CAR_Public/180315.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


             Thursday, March 15, 2018, Vol. 20, No. 54



                            Headlines


ABRA INC: State Auto Denies Insurance Coverage for Class Suit
ACCOUNT CONTROL: Faces "Hwang" Suit in E.D. New York
AEGIS SECURITY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, "Watson" Claims
AFL: Winmar May Join Concussion Class Action
AHMC HEALTHCARE: Faces "Diaz" Suit over Failure to Pay OT

ALLTRAN FINANCIAL: Faces "Yosipov" Suit in E.D. New York
AMERICAN FEDERATION: CNA Warns SCOTUS Ruling Could Starve Unions
AMICA GENERAL: Faces "Young" Suit in S.D. New York
APPLE INC: Faces Class Action in Canada for Throttling iPhones
APPLE INC: MDL Panel to Consider Consolidating Battery Cases

ARAMARK UNIFORM: "Moore" OT Pay Suit Remanded to Calif. State Ct.
ARIZONA: Fined Over Failure to Meet Prison Healthcare Settlement
ARIZONA: Hearings Set on Fines in Prison Health Care Case
ARS NATIONAL: Court Denies Arbitration Bid in "Koby" FDCPA Suit
AT&T CORP: Sued by Robinson over IPhone SE and Tablet Promos

AUSTRALIA: $15K Spin Class Angers Williamtown RAAF Base Residents
BALL METAL: Court Grants in Part Bid to Certify "Westfall" Class
BANK OF QUEENSLAND: Settles Sherwin Ponzi Scheme Class Action
BAUME & MERCIER: Faces "Thorne" Suit in S.D. New York
BEEKEEPER: Class Action Over Neonicotinoids Can Proceed

BOSTON, MA: Madden Balks at Installation of Norton Billboards
BUFFALO TRACE: Court Narrows Claims in Bourbon Fraud Suit
BUILDING BLOCK: Fails to Pay Wages, "David-Colar" Suit Says
CANADA: Class Action Mulled to Push for Cannabis Amnesty
CAPITAL MANAGEMENT: Faces "Regan" Suit in E.D. New York

CASH BIZ: Ruling Blocks Borrowers to Pursue Class Action
CASMOS CAFE: Faces "Dicarlo" Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
CHARLES SCHWAB: Appeals Arbitration Ruling in "Dorman" Suit
CHERRY CHIROPRACTIC: Curtis & Salas Allege Wrongful Termination
CHICAGO EDUCATION BOARD: Minors Sue over Handicapped Child Act

COMMONWEALTH BANK: Denies Liability in Shareholder Class Action
CONNECT AMERICA: Made Unsolicited Calls, "Hobbs" Suit Claims
CRESCENT HOTELS: Faces "Levin" Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
CSX TRANSPORTATION: Blount Cty. Train Crash Evacuees Settle Suit
DREAMWORKS ANIMATION: April 18 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set

DYNAMIC RECOVERY: Faces "Alexander" Suit in S.D. Texas
DYNAMIC RECOVERY: Faces "Romero" Suit in S.D. New York
EMERY FEDERAL: Settlement Obtains Preliminary Court Approval
EQUIFAX INC: Amy Keller Named Co-Lead Plaintiffs' Counsel
EQUIFAX INC: "Krueger" Suit Reassigned to Another Judge

ETEAM INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wage, "Villalva" Suit Claims
FACEBOOK INC: Settles Class Action Over 2012 IPO for $35-Mil.
FACEBOOK INC: Must Face Class Action Over Biometric Facial Data
FEDERAL AUTO: Double Charged on Document Fees, "Higgs" Suit Says
FIRST ALARM: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, "Stricklin" Suit Says

FLOWERS FOODS: Seeks to Quash Document Subpoena in "Neff" Suit
FORD MOTOR: May Trial Scheduled in MyFord Touch Class Action
FORTEGRA FINANCIAL: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Sokol" Claims
GEORGIA CREDIT: Urges Appeals Court to Affirm Overdraft Decision
GLENDALE, CA: Taliaferro Sues over Water Rates and Charges

GRO CATTLE: Faces "Castellano" Suit over Failure to Pay Overtime
HERSHEY COMPANY: Tomasella Alleges Child Labor in Supply Chain
HICKORY RIDGE: Faces "Heale" Suit in New York
INSTORE GROUP: Cherelli Seeks Minimum Wages under Wage Act
IO INC: Faces "Norman" Suit in E.D. Virginia

JOE ASIAN SUSHI: Faces "Xia" Suit in E.D. New York
KOCH FOODS: Suppressed Competition for Broiler Grow-Out
KRATON CORP: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
LIBERTY COUNTY, TX: May Face Class Action Over Audit Errors
LIVE NATION: Lawyers for Las Vegas Massacre Victims File Suit

LUDLOW HOTEL: Faces "Olsen" Suit in S.D. New York
M.C.I. FOODS: Fails to Pay Overtime, "Garcia" Suit Claims
MARS INC: Tomasella Alleges Child Labor in Supply Chains
MDL 2804: Mayor Concerned About Law Firm Handling Opioid Case
MDL 2817: 5 Cases vs CDK Global Transferred to N.D. Illinois

METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION: Faces "Gardner" Suit in S.D.N.Y.
MICHAEL HARRISON: Faces "Bleier" Suit in E.D. New York
MIMEDX GROUP: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Action
MIMEDX GROUP: Block & Leviton Investigates Securities Claims
MONAT GLOBAL: Faces "McWhortor" Suit in S.D. Fla.

NEBULA HOLDINGS: Faces "Cohen" Suit in E.D. New York
NELSON AIR: Penava Seeks Construction Project Trust Fund
NEW ORLEANS, LA: Owes $25.6MMM in Traffic Camera Refunds
NEW PRIME: Supreme Court to Consider Trucker Arbitration Case
NEW YORK UNIVERSITY: Loses Summary Judgment Bid in ERISA Case

OPTIM LLC: "Yuzhaninov" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
PETROLEO BRASILEIRO: June 4 Securities Settlement Hearing Set
PREFERRED PAYMENT: "Caraballo" Suit Underway in New York
PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE: Faces "Dillon" Suit in M.D. Florida
RESTORATION HARDWARE: Attorneys Fees Challenge Denied

RIOT BLOCKCHAIN: Faces Three Securities Class Actions
RIOT BLOCKCHAIN: Faces Securities Class Action in Florida
ROYAL SEAFOOD: Faces "Bishop" Suit in S.D. New York
S & K CORPORATION: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime, "Kwag" Suit Says
SCHOOL OF VISUAL ARTS: Faces "Bishop" Suit in S.D. New York

SCV FLEET: Failed to Pay Wages Including Overtime, Sales Says
SIMMZYS LLC: Fails to Pay Wages, "Vanegas" Suit Claims
SOCIAL EDGE: Women Receive Lower Pay, Solomon Says
STEELE WATER: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, "Ramos" Suit Claims
SUMMIT COLLECTION: Darwish Sues over Debt Collection

SUTTER BAY: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages & OT, Lee Says
SWISSPORT SA: Stephens Seeks Unpaid Minimum Wages under Labor Law
TECHNOLOGY REVIEW: Faces "Sullivan" Suit in S.D. New York
TOTAL DENTAL IMPLANT: Faces "Bishop" Suit in S.D. New York
TUESDAY MORNING: Violates Disabled Persons Act, Velarde Says

ULTA BEAUTY: Faces Two Class Actions for Reselling Used Products
UNITED CARD: Made Unsolicited Calls, "Fabricant" Suit Claims
UNIVERSAL AMERICAN: Faces "Young" Suit in S.D. New York
US GYPSUM: Fails to Pay for Overtime Work, "Wren" Suit Says
VOLKSWAGEN AG: Settles Diesel Emissions Class Action Before Trial

WEINSTEIN CO: Seeks Dismissal of Sexual Misconduct Lawsuit
WEINSTEIN CO: Bankruptcy Filing May Impact Class Action
WV AMERICAN: More Than 80,000 Claims Filed in Water Settlement
XPO LOGISTICS: Truck Drivers File Class Action in California

* Stage One Report for Class Action Bill Published in Scotland





                            *********


ABRA INC: State Auto Denies Insurance Coverage for Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
STATE AUTOMOBILE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff v. ABRA,
INC. doing business as Abra Auto Body and Glass, and RANDY
FIELDS, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-00931 (N.D. Ill., Feb. 5,
2018) seeks judgment declaring that Plaintiff has no duty to
provide defense to Defendant Abra in a class action suit filed by
Mr. Fields.

Plaintiff issued a policy insurance to Defendant Abra. The policy
provided for Commercial General Liability Insurance effective for
the period May 1, 2014 to May 1, 2015. The policy was renewed for
the period May 1, 2015 to May 1, 2016.

Defendant Mr. Fields is a claimant who filed a class action
complaint against Defendant Abra in the Circuit Court of Cook
County, Illinois, County Department, Chancery Division, Cause No.
17 CH 12271. Mr. Fields claimed that Defendant Abra violated the
Biometric Information Privacy Act's provisions relating to the
collection of biometric data when Defendant Abra scanned his
fingerprints and that it violated Biometric Information Privacy
Act's provisions relating to the disclosure of biometric data
when it disclosed his biometric information to a third party
vendor, Kronos, Inc.

ABRA, Inc., doing business as ABRA Auto Body and Glass, owns and
operates auto body repair centers. The Company offers services
including headlight buffing and repair, auto painting and repair,
painteless dent removal, and car interior repair. ABRA Auto Body
& Glass operates repair centers in the United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert Marc Chemers, Esq.
          PRETZEL & STOUFFER, CHARTERED
          One South Wacker Drive, Suite 2500
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 578-7548
          Facsimile: (312) 346-8242
          E-mail: rchemers@pretzelstouffer.com


ACCOUNT CONTROL: Faces "Hwang" Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Account Control
Technology, Inc. The case is styled as Andre Hwang, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Account Control Technology, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-
01419 (E.D. N.Y., March 7, 2018).

Account Control Technology, Inc. (ACT) offers debt recovery, debt
collection, accounts receivable management and business process
outsourcing (BPO) solutions for the education, consumer finance,
government and commercial markets.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


AEGIS SECURITY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, "Watson" Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
Shameka Watson, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Aegis Security & Investigations
Inc., and Does 1 through 25, Defendants, Case No. BC695411 (Cal.
Super., Los Angeles Cty., Feb. 20, 2018) is an action against the
Defendants for unpaid regular hours, overtime hours, minimum
wages, wages for missed meal and rest periods.

Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a security guard at
Los Angeles County, California from December 31, 2015 to the
present.

Aegis Security & Investigations Inc. is a corporation organized
under the laws of the state of California. The Company provides
security guards to its customers in California and other
locations. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Rebecca G. Gundzik, Esq.
          GARTENBERG GELFAND HAYTON LLP
          15260 Ventura Blvd., Suite 1920
          Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
          Telephone: (213) 542-2100
          Facsimile: (213) 542-2101


AFL: Winmar May Join Concussion Class Action
--------------------------------------------
Jon Pierik and Daniel Cherny, writing for The Age, report that
AFL great Nicky Winmar is battling health issues and is
considering joining a concussion class action of former AFL
players.

Mr. Winmar, who played 230 games for St Kilda and 21 for the
Western Bulldogs, and has been undergoing tests for issues he
believes could be related to a series of head knocks during his
storied career.  His problems include dizziness and memory loss.
Mr. Winmar, 52, said on Feb. 26 that he had suffered "six or
seven" head knocks while playing, and was concerned by the
symptoms.

"I just put things down and I don't know where I've put them,"
Mr. Winmar told The Age.

He recalled one particularly dramatic incident during a game
while playing for the Saints.  "Once in a Brisbane game at
Waverley the doctor said I stopped breathing," he said.

Of his intentions to join a class action, Mr. Winmar replied: "I
have been tested.  I am part [of this group]."

Mr. Winmar, 52, is one of about 30 past players in the frame to
be part of a planned class action against the AFL.

Brownlow medallist John Platten, Essendon premiership ruckman
John Barnes and renowned aerialist Shaun Smith have all publicly
detailed their health battles and intentions to take the league
to court over claimed neurological impairment.  Mr. Barnes is set
to be the lead plaintiff while dual Brownlow medallist Greg
Williams has also been linked to the potential case.

Mr. Winmar's long-time manager Peter Jess explained that
Mr. Winmar was still in the early stages of his testing.

"The initial testing said that [Nicky] had some abnormalities,
and we're going to test those further," Mr. Jess said.

"We've been in constant contact over the last three or four years
with multiple signs of impairment such as loss of balance,
temporary memory loss.  Problems with a whole range of other
medical conditions that could well be linked back to his
repetitive head knocks when he was playing football.  The initial
testing shows that there are some abnormalities and we're
awaiting further testing to confirm that he'll be part of the
class action or not."

Veteran player agent Jess, who has long been outspoken on
concussion, said a team of researchers were looking through
footage of Mr. Winmar's career to identify incidents that may
have led to his health issues.

Mr. Winmar survived a heart attack in 2012 and has since been an
advocate for indigenous health.

A member of St Kilda's team of the century, he is probably best
remembered for taking a stand against racism from Collingwood
supporters at Victoria Park in 1993 by raising his jumper and
pointing to his skin in what has become an iconic image.

Mr. Winmar last year opened up about his heart attack and the
changes he had since made in his life.

"At the time I had to change a lot of my dieting, the way you use
salts in your food, alcohol, smoking.  Those were the sacrifices
you have to do as well, which don't come easily," Mr. Winmar
said.

"You've got to make that choice if you want to fulfil the rest of
your life.  I'm 52 this year and hopefully [for] another 10 or 15
years I'll still be around."

The league has moved to tighten its concussion protocols in
recent years, including fining clubs when procedures are not
followed. The AFL also has implemented several concussion-related
initiatives, including holding an annual concussion audit,
investigating the efficacy of headgear in preventing concussion,
scanning past and current players through the Florey Institute of
technology, and having players participate in a sensor head knock
assessment last year.  The league also collaborates on research
with other codes, and is working with Murdoch Children's Research
Institute on a community concussion project.

Neither the AFL, AFL Players' Association, Saints nor Bulldogs
wished to comment when contacted on Feb. 26. [GN]


AHMC HEALTHCARE: Faces "Diaz" Suit over Failure to Pay OT
---------------------------------------------------------
JESSICA DIAZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AHMC HEALTHCARE, INC.; AHMC, INC.; AHMC
GARFIELD MEDICAL CENTER L.P.; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. BC694932 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty.,
Feb. 21, 2018) is an action against the Defendants for unpaid
regular hours, overtime hours, minimum wages, wages for missed
meal and rest periods.

Ms. Diaz was employed by the Defendants from 2011 to 2016 as an
hourly-paid employee.

AHMC Healthcare Inc. owns and operates a chain of hospitals and
medical centers. The company was founded in 2004 and is based in
Alhambra, California. AHMC Healthcare Inc. is a former subsidiary
of Tenet Healthcare Corp. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kevin T. Barnes, Esq.
          Gregg Lander, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE 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


ALLTRAN FINANCIAL: Faces "Yosipov" Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Alltran Financial,
LP. The case is styled as Manny Yosipov, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Alltran Financial,
LP, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-01423 (E.D. N.Y., March 7, 2018).

Alltran Financial, LP operates as an accounts receivable
management company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Daniel C Cohen, Esq.
   Cohen & Mizrahi LLP
   300 Cadman Plaza West
   12th Floor
   Brooklyn, NY 11201
   Tel: (929) 575-4175
   Fax: (929) 575-4195
   Email: dan@cml.legal


AMERICAN FEDERATION: CNA Warns SCOTUS Ruling Could Starve Unions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chriss w. Street, writing for Breitbart, reports that for a
powerful California nurses' union warned that a coming U.S.
Supreme Court decision, which could stop unions from requiring
non-union employees to pay dues, could starve unions to death.

The 86,000-member California Nurses Association (CNA)
demonstrated at seven hospitals across the state on Feb. 23 to
build support for the U.S. Supreme Court to rule against the
plaintiffs in Janus vs. American Federation of State, County and
Municipal Employees and preserve a current union rule that
requires non-union employees in unionized organizations to pay
"fair share" or "agency" fees that approximate the union's dues.

Bay Area public radio station KQED reported that CNA spokesperson
Margarita Harrington told a group at San Mateo Medical Center in
the heart of Silicon Valley, "If suddenly people just stop paying
dues, then how will the union be able to sustain itself?" She
added, "It's sort of like they're gonna starve the union. And
then it eventually impacts us."

The fight is reverberating nationwide.

Mark Janus is a child support specialist at the Illinois
Department of Healthcare and Family Services, whose job is to
fight for the rights of very young children in the government run
social welfare safety net.  He wrote an op-ed in the Chicago
Tribune in which he argued, "The union voice is not my voice.
The union's fight is not my fight."

Janus complained the Illinois union contract forced him to fund a
union that is not "working totally for the good of Illinois
government."  He emphasized that Illinois' union "supported
candidates who put Illinois into its current budget and pension
crisis.  Government unions have pushed for government spending
that made the state's fiscal situation worse."

Mr. Janus filed a lawsuit to stop automatic paycheck deductions
of about $45 per month for a union local branch of the American
Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSME)
without his permission.  The Janus v. AFSME suit soon became a
class action that would affect employees in 22 other states that
allow unions to take "fees," despite individuals refusing to join
a union.

The Supreme Court ruled in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education in
1997 that government employees, like Janus, who do not join a
union could be compelled to pay "fair share" or "agency fees" to
unions to negotiate collective bargaining contracts to covers all
public employees.  The justices reasoned that such fees would
help to reduce labor strife and the prospect that non-union
members benefiting as collective bargaining "free-riders."

But the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Janus's
challenge to the constitutionality of the fee on Feb. 26.  Eight
of the nine justices on the Court have heard oral argument on the
issue twice. The court failed to resolve the issue in early 2016
in Friedrichs v. California Teachers' Association.  Most
observers expected the plaintiffs to prevail with the 5-4
conservative majority, but then Justice Antonin Scalia died, and
the Court deadlocked on a 4 to 4 tie vote.

The Court decision, which is expected around June, will be
determined by the court's newest Associate Justice, Neil Gorsuch.
Confirmed to the Court less than a year ago, Gorsuch, as a
federal judge never ruled on a labor case involving union dues.
But he has a reputation as a proponent of conservative textualism
for interpreting the U.S. Constitution. [GN]


AMICA GENERAL: Faces "Young" Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Amica General
Agency, LLC. The case is styled as Lawrence Young and on behalf
of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Amica
General Agency, LLC and Amica Mutual Insurance Company,
Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-02071 (S.D. N.Y., March 7, 2018).

Amica Mutual Insurance Company is a Rhode Island-based mutual
insurance company that offers auto, home and life insurance.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


APPLE INC: Faces Class Action in Canada for Throttling iPhones
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit was commenced on February 23 in the
Ontario Superior Court alleging that Apple substantially slowed
iPhones without warning to or consent from consumers.

The claim alleges that Apple's iOS software updates for iPhone 6,
6 Plus, 6s, 6s Plus, SE, 7, and 7 Plus were provided to iPhone
users under the pretense that the software updates were necessary
to deliver enhanced security and performance.  In reality,
however, the updates allowed Apple to slow down the performance
of these updated iPhones.  This practice is known as "throttling"
because Apple intentionally slows the phone's CPU.

Although Apple's slowing of iPhones began at some point in 2016
this practise was only exposed in December 2017 through a study
conducted by John Poole at Primate Labs.

"By intentionally substantially slowing iPhones, Apple not only
interfered with users' personal property, but they did so while
keeping consumers totally the dark" said Joel Rochon --
jrochon@rochongenova.com -- partner at Rochon Genova LLP, who
represents class members.  "Being the dominant smartphone company
in Canada and around the world, Apple should not only know
better, but must be held accountable --especially where it is
alleged they substantially slowed iPhones and then encouraged
customers to spend money on upgraded products."

Users were never informed of this practice, were never asked to
consent to it, and were never given the option of opting out.
"Following the download of the update, I noticed that my phone
was running far slower than previously -- painfully slow," notes
Cherif Saleh, representative plaintiff in the lawsuit.  "Apple
support advised me to 'go to the Apple Store' to buy a new phone
-- this sort of deceitful behaviour from Apple is totally
unacceptable."

This class action lawsuit includes all owners of iPhone models 6,
6 Plus, 6s, 6s Plus, SE, 7, and 7 Plus, and alleges that Apple's
actions violated Consumer Protection Act legislation.  None of
the allegations have been proven in court, although Apple has
admitted to intentionally slowing iPhones through its iOS 10.2.1,
10.3, and 11.2 updates. [GN]


APPLE INC: MDL Panel to Consider Consolidating Battery Cases
------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Brown, writing for Inverse, reports that Apple's iPhone
controversy is showing little signs of slowing down.  The company
admitted late last year that older devices do function slower, as
new software updates throttle processor power to stop older
batteries from buckling under strain and shutting down. Although
a planned update will give users the option to turn this
throttling off, owners are furious and plan to take legal action.

The U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has listed a
hearing scheduled for March 29 in Atlanta, Georgia, where it will
consider consolidating a number of similar cases into a single
complaint.  The move could help legal action easier to manage.
MacRumors-obtained documents shows Apple faces a staggering 59
putative class actions with 16 district courts, 30 of which are
in front of one judge in the Norther District of California.

Apple has been working hard to rectify the issue in the public
eye. The change was discovered when a Reddit user called TeckFire
noted GeekBench performance improved when older batteries were
replaced.  The company then confirmed that since iOS 10.2.1, the
phone has reduced the speed of processors so that it can't place
too high a demand on power usage, causing the battery to cut all
power.  The feature was originally present on the iPhone 6, 6
Plus, 6s, 6s Plus, and SE, rolled out further to the iPhone 7 and
7 Plus with version 11.2 in 2017.

Apple now plans to give users the choice over whether to limit
performance. iOS 11.3, currently in the beta stage, will offer a
"Battery Health" screen in the device settings.

A brand-new phone will show up as maximum capacity of 100
percent.  As time goes on, the phone will lose some of this
capacity, but after 500 cycles the phone should remain at 80
percent. The switch below will give users the choice of whether
to switch to peak performance, switching on management after the
first unexpected shutdown.  It's an unusual level of control over
device management, but Apple is keen to change perceptions.

"We're going to give people the visibility of the health of their
battery, so it's very, very transparent," CEO Tim Cook said in a
January interview with ABC News.  "This hasn't been done before,
but we've thought through this whole thing and learned everything
we can learn from it."

Whether these changes are enough to rectify the damage caused in
the public eye remains to be seen. [GN]


ARAMARK UNIFORM: "Moore" OT Pay Suit Remanded to Calif. State Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California issued an Order granting Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand
in the case captioned ALAN MOORE, AMY REED, and DOMINIC GALLAGHER
on behalf of themselves, all others similarly situated, and on
behalf of the general public, Plaintiffs, v. ARAMARK UNIFORM
SERVICES, LLC; ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES (SANTA ANA), LLC; ARAMARK
UNIFORM & CAREER APPAREL, LLC; and DOES 1-100, Defendants, Case
No. 17-cv-06288-JST (N.D. Cal.).

Plaintiffs Alan Moore, Amy Reed, and Dominic Gallagher bring a
putative class action suit asserting several claims under
California wage laws and related statutes against Defendants
Aramark Uniform Services, LLC, Aramark Uniform Services (Santa
Ana), LLC, and Aramark Uniform & Career Apparel, LLC.

Aramark removed the action to the District Court pursuant to 28
U.S.C. Sections 1331 and 1441. Aramark argues that Plaintiffs'
claims for failure to pay overtime, failure to provide meal
periods, failure to pay all wages earned, and failure to
authorize and permit rest breaks are completely pre-empted by
section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA).
Plaintiffs moved to remand the action to the Alameda County
Superior Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1447(c) on grounds
that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.

Plaintiffs contend that pre-emption under section 301 of the LMRA
is not proper because their claims arise out of state law and do
not require interpretation of any of the terms in the relevant
collective bargaining agreements (CBAs).

LMRA section 301 provides federal jurisdiction over suits for
violation of contracts between an employer and a labor
organization.

To give the policies that animate Section 301 their proper range,
its pre-emptive force extends beyond suits alleging contract
violations to include questions relating to what the parties to a
labor agreement agreed, and what legal consequences were intended
to flow from breaches of that agreement.

Plaintiffs generally argue that the first cause of action failure
to pay for all time worked  is not pre-empted because it arises
out of state law and it does not require interpretation of the
Aramark responds that this cause of action is pre-empted because
it alleges breach of a contractual obligation under the
applicable CBA and requires interpretation of the applicable
language in the CBA.

The Claim for Failure to Pay for All Time Worked is Not Pre-
empted

Aramark Has Not Satisfied the First Prong of Burnside

Under the first prong of the Burnside, Burnside, 491 F.3d at
1059, test, the Court first asks whether Plaintiffs' claims
involve rights conferred upon an employee by state law or solely
by a CBA.
Here, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs' first cause of action,
failure to pay for all time worked, is independently rooted in
state law. Plaintiffs assert that Aramark has a continuous and
consistent policy of clocking-out Plaintiffs and those similarly
situated for a thirty (30) minute meal period, even though
Plaintiffs work through their meal periods. Plaintiffs' claim is
analogous to time-shaving the practice of doctoring hourly
employees' time sheets to reduce their pay.

In In re Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. Wage & Hour Litig., 505 F.Supp.2d
609, 616 (N.D. Cal. 2007), the alleged truncation practice in
this case is similar to the time-shaving practice in Wal-Mart.
Both involve a continuous and systematic deprivation of the
employees' time worked for the purpose of reducing the employees'
pay.

Plaintiffs' first cause of action failure to pay for all time
worked is not subject to section 301 preemption under the first
prong of the Burnside test. This claim exists independently from
the CBA and is a right conferred upon an employee by virtue of
state law.

Aramark Has Not Satisfied the Second Prong of Burnside

Aramark also asserts that the determination of what Plaintiffs
are allegedly owed in unpaid wages will necessarily and
substantially depend upon an analysis of the numerous different
collective bargaining agreements that applied to different groups
of putative class members throughout California which include a
complicated formula regarding how to calculate hourly rates of
pay and certain weekly minimum pay, depending on whether
commission are earned based on sales targets.

This argument conflates the need to analyze the agreements'
provisions with the need simply to apply those provisions.
Plaintiffs do not dispute the hourly rate they are entitled to or
how it was calculated.

The Court noted that there was not even a colorable argument that
a claim under section 203 was pre-empted because there was no
indication that there was a 'dispute' in the case over the amount
of the penalty to which plaintiff would be entitled. Similarly
here, there is no indication of a dispute. Any application of the
CBA will be mechanical and require the Court only to apply the
relevant formulas listed in the CBAs to determine the liability
amount.

Plaintiffs' claim for failure to pay for all time worked is not
substantially dependent on analysis of the CBA and would require,
at most, reference to the relevant provisions. Therefore,
Plaintiffs' claim for failure to pay for all time worked is not
pre-empted by section 301 of the LMRA because it fails both
prongs of the Burnside test.

The Claim for Failure to Authorize and Permit Rest Periods is Not
Pre-empted

Plaintiffs assert that Aramark violated California Labor Code
section 226.7 by failing to authorize and permit rest periods.
Nonnegotiable rights are not subject to section 301 pre-emption,
even if employees are covered by a valid CBA. Although Valles
concerned the state law provisions governing meal periods, 410
F.3d at 1081, a California appellate court has held that rest
breaks are a non-waivable state mandated minimum labor standard.

Further, rest breaks, like meal periods, are similarly regulated
by Labor Code section 226.7 and address some of the most basic
demands of an employee's health and welfare. Thus, this Court
holds that the right to rest breaks is non-negotiable and
therefore not subject to section 301 pre-emption.

Plaintiffs motion to remand is granted. This action is remanded
to the Alameda Superior Court for further proceedings.

A full-text copy of the District Court's February 5, 2018 Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/yao7fw3s from Leagle.com.

