. Chang's China Bistro is an Asian-themed US casual dining
restaurant chain founded in 1993 by Paul Fleming and Philip
Chiang, owned and operated by Centerbridge Partners, and
headquartered in Scottsdale, Arizona.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Josh Sanford, Esq.
          SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
          One Financial Center
          650 South Shackleford Road, Suite 411
          Little Rock, AR 72211
          Telephone: (501) 221 0088
          Facsimile: (888) 787 2040
          E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com


PLAINS ALL AMERICAN: "Andrews" Suit Seeks to Certify Subclass
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled KEITH ANDREWS, an individual, TIFFANI
ANDREWS, an individual, BACIU FAMILY LLC, a California limited
liability company, ROBERT BOYDSTON, an individual, CAPTAIN JACK'S
SANTA BARBARA TOURS, LLC, a California limited liability company,
MORGAN CASTAGNOLA, an individual, THE EAGLE FLEET, LLC, a
California limited liability company, ZACHARY FRAZIER, an
individual, MIKE GANDALL, an individual, ALEXANDRA B. GEREMIA, as
Trustee for the Alexandra Geremia Family Trust dated 8/5/1998,
JIM GUELKER, an individual, JACQUES HABRA, an individual, ISURF,
LLC, a California limited liability company, MARK KIRKHART, an
individual, MARY KIRKHART, an individual, RICHARD LILYGREN, an
individual, HWA HONG MUH, an individual, OCEAN ANGEL IV,
LLC, a California limited liability company, PACIFIC RIM
FISHERIES, INC., a California corporation, SARAH RATHBONE,
an individual, COMMUNITY SEAFOOD LLC, a California
limited liability company, SANTA BARBARA UNI, INC., a California
corporation, SOUTHERN CAL SEAFOOD, INC., a California
corporation, TRACTIDE MARINE CORP., a California corporation,
WEI INTERNATIONAL TRADING INC., a California corporation and
STEPHEN WILSON, an individual, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. PLAINS ALL AMERICAN
PIPELINE, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership, PLAINS PIPELINE,
L.P., a Texas limited partnership, and JOHN DOES 1 through 10,
the Defendants, Case No. 2:15-cv-04113-PSG-JEM (C.D. Cal.), the
Plaintiffs will move the Court on April 23, 2018 for an order
granting their renewed motion for class certification of Real
Property Subclass.

A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=eNYd2o0s

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Robert L. Lieff, Esq.
          Elizabeth J. Cabraser, Esq.
          Robert J. Nelson, Esq.
          Sarah R. London, Esq.
          Wilson M. Dunlavey, Esq.
          LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
          275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
          Telephone: (415) 956 1000
          Facsimile: (415) 956 1008

               - and -

          Lynn Lincoln Sarko, Esq.
          Gretchen Freeman Cappio, Esq.
          Daniel Mensher, Esq.
          KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
          1201 Third Ave., Suite 3200
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 623 1900
          Facsimile: (206) 623 3384

               - and -

          Juli Farris, Esq.
          Matthew J. Preusch, Esq.
          Lisa Faye Petak, Esq.
          KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
          1129 State Street, Suite 8
          Santa Barbara, CA 93101
          Telephone: (805) 456 1496
          Facsimile: (805) 456 1497

               - and -

          A. Barry Cappello, Esq.
          Leila J. Noel, Esq.
          Lawrence J. Conlan, Esq.
          David Cousineau, Esq.
          CAPPELLO & NOEL LLP
          831 State Street
          Santa Barbara, CA 93101-3227
          Telephone: (805) 564 2444
          Facsimile: (805) 965 5950

               - and -

          William M. Audet, Esq.
          Ling K. Kuang, Esq.
          AUDET & PARTNERS, LLP
          711 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 500
          San Francisco, CA 94102-3275
          Telephone: (415) 568 2555
          Facsimile: (415) 568 2556


PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: "Filiault" Suit Moved to Dist. of Connecticut
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Faith Filiault, On behalf of
herself and all other similarly situated consumers, the
Plaintiff, v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, the Defendant,
Case No. HHD-CV186088452, was removed from the Connecticut
Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the District of
Connecticut (New Haven) on Feb. 23, 2018. The District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 3:18-cv-00332-VLB to the proceeding. The
case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Vanessa L. Bryant.

Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, also known as Anchor
Receivables Management, manages past-due accounts. It serves
customers through account representatives.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Peter M. Van Dyke, Esq.
          EAGAN, DONOHUE, VAN DYKE & FALSEY, LLP
          24 Arapahoe Road
          West Hartford, CT 06107
          Telephone: (860) 232 7200
          Facsimile: (860) 232 0214
          E-mail: pvd@eddf-law.com

Attorneys for Defendant:

          Eric D. Daniels, Esq.
          ROBINSON & COLE
          280 Trumbull St.
          Hartford, CT 06103-3597
          Telephone: (860) 275 8225
          Facsimile: (860) 275 8299
          E-mail: edaniels@rc.com


PRIMELENDING: Seeks 8th Cir. Review of Order in "Shockley" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant PrimeLending, a PlainsCapital Company, filed an appeal
from a court order entered on January 12, 2018, in the lawsuit
entitled Jennifer Shockley v. PrimeLending, Case No. 4:17-cv-
00763-DW, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Missouri - Kansas City.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the
Plaintiff seeks to recover alleged unpaid wages and related
penalties and damages owed to all similarly situated employees of
the Defendants pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the compliant, the Defendant's policy and practice
is to deny overtime pay to its Mortgage Loan Processors,
including the Plaintiff.  The Defendant's deliberate failure to
pay its employees all of their earned wages and overtime
compensation violates the Fair Labor Standards Act, as well as
Missouri state laws.

The appellate case is captioned as Jennifer Shockley v.
PrimeLending, Case No. 18-1235, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.

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

   -- Appendix was due on March 12, 2018;

   -- Brief of Appellant PrimeLending was due on March 12, 2018;

   -- Appellee brief is due 30 days from the date the Court
      issues the Notice of Docket Activity filing the brief of
      appellant; and

   -- Appellant reply brief is due 14 days from the date the
      court issues the Notice of Docket Activity filing the
      appellee brief.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellee Jennifer Shockley, individually, and on behalf
of all other similarly situated persons, is represented by:

          Laura Catherine Fellows, Esq.
          Virginia Irene Stevens Crimmins, Esq.
          CRIMMINS LAW FIRM
          214 S. Spring Street
          Independence, MO 64050
          Telephone: (816) 974-7220
          Facsimile: (855) 974-7020
          E-mail: l.fellows@crimminslawfirm.com
                  v.crimmins@crimminslawfirm.com

               - and -

          Heather Jasmine Hardinger, Esq.
          Kelly A. McCambridge
          MCCAMBRIDGE LAW OFFICE
          1308 N.E. Windsor Drive
          Lee's Summit, MO 64086
          Telephone: (816) 389-8345
          Facsimile: (816) 875-2388
          E-mail: Kelly@McCambridgeLaw.com
                  Heather@McCambridgeLaw.com

Defendant-Appellant PrimeLending, a PlainsCapital Company, is
represented by:

          Daniel Patrick O'Donnell, Jr.
          JACKSON & LEWIS P.C.
          7733 Forsyth Boulevard, Suite 600
          Saint Louis, MO 63105
          Telephone: (314) 827-3939
          Facsimile: (314) 827-3940
          E-mail: daniel.odonnell@jacksonlewis.com

               - and -

          Kyle Burton Russell, Esq.
          JACKSON & LEWIS P.C.
          7101 College Boulevard, Suite 1200
          Overland Park, KS 66210
          Telephone: (913) 981-1018
          Facsimile: (913) 981-1019
          E-mail: kyle.russell@Jacksonlewis.com


RBC BANK: 11th Cir. Affirms Denial of Arbitration Bid in "Dasher"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Michael Joseph Melloy of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of RBC's
motion to compel arbitration in the case, MICHAEL DASHER,
Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RBC BANK (USA), d.b.a. RBC Bank,
Defendant-Appellant, Case No. 15-13871 (11th Cir.).

Dasher held a checking account with RBC and used a debit card for
that account.  He asserts RBC failed to properly warn him of
possible overdrafts at points of sale when he used his debit
card.  He also asserts RBC impermissibly rearranged the order of
debit-card transactions so as to process larger transactions
before smaller transactions.  Through this practice, RBC more
quickly drove account balances to zero, thus maximizing the
number of separate overdrafts.  RBC charged a fee for each
overdraft regardless of the size of the overdraft.  By
rearranging transactions in a manner that maximized the number of
separate overdrafts, RBC maximized total fees charged to Dasher.

Dasher and other account holders sued RBC, and the present case
became part of the Checking Account Overdraft Litigation, MDL No.
2036.  RBC moved to compel arbitration, seeking to invoke an
arbitration provision in a 2008 customer account agreement.  The
district court denied the motion.  RBC appealed.

While the appeal was pending, the Supreme Court decided AT&T
Mobility LLC v. Concepcion.  Perceiving the possible
applicability of Concepcion, the parties moved to vacate and
remand for reconsideration.  The Eleventh Circuit granted the
motion.

Back at the district court, the parties conducted limited
discovery related to the issue of arbitration.  Discovery
revealed PNC Bank, N.A. had acquired RBC and had issued a new
version of its customer-account agreements in 2012.  In doing so,
PNC relied upon provisions in the 2008 agreement authorizing
RBC's successors to step into RBC's shoes and also authorizing
RBC to make changes to the terms of the agreement.  PNC's 2012
agreement lacked an arbitration provision.  The 2012 agreement
purported to become binding and effective upon account holders
who continued to use their accounts without opting out. Dasher
did not opt out of the 2012 agreement.

PNC renewed the RBC motion to compel arbitration, arguing the
2008 agreement and its arbitration provision should apply.
Dasher resisted, arguing PNC's more recent 2012 agreement wholly
superseded the 2008 agreement, thus leaving the parties without a
contractual duty to arbitrate.  On Jan. 11, 2013, the district
court issued a written order agreeing with Dasher and denying the
motion to compel. PNC filed a notice of appeal that same day.

Shortly after the district court entered its order, PNC sent
account holders an amended agreement inserting an arbitration
provision into the otherwise operative 2012 agreement.  The
amendment purported to become effective Feb. 1, 2013.  The
arbitration provision of the February 2013 amendment is not a
model of clarity, but it contains language suggesting it might
have retroactive effect upon existing claims.  The February 2013
amendment indicates PNC deems account holders to accept the
amendment if the account holders fail to opt out and continue to
use their accounts.  Dasher neither opted out nor ceased using
his account.

The parties then briefed and argued their appeal from the
district court's January 2013 order.  The Appellate Court
affirmed the judgment of the district court on Feb. 10, 2014,
concluding the 2012 agreement wholly superseded the 2008
agreement, thus leaving the parties without a current duty to
arbitrate.  PNC filed a motion for reconsideration on Feb. 28,
2014.  The Court denied the motion for reconsideration on March
27, 2014.

On April 1, 2014, PNC filed a motion to stay the mandate pending
pursuit of a writ of certiorari in the Supreme Court.  The
Appellate Court granted the stay, PNC unsuccessfully sought
review in the Supreme Court, and the Appellate Court issued the
mandate on Oct. 20, 2014.  On Nov. 10, 2014, pursuant to an Oct.
29, 2014 scheduling order, Dasher filed an amended consolidated
complaint in the district court.