Alan Moore, Amy Reed & Dominic Gallagher, Plaintiffs, represented
by David Thomas Mara -- dmara@turleylawfirm.com -- The Turley Law
Firm, APLC, Jamie Kathryn Serb -- jserb@turleylawfirm.com -- The
Turley Law Firm, William Turley -- bturley@turleylawfirm.com  --
The Turley & Mara Law Firm & Tony Roberts --
troberts@turleylawfirm.com -- The Turley and Mara Law Firm, APLC.

Aramark Uniform & Career Apparel, LLC & Aramark Uniform Services
(Santa Ana) LLC, Defendants, represented by Eric Meckley  --
eric.meckley@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP &
Kathryn M. Nazarian -- knazarian@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis
and Bockius.


ARIZONA: Fined Over Failure to Meet Prison Healthcare Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Beth Schwartzapfel, writing for The Marshall Project, reports
that in late December, federal Magistrate Judge David Duncan
waved an iPad in front of his Phoenix courtroom, enraged.  He had
just read a local news article suggesting that the Arizona
Department of Corrections and its for-profit medical provider
Corizon Health were gaming a system put in place to ensure
adequate health care for the state's prisoners.

"There is no other way to read it," he said.  "It's just a game
to beat the judge and his monitoring program."  Duncan has been
overseeing a court case aimed at improving medical and mental
health care in Arizona prisons.  Parsons v. Ryan, which began in
2012, accuses the state of providing care so shoddy that it
amounts to cruel and unusual punishment: delayed or denied
treatment, too few doctors and nurses, referrals and medication
refills that fall through the cracks.

Corizon has served as Arizona's prison health care provider since
2013.  The company is not a defendant in the ongoing legal
action, the plaintiffs wrote in a court filing, because the state
is ultimately responsible for providing care "regardless of who
it hires."  However, the company's care lies at the heart of the
proceedings.

In 2014, Arizona arrived at an agreement with the prisoners that
explicitly says that government officials "deny all the
allegations." The state also committed to meeting 103 standards
governing everything from how quickly prescriptions are filled to
how often those with mental illness see a counselor.

Part of the agreement was that the state would measure how well
it was meeting the standards and report the results back to the
court.  For the first few years, according to the state's own
reports, it did not go well.  Among other problems, the state was
not providing urgent medication or specialty care quickly enough
and prison doctors weren't reviewing discharge orders for sick
prisoners returning from the hospital.

"You fundamentally have an obligation to provide these services
to these inmates," Duncan said at a 2016 hearing.  "You failed to
do it." At one point the judge called the reports "chilling."

Now the local news report seemed to indicate that the situation
was even worse than the state described.  Under the terms of the
Arizona lawsuit, the state must ensure that patients who are
referred to specialists see them within 30 days.  But the story,
by NPR station KJZZ, included an account by a physician who said
Corizon asked her to cancel referrals if they weren't completed
in that time frame to avoid fines from the court.

"After 30 days we get nailed for 1,000 bucks a day until they are
seen," read an email from a Corizon employee to the physician.
Martha Harbin, a spokesperson for Corizon, told The Marshall
Project that Corizon would disprove all of the claims made by
KJZZ at an upcoming court hearing.  The employee "acted
appropriately," Ms. Harbin said.  "The email was taken out of
context and its meaning distorted by Dr. Watson and KJZZ."

Officials at the Arizona Department of Corrections did not
respond to several emails with detailed lists of questions.

Harbin said the company is failing to meet only a small fraction
of the standards under the lawsuit and that those failures result
from how difficult it is to hire staff in Arizona. In an email,
she detailed the company's extensive efforts to recruit and train
staff.

"If staffing penalties were merely the cost of doing business, we
certainly wouldn't be funding this level of HR activity," she
said.

Corizon, based in Brentwood, Tenn., is one of the nation's
largest for-profit prison healthcare providers, with contracts in
30 local jails and eight state corrections systems, according to
Harbin.  Allegations of mismanagement and poor patient care have
recently caused Corizon to lose some high-profile and lucrative
contracts.

The company has been the target of thousands of lawsuits --
including other large-scale class action suits ongoing in Idaho
and Alabama. Any prison or prison-based provider is inevitably
going to be a target for legal action, in part because the courts
are often prisoners' only means of redress for grievances large
and small.

What's striking about the recent cases, however, is their
similarities.  The suits describe a multi-layered bureaucracy in
which even routine medical referrals require approval from middle
management; a crisis-level shortage of nurses, doctors,
psychiatrists, and other medical staff; and serious but treatable
illnesses that went untreated and turned deadly.  The Arizona
claim described a 59-year-old inmate who died after nurses
"repeatedly ignored his desperate pleas for help . . . even after
open weeping lesions on [his body] were swarmed by flies."  A
handwritten "notice of impending death" was filed by an inmate
whose cancer went untreated.  "Now because of their delay, I may
be lucky to be alive for 30 days," he wrote in August.  He died
in September.

Yet many experts say that the quality of a private contractor's
care comes down to how closely they're watched.  Kansas and
Missouri, which both contract with Corizon, have teams monitoring
the company's work.  Kansas's is based at the local university
hospital, according to the Kansas City Star; Missouri's has a
nine-person team based at the Department of Corrections,
according to a spokesperson there.  Kansas's contract includes
financial penalties if Corizon fails to meet certain standards;
Missouri's does not.

"I've seen private providers that have done a very good job.
That's because somebody is keeping a watch on them, and their
contracts are well run," says Steve J. Martin, a corrections
expert who has served as a court-appointed monitor in several
lawsuits.  In Arizona, the Department of Corrections has 33
employees in its "Health Services Contract Monitoring Bureau"
tasked with keeping an eye on Corizon, and the contract includes
financial penalties.

The company has paid upwards of $3 million in fines for not
having enough doctors and nurses on staff, according to the
testimony of Charles Pratt, who oversees the Corizon contract for
the state.  But given that the contract is worth more than $150
million a year, even Judge Duncan was skeptical that these fines
change the company's calculus. "Is it possible that they have
made the economic decision that they are better off paying the
fine than filling these positions?" he asked.

"It is," Mr. Pratt replied.  In Idaho, where a class action
lawsuit similar to the Parsons suit is ongoing, Corizon has been
fined $178,000 since 2014 for not having enough staff and other
problems, according to state officials.  The contract there is
worth more than $43 million a year.  "The private provider, their
attorneys, are superior in their knowledge of contracts," said
Martin, who is currently serving as a court-appointed monitor on
Rikers Island.  "More often than not the agency is at a
disadvantage. They're starting 50 yards behind.

"Now Arizona faces $1 million or more in fines as Judge Duncan
considers holding officials in contempt for their "pervasive and
intractable failures" to meet the terms of the settlement.  He
could issue his ruling at a hearing.

Settlements, like contracts, need close, ongoing supervision by a
neutral party to function effectively, say Martin and other
corrections experts.  In Idaho, the judge appointed an
independent monitor, known as a special master, to evaluate how
well the state was providing health and mental health care.  Yet
he was duped when the state "attempted to paper over and mislead
the special master about the inadequacies of its mental health
care system," the judge later found. The Arizona settlement has
no special master.

"In the settlement negotiations we pressed hard for an
independent monitor, but the state was adamant that it would
never agree to such a thing," says the ACLU's David Fathi, one of
the attorneys representing the prisoners.  The agreement allows
the state to monitor itself, which was at issue in the December
hearing when the judge was so angry.

"I had always been a little bit . . . concerned about the fact
that the fox was guarding the hen house," Judge Duncan said,
noting that he may now appoint an independent auditor.  This post
has been updated to reflect that Corizon Health is not a named
defendant in the Arizona lawsuit, which predates the company's
contract with the state.  In addition, a previous version of this
story incorrectly stated that Corizon faces $1 million or more in
fines from a judge.  The state faces those fines and has indicated
it would pass the fines along to Corizon. [GN]



ARIZONA: Hearings Set on Fines in Prison Health Care Case
---------------------------------------------------------
Jacques Billeaud, writing for Associated Press, reports that a
judge overseeing a class-action lawsuit over the quality of
health care in Arizona's prisons would hold hearings to determine
whether to fine the state for falling short in improving care for
inmates.

U.S. Magistrate David Duncan also would examine an allegation
that the inmate-care provider skirted a promise Arizona made when
it settled the lawsuit by denying care to an inmate to avoid
paying a fine.

The hearings on Feb. 27 and Feb. 28 were called after the judge
repeatedly voiced frustration over what he described as the
state's "abject failure" to carry out improvements it promised
three years ago when it settled allegations that inmates were
receiving shoddy health care.

Mr. Duncan has threatened to hold Corrections Director
Charles Ryan and another prison official in civil contempt of
court and fine the state $1,000 for each instance of
noncompliance in December and January.

The state has acknowledged more than 1,000 such instances in
December, meaning it could be fined as much as $1 million for
that month alone.  Arizona faced a Feb. 26 deadline for revealing
instances of noncompliance in January, though the judge was
letting some of that information be filed in February.

The areas in which Mr. Duncan is requiring improvements include
ensuring newly prescribed medications be provided to inmates
within two days and making medical providers tell inmates about
the results of pathology reports and other diagnostic studies
within five days of receiving such records.

Andrew Wilder, a Department of Corrections spokesman, declined to
comment on the upcoming hearings.

Mr. Ryan said at a Feb. 13 hearing at the Legislature that his
agency is making progress in complying with the settlement and
that the state doesn't plan to pay any fines that might be
imposed.

"I've already made it perfectly clear to the vendor (that) you're
on the hook for that, not the state of Arizona," Mr. Ryan said.

Corizon Health Inc. has served as the health care provider for
Arizona's prisons for the past five years.  The company isn't a
target in the lawsuit.

Corene Kendrick, one of the attorneys representing more than
33,000 inmates in the lawsuit, said having the contractor pay
would undermine the purpose of the fine, which is to force the
state into improving care.

Ms. Kendrick said lawyers found an additional 420 instances of
noncompliance that the state didn't report to the court.

It's up to Mr. Duncan to decide what to do with the fines.
Kendrick said the proceeds would not end up in the hands of
prisoners or their lawyers.

The judge's frustrations with the state grew in December when an
email surfaced in which a Corizon employee asked a doctor to
cancel infection-disease consultations for an inmate because the
company didn't have a provider to send him to.  The Sept. 18
email alluded to the judge's threat to impose fines.

"After 30 days we get nailed for 1000 bucks a day until they are
seen," the Corizon employee wrote.

After a news report by National Public Radio member station KJZZ-
FM revealed the email, Judge Duncan said the comments looked like
an end-run around the court's efforts to ensure the state is
making the improvements.

A lawyer for the state acknowledged that the email is authentic
but said there was a rational explanation for the comments.

The 2012 lawsuit alleged that Arizona's 10 state-run prisons
didn't meet the basic requirements for providing adequate medical
and mental health care.  It said some prisoners complained that
their cancer went undetected or they were told to pray to be
cured after begging for treatment.

It also alleged that the failure of the medical staff at one
prison to diagnose an inmate's metastasized cancer resulted in
his liver enlarging so much that his stomach swelled to the size
of a pregnant woman at full term.  Another inmate who had a
history of prostate cancer had to wait more than two years for a
biopsy.

The state denied allegations that it was providing inadequate
care.  The lawsuit was settled in 2014 without the state
acknowledging any wrongdoing.

This isn't the first time the Corrections Department has faced
criticism from the judge.

Over the summer, Judge Duncan grilled Mr. Ryan in court over
whether he tried to undermine an order that prohibited
retaliation against prisoners who participated in the lawsuit.
[GN]


ARS NATIONAL: Court Denies Arbitration Bid in "Koby" FDCPA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
California issued an Order denying Defendant's Motion to Compel
Arbitration or in the Alternative, Motion to Dismiss the case
captioned MICHAEL P. KOBY, et al., Plaintiffs, v. ARS NATIONAL
SERVICES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:09-cv-00780-KSC (S.D.
Cal.).

Plaintiffs filed this case as a putative class action alleging
that defendant attempted to collect plaintiff's alleged debts in
a manner that did not comport with the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act, specifically Sections 1692d(6) and 1692e(11).  The
Complaint alleges that defendant left voice messages for
consumers that failed to disclose the purpose of the call or that
the call was from a debt collector.

The Federal Arbitration Act states that agreements to arbitrate
are valid, irrevocable and enforceable. Section 4 provides that
where there is an enforceable arbitration agreement, the court
shall make an order directing the parties to proceed to
arbitration in accordance with the terms of the agreement. The
language is mandatory, offering district courts no discretion
where a valid arbitration agreement is signed.

Whether ARS Can Enforce the Consumer Agreement Under Virginia Law

As the assignee of Capital One Bank, defendant asserts it is
entitled to enforce the arbitration clause in the Customer
Agreements signed by plaintiffs. Plaintiffs assert Virginia
contract law specifically provisions of the Virginia Uniform
Commercial Code (UCC) precludes ARS from enforcing the
arbitration agreement.

Defendant's arguments are unavailing.

Here, Title 8.9A, Secured Transactions is the applicable section
of the Virginia UCC. Section 8.9A-109(a)(3) states in pertinent
part, that this title applies to a sale of accounts. Section
8.9A-109(d)(5) clarifies that the title does not apply to an
assignment of accounts which is for the purpose of collection
only. Thus only if defendant ARS purchased the credit card debt
from Capital One Bank can it rightfully seek to enforce the
arbitration agreements in plaintiffs' contracts. If Capital One
Bank merely assigned the accounts to ARS for collection purposes,
then it has no authority to enforce the arbitration agreement.

The Court cannot conclude how ARS became the assignee of Capital
One Bank on the evidence and documents provided to the Court at
this time. It is apparent from similar cases, such as Jallo,
Jallo v. Midland Funding, LLC is instructive. 2014 WL 5810203
(S.D. Cal. Nov. 14, 2014), that the relationship between a debt
collector and the debt holder can be easily ascertained and
presented to the Court.

Moreover, the Ninth Circuit recently reversed and remanded a
District Court's decision to grant a motion to compel arbitration
when presented with similarly paltry evidence from a defendant
debt collector. Therein, defendants submitted a declaration in
support of their motion to compel arbitration in which it
represented that defendant became the assignee of certain assets
including those at issue in the case.

The Beck Declaration is inadmissible to show defendant is the
assignee of Capital One Bank, let alone whether it is the right
class of assignee to enforce the arbitration agreement. As in
Alarcon, the declaration states only that an assignment occurred
without the accompanying documentation to support that
contention.

Therefore ARS's Motion is denied.

A full-text copy of the District Court's February 5, 2018 Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/ya2ubyyx from Leagle.com.

Michael P Koby, an individual, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Michael Simmons, an individual, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated & Jonathan
W Supler, an individual, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Andrew T.
Thomasson, Stern Thomasson LLP, pro hac vice, Philip D. Stern,
Stern Thomasson LLP, 150 Morris Avenue, 2nd Floor. Springfield,
NJ 07081-1315., pro hac vice & Robert E. Schroth, Jr. --
robschrothesq@sbcglobal.net  -- Schroth, Schroth & Madigan.
Bernadette M. Helmuth, Plaintiff, represented by Donald A.
Yarbrough, Donald A. Yarbrough, Esq., pro hac vice, Scott R.
Strauss, Donald A. Yarbrough, Attorney at Law, PO Box 11842Fort
Lauderdale, FL 33339- 1842, pro hac vice & Steven M. Bronson, THE
BRONSON FIRM, APC, 350 Tenth Avenue, 10th Floor. San Diego, CA
92101.

Donald Nappi, Plaintiff, represented by Philip D. Stern, Stern
Thomasson LLP,  150 Morris Avenue, 2nd Floor. Springfield, NJ
07081-1315, pro hac vice.

ARS National Services, Inc., a California Corporation, Defendant,
represented by Jeffrey Alan Topor -- jtopor@snllp.com -- Simmonds
and Narita LLP, Sean P. Flynn -- sflynn@gordonrees.com -- Gordon
& Rees, LLP, Susan L. Germaise -- sgermaise@mcguirewoods.com --
McGuire Woods, Tomio B. Narita -- tnarita@snllp -- Simmonds &
Narita LLP & Holly L.K. Heffner -- hheffner@grsm.com -- Gordon &
Rees LLP.


AT&T CORP: Sued by Robinson over IPhone SE and Tablet Promos
------------------------------------------------------------
LANDON ROBINSON, individually and on behalf of other similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. AT&T CORP., and DOES 1-10, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-00880-ODW-AS (C.D. Cal., Feb. 2,
2018), seeks to stop Defendant's practice of falsely advertising:

     -- the quantity of IPhone SE cellular telephones it has
        available in stock; and

     -- that the total price of a tablet was $0.99,

upon a 14-day "risk free" purchase of IPhone SE and commitment
two-year service contract, when in fact the purchase was not
"risk free" and the total price was much higher, including fees
and charges.

AT&T Corp. provides voice, video, and data communications
services to businesses, consumers, and governments worldwide.
AT&T Corp. was formerly known as American Telephone & Telegraph
Company and changed its name to AT&T Corp. in April 1994. The
company was founded in 1877 and is based in Bedminster, New
Jersey. AT&T Corp. operates as a subsidiary of AT&T, Inc. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


AUSTRALIA: $15K Spin Class Angers Williamtown RAAF Base Residents
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Carrie Fellner, writing for Newcastle Herald, reports that the
Department of Defence has plunged thousands of dollars into a
"media awareness" course, coaching staff on how to field
questions over water contamination at its military bases.

Tender documents show just under $15,000 was paid for the
workshop -- run by a Victorian public relations firm called
"Media Manoeuvres" -- at the end of last year.

News of the spend has rubbed salt in the wound for residents
living in the vicinity of the Williamtown RAAF Base.  They have
not received a cent in compensation following revelations Defence
has polluted their properties with toxic per- and poly-
fluoroalkyl (PFAS) chemicals.

They are now pursuing a class action to claw back huge falls in
property values.

Lindsay Clout, of the Fullerton Cove Residents Action Group, was
gobsmacked by the tender documents. He said it was not the dollar
value of the course, but what it represented, that angered him
most.

"It is a confronting thing to read, considering the fight that
we've had to fight and we're still not there," he said.

"I ask myself why the hell do these people need media training to
talk about the contamination, if all they need to do is to tell
the truth?"

He added that many residents had faced the daunting experience of
being interviewed on national television and radio, without any
professional training.

A Defence spokesperson said its personnel were given training to
support them in roles that require community or media engagement
and public speaking.

"The training conducted at the end of last year provided media
skills to base support managers and estate facilities managers
located within the South East geographic zone of the Estate &
Infrastructure Group within Defence," they said.

"As there are four sites in the South East Zone under PFAS
investigations, the topic of water contamination was relevant to
the attendees, and provided them the appropriate training for
their role requirements.

"Training and development courses for Defence employees do not
impact Defence's ability and commitment to provide support to
communities affected by PFAS contamination."

Media Manoeuvres is directed by the former public relations
manager for Crown Casino, Sam Elam. According to the company's
website, its media awareness training teaches participants to
"learn the danger zones and the repercussions of straying from
their boundaries".

"A good spokesperson will be able to address the media and stay
on-message, whatever the question," the promotional material
reads.

Member for Paterson Meryl Swanson described the media coaching as
"farcical".

"All this does is cement less trust . . . we need less spin and
more substance," she said. [GN]

BALL METAL: Court Grants in Part Bid to Certify "Westfall" Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
California issued an Order granting in part Plaintiffs' Motion
for Class Certification in the case captioned ROBERT WESTFALL,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. BALL METAL BEVERAGE CONTAINER CORPORATION, a
Colorado Corporation, and Does 1-20 inclusive, Defendant, No.
2:16-cv-02632-KJM-GGH (E.D. Cal.).

The plaintiffs, hourly workers, move for class certification on
behalf of themselves and other similarly situated former and
current employees of defendant Ball Metal Beverage Container
Corp. (BALL) for several labor code violations.

Named plaintiffs Robert Westfall, David Anderson and David
Ellinger work as hourly-paid employees at BMBC's Fairfield plant,
and named plaintiff Lynn Bobby was formerly employed at the plant
as an hourly employee in the production department. Westfall
works as an Electronic Technician, Anderson worked as an
Electronic Technician and now works as a Machinist, Ellinger
works as a Maintenance Worker, and Bobby worked as a
Machinist/Mechanic.

This putative class action arises from one central claim:
Plaintiffs allege they were required to monitor pages that
sounded over an intercom system at defendant's plant at all times
while they were working, including during their meal and rest
breaks, a practice they say constitutes a failure to provide
breaks under California labor law. Plaintiffs ask the court to
certify the following seven claims for class treatment: (1)
failure to pay wages and/or overtime, California Labor Code
Section 510, 1194 and 1199; (2) failure to provide meal periods
and (3) failure to allow rest periods. (4) wage statement
penalties (5) waiting time penalties,

Plaintiffs seek certification of one class defined as:

     All former and current hourly employees of BALL who were
employed at the Fairfield plaint in the production, engineering
and/or support departments between September 7, 2012 and trial.

Defendant objects to plaintiffs' evidence offered in support of
the motion for certification, as set forth in the Declaration of
Plaintiff Robert Westfall and the Declaration of Matthew Eason.
Defendant relies on Federal Rules of Evidence 401, 602, 702, 801,
802 and 901 and Section 1401 of the California Evidence Code as
its grounds for objection.

Certification

The Court first analyze whether the putative class meets the four
threshold requirements of Rule 23(a) and then determine whether
the class satisfies the requirements of Rule 23(b).

Numerosity

A class must be so numerous that joinder of all members is
impracticable. In the instant case, there are approximately 140
to 150 members of the proposed class. The court finds that the
proposed class satisfies the numerosity requirement, which is
presumptively satisfied when there are at least forty members.

Typicality

The claims or defenses of the representative parties must be
typical of the claims or defenses of the class. Plaintiffs argue
the typicality prong of Rule 23 is satisfied because the
representative plaintiffs work or worked as non-exempt, hourly
employees and were required to listen to the public access/paging
communication system and monitor for pages even when taking a
break in the Suitable Resting Facility. The court finds the
claims and defenses of the proposed class representatives
Westfall, Anderson, Ellinger and Bobby are typical, and Rule
23(a)(3) is satisfied.

Adequacy

Class representatives must be able to fairly and adequately
protect the interests of the class.  Although BMBC argues the
named plaintiffs lack the ability to adequately represent the
class, BMBC does not give adequate detail to show that there is
any conflict of interest or other reason the named plaintiffs
will not or cannot act vigilantly in prosecuting the action on
behalf of the putative class. The court finds Rule 23(a)(4) is
satisfied.

Commonality and Predominance

Rule 23(a) also requires questions of law or fact common to the
class. Such questions exist where class members suffer the same
alleged injury such that simultaneous litigation is productive,
BMBC makes several arguments regarding the substantive merits of
plaintiffs' claim and cites several cases to support its
position. While the court looks to the merits of the plaintiff's
underlying claim to determine whether commonality exists for the
purposes of Rule 23, it does not, at this stage, judge the
validity of plaintiffs'] claims. The court need not now inquire,
as BMBC suggests, into whether or not plaintiffs' claims will
ultimately prevail. It may of course consider merits challenges
at the later summary judgment stage or on a motion to decertify
the class at a later point in the case.

The court finds common issues predominate here.

Superiority

Predominance of common questions does not alone justify approval
of a class action, for another method of handling the case may be
available which has greater practical advantages.  Rule 23(b)(3)
provides that superiority is determined by considering, for
example, (A) the class members' interests in individually
controlling the prosecution or defense of separate actions; (B)
the extent and nature of any litigation concerning the
controversy already begun by or against class members; (C) the
desirability or undesirability of concentrating the litigation of
the claims in the particular forum; and (D) the likely
difficulties in managing the class action.

Regarding the first factor, here, the relatively small size of
the putative class and likely relatively small individual claims
asserted by plaintiffs do not make individual litigation
attractive or sustainable. Additionally, defendant does not
dispute this factor in its opposition. Thus, this factor favors
certification.

The second factor here, the parties have not described, and the
court is not aware of any other related litigation. This factor
favors certification.

The third factor is the desirability or undesirability of
concentrating the litigation in this forum. The putative class
comprises only those current and former employees at the
Fairfield plant, located in this district. There is no basis for
a non-California forum. Moreover, the entire class is presumably
in this federal judicial district.

This factor favors certification.

The fourth factor weighs the likely difficulties in managing the
class action. This is the only superiority factor BMBC disputes.
Plaintiffs propose to conduct trial in two phases: the first to
determine liability, and the second to determine damages.
This class action is manageable due to plaintiffs proposed trial
plan and the relatively small number of plaintiffs. On balance,
application of the four factors suggests a class action is the
superior means to try the common questions of law and fact that
predominate here.  Accordingly, plaintiffs have not provided
sufficient evidence to allow certification on this issue.

As to the first, second, third, sixth and seventh claims, the
court finds plaintiffs have satisfied the requirements of Rule
23(a) and (b) to allow class certification. The court therefore
grants in part plaintiffs' motion for class certification as to
these claims, and otherwise denies the motion.

A full-text copy of the District Court's February 5, 2018 Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/yas6vd9m from Leagle.com.

Robert Westfall, Plaintiff, represented by Matthew R. Eason --
matthew@capcitylaw.com -- Eason & Tambornini.

Ball Metal Beverage Container Corporation, a Colorado
Corporation, Defendant, represented by Christopher M. Ahearn --
cahearn@fisherphillips.com -- Fisher & Phillips LLP & Katherine
P. Sandberg -- ksandberg@fisherphillips.com -- Fisher & Phillips
LLP.


BANK OF QUEENSLAND: Settles Sherwin Ponzi Scheme Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courier Mail reports that Bank of Queensland has settled a class
action involving victims scammed in the Ponzi scheme run by
convicted fraudster Brad Sherwin -- but still denies wrongdoing.
The settlement comes in a case involving BoQ and fund manager DDH
Graham that started in 2016. [GN]


BAUME & MERCIER: Faces "Thorne" Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Baume & Mercier
North America. The case is styled as Braulio Thorne, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Baume &
Mercier North America, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-02074 (S.D.
N.Y., March 7, 2018).

Baume & Mercier North America is a manufacturer of affordable
Luxury Swiss Watches since 1830.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


BEEKEEPER: Class Action Over Neonicotinoids Can Proceed
-------------------------------------------------------
Claire Loewen, writing for CBC News, reports that a Quebec class-
action lawsuit against two producers of neonicotinoids --
commonly used insecticides that have been linked to a declining
population of honeybees -- has been given the go-ahead to proceed
to trial after by the Quebec Superior Court.

The Feb. 20 ruling comes as global scientific evidence against
the use of neonicotinoids mounts: a study published on Feb. 25 in
Environmental Science and Pollution Research concluded that the
insecticides are, for the most part, useless and ineffective.

Neonicotinoids, also known as neonics, are nicotine-based
pesticides widely used by farmers to help keep everything from
field crops to fruit orchards free of pests such as aphids,
spider mites and stink bugs.

The lawsuit targets Bayer and Syngeta, two international
neonicotinoid producers.

Steve Martineau, a Quebec queen bee breeder, launched the suit
after seeing more and more of his bees dying or being
incapacitated, according to his lawyer Samy Elnemr.

He conducted tests on the bees and found traces of
neonicotinoids, his lawyer said.

"We're suing on behalf of Quebec beekeepers whose bees were non-
productive or killed," Mr. Elnemr said.

Mr. Elnemr estimates that Mr. Martineau has lost about $20,000
due to the effects of neonicotinoids on his bee population.
That's the amount the firm is seeking in damages through this
case.

Growing evidence against neonicotinoids
There is a growing body of evidence linking the pesticides to the
declining bee population.

The latest to be published -- a review of 200 studies conducted
in Europe -- concludes that neonicotinoids have "generally little
effect on crop yield," as well as low efficiency, because bugs
quickly develop a resistance to the pesticide.