Then, on Dec. 5, 2014, PNC moved to compel arbitration based upon
the February 2013 amendment to the 2012 agreement.  Dasher
resisted the new motion to compel arbitration, arguing PNC had
waived the right to rely upon the arbitration provision in the
February 2013 amendment by failing to raise it at an earlier
time.

The district court denied the motion in August 2015, finding PNC
waived the right to pursue arbitration under the 2013 amendment
because PNC (1) did not create the amendment until almost three
years after litigation commenced; (2) failed to assert the
amendment for almost two years after it purportedly went into
effect; and (3) vigorously pursued arbitration under a different
provision throughout this time without seeking to rely on the
2013 amendment and without timely notifying counsel or the court
of the amendment.
In the alternative, citing cases arising under the Uniform
Commercial Code, the district court held the addition of an
arbitration provision to an existing agreement was a material
alteration that could not become effective unless both parties
expressly agreed to the addition.  PNC appeals.

In conducting his review, Judge Melloy finds it unnecessary to
address the questions of waiver or the district court's
alternative holding.  Instead, he concludes PNC's motion fails
for a more fundamental reason: PNC failed to demonstrate the
requisite meeting of the minds to support a finding that the
parties agreed through the February 2013 amendment to arbitrate
their then-pending litigation.

He reaches this conclusion for two related reasons.  First, PNC
distributed the proposed, purportedly retroactive and litigation-
ending amendment directly to Dasher, even though PNC knew Dasher
was an adverse litigant actively represented by counsel as to the
very issues raised in the amendment.  Second, at the time Dasher
failed to opt out of the proposed amendment, he was forcefully
and consistently resisting arbitration of the pending litigation.

At most, then, PNC demonstrated inconsistent communications from
Dasher (his implicit acceptance by failing to opt out and his
express resistance to arbitration) coupled with a failure on
PNC's part to communicate through counsel.  In this narrow
context, the Judge says he cannot overlook PNC's failure to
direct its purportedly court-evicting proposed amendment through
known litigation counsel.

For these reasons, Judge Molley affirmed the district court's
denial RBC's motion to compel arbitration.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 13, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/Ai4FXR from Leagle.com.

Robert Cecil Gilbert -- gilbert@kolawyers.com -- for Plaintiff-
Appellee.

Jeffrey Miles Ostrow -- ostrow@kolawyers.com -- for Plaintiff-
Appellee.

Mark J. Levin -- LEVINMJBALLARDSPAHR.COM -- for Defendant-
Appellant.

Stephen F. Rosenthal -- srosenthal@podhurst.com -- for Plaintiff-
Appellee.

G. Franklin Lemond, Jr., for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Edward Adam Webb -- Contact@WebbLLC.com -- for Plaintiff-
Appellee.

Virginia Bullerman Townes, for Defendant-Appellant.

Bruce Stephen Rogow -- brogow@rogowlaw.com -- for Plaintiff-
Appellee.

Christopher Stephen Carver -- christopher.carver@akerman.com --
for Defendant-Appellant.

Jonathan M. Streisfeld -- streisfeld@kolawyers.com -- for
Plaintiff-Appellee.

Stacy Jaye Rodriguez -- stacy.rodriguez@akerman.com -- for
Defendant-Appellant.

Philip N. Yannella -- YANNELLAPBALLARDSPAHR.COM -- for Defendant-
Appellant.


RCL MANAGEMENT: "Morgan" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------
SHASAY MORGAN, WILLIAM THOAS VEASY and AMALIBRAIM, on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. RCL
MANAGEMENT, LLC, d/b/a B-SIDE COMPLEX, BAHAA DAWARA, and IMAD
DAWARA, the Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-00800-MSG (E.D. Pa.,
Feb. 23, 2018), seeks to recover overtime pay under Fair Labor
Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was regularly scheduled
to work 4 days a week. The Plaintiff Morgan regularly worked more
than 40 hours a week. The Plaintiff Morgan was not provided a
dinner break. Accordingly, Plaintiff Morgan routinely worked
through her dinner without extra pay and she was unable to take
short breaks due the demand of her position. The Plaintiff
observed other Class Members routinely work similar schedules.

The Defendants were aware of and permitted this practice.
Throughout her employment, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff
Morgan overtime for work performed more than 40 hours per week.
The Defendants required Plaintiff Morgan to reimburse them from
her tips, her sole compensation, if a patron walked out on a
check or a check and/or credit card was declined after the
customer left the premises. Plaintiff Morgan observed other Class
Members being subjected to the same pay deduction/reimbursement
policy.

RCL Management is the owner and management company of several
restaurants, nightclubs, and bars in Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Proposed Classes:

          Ryan kllen Hancock, Esq.
          Bruce Ludwig, Esq.
          WILLIG, WILLIAMS & DAVIDSON
          1845 Walnut Street, 24th Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 656 3600
          Facsimile: (215) 567 2310
          E-mail: rhancock@wwdlaw.com
                  bludwig@wwdlaw.com


RECEIVABLE MANAGEMENT: "Maniaci" Class Certification Bid Stayed
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled PATRICK MANIACI, the Plaintiff, v. THE
RECEIVABLE MANAGEMENT SERVICES CORPORATION, the Defendant,
Case No. 2:18-cv-00200-WED (E.D. Wisc.), the Hon. Judge William
E. Duffin entered an order granting plaintiff's motion to stay
further proceedings for class certification.

The Court said, "The parties are relieved from the automatic
briefing schedule set forth in Civil Local Rule 7(b) and (c).
Moreover, for administrative purposes, it is necessary that the
Clerk terminate the plaintiff's motion for class certification.
However, this motion will be regarded as pending to serve its
protective purpose under Damasco."

In Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891, 896 (7th Cir. 2011),
the court suggested that class-action plaintiffs "move to certify
the class at the same time that they file their complaint." Id.
"The pendency of that motion protects a putative class from
attempts to buy off the named plaintiffs." Id. However, because
parties are generally unprepared to proceed with a motion for
class certification at the beginning of a case, the Damasco court
suggested that the parties "ask the district court to delay its
ruling to provide time for additional discovery or
investigation."

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=AQztyN3q


RECONSTRUCTIVE ORTHOPAEDIC: Wolfington Files 2nd 3rd Cir. Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Andrew Wolfington filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in his lawsuit styled Andrew Wolfington v. Reconstructive
Orthopaedic Associates II PC, et al., Case No. 2-16-cv-04935, in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

The appellate case is captioned as Andrew Wolfington v.
Reconstructive Orthopaedic Associates II PC, et al., Case No. 18-
1182, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter, Mr. Wolfington
previously filed an appeal from a court ruling in his lawsuit.
That appellate case is captioned as Andrew Wolfington v.
Reconstructive Orthopaedic Associates II PC, et al., Case No. 17-
3500.

According to a Clerk Order filed in the Appellate Case's docket,
Mr. Wolfington's two appellate cases are consolidated for all
purposes.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Oct. 17, 2017, three
Pennsylvania attorneys were sanctioned on Sept. 29 in federal
court for bringing what a judge described as a "remarkable"
proposed class action for a man, who sued a knee surgery center
after it worked with him on a payment plan.

U.S. District Judge Michael Baylson found that the attorneys --
Eric Rayz, Esq., Gerald Wells, Esq., and Michael Yarnoff, Esq., -
- did no due diligence before filing the lawsuit on behalf of
their client, describing the suit as a groundless attempt to
avoid paying for his surgery.

The judge tagged the attorneys for failing to engage in even "the
most cursory check" into plaintiff Andrew Wolfington's financial
records, noting that while Mr. Wolfington accused the Rothman
Institute of providing no warning that it would make withdrawals
from his bank account, the health care provider never actually
made a single withdrawal.

"Defendant has no immunity from litigation, but it is clear that
groundless lawsuits against medical providers increase the cost
of medical care, and increased expenses of medical providers have
contributed to the drastic increase in health care costs which
are a matter of public concern," Judge Baylson said.  "Thus,
public policy warrants sanctions when a groundless suit is filed
against a medical provider."

Mr. Wolfington was preparing to undergo knee surgery at the
Rothman Institute in 2015 when he was told by the provider
shortly before his scheduled procedure that he would have to pay
the insurance deductible of over $2,000 upfront, according to the
Sept. 29 opinion.

Mr. Wolfington sued in September 2016, accusing Rothman of
ultimately lending him the funds and putting him on a payment
plan, but failing to outline the terms of the financing agreement
in writing and making unauthorized deductions from his checking
account, the opinion says.  He and his attorneys filed the suit
as a nationwide class action, suggesting that Rothman had
violated the Truth in Lending Act and the Electronic Fund
Transfer Act when dealing with other patients.

Later that year, after Rothman provided evidence that after Mr.
Wolfington made an initial $200 down payment, he never made any
additional payments, Judge Baylson threw out the suit with
prejudice.  The judge then, on his own volition, initiated a
sanctions inquiry to weigh whether the suit was frivolous and
whether it could have been avoided had the lawyers done proper
research.

After a round of briefing, a hearing and another round of
briefing, the judge determined that the lawyers fell short of
their obligations.

"In view of the seriousness of the charges, even a most cursory
check of plaintiff's financial records would have been part of a
reasonable investigation, especially because, as we now know,
reviewing the records for any of the eight months from the
plaintiff's operation to the filing of the complaint would have
revealed that many allegations in the complaint were false,"
Judge Baylson said.

"The filing of the complaint as a class action was particularly
egregious.  If the bank records had been secured, it would have
been obvious that there was no basis whatsoever to allege
plaintiff could represent a class," he continued.

The ruling places the attorneys on the hook to pay Rothman's
attorneys' fees. Judge Baylson gave Rothman 14 days to tabulate
its costs, followed by another 14 days for the attorneys to
respond with any differing assessment.

"We strongly disagree with Judge Baylson's analysis and opinion
and intend to seek all appropriate remedies at the district
and/or appellate level," the attorneys said in a joint
statement.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant ANDREW WOLFINGTON, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF
OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, is represented by:

          Peter H. LeVan, Jr., Esq.
          LEVAN LAW GROUP
          130 North 18th Street
          One Logan Square, 27th Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 561-1500
          E-mail: RLevant@LMTPC.com

Defendants-Appellees RECONSTRUCTIVE ORTHOPAEDIC ASSOCIATES II PC,
aka The Rothman Institute, and ROTHMAN INSTITUTE are represented
by:

          Laura D. Ruccolo, Esq.
          CAPEHART & SCATCHARD PA
          8000 Midlantic Drive
          Laurel Corporate Center, Suite 300S
          P.O. Box 5016
          Mount Laurel, NJ 08054
          Telephone: (856) 234-6800
          E-mail: lruccolo@capehart.com


REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION: Class Cert. Hearing Continued to May 9
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled Richard Singer, the Plaintiff, v. Regional
Transportation Authority, et al., the Defendants, Case No.
1:18-cv-00199 (N.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Gary Feinerman entered
an order continuing Plaintiff's motion to certify class on May 9,
2018 at 9:00 a.m.

According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on February 28,
2018, status hearing held and continued to May 9, 2018 at 9:00
a.m. Defendants shall respond to the complaint by March 19, 2018.
MIDP disclosures shall be served by April 18, 2018. The parties
shall file a status report by May 2, 2018.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=G3bvMf4P


RELIANCE TRUST: Court Certifies Class in "Nistra" ERISA Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ARTUR A. NISTRA, on behalf of The Bradford Hammacher
Group, Inc. Employee Stock Ownership Plan and a class of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. RELIANCE TRUST COMPANY,
Defendant, Case No. 16 C 4773 (N.D. Ill.), Judge Gary Feinerman
of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois,
Eastern Division, granted Nistra's motion to certify a class of
Plan participants under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.

On behalf of The Bradford Hammacher Group, Inc. Employee Stock
Ownership Plan, Nistra brings the putative class action under the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"),
alleging that Reliance, as Plan trustee, breached its fiduciary
duties to the Plan by causing it to engage in transactions
prohibited by ERISA.

Bradford is a closely held corporation with headquarters in
Illinois.  It established the Plan in 2013 and appointed Reliance
as trustee.  Nistra and 753 others are participants in the Plan.
At some point after the Plan was established, shareholders of
Bradford and its affiliates redeemed 100% of their common stock
for $275 million.  Bradford then issued 600,000 new shares of
Class A common stock and sold them all to the Plan in exchange
for a $100,000,000 note.

Nistra alleges that Reliance violated its fiduciary duties to the
Plan by causing it to borrow money from Bradford and to purchase
Bradford stock at less than fair market value, and by acting for
the benefit of Bradford in connection with the transaction.
Nistra seeks relief under 29 U.S.C. Section 1109(a), which
imposes personal liability on the fiduciary whose breach of the
obligations imposed by the statute results in a loss to the plan.

Nistra seeks relief on behalf of the Plan, and moves to certify
the class of all persons who were participants in The Bradford
Hammacher Group, Inc. Employee Stock Ownership Plan.

Reliance objects to class certification on two principal grounds.
Reliance argues that because the proposed class includes
individuals who signed releases waiving their right to bring
ERISA claims on the Plan's behalf, the court should amend the
class definition to exclude them.  It also argues that the suit
could be prosecuted more efficiently as a derivative action under
Rule 23.

Judge Feinerman finds that the Plaintiff has meet the Rule 23(a)
and Rule 23(b) requirements.  He also finds that Reliance's first
argument falls short regardless of how it is classified.
Moreover, there is no reason to think that the release issue will
be relevant to the litigation.  As noted, the suit seeks relief
only on the Plan's behalf.  Neither the fact of Reliance's
liability nor the amount of any damages will be affected by the
inclusion of class members who signed releases.  As to Reliance's
second argument, the Judge finds that given that the proposed
class meets the requirements for certification under Rule 23(a)
and (b)(1)(B), he cannot deny certification simply because a
preferable procedural vehicle may exist.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Feirnerman certified the
proposed class under Rule 23(b)(1)(B).  The class is defined as
all persons who were participants in The Bradford Hammacher
Group, Inc. Employee Stock Ownership Plan other than the officers
and directors of The Bradford Hammacher Group, Inc.; the legal
representatives, successors, and assigns of the officers and
directors; and those individuals, trusts, and their family
members that redeemed or sold their shares in the Bradford Group
and its affiliates and/or Hammacher, Schlemmer & Company, Inc. to
Bradford in 2013.

The claim to be tried is whether Reliance violated ERISA through
its participation as Plan trustee in the Plan's 2013 purchase of
Bradford stock.

Pursuant to Rule 23(g), the Judge appointed Gregory Y. Porter and
Robert A. Izard of Bailey & Glasser LLP and Izard, Kindall &
Raabe, LLP, respectively, as the class counsel.

Finally, since neither party has addressed class notice; the
Judge directed them to do so in a joint filing or separate
filings by March 6, 2018.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 13, 2018 Memorandum Opinion
and Order is available at https://is.gd/i8TsO4 from Leagle.com.

Artur A. Nistra, on behalf of The Bradford Hammacher Group, Inc.
Employee Stock Ownership Plan, and on behalf of a class of all
other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by
Patrick Owen Muench -- pmuench@baileyglasser.com -- Bailey &
Glasser, LLP.

Reliance Trust Company, a Delaware Corporation, Defendant,
represented by Theodore Michaelson Becker --
Theodore.Becker@dbr.com -- Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP & Richard
J. Pearl -- Richard.Pearl@dbr.com -- Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP.


SANDERSON FARMS: Gamm Appeals Order & Judgment to Second Circuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Gordon Gamm and Don Pritchard filed an appeal from the
District Court's order and judgment entered on January 19, 2018,
in their lawsuit titled Gamm, et al. v. Sanderson Farms, Inc., et
al., Case No. 16-cv-8420, in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York (New York City).

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
alleges that the Defendants made materially false and misleading
statements regarding the Company's business, operation and
compliance policies in violation of the Securities and Exchange
Act.

Sanderson Farms, an integrated poultry processing company,
produces, processes, markets, and distributes fresh, frozen, and
prepared chicken products in the United States.

The appellate case is captioned as Gamm, et al. v. Sanderson
Farms, Inc., et al., Case No. 18-284, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants Gordon Gamm, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, and Don Pritchard are represented
by:

          Marc Ian Gross, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          600 3rd Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 661-1100
          Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
          E-mail: migross@pomlaw.com

Defendants-Appellees Sanderson Farms, Inc., Joe F. Sanderson,
Jr., Michael D. Cockrell and Lampkin Butts are represented by:

          Nathaniel Kritzer, Esq.
          KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
          601 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 446-4800
          E-mail: nathaniel.kritzer@kirkland.com


SEAN MARLER: Woods, et al. Seek to Certify Inmates Class
--------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled ALLEN WOODS, et al., the Plaintiffs, v.
SEAN MARLER, the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-4443 (E.D. Pa.), the
Plaintiffs move the Court for an order:

   1. certifying a class of :

      "all current and future pre-trial inmates at the FDC who
      are or will be eligible to have social visitors but who are
      unable to see their child or children younger than 16 years
      old under the FDC's visitation policies, practices, and
      patterns. The class period commences from the time of the
      filing of the Complaint and continues so long as Defendant
      persists in the unconstitutional policies, practices, and
      patterns"; and

   2. designating Allen Woods and Keith Campbell as class
      representatives.

Sean Marler is being sued in in his official capacity as warden
of the Federal Detention Center of Philadelphia (FDC).

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=sATGrHD8

Counsel for Plaintiffs and Proposed Class Members:

          Mira Baylson, Esq.
          Amanda Pasquini, Esq.
          Jordan DiPinto, Esq.
          DRINKER BIDDLE &REATH LLP
          One Logan Square, Suite 2000
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 988 2677
          E-mail: Mira.baylson@dbr.com

               - and -

          Benjamin D. Geffen, Esq.
          Mary M. McKenzie, Esq.
          PUBLIC INTEREST LAW CENTER
          1709 Benjamin Franklin Parkway, 2nd Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 627 7100
          E-mail: bgeffen@pubintlaw.org
                  mmckenzie@pubintlaw.org

               - and -

          Jim Davy, Esq.
          PENNSYLVANIA INSTITUTIONAL LAW PROJECT
          718 Arch St., Suite 304S
          Philadelphia, PA 19106
          Telephone: (215) 925 2966
          E-mail: jdavy@pailp.org


SETURUS INC: Baxas Ask Court to Set Class Certification Hearing
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled JOHN BAXA AND LINDA BAXA, the Plaintiff, v.
SETURUS, INC., the DEFENDANT, Case No. 2:17-cv-05434-JTM-MBN
(E.D. La.), the Plaintiffs move for a hearing on class
certification under Fed.R.Civ.Proc. 23 (c) (1) and requests the
Court to set a hearing at her earliest convenience.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=wa3UDylr

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          David S. Moyer, Esq.
          S. Eliza James, Esq.
          DAVID S. MOYER, LLC
          13551 River Road La Hwy 18
          Luling, LA 70070-4261
          Telephone: 985 308 1509
          Facsimile: 985 308 1521
          E-mail: charles@raymondlaw.us
                  eliza@raymondlaw.us

               - and -

          Charles M Raymond, Esq.
          CHARLES M RAYMOND, L.L.C.
          13551 River Road La Hwy 18
          Luling, LA 70070-4261
          Telephone: (985) 308 1509
          Facsimile: (985) 308 1521
          E-mail address: charles@raymondlaw.us


SHAMROCK FOODS: "Ruiz" Suit Seeks to Certify Class
--------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled MARIO RUIZ, RAUL GUERRERO, and ROBERT
TORRES on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
the Plaintiffs, v. SHAMROCK FOODS COMPANY, an Arizona
Corporation, and DOES 1-10, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No.
2:17-cv-06017-SVW-AFM (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs will move the
Court for an Order on April 16, 2018:

   1. certifying case as a class action pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P.
      Rule 23(a) and (b)(3) on behalf of the following classes:

      "all natural persons residing in the United States
      (including all territories and other political subdivisions
      of the United States) who were the subject of a consumer
      report that was procured by Defendant (or that Defendant
      caused to be procured) within five years of the filing of
      this Complaint through the date of final judgment in this
      action under FCRA, 15 U.S.C. section 1681p";

   2. authorizing Plaintiffs to send Notice pursuant to Rule 23
      (in a form to be approved by the Court after a conference
      with defense counsel); and

   3. appointing Desai Law Firm, P.C., and Aashish Y. Desai, as
      class counsel, and the Plaintiffs as Class Representatives.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=waI9fvu0

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Aashish Y. Desai, Esq.
          Adrianne De Castro, Esq.
          DESAI LAW FIRM, P.C.
          3200 Bristol St., Suite 650
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Telephone: (949) 614 5830
          Facsimile: (949) 271 4190
          E-mail: aashish@desai-law.com
                  adrianne@desai-law.com


STATE COLLECTION: "Fetai" Placeholder Bid for Class Cert. Stayed
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled EMIR FETAI, the Plaintiff, v. STATE
COLLECTION SERVICE, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-00262-
WED (E.D. Wisc.), the Hon. Judge William E. Duffin entered an
order grating plaintiff's motion to stay further proceedings for
class certification.

The parties are relieved from the automatic briefing schedule set
forth in Civil Local Rule 7(b) and (c). Moreover, for
administrative purposes, it is necessary that the Clerk terminate
the plaintiff's motion for class certification. However, this
motion will be regarded as pending to serve its protective
purpose under Damasco, Court Says.

In Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891, 896 (7th Cir. 2011),
the court suggested that class-action plaintiffs "move to certify
the class at the same time that they file their complaint." Id.
"The pendency of that motion protects a putative class from
attempts to buy off the named plaintiffs." Id. However, because
parties are generally unprepared to proceed with a motion for
class certification at the beginning of a case, the Damasco court
suggested that the parties "ask the district court to delay its
ruling to provide time for additional discovery or
investigation."

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=h1SzzfOK


STATE FARM: Sos Seeks to Certify Florida & Multistate Classes
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled ANTHONY SOS, the Plaintiff, v. STATE FARM
MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, a foreign insurance company,
the Defendant, Case No. 6:17-cv-00890-PGB-KRS (M.D. Fla.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court for an order:

   1. certifying both the Florida and Multistate classes and
      allow the litigation to proceed as a class action:

      Florida Class:

      "all insureds of State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance
      Company and any subsidiary insurance companies with Florida
      automobile insurance policies that provide Auto Physical
      Damage coverage for a total loss insured leased vehicle,
      whose total loss claim payment did not include full state
      and local sales tax and tag and title fees, within the five
      year time period prior to the date on which this lawsuit
      was filed until the date of any certification order";

      Multistate Class:

      "all insureds of State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance
      Company and any subsidiary insurance companies with
      automobile insurance policies that provide Auto Physical
      Damage coverage for a total loss insured leased vehicle,
      whose total loss claim payment did not include full state
      and local sales tax and tag and title fees, within the
      applicable limitations period prior to the date on which
      this lawsuit was filed until the date of any certification
      order"; and

   2. providing all other and further relief that the Court deems
      equitable and just.