Representatives from the David Suzuki Foundation and Equiterre
have also long pressed for stricter controls of the pesticide.
However, in December, Health Canada limited but did not ban
neonicotinoids, concluding they do not present an unacceptable
risk to human health.

Quebec places restrictions on pesticides
On Feb. 19, the provincial government introduced new restrictions
on pesticides considered harmful to honeybees, including
neonicotinoids.

Under the changes, farmers will have to get permission from a
certified agronomist before using certain pesticides on crops.

According to Mr. Elnemr, the timing of that decision and the
authorization of Martineau's lawsuit is coincidental.

"We're not seeking an injunction or anything; it's a
straightforward damage case," he said.

In addition to the Quebec class-action suit, Mr. Elnemr's firm is
proceeding with a Canada-wide lawsuit against neonicotinoid
manufacturers.

Mr. Elnemr said his firm is now in preparation mode, and the case
will likely not be before the courts anytime soon.

"We are confident that once we get to trial that the science will
show that these pesticides are harmful to bees and the losses are
caused by the product," he said. [GN]


BOSTON, MA: Madden Balks at Installation of Norton Billboards
-------------------------------------------------------------
NORA MADDEN, and OTHERS, the Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF BOSTON BOARD
OF APPEAL, and its Members, CHRISTINE ARAUJO, MARK FORTUNE, PETER
CHIN, BRUCE BICKERSTAFF, MARK ERLICH, and ANTHONY PISANI;
STEPHANIE POLLACK, in her official capacity as Secretary and CEO
of the MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; WILLIAM
CHRISTOPHER, in his official capacity as COMMISSIONER of the
BOSTON INSPECTION SERVICES DEPARTMENT; 749 EB LLC, and MICHAEL O.
NORTON, the Defendants, Case No. 18-645A (Mass. super. Ct., Feb.
26, 2018), seeks injunction prohibiting Norton from erecting any
billboard or sign at the Locus pending resolution of this case.

The Plaintiff, on behalf of itself and others similarly situated,
brings this action to appeal a decision of the Defendant
Massachusetts Department of Transportation granting a permit to
the Defendant Michael Norton for the erection of a billboard at
749 East Broadway Street, South Boston, Massachusetts (the
"Locus"). The basis for this appeal is that the previous variance
granted to Norton on August 6, 2013 by the Board of Appeals was
abandoned by Defendant Norton and the underlying permit expired.

The Plaintiff is also seeking to appeal a decision of the
Commissioner of Boston Inspectional Services Department dated
October 17, 2017. This decision exceeded the scope of the
Commissioner's authority, and direct abutters and other aggrieved
persons were given NO notice of this unilateral decision until
after the expiration of the appeal period. Plaintiff also seeks
equitable relief as the granted variance is now null and void as
the permit has expired, and the prior nonconforming use has not
been used for four years.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Glen Hannington, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF GLEN HANNINGTON
          Ten Post Office Square, 8th Floor
          Boston, MA 02109
          Telephone: (617) 725 2828
          E-mail: glenhaimmgton@aol.com


BUFFALO TRACE: Court Narrows Claims in Bourbon Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Missouri, Eastern Division, issued an Opinion Memorandum and
Order granting in part and denying in part Defendant's Motion to
Dismiss the case captioned STEPHEN PENROSE, JAMES THOMAS, JOSEPH
GUARDINO, and DANIEL POPE on behalf of themselves and all others
similarlysituated, Plaintiffs, v. BUFFALO TRACE DISTILLERY, INC.,
OLD CHARTER DISTILLERY CO., and SAZERAC COMPANY, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 4:17CV294 HEA (E.D. Mo.).

Plaintiffs brought this putative class action alleging that
Defendants misrepresented that Old Charter bourbon has been aged
8 years. Plaintiffs assert claims for violation, inter alia, of
the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act (Count I), Deceptive
Acts or Practices, New York Gen. Bus. Law Section 349 (Count II),
False Advertising, New York Gen. Bus. Law Section 350.

Defendants represent that Old Charter is an 8-year aged bourbon.
That is false and misleading, the Plaintiffs allege.  Old Charter
used to be aged for 8 years, but Defendants stopped that practice
in approximately January 2014. The bourbon bearing the Old
Charter name is now aged for significantly less than 8 years and
is of inferior quality to its former self. But in an attempt to
upsell the newer, younger, and inferior product, Defendants'
bottle labeling still misleads consumers to believe that the
bourbon is aged 8 years.

In examining a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to
state a claim, the Court accepts all of Plaintiff's factual
allegations as true and construes those allegations in
Plaintiff's favour. To survive such a motion, Plaintiff's
complaint must include sufficient factual allegations to provide
the grounds on which the claim rests.

Defendants argue no reasonable consumer would infer that Old
Charter is aged for 8 years because of the number 8 alone. The
Court cannot conclude as a matter of law and at this stage of the
litigation that the packaging is not misleading, particularly in
light of Plaintiffs' allegations that previously, Old Charter was
aged 8 years. Consumers may just as likely have seen the 8, and
based on previous purchase, thought the 8 represented the years
of aging.

Safe Harbor

Defendants also argue that Plaintiffs Complaint is a prohibited
attack on the Alcohol Tax and Trade Bureau's (TTB) approval of
the Old Charter label statements. Defendants argue that in
advertising cases, compliance with federal regulations that
govern the alleged deception is a complete defense, citing Am.
Home Prods. Corp. v. Johnson & Johnson, 672 F.Supp. 135, 144
(S.D.N.Y. 1987).

Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act

Defendants argue that Plaintiffs' Magnuson-Moss claim fails
because bourbon's age is a description of the product and in no
way promises any level of performance for any period of time, as
required under the Magnuson-Moss act. Plaintiffs fail to address
this argument, and the Court agrees that Plaintiff's Complaint
fails to set forth what written warranty, as defined by the Act,
Plaintiffs contend was breached.

Count VI will be dismissed.

Fraud

Defendants contend Plaintiffs have not pled any specific facts
but rather rely on generalized allegations that Defendants'
intent was to induce Plaintiffs and the Class to purchase the
product at issue.

The Court has carefully reviewed Plaintiff's complaint and
concludes that it meets the standards of pleading with
particularity as set forth in Rule 9(b) because it adequately
alleges (i) the who: Old Charter; (ii) the what: the number 8 on
the bottles of Old Charter in several spots; (iii) the when:
purchases made beginning in January 2014 through the present;
(iv) the where: on the label of Old Charter Bourbon; (v) and the
how: by representing that Old Charter was aged 8 years.

Thus, Defendants' motion to dismiss on Rule 9(b) grounds will be
denied.

Unjust Enrichment

To establish the elements of an unjust enrichment claim, a
plaintiff must show, (1) it conferred a benefit on the defendant;
(2) the defendant appreciated the benefit; and (3) the defendant
accepted and retained the benefit under circumstances that are
inequitable or unjust.

The core of Plaintiffs' Complaint is that Defendants' labeling
practices mislead their consumers regarding the age of the
bourbon, and therefore its quality. Consumers rely on Defendants'
labels to be truthful and not misleading when making purchasing
decisions, and they have a right to so rely. Plaintiffs claim
they would not have purchased Defendants' product had they been
aware of the false or misleading nature of Defendants' labels.
Through this lens, it appears to this Court that it would be
unjust to permit Defendants to retain the monetary benefit
derived from Plaintiffs' purchases if, in fact, its labels are
false or misleading. Thus, Plaintiff has successfully stated a
claim for unjust enrichment.

Nationwide class standing

Defendants also argue that Plaintiffs have no standing to assert
claims under other states' laws. The Court finds persuasive the
majority of the authorities that follow the class certification
approach, limiting the standing inquiry to the named plaintiff's
individual standing, and deferring consideration of whether the
plaintiff may represent others until a later stage.

Here, the standing doctrine's focus on ensuring that a case or
controversy exists has been satisfied with respect to Plaintiffs'
individual claims. However, at this stage of the litigation,
there is neither evidence nor briefing before the Court
concerning Plaintiffs' ability to represent others under the
requirements of Rule 23(a).

Therefore, whether Plaintiffs may pursue claims on behalf of
others is a question that is appropriately deferred.

Negligent Misrepresentation

The Court agrees with Defendants that Plaintiffs' failure to
address the challenge to their negligent misrepresentation claim
essentially concedes the failure to state a claim of negligent
misrepresentation. Count IX will be dismissed.

Express Warranty

To prevail on breach of express warranty, a plaintiff is required
to show that a seller: (1) sold goods to the plaintiff; (2) made
a statement of fact about the kind or quality of those goods; (3)
the statement was a material factor that induced the plaintiff's
purchase; (4) the goods did not conform to that statement of
fact; (5) the nonconformity injured the buyer, and; (6) the buyer
notified the seller of the nonconformity of the goods in a timely
manner.

Plaintiff adequately pleaded a claim for breach of express
warranty. The labels at issue in this case represent express
warranties. The label tells purchasers that the bourbon has been
aged for 8 seasons, which could be construed as years because of
previous labeling. Plaintiffs allege that the products do not
conform to that statement Furthermore, Plaintiffs allege reliance
on the label and that they were material in making their
purchasing decisions.

Implied Warranty of Merchantability

Claims that a defendant breached the implied warranty of
merchantability require that a plaintiff prove that defendant:
(1) sold goods to the plaintiff; (2) that were not merchantable
at the time of the sale; (3) the plaintiff suffered injury or
damages to himself or his property; (4) the defective nature of
the goods was the proximate cause of the harm, and; (5) plaintiff
gave notice to the defendant.

Nothing in Plaintiff's complaint indicates a lack of
merchantability. They make only conclusory allegations that the
products were not merchantable. The products at issue are food
products, and Plaintiffs' allegations give no reason to believe
that the products were unfit for their ordinary purpose:
consumption as food by humans. Rather, Plaintiffs' Complaint is
fundamentally premised on allegations that the products did not
meet Plaintiffs' expectations. That is not sufficient to
establish a breach of the implied warranty of merchantability.

Count VII will be dismissed.

Motion to Dismiss is granted in part and denied in part.

Counts VI, VII, and IX are dismissed, without prejudice.

A full-text copy of the District Court's February 5, 2018 Opinion
Memorandum and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yd29ob7l
from Leagle.com.

Stephen Penrose, James Thomas, Joseph Guardino & Daniel Pope, on
behalf of themselves and all others similary situated,
Plaintiffs, represented by Yitzchak Kopel -- ykopel@bursor.com --
BURSOR AND FISHER, P.A.

Buffalo Trace Distillery, Inc., Old Charter Distillery Co. &
Sazerac Company, Inc., Defendants, represented by Michelle Carrie
Doolin -- mdoolin@cooley.com -- COOLEY, LLP, William R. Bay --
wbay@thompsoncoburn.com -- THOMPSON COBURN, LLP, Brandi Lynne
Burke, THOMPSON COBURN, LLP, 505 N. 7th Street Saint Louis, MO,
63101-1612 & Darcie Allison Tilly -- dtilly@cooley.com -- COOLEY,
LLP.


BUILDING BLOCK: Fails to Pay Wages, "David-Colar" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------
FLORINA DAVID-COLAR, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BUILDING BLOCK RESOLUTIONS,
INC.; JENNIFER CHARLES; and DOES 1-50, Defendants, Case No.
BC694767 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Feb. 21, 2018) alleges
that the Defendants failed to provide the Plaintiff and all other
similarly situated individuals with meal and rest periods, and to
pay them overtime wages at the correct rate.

Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants on April 15, 2017 to
November 2017, as tutor for autistic children.

Building Block Resolutions, Inc. provides Applied Behavior
Analysis (ABA) services to children diagnosed with Autism. The
Company serve Los Angeles, Orange County, and surrounding areas.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CANADA: Class Action Mulled to Push for Cannabis Amnesty
--------------------------------------------------------
Asheley Rice, writing for Health Thoroughfare, reports that
Falconers LLP lawyer Anthony Morgan's phone has been ringing off
the hook.  The calls coming in are parents of young black men who
want to know if the cannabis possession charges hampering their
son's lives are going to be expunged come cannabis legalization
later this year.

While the pressure is mounting, and the Liberal government has
spoken about amnesty for past cannabis crimes, any move in this
direction will likely be delayed until after legalization occurs.

This isn't fast enough for members of black communities all over
the country, which has prompted lawyers to consider filing a
class-action lawsuit to keep the pressure on.

Morgan, among others, is considering the option of litigation if
the government is too slow to act on this proposal, saying, "They
(the Liberals) are going to have to respond -- and it's probably
best that they respond internally and in a proactive way, as
opposed to a reactive way where much is spent on litigation to
move this forward."

Canadian black communities have a history fraught with trouble
from cannabis, and amnesty could finally mark a break in the
cycle.  Morgan displayed his feelings in an analysis published in
magazine Policy Options.  As Black History Month has begun, the
focus on this issue has been brought further into the light.
Justin Trudeau has been joined by NDP leader Jagmeet Singh and
author Robyn Maynard in expressing the need to tackle the very
real issue of anti-black racism.

Statistics show that blacks constitute 8.6 percent of all federal
inmates, which is at odds with statistics showing that blacks
only making up 3.5 percent of the general population.  "In 2014,
of almost 2,200 inmates with drug charges, 12 percent were
black," voiced Robyn Maynard, who authored the book "Policing
Black Lives."

Statistics also show that the black community is in fact not more
prone to using drugs than any other, which makes the number of
blacks convicted on drug charges point to a failure of the
policing system.  Even Justin Trudeau himself openly admitted to
cannabis use and has spoken about how his father assisted in
helping his brother avoid cannabis charges.  Revelations like
these add fuel to the argument that treatment has not been fair
or just.  Assistant professor of sociology from the University of
Toronto, Akwasi Owusu-Bempath has called for a federal apology
regarding "discriminatory and disparate treatment, "as well as
amnesty for past cannabis convictions.

The so-called "War on Drugs" of the 1980's and 90's set the stage
for the historical link between black communities and drug usage.
Anthony Morgan recalls being asked for drugs on a repeated basis
because of his skin colour while he was in school, and says his
experiences are quite common for young black males.

With the introduction of the Cannabis Act in April of last year,
the Liberal government has been pressured to come up with a
suitable amnesty program to account for the disproportionate
effects on minorities.  There is currently no timeline for
cannabis amnesty to be rolled out, but the government is looking
at all legal implications.  Bill Blair stated that all discussion
so far has centered on crimes of cannabis possession, and not
cannabis trafficking.

It would be detrimental for the government to act slowly towards
amnesty for cannabis, as holding onto any records or convictions
would be pointless.  However, it is important to determine a
framework of what convictions are eligible, how to roll out the
pardons and how to help those affected integrate or find work.  A
potential idea is that those who have had their work affected by
cannabis convictions may find employment in the cannabis
industry, as cannabis companies are already hiring people with
prior experience.

It's a new field, and innovation will be key, but with a guided
and compassionate approach -- the government has the power to
change a lot of lives for the better. [GN]


CAPITAL MANAGEMENT: Faces "Regan" Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Capital Management
Services, LP. The case is styled as Kristin Regan, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Capital
Management Services, LP, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-01412 (E.D.
N.Y., March 7, 2018).

Capital Management Services L.P. is a nationally licensed and
recognized collections agency, providing the highest level of
delinquent receivables resolution.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Daniel C Cohen, Esq.
   Cohen & Mizrahi LLP
   300 Cadman Plaza West
   12th Floor
   Brooklyn, NY 11201
   Tel: (929) 575-4175
   Fax: (929) 575-4195
   Email: dan@cml.legal


CASH BIZ: Ruling Blocks Borrowers to Pursue Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
John Council, writing for Law.com, reports that in an 8-0
decision, the Texas Supreme Court ruled that a payday lender did
not waive civil litigation arbitration agreements it had with
customers by seeking criminal charges against them -- landing
some of the borrowers in jail.

The recent ruling in Henry v. Cash Biz blocked a group of
plaintiffs from pursuing a class action suit in Texas state
district court against Cash Biz, a now bankrupt payday lender
that borrowers allege wrongfully used the criminal justice system
to collect unpaid loans by filing false criminal charges.

As is normal practice with payday loans, Cash Biz required
borrowers to provide a post-dated check in the amount of the loan
plus the finance charge.  If a borrower defaulted, Cash Biz
deposited the post-dated check to satisfy the loan.

As part of the process for obtaining a loan, borrowers signed a
written agreement containing an arbitration provision in which
they agreed to give up their right to go to court over any
dispute involving the loan and prevented the arbitrator from
hearing class arbitration cases.

The plaintiffs in the case obtained loans from Cash Biz and
subsequently defaulted on their repayment obligations. Cash Biz
attempted to deposit their posted-dated checks but the checks
were declined for insufficient funds.

Cash Biz later pursued bad check criminal charges against the
borrowers.  The criminal charges were eventually dismissed
against some of the borrowers but several were arrested and
detained and were assessed jail time as punishment.

The plaintiffs later filed a class action case against Cash Biz
in a Texas state court alleging the payday lender wrongfully used
the criminal justice system to collect the payday loans in
violation of the Texas Finance Code, malicious prosecution and
fraud among other things.

Cash Biz responded by filing a motion to compel arbitration under
the contracts they had with the plaintiff borrowers in order to
remove the case from state court.

The trial court denied Cash Biz's motion to compel arbitration
after concluding the lender had waived its right to arbitration
by filing criminal charges against the plaintiffs and
participating in criminal trails to collect from them.

But San Antonio's Fourth Court of Appeals reversed the trial
court's decision, reasoning that because the plaintiffs' actions
fell within the scope of the arbitration agreement that Cash
Biz's filing a criminal complaint was not an act that
substantially invoked the judicial process.

And the Texas Supreme Court affirmed that Fourth Court's decision
after concluding the record did not reflect that Cash Biz had
actually filed criminal charges against borrowers.  Rather, the
high court noted an affidavit from a Cash Biz representative
named David Flanagan who stated that "Cash Biz simply left the
information entirely to the discretion of the district attorney"
and any action was made "completely on his/her own."

"The borrowers simply provided no evidence of any actions by Cash
Biz related to the criminal charges other than evidence that Cash
Biz was the complainant in them," wrote Justice Phil Johnson.
"This evidence alone does not meet the borrowers' burden to prove
that Cash Biz substantially invoked the judicial process."

Justice Johnson also noted that their opinion conflicts with Vine
v. PLS Financial Services, a 2017 per curiam decision from the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit that reached the
opposite conclusion.  In that case the Fifth Circuit ruled that a
payday lender had waived its right to an enforce arbitration
provision it had with borrowers by submitting bad check
affidavits to prosecuting attorneys.

"With due respect, and recognizing that it is important for
federal and state law to be as consistent as possible in this
area where we have concurrent jurisdiction, we agree with the
dissenting justice in Vine," Justice Johnson wrote.  "We
conclude, as he did, that although some lenders may be 'gaming
the system' by taking actions like the lenders took there and
Cash Biz took here, more is required for waiver of a contractual
right to arbitrate."

Ed Hubbard, a Houston attorney who represents Cash Biz on appeal,
said the Texas high court made the right call.

"This was an 8-0 opinion. As controversial as some people may
have think this was, it really wasn't when it comes to enforcing
arbitration law," Mr. Hubbard said.

"What you have to keep in perspective here is the criminal and
civil systems are completely different.  And these are two
completely different matters," Mr. Hubbard said of the bad-check
cases and the plaintiffs civil complaint.  "There are parallel
civil and criminal proceedings that go on all of the time in this
country and if the civil dispute is arbitrable -- if it's subject
to an arbitration agreement -- it is arbitrable."

Daniel Dutko, a Houston attorney who represents the borrowers in
the case, did not return a call for comment.

It's now up to an arbitrator to decide whether the plaintiffs
deserve recourse, Hubbard said.

"The arbitrator will decide the plaintiff's claim whether this
was an improper method of debt collection -- I would assume that
would be the central issue in front of the arbitrator," he said.
[GN]


CASMOS CAFE: Faces "Dicarlo" Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
------------------------------------------------------
David Dicarlo, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Casmos Cafe, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
2:18-cv-00802-RBS (E.D. Pa., Feb. 20, 2018), alleges Defendant's
violation of The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. The
case is assigned to Judge R. Barclay Surrick.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          C.K. Lee, Esq.
          LEE LITIGATION GROUP PLLC
          30 East 39th Street
          Second Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 465-1188
          E-mail: cklee@leelitigation.com


CHARLES SCHWAB: Appeals Arbitration Ruling in "Dorman" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Defendant in the case, Michael F. Dorman, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. The
Charles Schwab Corporation; Charles Schwab & Co., Inc.; Schwab
Retirement Plan Services, Inc; Charles Schwab Bank; Charles
Schwab Investment Management, Inc.; Walter W. Bettinger III;
Charles R. Schwab; Joseph R. Martinetto; Martha Tuma; Jay Allen;
Dave Callahan and John C. Clark, has filed an appeal from a
ruling by the U.S. District Court for Northern California,
Oakland (Case No. 4:17-cv-00285-CW) to the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit.  The appellate case is assigned Case No.
18-15281 (Cal. App., Feb. 21, 2018).

As reported by the Class Action Reporter, the District Court
issued an Order denying Defendant's Motion to Compel Arbitration
in the case.

Before the Court is Defendant's motion to compel individual
arbitration of Plaintiff Michael F. Dorman's claims against
Defendants and to stay or dismiss this action while the
arbitration is pending. Alternatively, Defendants move to stay
the action pending a ruling by the Supreme Court in Morris v.
Ernst & Young, LLP, 834 F.3d 975 (9th Cir. 2016).

Dorman was employed at Charles Schwab & Co., Inc. for six years,
until he left the company. Shortly after starting his employment,
he completed a Uniform Application for Securities Industry
Registration or Transfer (Form U-4), which is required for all
registered representatives under the Financial Industry
Regulatory Authority (FINRA) rules.

Dorman electronically signed an Acknowledgment of the Schwab
Investor Financial Consultant Compensation Plan (Compensation
Plan Acknowledgment). The Compensation Plan describes the
compensation structure of a financial consultant (FC) like
Dorman. The Acknowledgment contains a section entitled 11.0
Arbitration of Disputes.

The Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) provides that any agreement
within its scope shall be valid, irrevocable, and enforceable,
save upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the
revocation of any contract. The FAA represents a liberal federal
policy favoring arbitration agreement, notwithstanding any state
substantive or procedural policies to the contrary.

Defendants contend that the Plan Document, Form U-4, and the
Compensation Plan Acknowledgment are valid agreements that
require arbitration under the FAA.

Defendants provide no authority supporting their contention that
a plan document executed after the participant has ceased
participation in the plan can bind the participant to
arbitration. But there is no indication that the plan's mandatory
arbitration clause was enacted after the plaintiff ceased all
participation in the plan. The remaining cases cited by
Defendants are similarly unavailing because, in each case, the
plan document was in effect while the plaintiff participated in
the plan.  The Plan Document therefore does not bind Dorman.

Defendants argue that Form U-4's arbitration provision
encompasses Dorman's claims because the provision covers any
dispute, claim or controversy between Dorman and Schwab.
Defendants read this provision out of context.  The arbitration
provision does not apply to any dispute between Dorman and
Schwab, but only those that are required to be arbitrated under
the rules, constitutions, or by-laws of the SROS indicated in
Section 4. Section 4 of Form U-4 lists a number of SROs, or self-
regulatory organizations such as FINRA, but mentions nothing
whatsoever about the Plan. Defendants fail to explain adequately
why the language of this provision encompasses Dorman's claims.

The Compensation Plan Acknowledgment arbitration and class action
provisions are limited to claims arising out of or relating to
the financial consultant's employment or the termination of
employment.  Dorman's claims, which arise not under the
Compensation Plan but under the SchwabPlan, are therefore
governed by the claims procedures of the SchwabPlan.
Because the arbitration provisions cited by Defendants do not
encompass Dorman's claims, they do not require him to submit his
claims to arbitration.

Even if the arbitration provisions cited by Defendants
encompassed Dorman's claims, the provisions could not be
enforced. Dorman brings his claims pursuant to Sections 502(a)(2)
and 502(a)(3) on behalf of the plan. He cannot waive rights that
belong to the Plan, such as the right to file this action in
court.

The Court recently resolved this question in a similar case,
Cryer v. Franklin Templeton Res., Inc., 2017 WL 4410103 (N.D.
Cal. Oct. 4, 2017). There, a release and class action waiver
signed by the plaintiff could not be enforced against the
plaintiff's Section 502(a)(2) claims brought on behalf of the
plan. Relying on Bowles v. Reade, 198 F.3d 752 (9th Cir. 1999),
the Court explained that a plan participant cannot settle,
without the plan's consent, a Section 502(a)(2) breach of
fiduciary duty claim seeking a return to the plan and all
participants of all losses incurred and any profits gained from
the alleged breach of fiduciary duty.

Here, too, enforcement of the arbitration and class action
provisions would violate the principles set forth in Bowles v.
Reade. Dorman brings Sections 502(a)(2) and 502(a)(3) claims
seeking to restore losses incurred by the Plan.  As a result, he
cannot release the right to file a claim in court or the right to
file a class action, both of which belong to the Plan.

The Court denies Defendants' motion to compel arbitration.

A full-text copy of the District Court's January 18, 2018 Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/yayq995r from Leagle.com.

The Charles Schwab Corporation, through its subsidiaries,
provides wealth management, securities brokerage, banking, asset
management, custody, and financial advisory services. The company
serves individuals and institutional clients in the United
States, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, England, Hong Kong,
Singapore, and Australia. The Charles Schwab Corporation was
founded in 1971 and is headquartered in San Francisco,
California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shanon Jude Carson, Esq.
          BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
          1622 Locust Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 875-3000

               - and -

          Todd Collins, Esq.
          BERGER& MONTAGUE, P.C.
          1622 Locust Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 875-3000

               - and -

          Todd M. Schneider, Esq.
          SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL
          KONECKY WOTKYNS LLP
          2000 Powell Street Suite 1400
          Emeryville, CA 94608

               - and -

          Garrett W. Wotkyns, Esq.
          SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL
          KONECKY WOTKYNS LLP
          7702 E. Doubletree Ranch Road
          Scottsdale, AZ 85258
          Telephone: (480) 607-4368

The Defendants are represented by:

          Ronald Scott Kravitz, Esq.
          SHEPHERD FINKELMAN MILLER & SHAH LLP
          44 Montgomery Street, Suite 650
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 429-5272

               - and -

          Myron D. Rumeld, Esq.
          PROSKAUER ROSE LLP
          11 Times Square
          New York, NY 10036-8299
          Telephone: (212) 969-3000

               - and -

          Howard Shapiro, Esq.
          PROSKAUER ROSE
          650 Poydras Street
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Telephone: (504) 310-4085


CHERRY CHIROPRACTIC: Curtis & Salas Allege Wrongful Termination
---------------------------------------------------------------
Brittany Curtis and Belinda Salas, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Cherry Chiropractic
Corporation; Joint Ventures, LLC; and Does 1-100, Defendants,
Case No. 34-2018-00227493-CU-WT-GDS (Cal. Super., Sacramento
Cty., Feb. 21, 2018) alleges wrongful termination.

A Case Management Conference is scheduled for August 23, 2018, at
8:30 a.m., in Department 23 at Gordon D Schaber Courthouse.

Cherry Chiropractic is located in Sacramento, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by Galen T. Shimoda, Esq.


CHICAGO EDUCATION BOARD: Minors Sue over Handicapped Child Act
--------------------------------------------------------------
E. V.; G. G.; R. L.; J. B.; S. C.; J. M.; O. L.; M. P.; Victoria
G.; Hector P.; Aixia H.; Carlos V.; Asencion G.; Mireya L.;
Miriam B.; Christy C.; Rosalba C.; Xi Long L.; Izabela P. for
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Board
Of Education Of The City Of Chicago; Janice Jackson, Dr., Chief
Executive Officer, in her official capacity; Illinois State Board
Of Education; Tony Smith, Dr. State Superintendent of Education,
in his official capacity, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-00621
(N.D. Ill., Jan. 29, 2018) is a class action against the
Defendants for violating the Education Handicapped Child Act.

The Board of Education of The City of Chicago engages in the
governance, organizational, and financial oversight of Chicago
Public Schools (CPS) in the United States. The company was
founded in 1840 and is based in Chicago, Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Donna M. Welch, Esq.
          KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
          300 North LaSalle Street
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 862-2000
          E-mail: dwelch@kirkland.com

               - and -

          Olga Frances Pribyl, Esq.
          EQUIP FOR EQUALITY
          20 North Michigan Avenue, Suite 300
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 895-7321
          E-mail: olga@equipforequality.org

               - and -

          Alec Jason Solotorovsky, Esq.
          KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
          300 North LaSalle Street
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 862-7173
          E-mail: alec.solotorovsky@kirkland.com

               - and -

          Barry Charlton Taylor, Esq.
          EQUIP FOR EQUALITY
          20 North Michigan, Suite 300
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 895-7317
          E-mail: barryt@equipforequality.org

               - and -

          Jennifer Molly Pinsof, Esq.
          KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
          300 North Lasalle Street
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 862-2000
          E-mail: jennifer.pinsof@kirkland.com

               - and -

          Margaret Mcauslan Wakelin, Esq.
          EQUIP FOR EQUALITY
          20 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 300
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 895-7338
          E-mail: margie@equipforequality.org

               - and -

          Margo L. Weinstein, Esq.
          EQUIP FOR EQUALITY
          20 N. Michigan Ave, Suite 300
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 341-0022
          E-mail: margow@equipforequality.org


COMMONWEALTH BANK: Denies Liability in Shareholder Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Australian Associated Press reports that Commonwealth Bank
has denied liability in a shareholder class action alleging it
breached continuous disclosure obligations with its handling of
AUSTRAC's investigations into its compliance with money-
laundering and terrorism-funding laws.

Australia's largest bank on Feb. 23 partially admitted to 11 of
the 100 additional allegations in the amended statement of claim
filed by AUSTRAC in December, but denied misleading shareholders
by not revealing the regulator's concerns when it was first
alerted to them in 2015.

"We consider that we have complied with our continuous disclosure
obligations at all times," CBA said in a statement.

"There was no price sensitive information about the matters
raised in the AUSTRAC proceeding that required disclosure."

Law firm Maurice Blackburn filed the class action in the Federal
Court in Victoria in October, naming chairman Catherine
Livingstone and outgoing chief executive Ian Narev in its
statement of claim.

Maurice Blackburn said CBA publicly confessed that its board was
aware of the breaches in the second half of 2015, but the bank
said nothing to the Australian share market until August 2017.

Commonwealth Bank shares were 98 cents, or 1.3 per cent, higher
at $75.63 at 1448 AEDT, still lower than before AUSTRAC's
allegations were made public.

CBA on Feb. 23 also denied 89 of the additional 100 allegations
AUSTRAC filed in December, but partially admitted to the
remainder involving late, missing or incomplete reports about
potentially suspicious transactions.

The lender in February reported a 1.9 per cent fall in first-half
profit after setting aside $375 million for potential penalties
in its Federal Court tussle with AUSTRAC. [GN]


CONNECT AMERICA: Made Unsolicited Calls, "Hobbs" Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Keith Hobbs, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Connect America.com, LLC, a/k/a Medical
Alert, and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
2:18-cv-00768-NIQA (E.D. Pa., Feb. 20, 2018) alleges that
Defendant has made unsolicited calls in violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Connect America.com, LLC provides mobile medical alert systems.
The Company offers medical alert system kit including alert
mobile unit, plug in battery charger, and instruction manual.
Connect America.com serves customers in the United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Cynthia Z. Levin, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, PC
          1150 First Avenue Suite 501
          King of Prussia, PA 19406
          Telephone: (888) 595-9111
          E-mail: czlevin@comcast.net


CRESCENT HOTELS: Faces "Levin" Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Crescent Hotels &
Resorts, LLC. The case is captioned as Joanne Kleiner Levin, as
legal guardian of Joy Barbara Levin, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Crescent Hotels &
Resorts, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-00741-RK (E.D. Pa.,
Feb. 20, 2018).

Crescent Hotels & Resorts, LLC, a hotel management company,
operates hotels and resorts in the United States and Canada.
Crescent Hotels & Resorts, LLC was formerly known as Crescent
Hospitality Corporation and changed its name to Crescent Hotels &
Resorts, LLC in September 2006. The company was founded in 2001
and is headquartered in Fairfax, Virginia. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

           R. Bruce Carlson, Esq.
           CARLSON LYNCH SWEET & KILPELA, LLP
           1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
           Pittsburg, PA 15222
           Telephone: (412) 322-9293
           E-mail: bcarlson@carlsonlynch.com


CSX TRANSPORTATION: Blount Cty. Train Crash Evacuees Settle Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jamie Satterfield, writing for USA TODAY NETWORK, reports that a
group of Blount County residents forced to evacuate when a 2015
train derailment sent plumes of toxic gas into the air have
settled lawsuits with the railroad company but are now looking to
wring damages from a rail car maker.

A trial was set to begin on Feb. 26, in U.S. District Court over
a July 2015 freight train derailment in Maryville that sent
poisonous smoke into the air and more than 100 people to the
hospital.

A broken axle on a single rail car hauling 24,000 gallons of a
toxic chemical derailed the 57-car train, causing a fire that
burned for 19 hours, authorities said.

About 5,000 people in a 2-mile radius in Blount County were
forced to evacuate their homes.  At least 87 people had to be
treated, with 36 admitted to the hospital, and 10 first-
responders also required treatment for the effects of exposure to
the noxious smoke.  A fish kill was later reported, and area
wells tested.

The rail car was carrying a chemical, acrylonitrile, used in the
manufacture of plastics.  The substance is considered
carcinogenic, and exposure can burn the skin, inflame the lining
of the lungs, throat and nose, and cause headaches, nausea and
dizziness.  Cyanide is a byproduct of burning acrylonitrile.

CSX paid more than $3.5 million in damages to evacuated citizens
and business owners whose firms were shut down for economic
losses and medical bills and to the governments of Maryville and
Blount County for its expenses.

Lawsuits, claims
But two categories of Blount County citizens -- residents of the
evacuation zone and emergency and police workers -- filed
lawsuits against the railroad company and Union Tank Car Co.

The emergency workers allege actual damages from exposure to the
toxic gas.  Their cases were not part of the Feb. 26 trial in
Chief U.S. District Judge Tom Varlan's courtroom and will be
tried later.

The trial, instead, would involve three lawsuits filed on behalf
of 10 residents of the evacuation zone, none of whom allege
direct damage from exposure to the poisonous smoke.  There are a
half-dozen similar suits still pending.

Judge Varlan refused to grant class-action status in the
litigation, which would have allowed a single trial on behalf of
anyone in the evacuation zone claiming harm.

Court records show they've already settled with CSX, which was
accused of negligence for, among other things, dragging the rail
car carrying the toxic chemicals nearly 10 miles after an axle on
the car broke.

The dragging caused the rail car to rupture and catch fire, the
lawsuits alleged.  The terms of the settlement were not made
public in court records.

Now, the residents are targeting Union Tank Car Company, which
manufactured the rail car at issue in 1994.  They allege a wheel
roller bearing on the rail car "failed due to overheating" and
blame the tank car company for that.

Union Tank Car, in turn, says it was up to CSX to inspect the
condition of the rail car before the train left Ohio en route to
Georgia. [GN]


DREAMWORKS ANIMATION: April 18 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
--------------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Bernstein Litowitz
Berger & Grossmann LLP, Friedman Oster & Tejtel PLLC, Grant &
Eisenhofer P.A., and Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP regarding
In re DreamWorks Animation SKG, Inc., C.A. No. 12619-CB (Del.
Ch.)

IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

IN RE DREAMWORKS ANIMATION SKG, INC.

C.A. No. 12619-CB

SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF STOCKHOLDER
CLASS ACTION, SETTLEMENT HEARING, AND RIGHT TO APPEAR

TO: All record holders and beneficial holders of DreamWorks
Animation SKG, Inc. ("DreamWorks") Class A common stock
("DreamWorks Common Stock") whose shares of DreamWorks Common
Stock were exchanged for $41.00 per share in cash paid in
connection with the acquisition of DreamWorks by Comcast
Corporation (the "Settlement Class").1

PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY.  YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED
BY A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Delaware Court of Chancery
Rules 23(a), 23(b)(1) and 23(b)(2) and an Order of the Delaware
Court of Chancery (the "Court"), that the above-captioned action
(the "Action") has been preliminarily certified as a non-opt out
class action on behalf of the Settlement Class, except for
certain persons and entities who are excluded from the Settlement
Class by definition as set forth in the Stipulation of Settlement
and the full printed Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement
of Stockholder Class Action, Settlement Hearing, and Right to
Appear (the "Long-Form Notice").  Copies of the Stipulation and
the Long-Form Notice are available for review at
www.DreamWorksLitigation.com.

YOU ARE ALSO HEREBY NOTIFIED that Plaintiffs in the Action, on
behalf of themselves and the other members of the Settlement
Class, have reached a proposed settlement of the Action for
$4,500,000 in cash (the "Settlement") on the terms and conditions
set forth in the Stipulation of Settlement.  If the Settlement is
approved by the Court, it will resolve all claims in the Action.

IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE SETTLEMENT CLASS, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE
AFFECTED BY THE PENDING ACTION AND THE SETTLEMENT.  A Postcard
Notice is currently being mailed to known members of the
Settlement Class, and the Long-Form Notice is available at
www.DreamWorksLitigation.com or by contacting the Settlement
Administrator at:

         DreamWorks Stockholders Litigation
         c/o GCG
         PO Box 10560
         Dublin, OH 43017-7260
         1-800-231-1815

Inquiries, other than requests for the Postcard Notice, may be
made to following Co-Lead Counsel for the Settlement Class:

         Michael J. Barry, Esq.
         Grant & Eisenhofer P.A.
         123 Justison Street
         Wilmington, DE  19801
         1-302-622-7000

         Michael C. Wagner, Esq.
         Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP
         280 King of Prussia Road
         Radnor, PA  19087
         1-610-667-7706

A Settlement Hearing will be held on April 18, 2018 at 10:00 a.m.
at the Court of Chancery in the Leonard L. Williams Justice
Center (formerly New Castle County Courthouse), 500 North King
Street, Wilmington, DE 19801, to determine, among other things,
(i) whether the proposed Settlement should be approved as fair,
reasonable, and adequate; (ii) whether the Action should be
dismissed with prejudice and the Releases specified and described
in the Stipulation of Settlement (and in the Long-Form Notice)
should be granted; and (iii) whether Co-Lead Counsel's
application for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of
Litigation Expenses should be approved.

If the Settlement is approved by the Court and the Effective Date
occurs, the Net Settlement Fund will be distributed to the
Settlement Class on a pro rata basis.  Specifically, each
beneficial owner of any shares of DreamWorks Common Stock as of
the closing of the August 22, 2016 Merger (except for the
Excluded Persons) ("Eligible Beneficial Owner") will receive a
pro rata distribution from the Net Settlement Fund equal to the
product of (i) the Net Settlement Fund and (ii) a fraction, the
numerator of which is the number of Eligible Shares held by such
Settlement Class Member, and the denominator of which is a number
representing the total number of Eligible Shares held by all
Eligible Beneficial Owners (the "Per-Share Recovery").  As
explained in further detail in the Long-Form Notice, which is
available for review at www.DreamWorksLitigation.com, the Per
Share Recovery will be paid to Eligible Beneficial Owners in the
same manner in which Eligible Beneficial Owners received the
Merger Consideration.  Eligible Beneficial Owners do not have to
submit a claim form or take any other action in order to receive
payment from the Settlement.

Any objections to the proposed Settlement and/or Co-Lead
Counsel's application for an award of attorneys' fees and
reimbursement of Litigation Expenses, must be filed with the
Register in Chancery and delivered to Representative Co-Lead
Counsel and Representative Defendant's Counsel such that they are
received no later than April 9, 2018, in accordance with the
instructions set forth in the Long-Form Notice.

DO NOT CALL OR WRITE THE COURT OR THE OFFICE OF THE REGISTER IN
CHANCERY REGARDING THIS NOTICE.

BY ORDER OF THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

Dated: January 17, 2018

1 Any capitalized terms used herein that are not otherwise
defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed to them in the
Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, Compromise and Release
dated January 9, 2018 (the "Stipulation of Settlement"), which is
available at www.DreamWorksLitigation.com. [GN]


DYNAMIC RECOVERY: Faces "Alexander" Suit in S.D. Texas
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dynamic Recovery
Solutions, LLC. The case is styled as Ashley Alexander,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Dynamic Recovery Solutions, LLC, LVNV Funding, LLC
and John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 4:18-cv-00730 (S.D.
Tex., March 7, 2018).
Dynamic Recovery Solutions, LLC is engaged in collecting
debt.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Jonathan David Kandelshein, Esq.
   The Law Office of Jonathan Kandelshein
   18208 Preston Rd, Ste D-9 No. 256
   Dallas, TX 75252
   Tel: (646) 753-0149
   Email: Jonathan.kandelshein@gmail.com


DYNAMIC RECOVERY: Faces "Romero" Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dynamic Recovery
Solutions, LLC. The case is styled as Jasmine Romero,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Dynamic Recovery Solutions, LLC and Cavalry SPV I,
LLC, Defendants, Case No. 7:18-cv-02069 (S.D. N.Y., March 7,
2018).

Dynamic Recovery Solutions, also called DRS, is a debt collection
agency.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


EMERY FEDERAL: Settlement Obtains Preliminary Court Approval
------------------------------------------------------------
Chandra Lye, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that preliminary
approval has been given to a class action settlement involving
Emery Federal Credit Union.

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio,
Cincinnati Division granted the motion on Jan. 25.

The settlement follows a lawsuit filed by Frank and Shelly
Palombaro; Kevin and Jennifer McAlpin; Gary Ratcliff and David
and Melinda Alvarado; and others who took out a mortgage from the
credit union between 2009 and 2014.

They claimed the financial institution violated the Real Estate
Settlement Procedures Act and had an unethical relationship with
Genuine Title LLC, a title services company.

"The court finds that the settlement was reached through an arms-
length negotiation after due investigation and discovery by the
plaintiffs' counsel and that the settlement provides significant
benefits for the Emery class," Judge Susan Dlott wrote.

The court document states that notices will go out to the last
known address of all those who may be covered by the settlement.

"Members of the Emery class shall have the right to opt-out of
the Emery class, as provided for in section 9 of the settlement
agreement, by sending a written request for exclusion to the
settlement administrator no later than the exclusion deadline
defined in this order," the order approving the settlement says.

Plaintiffs attorneys are from the firms Smith, Gildea and
Schmidt; Joseph Greenwald and Laake; Keathing Muething & Klekamp.
They will later petition for attorneys fees.

Individuals who do not send in a request for exclusion will be
automatically included in the settlement.

However, there is a clause that allows Emery to back out of the
agreement if enough exclusions are reached.

"If more than five percent of the members of the Emery Class
submit complete and valid requests for exclusion, Emery shall
have the option to withdraw from the settlement upon written
notice to the court, filed up to thirty days after the exclusion
deadline," the court order states.

Those party to the agreement have also been given the option to
oppose it as it stands.

"Emery class members who choose to object to the settlement must
file written objections to the settlement with the court and
serve copies of any such objections on counsel for settling
parties by not later than the objection deadline," the order
states.

A final hearing is expected on July 10 at 10 a.m. at the
courthouse.

Judge Dlott wrote that at the Final Fairness Hearing, the court
will consider, inter alia, "any timely objections to the
fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy of the settlement, the
dismissal with prejudice of this action, whether class counsel's
petition for attorneys fees and expenses should be granted," and
other issues.

The court order also states that if the agreement fails to
receive final approval it becomes null and void.

Kurtzman Carson Consultants has been named the settlement
administrator while Frank and Shelly Palombaro, Kevin and
Jennifer McAlpin, Gary Ratcliff and David and Melinda Alvarado
are class representatives of the Emery class.

The Emery Federal Credit Union first opened in 1939 for those
employed by Emery Industries. It expanded in 1984 and again in
2016.  The financial organization can now be used by anyone in
the Hamilton, Butler or Warren counties of Ohio. [GN]


EQUIFAX INC: Amy Keller Named Co-Lead Plaintiffs' Counsel
---------------------------------------------------------
Chris Bruce, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that pick any two
people at random, and odds are good that one of them is affected
by a case now in the hands of attorney Amy E. Keller.

Ms. Keller -- akeller@dlcfirm.com -- a 34-year-old partner with
DiCello Levitt & Casey in Chicago whom legal colleagues call a
"rising superstar," was recently named as co-lead consumer
plaintiffs' counsel with two other lawyers in a massive court
case stemming from the 2017 data breach at Atlanta-based Equifax
Inc.

Equifax, in announcing the incident last year, said as many as
143 million U.S. consumers could be impacted, raising privacy and
security questions for nearly half of the U.S.

The case against Equifax is about more than numbers, according to
Keller, who said the information that was accessed, such as
Social Security numbers, is the kind that can't be changed.  That
means it will have lasting impact in ways that other breaches
don't or can't have, Ms. Keller told Bloomberg Law.

"This is something that has impacted and will impact peoples'
daily lives for a very long time," she said.

Equifax Discloses Intrusion

Equifax, one of the three major U.S. consumer credit reporting
agencies, disclosed the incident in September 2017, saying
criminals gained access to certain files between mid-May and July
of 2017.

A flood of class lawsuits that followed are now before the U.S.
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (MDL), a special body
that allows consolidated treatment of cases in different federal
districts that share common questions.

On Feb. 13, Keller was named as co-lead counsel for the consumer
plaintiffs before the MDL Panel, along with Kenneth S. Canfield
-- kcanfield@dsckd.com -- of Doffermyre Shields Canfield &
Knowles in Atlanta, and Norman E. Siegel --
siegel@stuevesiegel.com -- of Stueve Siegel Hanson in Kansas
City, Mo.  In general, their job is to manage pre-trial
proceedings on behalf of consumer plaintiffs, while overseeing
the work of other plaintiffs' counsel and taking on other duties
as needed, such as coordinating settlement discussions.

Ms. Keller said one early focus is to ensure that the case has
plaintiffs from all 50 states, saying the U.S. Supreme Court has
set a high bar for nationwide class actions.  Among other next
steps, she and other attorneys will be looking at the universe of
plaintiffs who have filed claims and trying to figure out who can
serve as the best representatives of the class.

Ms. Keller is "an exceptional choice" as co-lead counsel,
Jason L. Lichtman, a partner in the New York office of Lieff
Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, told Bloomberg Law.

"She's smart, tough, and practical with opposing counsel, and she
is one of the most talented people I know when it comes to the
nuts and bolts of actually managing a case and moving it forward
efficiently," said Mr. Lichtman, who also represents consumers in
litigation against Equifax.

Equifax spokeswoman Francesca De Girolami declined to comment on
the MDL proceedings.

Breaking Barriers

Ms. Keller's firm, DiCello, Levitt & Casey, is a plaintiffs' law
firm with offices in Chicago and Cleveland that opened for
business in April 2017.  Ms. Keller graduated from the John
Marshall Law School in Chicago in 2008, and settled into class
action work right away. "Being able to help people -- on such a
large scale -- really resonated with me," she said.

She's critical of mandatory binding arbitration clauses and
waivers that limit class actions, as well as efforts to cap
damages on jury awards and other relief.  The rights of consumers
have eroded in recent years and access to the courts is being
limited, she said.

"The American justice system works best when government and
private civil enforcement actions can proceed in tandem, ensuring
that wrongdoers are punished, and individuals can seek redress
for their injuries," Ms. Keller said.

For Ms. Keller, being tapped as co-lead counsel in the Equifax
case means she'll be representing more people than ever before.
The appointment is important for others as well because the MDL
culture has been an "old boys' club" for a long time, according
to Keller. That's changing as courts recognize the need to bring
differing perspectives to large, complex cases, she said.

"The millions of consumers we are representing in this case
include women, minorities, and younger consumers, so it only
makes sense that the attorneys representing them should have the
same diverse experiences to draw from," she said.

Writer, Dancer, and Singer

Ms. Keller sits on the board of directors of the Public Justice
Foundation, which supports what it calls "high-impact" lawsuits
to combat social and economic injustice, including suits by
Public Justice P.C.

F. Paul Bland Jr., executive director of Public Justice P.C.,
called Keller a force to reckon with among class action lawyers.
"She's got a deep and thoughtful understanding of the most
difficult issues in consumer class actions," Mr. Bland told
Bloomberg Law.

That will be important in this case, according to Bland, who said
its sheer size may affect efforts to gain relief for those
affected.  "This case is on such an incredibly large scale I
think it will be a challenge to get compensatory relief
commensurate with the harm the company's behavior has caused,"
Mr. Bland told Bloomberg Law.

Ms. Keller didn't always aim for class action work.  Early on,
she planned to practice historical preservation law, in part
after seeing the planned or actual renovation of buildings she
knew well and the potential loss of elaborate woodwork and
craftsmanship.  However, she's still engaged on that front as a
board member of the Chicago Art Deco Society, which works to
preserve and restore Art Deco-style structures in Chicago.

She's also active in a different artistic setting. Keller, along
with other attorneys in Chicago, has secured

Youtube star-status as a writer, dancer, and singer in the
Chicago Bar Association Bar Show, an annual music and comedy
production that's now in its 95th year.  "It might be hard to
believe, but many attorneys are very creative people," Ms. Keller
told Bloomberg Law.  "Being able to perform and put on a show
that makes light of current events and makes people laugh is
rewarding and a great outlet." [GN]


EQUIFAX INC: "Krueger" Suit Reassigned to Another Judge
-------------------------------------------------------
Nicole Perez Krueger, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Equifax, Inc., Defendant, was
reassigned due to self-recusal, from Judge Christina A. Snyder to
Judge Otis D. Wright, II, and assigned Case No. 2:18-cv-01402-ODW
(C.D. Cal., Feb. 20, 2018).

Equifax Inc. provides information solutions and human resources
business process outsourcing services for businesses,
governments, and consumers. It operates in the United States,
Canada, Argentina, Brazil, Australia, New Zealand, Chile, Costa
Rica, Ecuador, El Salvador, Honduras, Mexico, Paraguay, Uruguay,
Peru, Portugal, the Republic of Ireland, Spain, the United
Kingdom, Cambodia, Malaysia, India, Russia, and Singapore.
Equifax Inc. was founded in 1899 and is headquartered in Atlanta,
Georgia. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Francis J Flynn, Jr., Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF FRANCIS J FLYNN JR
          6220 West Third Street Suite 115
          Los Angeles, CA 90036
          Telephone: (323) 424-4194
          E-mail: francisflynnn@gmail.com


ETEAM INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wage, "Villalva" Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Brittney Villalva, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. eTeam, Inc.; Accenture, Inc.;
and Does 1 through 10, Defendants, Case No. 18CV323570 (Cal.
Super., Santa Clara Cty., Feb. 20, 2018) is an action against the
Defendants for unpaid regular hours, overtime hours, minimum
wages, wages for missed meal and rest periods.

Ms. Villalva was employed by the Defendants to work as a call
center employee at Google in San Jose, California.

eTeam, Inc. provides business and information solutions to
Fortune 1000 clients, government agencies, large integrators, and
IT consulting firms in the United States and internationally. The
company was founded in 1999 and is headquartered in South
Plainfield, New Jersey with additional offices in the United
States, Canada, and India.

Accenture, Inc. offers management consulting, systems integration
and technology, and outsourcing services. The company is based in
Chicago, Illinois with a delivery center in Ilocos Norte, the
Philippines. Accenture, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of
Accenture Holdings plc. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

           Gregory N. Karasik, Esq.
           KARASIK LAW FIRM
           11835 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 1275
           Los Angeles, CA 90064
           Telephone: (310) 312-6800
           Facsimile: (310) 943-2582
           E-mail: greg@karasiklawfirm.com


FACEBOOK INC: Settles Class Action Over 2012 IPO for $35-Mil.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Stempel, writing for Reuters, reports that Facebook Inc
and Chief Executive Mark Zuckerberg have reached a $35 million
settlement of class-action litigation accusing them of hiding
worries about the social media company's growth prior to its May
2012 initial public offering.

The preliminary settlement filed on Feb. 26 with the U.S.
District Court in Manhattan requires a judge's approval.

It amounts to a small fraction of Facebook's current market
value, which was more than $532 billion on Feb. 23.

Shareholders led by the Arkansas Teacher Retirement System and
Fresno County Employees' Retirement Association in California
accused Facebook of concealing internal concerns about how growth
in mobile devices might reduce revenue, even as it quietly warned
its banks to cut their forecasts.

Unlike in 2012, the Menlo Park, California-based company now
generates most of its revenue from mobile devices and has
estimated that mobile advertising generated more than 86 percent
of its $40.7 billion total revenue in 2017.

The settlement resolves claims against Facebook, officials
including Chief Operating Officer Sheryl Sandberg and director
Peter Thiel, and bank underwriters covering a five-day period
surrounding the $16 billion IPO, from May 17 to May 21, 2012.

Facebook made its market debut on May 18 of that year at $38 per
share and saw its share price languish below that level for more
than a year before it rebounded.

"Resolving this case is in the best interests of the company and
our shareholders," Associate General Counsel Sandeep Solanki said
in a statement.

A lawyer for the shareholders did not immediately respond to a
request for comment.

The settlement was reached after mediation, and provides an
average recovery of about 11 cents per share, or 7 cents per
share after possible legal fees and costs, court papers show.
Insurers may cover some of the payout.

Lawyers for the shareholders called the settlement "fair,
reasonable, and adequate," citing the risk of a loss at trial,
according to court papers.

In the Feb. 26 afternoon trading, Facebook shares were up 93
cents at $184.22 on the Nasdaq.

The case is In re: Facebook Inc IPO Securities and Derivative
Litigation, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York,
No. 12-md-02389. [GN]


FACEBOOK INC: Must Face Class Action Over Biometric Facial Data
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Iovino, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports
that rejecting suggestions on how the Founding Fathers might view
modern digital privacy rights, a federal judge on Feb. 22 refused
to dismiss a class action claiming Facebook harvested users'
biometric facial data without consent.

In 2016, Facebook attorneys argued in court that the authors of
the U.S. Constitution never intended that people be allowed to
sue Facebook in federal court for the mere violation of a law,
unless the plaintiffs suffered actual harm.

U.S. District Judge James Donato rejected that argument on
Feb. 26, finding Facebook's allegedly unauthorized collection of
biometric facial data caused "intangible harm" by depriving users
of control over their private data.

The social network sought to dismiss three consolidated class
actions brought by Facebook users in Illinois.  The lawsuits
claim Facebook's analyzing and storing of facial data for its
"Photo Tag Suggest" function violates the Illinois Biometric
Information Privacy Act (BIPA), enacted in 2008.

Under BIPA, companies are required to obtain consent before
collecting or disclosing biometric data, such as retina scans,
fingerprints, voiceprints, hand scans, or facial geometry.

"A violation of the BIPA notice and consent procedures infringes
the very privacy rights the Illinois legislature sought to
protect by enacting BIPA," Judge Donato wrote in his 10-page
ruling. "That is quintessentially an intangible harm that
constitutes a concrete injury in fact."

Judge Donato delayed ruling on Facebook's motion to dismiss for
more than a year as he waited for the Ninth Circuit to issue an
opinion in the remanded case, Robins v. Spokeo.  In Spokeo, the
Supreme Court ruled in May 2016 that a Virginia man could not sue
an online search engine for posting inaccurate information about
him unless he suffered actual harm as a result.

On remand, the Ninth Circuit held in August 2017 that Robins
could sue Spokeo because misinformation about his age, family and
economic status caused "concrete" harm that could affect his
ability to get a job, unlike more innocuous misinformation like a
wrong zip code.