In the alternative, if the Court deems it necessary, Plaintiff
asks that the Court delay ruling on this Motion until after
entering an Order on Plaintiff's Motion to Compel, and should the
Court allow for additional nationwide discovery, permit Plaintiff
to supplement this Motion with relevant evidence further
demonstrating a basis for the Multistate Class.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=PgSm13dQ

The Plaintiff is represented by:

           Jacob Phillips, Esq.
           Normand Law, PLLC
           62 W. Colonial Dr., Ste. 209
           Orlando, FL, 32801
           Telephone: (407) 603 6031
           E-mail: firm@ednormand.com
                   ed@ednormand.com
                   Jacob@ednormand.com

                - and -

           Christopher J. Lynch, Esq.
           CHRISTOPHER J. LYNCH, P.A.
           6915 Red Road, Suite 208
           Coral Gables, Florida 33143
           Telephone: (305) 443 6200
           Facsimile: (305) 443 6204
           E-mail: Clynch@hunterlynchlaw.com
                   Lmartinez@hunterlynchaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

           Daniel F. Diffley, Esq.
           James B Cash, Esq.
           ALSTON & BIRD LLP
           1201 W. Peachtree Street
           Atlanta, GA 30309
           Telephone: (404) 881 7000
           Facsimile: (404) 881 7777

                - and -

           Johanna W. Clark, Esq.
           Carlton Fields, P.A.
           450 S. Orange Avenue, Suite 500
           Orlando, FL 32801
           Telephone: (407) 849 0300
           Facsimile: (407) 648 9099


STATESERV MEDICAL: Court Certifies Background Check Class
---------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled DERRICK COLES, on behalf of himself and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v.
STATESERV MEDICAL OF FLORIDA, LLC, THE STATESERV COMPANIES, LLC,
and STATESERV MEDICAL, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 8:17-cv-
00829-EAK-AEP (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Anthony E. Porcelli
entered an order:

   1. certifying Plaintiff's unopposed motion for class
      Certification of:

      Background Check Class:

      "all employees and job applicants of StateServ Medical of
      Florida, LLC, The StateServe Companies, LLC, StateServ
      Medical LLC, and any of their affiliates, related
      companies, agents and owners (the "StateServ Entities"),
      who were the subject of a consumer report procured by
      StateServ Medical of Florida, LLC, The StateServe
      Companies, LLC, or StateServ Medical LLC ("Defendants")
      within five years of the filing of the complaint through
      the date of final judgment";

   2. approving Derrick Coles as Class Representative and his
      counsel, Marc Reed Edelman, as Class Counsel.

   3. providing parties 14 days from the date of this Order to
      file an amended joint motion for preliminary approval of
      settlement agreement and proposed notice and schedule for
      notifying class members;

   4. denying without prejudice joint motion for preliminary
      approval of settlement and notices to Settlement Class.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=my130YiL


THAG LLC: Appellate Court Affirms Arbitration Ruling in "Emory"
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Cali Alyson Emory, individually and in a
representative capacity for all others similarly situated,
Appellant, v. Thag, LLC d/b/a Myrtle Beach Mitsubishi,
Respondent, Case No. 2018-UP-08 (S.C. App.), the Court of Appeals
of South Carolina affirmed state law is preempted by the Federal
Arbitration Act when it stands as an obstacle to the
accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives
of Congress.

The Appellate Court states that provisions banning class
arbitration cannot be invalidated based upon public policy
considerations embodied within state law.  Rather, the
arbitration clauses at issue must be enforced according to their
terms, which requires individual arbitration and forecloses class
arbitration.  The differences between bilateral and class-action
arbitration are too great for arbitrators to presume, consistent
with their limited powers under the FAA, that the parties' mere
silence on the issue of class arbitration constitutes consent to
resolve their disputes in class proceedings.  When a court
construes any contract, resort is first made to the language of
the contract in issue, and if the language is perfectly plain and
capable of legal construction, it determines the rights and
obligations of the parties.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 14, 2018 Opinion is
available at https://is.gd/p1ehdV from Leagle.com.

Lawrence Sidney Connor, IV -- sconnor@classactlaw.net -- of
Kelaher Connell & Connor, PC, of Surfside Beach, for Appellant.

James Y. Becker -- jbecker@hsblawfirm.com -- and Mary M. Caskey -
- mcaskey@hsblawfirm.com -- both of Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd, PA,
of Columbia; and Sarah Patrick Spruill -- sspruill@hsblawfirm.com
-- of Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd, PA, of Greenville, for Respondent.


TOOTSIE ROLL: Gordon Seeks to Certify Consumers Class
-----------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled KETRINA GORDON, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. TOOTSIE ROLL
INDUSTRIES, INC., and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, the
Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-02664-DSF-MRW (C.D. Cal.), the
Plaintiff will move the Court on May 14, 2018 for an Order:

   1. certifying a class of consumers:

      "all persons who purchased opaque boxes of 3.5-oz Junior
      Mints and 6-oz. box of Sugar Babies in the State of
      California for personal use and not for resale during the
      time period February 10, 2013, through the present.

      Excluded from the Class are Defendants' officers,
      directors, and employees, and any individual who received
      remuneration from Defendants in connection with that
      individual's use or endorsement of the Product";

   2. appointing Ketrina Gordon as Class Representative; and

   3. appointing Ryan Clarkson, Shireen Clarkson, and Bahar
      Sodaify of Clarkson Law Firm, P.C. as Class Counsel
      pursuant to Rule 23(g).

A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=g9hvm92n

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ryan J. Clarkson, Esq.
          Shireen M. Clarkson, Esq.
          Bahar Sodaify, Esq.
          CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C.
          9255 Sunset Blvd., Ste. 804
          Los Angeles, CA 90069
          Telephone: (213) 788 4050
          Facsimile: (213) 788 4070
          E-mail: rclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com
                  sclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com
                  bsodaify@clarksonlawfirm.com


TOWNE NURSING: Bailey Seeks Minimum Wage, OT under Labor Law
------------------------------------------------------------
SOPHIA BAILEY individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated who were employed by TOWNE NURSING STAFF,
INC., CLEARVIEW OPERATING CO. LLC, and related or affiliated
entities, the Plaintiffs, v. TOWNE NURSING STAFF, INC., CLEARVIEW
OPERATING CO. LLC, and related or affiliated entities, the
Defendants, Case No. 151656/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Feb. 23, 2018),
seeks to recover unpaid wages including minimum wages, unpaid
overtime compensation, and unpaid "spread of hours" compensation
pursuant to New York Labor Law.

Towne Nursing is doing business in the nursing home staffing
industry.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the putative class:

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


TOWNE PUB: Seeks Summary Judgment in Maxum Indemnity Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled MAXUM INDEMNITY COMPANY, the Plaintiff, v.
TOWNE PUB INC., d/b/a TOWNE PUB, a/k/a Club Maxey, a/k/a
Jabroni's, JORDAN MAXEY, SABRINA WILDER, EVANELLA JEFFRO,
Administrator of the estate of Mishari Halbrook, Deceased; and
Sheri Savage, mother and next of friend of Michari Halbrook, Jr.,
a minor, the Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-02211-CSB-EIL (C.D.
Ill.), the Defendants asks the Court for Summary Judgment and the
Court should find as follows:

   a. That Maxum Indemnity Company is required to defend and
      indemnify Towne Pub, Inc. and Jordan Maxey under its
      general liability insurance policy, policy number BDG
      3008125-01, for the lawsuits filed by Jeffro and Wilder in
      the Circuit Court of the Macon County, IL, under Case No.16
      L 56 and 16 L 58;

   b. That Maxum Indemnity Company is obligated to defend Towne
      Pub, Inc. and Jordan Maxey in the aforesaid underlying
      actions;

   c. That this Count grant Towne Pub, Inc. and Jordan Maxey such
      other and further relief as it deems just and fit under the
      circumstances; and

   d. That Towne Pub, Inc. and Jordan Maxey be awarded and have
      covered their just and reasonable costs incurred herein and
      have execution issued therefore, including but not limited
      to their attorneys' fees and costs incurred through the
      date of judgment.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=ci2rKZrA

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Brian Charles Bassett. Esq.
          TRAUB LIEBERMAN STRAUS & SHREWSBERRY LLP
          303 w Madison Street, Suite 1200
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 332 3900
          Facsimile: (312) 332 3908
          E-mail: bbassett@traublieberman.com

               - and -

          Maria A. Gust, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF FREDERICK
          W. NESSLER & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
          536 North Bruns Lane, Suite One
          Springfield, IL 62702
          Telephone: (217) 698 0202
          Facsimile: (217) 698 0203
          E-mail: gustm@nesslerlaw.com

               - and -

          Sabrina Wilder, Esq.
          BRYAN J. O'CONNOR
          O'Connor Law Group LLC
          140 S. Dearborn st., Ste. 320
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 236 1814
          Facsimile: (312) 580 5479

The Defendant is represented by:

          Carrie Linden, Esq.
          BEST, VANDERLAAN & HARRINGTON
          25 E. Washington St., Ste. 800
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 819 1100
          Facsimile: (312) 819 8062
          E-mail: clinden@bestfirm.com


TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR: Trax & Cilley Sue over Debt Collection
---------------------------------------------------------------
THOMAS TRAX and JODI CILLEY, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly-situated, the Plaintiff, v. TRANSPORTATION
CORRIDOR AGENCIES d/b/a THE TOLL ROADS; FANEUIL, INC.; and DOES 1
to 10, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-00420-DMS-BLM
(S.D. Cal., Feb. 23, 2018), seeks to recover damages, injunctive
relief, and any other available legal or equitable remedies under
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff alleges that Faneuil, during its ordinary course of
business, regularly, on behalf of itself and/or others, engages
in "debt collection" as that term is defined under Cal. Civ. Code
section 1788.2(b); and is therefore a "debt collector" as that
term is defined under Cal. Civ. Code section 1788.2(c).

This case involves money, property, or its equivalent, due or
owing, or alleged to be due or owing, from a natural person to
another person, primarily for personal, family, or household
purposes. As such, this action involves a "consumer debt"
incurred as the result of a "consumer credit transaction" as
those terms are defined under Cal. Civ. Code section 1788.2.

Vehicle owners who do not pay the toll within five calendar days
are immediately assessed a toll evasion penalty and are
subsequently sent a letter entitled "Notice of Toll Evasion" by
Faneuil. Vehicle owners who fail to pay the toll and the penalty
within 15 calendar days are assessed an additional penalty,
regardless of whether or not the vehicle owners are sent, or
timely receive, a Notice of Toll Evasion.

These Notices of Toll Evasion also threaten a civil judgment and
other collection efforts if consumers do not pay the penalty and
the toll, including the threat to place a "registration lien" on
the consumer's vehicle. As a result of these practices by Faneuil
and TCA, nominal tolls transform into sizable payments (over
1,700% of the original toll amount), which, upon information and
belief, often result the in payment of large amounts of money to
Faneuil and The Toll Roads by consumers.

Faneuil provide business process outsourcing to a number of
sectors including healthcare, social programs, and
transportation.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

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

               - and -

          Joseph Z. Samo, Esq.
          SAMO LAW GROUP
          2221 Camino Del Rio South, #305
          San Diego, CA 92108
          Telephone: (619) 672 1741
          Facsimile: (619) 393 0293
          E-mail: Joseph@SamoLaw.com

               - and -

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


TRUGREEN INC: Morris et al. Seek to Notify Class Members
--------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled GEORGE MORRIS, SHANNON BOYD, RYAN COLEMAN,
BARRY DAMICO, KELVIN CARTER, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. TRUGREEN, INC.,
f/k/a SCOTT'S LAWNSERVICE, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 6:17-cv-
01465-PGB-GJK (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an
Order permitting and supervising notice to:

   "Defendant's current and former lawn service technicians who
   worked one or more weeks during the three years from the
   filing of the Complaint to the present and who are similarly
   situated of their "opt-in rights"."

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

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          Jay P. Lechner, Esq.
          WHITTEL & MELTON, LLC
          One Progress Plaza
          200 Central Avenue, 400
          St. Petersburg, FL 33701
          Telephone: (727) 822 1111
          Facsimile: (727) 898 2001
          E-mail: Pleadings@theFLlawfirm.com
                  lechnerj@theFLlawfirm.com
                  sonia@theFLlawfirm.com


UNITED STATES: Bid to Enforce "Daniel" Settlement Partly Granted
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ROY A. DANIEL, et al., Plaintiffs, v. J. PATRICIA
WILSON SMOOT, et al., Defendants, Case No. 10-cv-00862 (APM) (D.
D.C.), Judge Amit P. Mehta of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Columbia granted in part and denied in part the
Plaintiffs' Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement.

The case dates back to 2010, when the Plaintiffs filed a class
action on behalf of themselves and similarly situated prisoners
against the Defendants, who are members of the United States
Parole Commission.  The Plaintiffs are individuals who were
convicted of serious felonies under the D.C. Code that occurred
before March 3, 1985, have completed their minimum sentences, and
thus are eligible for parole.

The Plaintiffs brought the action challenging the United States
Parole Commission's practice of applying to the Plaintiffs'
parole eligibility determinations the Commission's regulations
that were adopted in 2000, instead of the 1972 guidelines of the
now-defunct District of Columbia Parole Board, which were in
effect when Plaintiffs committed their offenses.

After over five years of litigation, which included a successful
appeal by the Plaintiffs to the D.C. Circuit, the parties reached
a Settlement Agreement on Dec. 18, 2015.  Under the settlement's
terms, the Commission agreed that it would hold remedial parole
hearings for Plaintiffs and, "in good faith," apply to those
proceedings a newly adopted Commission regulation that
incorporated key elements of the 1972 guidelines.  Additionally,
the parties stipulated that the District Court would maintain
jurisdiction over the matter to enforce the terms of the
agreement.

On April 27, 2017, the Plaintiffs filed the present Motion to
Enforce in which they allege that the Commission is violating the
Settlement Agreement by failing to apply the 1972 guidelines in
good faith.  They claim that the Commission is breaching the
Agreement in two ways.  First, the Plaintiffs maintain that the
Commission is not applying the 1972 regulations' suitability
factors to its parole determinations.  And, second, they argue
that the Commission is acting in bad faith by routinely imposing
set-offs of two years or more, rather than the one-year set-off
that the 1972 guidelines say are to be "ordinarily" granted.  The
Plaintiffs have moved to compel the Commission to comply with the
Settlement Agreement and to adhere to the 1972 guidelines.

As a remedy for these breaches, the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
require the Commission to: (1) "explicitly explain" its decisions
under each of the factors in the 1972 guidelines when denying
parole; (2) spell out its disagreements with hearing examiners'
recommendations in such cases; (3) state what a prisoner "can or
should do to qualify for parole in the future"; and (4) schedule
one-year set-offs for all the Plaintiffs denied parole, unless
the prisoner has a recent disciplinary violation.

After considering the parties' legal memoranda and the record,
Judge Mehta finds that: (1) the record does not support the
Plaintiffs' assertion that the Board is not faithfully applying
the 1972 guidelines when making parole determinations, but (2)
that the Commission, by regularly setting parole rehearing dates
more than one year after denying a Plaintiff parole, is acting
inconsistently with the 1972 guidelines.

The Judge reads the Settlement Agreement as having granted each
Plaintiff, through the New Regulation, an "original" parole
hearing under the 1972 guidelines.  Under both the New Regulation
and the 1972 guidelines, the Plaintiffs who were not granted
parole at these hearings are presumptively entitled to receive a
rehearing one year after the original hearing conducted by the
U.S. Parole Commission.  For all the Plaintiffs who fall into
that category, that year has now passed.  Therefore, as to those
Plaintiffs who are not yet paroled and who received set-offs of
greater than one year but have not yet received a rehearing, the
Commission will hold rehearings for them as soon as practicable.

Only the Plaintiffs who have had verifiable disciplinary problems
since their original hearing are not subject to the presumptive
scheduling of a rehearing after one year.  At those rehearings,
the Commission will apply the parole suitability factors set
forth in the 1972 guidelines and 28 C.F.R. Section 2.80(p)(4).
The Judge directed the parties to file a Status Report within 45
days in which it updates the Court on the scheduling and holding
of the ordered rehearings for eligible persons.

Accordingly, Judge Mehta granted in part and denied in part the
Plaintiffs' Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 13, 2018 Memorandum Opinion
is available at https://is.gd/Ec2a5a from Leagle.com.

ABDUS-SHAHID ALI, Plaintiff, represented by Elliot M. Mincberg,
WASHINGTON LAWYERS' COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS & URBAN AFFAIRS,
Kenneth John Pfaehler -- kenneth.pfaehler@dentons.com -- DENTONS
US LLP, Daniel G. Morris -- daniel.morris@dentons.com -- DENTONS
US LLP & Jason Drew Wallach -- wallachj@dicksteinshapiro.com.

STANLEY GRAYSON & KELVIN SMITH, Plaintiffs, represented by Elliot
M. Mincberg, WASHINGTON LAWYERS' COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS &
URBAN AFFAIRS, Daniel G. Morris, DENTONS US LLP & Jason Drew
Wallach .

CRANSTON J. MITCHELL, Commissioner of the United States Parole
Commission, PATRICIA K. CUSHWA, Commissioner of the United States
Parole Commission & CHARLES MASSARONE, Defendants, represented by
Kenneth A. Adebonojo, U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.

J. PATRICIA WILSON SMOOT, Defendant, represented by Kenneth A.
Adebonojo, U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.


UTOPIA HOME: "Harrison" Suit Seeks Minimum Wages under Labor Law
----------------------------------------------------------------
MEEDIA HARRISON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. UTOPIA HOME CARE, INC., and
DAVID C. MARTINEZ, the Defendant, Case No. 503851/2018 (N.Y. Sup.
Ct., Feb. 23, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages and
liquidated damages under the New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff worked for Defendants, a provider of home
healthcare to the elderly and infirm, as a provider of personal
care and assistance to disabled and/or elderly clients of the
Defendants. Plaintiff worked at the homes of Defendants' clients
for shifts of 24-hours straight, ("live-in shifts") were
available and on call throughout that time, even in the middle of
the night.

The Plaintiff was required to stay on the premises for the
complete live-in shifts that they were scheduled to work, even
though they maintained a residence and resided elsewhere.
Throughout their employment, the Defendants required Plaintiff to
work, and Plaintiff did in fact work shifts of 24 hours straight
between 1 day and 7 days a week, the exact days are ascertainable
through Defendant's records. The Defendants failed to pay
Plaintiff the statutorily-required minimum wage rate of pay, and
the overtime rate of pay for each hour that they worked per week
in excess of 40 hours as required by the NYLL.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Rebecca S. Predovan, Esq.
          Charles Gershbaum, Esq.
          Marc S. Hepworth, Esq.
          David A. Roth, Esq.
          HEPWORTH, GERSHBAUM & ROTH, PLLC
          192 Lexington Avenue, Suite 802
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 545 1199
          Facsimile: (212) 532 3801
          E-mail: mhepworth@hgrlawyers.com
                  cgershbaum@hgrlawyers.com
                  droth@hgrlawyers.com
                  rpredovan@hgrlawyers.com


VELOCITY INVESTMENTS: "Cerveny" Class Certification Bid Stayed
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled MANDY CERVENY, the Plaintiff, v. VELOCITY
INVESTMENTS, LLC and VELOCITY RECOVERIES, LLC, the Defendants,
Case No. 17-CV-1486 (E.D. Wisc.), the Hon. Judge William E.
Duffin entered an order grating plaintiff's motion to stay
further proceedings for class certification.

The parties are relieved from the automatic briefing schedule set
forth in Civil Local Rule 7(b) and (c). Moreover, for
administrative purposes, it is necessary that the Clerk terminate
the plaintiff's motion for class certification. However, this
motion will be regarded as pending to serve its protective
purpose under Damasco, Court Says.

In Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891, 896 (7th Cir. 2011),
the court suggested that class-action plaintiffs "move to certify
the class at the same time that they file their complaint." Id.
"The pendency of that motion protects a putative class from
attempts to buy off the named plaintiffs." Id. However, because
parties are generally unprepared to proceed with a motion for
class certification at the beginning of a case, the Damasco court
suggested that the parties "ask the district court to delay its
ruling to provide time for additional discovery or
investigation."

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


VIRGINIA: Court Narrows Claims in "Riggleman" Suit
--------------------------------------------------
Judge Norman K. Moon of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, Harrisonburg Division, granted in part and
denied in part the Defendants' motion to dismiss the case, TERRY
A. RIGGLEMAN, Plaintiff, v. HAROLD CLARKE AND MARK AMONETTE,
Defendants, Case No. 5:17-cv-00063 (W.D. Va.).

Thirty to forty percent of VDOC prisoners have Hep C.  Decisions
about who receives treatment are ultimately made by the
Defendants.  Defendant Clarke is aware that many inmates have Hep
C but do not receive treatment for it.  Defendant Clarke has
deliberately instituted, condoned, and ratified a VDOC policy
that results in inmates known to have Hep C receiving no
treatment.

In this putative class action, a Virginia inmate claims he has
been subjected to unconstitutional cruel and unusual punishment
through VDOC's alleged refusal to treat his serious medical
affliction, namely, Hepatitis C.  The Defendants have
specifically denied the Plaintiff's request for treatment,
including his use of DAADs, despite their knowledge of his Hep C
symptoms.  Consequently, the Plaintiff has a substantially
increased risk of liver disease, cirrhosis, cancer, and death.

The Plaintiff was diagnosed with Hep C in 2005 while in VDOC's
custody.  In 2008, he began suffering severe adnominal and liver
pain.  After frequent complaints and pleas from family members
for treatment, he was diagnosed with gall stones.  His gall
bladder was removed in March 2009, but his difficulties continued
and his liver enzymes elevated.  The Plaintiff asked the acting
physician at his prison about possible Hep C treatment, but the
doctor explained that the Plaintiff did not then qualify for
treatment and that possible complications were worse than his
symptoms.  The Plaintiff received this refrain from his prison
doctors from 2009 to 2013.

In 2013, the Plaintiff learned of DAADs.  He asked prison medical
staff about receiving them and was told to be patient as VDOC
developed a new treatment plan.  After multiple requests for
copies of his lab reports assessing benchmarks for liver damage,
medical staff told the Plaintiff they did not have such labwork
for him.  He continued to voice his concerns about his liver
condition, symptoms, and possible effects of pain mediation on
his liver.

Eventually, a doctor ordered labwork in January 2016 to check the
Plaintiff's liver enzyme levels.  In November 2016, another
doctor finally submitted a Hep C referral request on behalf of
the Plaintiff to the VDOC medical Director, Defendant Amonette.
Defendant Amonette responded five days letter with a memo denying
the Plaintiff's Hep C request because he does not meet the
criteria for Hep C treatment at that time.  The Plaintiff also
received a second letter explaining that, after a review of his
labs and status, he was ineligible for treatment.  On March 21,
2017, the Plaintiff was once again informed he did not meet the
criteria for treatment.