"Our circuit has specifically affirmed findings of concrete
injury, and standing to sue, when plaintiffs were deprived of
procedures that protected privacy interests without any attendant
embarrassment, job loss, stress or other additional injury,"
Judge Donato wrote in his ruling.

Facebook has argued that its user agreement and data policy fully
complied with the Illinois privacy law.  Judge Donato found that
factual dispute must be decided at summary judgment or trial.

The judge denied Facebook's motion to dismiss for lack of
jurisdiction.

A hearing on the plaintiffs' motion for class certification is
scheduled for March 29 in San Francisco.

Attorneys for both sides did not immediately return phone calls
seeking comment on Feb. 26.

The plaintiffs are represented by Paul Geller --
PGeller@rgrdlaw.com -- of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd, in Boca
Raton, Florida.  Facebook is represented by Vincent Connelly --
vconnelly@mayerbrown.com -- of Mayer Brown, in Chicago.

Cofounded in 2004 by Harvard dropout and Facebook CEO Mark
Zuckerberg, the Menlo Park-based social network had 1.4 billion
active daily users as of December 2017 and was valued at $407.3
billion as of May 2017, according to Facebook and Forbes. [GN]


FEDERAL AUTO: Double Charged on Document Fees, "Higgs" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
DARIUS E. HIGGS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FEDERAL AUTO BROKERS, INC.,
d/b/a BM MOTORS CARS; and BORIS FIDELMAN, Defendants, Case No.
ESX-L-001272-18 (N.J. Super., Essex Cty., Feb. 21, 2018) alleges
that Defendants double charged the amount of the Document
Delivery Service due for customers' vehicles when they
electronically filed the sales documents and charged a Document
Delivery Service fee of $100. The New Jersey Motor Vehicle
Commission imposes a use charge of $8.30 which cannot be passed
on to the consumer or customers of the auto dealership.

Federal Auto Brokers, Inc., d/b/a BM Motors Cars operates a used
car dealership located at 1453 Lawrence Street, Rahway, NJ
007065. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lessie Hill, Esq.
          480 Nye Avenue
          Irvington, NJ 07111
          Telephone: (973) 373-0413


FIRST ALARM: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, "Stricklin" Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
ALIVIA STRICKLIN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FIRST ALARM SECURITY & PATROL,
INC.; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
18CV323753 (Cal. Super., Santa Clara Cty., Feb. 21, 2018) is an
action against the Defendants for unpaid regular hours, overtime
hours, minimum wages, wages for missed meal and rest periods in
violation of the California Labor Code.

Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant on July 26, 2017, to
October 24, 2017, as security guard.

First Alarm Security & Patrol, Inc. provides professional
security and patrol services to commercial and industrial
facilities in California. The company was founded in 1966 and is
based in Aptos, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Larry W. Lee, 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
          501 San Benito Street, Suite 200
          Hollister, CA 95023
          Telephone: (831) 531-4214
          Facsimile: (831) 634-0333


FLOWERS FOODS: Seeks to Quash Document Subpoena in "Neff" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Defendants in the case of NICK NEFF, and MATTHEW MCCREA, on
behalf of themselves and all similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
FLOWERS FOODS, INC.; LEPAGE BAKERIES PARK STREET, LLC; CK SALES
CO., LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-mc-00026-RMC (D.C., Feb. 21,
2018), have filed a motion to quash subpoena to produce
documents.

The case is assigned to Judge Rosemary M. Collyer.

Flowers Foods, Inc. produces and markets bakery products in the
United States. Flowers Foods, Inc. also sells products under
franchised and licensed trademarks and trade names, such as
Sunbeam, Bunny, and Sara Lee. The company was formerly known as
Flowers Industries and changed its name to Flowers Foods, Inc. in
2001. Flowers Foods, Inc. was founded in 1919 and is
headquartered in Thomasville, Georgia. [BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Ebony Reid Douglas, Esq.
          OGLETREE DEAKINS NASH SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
          1909 K Street, NW, Suite 1000
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 887-0855
          E-mail: ebony.reid@ogletreedeakins.com


FORD MOTOR: May Trial Scheduled in MyFord Touch Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
David A. Wood, writing for CarComplaints.com, reports that a Ford
MyTouch class-action lawsuit is scheduled for trial in May after
multiple lawsuits were consolidated into a case called the
"MyFord Touch Consumer Litigation."

The MyFord Touch infotainment systems are advertised as the
answer for functions such as navigation and GPS, controlling
climate control systems and functions related to smartphones and
MP3 players.  However, customers for years have complained the
systems are full of problems and can easily cost $1,000 to
repair.

Owners say Ford has known about the problematic systems because
the automaker sent technical service bulletins to dealerships
about owners complaining about the systems going wacky and the
screens going black.

Documents presented in court allegedly show Ford engineers knew
the touchscreen systems had problems before the vehicles were
sold to the public.  Even worse, the plaintiffs allege Ford
executives stopped using the systems in their own cars because
they were tired of the problems.

Court documents say Ford's statements indicate fixes for the
systems haven't worked, and using software updates for safety
features such as rear-view cameras and defrosters haven't solved
the MyFord Touch problems.

Owners report their systems shutting down while driving, then
turning back on with a message saying maintenance is being
performed.  To some this wouldn't be a problem, until you need
the system for an important function while driving.

For an example of the all-too-often complaints about the systems,
check out the chaos this Ford Flex driver endures:

"The MyFord touch software is full of bugs.  It constantly
forgets my preferences and goes back to the defaults.  It has
trouble retaining my setting for my iPhone, but more than
anything, the navigation and mapping functions are completely
unreliable.  When inputting my destination using voice prompts,
the system often cuts me off and starts playing the radio.   I
have to try several times to get the destination in the nav.
Whenever I choose "Home" on the dash, it loads my Home in the nav
about 25% of the time. The rest of the time, it just thinks about
it and then goes back to the default screen.  Occasionally the
whole system just wigs out and reboots, putting all my settings
back to default. This system is a piece of garbage and needs a
team of people addressing it so my $30K rolling computer actually
serves the purpose that I brought it for."

Additionally, a Ford truck owner gives an idea of the cost if a
driver wants their MyFord Touch system repaired.

"2013 F150, 48k miles.  MyFord Touch, everything I read says
should be 5 year unlimited mileage.  911 assist fault, no volume
whatsoever.  Dealer says digital signal processor is bad, $800+
to fix."

Ford has been working to get claims dismissed and succeeded in a
case filed by the Center for Defensive Driving in 2013 alleging
failures of the MyFord Touch system in a 2013 Ford F-150 Lariat.

The organization accused Ford of manufacturing and selling a
system that locked up, had trouble with phones and MP3 players
and didn't work with voice commands.  The plaintiff says the
MyFord Touch failed at least 27 times in a five-month period.

However, the judge dismissed a claim of violating the California
Consumer Legal Remedies Act because the Center for Defensive
Driving doesn't have the legal right to bring the claim as a non-
consumer.

Another lawsuit from 2014 claims the MyFord Touch systems cost
about $1,800 and deliver nothing like Ford promised in marketing
materials.  The plaintiff alleges people would have never paid
extra for the infotainment systems if they would have known the
screens constantly go black.

In the consolidated action, the judge allowed breach of warranty
claims to move forward as well as claims concerning fraud and
unfair competition violations.  Additional claims that will
continue entail state-based claims for negligence and violations
of consumer protection acts.

Ford did convince the judge to dismiss claims of California
consumers for violations of the Song-Beverly Act, in addition to
tossing out liability claims filed by Colorado customers.

The lawsuit is being argued in front of Judge Edward M. Chen in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California -
- In re: MyFord Touch Consumer Litigation.

The plaintiffs are represented by Hagens Berman, Chimicles &
Tikellis LLP, Baron & Budd PC, and DiCello Levitt & Casey LLC.
[GN]


FORTEGRA FINANCIAL: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Sokol" Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
John Sokol, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Fortegra Financial Corporation, and
Ensurety Ventures, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-00262-MMH-
PDB (M.D. Fla., Feb. 20, 2018) seeks to stop Defendants'
unauthorized automated telephone calls without prior written
consent in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Fortegra Financial Corporation operates as a specialized
insurance and insurance services company in the United States.
The company was formerly known as Life of the South Corporation
and changed its name to Fortegra Financial Corporation in 2008.
Fortegra Financial Corporation was incorporated in 1981 and is
based in Jacksonville, Florida. Fortegra Financial Corporation is
a subsidiary of Tiptree Financial Inc. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James J. Boyle, Esq.
          BOYLE & GALNOR, P.A.
          50 N. Laura Street, Suite 2500
          Jacksonville, FL 32202
          Telephone: (904) 516-5507
          E-mail: james@boyleandgalnor.com

               - and -

          Jonathan D. Selbin, 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

               - and -

          Daniel M. Hutchinson, Esq.
          LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
          275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
          Telephone: (415) 956-1000
          Facsimile: (415) 956-1008
          E-mail: dhutchinson@lchb.com

               - and -

          Matthew R. Wilson, Esq.
          Michael J. Boyle, Jr., Esq.
          MEYER WILSON CO., LPA
          1320 Dublin Road, Suite 100
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Telephone: (614) 224-6000
          Facsimile: (614) 224-6066
          E-mail: mwilson@meyerwilson.com
                  mboyle@meyerwilson.com


GEORGIA CREDIT: Urges Appeals Court to Affirm Overdraft Decision
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tina Orem, writing for Credit Union Times, reports that the
Georgia Credit Union League, CUNA and NAFCU pleaded with a
federal appeals court on Feb. 22 to stand by a decision to
dismiss a class-action suit brought against a credit union over
its overdraft practices.

On February 22, according to court documents, the trade groups
filed an amici curiae ("friends of the court") brief in the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the 11th circuit, stating that a lower court
was right to dismiss the suit against Marietta, Georgia-based LGE
Community Credit Union and urging the appellate court to let that
decision stand.

Amicus briefs, as they are often called, are typically filed by
entities that aren't parties in a case but have an interest in
its outcome.  They frequently offer additional information or
arguments to the court for consideration.

The plaintiff in the case originally filed a class-action suit in
District Court back in late 2015, alleging, among other things,
that the credit union breached its account agreements by using
the available balance method instead of the ledger balance method
when determining when to impose overdraft fees.

Then in November 2017, a District Court judge dismissed the case
against LGE Community, which has $1.2 billion in assets and about
107,000 members.  The plaintiff later appealed, however, which
brought the case back to court and has prompted involvement from
the Georgia Credit Union League, CUNA and NAFCU.

Among other things, the trade groups emphasized in their amicus
brief that LGE Community's disclosures as well as Regulation E's
overdraft opt-in rules and model consent form protected the
credit union.

"The LGE account agreement (like most credit-union member
agreements) makes clear that overdrafts are determined on the
basis of 'available' funds," it argued.  "The district court also
properly dismissed plaintiff's claim that LGE violated the
[Electronic Fund Transfer Act] EFTA by using the Model Form to
opt its members in to an overdraft service that assesses fees
based on the available balance."

The groups also said the court should not punish financial
institutions for using a form that the federal government enacted
for their protection.

"Even if the language of the Model Form were unclear (and it is
not), liability cannot and should not be imposed against credit
unions and other financial institutions that relied on the form
in good faith," it said.

The groups also argued that LGE Community's use of the available
balance method for determining when to impose overdraft fees was
correct.

"Like the [Federal Reserve] Board, the CFPB has also expressly
acknowledged that available balance is a common and acceptable
method for assessing overdrafts.  That, coupled with the fact
that the CFPB did not change the 'enough money' language when
issuing its new 'prototype' Model A-9 Forms, demonstrates the
federal agency's understanding that 'enough money' covers fees
based on the available balance," they said.

At least 40 credit unions and banks have been hit with similar
class-action suits regarding their overdraft practices, the brief
said.

"Our brief identifies crucial regulatory history as well as a
critical due process argument," CUNA Senior Director of Advocacy
and Counsel Leah Dempsey said.  "CUNA's assistance is
particularly warranted in light of the fact that this is the
first federal appellate court to consider the issues presented.
And, many credit unions are facing 'gotcha' litigation on this
issue based on highly technical alleged violations." [GN]


GLENDALE, CA: Taliaferro Sues over Water Rates and Charges
----------------------------------------------------------
William A. Taliaferro, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. City of Glendale, and Does 1
through 10, Defendants, Case No. 695324 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles
Cty., Feb. 20, 2018) seeks refund of water rates and charges that
Plaintiff had paid to Defendants.  The Plaintiff alleges that the
Defendant's water fees and charges did not comply with
Proposition 218.

The City of Glendale is a charter city located in Los Angeles
County. The City utilizes a Council-Manager form of government,
with five councilmembers. The City is an agency subject to
Proposition 218 requirements. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

           Eric. J. Benink, Esq.
           KRAUSE KALFAYAN BENINK & SLAVENS, LLP
           550 West C Street, Suite 530
           San Diego, CA 92101
           Telephone: (619) 232-0331
           Facsimile: (619) 232-4019


GRO CATTLE: Faces "Castellano" Suit over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rafael Castellano, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Gro Cattle Corporation; Gaspar
Olazabal; and Damaris Olazabal, Defendants, Case No. 68291015
(Fla. Cir., Miami-Dade Cty., Feb. 21, 2018) seeks to recover
unpaid overtime wages, maximum liquidated damages and attorneys'
fees, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff employed the Defendant as a heavy equipment operator
from 2014 to January 2018.

Gro Cattle is a Florida corporation, doing business in Miami-Dade
County, Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher F. Zacarias, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF CHRISTOPHER F. ZACARIAS, P.A.
          5757 Blue Lagoon Drive, Suite 230
          Miami, FL 33126
          Telephone: (305) 403-2000
          Facsimile: (305) 459-3964
          E-mail: czacarias@zacariaslaw.com


HERSHEY COMPANY: Tomasella Alleges Child Labor in Supply Chain
--------------------------------------------------------------
Danell Tomasella, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. THE HERSHEY COMPANY, a Delaware
Corporation, and HERSHEY CHOCOLATE & CONFECTIONERY CORPORATION, a
Delaware Corporation, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-10360 (D.
Mass., Feb. 26, 2018), seeks to enjoin Defendants from continuing
unfair and deceptive marketing and sale of their Chocolate
Products.

According to the complaint, America's largest and most profitable
food companies should not tolerate child labor, much less child
slave labor, anywhere in their supply chains. These companies
should not turn a blind eye to known human rights abuses or shirk
from investigating and preventing potential human rights abuses
by their suppliers, especially when the companies consistently
and affirmatively represent that they act in a socially and
ethically responsible manner. When these food companies fail to
uphold their responsibility for ensuring the absence of child and
slave labor in their supply chains, their misconduct has the
profound consequence of supporting and encouraging such labor.
And when these food companies fail to disclose the use of child
and slave labor in their supply chains to consumers at the point
of sale, they are deceived into buying products they would not
have otherwise and thereby unwittingly supporting child and slave
labor themselves through their product purchases. Such food
companies should be required to make restitution to the consumers
they have deceived and to ensure the absence of child and slave
labor in their supply chains in the future.

Chocolate is perhaps the most beloved confectionary ingredient in
the world. Most major companies that purchase chocolate obtain it
from sources in West Africa, including Ivory Coast and Ghana.

Hershey Company, known until April 2005 as the Hershey Foods
Corporation and commonly called Hershey's, is an American company
and one of the largest chocolate manufacturers in the world.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Hannah W. Brennan, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          55 Cambridge Parkway, Suite 301
          Cambridge, MA 02142
          Telephone: (617) 482 3700
          E-mail: hannahb@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

          Steve W. Berman, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 3300
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 623 7292
          E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

          Elaine T. Byszewski, Esq.
          301 N. Lake Avenue, Suite 920
          Pasadena, CA 91101
          Telephone: (213) 330 7150
          E-mail: elaine@hbsslaw.com


HICKORY RIDGE: Faces "Heale" Suit in New York
---------------------------------------------
A case was filed captioned as Ronda Heale, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Hickory Ridge
Golf & Country Club, Inc.; Kevin Diehl; Viginia Diehl; Keith
Diehl; Kurt Diehl and any other related entities, Defendants,
Case No. 3000673/2017 (N.Y. Sup., Feb. 20, 2018). The case is
assigned to Honorable William K. Taylor.

Hickory Ridge Golf & Country Club, Inc. is a corporation with
address at Holley, New York. The company is engaged in the
business of banquets, weddings, corporate meetings, golf course.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

           KAVINOKY COOK LLP
           726 Exchange Street Suite 800
           Buffalo, NY 14210
           Telephone: (716) 845-6000


INSTORE GROUP: Cherelli Seeks Minimum Wages under Wage Act
----------------------------------------------------------
KAREN CHERELLI, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v.  THE INSTORE GROUP, LLC, the
Defendant, Case No. 18-0556 (Mass. Super. Ct., Feb. 26, 2018),
seeks to recover minimum wages as required by Massachusetts Wage
Act for all hours worked, had Defendant properly classified them
as employees.

The Defendant identified "retail services" as the "description of
nature of business" in the annual filing that it made with the
North Carolina Secretary of State's Office in 2014, 2015, 2016,
and 2017. According to Defendant's website, Defendant offers
various retail services in its usual course of business to
retailers and manufacturers that include, without limitation,
"full-service retail merchandising, assisted selling, and event
marketing."

Defendant hired Ms. Cherelli in 2016 as a merchandiser. At all
relevant times, the retail services that merchandisers provide to
Defendant's Clients are the same services that Defendant is in
the business of providing to Clients and, thus, they are an
integral part of Defendant's business. Defendant does not
compensate merchandisers for the time that it takes to transport
materials to or from retail services contracts. For all retail
services contracts, Defendant pays merchandisers based on the
amount of time that Defendant estimates each contract will take
to complete. Defendant does not pay merchandisers additional
compensation if it takes a merchandiser longer to complete a
retail services contract than the amount of time that Defendant
estimated.

Defendant's merchandisers are subject to a dress code when
performing retail services for Defendant's clients. Defendant's
merchandisers are subject to standards of conduct when performing
retail services for Defendant's clients. Defendant instructs its
merchandisers to wear an in-Store name badge when performing
retail services for Defendant's clients. Defendant identifies
particular "specifications and requirements" that its
merchandisers need to meet and/or complete to successfully
perform each retail services contract. Defendant provides its
merchandisers with directions, floor plans, diagrams, and/or
schematics that they are required to follow and/or complete for
each retail services assignment that the Defendant directs them
to fulfill. For example, Defendant provides merchandisers with an
"ISO Store Worksheet" for each retail services job. An "ISO Store
Worksheet" is like a work order.

The InStore Group, headquartered in Charlotte, NC is one of
America's leading nationwide full-service retail merchandising
organizations. We provide our InStore merchandising services to
leading consumer packaged companies and retailers in every major
channel.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brook S. Lane, Esq.
          Hillary Schwab, Esq.
          FAIR WORK, P.C.
          192 South Street, Suite 450
          Boston, MA 02111
          Telephone: (617) 607 3261
          Facsimile: (617) 488 2261
          E-mail: brook@fairworklaw.com
                  hillary@fairworklaw.com


IO INC: Faces "Norman" Suit in E.D. Virginia
--------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against IO, Inc. The case
is styled as Josiah Norman, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. IO, INC. Trading as
Receivables Systems, inc. Trading as Receivables Management
Systems, Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-00156-REP (E.D. Va., March
7, 2018).

IO, INC has been in business for over 20 years and have imported
many collectible firearms, parts, ammunition and accessories.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Thomas Ray Breeden, Esq.
   Thomas R. Breeden PC
   10326 Lomond Drive
   Manassas, VA 20109
   Tel: (703) 361-9277
   Fax: (703) 257-2259
   Email: trb@tbreedenlaw.com


JOE ASIAN SUSHI: Faces "Xia" Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Joe Asian Sushi
Inc. d/b/a Joe Asian & Sushi. The case is styled as Chun Feng
Xia, individually and on behalf all other employees similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Joe Asian Sushi Inc. d/b/a Joe Asian &
Sushi, Ke Wei Chen, "Jane" (First Name Unknown) Chen and "John"
(First Name Unknown) Chen, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-01409
(E.D. N.Y., March 6, 2018).

Joe Asian & Sushi offers delicious dining, takeout and delivery
to Queens, NY.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


KOCH FOODS: Suppressed Competition for Broiler Grow-Out
-------------------------------------------------------
Haff Poultry, Inc; Nancy Butler; Johnny Upchurch; Jonathan
Walters; Myles B. Weaver and Melissa Weaver, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Koch
Foods, Inc.; Koch Meat Co., Inc.; Sanderson Farms, Inc.; (Food
Division); Sanderson Farms, Inc. (Processing Division); and
Sanderson Farms, Inc. (Production Division), Defendants, Case
No.7:18-cv-0031-D (E.D. Cal., Feb. 21, 2018) is an action over
the Defendants' anticompetitive, collusive, predatory, unfair,
and bad faith conduct in the domestic market for Broiler growing
services.

The complaint alleged that Defendants illegally agreed to share
detailed data on Grower compensation with one another, with the
purpose and effect of artificially depressing Grower compensation
below competitive levels. By disclosing their highly sensitive
and confidential compensation rates to each other, they
suppressed competition for Broiler Grow-Out.

Koch Foods, Inc. develops, manufactures, and distributes fresh
and frozen poultry products for food service and retail operators
worldwide. The company offers its products through retail
distributors and retail stores, as well as exports its products
internationally. Koch Foods, Inc. was founded in 1973 and is
based in Park Ridge, Illinois. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael D. Hausfeld, Esq.
          Melinda R. Coolidge, Esq.
          Samantha S. Derksen, Esq.
          HAUSFELD LLP
          1700 K Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 540-7200
          Facsimile: (202) 540-7201
          Email: mhausfeld@hausfeld.com
                 jpizzirusso@hausfeld.com
                 mcoolidge@hausfeld.com
                 sderksen@hausfeld.com

               - and -

          Gary I. Smith,Jr., Esq.
          HAUSFELD LLP
          325 Chestnut St., Suite 325
          Philadelphia, PA 19106
          Telephone: (215) 985-3270
          Facsimile: (215) 985-3271
          Email: gsmith@hausfeld.com

               - and -

          Eric L. Cramer, Esq.
          Patrick F. Madden, Esq.
          Christina Black, Esq.
          BERGER & MONTAGUE,P.C.
          1622 Locust Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 875-3000
          Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
          Email: ecramer@bm.net
          Email: pmadden@bm.net
          Email: cblack@bm.net

               - and -

          Daniel J. Walker, Esq.
          BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
          2001 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 300
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 559-9745
          Email: dwalker@bm.net

               - and -

          Vincent J. Esades, Esq.
          HEINS MILLS & OLSON, PLC
          310 Clifton Avenue
          Minneapolis, MN 55403
          Telephone: (612) 338-4605
          Facsimile: (612) 338-4692
          Email: vesades@heinsmills.com

               - and -

          Warren T. Burns, Esq.
          BURNS C HAREST LLP
          500 North Akard, Suite 2810
          Dallas, Texas 75201
          Telephone: (469) 904-4551
          Email: wburns@burnscharest.com

               - and -

          Gregory Davis, Esq.
          DAVIS & TALIAFERRO, LLC
          7031 Halcyon Park Drive
          Montgomery, AL 36117
          Telephone: (334) 832-9080
          Facsimile: (334) 409-7001
          Email: gldavis@knology.net

               - and -

          Charles D. Gabriel, Esq.
          CHALMERS, BURCH & ADAMS, LLC
          North Fulton Satellite Office
          5755 North Point Parkway, Suite 251
          Alpharetta, GA 30022
          Telephone: (678) 735.5903
          Facsimile: (678) 735.5905
          Email: cdgabriel@cpblawgroup.com

               - and -

          Harlan Hentges, Esq.
          HENTGES & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
          102 Thatcher Street
          Edmond, OK 73034
          Telephone: (405) 340-6554
          Facsimile: (405) 340-6562

               - and -

          John C. Whitfield, Esq.
          Caroline Taylor, Esq.
          WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON LLP
          19 North Main Street
          Madisonville, KY 42431
          Telephone: (270) 821-0656
          E-mail: john@wbmllp.com
                  caroline@wbmllp.com

               - and -

          Gary E. Mason, Esq.
          Jennifer S. Goldstein, Esq.
          WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON LLP
          5101 Wisconsin Ave., NW
          Suite 305
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 429-2290
          Facsimile: (202) 429-2294
          E-mail: gmason@wbmllp.com
                  jgoldstein@wbmllp.com

               - and -

          J. Dudley Butler, Esq.
          BUTLER FARM & RANGE LAW GROUP, PLLC
          499-A Breakwater Dr.
          Benton, MS 39039
          Telephone: (662) 673-0091
          Facsimile: (662) 673-0091
          E-mail: jdb@farmandranchlaw.com

               - and -

          Daniel M. Cohen, Esq.
          CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
          4725 Wisconsin Ave., NW
          Suite 200
          Washington, DC 20016
          Telephone: (202)789-3960
          Facsimile: (202)789-1813
          E-mail: Danielc@cuneolaw.com

               - and -

          David S. Muraskin, Esq.
          PUBLIC JUSTICE, PC
          1620 L St. NW, Suite 630
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 861-5245
          Facsimile: (202) 232-7203
          E-mail: dmuraskin@publicjustice.net

               - and -

          M. David Riggs, Esq.
          Donald M Bingham, Esq.
          RIGGS ABNEY NEAL TURPEN ORBISON & LEWIS
          502 W. Sixth St.
          Tulsa, OK 74119
          Telephone: (918) 699-8914
          Facsimile: (918) 587-9708
          E-mail: driggs@riggsabney.com
                  don_bingham@riggsabney.com

               - and -

          Hollis Salzman, Esq.
          Kellie Lerner, Esq.
          ROBINS KAPLAN LLP
          99 Park Avenue, Suite 3600
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 980-7400
          Facsimile: (212) 980-7499
          E-mail: HSalzman@RobinsKaplan.com
                  KLerner@RobinsKaplan.com

               - and -

          Aaron Sheanin, Esq.
          ROBINS KAPLAN LLP
          2440 W. El Camino Real
          Suite 100
          Mountain View, CA 94040
          Telephone: (650) 784-4040
          Facsimile: (650) 784-4041
          E-mail: ASheanin@RobinsKaplan.com

               - and -

          M.Stephen Dampier, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF M.STEPHEN DAMPIER,P.C.
          55 N. Section St.
          P.O. Box 161
          Fairhope, AL 36532
          Telephone: (251) 929-0900
          Facsimile: (251) 929-0800
          E-mail: dampier.steve@gmail.com


KRATON CORP: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Feb. 26
disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of Kraton Corporation (NYSE:KRA)
from October 25, 2017 through February 21, 2018, both dates
inclusive ("Class Period").  The lawsuit seeks to recover damages
for Kraton investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the Kraton class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1299.htmlor call Phillip Kim,
Esq. or Daniel Sadeh, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email
pkim@rosenlegal.com or dsadeh@rosenlegal.com for information on
the class action.

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

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) Kraton was transitioning customers to Brazilian-
produced Cariflex even though certain customers had already
rejected that product; (2) Kraton's Brazilian-produced Cariflex
was available to customers when in fact certain customers had
already rejected that product; (3) Kraton lacked effective
internal controls over financial reporting; and (4) as a result,
defendants' statements about Kraton's business, operations and
prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a
reasonable basis at all relevant times. When the true details
entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered
damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed.  If you wish to
serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than
April 27, 2018.  A lead plaintiff is a representative party
acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation.  If you wish to join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1299.htmlto join the class
action.  You may also contact Phillip Kim or Daniel Sadeh of
Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via email at
pkim@rosenlegal.com or dsadeh@rosenlegal.com.

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

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


LIBERTY COUNTY, TX: May Face Class Action Over Audit Errors
-----------------------------------------------------------
David Taylor, writing for MySanAntonio, reports that County Clerk
Paulette Williams issued a sort of mea culpa recently after gross
negligence was discovered in her office in the most recent audit,
but it may not be enough to keep the county out of what could
result in a class action lawsuit.

"There were mistakes made and I take the blame for it,"
Ms. Williams told the Dayton News/Cleveland Advocate in an
interview.

"I knew there was a problem and I tried to fix it," she said.

A litany of errors was outlined by Assistant County Auditor
Angela Maselli in the audit required by Local Government Code
Sec. 115.0035.  The internal audit covered the period between
Feb. 1, 2017 to Aug. 31, 2017.

In the audit, Ms. Williams felt like she was mischaracterized.
She took particular issue with the definitions of gross
incompetence and removal from office being included in the public
arena with the audit.

"I didn't act in bad faith.  To me an audit from an auditor
should be about numbers, not a personal attack," Ms.  Williams
complained.

She also said that she wasn't motivated by threats, penalties,
and consequences.

In her executive summary, Ms. Maselli laid out numerous errors
and found that criminal court costs have not been updated since
January 2010.

"The county clerk has not updated court costs in NetData since
she took office in January 2011," the audit reads.

It also alleges criminal court costs provided by the Liberty
County Clerk's office to the County Attorney's office were
inaccurate and didn't align with the most current cost chart.

In some cases, the clerk's office was either overcharging or
undercharging.

Defendants charged with misdemeanor criminal offenses were either
charged unallowable fees, undercharged amounts of certain fees or
overcharged amounts depending on the offense type.

Civil court costs were not properly allocated between fees
retained by the county and fees submitted to the state
comptroller.  The County was retaining more of the fees than
allowed and the state comptroller was receiving less than the
required amounts.

Ms. Maselli also said the probate docket could not be produced
using NetData software due to incomplete data entry beginning in
May 2015 to present and OCA codes for probate case types were not
reporting accurately due to incorrect codes assigned during data
entry.

In one case, cash donated back to the county by jurors to send to
various charities for a total amount of $783 was located in an
unlocked file cabinet drawer unsecured and had been accumulating
since Aug. 24, 2015.

That action alone violated multiple rules: the cash was left in
an unsecured location for over a year; it was not deposited
timely with the Treasurer's office (a minimum of five days); and
a lack of training on what to do with the donations from the
county treasurer.

The definitions were included to warn the clerk of the
consequences of inaction.

The audit said Ms. Williams had failed to correct the court costs
during three separate internal audits spanning from 2014 to
present.

The state sets the fees and it is up to the county clerk's office
to prepare the bill of cost.  They take the fees and add them
together and assess them.

Ms. Williams did admit she was notified by the state of the fee
changes, but "more or less, I'm supposed to be watching out for
it," she said.

"The Office of Court Administration put the charts online.  I
guess I was dumb or ignorant," she said.  "I just didn't know.
It had never been an issue before. I didn't know they were
wrong."

Ms. Williams referred to a 2014 court ruling that stated the
county clerk's office was to prepare the court costs.

"I don't know how long it was going on before I got here, but the
county attorney's office did that.  They would prepare the cost
sheet with the numbers already put in it and they would give it
to us and we would enter it into the system," Ms.  Williams said,
describing the process, but the numbers were wrong.

After the court ruling, Ms. Williams confessed she didn't have a
clue.

"I told them I was sorry, I missed it.  I'm ready to take the
consequences," she said.

Ms. Williams said shortly after the ruling, she had a meeting
with the county attorney at the time and tried to hammer out a
solution. The county clerk said they left the office, each with
things to do, but nothing ever changed.

"They kept putting the numbers on the court cost sheets and we
kept putting them in," she said.

An email from the county attorney during that time said they
needed to get things fixed, but Ms. Williams said nothing
changed.

"I felt like I was in a rock and a hard place," she said. "I
wasn't strong enough I guess to go into his office and tell him
to stop putting another number on the sheets until we get this
fixed."

Ms. Williams entered office in 2011 and it wasn't until 2014 that
she realized that there was an issue.

"It wasn't a large amount of money, and after an audit by the
Texas Comptroller's Office, they weren't overly concerned because
we overpaid them," she said.

Ms. Williams said the changes have been made and she's working
well with County Attorney Matthew Poston.

"It took Matthew to say 'Stop!' to his clerks and not to put
another number on the sheets," she said.

With Poston cooperating and Maselli spear-heading and getting all
the numbers together, the issue has finally been rectified.

Another issue was the software, NetData.

Ms. Williams said she was never trained in how to change the
codes.

"It took Angela [Maselli] telling NetData to delete all of the
codes and us starting over again," she said.

The clerk said there was as many as 60 pages of codes, most of
which she said they never used.  After Ms. Maselli worked with
NetData, that was cut down to only six pages.

"No one had ever deleted any of the codes, our office just kept
adding the new ones until it was just mind-boggling," she said.

The county clerk said they do so many things in that office that
it's hard to make sure they're covering all of their bases all
the time.

Ms. Williams flatly denied any fraud had taken place in the
office and no criminal act done.

"There was no intent to overcharge anyone," she said.  "I have
nothing to hide. It looks like by the audit that we weren't
trying to get anything changed, but I tried. We didn't get the
result we wanted and that's why I'm glad Angela did what she did
for us."

"I have to congratulate Angela because she was just determined
enough, relentless enough in what she did, and she researched and
worked up a plan.  I do appreciate it.  She did a fantastic job,"
Ms. Williams said.

The clerk said she only disagreed with the tone of the audit.
[GN]


LIVE NATION: Lawyers for Las Vegas Massacre Victims File Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lawyers representing victims of the massacre at the Route 91
Harvest Festival in Las Vegas filed suit on Feb. 23 to force the
concert promoter, LIVE NATION ENTERTAINMENT, to refund all 22,000
tickets sold to attendees.

"It's hard to believe that it's almost March 2018 and only a
portion of those who purchased tickets to the October concert,
which ended in massacre, have had their money refunded," said
attorney Mark Robinson of Robinson Calcagnie, Inc.

Robinson filed suit in Orange County, CA.  LIVE NATION
ENTERTAINMENT, a multi-billion dollar, global entertainment
company forged through the $2.5 BILLION merger of Ticketmaster
and Live Nation, is headquartered in Beverly Hills.

"Orange County is home to a significant number of people who
purchased tickets to the concert," said attorney Robinson.  "We
didn't think it was fair that some who privately asked for
refunds got them, when really everybody who bought a ticket
deserves a full refund."

The suit alleges, among other things, that LIVE NATION offered
its condolences to concert goers but neglected to return all
ticket costs to those who purchased tickets.

Plaintiffs Kevin and Laura Thompson say they paid more than 500
dollars for their two general admission tickets to the festival.

"As we were interviewing several hundred of our clients, we
realized some had received refunds and some had not.  It didn't
matter if they were family members of deceased, gunshot victims
or traumatized because of the shooting and their escape.  The
only factor was that those that heard about a refund through
Facebook or friends and demanded a refund, got it.  So we decided
to make one demand on behalf of everyone."  Said Craig Eiland an
attorney from Austin, Texas who along with James Lee of LeeMurphy
in Houston, Texas joined forces with Robinson Calcagnie to bring
the suit.

Mark Robinson, Attorney for the Thompsons and others, is urging
anyone who may be entitled to a refund to contact him at (949)
500-5045. [GN]


LUDLOW HOTEL: Faces "Olsen" Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ludlow Hotel
Operating LLC. The case is styled as Thomas J. Olsen,
individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Ludlow Hotel Operating LLC doing business
as: Ludlow Hotel, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-02073 (S.D. N.Y.,
March 7, 2018).

Ludlow Hotel Operating LLC operates in the hotel industry.[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


M.C.I. FOODS: Fails to Pay Overtime, "Garcia" Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
MARIA C. GARCIA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. M.C.I. FOODS, INC.; EMPLOYMENT
RESOURCE GROUP, LLC; BARONHR, LLC; and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. BC694777 (Cal. Super., Los
Angeles Cty., Feb. 21, 2018) is an action against the Defendants
for unpaid regular hours, overtime hours, minimum wages, wages
for missed meal and rest periods.

Ms. Garcia was employed by the Defendants to prepare, scan, pack,
and unload shipments.

M. C. I. Foods, Inc. manufactures and markets frozen Mexican
foods and sandwiches for food service, school food service,
restaurant/hotel/institutional, correctional, and convenience
stores in the United States and internationally. The company
markets its products through brokers. M. C. I. Foods, Inc. was
formerly known as Margaret's Commissary. The company was founded
in 1957 and is based in Compton, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mehrdad Bokhour, Esq.
          BOKHOUR LAW GROUP, P.C.
          1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 450
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 975-1493
          Facsimile: (310) 300-1705

               - and -

          Michael Nourmand, Esq.
          THE NOURMAND LAW FIRM, APC
          8822 West Olympic Boulevard
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Telephone: (310) 553-3600
          Facsimile: (310) 553-3603


MARS INC: Tomasella Alleges Child Labor in Supply Chains
--------------------------------------------------------
Danell Tomasella, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. MARS, INC., a Delaware corporation,
and MARS CHOCOLATE NORTH AMERICA LLC, a Delaware company, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-10359-ADB (D. Mass., Feb. 26, 2018),
seeks to enjoin Defendants from continuing unfair and deceptive
marketing and sale of their Chocolate Products.

According to the complaint, America's largest and most profitable
food companies should not tolerate child labor, much less child
slave labor, anywhere in their supply chains. These companies
should not turn a blind eye to known human rights abuses or shirk
from investigating and preventing potential human rights abuses
by their suppliers, especially when the companies consistently
and affirmatively represent that they act in a socially and
ethically responsible manner. When these food companies fail to
uphold their responsibility for ensuring the absence of child and
slave labor in their supply chains, their misconduct has the
profound consequence of supporting and encouraging such labor.
And when these food companies fail to disclose the use of child
and slave labor in their supply chains to consumers at the point
of sale, they are deceived into buying products they would not
have otherwise and thereby unwittingly supporting child and slave
labor themselves through their product purchases. Such food
companies should be required to make restitution to the consumers
they have deceived and to ensure the absence of child and slave
labor in their supply chains in the future.

Chocolate is perhaps the most beloved confectionary ingredient in
the world. Most major companies that purchase chocolate obtain it
from sources in West Africa, including Ivory Coast and Ghana.

Mars Chocolate North America, LLC produces and markets
chocolates. It provides chocolates under M&M'S, Snickers, Twix, 3
Musketeers, and Milky Way brand names. The company is based in
Hackettstown, New Jersey. Mars Chocolate North America, LLC
operates as a subsidiary of Mars, Incorporated.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Hannah W. Brennan, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          55 Cambridge Parkway, Suite 301
          Cambridge, MA 02142
          Telephone: (617) 482 3700
          E-mail: hannahb@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

          Steve W. Berman, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 3300
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 623 7292
          E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

          Elaine T. Byszewski, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          301 N. Lake Avenue, Suite 920
          Pasadena, CA 91101
          Telephone: (213) 330 7150
          E-mail: elaine@hbsslaw.com


MDL 2804: Mayor Concerned About Law Firm Handling Opioid Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
Monica Vendituoli, writing for The Fayetteville Observer, reports
that Fayetteville Mayor Mitch Colvin raised concerns with how
City Attorney Karen McDonald has handled awarding a legal
contract for taking civil action against those legally
responsible for the wrongful distribution of prescription
opiates.

"I was completely opposed to the process of unilaterally awarding
a legal services . . . law firm without going through the normal
procurement process," Mr. Colvin wrote in a email to Ms. McDonald
on Feb. 15.

All of the City Council members as well as City Manager Doug
Hewett were included on the email.

On Feb. 12, the City Council adopted a resolution supporting
civil action against those legally responsible for the wrongful
distribution of prescription opiates.

Ms. McDonald said in a memo that opioid abuse is burdening city
resources.  She noted that Fayetteville police officers used
naloxone, an opioid overdose antidote, 132 times on 118 people in
2017.

At the dinner meeting before the vote, McDonald said that lawyers
Terry Hutchens and Billy Richardson recently contacted the city
about initiating litigation against the manufacturers and
wholesale distributors of opioids in the Fayetteville area.

"The local attorneys have joined with a consortium of attorneys
across the country to pursue civil remedies against these parties
to potentially recover the costs associated with addressing
opioid abuse," Ms. McDonald said in a memo addressed to City
Council.

In the email, Mr. Colvin affirmed his support for the lawsuit in
general.

"The taxpayers have paid millions of dollars combating this
problem in our community . . . " Mr. Colvin wrote.  "Therefore, I
was overly excited to hear about the class action litigation
opportunity for the city to recoup some of those expenditures."

But both in the email and at the meeting, Mr. Colvin raised
concerns during the meeting about how McDonald had not reached
out to other local and minority firms before awarding Hutchens
and Richardson the contract.

"The method used was a No Bid contract for what is expected to be
a multi-million dollar litigation case.  This is unacceptable,"
Colvin wrote. "In 2015, the council adopted a policy to strive to
be more inclusive to local and minority companies on every
opportunity.

He ended the email by saying he will place the item back on a
future City Council's meeting agenda for reconsideration.

Ms. McDonald noted in her response that the city was only
approached by Richardson and Hutchens. McDonald added that
Hutchens' law firm meets the requirement for local firm.

State law does not require the issuance of a request for
quotation or request for proposal, or bid, for litigation
services, according to McDonald.

But she said the city has taken efforts to reach out to minority
and local law firms.

"In 2015, consistent with council's interest, our office issued
an RFQ [request for quotation] to identify local and minority
firms interested in doing work for the city," Mr. McDonald said.

She ended the email by saying that she has reached out to
Hutchens' regarding the council's interest in the inclusion of a
minority firm. [GN]


MDL 2817: 5 Cases vs CDK Global Transferred to N.D. Illinois
------------------------------------------------------------
In the multi-district litigation proceeding, In Re: Dealer
Management Systems Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 2817, Judge Amy
J. St. Eve ruled that these cases are transferred to the MDL:

     1. Northtown Automotive Companies, Inc. v. CDK Global, LLC
and The Reynolds and Reynolds Company, Case No. 18-CV-833 (N.D.
Ill.) (filed February 1, 2018 and assigned to Judge Coleman);

     2. 2 Cox Motors N.C. Inc. d/b/a Cox Toyota v. CDK Global,
LLC, Case No. 18-CV-845 (N.D. Ill.) (filed February 1, 2018 and
assigned to Judge Blakey);

     3. Bob Baker Volkswagen v. CDK Global, LLC and The Reynolds
and Reynolds Company, Case No. 18-CV-909 (N.D. Ill.) (filed
February 2, 2018 and assigned to Judge Coleman);

     4. F.G. Downing Development, Inc. v. CDK Global, LLC and The
Reynolds and Reynolds Company, Case No.18-CV-987 (N.D. Ill.)
(filed February 7, 2018 and assigned to Judge Gettleman); and

     5. Baystate Ford Inc. v. CDK Global, LLC and The Reynolds
and Reynolds Company, Case No. 18-CV-996 (N.D. Ill.) (filed
February 7, 2018 and assigned to Judge Aspen).

CDK Global, Inc. provides integrated information technology and
digital marketing solutions to the automotive retail and other
industries worldwide. It provides solutions to dealers serving
approximately 28,000 retail locations and automotive
manufacturers. CDK Global, Inc. is headquartered in Hoffman
Estates, Illinois. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Amar Shrinivas Naik, Esq.
          SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
          Four Embarcadero Center, 17th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111-4106
          Tel: (415) 434-9100
          E-mail: anaik@sheppardmullin.com

               - and -

          Aundrea Kristine Gulley, Esq.
          GIBBS & BRUNS, L.L.P.
          1100 Louisiana St., Suite 5300
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (713) 650-8805
          E-mail: agulley@gibbsbruns.com

               - and -

          Brandon M. Lewis, Esq.
          PERKINS COIE
          1 East Main Street, Suite 201
          Madison, WI 53703
          Telephone: (608) 663-7460
          E-mail: BLewis@perkinscoie.com

               - and -

          Brian T. Ross, Esq.
          GIBBS & BRUNS, L.L.P.
          1100 Louisiana Street, Suite 5300
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (713) 751-5286
          E-mail: bross@gibbsbruns.com

               - and -

          Brice A. Wilkinson, Esq.
          GIBBS & BRUNS, L.L.P.
          1100 Louisiana Street, Suite 5300
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (713) 751-5218
          E-mail: bwilkinson@gibbsbruns.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

          James Landon Mcginnis, Esq.
          SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
          Four Embarcadero Center, 17th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 434-9100
          E-mail: jmcginnis@sheppardmullin.com

               - and -

          Jesse Jonas Bair, Esq.
          PERKINS COIE LLP
          1 East Main Street, Suite 201
          Madison, WI 53703
          Telephone: (608) 393-2524
          E-mail: jbair@perkinscoie.com

               - and -

          John S. Skilton, Esq.
          PERKINS COIE LLP
          One East Main Street, Suite 201
          Madison, WI 53703
          Telephone: (608) 663-7460
          E-mail: jskilton@perkinscoie.com

               - and -

          Justin David Patrick, Esq.
          GIBBS & BRUNS, LLP
          1100 Louisiana Street, Suite 5300
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (713) 650-8805 x1205
          E-mail: jpatrick@gibbsbruns.com

               - and -

          Kathleen A. Stetsko, Esq.
          PERKINS COIE LLP
          131 S. Dearborn St., Suite 1700
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 324-8400
          E-mail: kstetsko@perkinscoie.com

               - and -

          Kathy D. Patrick, Esq.
          GIBBS & BRUNS, LLP
          1100 Louisiana Suite 5300
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (713) 751-5253
          E-mail: kpatrick@gibbsbruns.com

               - and -

          Leo Caseria, Esq.
          SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
          333 South Hope Street, Forty-third Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 620-1780
          E-mail: lcaseria@sheppardmullin.com

               - and -

          Michael P. A. Cohen, Esq.
          SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON, LLP
          2099 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 100
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 747-1900
          E-mail: mcohen@sheppardmullin.com

               - and -

          Michelle M. Umberger, Esq.
          PERKINS COIE LLP
          One East Main Street #201
          Madison, WI 53703
          Telephone: (608) 663-7460
          E-mail: mumberger@perkinscoie.com

               - and -

          Ross M. MacDonald, Esq.
          GIBBS & BRUNS, LLP
          1100 Louisiana Stree, Suite 5300
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (713) 751-5231
          E-mail: rmacdonald@gibbsbruns.com

               - and -

          Tyler Baker, Esq.
          SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
          30 Rockefeller Plaza
          New York, NY 10112
          Telephone: (212) 634-3048
          E-mail: tbaker@sheppardmullin.com

               - and -

          Aaron Martin Panner, Esq.
          KELLOGG, HANSEN, TODD, FIGEL & FREDERICK, P.L.L.C.
          1615 M Street, NW, Suite 400
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 326-7900
          E-mail: apanner@kellogghansen.com

               - and -

          Allison W Reimann, Esq.
          GODFREY & KAHN
          One East Main Street, Ste. 500
          Madison, WI 53701
          Telephone: (608) 284-2277
          E-mail: areimann@gklaw.com

               - and -

          Daniel V. Dorris, Esq.
          KELLOGG, HANSEN, TODD, FIGEL & FREDERICK, P.L.L.C.
          1615 M Street, NW, Suite 400
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 326-7900
          E-mail: ddorris@kellogghansen.com

               - and -

          David L. Schwarz, Esq.
          KELLOGG, HANSEN, TODD, FIGEL & FREDERICK, P.L.L.C.
          1615 M Street, NW, Suite 400
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 326-7952
          E-mail: dschwarz@kellogghansen.com

               - and -

          Derek Tam Ho, Esq.
          KELLOGG, HANSEN, TODD, FIGEL & FREDERICK, P.L.L.C.
          1615 M St. N.W., Suite 400
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 326-7931
          E-mail: dho@kellogghansen.com

              - and -

          Jennifer L. Gregor, Esq.
          GODFREY & KAHN SC
          One East Main Street, Suite 500
          Madison, WI 53703
          Telephone: (608) 275-3911
          E-mail: jgregor@gklaw.com

               - and -

          Joanna Tianyang Zhang, Esq.
          KELLOGG, HANSEN, TODD, FIGEL & FREDERICK, P.L.L.C.
          1615 M Street, NW, Suite 400
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 326-7952
          E-mail: jzhang@kellogghansen.com

               - and -

          Joshua Hafenbrack, Esq.
          KELLOGG, HANSEN, TODD, FIGEL & FREDERICK, P.L.L.C.
          1615 M Street Nw, Suite 400
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 326-7952
          E-mail: jhafenbrack@kellogghansen.com

               - and -

          Kendall W Harrison, Esq.
          GODFREY & KAHN, S.C.
          One East Main St. #500
          P.o. Box 2719
          Madison, WI 53701
          Telephone: (608) 284-2627
          E-mail: kharrison@gklaw.com

               - and -


          Kevin J. Miller, Esq.
          KELLOGG, HANSEN, TODD, FIGEL & FREDERICK, P.L.L.C.
          1615 M Street, NW, Suite 400
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 326-7900
          E-mail: kmiller@kellogghansen.com

               - and -

          Mark W. Hancock, Esq.
          GODFREY & KAHN, S.C.
          1 E. Main Street, Suite 500
          Madison, WI 53703
          Telephone: (608) 257-3911
          E-mail: mhancock@gklaw.com

               - and -

          Michael N. Nemelka, Esq.
          KELLOGG, HANSEN, TODD, FIGEL & FREDERICK, P.L.L.C.
          1615 M Street, NW, Suite 400
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 326-7932
          E-mail: mnemelka@kellogghansen.com

               - and -

          James E. Cecchi, Esq.
          CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI OLSTEIN BRODY & AGNESSO, P.C.
          5 Becker Farm Road
          Roseland, NJ 07068
          Telephone: (973) 994-1700

               - and -

          Gary L. Specks, Esq.
          KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
          423 Sumac Road
          Highland Park, IL 60035
          Telephone: (847) 831-1585
          E-mail: gspecks@kaplanfox.com

               - and -

          Victoria Romanenko, Esq.
          CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
          4725 Wisconsin Avenue NW, Suite 200
          Washington, DC 20016
          Telephone: (202) 789-3960
          E-mail: vicky@cuneolaw.com

               - and -

          Daniel Jeffrey Friedman, Esq.
          GABRIELSALOMONS LLP
          16311 Ventura Boulevard Suite 970
          Encino, CA 91436
          Telephone: (818) 906-3700
          E-mail: daniel@gabrielsalomons.com

               - and -

          Gary K Salomons, Esq.
          GABRIEL SALOMONS LLP
          16311 Ventura Boulevard Suite 970
          Encino, CA 91436
          Telephone: (818) 906-3700
          E-mail: gary@gabrielsalomons.com

               - and -

          Joshua D. Branson, Esq.
          KELLOGG, HANSEN, TODD, FIGEL & FREDERICK, P.L.L.C.
          1615 M Street, NW, Suite 400
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 326-7900
          E-mail: jbranson@kellogghansen.com

               - and -

           Joshua Hafenbrack, Esq.
          Britt Marie Miller, Esq.
          MAYER BROWN LLP
          71 South Wacker Drive
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 782-0600
          E-mail: courtnotification@mayerbrown.com

               - and -

          John Nadolenco, Esq.
          MAYER BROWN
          350 South Grand Avenue, 25th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-1503
          Telephone: (213) 229-9500
          E-mail: jnadolenco@mayerbrown.com

               - and -

          Mark W. Ryan, Esq.
          MAYER BROWN
          1999 K Street N.W.
          Washington, DC 20006-1101
          Telephone: (202) 263-3000
          E-mail: mryan@mayerbrown.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Shawn M Raiter, Esq.
          LARSON & KING, LLP
          30 East 7th Street, Suite 2800
          St. Paul, MN 55101
          Telephone:(651) 312-6500

               - and -

          Archibald Irwin Grubb , II, Esq.
          BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES, P.C.
          Post Office Box 4160
          Montgomery, AL 36103
          Telephone: (800) 898-2034
          E-mail: archie.grubb@beasleyallen.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Wilson Daniel Miles , III, Esq.
          BEASLEY ALLEN CROWN METHVIN PORTIS & MILES PC
          PO Box 4160
          Montgomery, AL 36103-4160
          Telephone: (334) 269-2343
          E-mail: dee.miles@beasleyallen.com

               - and -

          David Malcolm McMullan, Jr, Esq.
          BARRETT LAW GROUP, PA
          P. O. Box 927
          404 Court Square
          Lexington, MS 39095
          Telephone: (662) 834-2488
          E-mail: dmcmullan@barrettlawgroup.com

               - and -

          John W. Barrett, Esq.
          BARRETT LAW GROUP, PA
          P. O. Box 927
          404 Court Square North
          Lexington, MS 39095
          Telephone: (662) 834-2488
          E-mail: dbarrett@barrettlawgroup.com

CDK is represented by:

          Jeffrey Allan Simmons, Esq.
          FOLEY & LARDNER LLP
          150 East Gilman Street
          P.O. Box 1497
          Madison, WI 53701-1497
          Telephone: (608) 257-5035
          E-mail: jsimmons@foley.com

               - and -

          Joseph S Harper, Esq.
          FOLEY & LARDNER LLP
          150 East Gilman St.
          P.O. Box 1497
          Madison, WI 53701
          Telephone: (608) 258-4310
          E-mail: JHarper@foley.com

               - and -

          William N. Reed, Esq.
          BAKER, DONELSON, BEARMAN, CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, PC
          100 Vision Drive, Suite 400
          P. O. Box 14167 (39236-4167)
          Jackson, MS 39211
          Telephone: (601) 351-2400
          E-mail: wreed@bakerdonelson.com


METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION: Faces "Gardner" Suit in S.D.N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Metropolitan
Transportation Authority. The case is captioned as Charles
Gardner, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority;
Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority; and The Port Authority of
New York and New Jersey; AllianceOne Receivables Management, Inc;
Conduent, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-01548-UA (S.D.N.Y.,
Feb. 20, 2018).

On March 1, 2018, the Court issued a Statement that the action is
related to Case No. 18-01433.

Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Inc. provides subway, bus,
and commuter railroad transportation services to customers with
disabilities in the United States. Its subway and commuter rail
stations provide accessibility for customers with visual,
hearing, and mobility disabilities. The company also operates
bridges and tunnels. Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Inc.
was founded in 1965 and is based in New York, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph Ralph Santoli, Esq.
          340 Devon Court
          Ridgewood, NJ 07450
          Telephone: (201) 926-9200
          E-mail: josephsantoli@aol.com

               - and -

          Stephen John Fearon, Jr.,Esq.
          SQUITIERI & FEARON LLP
          32 East 57th Street, 12th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 575-2092
          Facsimile: (212) 575-2184
          E-mail: stephen@sfclasslaw.com


MICHAEL HARRISON: Faces "Bleier" Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Michael Harrison
Attorney at Law. The case is styled as Sarah Bleier, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Michael
Harrison Attorney at Law, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-01392 (E.D.
N.Y., March 6, 2018).

Michael Harrison Attorney at Law is engaged in collecting bad
debts for healthcare providers and businesses in the
Northeast.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Daniel C Cohen, Esq.
   Cohen & Mizrahi LLP
   300 Cadman Plaza West
   12th Floor
   Brooklyn, NY 11201
   Tel: (929) 575-4175
   Fax: (929) 575-4195
   Email: dan@cml.legal


MIMEDX GROUP: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") on Feb. 26 disclosed that it
has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Georgia, on behalf of persons
and entities that acquired MiMedx Group Inc. ("MiMedx" or the
"Company") (NASDAQ: MDXG) securities between March 7, 2013, and
February 19, 2018, inclusive (the "Class Period"), asserting
claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.

Investors are hereby notified that they have April 24, 2018 to
move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff in this action.

Investors suffering losses on their MiMedx investments are
encouraged to contact Lesley Portnoy of GPM to discuss their
legal rights at 310-201-9150 or by email to
shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit the MiMedx case page on our
website at www.glancylaw.com/case/mimedx-group-inc-0.

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that, throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects.  Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose: (1)
MiMedx was engaged in a "channel-stuffing" scheme designed to
inappropriately recognize revenue that had not yet been realized;
(2) that the Company failed to employ proper compliance measures
to ensure appropriate accounting practices; (3) that, as a
result, the Company's internal controls over financial reporting
were materially weak; (4) that, as a result, the Company's
financial statements were inaccurate and misleading; and, (5)
that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' statements about
MiMedx's business, operations, and prospects, were false and
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

If you purchased MiMedx securities during the Class Period, you
may move the Court no later than April 24, 2018 to ask the Court
to appoint you as lead plaintiff.  To be a member of the Class
you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel
of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of
the Class.  If you wish to learn more about this action, or if
you have any questions concerning this announcement or your
rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact
Lesley Portnoy, Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park East,
Suite 2100, Los Angeles California 90067 at 310-201-9150, Toll-
Free at 888-773-9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com, or
visit our website at www.glancylaw.com.  If you inquire by email
please include your mailing address, telephone number and number
of shares purchased. [GN]


MIMEDX GROUP: Block & Leviton Investigates Securities Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Block & Leviton LLP, a securities litigation firm representing
investors nationwide, is investigating whether MiMedx Group, Inc.
("MiMedx" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: MDXG) and certain of its
officers and directors violated federal securities laws following
claims that the Company is engaged in a fraudulent accounting
scheme and is under investigation by the SEC.

On February 20, 2018, pre-market, MiMedx announced that the
Company's audit committee "has engaged independent legal and
accounting advisors to conduct an internal investigation into
current and prior-period matters relating to allegations
regarding certain sales and distribution practices at the
Company. Company executives are also reviewing, among other
items, the accounting treatment of certain distributor
contracts."

On this news, the Company's stock is down more than 23% pre-
market, causing tens of millions of dollars in losses to
investors.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired MiMedx securities and have
questions about your legal rights or possess information relevant
to this investigation, you are encouraged to contact attorney
Bradley Vettraino at (617) 398-5600, by email at
bradley@blockesq.com, or by visiting www.blockesq.com/mdxg.

Confidentiality to whistleblowers or others with information
relevant to this investigation is assured.

Block & Leviton LLP -- http://www.blockesq.com-- is a
Boston-based law firm representing investors nationwide.  The
firm's lawyers have collectively been prosecuting securities
cases on behalf of individual and institutional investors for
over 50 years, and have recovered billions of dollars on their
behalf. Block & Leviton's investigations into corporate
wrongdoing were recently covered by the New York Times. [GN]


MONAT GLOBAL: Faces "McWhortor" Suit in S.D. Fla.
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Monat Global Corp.
The case is styled as Andrew McWhortor and Deborah McWhortor,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. Monat Global Corp., a Florida Corporation,
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-20870-JLK (S.D. Fla., March 7, 2018).

MONAT Global Corp. is a designer, manufacturer, and distributor
of hair care products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Barbara Cabrera Lewis, Esq.
   Harke Clasby , Bushman LLP
   9699 NE 2nd Avenue
   Miami Shores, FL 33138
   Tel: (305) 536-8220
   Fax: (305) 536-8229

      - and -

   Lance August Harke, Esq.
   Harke Clasby & Bushman LLP
   9699 NE Second Avenue
   Miami Shores, FL 33138
   Tel: (305) 536-8222
   Fax: (305) 536-8229
   Email: lharke@harkeclasby.com


NEBULA HOLDINGS: Faces "Cohen" Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nebula Holdings,
LLC. The case is styled as Daniel Chaim Cohen, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Nebula
Holdings, LLC dba Nebula Financial and John Does 1-25,
Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-01408 (E.D. N.Y., March 6, 2018).

Nebula Financial Services is a financial consulting firm.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


NELSON AIR: Penava Seeks Construction Project Trust Fund
--------------------------------------------------------
PENAVA MECHANICAL CORP. on behalf of itself and on behalf of all
others entitled to share in the Funds received by NELSON AIR
DEVICE CORPORATION, as Trustee, in connection with the
improvement of real property known as 726 Broadway, New York, New
York, Block: 545, Lot: 15, the Plaintiffs, v. NELSON AIR DEVICE
CORPORATION, MICHAEL HANSMAN, ROBERT A. BRIGANTI NATIONWIDE
MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, and "JOHN DOE No. 1" Through "JOHN DOE
No. 100," said names being fictitious, true names being those
unknown individuals and/or entities liable for the diversion of
trust funds pursuant to Article 3-A of the Lien Law of the State
of New York, in connection with the construction project at 726
Broadway, New York, New York, Block: 545, Lot: 15, the
Defendants, Case No. 650895/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Feb. 26, 2018),
seeks to recover trust funds as defined by Article 3-A of N.Y.
Lien Law, in connection with the construction project, and to
recover pursuant to N.Y. Lien Law section 77 on behalf of itself
individually, and on behalf of any of the Trust Fund
Beneficiaries, who have claims against Nelson Air by reason of
services rendered and materials or equipment incorporated into
the Project, and seeks the determination and allocation of the
respective interests of Penava and the Trust Fund Beneficiaries.

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

Nelson Air operates as a heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning contractor. The company was founded in 1998 and is
based in Maspeth, New York.[BN]

Attorneys for Penava Mechanical Corp.:

          Constantine T. Tzifas, Esq.
          ARTHUR J. SEMETIS, P.C.
          286 Madison Avenue - Suite 1801
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 557 5055


NEW ORLEANS, LA: Owes $25.6MMM in Traffic Camera Refunds
--------------------------------------------------------
The New Orleans Advocate reports that New Orleans owes $25.6
million in refunds to hundreds of thousands of motorists ticketed
by the city's traffic camera program in the first three years of
its existence, a judge has ruled.

Robert Burns, a former Jefferson Parish judge serving as the ad
hoc judge over the lawsuit, finalized the total amount owed in a
ruling.

Refunds of $110 each are owed to motorists who were ticketed by
the red-light cameras while they overseen by the city's Public
Works Department from January 2008 until the beginning of
November 2010, when the program was placed under the oversight of
the New Orleans Police Department.

Burns ruled in November that the tickets issued while the program
was run by Public Works violated the City Charter, and those
cited deserved a full refund, but he did not finalize the amount
the city owed at that time.

In addition to the refunds, Burns ruled the city owes interest on
the payments. That amounts to about $8 million so far, and the
meter is still running, said Joseph McMahon, the lawyer who
brought the class-action suit against the city.

However, those potentially eligible for payments could have a
while to wait. The city has a large backlog of unpaid legal
judgments dating back many years.

In addition, an appeal is likely, according to Mayor Mitch
Landrieu's office.

"The city is weighing its options and will likely appeal this
ruling," Landrieu spokeswoman Aaren Gordon said in an email.

That would push the matter into the term of Mayor-elect LaToya
Cantrell, who has said she intends to get rid of the traffic
cameras and who might decide to drop the appeal. Of course, she
still would have to find the millions needed to pay the judgment.
[GN]


NEW PRIME: Supreme Court to Consider Trucker Arbitration Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Mccue, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that
the Supreme Court on Feb. 26 said it will consider the case of an
independent, interstate trucker who is challenging his being
compelled to arbitrate a dispute with his employer under an
exemption to the Federal Arbitration Act.

In a petition for a writ of certiorari filed in September, the
employer in the case, interstate-trucking company New Prime Inc.,
says it uses both in-house drivers and independent contractors to
handle its pickups and deliveries, and that the opposing party in
the case, Dominic Oliveira, was initially employed as an in-house
driver, but later decided to become a contractor.

He and New Prime signed two separate independent-contractor
agreements which stipulated that any and all employment disputes
would be resolved through arbitration.

However, Mr. Oliveira later filed a putative class action against
New Prime, alleging claims for unpaid wages, misclassification as
an independent contractor, and breach of contract.

New Prime moved to compel arbitration under the Federal
Arbitration Act, but Oliveira objected.

The driver did not dispute the validity of the arbitration
provisions in his contracts, but maintained his lawsuit should be
permitted because the agreements are exempt from enforcement
under Section 1 of the FAA.

Section 1 provides that the Act does not apply "to contracts of
employment of seamen, railroad employees, or any other class of
workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce."

A federal judge denied New Prime's motion to compel arbitration,
holding the question of whether the Section 1 exemption applies
in this case is a threshold issue for the court and that it could
not rightly be delegated to an arbitrator.

The judge noted that Section 1's reference to "contracts of
employment" refers to employer-employee arrangements only, not
independent-contractor agreements.

The issue the court wrestled with was whether the contract terms
clearly established an employer-employee or independent
contractor relationship. In the end, the judge ordered discovery
on that question before determining whether the Section 1
exemption applies.

New Prime appealed the order denying the motion to compel
arbitration, but the First Circuit affirmed, holding that the
applicability of the Section 1 exemption had to be resolved --
even in the presence of an indisputably valid arbitration clause
in the contracts.

Presented with the same question in a separate case, the Eighth
Circuit reached the opposite conclusion, holding that
"'application of the FAA's transportation worker exemption is a
threshold question of arbitrability.'"

As is their custom, the justices did not explain their rationale
for taking up the case. [GN]


NEW YORK UNIVERSITY: Loses Summary Judgment Bid in ERISA Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
Adam Lidgett, writing for Law360, reports that a New York federal
judge has refused to give New York University a quick win on the
remaining claims in an Employee Retirement Income Security Act
class action that claims the school breached a fiduciary duty to
employees in its retirement plans.

U.S. District Judge Katherine B. Forrest on Feb. 22 denied a
summary judgment bid from NYU on the remaining claims in a suit
over how 403(b) retirement plans have been managed.

The case is Sacerdote et al v. New York University, Case No.
1:16-cv-06284.  The case is assigned to Judge Katherine B.
Forrest.  The case was filed August 9, 2016. [GN]


OPTIM LLC: "Yuzhaninov" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
-----------------------------------------------
ANDREY YUZHANINOV, and other similarly situated individuals, the
Plaintiff(s), v. OPTIM LLC d/b/a FAMILY FRESH CAFE and DMITRII
SHCHELKANOV, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-20739-CMA (S.D.
Fla., Feb. 26, 2018), seeks to recover money damages for unpaid
minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

According to the complaint, while employed by the Corporate
Defendant, Plaintiff routinely worked in excess of 40 hours per
week without being compensated at the rate of not less than one
and one half times the regular rate at which he was employed. The
Plaintiff was employed as a server, performing the same or
similar duties as that of those other similarly situated servers
whom Plaintiff observed working in excess of 40 hours per week
without overtime compensation.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          R. Martin Saenz, Esq.
          Ilona D. Anderson, Esq.
          SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC
          20900 NE 30th Avenue, Ste. 800
          Aventura, FL 33180
          Telephone: (305) 503 5131
          Facsimile: (888) 270 5549
          E-mail: msaenz@saenzanderson.com
                  iLona@saenzanderson.com


PETROLEO BRASILEIRO: June 4 Securities Settlement Hearing Set
-------------------------------------------------------------
If You Previously Purchased or Otherwise Acquired Certain
Petrobras Securities, You Could Get a Cash Payment from a Class
Action Settlement

The following statement is being issued by Pomerantz LLP
regarding In re Petrobras Securities Litigation.

Important Legal Notice from the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York

Two proposed settlements have been reached in a securities class
action lawsuit brought by investors against Petroleo Brasileiro
S.A. ("Petrobras") and certain of its affiliates, underwriters,
external auditors, and current and former directors and officers.
The Settlements include certain securities issued by Petrobras.
Petrobras, the Underwriter Defendants, and PricewaterhouseCoopers
Auditores Independentes ("PwC Brazil") deny any and all
allegations of wrongdoing, and the District Court has not decided
who is right.

If you requested exclusion in response to the previously mailed
notice of pendency of class action dated May 9, 2016, you are
included in this Settlement, and you must request exclusion again
if you do not want to be included in the Settlement Class.

Am I included in the proposed Settlements? You are encouraged to
visit the website www.PetrobrasSecuritiesLitigation.com to see if
you are included in the Settlement Class.  The Settlement Class
includes all Persons who:

(a) during the time Period between January 22, 2010 and July 28,
2015, inclusive (the "Class Period"), purchased or otherwise
acquired Petrobras Securities, including debt securities issued
by PifCo and/or PGF, on the New York Stock Exchange or pursuant
to other Covered Transactions; and/or

(b) purchased or otherwise acquired debt securities issued by
Petrobras, PifCo, and/or PGF, in Covered Transactions, directly
in, pursuant and/or traceable to a May 13, 2013 public offering
registered in the United States and/or a March 10, 2014 public
offering registered in the United States before Petrobras made
generally available to its security holders an earnings statement
covering a period of at least twelve months beginning after the
effective date of the offerings (August 11, 2014 in the case of
the May 13, 2013 public offering and May 15, 2015 in the case of
the March 10, 2014 public offering).

For purposes of the Settlements, "Covered Transaction" means any
transaction that satisfies any of the following criteria:

(i) any transaction in a Petrobras Security listed for trading on
the New York Stock Exchange ("NYSE");

(ii) any transaction in a Petrobras Security that cleared or
settled through the Depository Trust Company's book-entry system;
or

(iii) any transaction in a Petrobras Security to which the United
States securities laws apply, including as applicable pursuant to
the Supreme Court's decision in Morrison v. National Australia
Bank, 561 U.S. 247 (2010).

The full definition of the Settlement Class, as well as full
lists of Petrobras Securities eligible to satisfy criteria (i),
(ii), and (iii) are available at:
www.PetrobrasSecuritiesLitigation.com.

What do the Settlements provide? Petrobras, the Underwriter
Defendants, and PwC Brazil have agreed to Settlements with a
combined value of US$3 billion (US$3,000,000,000.00).  The
proposed settlement could provide for a cash payment depending
upon: which securities you purchased or acquired; the number of
eligible securities that you purchased or acquired; and when you
purchased or acquired the eligible securities.

How can I get a Payment? You must submit a Proof of Claim to
receive payment postmarked or submitted by June 9, 2018.  Visit
the website and file a Proof of Claim online, or download one and
file by mail.

What are my other options? If you do not want to be legally bound
by the Settlement, you must exclude yourself by submitting a
written Request for Exclusion Form so that it is received no
later than April 27, 2018.  If you do not exclude yourself, you
will release any claims you may have against Petrobras, the
Underwriter Defendants, and PwC Brazil and certain other Released
Parties.  You may object to the Settlement by submitting a
written objection so that it is received no later than May 11,
2018.  You cannot both exclude yourself from, and object to, the
Settlement.  The longer Notice available on the website listed
below explains how to exclude yourself or object.  The court will
hold a Settlement Hearing on June 4, 2018 to consider whether to
finally approve the Settlement and a request for attorneys' fees
of up to 9.5% of the total Settlement Amount, which is
$285,000,000.00, and a compensatory award of up to $400,000 for
the Class Representatives.  You may appear at the Settlement
Hearing, either by yourself or through an attorney hired by you,
but you do not have to.  For more information, including the
relief, eligibility, and release of claims, call the number or
visit the website below.

Contact:

          1-855-907-3218
          www.PetrobrasSecuritiesLitigation.com
          Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq., 212-661-1100


PREFERRED PAYMENT: "Caraballo" Suit Underway in New York
--------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as SHAMIKA CARABALLO, Plaintiff v. PREFERRED
PAYMENT SYSTEMS CORP. AND PARKING SYSTEMS GROUP INC., Defendants,
Case No. 712029/2017 (N.Y. Sup., Queens Cty., Aug. 30, 2017),
remains pending.

A preliminary case conference was held Feb. 15.

A Motion to Compel/Stay Arbitration was filed by Abdul Hassan Law
Group, PLLC, on Jan. 31.

As of February 10, 1998, Preferred Payment Systems was acquired
by Concentra, Inc.  Preferred Payment Systems, Inc. provides
specialized cost containment and outsourcing services for
healthcare payors.  Through its comprehensive portfolio of
products, the company reduces costs ordinarily payable on medical
bills submitted by healthcare providers and the administrative
expense associated with reviewing and analyzing medical bills.
These services include professional fee negotiation, line-item
analysis, and other specialized audit and bill review processes,
as well as access to a nationwide PPO network. PPS serves as a
one-stop outsourcing solution for cost containment with respect
to medical bills that are outside a healthcare payor's contracted
network of providers.

The Plaintiff sues the Defendants for unpaid regular hours,
overtime hours, minimum wages, wages for missed meal and rest
periods.

Ms. Caraballo was employed by the Defendants on April 30, 2016
until August 26, 2017. Her duties include opening and closing
doors, operating and moving motor vehicles, and walking and
making rounds in the Defendants' working premises.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Abdul K. Hassan, Esq.
          ABDUL HASSAN LAW GROUP, PLLC.
          215-28 Hillside Ave.
          Queens Village, NY 11427
          Telephone: (718) 740-1000
          Facsimile: (718) 355-9668
          E-mail: abdul@abdulhassan.com

The Defendants are represented by Milman, Labuda Law Group.


PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE: Faces "Dillon" Suit in M.D. Florida
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Prudential
Insurance Company of America. The case is styled as Frank Dillon,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. The Prudential Insurance Company of America,
Defendant, Case No. 8:18-cv-00542-VMC-JSS (M.D. Fla., March 7,
2018).

The Prudential Insurance Company of America, Inc. offers life
insurance, annuities, group disability, and care insurance
solutions in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Miguel Bouzas, Esq.
   Florin Gray Bouzas Owens, LLC
   16524 Pointe Village DrSte 100
   Lutz, FL 33558
   Tel: (727) 254-5255
   Fax: (727) 483-7942
   Email: Miguel@fgbolaw.com

       - and -

   Wolfgang M. Florin, Esq.
   Florin Gray Bouzas Owens, LLC
   16524 Pointe Village DrSte 100
   Lutz, FL 33558
   Tel: (727) 254-5255
   Fax: (727) 483-7942
   Email: wolfgang@fgbolaw.com


RESTORATION HARDWARE: Attorneys Fees Challenge Denied
-----------------------------------------------------
Tomas Kassahun, writing for Northern California Record, reports
that the California Supreme Court has ruled against
Francesca Muller, a shopper who challenged part of a $36 million
award in a class action lawsuit against Restoration Hardware Inc.

Ms. Muller had filed a notice of appeal to challenge the attorney
fees as part of the $36 million award.  She believed the lower
court made a mistake by not sending a notice to all class members
about the hearing on the attorneys' fee award.

The court said it denied Ms. Muller's appeal because she didn't
intervene in the class lawsuit at the trial stage.

The court based its decision on the 1942 ruling of Eggert v.
Pacific States Savings & Loan Co, saying that unnamed class
members can't appeal a class judgment, settlement or attorney
fees unless they file a motion to intervene with the case.

Ms. Muller argued that the 1942 ruling is outdated and many
California courts of appeal have stopped following it.

Cases such as the1975 decision in Trotsky v. Los Angeles have
allowed unnamed class member to file an appeal, Muller said.

The court, however, didn't find any persuasive reason for making
an exception against the ruling of Eggert v. Pacific States
Savings & Loan Co.

The Restoration Hardware litigation began in 2008. Plaintiff
Michael Hernandez filed a class action against Restoration,
alleging it violated the Song-Beverly Credit Card Act by
recording ZIP codes from customers who used a credit card to make
purchases at its California retail stores.

The trial court decided on a $36 million judgment against
Restoration Hardware, then approved an award of $9.1 million for
attorney fees. [GN]


RIOT BLOCKCHAIN: Faces Three Securities Class Actions
-----------------------------------------------------
Wolfie Zhao, writing for Coindesk, reports that amid Riot
Blockchain's claims to have moved into bitcoin mining and
acquiring blockchain startups, investors are accusing the firm of
violating U.S. securities law by issuing misleading and false
information.

According to court filings, investors in the firm have submitted
three class action complaints against Riot Blockchain (on Feb. 17
and 22) in three U.S. states, accusing the firm of share-price
manipulation through a dubious cryptocurrency pivot.

As reported previously by CoinDesk, Riot Blockchain is one of the
several public companies that have seen major stock price rallies
after announcing a blockchain-based re-branding.

In October last year, the firm changed its name from Bioptix to
Riot Blockchain. Subsequently the company said its business has
shifted from biotechnology to blockchain, including bitcoin
mining.

Following the initial announcement, the firm's stock price on
NASDAQ soared from around $8 to as high as $38 in December 2017.
Yet, shares are now down by roughly 70 percent from those levels,
and trading at just over $10.

As a result, investors are filing complaints to courts in
Florida, Colorado and New Jersey seeking remedy for the
investment loss, arguing Riot Blockchain sent out false
information to disguise its absence of genuine blockchain
expertise.

One of the filings states:

"Riot lacked a meaningful business plan with respect to the
cryptocurrency business and had only minimal investments in
cryptocurrency products; the Company changed its name to Riot
Blockchain, Inc. as part of a scheme to capitalize on public
interest in cryptocurrency products, thereby driving up the
Company's stock price and enriching inside shareholders."

Riot Blockchain did not respond to a request for comment on the
lawsuits.

The cases come as the latest that slap on public companies that
have seen major price corrections after first recording
significant share price surges due to a blockchain pivot.

Previously, Xunlei, a China-based cloud technology company listed
on New York Stock Exchange, was also hit by similar allegations
that accused the firm of distributing false and misleading
information regarding its blockchain-related business. [GN]


RIOT BLOCKCHAIN: Faces Securities Class Action in Florida
---------------------------------------------------------
Avi Mizrahi, writing for Bitcoin.com, reports that Riot
Blockchain, Inc. (NASDAQ:RIOT) has been hit with a class action
lawsuit in the Southern District of Florida.  The complaint
charges the company, its officers and one of its major
shareholders with violations of the US Securities Exchange Act of
1934. Before October 2017, Riot was a biotechnology company known
as Bioptix, Inc. that specialized in the development of
veterinary diagnostic tools.  On October 4, Bioptix announced it
was changing its name to Riot Blockchain and shifting its
business focus to investing in blockchain technologies.  It is
accused that as a result of defendants' false statements and
omissions, the prices of Riot's securities were artificially
inflated.

The complaint alleges that defendants made false and misleading
statements or failed to disclose adverse material information
regarding Riot's business and operations. Specifically, the
complaint alleges defendants failed to disclose that it had
changed its name to Riot Blockchain in order to generate investor
enthusiasm and tie the company to the recent rise in the price of
cryptocurrencies, despite its lack of a significant blockchain
business in order to further an insider scheme that would allow
Riot's controlling shareholder Barry Honig and his associates to
sell their Riot securities at artificially inflated prices. In
addition, according to the complaint, Honig and other investors
were effectively controlling Riot and its operations and exerting
undisclosed influence over the company and its CEO.

Long Blockchain to be Kicked Out of Nasdaq?
Nasdaq-Listed "Blockchain" Companies Hit With New Legal
TroublesLong Blockchain Corp. (NASDAQ:LBCC) has received a notice
from Nasdaq stating that it had determined to delist the
company's securities. SEC documents also show that Nasdaq was
revoking its prior notification to Long Blockchain. Prior to June
2017 the company was called Long Island Iced Tea, and gained
notoriety when its stock price increased by 432% in a single day
after rebranding.

The company has the right to appeal Nasdaq's determination but
even if its appeal is approved, Long Blockchain will still need
to regain compliance by April 9, 2018.  In order to do this, the
market value of the company's listed securities must remain at
$35 million or more for a minimum of ten consecutive business
days.  If Long Blockchain does not regain compliance by such
date, the company's securities would again be subject to
potential delisting. [GN]


ROYAL SEAFOOD: Faces "Bishop" Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Royal Seafood Baza
Inc. The case is styled as Cedric Bishop, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Royal Seafood
Baza Inc., doing business as: Netcost Market, Defendant, Case No.
1:18-cv-02044-JGK (S.D. N.Y., March 6, 2018).

Royal Seafood Baza, Inc. is a wholesaler of fresh or frozen fish,
shelf stable fish, seafood, shellfish, aquatic invertebrates,
aquatic plants and more.[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


S & K CORPORATION: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime, "Kwag" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Chul Ho Kwag, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. S & K Corporation; Kyungja Jeong; Seyoung
Jeong, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-00395-RBW (D.D.C., Feb. 21,
2018) seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, and unlawful
deductions, pursuant to the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from May 2014 to January
2018.

S & K Corporation is a corporation registered with the District
of Columbia. The Company was engaged in the business of wine,
beer and deli food. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          (Michael) Hyunkweon Ryu, Esq.
          RYU & RYU, PLC
          301 Maple Ave West, Suite 620
          Vienna VA 22180


SCHOOL OF VISUAL ARTS: Faces "Bishop" Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against School of Visual
Arts, LLC. The case is styled as Cedric Bishop, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. School of
Visual Arts, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-02045 (S.D. N.Y.,
March 6, 2018).

School of Visual Arts (SVA) is a for-profit art and design
college located in Manhattan, New York, founded in 1947.[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


SCV FLEET: Failed to Pay Wages Including Overtime, Sales Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
TOLENTINO SALES, as an individual, and on behalf of all similarly
situated employees, the Plaintiff, v. SCV FLEET MANAGEMENT, LLC,
a California Limited Liability Company; JAMES RYAN, an
individual; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, the Defendants,
Case No. BC695510 (Cal. Super. Ct., Feb. 26, 2018), seeks to
recover unpaid Pay Wages including overtime under the California
Labor Code.

According to the complaint, Defendants have consistently
maintained and enforced against Plaintiff Class the following
unlawful practices and policies: (a) willfully refusing to pay
Plaintiff and Plaintiff Class for all hours worked, including
both regular and overtime; (b) willfully refusing to permit
Plaintiff and Plaintiff Class from taking meal and/or rest
periods or compensation in lieu thereof; (c) willfully refusing
to compensate Plaintiff and certain members of the Plaintiff
Class wages due and owing at the time Plaintiffs and Plaintiff
Class' employment with Defendants ended; and (d) willfully
refusing to furnish to Plaintiff and Plaintiff Class accurate
itemized wage statements upon payment of wages.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kevin Mahoney, Esq.
          Katherine J. Odenbreit, Esq.
          Morgan Glynn, Esq.
          MAHONEY LAW GROUP, APC
          249 E. Ocean Blvd., Ste. 814
          Long Beach, CA 90802
          Telephone: (562) 590 5550
          Facsimile: (562) 590 8400
          E-mail: kmahoney@mahoney-law.net
                  kodenbreit@mahoney-law.net
                  mglynn@mahoney-law.net


SIMMZYS LLC: Fails to Pay Wages, "Vanegas" Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------
MARIA ESTER VANEGAS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SIMMZYS, LLC; ARTHUR J LLC;
MBPO, LLC; MWH, LLC; TRB, LLC; SCL200, LLC; and JOHN DOES 1
through 50, inclusive, Case No. BC694817 (Cal. Super., Los
Angeles Cty., Feb. 21, 2018) alleges that the Defendants failed
to provide the Plaintiff and all other similarly situated
individuals with meal and rest periods, and to pay them minimum
wages, overtime wages, and pay all wages due to discharged and
quitting employees, at the correct rate.

Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants and was assigned in the
County of Los Angeles, State of California.

Simmzys, LLC is a California limited liability company organized
and existing under the laws of the State of California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew J. Matern, Esq.
          Matthew W. Gordon, Esq.
          Braunson C. Virjee, Esq.
          MATERN LAW GROUP, PC
          1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 200
          Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
          Telephone: (310) 531-1900
          Facsimile: (310) 531-1901


SOCIAL EDGE: Women Receive Lower Pay, Solomon Says
--------------------------------------------------
Rachael Solomon, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. The Social Edge Network, Inc.;
Jay Kuo; and Lorenzo Thione, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-01571-
ER (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 21, 2018) is an action against the Defendants
for discriminatory, retaliatory, and unlawful conduct against the
Plaintiff.

The complaint alleged that Defendants is guilty of gender
discrimination by: (a) paying female employees less than their
male counterparts; (b) denying female employees promotions and
advancement opportunities in favor of male employees; (c)
creating a hostile work environment for female employees; and (d)
retaliating against female employees for complaining about gender
discrimination.

Ms. Solomon was employed by the Defendants from year 2013 to
September 2017.

The Social Edge Network, Inc. is a corporation organized under
the laws of the State of New York, with place of business in New
York, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Benjamin Weisenberg, Esq.
          THE OTTINGER FIRM, P.C.
          401 Park Avenue South
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 571-2000
          Facsimile: (212) 571-0505
          E-mail: benjamin@ottingerlaw.com


STEELE WATER: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, "Ramos" Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
DARIO RAMOS, and WILSON RODRIGUEZ, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. STEELE WATER CABLE,
INC.; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Defendants, BC694818 (Cal.
Super., Los Angeles Cty., Feb. 21, 2018) seeks to recover unpaid
wages, continuing wages, damages and attorney's fees and costs
against the Defendants.

Plaintiffs are former technicians of the Defendants, performing
cable installation duties within the State of California.

Steele Water Cable, Inc. is a California corporation with its
principal place of business in Los Angeles County, California.
The Company is engaged in the business of installing video,
voice, and data cables for telecommunications and cable systems
throughout California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alan Harris, Esq.
          David Garrett, Esq.
          HARRIS AND RUBLE
          655 North Central Avenue, 17th Floor
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (323) 962-3777
          Facsimile: (323) 962-3004
          E-mail: HarrisA@harrisandruble.com
                  dgarrett@harrisandruble.com

               - and -

          Daniel Forouzan, Esq.
          FOROUZAN LAW
          2029 Century Park East, Suite 400
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (888) 551-0163
          Facsimile: (888) 710-0039


SUMMIT COLLECTION: Darwish Sues over Debt Collection
----------------------------------------------------
Ashraf Darwish, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Summit Collection Services,
Inc., and Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-02488-CCC-JBC
(D.N.J., Feb. 21, 2018) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and
unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Summit Global Services, LLC provides litigation support services
and document management solutions to lawyers and law firms. The
company was founded in 2005 and is headquartered in Glen Allen,
Virginia. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SUTTER BAY: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages & OT, Lee Says
-----------------------------------------------------
MICHELLE LEE, individually and on behalf of all similarly
situated and/or aggrieved employees of DEFENDANTS in the State of
California, the Plaintiffs, v. SUTTER BAY MEDICAL FOUNDATION, and
DOES 1 through 50, Inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. RG18894306
(Cal. Super. Ct., Feb. 26, 2018), seeks to recover minimum and
regular wages and overtime wages under California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff is a former, non-exempt
employee of Defendant who was employed as a clinical coordinator
and worked at Defendant's Walk-In-Clinics in Dublin, Petaluma,
Walnut Creek, and San Francisco, California from March 2017 until
her termination on September 14, 5 2017. Throughout her
employment with Defendant, Plaintiff was compensated at an hourly
rate of pay of approximately $30.00 per hour during weekday
shifts, as well as earned differential pay for night and weekend
shifts. Defendant denied Plaintiff and, on information and
belief, other similarly situated and/or aggrieved employees
certain rights afforded to them under the California Labor Code
and the applicable IWC Wage Order. Specifically, Defendant did
not properly compensate Plaintiff and other similarly situated
and/or aggrieved employees for all hours worked, failed to
provide compliant meal and rest periods, did not provide accurate
itemized wage statements, failed to indemnify them for all
necessary business expenses, and did not pay all wages due and
owing by the times set forth by law.

Sutter East Bay Medical Foundation is a not-for-profit health
care organization providing outpatient medical services in the
East Bay.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff Michelle Lee and aggrieved employees:

          Graham S.P. Hollis, Esq.
          Nicole R. Roysdon, Esq.
          Geoff D. La Val, Esq.
          GRAHAMHOLLIS APC
          3555 Fifth Avenue, Suite 200
          San Diego, CA 92103
          Telephone: 619.692.0800
          Facsimile: 619.692.0822
          E-mail: ghollis@grahamhollis.com
                  nroysdon@grahamhollis.com
                  glaval@grahamhollis.com


SWISSPORT SA: Stephens Seeks Unpaid Minimum Wages under Labor Law
-----------------------------------------------------------------
NELSON STEPHENS and ROY TAYLOR individually and on behalf of all
other persons similarly situated who were employed by SWISSPORT
SA, LLC, SERVISAIR LLC, and any related or affiliated entities,
the Plaintiffs, v. SWISSPORT SA, LLC, SERVISAIR LLC, and any
related or affiliated entities, the Defendants, Case No.
151704/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Feb. 26, 2018), seeks to recover
unpaid minimum wages and damages pursuant to New York Labor Law.

According to the complaint, beginning in approximately February
2012, and continuing through the present, Defendants have engaged
in a policy and practice of failing to pay Plaintiffs earned
minimum wages for work they performed on behalf of Defendants.
From at least February 2012, Defendants' policy and practice was
to compensate Plaintiffs at subminimum wages by claiming a
greater tip allowance than that which is authorized Defendants'
failure to compensate Plaintiffs at the applicable minimum wage
rate for tipped employees in miscellaneous industries as
enumerated in 12 NYCRR section 142-2.5(b) violates the minimum
wage provisions of the NYLL.[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiffs and the Putative Class:

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


TECHNOLOGY REVIEW: Faces "Sullivan" Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Technology Review,
Inc. The case is styled as Phillip Sullivan Jr., on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Technology Review, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-02012 (S.D.
N.Y., March 6, 2018).

Technology Review, Inc. was founded in 2001. The company's line
of business includes the publishing and printing of
periodicals.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   C.K. Lee, Esq.
   Lee Litigation Group, PLLC
   30 East 39th Street
   2nd Floor
   New York, NY 10016
   Tel: (212) 465-1188
   Fax: (212) 465-1181
   Email: cklee@leelitigation.com


TOTAL DENTAL IMPLANT: Faces "Bishop" Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Total Dental
Implant Solutions LLC. The case is styled as Cedric Bishop, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Total Dental Implant Solutions LLC, doing business as:
Contemporary Dental, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-02015 (S.D.
N.Y., March 6, 2018).

Total Dental Implant Solutions LLC (trade name Tag Dental Implant
Solutions) is in the Dental Equipment and Supplies business.[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


TUESDAY MORNING: Violates Disabled Persons Act, Velarde Says
------------------------------------------------------------
HECTOR VELARDE on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. TUESDAY MORNING, INC., the Defendant,
Case No. BC 695585 (Cal. Super. Ct., Feb. 26, 2018), seeks to
statutory damages and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs on
behalf of himself, and injunctive relief on behalf of the
putative Class who has patronized or would like to patronize
stores of Defendant, in violation of the anti-discrimination
state statutes of California, the Unruh Civil Rights Act,
California Code, and the California Disabled Persons Act.

According to the complaint, on December 21, 2017, the Plaintiff
patronized the Tuesday Morning store located at 23855 Hawthorne
Blvd., Torrance, CA to purchase various items and suffered
discrimination as a result of being denied full and equal access.
Specifically, this store denied Plaintiff equal access because it
did not provide an accessible parking lot and/or restroom area.
First, Plaintiff was deterred from parking in a handicap
accessible parking space because the parking lot did not
provide handicap accessible parking signage with language below
the symbol of accessibility stating "minimum fine $250.00" and/or
warning language regarding the penalty for unauthorized use of
designated disabled parking spaces in order to deter the use of
handicap spaces by non-handicapped persons. As a result,
Plaintiff was unable to park in a handicap accessible parking
space. Once inside the store, Plaintiff was denied equal access
to the store's restroom. Initially, Plaintiff was unable to
access the restroom without assistance because the restroom door
was so heavy, the force required by him to open the restroom door
made it impossible for him to wheel himself inside, unassisted.
Once inside the restroom, Plaintiff was deterred from using the
restroom stall because the center of the toilet is situated in
such a way that there is inadequate space for a wheelchair-bound
person to enter the stall, turn, close the stall door and make
transfer to the toilet. Finally, prior to exiting the restroom,
Plaintiff was deterred from washing his hands because the soap
dispenser and restroom mirror were both mounted excessively high
and out of reach to a wheelchair-bound person, and because the
pipes under the lavatory are not covered and Plaintiff feared
burning his legs. As a result, Plaintiff was unable to use the
restroom.

Tuesday Morning Corporation is an American discount, off-price
retailer specializing in domestic and international, designer and
name-brand closeout merchandise. The company has stores across
the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Evan J. Smith, Esq.
          BRODSKY & SMITH, LLC
          9595 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 900
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone: (877) 534 2590
          Facsimile: (310) 247 0160


ULTA BEAUTY: Faces Two Class Actions for Reselling Used Products
----------------------------------------------------------------
WSAW reports that popular personal products chain Ulta Beauty is
accused of reselling used products.

The rapidly-growing company with more than 1,000 stores in 48
states is facing two class-action lawsuits that claim employees
repackaged products that were damaged or returned and then put
them back on shelves.

Plaintiff Kimberly Brown says the beauty retailer used to be her
one-stop shop for personal care products until she saw a Twitter
post from a former Ulta associate who said managers at Brown's
favorite Ulta location were allegedly reselling used products as
new, reports CBS News' Anna Werner.

"We were told by managers to repackage/reseal the item and put it
back on the shelf" the social media post reads.  "They would
resell EVERYTHING. (makeup, hair care, skincare, fragrance, hair
tools, etc.)," the associate wrote in another post.

The former employee included photos of products.  In one example,
she alleges that Ulta employees would clean a used foundation
stick with a Q-Tip and resell it.  Other people joined in,
posting their experiences from around the country.

"I felt duped," Ms. Brown said.  "For somebody to come forward
like that is a pretty big deal, it sends a big red flag in my
book."

Ms. Brown joined a class-action lawsuit that claims, "Ulta has
continued to deceive consumers for years, repackaging, restocking
and reselling used beauty products including cosmetics at full
price as if they were new."

In a video posted on Ulta's website, a company executive denied
the practice.  "Ulta Beauty's policy does not permit the resale
of used, damaged, or expired products.  Period.  We take
protecting the integrity of the products we sell very seriously,"
she said.

But former Ulta Beauty store operations manager Brittany Ludwig
says at one store she saw them "cleaning" lip products and eye
shadows.

At another, she said, shampoos, lotions, and other items in
bottles were put back on the shelf.

She says some of that she did herself because higher-level
managers pressured the stores to keep the dollar amount for
damaged or returned goods down.

"We had other managers come in from other stores and they were
saying 'OK, yeah, you need to clean all these returns, you need
to clean this, this is how you're going to get your numbers
down,' and it was all a numbers game," she said.  "I don't feel
so great about doing it now, but at that time that's what I was
told to do my job."

Ulta told CBS News it is "confident that our stores uphold our
policies and practices."

WSAW did speak to other Ulta associates who say they did not see
this happen in their store, and one said she was told nothing
that had been used should be put back on the shelves.

But Ms. Brown says she filed the lawsuit because she thinks it's
a huge consumer protection issue and says consumers shouldn't
have to worry they are being duped when making purchases. [GN]


UNITED CARD: Made Unsolicited Calls, "Fabricant" Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
TERRY FABRICANT, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UNITED CARD SOLUTIONS LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-01429-PA-FFM (C.D. Cal., Feb. 21,
2018) alleges that Defendant has made unsolicited calls in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

United Card Solutions LLC is an Oregon limited liability company.
The Company does business in California and throughout the United
States, including the making of telemarketing calls. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jon B. Fougner, Esq.
          600 California Street, 11th Fl.
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (434) 623-2843
          Facsimile: (206) 338-0783
          E-mail: Jon@FougnerLaw.com


UNIVERSAL AMERICAN: Faces "Young" Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Universal American
Corp. The case is styled as Lawrence Young and on behalf of all
other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Universal American
Corp., Wellcare Health Plans Inc and WellCare of New York, Inc.,
Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-02067 (S.D. N.Y., March 7, 2018).

Universal American Corp., together with its subsidiaries,
provides health benefits to people covered by Medicare in the
United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


US GYPSUM: Fails to Pay for Overtime Work, "Wren" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------
LEXINGTON WREN; and MICHAEL JOHNSON, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. UNITED STATES GYPSUM
COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 7:18-cv-00029-DC (W.D. Tex., Feb.
21, 2018) is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
the minimum wage rate for all hours worked and the required
overtime premium rate for all hours worked over 40 per week, in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Mr. Johnson worked for the Defendant from December 1998 to the
present. Mr. Wren worked for the Defendant from April 2001 to the
present.

United States Gypsum Company, Inc. manufactures and markets
gypsum-based products. The company was incorporated in 1901 and
is based in Chicago, Illinois.  It operates as a subsidiary of
USG Corporation. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J. Derek B. Raziel, Esq.
          Travis Gasper, Esq.
          LEE & BRAZIEL, L.L.P.
          1801 N. Lamar Street, Suite 325
          Dallas, TX 75202
          Telephone: (214) 749-1400 phone
          Facsimile: (214) 749-1010 fax
          E-mail: jdbraziel@l-b-law.com
                  gasper@l-b-law.com

               - and -

          Jack Siegel, Esq.
          SIEGEL LAW GROUP, PLLC
          2820 McKinnon, Suite 5009
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: (214) 706-0834
          Facsimile: (469) 339-0204
          E-mail: jack@siegellawgroup.biz


VOLKSWAGEN AG: Settles Diesel Emissions Class Action Before Trial
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew J. Hawkins, writing for The Verge, reports that Volkswagen
settled a major diesel emissions class action lawsuit brought by
hundreds of vehicle owners right before the case was set to go to
trial.  The German auto giant's US division settled the lawsuit
brought by a North Carolina man and over 300 other owners of
diesel cars who allege fraud and unfair trade practices.

The trial could have featured testimony from current and former
VW executives and would likely have caused a spate of bad press
for the automaker regarding the Dieselgate scandal.  Since it
first broke in 2015, the controversy has led to the resignation
of VW's CEO, seen a handful of executives sentenced to jail, and
resulted in billions of dollars in fines and settlements.

VW is being sued by some consumers after it admitted to using
software to cheat on diesel emissions tests, sparking the biggest
scandal to hit the auto industry in decades.  David Doar, the
North Carolina man along with more than 300 other US VW diesel
owners, rejected settlement offers from a 2016 class action that
would have reimbursed them for the value of their vehicles.

Nearly all US owners of affected VW vehicles agreed to take part
in a $25 billion settlement in 2016, which included buyback
offers and additional compensation for about 500,000 owners.  But
according to Reuters, some 2,000 owners have opted out, and most
are pursuing separate claims seeking additional compensation.

VW was featured in a Netflix documentary series about corruption,
which disclosed that the company had jointly sponsored tests
exposing monkeys to toxic diesel fumes in 2014.  The company
argued that publicity from the documentary could prejudice its
chances of receiving a fair trial.  VW had sought to delay the
trial after Mr. Doar's lawyer was interviewed for the
documentary, but a judge rejected the request. [GN]


WEINSTEIN CO: Seeks Dismissal of Sexual Misconduct Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------
Ron Matthews, writing for 10ThousandCouple, reports that
Harvey Weinstein has asked a judge to toss out a federal sexual
misconduct lawsuit filed against him and he's invoking the words
of Jennifer Lawrence, Meryl Streep and other A-list actresses in
his defense.

"Even though Mr. Weinstein has worked with hundreds of actresses
and actors who had only professional and mutually respectful
experiences with him", the statement added, "Mr. Weinstein has
directed in the future that no specific names be used by his
counsel, even where those actors have made previous public
statements about him".  Six women are suing Weinstein and what
they call the "Weinstein Sexual Enterprise", which they say
includes his brother Bob and their co-founded studio The
Weinstein Company, claiming they conspired to hide Weinstein's
widespread alleged sexual harassment. Lawrence hit back at the
disgrace mogul, calling him a "predator" after Weinstein's
lawyers used favourable quotes about him from the Hollywood
stars. Lawrence also issued her own statement, criticizing
Weinstein for continuing to do what he has always done -- to take
things out of context and use them for his own gain.  "Paltrow
was not so offended that she refused to work with Weinstein
again, nor did her career suffer as a result of her rebuffing his
alleged advances", the court papers said.  "Harvey Weinstein's
attorneys use of my (true) statement - that he was not sexually
transgressive or physically abusive in our business relationship
-- as evidence that he was not abusive with many other women is
pathetic and exploitive".  Saying that the proposed class of
affected women was "fatally overbroad", lawyers for Weinstein
said that the suit would include all women Weinstein ever met,
whether they even claimed to be harmed.  She added that while she
personally did not experience any abuse from Weinstein, she
stands behind all the women who are now seeking justice after all
the awful abuse they had experienced with the disgraced media
executive.  They also said that Weinstein acknowledges Streep and
Lawrence's "valuable input" in the ongoing conversation and
apologizes to them for mentioning their names.  Lawyers
Phyllis Kupferstein and Mary E Flynn wrote that this would
include actresses such as Streep and Lawrence who have not made
allegations of sexual misconduct.  Weinstein's lawyers are trying
to attack the lawsuit by claiming it's overly broad, which makes
it impossible to identify the real victims.  Attorney
Elizabeth Fegan, who filed the lawsuit on behalf of six
actresses, said her team looks forward to showing that "Weinstein
and his enablers should be held responsible for decades of
assaults and coverups". [GN]


WEINSTEIN CO: Bankruptcy Filing May Impact Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
David Meyer, writing for Fortune, reports that the impending
bankruptcy filing of The Weinstein Company will likely add a
major twist to the on-going lawsuits against the company, many of
which relate to the alleged sexual misconduct of Harvey
Weinstein.

The firm, which produced films such as The King's Speech and
Tulip Fever, revealed that it would file for bankruptcy.  If it
follows through, it will probably have to be removed as a co-
defendant in the suits where it is named.

The Weinstein Company fired Weinstein, who co-founded it, after
the allegations against the movie mogul emerged in October last
year.  However, several of the suits resulting from Weinstein's
alleged conduct have since targeted the company, as well as him.

A class action filed in December by actresses such as
Louisette Geiss and Katherine Kendall claims that the production
company and others enabled Weinstein's predatory behavior.  The
company filed a motion to dismiss the suit, arguing that
Weinstein alone was responsible.

Weinstein's former personal assistant, Sandeep Rehal, also named
The Weinstein Company as a co-defendant when she sued last
December, alleging that she had been forced to facilitate his
sexual behavior and had herself been a victim of his harassment.

British actress Kadian Noble, who claims that Weinstein assaulted
her in Cannes, France, also sued the company along with
Weinstein, back in November.

And then there's the lawsuit from husband-and-wife production
team Scott Lambert and Alexandra Milchan, who sued The Weinstein
Company over the collapse of a planned Amazon series, which was
supposed to be produced by the firm but was scrapped after the
scandal broke--the pair said the company must have known the
scandal was coming.

And just a few days ago, the Swiss chocolatier Lindt and Sprungli
sued The Weinstein Company for $133,333, over the cancellation of
a Weinstein Golden Globes party for which it had already shelled
out sponsorship money.

All these plaintiffs now face a problem, in part, brought about
by yet another lawsuit.

The Weinstein Company is out of cash, and it had been hoping to
sell itself for $500 million in order to stay afloat.  But then,
earlier in February, New York attorney general Eric Schneiderman
launched a civil rights lawsuit against the firm (and Weinstein
himself) for violating gender discrimination, sexual harassment,
sexual abuse and coercion laws.

The suit explicitly said that any sale must see Weinstein's
victims compensated.  And it seems that the sale -- to an
investor group led by former Small Business Administration head
Maria Contreras-Sweet -- has now fallen through.

In a letter to Contreras-Sweet on Feb. 25, The Weinstein Company
said that the investors asked the company to work with them as
partners "toward the common goal of saving the Company,
preserving jobs and establishing a victims' fund."

The firm said this would have required urgent interim funding to
stop it from going under, but this had not appeared.  "Instead,
you increased the liabilities left behind for the Company,
charting a financial path that will fail," The Weinstein Company
said, alleging other failures on the investors' part.

"While we deeply regret that your actions have led to this
unfortunate outcome for our employees, our creditors and any
victims, we will now pursue the Board's only viable option to
maximize the Company's remaining value: an orderly bankruptcy
process."

In general, bankruptcies effectively end lawsuits against the
company going bust -- the New York attorney general's suit would
be an exception here, as it is a law enforcement suit.  As soon
as a company files for bankruptcy, the suits seeking damages are
suspended.  The only way plaintiffs can continue the suit is to
demonstrate that the bankruptcy was filed for in bad faith, for
example by proving that the firm had no other liabilities.

With The Weinstein Company reportedly in debt to the tune of $520
million (as calculated back in November), that probably means
those suing the production firm will get no money from it.

That said, many of the suits named The Weinstein Company as a
co-defendant.  With the other co-defendants including Harvey
Weinstein himself and, in the class action, his brother
Bob Weinstein and their former production company Miramax, the
plaintiffs may potentially still see a payout.

This article was updated to clarify that the New York AG's suit
would go ahead, bankruptcy notwithstanding. [GN]


WV AMERICAN: More Than 80,000 Claims Filed in Water Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Carrie Hodousek, writing for MetroNews, reports that claims filed
in connection with the 2014 water crisis settlement will continue
to come in over the next few days following the deadline.

Charleston attorney Anthony Majestro told MetroNews they received
more than 80,000 claims for the $151 million settlement between
West Virginia American Water Company and Eastman Chemical
following the 2014 Freedom Industries chemical spill on the Elk
River.

The total class size is around 120,000 representing the homes and
businesses that lost usable tap water in the spill's aftermath.

The deadline to file claims was February 21.  Claims had to be
posted-marked by that day.

"Some more will continue to trickle in.  We expect to get a few
more hundred in over the next few days," Mr. Majestro said.

In just the last few hours before the filing period ended, more
than 1,000 claims came in.

"The response to it, we believe, shows that the settlement was
something that people thought was worth while," Mr. Majestro
said.

Class action settlements typically have a 20 percent
participation rate, Mr. Majestro said.  This settlement had about
a 50-60 percent rate.

People can expect to see reimbursement checks in the mail within
the next 2-3 months.

The claims administrator will be going through and verifying each
claim. Mr. Majestro said they're still waiting on the court to
enter the final order.  That will allows them the authorization
to release the money from the settlement.

"Hopefully in the next several months the settlement
administrator can start writing checks," he said. [GN]


XPO LOGISTICS: Truck Drivers File Class Action in California
------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Schremmer, writing for Land Line, reports that a class-
action lawsuit claims that XPO Logistics used a deliberate scheme
to misclassify their truck drivers as independent contractors,
thus denying them the protections available to employees under
California law.

The lawsuit was filed by attorneys Julie Gutman Dickinson and C.
Joe Sayas Jr. on Feb. 26 in the Superior Court of California.

"This class action seeks to enjoin the defendants' unlawful
conduct, to obtain restitution of unpaid wages and unlawful
deductions made from truck drivers' pay, and to prosecute a
private enforcement action to collect civil penalties under the
Labor Code Private Attorney General Act," the lawsuit said.

The class action claims Jacksonville, Fla.-based XPO Cartage
Inc., doing business as XPO Logistics, failed to pay minimum
wage, wages for missed meal periods, wages for missed rest
periods, and reimbursements for business expenses.  The lawsuit
also cited XPO's failure to provide accurate, itemized wage
statements, waiting time penalties, unfair competition and
recovery of penalties under the Private Attorney General Act as
causes for the action.

Plaintiffs are seeking unpaid wages and all compensation due, as
well as declaratory relief, liquidated damages and permanent
injunctions preventing XPO from continuing their current business
practices.

The topic of working conditions for port truck drivers has been
in the news since USA Today published an investigative report
that looked at unfair labor practices in the Port of Los Angeles.

According to the lawsuit, there are several reasons XPO truck
drivers are misclassified as independent contractors.

"The days and hours worked by drivers are controlled by the XPO
defendants," the lawsuit said.  "To obtain work each day, drivers
are required to check in with the XPO defendants' dispatchers at
the start of the drivers' work shift, at which time the driver is
provided an initial load assignment.  Throughout the course of
the workday, the driver must continually contact the XPO
defendants to receive further instructions on further assignments
and is expected to continue working until all cargo loads have
been pulled and may be reprimanded and/or denied further
assignments if he or she stops working early."

The lawsuit also alleges that XPO uses tablet computers issued to
drivers to monitor in real time the location, movement and status
of drivers pulling loads for the company.

Angel Omar Alvarez, Alberto Rivera, and Fernando Ramirez are
named as plaintiffs in the case.  Ms. Dickinson said there are
more than 160 plaintiffs in the class action. However, she
expects more to be added. [GN]


* Stage One Report for Class Action Bill Published in Scotland
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Scotsman reports that the Civil Litigation (Expenses and
Group Proceedings) (Scotland) Bill comes almost 40 years after
lawmakers first considered multi-party litigation procedure.
Implementing recommendations of Lord Gill's 2009 Scottish Civil
Courts Review, it is driven by a policy to improve access to
justice.  The stage one report has been published and there
remain hoops for it to jump through, but personal injury lawyers
and consumer groups support the bill becoming law.  If it does,
how will it impact litigation in Scotland? Scotland currently has
no formal procedure to deal with multiple claims as a group, with
parties usually agreeing the solution of running one or two "test
cases" to trial (proof), while the rest are paused (sisted). The
pursuers still need to raise each case individually at
considerable expense and a test case decision is not always
binding on the rest.  Depending upon the litigation, it may not
be easy to reach consensus. In larger or more complex group
claims, the Court of Session has taken a more creative, ad hoc
approach.  For example, in the pelvic mesh and Vioxx litigations,
both highly complex, the court set out bespoke procedures through
a series of Practice Directions.  However, the power of the court
to proceed in that way has been questioned.  Evidence has shown
that group procedure is widely welcomed in Scotland.  Costs for
pursuers would reduce, businesses would be deterred from harmful
behaviour by the threat of mass litigation, and precious court
time would be saved.  Does the bill match these ambitious aims?
If it became law, group procedure in Scotland would look like
this:

   -- Available only in the Court of Session.

   -- Minimum of two claims per group, but no maximum.

   -- "Opt-in" -- relevant claims are not automatically included
in the group.

   -- One representative party's case, not necessarily a member,
is heard on behalf of the group.

   -- A decision in the representative party's case is binding on
the group.

   -- The court must give permission to apply the procedure,
which will only be granted if all of the claims "raise issues
(whether of fact or law) which are the same as, or similar or
related to, each other."

Immediate questions arise.  Why withhold this from sheriff
courts?

The All Scotland Personal Injury Court would be a more cost-
effective forum to litigate many low-value claims.  Sheriff
courts might also be suited to considering low value human rights
cases.  Claimants using the Court of Session will pass higher
costs on to defenders in any award of expenses if successful.
What about "opt-out" procedure, in which cases meeting defined
criteria are automatically conscripted and must actively choose
to leave the group? Imposing the step of opting-in risks outlier
claims running alongside the group at additional expense.  How
would a decision in those claims affect the group? How does a
prospective claimant sign up to the group? Will they require to
raise individual proceedings, or simply add their name to a list?
What checks will be made to ensure that claims are genuine? The
courts will need to provide guidance on the proposal that
"similar" or "related" claims could form a group.  How does one
define "similar" or "related"? Must all claims have the same
defender, same legal basis, or rest on the same facts?

In the US, a distinction is drawn between mass tort and class
actions.  In mass tort, every claimant is a member of a group but
treated as an individual. In class actions, a representative who
stands in for the rest of the class. All members of the class are
treated as one claimant, not separately.

A number of criteria have to be met for an action to proceed as a
class action.  There has been no attempt to draw such a
distinction under the Scottish proposals.  It is not yet clear
whether the one-size-fits-all procedure envisaged by the bill
will be sufficiently flexible to deal with the various types of
group litigation that could arise.  The devil may ultimately be
in the detail, as specific court rules will be developed by the
Scottish Civil Justice Council.  For now, the bill passes to
stage two for amendment . . . watch this space.  Duncan Batchelor
is a partner with Clyde & Co. [GN]




                            *********


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  * * *