The Defendants have moved to dismiss.  They argue that the facts
alleged do not support an Eighth Amendment violation by them.
The Defendants lodge a qualified immunity defense to the damages
claims against them.

Judge Moon finds that the complaint contains sufficient facts to
support an Eighth Amendment claim.  Clarke is alleged to have
specific knowledge of the Plaintiff's Hep C and the failure to
treat it, and to have endorsed a treatment policy which permits
the Plaintiff and others like him to receive no treatment at all.
When a prison official in a position of responsibility has actual
knowledge of a prisoner's serious medical condition but fails to
secure treatment for it, he may be liable for an Eighth Amendment
violation.  And Defendant Amonette is well aware of that fact
because he personally denied one of the Plaintiff's treatment
requests.  Knowing that a prisoner has a serious medical need yet
refusing to provide any treatment for it is a quintessential
deliberate indifference claim.

The Judge also finds that no reasonable official could think this
willful refusal to treat a known, serious condition did not
violate the Eighth Amendment.  Indeed, the Fourth Circuit has
repeatedly held that a prison official's total failure to treat a
serious, known affliction is unconstitutional, and it has more
than once reversed district courts for dismissing such claims at
the pleading stage.

Finally, as for the Plaintiff's claim under Article 1, Section 9
of the Virginia Constitution, which prohibits cruel and unusual
punishments, Virginia courts permit causes of action directly
from the Virginia Constitution only when the subject provision is
"self-executing."  The Defendants argue that Article 1, Section 9
is not self-executing.  The Plaintiff's brief does not address
this argument, and therefore, the Judge finds that the point is
conceded.

For these reasons, Judge Moon granted in part and denied in part
the Defendants' motion to dismiss.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 13, 2018 Memorandum Opinion
is available at https://is.gd/zbqbvB from Leagle.com.

Terry A. Riggleman, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Ready Tate -
- atate@nexuscaridades.com -- Nexus Caridades Attorneys, Inc.,
pro hac vice, Jessica Nichole Sherman-Stoltz, Nexus Caridades
Attorneys, Inc. & Mario Bernard Williams --
mwilliams@nexuscaridades.com -- Nexus Caridades Attorneys, Inc.

Harold Clarke, in his individual and official capacities & Mark
Amonette, in his individual and official capacities, Defendants,
represented by Edward J. McNelis, III --
emcnelis@sandsanderson.com -- Sands Anderson, PC & Elizabeth
Martin Muldowney -- emuldowney@sandsanderson.com -- Sands
Anderson, PC.


WASHINGTON: "Denton" May Not Yet Proceed in Forma Pauperis
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MICHAEL DENTON, Plaintiff, v. TIM THRASHER, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-05017-BHS-DWC (W.D. Wash.), Judge
David W. Christel of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington, Tacoma, denied the Plaintiff's Complaint
and Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis.

The Plaintiff is a state prisoner currently incarcerated at the
Washington State Penitentiary.  He filed his Complaint and
Application for IFP in January of 2018.  In his Complaint, he
includes a Motion for Class Action, a Motion for Appointment of
Counsel, and has included eleven additional individuals in his
caption as plaintiffs.  However, he is the only Plaintiff who
signed any of the filings and he is also the only Plaintiff who
submitted an Application for IFP.

In the Complaint, the Plaintiff alleges that he and his purported
co-Plaintiffs have had their constitutional rights infringed.  He
states that the Defendants have used administrative segregation
to exacerbate his and others' mental health conditions, and are
using archaic and inhumane equipment to restraint him and others.
The Plaintiff further alleges the Defendants acted with
deliberate indifference when they failed to protect him and
others from self-harm.  The Complaint further alleges that the
mentally ill are housed in unconstitutional conditions.

The Plaintiff requests a permanent injunction against the
Defendants treatment of him and his fellow inmates, specifically
asking for improved living conditions and a prohibition on the
use of archaic restraint equipment.  He also requests monetary
damages in the amount of $5 million.

Judge Christel finds that the Plaintiff has included 11 other
individuals as Plaintiffs in the action.  However, none of those
individuals signed the Complaint.  Further, because the Plaintiff
is proceeding pro se, he has no authority to represent the legal
interests of any of the other parties.  Because he cannot
represent others' legal interests, if any of the other purported
Plaintiffs besides Plaintiff Denton seek to pursue claims against
the Defendants, they all must sign the complaint.  Therefore, the
Judge ordered the Plaintiff to file an amended complaint
including the signatures of all named Plaintiffs.  In the
alternative, the Plaintiff may submit an amended complaint
omitting the additional Plaintiffs and instead move forward on
his own.

The Plaintiff has also filed an Application for IFP.  However,
the Judge finds that none of the other 11 named Plaintiffs have
filed one.  He states that the Prison Litigation Reform Act
("PLRA") explicitly states that a prisoner proceeding in forma
pauperis must nonetheless pay the entire amount of the filing
fee.  Courts have held that, in an action with multiple prisoner
litigants, each prisoner must individually pay the fee.  Because
of this, if plaintiffs are indigent, each must file a separate
Application for IFP.  Therefore, if these other 11 prisoners wish
to join the case and proceed in forma pauperis, they all must
also submit Applications for IFP.

Finally, the Plaintiff has moved to certify the action as a class
action.  Because the Judge has not yet granted the Plaintiff's
Application for IFP, no other Plaintiffs have signed the
Complaint or filed Applications for IFP and the Plaintiff has not
had the chance to remedy the deficiencies noted, a determination
on this issue is premature.  He declined to consider whether the
Plaintiffs are a proper class under Rule 23, and instead will
make a determination after the Plaintiff(s) have filed an Amended
Complaint and the Court has considered whether he (or they)
should be allowed to proceed in forma pauperis.

Due to the deficiencies described, Judge Christel declined to
serve the Plaintiff's Complaint.  He says if the Plaintiff
intends to pursue a Section 1983 civil rights action in the
Court, he must file an amended complaint and within the amended
complaint, he must write a short, plain statement telling the
Court: (1) the constitutional right the Plaintiff believes was
violated; (2) the name of the person who violated the right; (3)
exactly what the individual did or failed to do; (4) how the
action or inaction of the individual is connected to the
violation of his constitutional rights; and (5) what specific
injury he suffered because of the individual's conduct.  If more
than one Plaintiff intends to be included in the action, the
amended complaint must include the alleged violations against
them and all additional Plaintiffs must also sign the complaint.

The Judge directed the Plaintiff to present the amended complaint
on the form provided by the Court.  The amended complaint must be
complete in itself and all facts and causes of action alleged in
the original Complaint that are not alleged in the amended
complaint are waived.  He will screen the amended complaint to
determine whether it contains factual allegations linking each
Defendant to the alleged violations of the Plaintiff's rights.
The Judge will not authorize service of the amended complaint on
any Defendant who is not specifically linked to a violation of
the Plaintiff's rights.

If the Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint or fails to
adequately address the issues raised herein on or before March
16, 2018, the Judge will recommend dismissal of the action.  He
directed the Clerk to send the Plaintiff the appropriate forms
for filing a 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 civil rights complaint and
for service.  The Clerk is further directed to send copies of the
Order and Pro Se Instruction Sheet to the Plaintiff.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 14, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/AKOEI0 from Leagle.com.

Michael Denton, Plaintiff, pro se.


WEN MEI: Court Adopts Recommendation to Dismiss "Zhang" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JIE ZHANG a/k/a JIMMY ZHANG, XIU QIN LIN, RU HAO LIU
a/k/a JASON LIU, HSIA SENG CHENG, and CHIEN WEN HSIEH a/k/a KEVIN
HSIEH, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. WEN MEI INC. d/b/a HUNAN DYNASTY, HUNAN DYNASTY AT
LEVITTOWN, INC. d/b/a HUNAN DYNASTY, XIANG RONG CHEN a/k/a KEVIN
CHEN, CAI FEN CHEN, FENNY JAPANESE AND CHINESE RESTAURANT, INC.
d/b/a HUNAN DYNASTY, CINDY CHEN, LUQI XIE, BAIFENG CHEN a/k/a
ANDY CHEN, and CHEN'S CHINESE RESTAURANT, INC., as assignee of
Hunan Dynasty, Defendants, Case No. 14-CV-1647(JS)(SIL)(E.D.
N.Y.), Judge Joanna Seybert of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York adopted Magistrate Judge Steven I.
Locke's Report and Recommendation ("R&R") recommending that the
Court grants the Moving Defendants' motion to dismiss the Third
Amended Complaint ("TAC") in part and denies it in part, and
grants the Plaintiffs' motion to certify a class action as
modified.

The Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and others similarly
situated, commenced the action on March 12, 2014.  After several
amendments, the Plaintiffs filed a TAC on Dec. 22, 2016, alleging
claims for unpaid overtime and minimum wages pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law ("NYLL"), unpaid
spread of hours pay pursuant to NYLL, and violations of NYLL's
notice requirements.  The TAC added claims against Chen's Chinese
Restaurant, Inc., Baifeng Chen also known as Andy Chen, and Luqi
Xie.

The Plaintiffs allege that Hunan Dynasty at Levittown, Inc.,
doing business as Hunan Dynasty; Wen Mei, Inc., doing business as
Hunan Dynasty ("Wen Mei"); Fenny Japanese and Chinese Restaurant,
doing business as Hunan Dynasty, and Chen's are a single and
joint employer with a high degree of interrelated and unified
operations, common management, centralized control of labor
relations, common ownership, common control, common business
purpose, and interrelated business goals, controlled by Xiang
Rong Chen, also known as Kevin Chen and "employ substantially the
same waiters, deliverymen, and kitchen staff with substantially
the same work shifts and pay conditions.

On March 20, 2017, the Plaintiffs moved to certify the NYLL
claims as a class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23.  The next day, the Moving Defendants filed a motion
to dismiss the TAC.  Both motions were referred to Judge Locke
for an R&R on whether the motions should be granted.  On Dec. 28,
2017, Judge Locke issued his R&R.

On Jan. 11, 2018, the Moving Defendants filed objections to the
R&R.  They contend that the R&R analyzed whether the TAC states a
claim for successor liability before determining the
jurisdictional issue and failed to consider whether there is at
least one Plaintiff that can assert a claim against each
Defendant.

The Plaintiffs responded to the objections on Jan. 23, 2018.
They respond that Judge Locke did analyze subject matter
jurisdiction and determined that the allegations of successor
liability were sufficient to confer standing.  Additionally, they
point out that the Moving Defendants fail to explain why standing
is lacking.

Judge Seybert overruled the Moving Defendants' objection because
the Plaintiffs have satisfied the requirements of Article III
standing.  The Moving Defendants also aver that personal
jurisdiction, similarly a constitutional issue, must be
determined before addressing whether there is a single integrated
enterprise.  The Judge agrees with the Plaintiffs that the Moving
Defendants did not move to dismiss on this ground and should not
be permitted to raise it at this juncture.  The Moving Defendants
did not raise personal jurisdiction in their motion and have not
identified any reason why the Court does not have personal
jurisdiction over the Moving Defendants.  Thus, this objection is
similarly overrulesd.

Having overruled the Moving Defendants' objections to the
contested portions of the R&R, Judge Seybert has reviewed the
remaining portions of the R&R and finds them to be thorough,
wellreasoned, and free of clear error.  Therefore, he adopted
Judge Locke's R&R in its entirety.  He granted in part and denied
in part the motion to dismiss.  Specifically, the Clerk of the
Court is directed to terminate Jie Zhang, also known as Jimmy
Zhang as a Plaintiff in the action.  The Plaintiffs' remaining
claims will proceed.

The Judge granted the Plaintiffs' motion to certify as to the
modified class of all individuals who were employed or are
currently employed by the Defendants in any tipped or nontipped
non-exempt positions during the six years immediately preceding
the initiation of this action up to the date of this decision.

He appointed Plaintiffs Liu, Lin, and Hseih as the class
representatives, and Troy Law PLLC as the class counsel.
Additionally, within 30 days of the date of the Memorandum and
Order, the Plaintiffs are directed to file a motion for approval
of a proposed class notice addressing the issues set forth in
Judge Locke's R&R.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 14, 2018 Memorandum and
Order is available at https://is.gd/n5zIIR from Leagle.com.

Xiu Qin Lin, Ru Hao Liu, also known as, Hsia Sheng Cheng & Chien
Wen Hsieh, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, represented by Jonathan Deperio Hernandez --
troylaw@troypllc.com -- Troy Law PLLC, Kibum Byun, Troy Law, PLLC
& John Troy, Troy & Associates, PLLC.

Wen Mei Inc., doing business as, Hunan Dynasty at Levittown,
Inc., doing business as & Xiang Rong Chen, also known as,
Defendants, represented by Carolyn Shields --
shieldscj@earthlink.net -- Liu & Shields LLP & Ying Liu, Liu &
Shields LLP.

Cai Fen Chen, Fenny Japanese and Chinese Restaurant Inc., doing
business as & Luqi Xie, Defendants, represented by William Yeung,
Law Office of Yeung & Wang PLLC.

Cindy Chen, Baifeng Chen, also known as & Chen's Chinese
Restaurant, Inc., as assignee of, Defendants, represented by Ying
Liu, Liu & Shields LLP.

Fenny Japanese and Chinese Restaurant Inc., Cai Fen Chen & Luqi
Xie, Cross Claimants, represented by William Yeung --
wyeung@ywlawoffice.com -- Law Office of Yeung & Wang PLLC.

Cindy Chen, Cross Claimant, represented by Ying Liu, Liu &
Shields LLP.

Cindy Chen, Baifeng Chen & Chen's Chinese Restaurant, Inc., Cross
Defendants, represented by Ying Liu, Liu & Shields LLP.

Xiang Rong Chen, Hunan Dynasty at Levittown, Inc. & Wen Mei Inc.,
Cross Defendants, represented by Carolyn Shields, Liu & Shields
LLP & Ying Liu, Liu & Shields LLP.


WESTERN RANGE: 2nd Amended "Castillo" Dismissed w/o Prejudice
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ABEL CANTARO CASTILLO et al., Plaintiffs, v. WESTERN
RANGE ASSOCIATION et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-00237-RCJ-
VPC (D. Nev.), Judge Robert C. Jones of the U.S. District Court
for the District of Nevada granted the Motions to Dismiss the
Second Amended Complaint and granted the Plaintiffs' Motion for
Leave to File Excess Page.

The case is a putative employment class action alleging breach of
contract and wage-and-hour violations.  Cantaro, Alcides Inga
Ramos, and Rafael De La Cruz are Peruvian citizens lawfully
admitted to the United States under the Department of Labor's
("DOL") H-2A guestworker visa program.  Cantaro alleges he was
employed as a shepherd by Defendants Western Range Association
("WRA"), El Tejon Sheep Co., and Melchor Gragirena from October
2007 to June 2014.  Inga alleges he was employed as a shepherd by
Defendants Mountain Plains Agricultural Services ("MPAS") and
Estill Ranches from April 2012 to February 2013.  And De La Cruz
alleges he was employed as a shepherd by MPAS from March 2009 to
"late 2014."

The Plaintiffs filed the action on May 3, 2016, claiming breach
of contract and violations of state labor laws, based primarily
on their respective employers' failure to pay minimum wages under
Article 15, Section 16 of the Nevada Constitution.

On April 13, 2017, the Court dismissed the First Amended
Complaint ("FAC") with leave to amend for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction.  On May 15, 2017, the Plaintiffs filed their Second
Amended Complaint ("SAC"), which includes additional and more
detailed allegations regarding the amount-in-controversy
requirement under Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA").  The SAC
also adds a new Plaintiff -- Rafael De La Cruz.

De La Cruz has previously been a plaintiff in multiple other
cases involving Defendants WRA and MPAS.  The first was filed on
Aug. 8, 2015, in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Colorado.  The case was primarily brought against Thomas E.
Perez, former U.S. Secretary of Labor; the U.S. Department of
Labor; and Portia Wu, former Assistant Secretary of Labor for the
Employment and Training Administration, as an action under the
Administrative Procedure Act ("APA") challenging the
implementation of the DOL's 2011 and 2015 Special Procedures for
H-2A Shepherds ("APA Action").

The second prior case was filed on Sept. 1, 2015, also in the
District of Colorado, the Llacua et al. v. Western Range
Association et al., No. 1:15-cv-1889-REB-CBS (D.
Colo.)("Antitrust Action").  In Llacua, De La Cruz brought class
claims against, inter alia, WRA and MPAS.  In their second
amended complaint, the Llacua plaintiffs asserted the following
claims against WRA and MPAS: (1) restraint of trade in violation
of 15 U.S.C. Sections 1 et seq.; (2) violations of the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act; (3) failure to pay
Nevada minimum wages (against MPAS only); and (4) breach of
contract or quasi-contract.

On Sept. 22, 2015, as the result of a joint motion by all
parties, the APA Action was transferred to the U.S. District
Court for the District of Columbia.  The complaint was
subsequently amended twice, joining several defendants and adding
class claims in quasi-contract (i.e., unjust enrichment and
quantum meruit) against WRA and MPAS to recover back wages.
Thereafter, on September 9, 2016, the D.C. court ordered that the
claims in quasi-contract be severed and transferred back to the
District of Colorado where the action was originally filed.  The
court noted that the Antitrust Action was already pending in
Colorado, having been brought by some of the same plaintiffs
here, and litigated by the same attorneys, against the same
defendants.  The quasi-contract claims asserted in the APA Action
were thus transferred to the District of Colorado on March 22,
2017.

Meanwhile, on March 7, 2017, the Colorado court granted a motion
to dismiss the Antitrust Action.  The court dismissed the
plaintiffs' federal-law claims, arising under the Sherman Act and
RICO Act, and then declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction
over the remaining state-law claims.  The plaintiffs appealed the
dismissal of the Antitrust Action to the Tenth Circuit, and that
appeal is now pending.

On June 27, 2017, the portion of the APA Action that was
transferred back to the District of Colorado was administratively
closed subject to reopening for good cause, pursuant to District
of Colorado Local Civil Rule 41.2.  The parties had jointly moved
for administrative closure based on the APA claims pending in the
District of Columbia and the appeal of the Antitrust Action
pending in the Tenth Circuit.  Following the administrative
closure, De La Cruz voluntarily dismissed his claims without
prejudice.

Finally, on July 7, 2017, summary judgment was granted in favor
of the government agency defendants in that portion of the APA
Action still pending in the District of Columbia.  That decision
is currently on appeal at the D.C. Circuit.

De La Cruz joined the instant action on May 15, 2017, by way of
the SAC.  He seeks to represent classes of current and former H-
2A program employees of MPAS.  The claims alleged by De La Cruz
include (1) failure to pay Nevada minimum wages, (2) promissory
estoppel, (3) unjust enrichment and quantum meruit, (4) breach of
contract or quasi-contract, and (5) failure to pay separated
employees wages when due.

The Defendants now move again to dismiss the SAC under Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12 (b)(6).  Rather than
file four separate responses to the Defendants' four motions to
dismiss, the Plaintiffs opted to file a single combined response
in excess of the 24-page limit imposed by Local Rule 7-3(b).

Based on the motions and evidence presented, Judge Jones
concludes that the preponderance lies with the Defendants.  It is
apparent to the Court that the Plaintiffs rely on certain
unreasonable assumptions and inferences in alleging that the
requirements of CAFA are satisfied.

Moreover, and more significantly, the Defendants have presented
evidence in the form of signed declarations which demonstrate the
unreasonableness of the Plaintiffs' class-wide assumption that
every shepherd is entitled to 24/7 compensation for every day of
every year, and the Plaintiffs have proffered no evidence in
response.  Under Ninth Circuit precedent, CAFA's requirements
should be tested by consideration of real evidence and the
reality of what is at stake in the litigation, using reasonable
assumptions.  Accordingly, the Plaintiffs have not persuaded the
Court that the requirements of CAFA are met here, and the action
must be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

The Judge also concludes that the Nevada Supreme Court's
pronouncement that individual management-level corporate
employees cannot be held liable as employers for the unpaid wages
of employees under Nevada's wage and hour laws, has equal force
in cases arising under the MWA.  Accordingly, the claims against
Defendant Melchor Gragirena, in his capacity as the owner and
manager of El Tejon, are subject to dismissal.

The Judge further concludes that a plaintiff does not have the
right to maintain two separate actions involving the same subject
matter at the same time and against the same defendant.  For that
reason, De La Cruz's claims are subject to dismissal for claim-
splitting.  De La Cruz initially elected to assert his claims for
unpaid Nevada minimum wages in the District of Colorado, and that
effort has not yet reached its final conclusion.  If his state-
law claims are resurrected there by a successful appeal, then a
subsequent disposition in that court on the merits of his state-
law claims would have a preclusive effect in the case.

Finally, Judge Jones finds that good cause exists to permit the
Plaintiffs to exceed their page limit under the circumstances.

For the reasons, he stated, Judge Jones granted the Defendants'
Motions to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint and dismissed the
action without prejudice and without leave to amend.  He also
granted the Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages.
The Clerk of the Court is instructed to close the case.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 13, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/gx7ozg from Leagle.com.

Abel Cantaro Castillo, and those similarly situated, Plaintiff,
represented by Alexander Neville Hood -- alex@towardsjustice.org
-- Towards Justice, pro hac vice, Brian C Corman --
bcorman@cohenmilstein.com -- Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, pro
hac vice, Christine E. Webber -- cwebber@cohenmilstein.com --
Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, pro hac vice, Joshua D. Buck,
Thierman Buck, LLP, Leah Lin Jones, Thierman Buck, LLP & Mark R.
Thierman, Thierman Buck, LLP.

Alcides Inga Ramos, Plaintiff, represented by Christine E.
Webber, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll.

Western Range Association, Defendant, represented by Joshua M.
Woodbury, Woodburn and Wedge & Ellen Jean Winograd --
ewinograd@woodburnandwedge.com -- Woodburn and Wedge.

Melchor Gragirena & El Tehon Sheep Company, Defendants,
represented by Anthony L. Hall -- ahall@hollandhart.com --
Holland and Hart LLP, Erica C. Smith, Holland & Hart & R. Calder
Huntington -- chuntington@mgmresorts.com -- MGM Resorts
International.

Mountain Plains Agricultural Service, Defendant, represented by
Elizabeth Kline Dorminey, Wimberly, Lawson, Steckel, Schneider &
Stine, PC, Enrique Raul Schaerer, Maupin, Cox & LeGoy, James
Larry Stine, Wimberly Lawson Steckel Schneider & Stine, PC & Paul
J. Anderson, Maupin, Cox & LeGoy, a Professional Corporation.

Estill Ranches LLC & John Estill, Defendants, represented by
Leigh T. Goddard -- lgoddard@mcdonaldcarano.com -- McDonald
Carano Wilson & Laura R. Jacobsen -- ljacobsen@mcdonaldcarano.com
-- McDonald Carano & Wilson.


XL HEALTH: "Mantilla" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
-------------------------------------------------
Richard Mantilla, individually, and all others similarly situated
v. Christopher Kafer, Jennifer Kafer, dba XL Health Partners,
Case No. 1:18-cv-20466 (S.D. Fla., February 6, 2018), seeks to
recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages,
attorney's fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act of 1938.

Plaintiff Richard Mantilla was employed by Defendants from on or
around June 6, 2016 through October 2, 2016.

Defendants Christopher Kafer and Jennifer Kafer are residents of
Florida and do business as XL Health Partners and were
Plaintiff's employers. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David Chonin, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF DAVID CHONIN
      5775 Blue Lagoon Drive, Suite 300
      Miami, FL 33126
      Tel: (305) 444-3000
      Fax: (305) 444-7788
      E-mail: davidchonin@yahoo.com


YAHOO! INC: Court Decertifies Class in "Johnson" TCPA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Manish S. Shah of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, Eastern Division, granted the Defendant's
motion to decertify the class in the case, RACHEL JOHNSON,
Plaintiff, v. YAHOO! INC., Defendant, Case No. 14 CV 2028 (N.D.
Ill.).

Yahoo! provided an instant messaging client called Yahoo!
Messenger, which allowed registered users to send online messages
to others.  Yahoo! Messenger also allowed users to send
personalized messages to people's cellular telephones through a
feature called PC2SMS.  PC2SMS converted Yahoo! users' instant
messages into text messages, which were sent to recipients'
cellular telephone numbers.

On March 19, 2013, Johnson received a text message from an
unknown sender via PC2SMS, and she received the Welcome Message
soon after.  According to her, the transmission of the Welcome
Message was a violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act,
which makes it unlawful to make any call (other than a call made
with the prior express consent of the called party) using any
automatic telephone dialing system to any cellular telephone
service.

The Plaintiff moved for class certification under Rules 23(a) and
23(b)(3), and on Jan. 4, 2016.  Judge Shah certified the class of
all persons within the United States to whose cellular telephone
number Yahoo! sent the Welcome Message during the period
commencing March 1, 2013 through March 31, 2013, while such
cellular number was assigned to Sprint, and whose cellular
telephone number is not associated with a Yahoo! user in Yahoo!'s
records.

That definition was later clarified to specify that membership in
the class was limited to the users -- not the subscribers -- of
the cellular telephone numbers.  The clarification aligned with
the Plaintiff's approach to class certification, and her own
status as the user, but not subscriber, of a cellular telephone
number.

Fact discovery closed on June 26, 2015.  In August 2016, in
response to a subpoena, Sprint produced previously undisclosed
information related to the identities of the users and
subscribers of the cellular telephone numbers assigned to Sprint
and that received the Welcome Message.  The parties deposed
Sprint's corporate representative the following month.  The
Defendant then sought to reopen discovery to develop additional
evidence to support its affirmative defense of prior express
consent.  That request was denied because the Defendant had
sufficient opportunity to pursue that evidence during the
discovery phase of the case.

The Defendant now moves to decertify the class, arguing that the
class is unmanageable in light of information recently provided
by a cellular telephone service provider.

Judge Shah finds that the production of records from Sprint after
the close of discovery gave the Defendants the missing
evidentiary foundation for their consent-predominance argument.
The Defendant searched its accountholder database for the names
of subscribers and users provided by Sprint.  Certain common
names matched with thousands of Yahoo! user accounts, and even
limiting the results to less common names (using a somewhat
arbitrary measure), the Defendant can now show that tens of
thousands of potential class members may have consented.  The
association of thousands of potential class members to a Yahoo!
account (and therefore, in turn, an accepted uTos) is a concrete
showing that individual consent issues will predominate the case
moving forward.  The Defendant now has evidence sufficient to
justify an individual consent inquiry for a significant
percentage of the class (perhaps between 20 to 25%, maybe more).

As to the Plaintiff's proposal that the class be redefined to
exclude class members who might have consented, the Judge finds
that jettisoning people who consented would not create an
impermissible fail-safe class (because whether the PC2SMS system
is a prohibited automatic telephone dialing system is still a
contested issue unresolved by the class definition).  The
Plaintiff does not propose a new class definition.  Without a
specific definition that has been tested against all the Rule 23
requirements, he declines to adjust the class further.

Moreover, the counsel's idea to exclude potential class members
based on the Defendant's investigation invites concerns over
adequacy of representation and loyalty to the class.
Decertification, not redefinition, is the appropriate step in
light of the Defendant's showing that individualized consent
inquiries will predominate.

For these reasons, Judge Shah granted the Defendant's motion to
decertify the class.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 13, 2018 Memorandum Opinion
and Order is available at https://is.gd/jnK1Ai from Leagle.com.

Rachel Johnson, Plaintiff, represented by Keith James Keogh,
Keogh Law, Ltd., Seyed Abbas Kazerounian -- ak@kazlg.com --
Kazerouni Law Group, Apc, Timothy J. Sostrin, Keogh Law, LTD.,
Andrew Charles Murphy -- acm@ditommasolaw.com -- DiTommaso Lubin,
P.C., David J. McGlothlin -- david@westcoastlitigation.com --
Hyde & Swigart, pro hac vice, Joshua Branden Swigart --
josh@westcoastlitigation.com -- Hyde & Swigart, pro hac vice,
Michael S. Hilicki, Keogh Law, LTD, Patrick Doyle Austermuehle --
paustermuehle@ditommasolaw.com -- DiTommaso Lubin, P.C., Peter
Scott Lubin -- psl@ditommasolaw.com -- DiTommaso Lubin
Austermuehle & Vincent Louis DiTommaso -- vdt@ditommasolaw.com --
DiTommaso Lubin, P.C.

Yahoo! Inc., Defendant, represented by Christopher Chorba --
cchorba@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher Llp, pro hac
vice, David A. Wheeler -- dwheeler@chapmanspingola.com -- Chapman
Spingola, LLP, Robert Andrew Chapman --
rchapman@chapmanspingola.com -- Chapman & Spingola LLP, Scott
Alan Edelman -- sedelman@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP, pro hac vice & Timothy William Loose --
tloose@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher Llp, pro hac
vice.


YAHOO INC: Johnson Seeks to Reconsider Order to Decertify Class
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled RACHEL JOHNSON, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. YAHOO!, INC.,
the Defendant, Case No. 1:14-cv-02028 (N.D. Ill.), the Plaintiff
asks the Court to reconsider its order decertifying a class, or
in the alternative, certify an amended classes pursuant to Rule
23(c)(4) and Rule 23(b)(3).

Specifically, Plaintiff requests certification of a narrower Rule
23(b)(3) class for complete adjudication:

     "Complete Adjudication Class

      All persons within the United States who was the user of a
      cellular telephone number that Yahoo! sent the Welcome
      Message during the period commencing March 1, 2013 through
      March 31, 2013, while that cellular number was assigned to
      a Sprint account with five or fewer telephone lines, and
      which cellular telephone number does not appear in Yahoo!'s
      user database as the number of a Yahoo! user.

      Excluded from the class are (1) those cellular telephone
      numbers that Yahoo identified as potentially belonging to a
      Yahoo! user in either Exhibit A or B to the Whipple
      Declaration at ECF # 282-2,3; and (2) those persons who
      have responded to class notice from a Yahoo! Email
      address."

On February 27, 2018, Plaintiff counsel contacted Yahoo!'s
counsel via telephone and email, inquiring if Yahoo! would oppose
this motion. Plaintiff's counsel has not received a response as
of the time of this filing.

The Plaintiff submits that the Court made a mistake of fact with
respect to Yahoo!'s analysis of the associated telephone number
data provided by Sprint. The Court held that "Defendant also
searched its accountholder database for the associated telephone
numbers provided by Sprint. It found that in 65,061 cases, a
number that received a Welcome Message matched a number that was
provided to defendant in registering a Yahoo! account."

"This is incorrect," Plaintiff says.  "In fact, none of the
numbers that received a Welcome Message matched a number provided
to defendant in registering a Yahoo! account. This is because the
class is comprised only of telephone numbers that do not appear
in Yahoo!'s user database, and accordingly, all such numbers were
removed from the class list even before the data was sent to
Sprint."

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=AH6PdTRx

Attorneys for Plaintiff Rachel Johnson and the Class:

          Keith J. Keogh, Esq.
          Timothy Sostrin, Esq.
          Keogh Law, Ltd.
          55 W. Monroe St., Ste. 3390
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 726 1092
          Facsimile: (312) 726 1093
          E-mail: TSostrin@KeoghLaw.com


WAL-MART STORES: Garcia Seeks to Certify Classes and Subclass
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled JUAN GARCIA, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated and the general public, the Plaintiff,
v. WAL-MART STORES, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 to
100, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 5:16-cv-01645-TJH-RAO
(C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks Court to Certify Classes and
Subclass:

   Overtime Class:

   "all hourly non-exempt Wal-Mart Distribution Center (WDC)
   employees who worked at the Apple Valley Distribution Center,
   for at least one (1) day of more than eight (8) hours in a day
   from May 17, 2012 through the date of class certification
   order pursuant to an Alternative Workweek Schedule (AWS)";

   Short Shift O.T. SubClass:

   "all hourly non-exempt WDC employees who worked at least one
   day at the Apple Valley Distribution Center from May 17, 2012
   to the date of the class certification order, pursuant to an
   Alternative Workweek Schedule (AWS), who worked at least one
   short shift (a shift between eight (8) and ten (10) hours of a
   scheduled 10 hour shift) and was not paid daily overtime";

   Second Meal Period Class:

   "all hourly non-exempt WDC employees, who worked at least one
   day at the Apple Valley Distribution Center from May 17, 2012
   to the date of the class certification order and was not
   provided with a second meal period when working more than 10
   hours in a shift";

    Derivative pay stub Class:

   "all hourly non-exempt WDC employees who worked at least one
   day at the Apple Valley Distribution Center from May 17, 2015
   to the date of the class certification order, who received a
   paystub (a.k.a. wage statement) from Defendant"; and

   Derivative Waiting Time Penalty Class:

   "all hourly non-exempt WDC employees who worked at least one
   day at the Apple Valley Distribution Center from May 17, 2012
   to the date of the class certification order, who are no
   longer employed by Defendant and were not paid all their
   earned wages at the time their employment terminated".

The Plaintiff further asks Court for an order:

   1. appointing Juan Garcia to be class representative; and

   2. appointing Joseph Antonelli and Janelle Carney of Law
      Office of Joseph Antonelli; Kevin T. Barnes and Gregg
      Lander of the Law Offices of Kevin T. Barnes; and Raphael
      A. Katri of the Law Offices of Raphael A. Katri, as class
      counsel.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph Antonelli, Esq.
          Janelle Carney, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JOSEPH ANTONELLI
          14758 Pipeline Ave., Suite E, 2nd Floor
          Chino Hills, CA 91709
          Telephone: (909) 393 0223
          Facsimile: (909) 393 0471
          E-mail: JAntonelli@antonellilaw.com

               - and -

          Kevin T. Barnes, Esq.
          Gregg Lander, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF KEVIN T. BARNES
          5670 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1460
          Los Angeles, CA 90036-5664
          Telephone: (323) 549 9100
          Facsimile: (323) 549 0101
          E-mail: Barnes@kbarnes.com



                            *********


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

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

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

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

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

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



                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *