CAR_Public/180320.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


             Tuesday, March 20, 2018, Vol. 20, No. 57



                            Headlines


ALLIED INTERSTATE: 3rd Cir. Flips Dismissal of "Tatis" FDCPA Suit
AMERICAN SECURITIES: Faces "Homestead" Suit in New Jersey
ANG DINER: Court Conditionally Certifies "Tello" Workers Class
APPLE INC: Removes "Santino" Suit to C.D. California
ARYZTA LLC: Appeals Award of Attorneys' Fees in "Barnes" Suit

BPCL MANAGEMENT: Made Solicited Calls, "Eisenband" Suit Claims
BRENTWOOD VILLAGE: Court Certifies "Borum" Apt. Residents Class
BUCCINI/POLLIN: Faces "Levin" Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
BUILD A DREAM: Made Unsolicited Call, "Navarro" Suit Claims
CALIFORNIA: Akers Ranch Suit Alleges Public Nuisance

CBS CORPORATION: Faces "Hunkins" Suit over Wrongful Death
CDK GLOBAL: FG Downing Suit Alleges Antitrust Violations
CENTRAL CREDIT SERVICES: Santiago Alleges Violation of FCRA
CIOX HEALTH: Removes "Graham" Suit to E.D. Missouri
COMMUNITY RESOURCE: "Fiallo" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation

CONTINENTAL SERVICE: Further Proceedings in "Lepak" Suit Stayed
COURIER EXPRESS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, "Kincaid" Suit Says
CRAZY HORSE: BakerHostetler Attorney Discusses 4th Circuit Ruling
CREDIT CORP: Court Stays Further Proceedings in "Derosia" Suit
CRUISIN' CHUBBYS: Exotic Dancers Class Certified in "Jones" Suit

CVS HEALTH: Faces John Doe Suit over HIV/AIDS Treatment
DISCOVER BANK: Court Grants Arbitration in "Johnson" FCRA Suit
DIVERSIFIED RECOVERY: "Bradley" Suit Alleges FDCPA Violation
EQUISOLAR INC: "Alaniz" Suit Seeks Damages Under CTA
ETC INSTITUTE: Removes "Williams" Suit to N.D. California

EXACTTARGET LLC: Court Grants Prelim OK of "Simms" Class Deal
EXPERIAN INFORMATION: "Rosen" Suit Alleges Violation of FCRA
FEDERAL REALTY: Faces "Brodie" Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
FERRARA CANDY: Iglesias Moves to Certify Consumers Class in Cal.
FIT CLUB: Faces "Hagans" Suit over Failure to Pay OT Wages

FREEDOM FINANCIAL: Made Unsolicited Calls, "Berman" Suit Claims
GENOCEA BIOSCIENCES: Scott+Scott to Lead in Securities Suit
GOOGLE LLC: Court Grants Huawie's Bid to Dismiss Nexus 6P Suit
ILLINOIS: Titus Moves to Certify Class of Pontiac Jail Detainees
INTERCONTINENTAL HOTELS: Zepeda Sues over Use of Biometrics

J.A. CAMBECE: "Brook" Suit Moved to District of Massachusetts
JEFFERY H JORDAN: Court Grants Prelim. OK of "Barrientos" Deal
JUNO THERAPEUTICS: Faces "Piloco" Suit Over Proposed Merger
KOHN LAW: Court Denies Arbitration of "Rizzo" FDCPA, FCRA Claims
LEGACY SUPPLY: Court Grants Prelim OK of $625K Class Settlement

LUMINESS DIRECT: Faces 1st "Ruthrauff" TCPA Suit
LUMINESS DIRECT: Faces 2nd "Ruthrauff" TCPA Suit
METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION: Farina Sues over Cashless Toll
MONAT GLOBAL: Sohovich Sues over Hair Loss After Use of Products
MONSANTO COMPANY: Beam Suit Moved to N.D. California

MONSANTO COMPANY: Coleman Suit Moved to N.D. California
MONSANTO COMPANY: Crowe Suit Moved to N.D. California
MONSANTO COMPANY: Scott Suit Moved to N.D. California
MONSANTO COMPANY: Sullivan Suit Moved to N.D. California
MONSANTO COMPANY: Toyer Suit Moved to N.D. California

MONSANTO COMPANY: White Suit Moved to N.D. California
MONSANTO COMPANY: "Bedenbender" Suit Move to N.D. California
MONSANTO COMPANY: "Dehard" Suit Moved to N.D. California
MONSANTO COMPANY: "Hudson" Suit Moved to N.D. California
MONSANTO COMPANY: "Luckey" Suit Moved to N.D. California

MONSANTO COMPANY: "Ruffin" Suit Moved to N.D. California
MONSANTO COMPANY: "Schwartz" Suit Moved to N.D. California
MONSANTO COMPANY: "Williams" Suit Moved to N.D. California
MONSANTO COMPANY: "Wolfe" Suit Moved to N.D. California
MONSANTO COMPANY: Sharp Sues over Sale of Roundup Products

N.A.R. INC: Page Alleges Wrongful Conduct over Debt Collection
NEWPORT BEACH: Ubaldi Alleges Wrongful Debt Collection
NISSAN EXTENDED: Arkliss Sues over 0% Financing Scheme
NORM REEVES: Fails to Pay Overtime, "Khan" Suit Claims
NORTHSTAR MEMORIAL: Removes "Uschold" Suit to N.D. California

OPENROAD MANAGEMENT: "Collins-Laster" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages
PACKERS SANITATION: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, "Sanchez Jr." Says
PATHWAY LEASING: "Fails" Suit Alleges FLSA Violations
PHOENIX LIFE: Court Declines to Dismiss "Halpern" Suit
QUALITY RESOURCES: Court Certifies "Toney" TCPA Class

RBC CAPITAL: Faces "Pfeifer" Suit in Florida Palm Beach County
RITE CHECK: Fails to Pay Wages, "Guerrero" Suit Claims
ROBERT BOSCH: Bid for Production of Docs for European Suit Denied
ROBINHOOD CRYPTO: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Tecson" Claims
SALSAS AND BEER: Ordered to Produce Designee for Deposition

SANTA BARBARA, CA: Murray Seeks to Certify ADA Class and Subclass
SANTO COYOTE: "Batista" Suit Seeks Damages under FLSA
SAVOY BANCORP: Faces "Delacruz" Suit in S.D. New York
SCHUMACKER ELECTRICAL: Fails to Pay Proper Wage, "Kelley" Claims
SHAKE SCHACK: Faces "Bostick" Suit over Failure to Pay Overtime

SOUTH PASADENA CARE: Fails to Pay Overtime, "Schwade" Suit Says
ST. LOUIS RAMS: "McAllister" Suit to State Court
SURETEMPS LLC: Catherine Seeks Certification of Hoppers Class
SWISSPORT SA: Fails to Pay Overtime Pay, "Jackson" Suit Claims
SYSTEMS & SERVICES: "Chavez" Suit Seeks Damages Under TCPA

TAKEDA AMERICA: Court Allows Indirect Purchasers to Amend Suit
TRAVELERS INDEMNITY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, "Hoyt" Claims
TREEHOUSE FOODS: Court Denies Dismissal of Securities Fraud Suit
TURNER OIL: Wins Prelim. Approval of $500K Deal in "Stanley" Suit
ULTA BEAUTY: Removes "Devries" Suit to N.D. Illinois

UNITED PARCEL: Removes "Vawter" Suit to C.D. California
UNITED STATES: Ramirez Moves to Certify Class of Immigrant Teens
WAL-MART STORES: Goins Moves for Class Certification Under TCPA
WALTERS & MASON: Fails to Pay Overtime, "Teixeira" Suit Says
WEBCOLLEX LLC: Conde Alleges Wrongful Debt Collection Conduct

WEINGARTEN REALTY: "Muschong" Suit Moved to Orlando Dist. Court
WEST COAST: Court OKs $1MM "Rincon" PAGA Action Settlement
WYNDHAM WORLDWIDE: Court Dismisses "Embree"
XPO LOGISTICS: Pregent Moves for Certification of CS Reps Class

* Securities Class Action Settlement Dollars Decline in 2017





                            *********


ALLIED INTERSTATE: 3rd Cir. Flips Dismissal of "Tatis" FDCPA Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, issued an
Opinion reversing the District Court's judgment granting
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the case captioned MICHELLE TATIS,
Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Appellant, v. ALLIED INTERSTATE, LLC; JOHN DOES 1-25, No. 16-4022
(3rd Cir.).

The question presented before the Third Circuit is whether a
collection letter sent to collect a time-barred debt that makes a
settlement offer to accept payment in settlement of the debt
could violate the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act's general
prohibition against any false, deceptive, or misleading
representation or means in connection with the collection of any
debt.

Tatis filed a class action in the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey, alleging that Allied's letter
violated the FDCPA. The complaint alleged that Tatis interpreted
the word settlement in the letter to mean that she had a legal
obligation to pay the debt, and the least-sophisticated debtor
would hold a similar belief.  She also claimed the letter was a
false, deceptive, or misleading representation or means in
connection with collecting the debt.

Allied filed a motion to dismiss the complaint under Rule
12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to
state a claim, and the District Court granted the motion.

In doing so, the Third Circuit looked primarily to its decision
in Huertas v. Galaxy Asset Management, 641 F.3d 28, 32-33 (3d
Cir. 2011) (per curiam), which it read to hold that an attempt to
collect a time-barred debt does not violate the FDCPA unless it
is accompanied by the threat of legal action.  And because
Allied's use of the word settlement did not constitute threatened
legal action, the Court found dismissal of the complaint
appropriate.
To effectuate these purposes, Congress proscribed the use of any
false, deceptive, or misleading representation or means in
connection with the collection of any debt and provided a list of
sixteen examples of such prohibited conduct. These include making
false representations about the character, amount, or legal
status of any debt and threatening to take any action that cannot
legally be taken or that is not intended to be taken.

In Huertas, the plaintiff received a letter seeking to collect a
time-barred debt.  Suit was brought under 15 U.S.C. Section
1692e(2)(A), alleging that the collection letter Huertas received
falsely represented the legal status of his debt which, like
Tatis's, was time-barred under New Jersey law. Huertas v. Galaxy
Asset Mgmt., 2010 WL 936450 (D.N.J. Mar. 9, 2010).

The Third Circuit disagreed for several reasons.

First, the Third Circuit explained that Huertas's debt remained
valid under New Jersey law even after the statute of limitations
had run. Huertas.  But even though the debt was still owed,
Huertas had a complete legal defense against having to pay it.
Next, the Third Circuit explained that when the expiration of the
statute of limitations does not invalidate a debt, but merely
renders it unenforceable, the FDCPA permits a debt collector to
seek voluntary repayment of the time-barred debt so long as the
debt collector does not initiate or threaten legal action in
connection with its debt collection efforts.

Thus, Huertas stands for the proposition that debt collectors do
not violate 15 U.S.C. Section 1692e(2)(A) when they seek
voluntary repayment of stale debts, so long as they do not
threaten or take legal action. But the FDCPA sweeps far more
broadly than the specific provision found in Section 1692e(2)(A).
It prohibits any "false, deceptive, or misleading representation"
associated with debt-collection practices. Accordingly, this
appeal requires the Third Circuit to decide whether collection
letters may run afoul of the FDCPA by misleading or deceiving
debtors into believing they have a legal obligation to repay
time-barred debts even when the letters do not threaten legal
action.

In sum, because the Third Circuit concluded that the least-
sophisticated debtor could plausibly be misled by the specific
language used in Allied's letter, it will vacate the District
Court's order granting Allied's motion to dismiss and remand for
further proceedings.  In doing so, the Third Circuit reiterates
what it said both in Huertas and elsewhere: standing alone,
settlement offers and attempts to obtain voluntary repayments of
stale debts do not necessarily constitute deceptive or misleading
practices.

In keeping with the text and purpose of the FDCPA, the Third
Circuit merely reiterates that any such letters, when read in
their entirety, must not deceive or mislead the least-
sophisticated debtor into believing that she has a legal
obligation to pay the time-barred debt.

Accordingly, the Third Circuit will vacate the District Court's
order granting Allied's motion to dismiss and remand the case for
further proceedings.

A full-text copy of the Third Circuit's February 12, 2018 Opinion
is available at https://tinyurl.com/ybgb7wph from Leagle.com.

Ari H. Marcus -- Ari@MarcusZelman.com -- (Argued), Yitzchak
Zelman  -- Yzelman@MarcusZelman.com -- Marcus & Zelman, 1500
Allaire Avenue, Suite 101, Ocean, NJ 07712, Counsel for
Appellant.

James C. Martin -- jcmartin@reedsmith.com -- (Argued), Kellie A.
Lavery, Reed Smith, 136 Main Street, Suite 250, Princeton, NJ
08540, Counsel for Appellee.


AMERICAN SECURITIES: Faces "Homestead" Suit in New Jersey
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against American Securities
LLC. The case is captioned as City of Homestead, Florida,
Plaintiff v. American Securities LLC; Matthew Lebaron; and Scott
Wolff, Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-02241-JLL-JAD (D.N.J., Feb.
16, 2018).

According to the complaint of the Plaintiff, the Defendants for
engaged in a conspiracy to suppress and eliminate competition in
the sale and marketing of liquid aluminum sulfate, by agreeing to
allocate customers and rig bids for, and to raise, stabilize, and
maintain the price of liquid aluminum sulfate sold in the U.S.,
all of which were intended to, and did, cause Plaintiff and the
other members of the Class to pay artificially inflated and
supracompetitive prices for liquid aluminum sulfate.

American Securities is the investment arm of American Securities,
L.P. specializing in direct and fund of fund investments. The
firm specializes in senior debt and equity investments in
leveraged buyouts, recapitalization, going private transactions,
industry consolidations, growth capital investment, and middle
market investments. American Securities was founded in 1947 and
is based in New York, New York with an additional office in
Shanghai, China. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William L. Mentik, Esq.
          LERNER, DAVID, LITTENBERG, KRUMHOLZ & MENTLIK, LLP
          600 South Avenue West
          Westfield, NJ 07090-1497
          Telephone: (908) 654-5000
          Facsimile: (908) 654-7866
          E-mail: wmentlik@lernerdavid.com

               - and -

          Jay B. Shapiro, Esq.
          Samuel O. Patmore, Esq.
          Abigail G Corbett, Esq.
          Maria A Fehretdinov, Esq.
          Jenea E. Reed, Esq.
          Jason Koslowe, Esq.
          ALHADEFF & SITTERSON, P.A.
          150 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200
          Miami, FL 33130
          Telephone: (305) 789-3200
          Facsimile: (305) 789-3395
          E-mail: jshapiro@stearnsweaver.com
                  spatmore@stearnsweaver.com
                  acorbett@stearnsweaver.com
                  mfehretdinov@stearnsweaver.com
                  jreed@stearsnweaver.com
                  jkoslowe@stearnsweaver.com

                - and -

          Marvin A. Miller. Esq.
          Matthew A. Van Tine, Esq.
          Andrew Szot, Esq.
          Kathleen E. Boychuck, Esq.
          MILLER LAW LLC
          115 S. LaSalle Street, Suite 2910
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 332-3400
          Facsimile: (312) 676-2676
          E-mail: mmiller@millerlawllc.com
                  mvt@millerlawllc.com
                  aszot@millerlawllc.com
                  kboychuck@millerlawllc.com

                - and -

          Richard M. Kerger, Esq.
          KERGER & HARTMAN, LLC
          33 S. Michigan Street, Suite 100
          Toledo, OH 43604
          Telephone: (419) 255-5990
          Facsimile: (419) 255-5997
          E-mail: rkerger@kergerlaw.com


ANG DINER: Court Conditionally Certifies "Tello" Workers Class
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District New
York issued a Memorandum and Order granting Plaintiffs' Motion
for Conditional Certification in the case captioned TONY TELLO,
on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. A.N.G. DINER CORP., d/b/a SILVER SPOON DINER,
HALKIOS RESTAURANT CORP. d/b/a SILVER SPOON DINER, XIOTIS REST.
CORP. d/b/a SILVER SPOON DINER, GEORGE RAKITZIS, NICK RAKITZIS, &
ANNA MAIDIOTIS, Defendants, No. 17 CV 749 (RRM) (CLP)(E.D.N.Y.).

Currently before the Court is plaintiff's motion for: (1)
conditional certification of the Fair Labor Standards Act claims
as a collective action, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b).

According to the Complaint, plaintiff Tony Tello was employed by
the defendants.  For the last six years, Tello was employed as a
counter person, acting as cashier, taking phone orders, and
arranging for and packing delivery orders. According to the
Complaint, plaintiff was paid in cash and, until three years
prior to the filing of the Complaint, he never received any
paystubs or wage statements containing the information required
by New York law.

Plaintiff alleges that there are other employees in positions at
the restaurant that require little skill, and who have worked
more than 40 hours per week without receiving proper overtime and
spread of hours pay as required by NYLL.  It is further alleged
that these individuals also did not receive the proper wage
notices or weekly wage statements.

Collective Action Certification Under FLSA  Section 216(b)

Legal Standard

Under the FLSA, employers are required to compensate covered
employees for all work performed, including overtime, in order to
prevent labor conditions detrimental to the maintenance of the
minimum standard of living necessary for health, efficiency, and
general well-being of workers.

In opposing certification, defendants argue that first, plaintiff
Tello fails to allege that he was not properly paid overtime
under the FLSA and second, that plaintiff has failed to show that
there are similarly situated individuals who were subject to the
same unlawful policies.

Whether Plaintiff Has Adequately Alleged an Overtime Violation

Here, the Complaint clearly alleges that Mr. Tello and other
employees received flat weekly salaries and did not get paid
overtime for the hours worked over 40 in a given week. Although
defendants ask this Court to consider Francisco Tello's
Declaration and several of plaintiff's pay stubs as evidence that
plaintiff's claim is unfounded, the law in this Circuit is clear
that the proper inquiry at this stage is whether plaintiff has
made the requisite showing, without reference to what defendant
may have sought to inject into the record.

Accordingly, the Court rejects defendants' invitation to weigh
the competing declarations of the employees and determine the
merits of this case at this time, and finds that plaintiff has
adequately alleged violations of the overtime provisions of the
FLSA sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss. Thus, the Court
proceeds to analyze defendants' argument that plaintiff has
failed to meet his modest burden for conditional certification of
his FLSA collective action.

Whether Plaintiff Is Similarly Situated to Other Employees

The Court finds that the allegations in the Complaint and in
plaintiff Tello's Declaration, which are corroborated by the
Declaration of Salvador Martinez, are sufficient to satisfy the
minimal showing required for conditional certification. The
lawsuit alleges that defendants violated the FLSA by paying their
employees a flat weekly salary and by failing to pay overtime pay
for any hours worked over 40. Not only has the named plaintiff
Tello presented a Declaration stating that he was subject to
these pay policies, but he also observed others who worked
similar schedules and were paid in the same manner. His
Declaration is corroborated by that of Martinez, who claims he
was paid the same amount every week regardless of the number of
hours he worked, and that he was not paid overtime for the hours
worked over 40 in a week.

Courts have granted certification where the plaintiff can attest
to knowing of and identifying similarly situated employees. Here,
both the named plaintiff and Mr. Martinez claim to be aware, from
personally speaking with and observing other employees, that
there are other individuals who are similarly situated for the
purposes of certification.

Accordingly, the Court finds that plaintiff has met the minimal
burden of showing a factual nexus between the plaintiff and
employees similarly situated to plaintiff who may have been
victims of a common policy or practice that violated the FLSA's
overtime requirements.

Therefore, plaintiff's motion for conditional certification is
granted.

A full-text copy of the District Court's February 12, 2018
Memorandum and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yb4oxhla
from Leagle.com.

Tony Tello, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by:

     David Stein, Esq.
     SAMUEL & STEIN
     38 W 32nd St #1110, Ste 1110
     New York, NY 10001

A.N.G. Diner Corp., doing business as, Halkios Restaurant Corp.,
doing business as, Xiotis Rest. Corp., doing business as, George
Rakitzis, Nick Rakitzis & Anna Maidiotis, Defendants, represented
by:

     Anastasi Pardalis, Esq.
     Ariadne Anna Panagopoulou Alexandrou, Esq.
     Joseph D. Nohavicka, Esq.
     PARDALIS & NOHAVICKA LLP
     950 3rd Ave, 25th floor
     New York, NY, 10022


APPLE INC: Removes "Santino" Suit to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------
The Defendant in the case of Nikita Santino and Aaron Rabbanian,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Apple Inc., Defendant, filed a notice to remove the
lawsuit from the Superior Court of the State of California,
County of Los Angeles, (Case No. BC690396) to the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California and assigned Case
No. 2:18-cv-01252-SVW-SK (C.D. Cal., Feb. 15, 2018). The case is
assigned to Judge Stephen V. Wilson, and referred to Magistrate
Judge Steve Kim.

Apple Inc. designs, manufactures, and markets mobile
communication and media devices, and personal computers to
consumers, and small and mid-sized businesses; and education,
enterprise, and government customers worldwide. The company sells
and delivers digital content and applications through the iTunes
Store, App Store, Mac App Store, TV App Store, iBooks Store, and
Apple Music. It also sells its products through its retail and
online stores, and direct sales force, as well as through third-
party cellular network carriers, wholesalers, retailers, and
value-added resellers. Apple Inc. was founded in 1977 and is
headquartered in Cupertino, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Benjamin Heikali, Esq.
          FARUQI AND FARUQI LLP
          10866 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 1470
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Telephone: (424) 256-2884
          Facsimile: (424) 256-2885
          E-mail: bheikali@faruqilaw.com

               - and -

          Joshua Nassir, Esq.
          FARUQI AND FARUQI LLP
          10866 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 1470
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Telephone: (424) 256-2884
          Facsimile: (424) 256-2885
          E-mail: jnassir@faruqilaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Theano Evangelis Kapur, Esq.
          GIBSON DUNN AND CRUTCHER LLP
          333 South Grand Avenue
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197
          Telephone: (213) 229-7726
          Facsimile: (213) 229-6726
          E-mail: tevangelis@gibsondunn.com

               - and -

          Theodore J Boutrous , Jr., Esq.
          GIBSON DUNN AND CRUTCHER LLP
          333 South Grand Avenue
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197
          Telephone: (213) 229-7000
          Facsimile: (213) 229-7520
          E-mail: tboutrous@gibsondunn.com

               - and -

          Timothy William Loose, Esq.
          GIBSON DUNN AND CRUTCHER LLP
          333 South Grand Avenue
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197
          Telephone: (213) 229-7000
          Facsimile: (213) 229-7520
          E-mail: tloose@gibsondunn.com

               - and -

          Christopher Chorba, Esq.
          GIBSON DUNN AND CRUTCHER LLP
          333 South Grand Avenue
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197
          Telephone: (213) 229-7000
          Facsimile: (213) 229-7520
          E-mail: cchorba@gibsondunn.com


ARYZTA LLC: Appeals Award of Attorneys' Fees in "Barnes" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Aryzta LLC filed an appeal from the District Court's
Order, and Memorandum Opinion and Order entered by the Honorable
Thomas M. Durkin on December 20, 2017, awarding attorneys' fees
and costs in favor of the Plaintiff in the action entitled JAMEL
BARNES v. ARYZTA, LLC, Case No. 1:17-cv-07358, in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

The appellate case is captioned as JAMEL BARNES v. ARYZTA, LLC,
Case No. 18-1182, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Seventh Circuit.

The case was filed in state court on August 17, 2017, and removed
by the Defendant to the District Court on October 12, 2017.  The
Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and a class of similarly situated
individuals, alleges that the Defendant violates the Illinois
Biometric Information Privacy Act and is liable for negligence.

The Plaintiff seeks (1) a declaratory judgment that Defendant
violated BIPA and acted negligently; (2) injunctive and other
equitable relief as is necessary to protect the interests of the
class, including an order requiring Defendant to collect, store,
and use biometric identifiers or biometric information in
compliance with BIPA; (3) statutory damages under BIPA, as well
as attorneys' fees and costs; (4) pre- and post-judgment
interest, and (5) any other relief that the Court deems
reasonable and just.

The Defendant contends that the time-clock in issue does not
collect or store an employee's fingerprint or any other biometric
identifier or biometric information to establish any statutory
liability under the BIPA on behalf of Plaintiff or a purported
class.

The Class Action Reporter reported on Jan. 30, 2018, that the
District Court issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order granting the
Plaintiff's motion to remand the lawsuit to the state court.[BN]

The Plaintiff-Appellee is represented by:

          Benjamin Harris Richman, Esq.
          J. Eli Wade Scott, Esq.
          Roger J. Perlstadt, Esq.
          Sydney M. Janzen, Esq.
          EDELSON PC
          350 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1300
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 589-6370
          E-mail: brichman@edelson.com
                  ewadescott@edelson.com
                  rperlstadt@edelson.com
                  sjanzen@edelson.com

               - and -

          Todd Logan, Esq.
          EDELSON PC
          123 Townsend Street, Suite 100
          San Francisco, CA 94107
          Telephone: (415) 638-9660
          E-mail: tlogan@edelson.com

               - and -

          David J. Fish, Esq.
          John C. Kunze, Esq.
          Kimberly A. Hilton, Esq.
          THE FISH LAW FIRM, P.C.
          200 E. Fifith Ave., Suite 123
          Naperville, IL 60563
          Telephone: (630) 355-7590
          E-mail: dfish@fishlawfirm.com
                  kunze@fishlawfirm.com
                  khilton@fishlawfirm.com

The Defendant-Appellant is represented by:

          Kevin M. O'Hagan, Esq.
          Jamie L. Filipovic, Esq.
          Kristen A. Cemate, Esq.
          O'HAGAN MEYER, LLC
          One East Wacker Drive, Suite 3400
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 422-6100
          Facsimile: (312) 422-6110
          E-mail: kohagan@ohaganmeyer.com
                  jfilipovic@ohaganmeyer.com
                  kcemate@ohaganmeyer.com


BPCL MANAGEMENT: Made Solicited Calls, "Eisenband" Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
DZIYANA EISENBAND, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BPCL MANAGEMENT, LLC f/k/a
BAHAMAS PARADISE CRUISE LINE, LLC d/b/a BAHAMA ISLAND CRUISES,
Defendant, Case No. 9:18-cv-80192-DMM (S.D. Fla., Feb. 18, 2018)
seeks to stop Defendants' wide-scaling telemarketing campaign
consisting of prerecorded calls to the cellular telephones of
Plaintiff and others, without their prior express written
consent.

BPCL Management, LLC f/k/a Bahamas Paradise Cruise Line, LLC
d/b/a Bahama Island Cruises is a Florida limited liability
company with its principal place of business located at 2419 E.
Commercial Blvd., Suite 100, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33308. The
company is the marketing and shore side personnel management
company for the M/S Grand Celebration cruise ship. The Company
directs, markets, and provides its business activities throughout
the State of Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
          SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
          14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 400
          Miami, FL 33132
          Telephone: (305) 479-2299
          Facsimile: (786) 623-0915
          E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com


BRENTWOOD VILLAGE: Court Certifies "Borum" Apt. Residents Class
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court, District of Columbia, issued a
Memorandum Opinion granting in part and denying in part
Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification in the case captioned
ADRIANN BORUM, et al., Plaintiffs, v. BRENTWOOD VILLAGE, LLC, et
al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 16-1723 (RC)(D.D.C.).

Plaintiff Adriann Borum moved to certify a class of residents of
her apartment complex, Brookland Manor, whom she believes have
been harmed or are at risk of being harmed by Brentwood Village,
LLC's proposed redevelopment and activities surrounding it, and
for the appointment of her lawyers as counsel for that class.

The planned redevelopment will eliminate four- and five-bedroom
apartments in the complex, and will reduce the number of three-
bedroom apartments as well.  This policy, Ms. Borum claims, will
have a disparate impact on hundreds of residents based on their
familial status in violation of the Fair Housing Act (FHA) and
the D.C. Human Rights Act DCHRA).

LEGAL STANDARDS

A district court exercises broad discretion in deciding whether
to permit a case to proceed as a class action. However, Rule 23
does not set forth a mere pleading standard. Instead, a plaintiff
must affirmatively demonstrate her compliance with the Rule that
is, she must be prepared to prove that there are in fact
sufficiently numerous parties, common questions of law or fact,
etc.

Ms. Borum has moved for certification of the following hybrid
class under Rules 23(b)(2) and (b)(3):

     All households who reside or have resided at Brookland Manor
in a three-, four-, or five-bedroom unit with one or more minor
child, and (i) have been displaced from a three-, four-, or five-
bedroom unit at Brookland Manor since October 1, 2014 (the date
that Defendants proposed their First Stage PUD to the Zoning
Commission), or (ii) are at risk of being displaced from a three-
, four-, or five-bedroom unit at Brookland Manor.

Rule 23(a) Requirements

It provides that members of a class may sue or be sued as
representative parties on behalf of all members only if: (1) the
class is so numerous that joinder of all members is
impracticable; (2) there are questions of law or fact common to
the class; (3) the claims or defenses of the representative
parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class; and
(4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect
the interests of the class.

Families displaced between October 1, 2014 and the conclusion of
this litigation.

Ms. Borum has moved to include in her class those who have
resided at Brookland Manor in a three-, four-, or five- bedroom
unit with one of more minor child and  have been displaced from
those apartments since October 1, 2014.

Here, it is appropriate to consider those residents who have
already been displaced or will displaced before the conclusion of
this litigation as a separate subclass because without this
separation, the class Ms. Borum has proposed would be overbroad
and ineligible for certification. First, Ms. Borum has moved to
include in the class those individuals who have been displaced
since October 1, 2014, without specifying whether individuals
included in that group need to have been displaced because of the
redevelopment in order to be included. Therefore, it is
impossible to tell from her proposed definition whether those
individuals have any claims in common, as required by Rule
23(a)(2).

Second, at this point, none of the large apartments on which
putative class members rely to house their families have been
eliminated. Therefore, the cause of displacement for any of these
putative class members will not be the mere elimination of large
apartments, which is the foundational cause of the other class
members' claims.

If, however, this group does come into existence following the
Court's class certification order, or if Plaintiffs are
subsequently able to identify individuals who have already been
displaced because of the redevelopment, Ms. Borum may renew her
motion for certification of this subclass. But it should be noted
that unless Ms. Borum has also been displaced due to the
redevelopment plan by then, her injury (a risk of displacement)
will not be typical to those putative class members who have at
that point already been displaced.

Therefore, unless Plaintiffs have added a new named plaintiff
whose injury is typical of the proposed subclass, and who will be
able to fairly and adequately represent the interests of that
class, Ms. Borum's renewed motion for class certification would
likely be denied then as well.

Families still living in three-, four-, or five-bedroom
apartments

Numerosity

Ms. Borum first contends that she has established that her
proposed class is so numerous that joinder of all members is
impracticable.

Based on the most recently available data, Ms. Borum's expert,
Dr. Andrew Beveridge, estimates that there were 118 families
(totaling 543 people) in three-, four-, and five-bedroom
apartments in Brookland Manor in January 2017. Therefore, Ms.
Borum argues that the class she proposes is "so numerous that
joinder would be impracticable."

Defendants object to Ms. Borum's claim of numerosity on several
grounds.

Occupancy Standards

Defendants spend a large portion of their opposition brief
attacking the analysis of Ms. Borum's expert, Dr. Andrew
Beveridge, and his estimation of how many individuals are at risk
of being displaced by the redevelopment plan.

Defendants may be correct that Dr. Beveridge used the wrong
standard in determining how many bedrooms each family requires,
thereby inflating the number of individuals who will actually be
forced to move should the redevelopment proceed unaltered. But
such a standard is not relevant to determining how many families
are currently living in large apartments who are at risk of
displacement because they will not be able to move back into
similarly large apartments when the redevelopment is complete, as
the class is currently defined. At this point in the proceedings,
Ms. Borum has demonstrated that that group, so defined, is
sufficiently large to satisfy Rule 23(a)'s numerosity
requirement.

Non-Parental Adults

Next, Defendants argue that the class which plaintiff defines is
overbroad and runs contrary to this Court's admonition because it
seeks to include individuals not qualifying for familial status
under the FHA and the DCHRA.

As Ms. Borum points out in her reply, courts in other circuits
have recognized the broad meaning of aggrieved person in the
familial status context, and have allowed other co-residents to
challenge policies that discriminate against families, similar to
the way that white residents may challenge policies that
discriminate based on race, even when those white residents are
not the ones being discriminated against, but have still suffered
a concrete injury. Ms. Borum alleges that putative class members
in this case, including non-parental adults living in large
apartments with minor children and their guardians, are at risk
of being displaced from a three-, four-, or five-bedroom unit at
Brookland Manor by a policy that she hopes to prove has a
disparate impact on individuals based on their familial status.
If proven, such a risk would be a cognizable injury capable of
conferring Article III standing.

As such, the Court finds that non-parental adults living with
minor children and their guardians in three-, four-, and five-
bedroom apartments in Brookland Manor have standing to sue under
the FHA. And because they stand to suffer the same injury-in-fact
as the parents and minors contained within the class displacement
due to the Defendants' redevelopment plan and seek the same
relief an injunction ordering Defendants to alter their
redevelopment plan in a way that eliminates its disparate impact
on families they are properly counted as members of the class for
the purposes of numerosity.

Residents of Three-Bedroom Apartments

Defendants also argue that Ms. Borum's inclusion in the headcount
of families living in 3BR apartments when the record is
uncontradicted that the Redevelopment Plan will include at least
64 3BR apartments is another glaring deficiency in her numerosity
analysis.

While some families currently living in three-bedroom apartments
will likely be able to stay in such apartments, and therefore
will not be harmed by Defendants' actions, others, because they
will be competing with families currently residing in four- and
five-bedroom apartments, will be unable to move into one of the
64 new three-bedroom apartments. Even though, by Defendants'
estimate, there were only 31 families living in three-bedroom
apartments in 2017, the number of families that may be displaced
from their four- or five-bedroom apartments is far larger than
33.

Thus, when the families displaced by the elimination of the four-
and five- bedroom apartments are included in the equation, more
than 64 families will be competing for three-bedroom apartments.
Therefore, families in three-bedroom apartments also currently
suffer a risk of displacement, and are properly included in the
class.

Families Whose Minor Children Have Now Turned 18

Defendants next question Ms. Borum's inclusion in her headcount
of families whose children were minors on October 1, 2014 (the
date the First-Stage PUD application was filed) or on August 26,
2016 (the date the Complaint was filed), but have now turned 18,
or will before 2020, when the anticipated next phase of the
redevelopment plan proceeds.

Individuals living in apartments that no longer have minor
children no longer fit within the class definition of people
residing in large apartments with minor children and their
guardians who are at risk of displacement. Therefore, individuals
in households that no longer contain minor children cannot be
counted as class members going forward. However, Defendants have
not argued that excluding the residents of households that
recently housed minor children, but no longer do, from the class
member count decreases the number of putative class members to a
number below forty residents.

Additionally, the number of households that aged out of the class
definition between January 2017 and the certification of this
class is likely small, and according to Defendants' expert,
likely fewer than 45.  As such, with a count of 118 apartments
housing 543 people as recently as last year, the Court finds that
Ms. Borum has established numerosity, even excluding those
households, which are likely few in number, that no longer
contain minor children.

Impracticability of Joinder

This case involves two claims disparate impact and discriminatory
statements which can both be addressed through an injunction. As
such, adjudicating each class members' claims together will save
resources for both the parties and the Court. And while the class
members in this case are not dispersed indeed, they are about as
geographically concentrated as class members can be and can be
easily identified, many of them lack the resources to bring a
complex civil rights suit on their own. In some cases in which
class members are geographically compact and not too numerous,
joinder may not be impracticable.

But in a case such as this, with hundreds of class members, where
many class members are low income, and many are minor children,
the Court finds that to proceed through joinder rather than class
action would not only overly burden putative class members, but
also very likely waste judicial resources. As such, the Court
finds that Ms. Borum has demonstrated that the putative class is
so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable.

Commonality

Ms. Borum also contends that she satisfies Rule 23(a)'s
commonality requirement because she is challenging a single
policy or practice that has a disparate impact on Brookland Manor
residents based on their familial status.

Defendants respond that Ms. Borum has not demonstrated that all
of the putative class members suffered the same injury.

While some of the issues Defendants raise may be relevant to
determining whether the redevelopment does have a disparate
impact on residents based on their familial status, they would
serve as components in the overall calculation of whether the
policy has a disparate impact. That does not change the fact
that, if Ms. Borum's claim of disparate impact is proven, all
class members will have suffered the same injury (the risk of
being displaced).

Here, the question of whether this redevelopment will have a
disparate impact based on familial status is one such common
question. As such, Ms. Borum has satisfied Rule 23(a)(2)'s
commonality requirement.

Typicality

Ms. Borum next contends that her claims are typical of all class
members' claims, because she asserts rights under both the FHA
and DCHRA based on the systematic actions of the Defendants.
Defendants claim that Ms. Borum's claim is not typical because
she has yet to suffer any displacement and is not at risk of
being displaced until at least late 2020.

Here, Defendants have not demonstrated that Ms. Borum's claims
differ significantly from those of other class members who are
still residing at Brookland Manor. And, if Defendants'
argumentation regarding the numerosity and commonality prongs of
Rule 23(a) are any indication, the defenses that Defendants claim
apply to Ms. Borum will also be the defenses they use to defend
against the claims of other class members. Therefore, it is clear
that Ms. Borum's claims, and the defenses she will need to
address when this case is decided on the merits, will be typical
of the class as a whole. As such, she meets the requirements of
Rule 23(a)(3).

Adequacy of Representation

Last, Ms. Borum contends that she and her attorneys will fairly
and adequately protect the interests of the class.

Defendants claim that Ms. Borum has not met the adequacy
requirement for several reasons. First, they claim that Ms. Borum
has a conflict of interest with a substantial number of putative
class members because there is a significant disagreement within
the class about whether the redevelopment should go forward as
currently planned.

Here, Ms. Borum has alleged injuries under the FHA and DCHRA,
both past (discriminatory statements) and future (displacement
that disparately impacts families). These allegations are
sufficient to make her an adequate representative. Whether she
and the putative class may succeed on the merits of their
disparate impact and discriminatory statement claims are
questions to be determined on summary judgment or at trial, but
not at the class certification stage. For now, Ms. Borum has
alleged the same type of injury to herself as she alleges will be
suffered by other members of the putative class. As such, she is
an adequate representative to bring these claims on behalf of the
class.

Accordingly, Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification is
granted in part and denied in part.

The following class is certified under Rule 23(b)(2):

     All individuals who reside at Brookland Manor in a three-,
four-, or five-bedroom unit that houses one or more minor child
and his or her guardian, and are at risk of being displaced from
a three-, four-, or five-bedroom unit at Brookland Manor as a
direct result of the proposed redevelopment.

A full-text copy of the District Court's February 12, 2018
Memorandum Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/ydderwkx
from Leagle.com.

ADRIANN BORUM & ORGANIZING NEIGHBORHOOD EQUITY IN SHAW AND THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Plaintiffs, represented by Maureen Frances
Browne -- mbrowne@cov.com, COVINGTON & BURLING LLP, Amber M.
Charles -- acharles@cov.com -- COVINGTON & BURLING LLP, Catherine
Cone -- catherine_cone@washlaw.org -- WASHINGTON LAWYERS'
COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS & URBAN AFFAIRS, Nooree Lee --
nlee@cov.com -- COVINGTON & BURLING LLP, Samuel F. Adriance --
sadriance@cov.com -- COVINGTON & BURLING LLP, pro hac vice &
Matthew K. Handley, WASHINGTON LAWYERS' COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL
RIGHTS & URBAN AFFAIRS.

BRENTWOOD ASSOCIATES, L.P., EDGEWOOD MANAGEMENT CORPORATION &
MID-CITY FINANCIAL CORPORATION, Defendants, represented by
Richard W. Luchs, GREENSTEIN DELORME & LUCHS, PC & William C.
Casano, GREENSTEIN DELORME & LUCHS, P.C., 1620 L Street, N.W.,
Suite 900. Washington, DC 20036


BUCCINI/POLLIN: Faces "Levin" Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
-------------------------------------------------------
Joanne Kleiner Levin, as legal guardian of Joy Barbara Levin,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. The Buccini/Pollin Group, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
2:18-cv-00738PD (E.D. Pa., Feb. 20, 2018) is brought against the
Defendant for failure to provide individuals with disabilities
accessible transportation services that are equivalent to the
transportation services provided to nondisabled guests.

Plaintiff alleged that Defendant's complimentary shuttle service
was not wheelchair accessible and was told that Defendant would
not provide an alternative transportation service.

The Buccini/Pollin Group, Inc. engages in real estate
acquisition, finance, development, management/operation,
construction management, leasing, and disposition activities in
the Mid-Atlantic and Northeastern regions of the United States.
Its portfolio includes hotel, office, retail, residential,
entertainment, and parking properties. The company was founded in
1993 and is based in Washington, District Of Columbia with
additional offices in Wilmington, Delaware; Conshohocken,
Pennsylvania; and Baltimore, Maryland. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BUILD A DREAM: Made Unsolicited Call, "Navarro" Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Carolyn Navarro, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Build A Dream, Inc., and Does 1
through 10, Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-01290-DMG-AS (C.D. Cal.,
Feb. 16, 2018) seeks to stop the Defendant's practice of sending
unsolicited solicitation phone calls without the recipient's
prior express written consent.

Build a Dream, Inc., is a construction lender. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
          21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780
          Woodland Hills, CA
          Telephone: (877) 206-4741
          Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
          tfriedman@toddflaw.com


CALIFORNIA: Akers Ranch Suit Alleges Public Nuisance
----------------------------------------------------
Akers Ranch, Elkhorn Outdoor Sports, LLC, Marie Giordano, Carol
A. Gissell, Jordan Crossing Ministries, Oroville Cycle, Small
World Child Care and Learning Center, and Small World Infant
Center, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. California Department of Water Resources, and Does 1
through 100, Case No. 18CV00449 (Calif. Super., February 6,
2018), is a class action complaint for dangerous conditions of
public property, private and public nuisance, premises liability
and inverse condemnation.

In February 2017, Oroville Dam's main and emergency spillways
were significantly damaged, prompting the evacuation of more than
180,000 people living downstream along the Feather River and the
relocation of a fish hatchery.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Oroville Dam crisis was not an act
of God. As confirmed by independent, expert reports and accounts
of DWR insiders, the crisis was caused by decades of
mismanagement and intentional lack of maintenance by the
California Department of Water Resources.

Plaintiff Akers Ranch is a walnut farm located along the Feather
River in Oroville, California.

Plaintiff Marie Giordano resides in Oroville, California, above
the Oroville Dam, and also owns three rental properties in
Oroville which are located downstream of the Oroville Dam.
Giordano also works in Oroville.

Plaintiff Carol A. Gissell resides and owns property in Oroville,
California.

Plaintiff Jordan Crossing Ministries is a California non-profit
that provides job training and other skill sets. It also provides
housing for fathers and children. Jordan Crossing Ministries
operates out of Oroville, California.

Plaintiff Oroville Cycle is a pro ski shop located downstream
from the Oroville Dam. Oroville Cycle operates out of Oroville,
California.

Plaintiff Small World Child Care and Learning Center is a child
daycare center for children ages two to five. Small World Child
Care operates out of Oroville, California.

Plaintiff Small World Infant Center is an infant daycare center
for children up t0 the age of 3. Small World Infant Center
operates out of Oroville, California.

Defendant DWR was established by the State Legislature in 1956.
It presently employees about 2,800 state civil service employees,
including engineers, construction personnel, and environmental
specialists. DWR is headed by a Director appointed by the
governor. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Joseph W. Cotchett, Esq.
      Niall P. McCarthy, Esq.
      Adam M. Shapiro, Esq.
      Toriana S. Holmes, Esq.
      COTCHETT, PITRE, & MCCARTHY, LLP
      San Francisco, Airport Office Center
      840 Malcolm Road
      Burlingame, CA 94010
      Tel: (650) 697-6000
      Fax: (650) 697-0577
      E-mail: jcotchett@cpmlegal.com
              nmccarthy@cpmlegal.com
              ashapiro@cpmlegal.com
              tholmes@cpmlegal.com

          - and -

      James V. Nolan, Esq.
      David W. Janes, Esq.
      GARDNER, JANES, NAKKEN, HUGO & NOLAN
      429 First Street
      Woodland, CA 95695
      Tel: (530) 662-7367
      Fax: (530) 666-9116
      E-mail: jvnolan@yololaw.com
              dwjanes@yololaw.com


CBS CORPORATION: Faces "Hunkins" Suit over Wrongful Death
---------------------------------------------------------
LINDA HUNKINS, individually and as successor-in-interest to
GERARD HUNKINS, Plaintiff v. CBS CORPORATION, f/k/a VIACOM INC.,
successor by merger with CBS CORPORATION, f/k/a WESTINGHOUSE
ELECTRIC CORPORATION; CERTAIN-TEED CORPORATION; CROWN CORK & SEAL
COMPANY, INC., individually and as successor-in-interest to
MUNDET CORK CORPORATION; FORD MOTOR COMPANY; FOSTER WHEELER
ENERGY CORPORATION; GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY; INDUSTRIAL HOLDINGS
CORPORATION f/k/a THE CARBORUNDUM COMPANY; INGERSOLL RAND
COMPANY; JOHN CRANE INC.; KELLY MOORE PAINT COMPANY, INC.;
METALCLAD INSULATION LLC; METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY;
SOCO WEST, INC.; UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION; DOES 1-850,
INCLUSIVE, JENNIFER COMPTON, Defendants, Case No. BC694959 (Cal.
Super., Los Angeles Cty., Feb. 15, 2018) is an action against the
Defendants seeking damages over the wrongful death of Gerard
Hunkins.

Decedent Gerard Hunkins suffered from mesothelioma and died on
January 22, 2018, as a result of his diagnosis of mesothelioma, a
disease related to exposure to asbestos and asbestos-containing
products.

CBS Corporation operates as a mass media company worldwide. The
company operates through four segments: Entertainment, Cable
Networks, Publishing, and Local Media. The company was founded in
1986 and is headquartered in New York, New York.

CertainTeed Corporation manufactures and distributes building
materials for residential and commercial building applications.
CertainTeed Corporation was formerly known as General Roofing
Manufacturing Company. The company was founded in 1904 and is
based in Valley Forge, Pennsylvania with manufacturing and
distribution facilities throughout the United States and Canada.
CertainTeed Corporation operates as a subsidiary of Compagnie de
Saint-Gobain S.A.

Crown Cork & Seal Company, Inc. designs, manufactures, supplies,
and markets packaging products for consumer marketing companies.
The company sells its products through its sales organization to
soft drink, food, citrus, brewing, household products, and
personal care industries. It has plants in the United States and
internationally. The company is based in Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania. Crown Cork & Seal Company, Inc. operates as a
subsidiary of Crown Holdings Inc.

Ford Motor Company designs, manufactures, markets, and services a
range of Ford cars, trucks, sport utility vehicles, and
electrified vehicles; and Lincoln luxury vehicles worldwide. The
company was founded in 1903 and is based in Dearborn, Michigan.

Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation offers construction,
engineering, and project management services. The company designs
and constructs process plants for oil and gas, natural gas, gas-
to-liquids, refining, chemicals, petrochemicals, pharmaceuticals,
biotechnology, healthcare, and power industries. The company was
formerly known as Foster Wheeler Power Group Inc. Foster Wheeler
Energy Corporation was incorporated in 1973 and is based in
Clinton, New Jersey. Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation operates
as a subsidiary of Foster Wheeler AG.

General Electric Company operates as an infrastructure and
technology company worldwide. General Electric Company was
founded in 1892 and is based in Boston, Massachusetts.

Ingersoll-Rand Company (New Jersey) designs, manufactures, sells,
and services industrial and commercial products worldwide under
the brands Club Car, Hussmann, Ingersoll-Rand, Schlage, Thermo
King, Trane. Ingersoll-Rand Company (New Jersey) was incorporated
in 2001 and is based in Piscataway, New Jersey. Ingersoll-Rand
Company (New Jersey) operates as a subsidiary of Ingersoll-Rand
Plc.

John Crane Inc. designs and manufactures engineered sealing
systems and associated products. John Crane Inc. was formerly
known as Crane Packing Company and changed its name to John Crane
Inc. in 1987. The company was founded in 1917 and is based in
Chicago, Illinois with sales and services locations in the United
States and Malaysia; a customer service center in Perth,
Australia; a manufacturing and customer service center in
Tianjin, China; and a service super center in Singapore. John
Crane Inc. operates as a subsidiary of Smiths Group plc.

Kelly-Moore Paint Company, Inc. manufactures and distributes
interior or exterior paints for professional painting
contractors, architects/designers, general contractors,
property/facility managers, and builders. The company was founded
in 1946 and is based in San Carlos, California with a
manufacturing facility in Hurst, Texas. It also has retail stores
in Arkansas, California, Idaho, Nevada, Oklahoma, Oregon, and
Texas. Kelly-Moore Paint Company, Inc. operates as a subsidiary
of K-M Industries Holding Co., Inc.

Metalclad Insulation LLC offers asbestos installation and removal
services. The company was founded in 1933 and is based in
Fullerton, California. Metalclad Insulation LLC operates as a
subsidiary of Entrprize Corp.

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, together with its
subsidiaries, provides life insurance, annuities, employee
benefits, and asset management services in the United States. The
company was incorporated in 1868 and is based in New York, New
York. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company is a subsidiary of
MetLife, Inc.

Union Carbide Corporation operates as a chemical and polymer
company worldwide. The company was founded in 1917 and is
headquartered in Seadrift, Texas. Union Carbide Corporation is a
subsidiary of The Dow Chemical Company. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brent J. Zadorozny, Esq.
          Crystal G. Foley, Esq.
          Nicholas J. Angelides, Esq.
          SIMMONS HANLY CONROY
          100 N. Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 1350
          El Segundo, CA 90245
          Telephone: (310) 322-3555
          Facsimile: (310) 322-3655


CDK GLOBAL: FG Downing Suit Alleges Antitrust Violations
--------------------------------------------------------
F.G. Downing Development, Inc., individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v.  CDK Global, LLC and The Reynolds
and Reynolds Company, Case No. 1:18-cv-00987 (N.D. Ill., February
7, 2018), seeks damages, injunctive relief and other relief
pursuant to federal antitrust laws; and state antitrust, unfair
competition, consumer protection, and unjust enrichment laws.

This proposed class action lawsuit is brought against Defendants
CDK and R&R for unlawfully allocating markets and customers to
monopolize and artificially raise prices throughout the United
States for: data management systems; the service of extracting,
formatting, integrating, and organizing the data stored on DMS;
and the service of business management applications in violation
of the Sherman Antitrust Act.

Plaintiff F.G. Downing Development, Inc. is a corporation
organized and existing under the laws of the State of New York
with its principal place of business, a retail car dealership,
located at 3531 Southwestern Blvd., Orchard Park, New York,
14127.  Plaintiff is engaged in the business of purchasing and
selling automobiles.  Plaintiff purchases DMS services from
Defendant CDK.

Defendant CDK Global, LLC is a Delaware company and serves as the
operating subsidiary of CDK Global, Inc., and provides integrated
information technology and digital marketing solutions for the
automotive retail industry, including DMS software and services
to automobile dealerships throughout the United States.  CDK also
provides Vendor Services for automobile retailers that address
vehicle inventory, sales, and the finance and insurance process.
CDK Global, LLC has its principal place of business at 1950
Hassell Road, Hoffman Estates, Illinois 60169.

Defendant The Reynolds and Reynolds Company is an Ohio
corporation with its corporate headquarters and principal place
of business in Montgomery County at One
Reynolds Way, Kettering, Ohio 45340.  R&R provides DMS software
and services to automobile dealerships throughout the United
States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Marvin A. Miller, Esq.
      MILLER LAW LLC
      115 S. LaSalle St., Ste. 2910
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Tel: (312) 332-3400
      Fax: (312) 676-2676
      E-mail: mmiller@millerlawllc.com


CENTRAL CREDIT SERVICES: Santiago Alleges Violation of FCRA
-----------------------------------------------------------
Victor Santiago, individually and on behalf all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Central Credit Services, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 1:18-cv-01226 (N.D. Ill., Feb. 16, 2018) alleges
violation of the Fair Debt Collection Act. The case is assigned
to the Honorable John Robert Blakey and referred to Magistrate
Judge Sheila Finnegan.

Central Credit Services, Inc. operates as an accounts receivable
management company. It specializes in the collection of primary,
auto, mortgage, commercial, credit card, installment loan, and
retail debt, as well as other types of accounts receivables. The
company was founded in 1987 and is based in Jacksonville, Florida
with additional facilities and call centers in St. Louis,
Missouri; Jacksonville, Florida; and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Central Credit Services, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of Central
Credit Holdings, Inc. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Celetha Chatman, Esq.
          COMMUNITY LAWYERS GROUP, LTD.
          73 W. Monroe Street
          Chicago, IL 60603 Suite 502
          Telephone: (312) 757-1880
          E-mail: cchatman@communitylawyersgroup.com

               - and -

          Michael Jacob Wood, Esq.
          COMMUNITY LAWYERS GROUP, LTD.
          73 W. Monroe Street, Suite 502
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 757-1880
          E-mail: mwood@communitylawyersgroup.com

               - and -

          Sarah Margaret Barnes, Esq.
          COMMUNITY LAWYERS GROUP, LTD.
          73 W Monroe Street, Suite 514
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 757-1880
          E-mail: barnes.sarahmar@gmail.com


CIOX HEALTH: Removes "Graham" Suit to E.D. Missouri
---------------------------------------------------
The Defendant in the case of Brandon Graham, individually and
also on behalf of all similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CIOX
Health, LLC, Defendant, filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from
St. Louis City (Case No. 1822-CC00043) to the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Missouri and assigned Case No. 4:18-
cv-00266-NCC (E.D. Mo., Feb. 16, 2018). The case is assigned to
Magistrate Judge Noelle C. Collins.

CIOX Health, LLC provides healthcare information solutions. The
Company offers services including audit management, electronic
records management, release of information, practice management,
and revenue cycle management. CIOX Health operates in the United
States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert Schultz, Esq.
          SCHULTZ AND ASSOCIATES, L.L.P.
          640 Cepi Drive, Suite A
          Chesterfield, MO 63005-1221
          Telephone: (636) 537-4645
          Facsimile: (636) 537-2599
          E-mail: rschultz@sl-lawyers.com

               - and -

          Jonathan B. Potts, Esq.
          BRYAN CAVE LLP
          211 North Broadway, Suite 3600
          St. Louis, MO 63102
          Telephone: (314) 259-2403
          Facsimile: (314) 552-8403
          E-mail: jonathan.potts@bryancave.com


COMMUNITY RESOURCE: "Fiallo" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
--------------------------------------------------------
Barbara Fiallo, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated v. Community Resource Network of Florida, Inc., Case No.
2:18-cv-00085 (M.D. Fla., February 7, 2018), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, costs and
reasonable attorneys' fees under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff Barbara Fiallo performed non-exempt work for the
Defendant between March 18, 2015 and August 17, 2017.

Defendant provides "homemaker and companion services" in Lee
County, Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Diane P. Perez, Esq.
      DIANE PEREZ, P.A.
      201 Alhambra Circle, Suite 1200
      Coral Gables, FL 33134
      Tel: (305) 985-5676
      Fax: (305) 985-5677
      E-mail: diane@dianeperezlaw.com


CONTINENTAL SERVICE: Further Proceedings in "Lepak" Suit Stayed
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. William E. Duffin grants the Plaintiff's motion to stay
further proceedings in the lawsuit captioned CHRISTINA LEPAK v.
CONTINENTAL SERVICE GROUP, INC., Case No. 2:18-cv-00219-WED (E.D.
Wisc.).

On February 9, 2018, the Plaintiff filed a class action
complaint.  At the same time, the Plaintiff filed what the Court
commonly refers to as a "protective" motion for class
certification.  In this motion, the Plaintiff moved to certify
the class described in the complaint but also moved the Court to
stay further proceedings on that motion.

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

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

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


COURIER EXPRESS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, "Kincaid" Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
TRISH KINCAID, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. COURIER EXPRESS/CHARLOTTE, INC.; COURIER
EXPRESS/RALEIGH, INC.; COURIER EXPRESS FREIGHT, INC.; COURIER
EXPRESS US, INC.; and IDEXX PHARMACEUTICALS, LLC, Defendants,
Case No. 1:18-cv-00707-AT (N.D. Ga., Feb. 16, 2018) alleged that
Defendants have misclassified all courier drivers as independent
contractors rather than employees, and failed to pay them
overtime, minimum wage, earned wages, and other wages owed under
state and federal law.

Ms. Kincaid worked as a courier for Defendants from April 18,
2016 until September 2017.

Courier Express, Inc. provides courier, freight, and warehousing
services in the United States. Courier Express, Inc. was founded
in 1985 and is based in Marietta, Georgia with locations in
Athens, Charleston, Fayetteville, Jackson, Macon, Orlando,
Richmond, Tifton, Asheville, Charlotte, Gainesville,
Jacksonville, Memphis, Pensacola, Salt Lake City, Atlanta,
Cincinnati, Greensboro, Kinston, Montgomery, Pittsburgh,
Savannah, Augusta, Columbia, Greenville/Spartanburg, Knoxville,
Myrtle Beach, Pompano Beach, Tallahassee, Birmingham, Louisville,
Nashville, Raleigh-Durham, and Tampa. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey B. Sand, Esq.
          THE WEINER LAW FIRM LLC
          7 Piedmont Center, 3rd Floor
          Atlanta, GA 30305
          Telephone: (404) 205-5029
          Facsimile: (866) 800-1482
          E-mail: js@atlantaemployeelawyer.com

               - and -

          Gilda A. Hernandez, Esq.
          Michael B. Cohen, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF GILDA A. HERNANDEZ, PLLC
          1020 Southhill Dr., Ste. 130
          Cary, NC 27513
          Telephone: (919) 741-8693
          Facsimile: (919) 869-1853
          E-mail: ghernandez@gildahernandezlaw.com
                  mcohen@gildahernandezlaw.com

               - and -

          Harold Lichten, Esq.
          Matthew Thomson, Esq.
          LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
          729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
          Boston, MA 02116
          Telephone: (617) 994-5800
          Facsimile: (617) 994-5801
          E-mail: hlichten@llrlaw.com
                  mthomson@llrlaw.com


CRAZY HORSE: BakerHostetler Attorney Discusses 4th Circuit Ruling
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Devinney, Esq. -- wdevinney@bakerlaw.com -- of
BakerHostetler, wrote that several Supreme Court decisions have
upheld, in various contexts, arbitration agreements that waive
the right to assert claims on a class basis. See, e.g., AT&T
Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 563 U.S. 333 (2011); American Express
Corp. v. Italian Colors Restaurant, 570 U.S. 333 (2013); DIRECTV,
Inc. v. Imburgia, 577 U.S. __, 136 S.Ct. 463 (2015). But the
Fourth Circuit recently showed this trend does not mean an
arbitration agreement will serve as a blanket protection against
class claims. Degidio v. Crazy Horse Saloon and Restaurant, Inc.,
No. 17-1145, 2018 U.S. LEXIS App 1178 (4th Cir. Jan. 18, 2018).

The plaintiff was a dancer who performed at a club owned by the
defendant, Crazy Horse.  On August 8, 2013, plaintiff brought a
putative class action, and a putative collective action under the
Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), alleging that Crazy Horse
violated the FLSA's overtime and minimum wage provisions, as well
as other laws, by mischaracterizing her and the club's other
performers as independent contractors rather than employees.

The plaintiff's employment agreement did not contain an
arbitration clause or class action waiver, and the case proceeded
through discovery until November 2014.  At about the same time
that discovery closed, Crazy Horse began requiring its performers
to enter into an employment agreement that included an
arbitration clause and class waiver.

Plaintiff later moved for class certification under Rule 23 and
for conditional certification as a collective action under the
FLSA.  In its opposition, Crazy Horse informed the court about
the new employment agreements that contained the arbitration
clause, but did not move to compel arbitration or indicate that
it intended to do so if the performers who signed the agreements
became plaintiffs.  Instead, Crazy Horse submitted declarations
from performers stating that they preferred to be independent
contractors, which Crazy Horse argued precluded class
certification because plaintiff was not similarly situated to the
putative class members.

On September 30, 2015, the trial court granted plaintiff's motion
for FLSA certification.  The court found that entertainers who
performed at Crazy Horse's clubs were employees, not independent
contractors.  Between November 2015 and January 2016, fourteen
opt-in plaintiffs joined the litigation, nine of whom had signed
the arbitration agreements.  Rather than move to compel
arbitration, however, Crazy Horse filed motions to certify
questions of law to the South Carolina Supreme Court and filed
additional motions for summary judgment.

On October 31, 2016, over three years after the case was filed,
Crazy Horse moved to compel arbitration.  The trial court denied
the motion because it found that the employment agreements misled
the performers and were the result of Crazy Horse's improper
precertification communications with potential opt-in plaintiffs.

On appeal, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court.  The
Fourth Circuit recognized that the Federal Arbitration Act
adopted "a liberal federal policy favoring arbitration
agreements." 2018 U.S. LEXIS App 1178 at *8 (citing Concepcion,
563 U.S. at 341).  The Fourth Circuit, however, noted that a
party can waive its right to arbitration by "so substantially
utilizing the litigation machinery that to subsequently permit
arbitration would prejudice the party opposing [the motion to
compel arbitration]." Id. (citing Fraser v. Merrill Lynch Pierce,
Fenner & Smith, Inc., 817 F.2d 250, 252 (4th Cir. 1987)).

The Fourth Circuit found that Crazy Horse's motion practice and
discovery prior to moving to compel arbitration were improper
attempts to secure multiple challenges to the merits of
plaintiff's claims.  The Fourth Circuit also labeled Crazy
Horse's conduct to be "disdainful of orderly judicial process"
and stated Crazy Horse should have "informed the district court
of its intention to compel arbitration at [an] earlier stage of
litigation" so the trial court "could have waited to issue merits
judgments until the prior arbitration question had been settled."
Id. at 3, 12.  The Fourth Circuit also disapproved of Crazy Horse
entering the arbitration agreements after the litigation was
filed.

The bottom line is that arbitration agreements are not
bulletproof.  First, they will not protect a defendant that the
court deems to be abusing the judicial process, and courts will
apply waiver and other principles to invalidate an arbitration
agreement that it perceives is being misused.  Second, with
respect to timing, if a defendant intends to move to compel
arbitration, it should inform the court as soon as possible of
its intent, even if the motion is procedurally improper at the
time.


CREDIT CORP: Court Stays Further Proceedings in "Derosia" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. William E. Duffin granted the Plaintiff's motion to stay
further proceedings in the lawsuit titled DENISE DEROSIA v.
CREDIT CORP SOLUTIONS, INC., Case No. 2:17-cv-01671-WED (E.D.
Wisc.).

On November 28, 2017, the Plaintiff filed a class action
complaint.  At the same time, the Plaintiff filed what the Court
commonly refers to as a "protective" motion for class
certification.  In this motion, the Plaintiff moved to certify
the class described in the complaint but also moved the Court to
stay further proceedings on that motion.

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

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

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=X8qfG4rY


CRUISIN' CHUBBYS: Exotic Dancers Class Certified in "Jones" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. James D. Peterson entered an opinion & order in the
lawsuit styled TERIANA JONES and BETHANY MORRISEY, on behalf of
themselves and a class of employees and/or former employees
similarly situated v. CRUISIN' CHUBBYS GENTLEMEN'S CLUB, EDGE OF
THE DELLS, INC., TIMOTHY ENTERPRISES, LLC, KENNY'S FUTURE, LLC,
LIVING ON THE EDGE CAMPGROUND & GO-KARTS, INC., PTB, INC.,
SOUTHERN HEIGHTS, LLC, TIMOTHY D. ROBERTS, KENNETH C. ROBERTS,
and LANTZ RAY ROBERTS f/k/a THOMAS LANTZ DOUGLAS, Case No. 3:17-
cv-00125-jdp (W.D. Wisc.):

   -- granting the Plaintiffs' motion to dismiss Jane Roe #5;

   -- granting the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification;
      and

   -- denying the Defendants' motion for decertification.

The Court certifies this class:

    "Any individual who worked as an exotic dancer at Cruisin'
     Chubbys Gentlemen's Club from February 22, 2014, to the
     present."4.The court appoints the law firm of Moen Sheehan
     Meyer Ltd. as class counsel.

Plaintiffs Teriana Jones and Bethany Morrisey were both exotic
dancers at Defendant Cruisin' Chubbys Gentlemen's Club.  They
contend that the Defendants were their joint employer under both
state and federal labor laws, but that the Defendants classified
them incorrectly as independent contractors, and, as a result,
violated legal requirements to pay the Plaintiffs a minimum wage
and the higher rate for working overtime.  The Plaintiffs also
contend that the Defendants violated state and federal law by
retaining a portion of the tips the dancers received.

A copy of the Opinion & Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=HgYRmkz7


CVS HEALTH: Faces John Doe Suit over HIV/AIDS Treatment
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against CVS Health
Corporation. The case is captioned as John Doe One, John Doe Two,
John Doe Three, and John Doe Four, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CVS Health
Corporation; CVS Pharmacy, Inc.; Caremark RX, L.L.C.; Caremark,
L.L.C.; Caremark California Specialty Pharmacy, L.L.C.; National
Railroad Passenger Corporation, and Does 1-10, Defendants, Case
No. 3:18-cv-1031 (N.D. Cal., Feb. 16, 2018).

The complaint alleged that Defendants' engaged in a
discriminatory business practices targeting those persons whose
prescription drug benefit is administered by CVS Caremark and who
are prescribed specialty medications for the treatment or
prevention of HIV/AIDS.

Many enrollees in health plans where CVS Caremark controls and
administers the pharmacy benefits are told they are required to
obtain their HIV/AIDS Medications from Caremark Specialty
Pharmacy d/b/a CVS/Specialty and/or Caremark California Specialty
Pharmacy. L.L.C., a wholly-owned subsidiary of CVS Health
Corporation.

Caremark Specialty only delivers such medications by mail order
or mails them to a CVS Pharmacy as a drop shipment location
purely for pickup. This program threatens HIV/AIDS patients'
health and privacy. If HIV/AIDS patients in those plans do not
obtain their HIV/AIDS Medications from Caremark Specialty, then
they must either pay more out-of-pocket or pay full-price with no
insurance benefits whatsoever -- thousands of dollars or more
each month -- to purchase their medications at an in-network
community pharmacy where they can receive counseling from a
pharmacist and other services they may need to stay alive.

CVS Health Corporation, together with its subsidiaries, provides
integrated pharmacy health care services. It operates through
Pharmacy Services and Retail/LTC segments. The Pharmacy Services
segment offers pharmacy benefit management solutions, such as
plan design and administration, formulary management, Medicare
Part D services, mail order, specialty pharmacy and infusion
services, retail pharmacy network management services,
prescription management systems, clinical services, disease
management programs, and medical pharmacy management services.
This segment serves employers, insurance companies, unions,
government employee groups, health plans, Medicare Part D plans,
managed Medicaid plans, plans offered on public and private
exchanges, other sponsors of health benefit plans, and
individuals under the CVS Caremark Pharmacy Services, Caremark,
CVS Specialty, AccordantCare, SilverScript, Wellpartner,
NovoLogix, Coram, Navarro Health Services, and ACS Pharmacy
names. The company was formerly known as CVS Caremark Corporation
and changed its name to CVS Health Corporation in September 2014.
CVS Health Corporation was founded in 1892 and is headquartered
in Woonsocket, Rhode Island. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alan M. Mansfield, Esq.
          WHATLEY KALLAS, LLP
          16870 W. Bernardo Dr. Suite 400
          San Diego, CA 92127
          Telephone: (858) 674-6641
          Facsimile: (855) 274-1888
          E-mail: amansfield@whatleykallas.com

          1 Sansome Street, 35th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 860-2503
          Facsimile: (888) 331-9633

                  - and -

          Edith M. Kallas, Esq.
          WHATLEY KALLAS LLP
          1180 Avenue of the Americans, 20th Floor
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 447-7060
          Facsimile: (800) 922-4851
          E-mail: ekallas@whatleykallas.com

                - and -

          Jerry Flanagan, Esq.
          2701 Ocean Park, Suite 112
          Santa Monica, CA 90405
          Telephone: (310) 392-0522


DISCOVER BANK: Court Grants Arbitration in "Johnson" FCRA Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of
Wisconsin issued an Opinion and Order granting Defendant's Motion
for Arbitration and Stay in the case captioned MARK E. JOHNSON,
DONNA J. ANDERSON, and JODI M. EICK, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. DISCOVER BANK,
Defendant, No. 17-cv-412-jdp (W.D. Wis.).

Plaintiffs failed to repay the balances on their credit card
accounts and subsequently filed bankruptcy actions.  Discover
filed claims related to plaintiffs' credit card debt in those
actions and attached to the pleadings copies of plaintiffs'
monthly billing statements.  Included in those statements were
plaintiffs' credit scores, which Discover did not redact.
Plaintiffs contend that publishing their credit scores was an
impermissible use of a consumer report under the Fair Credit
Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1681b.

To prevail on its motion to compel arbitration, Discover must
show three things: (1) a valid, written agreement to arbitrate
exists; (2) plaintiffs' claims fall within the scope of that
agreement; and (3) plaintiffs have refused to proceed to
arbitration in accordance with the agreement.

Whether the arbitration clause is enforceable under federal law

Plaintiffs' reliance on the new regulation fails for the simple
reason that Congress already repealed the regulation.  Congress
disapproves the rule submitted by the Bureau of Consumer
Financial Protection relating to 'Arbitration Agreements' (82
Fed. Reg. 33210 (July 19, 2017)), and such rule shall have no
force or effect. And even if the regulation had not been
repealed, it applied only to arbitration agreements entered into
on or after March 19, 2018.

Whether plaintiffs' claims fall within the scope of the
arbitration agreement

Plaintiffs cite Garriguenc v. Love to support their argument that
dispute should be construed narrowly because that is how a
consumer would understand the term.  In Garriguec, the test is
not what the insurer intended the words to mean but what a
reasonable person in the position of an insured would have
understood the words to mean.

But even if the court assumes that the rule in Garriguenc applies
in this case, plaintiffs identify no reason that a reasonable
consumer would construe the word dispute as excluding claims in a
lawsuit. In fact, plaintiffs do not explain what they believe
that dispute means if it does not include controversies claims.
If the court were to adopt plaintiffs' view, it would render the
arbitration clause meaningless because all litigation consists of
claims.

Plaintiffs' second argument is that their claims are not covered
by the arbitration clause because the card member agreement says
nothing about credit scores.

It is well established that arbitration clauses are not limited
to breach of contract claims if the language of the clause is
broad enough to cover other types of claims. Plaintiffs cite no
contrary authority and they do not otherwise explain why claims
under FCRA and FDCPA cannot be subject to arbitration.

The language of the arbitration clause is broad enough to include
the claims raised in this case. The clause is not limited to
claims arising under the card member agreement and it is not
limited to conduct by Discover that has a particular purpose, as
plaintiffs suggest. Rather, the clause applies to any claim
related to plaintiffs' Discover account. Thus, it is not
dispositive whether the card member agreement discusses credit
scores. Again, plaintiffs' claims are related to their account
because the disclosures they are challenging appear on account
statements and were filed in the context of litigation about the
collection of a debt owed on the account.

Plaintiffs' third argument is that their claims are outside the
scope of the arbitration clause because including credit scores
on billing statements was never an integral part of, or necessary
for, Discover's administration of its Account with Plaintiffs.

This is a little closer to the mark because it focuses on the
claims' relationship to the account rather than just the
agreement. But the obvious flaw with the argument is that the
arbitration clause does not require the claim to be an integral
part of the account or a necessary part of its administration.
The phrase relating to permits a more indirect connection.
Although the breadth of the words related to' does not mean the
sky is the limit, this is not a situation in which the
relationship is so tenuous, remote, or peripheral, that it does
not trigger the arbitration clause.

In sum, Discover has shown that it has an enforceable arbitration
agreement with plaintiffs that covers the claims raised in this
case. Because plaintiffs have not identified any other reason for
refusing to enforce the agreement, the court will grant
Discover's motion to compel and stay the proceedings in this
court pending arbitration.

Defendant Discover Bank's motion to compel arbitration is
granted.

A full-text copy of the District Court's February 12, 2018
Opinion and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yb7xwj2g
from Leagle.com.

Mark E. Johnson, On behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Donna J. Anderson, On behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated & Jodi M. Eick, On behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Joshua D.
Christianson, Christianson & Freund, LLC, 1620 L Street, N.W.,
Suite 900. Washington, DC 20036, Thomas John Lyons, Jr., Consumer
Justice Center, P.A. 367 Commerce Ct Vadnais Heights, MN, 55127-
8506 & Thomas John Lyons, Sr., Lyons Law Firm PA.

Discover Bank, Defendant, represented by Charles F. Webber --
chuck.webber@FaegreBD.com -- Faegre Baker Daniels, LLP & Jessica
Zoe Savran -- jessica.savran@FaegreBD.com -- Faegre Baker Daniels
LLP.


DIVERSIFIED RECOVERY: "Bradley" Suit Alleges FDCPA Violation
------------------------------------------------------------
Nickie Bradley, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Diversified Recovery Bureau, LLC, Plaza
Services, LLC and John Does 1-25, Case No. 6:18-cv-00024 (W.D.
Va., February 8, 2018), is brought against the Defendants for
violations of the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act.

Plaintiff Nickie Bradley is a resident of the State of Virginia,
County of Lynchburg City.

Defendants are debt collectors. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Aryeh E. Stein, Esq.
      MERIDIAN LAW, LLC
      600 Reisterstown Rd, Ste 700
      Baltimore, MD 21208
      E-mail: astein@meridianlawfirm.com


EQUISOLAR INC: "Alaniz" Suit Seeks Damages Under CTA
----------------------------------------------------
Francisco Alaniz, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Equisolar, Inc., Case No. 18-at-00098 (E.D.
Calif., February 8, 2018), seeks damages, restitution and
injunctive relief for violations of the California Translation
Act and California's Unfair Competition Law.

This action seeks to enjoin Defendant's practices of unlawfully
forcing California consumers to enter into contracts that are not
drafted in a language known by the consumer as well as contracts
that fail to include required notices of consumers' rights.

Plaintiff Francisco Alaniz is a citizen and resident of the City
of Wasco, County of Kern, State of California.

Defendant Equisolar, Inc. installs solar panels. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
      Matthew M. Loker, Esq.
      Elizabeth A. Wagner, Esq.
      KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
      1303 East Grand Avenue, Suite 101
      Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
      Tel: (800) 400-6808
      Fax: (800) 520-5523
      E-mail: ak@kazlg.com
              ml@kazlg.com
              elizabeth@kazlg.com

          - and -

      Joshua B. Swigart, Esq.
      HYDE & SWIGART
      2221 Camino Del Rio South, Ste. 101
      San Diego, CA 92108
      Tel: (619) 233-7770
      Fax: (619) 297-1022
      E-mail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com


ETC INSTITUTE: Removes "Williams" Suit to N.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------
The Defendant in the case of Bruce Williams and Tonya Hennessey,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. ETC Institute; A+ Student Staffing; Does 1-50,
Inclusive, Defendants, filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from
the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San
Francisco (Case No. CGC-17-563308) to the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California and assigned Case No. 3:18-
cv-01011-MEJ (N.D. Cal., Feb. 15, 2018). The case is assigned to
Magistrate Judge Maria-Elena James.

A+ Student Staffing is a staffing and recruiting company that
provides event planning management services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Rachel E. Davey, Esq.
          WORKMAN LAW FIRM, PC
          177 Post Street, Suite 800
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 782-3660
          Facsimile: (415) 788-1028
          E-mail: rachel@workmanlawpc.com

               - and -

          Robin Gibson Workman, Esq.
          WORKMAN LAW FIRM, PC
          177 Post Street, Suite 800
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 782-3660
          E-mail: robin@workmanlawpc.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Courtney A Hasselberg, Esq.
          Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP
          650 City Center Drive, Suite 1400
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Telephone: (714) 545-9200
          Facsimile: (714) 850-1030
          E-mail: courtney.hasselberg@lewisbrisbois.com

               - and -

          Tracy Wei Costantino, Esq.
          JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
          725 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2500
          Los Angeles, CA 90012
          Telephone: (213) 689-0404
          Facsimile: (213) 689-0430
          E-mail: tracy.costantino@jacksonlewis.com

               - and -

          Suzetty C Shen, Esq.
          JACKSON LEWIS, P.C.
          725 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2500
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (310) 923-8603
          E-mail: suzetty.shen@jacksonlewis.com


EXACTTARGET LLC: Court Grants Prelim OK of "Simms" Class Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
Indiana, Indianapolis Division, issued an Order granting
Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class
Action Settlement in the case captioned LATONYA SIMMS, on behalf
of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
EXACTTARGET, LLC, Defendant, Cause No. 1:14-cv-737-WTL-MJD (S.D.
Ind.).

For settlement purposes only, the Court certifies the proposed
Settlement Class, consisting of:

     All persons in the United States who received a text message
via an ExactTarget texting platform from or on behalf of Simply
Fashion during the Class Period (i.e., July 23, 2009, through
September 30, 2013). Excluded from the Settlement Class are
ExactTarget, its parent companies, affiliates or subsidiaries, or
any entities in which such companies have a controlling interest,
and any employees thereof; the judge and magistrate judge to whom
this case is assigned and any member of those judges' staffs and
immediate families; and any persons who timely and validly
request exclusion from the Settlement Class.

For settlement purposes only, the Court approves the appointment
of Plaintiff Latonya Simms as Class Representative.

For settlement purposes only, the Court approves the appointment
of Ronald A. Marron, Alexis M. Wood, and Kas L. Gallucci of the
Law Offices of Ronald A. Marron as Class Counsel and finds that
they are competent and capable of exercising the responsibilities
of Class Counsel.

On Friday, July 20, 2018, at 1:30 p.m., in Room 202, 46 E. Ohio
Street, Indianapolis, Indiana, the Court will a hold a Final
Approval Hearing on the fairness, adequacy, and reasonableness of
the Settlement Agreement, and to determine whether: (i) final
approval of the Settlement should be granted and (ii) Class
Counsel's application for attorneys' fees and expenses, and an
incentive award to the Class Representative, should be granted.
No later than May 22, 2018, the Plaintiff shall file her motion
for attorneys' fees and expenses, and no later than July 6, 2018,
the parties shall file a motion for final approval of the
Settlement.

A full-text copy of the District Court's February 12, 2018 Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/yba2uq35 from Leagle.com.

LATONYA SIMMS, on behalf of herself, and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Ronald Marron --
ron@consumersadvocates.com -- LAW OFFICE OF RONALD MARRON, pro
hac vice, Alexis Marie Wood -- alexis@consumersadvocates.com --
LAW OFFICES OF RONALD A. MARRON, APLC, pro hac vice, Douglas J.
Campion doug@djcampion.com, LAW OFFICE OF DOUGLAS J. CAMPION,
APC, pro hac vice & Kas L. Gallucci -- kas@consumersadvocates.com
-- LAW OFFICES OF RONALD A. MARRON, pro hac vice.

EXACTTARGET, LLC, Defendant, represented by Keith E. Eggleton --
keggleton@wsgr.com -- WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI, pro hac
vice, Craig E. Bolton -- cbolton@wsgr.com -- WILSON SONSINI
GOODRICH & ROSAIT & Tonia Ouellette Klausner --
tklausner@wsgr.com -- Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, pro hac
vice.


EXPERIAN INFORMATION: "Rosen" Suit Alleges Violation of FCRA
------------------------------------------------------------
BARRY ROSEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC.;
CLARITY SERVICES, INC.; EASY CASH ASAP; LOANME INC.; MARLETTE
FUNDING LLC; MONEYKEY CA, INC.; MONEY LION, INC.; NIIWIN, LLC;
AND DOES 1 through 10, Defendants, Case No. BC694538 (Cal.
Super., Los Angeles Cty., Feb. 16, 2018) alleges violation of the
Fair Credit Reporting Act in providing and obtaining consumer
reports.

Experian Information Solutions, Inc., an information services
company, provides information, analytical, and marketing services
to organizations and consumers to manage risk and reward of
commercial and financial decisions. Experian Information
Solutions, Inc. was formerly known as Information Systems and
Services, Inc. and changed its name to Experian Information
Solutions, Inc. in September 1996. The company was incorporated
in 1992 and is based in Costa Mesa, California with additional
locations in New York, New York; Parsippany, New Jersey;
Burlington, Massachusetts; Lincoln, Nebraska; Atlanta, Georgia;
Costa Mesa, California; Schaumburg, Illinois; Allen, Texas;
Dublin, Ireland; Nottingham and London, United Kingdom; and Sao
Paulo, Brazil. Experian Information Solutions, Inc. operates as a
subsidiary of Experian plc. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Peter R. Dion-Kindem, Esq.
          THE DION-KINDEM LAW FIRM
          PETER R. DION-KINDEM, P.C.
          21550 Oxnard Street, Suite 900
          Woodland Hills, CA 91367
          Telephone: (818) 883-4900
          Facsimile: (818) 883-4902
          E-mail: peter@dion-kindemlaw.com

               - and -

          Lonnie C. Blanchard, III, Esq.
          THE BLANCHARD LAW GROUP, APC
          3311 East Pico Boulevard
          Los Angeles, CA 90023
          Telephone: (213) 599-8255
          Facsimile: (213) 402-3949
          E-mail: lonnieblanchard@gmail.com


FEDERAL REALTY: Faces "Brodie" Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
--------------------------------------------------------
CAROLINE BRODIE and JOY LEVINE, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FEDERAL REALTY INVESTMENT
TRUST, Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-00716-GAM (E.D. Pa., Feb. 16,
2018) is an action brought against the Defendant alleging
violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. The
case is assigned to Honorable Gerald A. McHugh.

Federal Realty Investment Trust is a self-administered real
estate investment trust. The Company specializes in the
ownership, management, development, and redevelopment of prime
community and neighborhood shopping centers. Federal Realty
Investment Trust serves customers in the United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Elizabeth Pollock-Avery, Esq.
          CARLSON LYNCH SWEET KILPELA & CARPENTER LLP
          1133 Penn Avenue 5th Floor
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Telephone: (412) 322-9243
          E-mail: eavery@carlsonlynch.com


FERRARA CANDY: Iglesias Moves to Certify Consumers Class in Cal.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned THOMAS IGLESIAS,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
FERRARA CANDY CO., and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No.
3:17-cv-00849-VC (N.D. Cal.), asks the Court to certify a class
of consumers defined as:

     All persons who purchased opaque boxes of 5-oz. Jujyfruits,
     5-oz. Lemonhead, 5.5-oz. Redhots, and 3.5-oz. Trolli in the
     State of California for personal use and not for resale
     during the time period February 21, 2013, through the
     present.  Excluded from the Class are Defendants' officers,
     directors, and employees, and any individual who received
     remuneration from Defendants in connection with that
     individual's use or endorsement of the Product.

Mr. Iglesias also asks the Court to appoint him as Class
Representative and to appoint Ryan Clarkson, Esq., Shireen
Clarkson, Esq., and Bahar Sodaify, Esq., of Clarkson Law Firm,
P.C., as Class Counsel.

The Court will commence a hearing on May 31, 2018, at 10:00 a.m.,
to consider the Motion.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=TFi3uWpw

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ryan J. Clarkson, Esq.
          Shireen M. Clarkson, Esq.
          Bahar Sodaify, Esq.
          CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C.
          9255 Sunset Blvd., Suite 804
          Los Angeles, CA 90069
          Telephone: (213) 788-4050
          Facsimile: (213) 788-4070
          E-mail: rclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com
                  sclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com
                  bsodaify@clarksonlawfirm.com


FIT CLUB: Faces "Hagans" Suit over Failure to Pay OT Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
SADE HAGANS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FIT CLUB, INC; and KELLEN SCANTLEBURY,
Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-01374-KBF (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 15, 2018)
seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, maximum liquidated
damages and attorneys' fees, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the New York Labor Law.

Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants in New York County, New
York, to work as a receptionist, from August 2017 to November 27,
2017.

Fit Club, Inc. is a domestic corporation organized and existing
under the laws of the State of New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James F. Sullivan, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JAMES F. SULLIVAN, P.C.
          52 Duane Street, 7th Floor
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 374-0009
          Facsimile: (212) 374-9931


FREEDOM FINANCIAL: Made Unsolicited Calls, "Berman" Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Berman, Plaintiff v. Freedom Financial Network, LLC and
Freedom Debt Relief, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 4:18-cv-01060-DMR
(N.D. Cal., Feb. 19, 2018) is an action against the Defendants
for sending robotexts and robocalls to the Plaintiff in violation
of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Freedom Financial Network, LLC, through its subsidiaries,
provides debt relief and financial solutions in the United
States. Freedom Financial Network, LLC was founded in 2002 and is
based in San Mateo, California with an additional office in
Tempe, Arizona. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jon B. Fougner, Esq.
          Edward A. Broderick, Esq.
          Anthony I. Paronich, Esq.
          BRODERICK & PARONICH, P.C.
          99 High Street, Suite 304
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617) 738-7080
          Facsimile: (617) 830-0327
          E-mail: ted@broderick-law.com
                  anthony@broderick-law.com

               - and -

          Matthew P. McCue, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF MATTHEW P. MCCUE
          1 South Avenue, Suite 3
          Natick, MA 01760
          Telephone: (508) 655-1415
          Facsimile: (508) 319-3077
          E-mail: mmccue@massattorneys.net


GENOCEA BIOSCIENCES: Scott+Scott to Lead in Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts issued a Memorandum and Order granting Genocea
Investor Group's Motion to Appoint Lead Plaintiffs and Lead
Counsel in the case captioned STEVEN EMERSON, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated; SHELDON GRONER; BARRY
HEANY; and MARK HANESS, Plaintiffs, v. GENOCEA BIOSCIENCES, INC.,
WILLIAM D. CLARK, and JONATHAN POOLE, Defendants, Civil Action
No. 17-12137-PBS, Consolidated Case No. 17-12168-PBS, 17-12474-
PBS (D. Mass.).

In this proposed class action, two competing lead plaintiffs
allege securities fraud by a biopharmaceutical company.  The
plaintiffs assert that Genocea Biosciences, Inc., and two
officers artificially inflated the company's stock price by
reporting overly optimistic prospects for a potential herpes
treatment when, in reality, the company's finances could not
support successful regulatory approval of the drug.  When the
company later reported that it was abandoning the treatment, its
share price fell precipitously. This prompted several plaintiffs
to sue under the federal securities laws.

General Framework for Appointing a Lead Plaintiff

A class member may trigger a rebuttable presumption that she is
the "most adequate plaintiff" by satisfying three criteria: (1)
filing the complaint or making a timely motion to be lead
plaintiff; (2) having the largest financial interest in the
relief sought; and (3) otherwise satisfying Rule 23 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

The two competing lead plaintiffs in this case are an individual
named Sheldon Groner and a group of five unrelated investors
referred to as the Genocea Investor Group (GIG).  Groner and GIG
join issue over two of the three most adequate plaintiff
criteria: the timeliness of GIG's motion to become lead
plaintiff, and who has the largest financial interest in the
litigation.

Timeliness of GIG's Motion

Groner first argues that GIG's motion to be lead plaintiff was
untimely.  According to Groner, because the motion was filed at
6:04 p.m. on January 2, 2018, it was four minutes late under the
local filing deadline of 6 p.m. and must be deemed filed the next
day.  Because January 2, 2018, happened to be the final day in
the PSLRA's 60-day window for filing lead-plaintiff motions,
Groner argues that GIG's motion was untimely.

That said, the Court denies the request to disqualify GIG's
motion over a de minimis infraction of four minutes. Groner cites
no case law to support his contention that the PSLRA's 60day
window is jurisdictional in nature. Although courts typically
adhere strictly to the PSLRA's 60-day filing window, the 6 p.m.
deadline under the local rules is not sacrosanct. Because GIG's
motion was filed on the sixtieth day of the PSLRA's 60-day
window, the motion did not turn into a pumpkin at the stroke of 6
p.m.

Thus, notwithstanding the four-minute lag under the local rule,
the Court will consider the motion.

Aggregation of Plaintiffs' Losses

The parties agree, although they quibble about the exact figures,
that if the GIG members are permitted to aggregate their claims,
they have the largest financial interest in the case, exceeding
Groner's totals in each of the four categories just described.
The parties similarly do not dispute that if aggregation is not
permitted, Groner sweeps all four categories and therefore has
the largest individual loss under the same metric.

The GIG members have submitted a joint declaration discussing,
albeit not in tremendous detail, their plan to exercise joint
decision-making and work together to actively monitor the
activities of counsel. The group reports that it has agreed to
regularly review and discuss case filings with counsel through
joint conference calls, as well as other measures.  GIG also
asserts that it has implemented communication procedures to
enable [its members] to confer via phone and/or email on short
notice to ensure the group is able to make timely decisions.
Courts have found communication and decision-making plans like
these to be persuasive evidence of group cohesion.

Given the communication and decision-making plans described in
GIG's joint declaration, and the presentation by counsel
concerning the sophistication of the GIG members, the Court is
satisfied that the five-person GIG will adequately represent the
plaintiffs' interests and will not cede control of the litigation
to the attorneys. Accordingly, the Court will permit the members
of GIG to aggregate their losses for purposes of the most
adequate plaintiff" analysis. It bears mentioning that this
decision is without prejudice, and the Court "reserves the right
to modify this lead plaintiff structure in the event that
litigation is stalled, expenses become unnecessarily duplicative
or wasteful, or the structure becomes otherwise unmanageable.

GIG's motion to be appointed as lead plaintiff and Scott+Scott,
Attorneys at Law, LLP, and Levi & Korsinsky, LLP, as co-lead
class counsel and Block & Leviton, LLP, as liaison counsel is
allowed.  Groner's parallel motion is denied.

A full-text copy of the District Court's February 12, 2018
Memorandum and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y89gz6eg
from Leagle.com.

Taylor Walker, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Jason M. Leviton --
jason@blockesq.com -- Block & Leviton LLP & Shannon L. Hopkins --
shopkins@zlk.com -- Levi Korsinsky LLP.

Barry Heaney & Mark Haness, Plaintiffs, represented by Daryl
DeValerio Andrews -- daryl@andrewsdevalerio.com -- Andrews
DeValerio.

Sheldon Groner, Plaintiff, represented by Katherine M. Lenahan --
klenahan@faruqilaw.com -- Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, pro hac vice,
Mitchell J. Matorin, Matorin Law Office LLC, 18 Grove Street,
Suite 2 Wellesley, MA 02482, Richard W. Gonnello --
rgonnello@faruqilaw.com -- Faruqi & Faruqi LLP, pro hac vice &
SHERIEF MORSY -- smorsy@faruqilaw.com -- FARUQI & FARUQI LLP.
Genocea Biosciences, Inc., William D. Clark & Jonathan Poole,
Defendants, represented by Kristi Lynn Jobson --
kristi.jobson@ropesgray.com -- Ropes & Gray LLP & Randall W.
Bodner --  rbodner@ropesgray.com -- Ropes & Gray LLP.
Omer Yuksel, Lirio Fiocchi, Scott C. Hartmann, Satya Kunapuli &
Raul Zamudio, Movants, represented by Jason M. Leviton, Block &
Leviton LLP.

Genocea Biosciences, Inc., William D. Clark & Jonathan Poole,
Defendants, represented by Kristi Lynn Jobson, Ropes & Gray LLP &
Randall W. Bodner, Ropes & Gray LLP.

Omer Yuksel, Lirio Fiocchi, Scott C. Hartmann, Satya Kunapuli &
Raul Zamudio, Movants, represented by Jason M. Leviton, Block &
Leviton LLP.


GOOGLE LLC: Court Grants Huawie's Bid to Dismiss Nexus 6P Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, San Jose Division, issued an Order granting Huawie
Device USA, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction the
case captioned IN RE NEXUS 6P PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, Case
No. 17-cv-02185-BLF (N.D. Cal.).

Here, the Court considers the personal jurisdiction arguments in
Huawei's Motion to Dismiss the Consolidated Amended Complaint and
to Strike Class Allegations.

Plaintiffs allege severe defects in their Nexus 6P smartphones.
In the operative complaint, Plaintiffs assert causes of action
for breach of warranty, fraud, and unjust enrichment against the
companies that developed the phone, Huawei Device USA, Inc.
(Huawei) and Google LLC (Google).

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(k)(1)(A), the Court has
personal jurisdiction if the defendant would be subject to the
jurisdiction of a court of general jurisdiction in the state
where the district court is located, here California. Because
California's long-arm statute is coextensive with federal due
process requirements, the Court may exercise personal
jurisdiction so long as it comports with due process.

Personal Jurisdiction

Huawei moves under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2),
seeking dismissal of Plaintiffs' claims against Huawei for lack
of personal jurisdiction.

Plaintiffs assert that Huawei is subject to both general and
specific jurisdiction in California.

General Jurisdiction

Plaintiffs' remaining evidence supporting the exercise of general
jurisdiction comes not from the CAC, but instead from exhibits
attached to Plaintiffs' rejected request for judicial notice.
Even if the Court were to consider these materials, general
jurisdiction would still be lacking. Plaintiffs point to Huawei's
research and development operations in Santa Clara, California
but make no showing that those activities go beyond a
substantial, continuous, and systematic course of business" to
contacts so continuous and systematic as to render Huawei
essentially at home in California.

Plaintiffs fall far short of demonstrating that this Court may
properly exercise general jurisdiction over Huawei.

Specific Jurisdiction

In re Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California,
San Francisco County, 137 S.Ct. 1773 (2017), noted that while it
sells Plavix in California, it did not develop, manufacture,
label, package, or seek regulatory approval of the product in
California, and none of the non-residents claimed that they
obtained, ingested, or were injured by Plavix in California. The
California Supreme Court held that the non-residents were
properly subject to specific jurisdiction, but the U.S. Supreme
Court reversed.

As the U.S. Supreme Court emphasized, specific jurisdiction
requires a careful examination of the nature of the asserted
claims because the underlying controversy must arise out of or
relate to the defendant's contacts with the forum. Put another
way, the defendant's suit-related conduct must create a
substantial connection with the forum State. There must be an
affiliation between the forum and the underlying controversy,
principally, an activity or an occurrence that takes place in the
forum State and is therefore subject to the State's regulation.
As those standards indicate, the focus is on whether each
individual defendant's suit-related conduct forms a connection
with the forum itself, so the mere fact of a relationship with a
resident plaintiff or third party, standing alone, is an
insufficient basis for jurisdiction.

Because the quality of the evidence uncovered will need to be
judged on its own merit, the Court does not purport to rule on
what evidence would be sufficient to establish specific
jurisdiction. But, unlike the other allegations and evidence, the
facts about Huawei's Santa Clara facility and Huawei's
California-based collaboration with Google warrant further
exploration because they go to the central controversy namely,
the development of allegedly defective Nexus 6Ps that underlie at
least some of Plaintiffs' claims.

In a similar vein, Judge Tigar recently explained that, under
Bristol-Myers, a district court may exercise specific
jurisdiction when a plaintiff adequately ties the defendant's
conduct in the forum to the basis for the claims. There, the
plaintiff's allegation that nearly every pivotal clinical trial
involved studying the challenged drug] throughout the State of
California created a direct connection between the defendant's
conduct in California critical clinical trials on the challenged
drug and the basis for the plaintiff's claims the inadequacy of
those trials.   Plaintiffs' amended allegations, including those
derived from the limited jurisdictional discovery, must similarly
demonstrate the requisite link between Huawei's California
conduct and Plaintiffs' underlying claims.

Because Bristol-Myers was unavailable when Plaintiffs filed the
CAC, Plaintiffs did not have the opportunity to develop their
complaint in light of the newly articulated personal jurisdiction
standards. Therefore, the Court deems it appropriate to grant
Plaintiffs leave to amend the CAC to allege facts about the
connection between California and Plaintiffs' claims against
Huawei.

Accordingly, Huawei's Motion to Dismiss for lack of personal
jurisdiction is granted with leave to amend.

A full-text copy of the District Court's February 12, 2018 Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/y9ke25bq from Leagle.com.

Jonathan Makcharoenwoodhi & Edward Beheler, Plaintiffs,
represented by Adam E. Polk -- aep@girardgibbs.com -- Girard
Gibbs LLP, Andrew William Ferich -- AMF@chimicles.com --
Chimicles and Tikellis LLP, pro hac vice, Benjamin F. Johns --
BFJ@chimicles.com -- Chimicles & Tikellis LLP, pro hac vice,
Jessica Linn Titler -- jt@chimicles.com -- Chimicles and Tikellis
LLP, pro hac vice, Jordan S. Elias -- je@girardgibbs.com --
Girard Gibbs LLP & Cory Steven Fein, 712 Main St Suite 800.
Houston, TX 77002, Attorney at Law.

Colton Winfield, Plaintiff, represented by Adam E. Polk, Girard
Gibbs LLP, Andrew William Ferich, Chimicles and Tikellis LLP,
Benjamin F. Johns, Chimicles & Tikellis LLP, pro hac vice,
Jessica Linn Titler, Chimicles and Tikellis LLP, pro hac vice,
Jordan S. Elias, Girard Gibbs LLP &Cory Steven Fein, Attorney at
Law.

Brian Christensen, Plaintiff, represented by Simon Seiver Grille
sg@girardgibbs.com -- Girard Gibbs LLP, Adam E. Polk, Girard
Gibbs LLP, Andrew William Ferich, Chimicles and Tikellis LLP,
Benjamin F. Johns, Chimicles & Tikellis LLP, Daniel C. Girard,
Girard Gibbs LLP, Jessica Linn Titler, Chimicles and Tikellis LLP
& Jordan S. Elias, Girard Gibbs LLP.

Khanh Tran, Paul Servodio, Yuriy Davydov, Kenneth Johnston,
Anthony Martorello, Rebecca Harrison, James Poore, Jr., Justin
Leone, Roy Berry, Taylor Jones, Alex Gorbatchev & Zachary Himes,
Plaintiffs, represented by Adam E. Polk, Girard Gibbs LLP, Jordan
S. Elias, Girard Gibbs LLP & Benjamin F. Johns, Chimicles &
Tikellis LLP.

Huawei Device USA, Inc., Defendant, represented by Simon J.
Frankel, Covington & Burling LLP & Lindsey Catherine Barnhart,
Covington Burling LLP.

Google LLC, Defendant, represented by Joshua H. Lerner, Durie
Tangri LLP, Catherine Y. Kim, Durie Tangri LLP, Eugene Novikov,
Durie Tangri LLP & Ragesh K. Tangri, Durie Tangri LLP.


ILLINOIS: Titus Moves to Certify Class of Pontiac Jail Detainees
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit titled Adam Titus, et al. v. Warden
Melvin, et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-01094-JES (C.D. Ill.), ask the
Court to certify this class:

     all individuals incarcerated at the Pontiac Correctional
     Center at the time of the filing of this complaint, and all
     individuals who will be housed at the Pontiac Correctional
     Center in the future

The proposed class excludes all other houses besides North
cellhouse and West cellhouse.

Michael Melvin is the Warden of the Pontiac Correctional Center.

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


INTERCONTINENTAL HOTELS: Zepeda Sues over Use of Biometrics
-----------------------------------------------------------
ERIC ZEPEDA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. INTERCONTINENTAL HOTELS GROUP, INC.; and
KIMPTON HOTEL & RESTAURANT GROUP, LLC, Case No. 2018-CH-02140
(Ill. Cir., Cook Cty., Feb. 16, 2018) is an action against the
Defendants' illegal actions in collecting, storing, and using
Plaintiff's and the class's biometric identifiers and biometric
information without informed written consent, in violation of the
Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act.

InterContinental Hotels Group PLC owns, manages, franchises, and
leases hotels. It operates hotels, resorts, and restaurants under
the InterContinental, Kimpton, Hotel Indigo, EVEN, HUALUXE,
Holiday Inn, Holiday Inn Express, Staybridge Suites Hotels,
Crowne Plaza, Holiday Inn Club Vacations, Holiday Inn Resort, and
Candlewood Suites Hotels brand names. As of March 02, 2017, it
franchised, leased, managed, and owned approximately 5,200 hotels
with 770,000 guest rooms in approximately 100 countries
worldwide. The company was founded in 1967 and is headquartered
in Denham, the United Kingdom. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Evan M. Meyers, Esq.
          David L. Gerbie, Esq.
          William P. Kingston, Esq.
          MCGUIRE LAW, P.C.
          55 W. Wacker Drive, 9th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 893-7002
          Facsimile: (312) 275-7895
          E-mail: emeyers@mcgpc.com
                  dgerbie@mcgpc.com
                  wkingston@mcgpc.com


J.A. CAMBECE: "Brook" Suit Moved to District of Massachusetts
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Defendant in the case of David G. Brook, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. J.A. Cambece Law
Office, P.C. and J. Anthony Cambece, Defendants, filed a notice
to remove the lawsuit to U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts and assign Case No. 1:18-cv-10314-RWZ (D. Mass.,
Feb. 19, 2018). The case is assigned to Judge Rya W. Zobel, and
referred to Magistrate Judge Marianne B. Bowler.

J. A. Cambece Law Office, P.C. provides legal services. The
Company offers solutions for financial obligation and debt
collection, as well as legal guidance. J. A. Cambece Law Office
serves customers in the State of Massachusetts. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kenneth D. Quat, Esq.
          QUAT LAW OFFICES
          929 Worcester Road
          Framingham, MA 01701
          Telephone: (508) 872-1261
          E-mail: kquat@quatlaw.com

               - and -

          Josef C. Culik, Esq.
          CULIK LAW PC
          10 Post Office Square
          Suite 800, South Tower
          Boston, MA 02109
          Telephone: (617) 830-1795
          Facsimile: (617) 830-1576
          E-mail: jculik@culiklaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Andrew M. Schneiderman, Esq.
          Justin M. Fabella, Esq.
          HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP
          28 State Street 24th Floor
          Boston, MA 02109
          Telephone: (617) 213-7000
          Facsimile: (617) 213-7001
          E-mail: aschneiderman@hinshawlaw.com
                  jfabella@hinshawlaw.com

               - and -

          Justin M. Fabella, Esq.
          HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP
          28 State Street, 24th Floor
          Boston, MA 02109
          Telephone: (617) 213-7004
          Facsimile: (617) 213-7001
          E-mail: jfabella@hinshawlaw.com


JEFFERY H JORDAN: Court Grants Prelim. OK of "Barrientos" Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. John A. Kronstadt grants the Plaintiff's motion for
preliminary approval of settlement in the lawsuit titled Sonia
Barrientos v. Law office of Jeffery H. Jordan, Case No. 2:15-cv-
06282-JAK-GJS (C.D. Cal.).

According to the Court's civil minutes, the Court states its
tentative views that it is inclined to grant the Plaintiff's
Motion for Preliminary Approval.  Counsel address the Court.  The
Court adheres to its tentative views, and the Motion is granted,
provided, however, that Plaintiff shall file a declaration
setting forth the extent and nature of her efforts as
representative of the Class, including an estimate of the time
she spent satisfying such responsibilities.

The hearing on the final approval of class action settlement is
set for September 17, 2018, at 8:30 a.m., with the motion to be
filed no later than August 6, 2018.

A copy of the Civil Minutes is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=yl8XuVOl

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
          324 S Beverly Blvd., Suite 725
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone: (888) 595-9111
          Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
          E-mail: abacon@toddflaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Stephen A. Watkins, Esq.
          CARLSON & MESSER LLP
          5901 W Century Blvd., Suite 1200
          Los Angeles, CA 90045-5445
          Telephone: (310) 242-2214
          Facsimile: (310) 242-2222
          E-mail: watkinss@cmtlaw.com


JUNO THERAPEUTICS: Faces "Piloco" Suit Over Proposed Merger
-----------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT PILOCO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. JUNO THERAPEUTICS, INC.; HAL BARRON; HANS
BISHOP; THOMAS DANIEL; ANTHONY EVNIN; JAY FLATLEY RICHARD
KLAUSNER; ROBERT NELSEN; HOWARD PIEN; RUPERT VESSEY; and MARY
AGNES WIDEROTTER, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-00280-UNA (D.
Del., Feb. 16, 2018) is brought against the Defendants in
connection with the tender offer by Celgene Corporation through
its wholly-owned subsidiary Magpie Corporation, pursuant to which
all of the issued and the outstanding shares of Juno common stock
will be purchased for $87 per share in cash. The Proposed
Transaction is valued at approximately $9 billion.

Juno Therapeutics, Inc., a biopharmaceutical company, engages in
developing cell-based cancer immunotherapies. Juno Therapeutics,
Inc. has collaboration agreements with Celgene Corporation, Fate
Therapeutics, Inc., Editas Medicine, Inc., MedImmune Limited, and
Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. The company was formerly
known as FC Therapeutics, Inc. and changed its name to Juno
Therapeutics, Inc. in October 2013. Juno Therapeutics, Inc. was
founded in 2013 and is headquartered in Seattle, Washington. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Blake A. Bennett, Esq.
          COOCH AND TAYLOR, P.A.
          1000 West Street, 10th Floor
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 984-3800

               - and -

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


KOHN LAW: Court Denies Arbitration of "Rizzo" FDCPA, FCRA Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of
Wisconsin issued an Opinion and Order denying Defendant's Motion
to Compel Arbitration in the case captioned SASHA RIZZO, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff,
v. KOHN LAW FIRM S.C., Defendant, No. 17-cv-408-jdp (W.D. Wis.).

Rizzo alleges that she failed to repay the balance on her credit
card account, so both Discover and defendant Kohn Law Firm S.C.,
a law firm that regularly engages in the collection of consumer
debts, sued Rizzo in the Circuit Court for Eau Claire County,
Wisconsin.  Attached to the complaint was a copy of Rizzo's
monthly billing statement for her Discover account and included
in the statement was Rizzo's credit score, which was not
redacted.

Rizzo contends that publishing her credit score qualifies as
unlawful debt collection activity under the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act (FDCPA) and was an impermissible use of a consumer
report under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA).

In this case, Kohn is relying on an arbitration clause in the
card member agreement between Rizzo and Discover.  Kohn is not a
party to that agreement, but it says that it nevertheless has the
right to enforce the arbitration clause.

A person may enforce a contract as third-party beneficiary if the
contract indicates that he or she was either specifically
intended by the contracting parties to benefit from the contract
or is a member of the class the parties intended to benefit.

Kohn cites Sweet Dreams Unlimited, Inc. v. Dial-A-Mattress Int'l,
Ltd., 1 F.3d 639, 643 (7th Cir. 1993), for the proposition that
"courts have routinely admonished pleading tactics aimed at
attempting to avoid arbitration, but Sweet Dreams is not
instructive."

The court held only that a party could not avoid the effect of an
arbitration clause simply by changing her legal theory if the
subject matter of her claim fell within the scope of the clause.
That is an objective question that has nothing to do with the
parties' motivations.

The court did not say either that a party's intent for taking
particular action in the litigation is relevant in the context of
a motion to compel or that a court may expand the scope of an
arbitration agreement in light of that intent.

Another problem with Kohn's argument is that it simply doesn't
make sense.  Kohn does not contend that it could qualify as a
third-party co-defendant if Rizzo had not originally named
Discover as a defendant.  But a plaintiff could just as easily
"attempt to avoid arbitration by choosing to sue only the third
party in the first instance.  The distinction Kohn is trying to
make is arbitrary and has no support in the law.

Rizzo asserts other grounds for denying Kohn's motion, but it is
unnecessary to consider those. Because Kohn does not have a right
to invoke the arbitration clause in the cardmember member, the
court will deny Kohn's motion to compel arbitration.

Defendant Kohn Law Firm S.C.'s motion to compel arbitration is
denied.

A full-text copy of the District Court's February 12, 2018
Opinion and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/ydcsa77a
from Leagle.com.

Sasha Rizzo, On behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Joshua D. Christianson,
Christianson & Freund, LLC, 1620 L Street, N.W., Suite 900,
Washington, DC 20036, Thomas John Lyons, Jr., Consumer Justice
Center, P.A. & Thomas John Lyons, Sr., Lyons Law Firm PA., 367
Commerce Ct Vadnais Heights, MN, 55127-8506

Kohn Law Firm S.C., Defendant, represented by Terry E. Johnson --
tjohnson@pjmlaw.com -- Peterson, Johnson & Murray, S.C.


LEGACY SUPPLY: Court Grants Prelim OK of $625K Class Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
California issued an Order granting Plaintiffs' Motion for
Preliminary Approval of Class Settlement Agreement in the case
captioned RICARDO MARTIN, an individual; and NICK MORGAN, an
individual; on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. LEGACY SUPPLY CHAIN SERVICES II, INC.,
an Indiana Corporation; PrimePath, LLC, a Florida Corporation;
and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-
02471-WQH-BLM (S.D. Cal.).

Plaintiffs Ricardo Martin and Nick Morgan (Plaintiffs), on behalf
of themselves and the proposed Settlement Class, have filed an
unopposed motion asking the Court to: (a) grant preliminary
approval of the Stipulation and Agreement of Compromise and Class
Settlement (Settlement Agreement) entered into by and between
Plaintiffs and Defendants Legacy Supply Chain Services II, Inc.
and PrimePath, LLC (Defendants).

The Court grants the request for Preliminary Approval of the
Class Action Settlement.

Pursuant to Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
the Court grants the Parties' request for certification of the
following Rule 23 Settlement Class for the sole and limited
purpose of implementing the terms of the Settlement Agreement,
subject to the Court's final approval:

     All persons, or each of them, currently or formerly employed
by Defendants, or Defendants' predecessors, in the State of
California as hourly, non-exempt employees during the time frame
of October 3, 2012 through the date the Court grants preliminary
approval of this Settlement Agreement.

The Court preliminarily approves the Settlement and the Maximum
Settlement Amount of $625,000.00, with the Net Settlement Amount
being calculated by subtracting the following from the Maximum
Settlement Amount: (1) Class Counsel's attorneys' fees (not to
exceed 33.33% of the Maximum Settlement Amount or $206,250.00);
(2) Class Counsel's Costs (not to exceed $10,000.00); (3) Class
Representative Enhancement Payments to be paid to Representatives
Ricardo Martin and Nick Morgan (not to exceed $5,000 per class
representative); (4) $10,000.00 to be allocated to claimed PAGA
penalties with 75% (or $7,500.00) to be paid to the California
LWDA and with 25% (or $2,500.00) going into the Net Settlement
Amount; and (5) the Claims Administration Costs to the Claims
Administrator, Phoenix Settlement Administrators, Inc., not to
exceed $20,000.00.

The Net Settlement Amount remaining for paying Individual
Settlement Payments to the Participating Class Members is
anticipated to be approximately $371,250.00.

The Court further preliminarily approves the formulas provided in
the Settlement for calculating Individual Settlement Payments,
and the Opt-Out Deadline of May 11, 2018.

A full-text copy of the District Court's February 12, 2018 Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/ybgnpcr5 from Leagle.com.

Ricardo Martin, an individual, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated & Nick Morgan, an individual, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
represented by Christopher Alexander Olsen --
AOlsen@wagnerlawgroup.com -- Olsen Law Offices.

Legacy Supply Chain Services II, Inc., an Indiana Corporation,
Defendant, represented by Chad Daniel Bernard --
BernardC@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis P.C. & John Paul
Nordlund -- John.Nordlund@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis P.C.
PrimePath, LLC, a Florida Corporation, Defendant, represented by
Chad Daniel Bernard -- BernardC@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis
P.C.


LUMINESS DIRECT: Faces 1st "Ruthrauff" TCPA Suit
------------------------------------------------
CYNTHIA RUTHRAUFF, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LUMINESS DIRECT, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 1:18-cv-00704-CAP (N.D. Ga., Feb. 16, 2018) is an action
to stop the Defendant's practice of placing telemarketing text
message calls to cellular telephones without procuring the
necessary prior express written consent, and to stop Defendant's
practice of sending unsolicited text messages to cellular
telephones even after the cellphone owner opted-out of the
receipt of additional messages.

Luminess Direct, LLC is a limited liability company organized and
existing under the laws of the State of Texas. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jennifer Auer Jordan, Esq.
          SHAMP SPEED JORDAN WOODWARD LLC
          1718 Peachtree Street NW, Suite 660
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Telephone: 404-893-9400
          E-mail: jordan@ssjwlaw.com

               - and -

          Steven L. Woodrow, Esq.
          Patrick H. Peluso, Esq.
          Taylor T. Smith, Esq.
          WOODROW & PELUSO, LLC
          3900 East Mexico Ave., Suite 300
          Denver, CO 80210
          Telephone: (720) 213-0675
          Facsimile: (303) 927-0809
          E-mail: swoodrow@woodrowpeluso.com
                  ppeluso@woodrowpeluso.com
                  tsmith@woodrowpeluso.com


LUMINESS DIRECT: Faces 2nd "Ruthrauff" TCPA Suit
------------------------------------------------
CYNTHIA RUTHRAUFF, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LUMINESS DIRECT, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 1:18-cv-00716-AT (N.D. Ga., Feb. 19, 2018) is an action
to stop the Defendant's practice of placing telemarketing text
message calls to cellular telephones without procuring the
necessary prior express written consent, and to stop Defendant's
practice of sending unsolicited text messages to cellular
telephones even after the cellphone owner opted-out of the
receipt of additional messages.

Luminess Direct, LLC is a limited liability company organized and
existing under the laws of the State of Texas. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jennifer Auer Jordan, Esq.
          SHAMP SPEED JORDAN WOODWARD LLC
          1718 Peachtree Street NW, Suite 660
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Telephone: 404-893-9400
          E-mail: jordan@ssjwlaw.com

               - and -

          Steven L. Woodrow, Esq.
          Patrick H. Peluso, Esq.
          Taylor T. Smith, Esq.
          WOODROW & PELUSO, LLC
          3900 East Mexico Ave., Suite 300
          Denver, CO 80210
          Telephone: (720) 213-0675
          Facsimile: (303) 927-0809
          E-mail: swoodrow@woodrowpeluso.com
                  ppeluso@woodrowpeluso.com
                  tsmith@woodrowpeluso.com


METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION: Farina Sues over Cashless Toll
-----------------------------------------------------------
JASON FARINA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY;
TRIBOROUGH BRIDGE AND TUNNEL AUTHORITY, d/b/a MTA BRIDGES AND
TUNNELS; TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS, INC; and CONDUENT, INC., Defendants,
Case No. Case 1:18-cv-01433-NRB (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 16, 2018) is an
action by the Plaintiff and similar class who have been charged
$100 fees as a result of New York's cashless toll systems called
EZ Pass and Tolls-By-Mail.

The Plaintiff alleged in the complaint that Defendants who
operate the EZ Pass and Tolls-By-Mail, have used the cashless
toll system to line their own pockets at the expense of the
drivers, primarily by collecting improper fees and penalties in
addition to collecting tolls. The fees and penalties are
multiples of the actual toll for the bridge, which means that
drivers are being repeatedly charged more than $100 to cross a
bridge or tunnel.

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:

          Stephen J. Fearon, Jr., Esq.
          SQUITIERI & FEARON, LLP
          32 East 57th Street, 12th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 421-6492
          Facsimile: (212) 421-6553
          E-mail: Stephen@sfclasslaw.com


MONAT GLOBAL: Sohovich Sues over Hair Loss After Use of Products
----------------------------------------------------------------
DANA SOHOVICH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. MONAT GLOBAL CORP.; and ALCORA
CORPORATION a/k/a ALCORA GROUP; Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-
20624-MGC (S.D. Fla., Feb. 16, 2018) alleges that Defendants'
sale of their hair care product Monat violated the Florida
Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, and the Florida False
Advertising Statute.

According to the complaint, Plaintiff is one of the purchasers of
Monat hair care products who paid inflated prices for products
that were advertised to promote hair stability and growth, but
instead provided no such benefit, and in fact caused significant
hair loss to Plaintiff and others like her. Within six to eight
weeks after using Monat's products, Plaintiff experienced severe
hair thinning and hair loss. Plaintiff sought medical treatment
and was told that she had lost approximately 50% of her hair, and
that her hair loss was not being caused by any illness or
identified medical condition, or by female pattern baldness.

Monat Global sells consumer goods. The Company sells its products
through a network of independent business owners. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adam Warden, Esq.
          Joseph E. White, Esq.
          Dianne M. Anderson, Esq.
          SAXENA WHITE P.A.
          150 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 600
          Boca Raton, FL 33432
          Telephone: (561) 394-3399
          Facsimile: (561) 394-3382
          E-mail: jwhite@saxenawhite.com
                  awarden@saxenwhite.com
                  danderson@saxenawhite.com

               - and -

          Jessica Sleater, Esq.
          ANDERSEN SLEATER SIANNI LLC
          1250 Broadway, 27 th Floor
          New York, NY 10001
          Telephone: (646) 599-9848
          E-mail: jessica@andersensleater.com


MONSANTO COMPANY: Beam Suit Moved to N.D. California
----------------------------------------------------
David Beam, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Monsanto Company, Defendant, Case No.
3:18-cv-0098-VC (E.D. Mo., Jan. 23, 2018), was removed to the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, and
assigned Case No. 3:18-cv-00988-VC (N.D. Cal., Feb. 15, 2018).
The case is assigned to Judge Vince Chhabria. The "Beam" suit is
a member case in the multi-district litigation proceeding, MDL
No. 02741-VC.

The Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages as a result of the use
of, and exposure to, Roundup products which caused or was a
substantial contributing factor in causing the Plaintiff to
suffer from Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MONSANTO COMPANY: Coleman Suit Moved to N.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
BOBBY COLEMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Defendant, Case No.
3:18-cv-00987-VC (E.D. Mo., Jan. 23, 2018) was removed to the
U.S. District for the Northern District of California, and
assigned Case No. 3:18-cv-00987-VC (N.D. Cal., Feb. 15, 2018).
The case is assigned to Judge Vince Chhabria. The "Coleman" suit
is a member case in the multi-district litigation proceeding, MDL
No. 02741-VC.

The Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages as a result of the use
of, and exposure to, Roundup products which caused or was a
substantial contributing factor in causing the Plaintiff to
suffer from Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MONSANTO COMPANY: Crowe Suit Moved to N.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------
JOHN CROWE and ROSETTA CROWE, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MONSANTO COMPANY,
Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-00986-VC (E.D. Mo., Jan. 22, 2018)
was removed to the U.S. District for the Northern District of
California, and assigned Case No. 3:18-cv-00986-VC (N.D. Cal.,
Feb. 15, 2018). The case is assigned to Judge Vince Chhabria. The
"Coleman" suit is a member case in the multi-district litigation
proceeding, MDL No. 02741-VC.

The Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages as a result of the use
of, and exposure to, Roundup products which caused or was a
substantial contributing factor in causing the Plaintiff to
suffer from Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MONSANTO COMPANY: Scott Suit Moved to N.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------
Keith W. Scott and Rebecca Scott, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. Monsanto Company, Defendant, Case
No. 4:18-cv-00100 (E.D. Mo., Jan. 22, 2018) was removed to the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, and
assigned Case No. 3:18-cv-00985-VC (N.D. Cal., Feb. 15, 2018).
The case is assigned to Judge Vince Chhabria. The "Scott" suit is
a member case in the multi-district litigation proceeding, MDL
No. 02741-VC.

The Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages as a result of the use
of, and exposure to, Roundup products which caused or was a
substantial contributing factor in causing the Plaintiff to
suffer from Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MONSANTO COMPANY: Sullivan Suit Moved to N.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
Lawrence Sullivan, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Monsanto Company, Defendant, Case No. 4:18-
cv-00109 (E.D. Mo., Jan. 23, 2018) was removed to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, and
assigned Case No. 3:18-cv-00990-VC (N.D. Cal., Feb. 15, 2018).
The case is assigned to Judge Vince Chhabria. The "Sullivan" suit
is a member case in the multi-district litigation proceeding, MDL
No. 02741-VC.

The Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages as a result of the use
of, and exposure to, Roundup products which caused or was a
substantial contributing factor in causing the Plaintiff to
suffer from Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MONSANTO COMPANY: Toyer Suit Moved to N.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------
Ronald Toyer, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Monsanto Company, Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-00108
(E.D. Mo., Jan. 23, 2018) was removed to the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California, and assigned Case No.
3:18-cv-00989-VC (N.D. Cal., Feb. 15, 2018). The case is assigned
to Judge Vince Chhabria. The "Toyer" suit is a member case in the
multi-district litigation proceeding, MDL No. 02741-VC.

The Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages as a result of the use
of, and exposure to, Roundup products which caused or was a
substantial contributing factor in causing the Plaintiff to
suffer from Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MONSANTO COMPANY: White Suit Moved to N.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------
Andre White and Lisa White, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. Monsanto Company, Defendant, Case
No. 4:18-cv-00126 (E.D. Mo., Jan. 23, 2018) was removed to the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, and
assigned Case No. 3:18-cv-00991-VC (N.D. Cal., Feb. 15, 2018).
The case is assigned to Judge Vince Chhabria. The "White" suit is
a member case in the multi-district litigation proceeding, MDL
No. 02741-VC.

The Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages as a result of the use
of, and exposure to, Roundup products which caused or was a
substantial contributing factor in causing the Plaintiff to
suffer from Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MONSANTO COMPANY: "Bedenbender" Suit Move to N.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
Dennis Bedenbender, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Monsanto Company, Defendant, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Missouri (Case No. 4:18-cv-00077) to the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California and assigned Case No.
3:18-cv-01082-VC (N.D. Cal., Feb. 20, 2018). The case is assigned
to Judge Vince Chhabria. The "Bedenbender" suit is a member case
in the multi-district litigation proceeding, MDL No. 02741.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MONSANTO COMPANY: "Dehard" Suit Moved to N.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
Freeman Dehart, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Monsanto Company, Defendant, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Missouri (Case No. 4:18-cv-00082) to the U.S. District for the
Northern District of California and assigned Case No.3:18-cv-
01084-VC (N.D. Cal., Feb. 20, 2018). The case is assigned to
Judge Vince Chhabria. The "Dehart" suit is a member case in the
multi-district litigation proceeding, MDL No. 02741.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MONSANTO COMPANY: "Hudson" Suit Moved to N.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
Thurman Hudson, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Monsanto Company, Defendant, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Missouri (Case No. 4:18-cv-00168) to the U.S. District for the
Northern District of California and assigned Case No.3:18-cv-
01090-VC (N.D. Cal., Feb. 20, 2018). The case is assigned to
Judge Vince Chhabria. The "Hudson" suit is a member case in the
multi-district litigation proceeding, MDL No. 02741.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MONSANTO COMPANY: "Luckey" Suit Moved to N.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
David and Carol Luckey, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Monsanto Company, Defendant, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Missouri (Case No. 4:18-cv-00133) to the U.S. District for the
Northern District of California and assigned Case No.3:18-cv-
01086-VC-VC (N.D. Cal., Feb. 20, 2018). The case is assigned to
Judge Vince Chhabria. The "Luckey" suit is a member case in the
multi-district litigation proceeding, MDL No. 02741.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MONSANTO COMPANY: "Ruffin" Suit Moved to N.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Ruffin and Holliday Ruffin, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Monsanto Company,
Defendant, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Missouri (Case No. 4:18-cv-00083) to the U.S.
District for the Northern District of California and assigned
Case No.3:18-cv-01085-VC (N.D. Cal., Feb. 20, 2018). The case is
assigned to Judge Vince Chhabria. The "Ruffin" suit is a member
case in the multi-district litigation proceeding, MDL No. 02741.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MONSANTO COMPANY: "Schwartz" Suit Moved to N.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------
Henry Schwartz, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Monsanto Company, Defendant, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Missouri (Case No. 4:18-cv-00081) to the U.S. District for the
Northern District of California and assigned Case No.3:18-cv-
01083-VC (N.D. Cal., Feb. 20, 2018). The case is assigned to
Judge Vince Chhabria. The "Schwartz" suit is a member case in the
multi-district litigation proceeding, MDL No. 02741.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MONSANTO COMPANY: "Williams" Suit Moved to N.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------
Cecil and Alice Williams, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Monsanto Company,
Defendant, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Missouri (Case No. 4:18-cv-00136) to the U.S.
District for the Northern District of California and assigned
Case No.3:18-cv-01087-VC (N.D. Cal., Feb. 20, 2018). The case is
assigned to Judge Vince Chhabria. The "Williams" suit is a member
case in the multi-district litigation proceeding, MDL No. 02741.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MONSANTO COMPANY: "Wolfe" Suit Moved to N.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
Richard and Phyllis Wolfe, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Monsanto Company,
Defendant, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Missouri (Case No. 4:18-cv-00137) to the U.S.
District for the Northern District of California and assigned
Case No.3:18-cv-01088-VC (N.D. Cal., Feb. 20, 2018). The case is
assigned to Judge Vince Chhabria. The "Wolfe" suit is a member
case in the multi-district litigation proceeding, MDL No. 02741.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MONSANTO COMPANY: Sharp Sues over Sale of Roundup Products
----------------------------------------------------------
Harry C. Sharp, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Monsanto Company, Defendant,
Case No. 4:18-cv-00287-HEA (E.D. Mo., Feb. 20, 2018) is an action
against the Defendant for personal injuries sustained by
Plaintiff's exposure to Roundup products containing the active
ingredient glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow
amine. As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to
Roundup, Plaintiff developed Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kirk J. Goza, Esq.
          GOZA & HONNOLD LLC
          11181 Overbrook Road, Suite 200
          Leawood, KS 66211
          Telephone: (913) 451-3433
          Facsimile: (913) 839-0567
          E-mail: kgoza@gohonlaw.com


N.A.R. INC: Page Alleges Wrongful Conduct over Debt Collection
---------------------------------------------------------------
DWAYNE PAGE, individually on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. N.A.R., INC., Defendant, Case
No. 2:18-cv-KSH-CLW (D.N.J., Feb. 15, 2018) seeks to stop the
Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.
The case is assigned to Judge Katharine S. Hayden, and referred
to Magistrate Judge Cathy L. Waldor.

N.A.R., Inc. operates as a professional debt collection agency in
the United States. It provides debt collection and recovery
services for retail, commercial, healthcare, and consumer
accounts. The company is headquartered in West Valley City, Utah.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ryan Leyland Gentile, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF GUS MICHAEL FARINELLA PC
          110 Jericho Turnpike-Suite 100
          Floral Park, NY 11001
          Telephone: (201) 873-7675
          E-mail: rlg@lawgmf.com


NEWPORT BEACH: Ubaldi Alleges Wrongful Debt Collection
------------------------------------------------------
ANDREA UBALDI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NEWPORT BEACH LAW GROUP, APLC; BEN
POURCHO; TRINITY FINANCIAL SERVICES, LLC.; JOHN DOES 1-25,
Defendants, Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-02304-KSH-CLW (D.N.J.,
Feb. 18, 2018) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and
unconscionable means to collect a debt. The case is assigned to
Judge Katharine S. Hayden, and referred to Magistrate Judge Cathy
L. Waldor.

Newport Beach Law Group -- http://www.newportbeachlawgroup.com/
-- is a law firm comprised of experienced and proven trial
attorneys specializing in real estate and foreclosure laws that
work in conjunction with local counsel in all 50 states to
effectively obtain money from debtors, who have defaulted on
their real-estate financial obligations, on behalf of various
lenders. [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


NISSAN EXTENDED: Arkliss Sues over 0% Financing Scheme
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against NISSAN EXTENDED
SERVICES NORTH AMERICA, INC. The case is captioned as FABIAN
ARKLISS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. NISSAN EXTENDED SERVICES NORTH AMERICA,
INC.; and DIFEO NISSAN PARTNERSHIP d/b/a HUDSON NISSAN
Defendants, Case No. BER-L-001227-18 (D.N.J., Bergen Cty., Feb.
15, 2018).

According to the complaint of the Plaintiff, the representation
to him made by the Defendants that the $1,500 Vehicle Service
Contract was subject to 0% financing was false. The $1,500
Vehicle Service Contract was subject to the 23.99% annual
interest rate same as the Retail Installment Contract with the
Defendants. He purchased a used Nissan Altima at Hudson Nissan,
in Jersey City, New Jersey. He purchased the vehicle on credit
and executed the Retail Installment Contract with Difeo Nissan
which was assigned to Westlake Financial Service. He also
purchased a Vehicle Service Agreement for $1,500 on credit from
Difeo Nissan. He was told that the Vehicle Service Agreement is
subject to 0% financing.

Nissan Extended Services North America, Inc. is a Delaware
corporation with principal place of business located at One
Nissan Way, Franklin, TN 37067-6367. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gabriel Posner, Esq.
          POSNER LAW PLLC
          270 Madison Ave., Suite 1203
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (646) 546-5022
          E-mail: gabe@PosnerLawPLLC.com

               - and -

          Ari H. Marcus, Esq.
          MARCUS LAW, LLC
          1500 Allaire Avenue, Suite 101
          Ocean, NJ 07712
          Telephone: (732) 695-3282
          Facsimile: (732) 298-6256
          E-mail: ari@marcuszelman.com


NORM REEVES: Fails to Pay Overtime, "Khan" Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------
Adil Khan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Norm Reeves, Inc.; Conant Automotive
Resources, LLC, and Does 1 through 20, Defendants, Case No. BC
694507 (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 Khan worked for the Defendants at the Norm Reeves Honda
Superstore in Cerritos, California, as a finance associate.

Reeves, Inc., through its subsidiary, engages in the development,
manufacture, and distribution of weave, coat, fabricate, and
convert engineered fabrics. Reeves, Inc. was incorporated in 1993
and is based in Norwalk, Connecticut. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Simon Kwak, Esq.
          AEGIS LAW FIRM, PC
          9811 Irvine Center, Suite 100
          Irvine, CA 92618
          Telephone: (949) 379-6250
          Facsimile: (949) 379-6251


NORTHSTAR MEMORIAL: Removes "Uschold" Suit to N.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Defendant in the case of William Uschold, and Tyrone
Dangerfield, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Northstar Memorial Group; Northstar
Memorial Group, doing business as Chapel of the Chimes; NSMG
Shared Services, LLC, doing business as Northstar Memorial Group,
Defendants, has filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from
Superior Court of the State of California, Alameda County (Case
No. HG18889297) to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California and assigned Case No. 3:18-cv-01039-JSC
(N.D. Cal., Feb. 16, 2018). The case is assigned to Magistrate
Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley.

NorthStar Memorial Group, LLC provides funeral, cremation, and
memorialization services for families in the United States. The
company was founded in 2004 and is based in Houston, Texas with
locations in California, Florida, Illinois, Ohio, Oklahoma,
Tennessee, and Washington. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Na'il Benjamin, Esq.
          BENJAMIN LAW GROUP, P.C.
          1290 B Street, Suite 314
          Hayward, CA 94541
          Telephone: (510) 897-9967
          Facsimile: (510) 439-2632
          E-mail: nbenjamin@benjaminlawgroup.com

               - and -

          Allyssa Briana Villanueva, Esq.
          BENJAMIN LAW GROUP, P.C.
          1290 B Street, Suite 314
          Hayward, CA 94541
          Telephone: (510) 897-9967
          Facsimile: (510) 439-2632
          E-mail: allyssa@benjaminlawgroup.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          JoAnna L. Brooks, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
          1255 Treat Boulevard, Suite 600
          Walnut Creek, CA 94597
          Telephone: (925) 932-2468
          Facsimile: (925) 946-9809
          E-mail: jbrooks@littler.com

               - and -

          Michael William Nelson, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
          1255 Treat Boulevard, Suite 600
          Walnut Creek, CA 94597
          Telephone: (925) 932-2468
          Facsimile: (925) 946-9809
          E-mail: mwnelson@littler.com


OPENROAD MANAGEMENT: "Collins-Laster" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gina Collins-Laster, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. Openroad Management, Inc. and James
Franklin Askew, Case No. 1:18-cv-00120 (W.D. Tex., February 7,
2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff Gina Collins-Laster was a Certified Nursing Assistant
who began working for Defendants in 2012 and is still currently
employed by Defendants.

Defendant Openroad Management, Inc., which does business as
Griswold Home Care, is a home health agency providing medical
services and support to patients who are homebound.

Defendant James Franklin Askew is responsible for running the
day-to-day operations of Openroad Management, Inc. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Douglas B. Welmaker, Esq.
      DUNHAM & JONES, P.C.
      1800 Guadalupe Street
      Austin, TX 78701
      Tel: (512) 777-7777
      Fax: (512) 340-4051
      E-mail: doug@dunhamlaw.com


PACKERS SANITATION: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, "Sanchez Jr." Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Carlos Sanchez Jr., individually an on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Packers Sanitation Services,
Ltd., LLC and Does 1 through 50, Defendants, Case No. 18CV323571
(Cal. Super., Santa Clara Cty., Feb. 20, 2018) is an action
against the Defendants for failure to pay all overtime wages
owed, itemized wage statements, and failure to pay wages in a
timely manner upon separation of employment.

Mr. Sanchez Jr. was employed by the Defendants as sanitizer from
February 9, 2017 to March 14, 2017.

Packers Sanitation Services, Inc. provides contract sanitation
services for food processing plants in the United States and
Canada. Packers Sanitation Services, Inc. was founded in 1970 and
is based in Kieler, Wisconsin. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

           Larry W. Lee, Esq.
           DIVERSITY LAW GROUP, P.C.
           515 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 1250
           Los Angeles, CA 90071
           Telephone: (213) 488-6555
           Facsimile: (213) 488-6554


PATHWAY LEASING: "Fails" Suit Alleges FLSA Violations
-----------------------------------------------------
Lonnie Fails and Richard Sell, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. Pathway Leasing LLC, Matthew Harris
and Cargill Meat Logistics Solutions, Inc., Case No.  1:18-cv-
00308 (D. Colo., February 7, 2018), is brought against the
Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff Lonnie Fails is a resident of the State of Colorado and
is, or was formerly, employed by Defendants as an "over-the-road"
trucker.

Plaintiff Richard Sell is a resident of the State of Iowa and is,
or was formerly, employed by Defendants as an "over-the-road"
trucker.

Defendant Pathway Leasing LLC is a limited liability company duly
organized and existing under the laws of the State of Colorado,
with its principal place of business located in Littleton,
Colorado.

Defendant Cargill Meat Logistics Solutions, Inc. is a corporation
duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of
Kansas, with its principal place of business located in Wichita,
Kansas. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John R. Crone, Esq.
      ANDRUS WAGSTAFF PC
      7171 West Alaska Drive
      Lakewood, CO 80226
      Tel: (303) 376-6360
      E-mail: John.Crone@andruswagstaff.com


PHOENIX LIFE: Court Declines to Dismiss "Halpern" Suit
------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Missouri, Eastern Division, issued a Memorandum and Order denying
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the case captioned JAMES T. HALPERN
and HOLLY STEIN, as Trustee for the Halpern Insurance Trust dated
June 7, 1994, Plaintiffs, v. PHOENIX LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant, Case No. 4:17 CV 2879 (JMB)(E.D. Mo.).

Plaintiff purchased from defendant Phoenix Life Insurance Company
a policy of whole life insurance with a face value of
$850,000.00. On October 27, 2016, defendant mailed plaintiffs a
notice that the policy had lapsed for failure to pay the premium.
Plaintiffs allege that they did not receive timely notice of the
amount of premium they owed. Plaintiffs further allege that they
repeatedly informed defendant of their new mailing address but
that defendant failed to update its records.

When they received the Notice of Lapse, plaintiffs immediately
contacted defendant and were advised to pay the premium and apply
for reinstatement. Plaintiffs mailed defendant $10,785.02 and an
application for reinstatement. Defendant returned the premium
payment and rejected the reinstatement application based on Mr.
Halpern's medical history.

Plaintiffs filed suit in state court, asserting claims for
declaratory judgment and breach of contract. Defendant timely
removed the matter to the District Court, invoking diversity of
citizenship jurisdiction, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1332.

To survive a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), a
complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as
true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'
The mere fact that claims for declaratory judgment and breach of
contract are closely related even where the declaratory judgment
claim encompasses' the breach of contract claim does not require
dismissing the declaratory judgment claim. Because plaintiffs
will be allowed to amend their complaint, the Court declines to
address defendant's argument at this time.

Plaintiffs have requested leave to file an amended complaint,
which the Court will grant.  The Court will set this matter for a
Rule 16 Scheduling Conference, at which time deadlines for filing
an amended complaint and answer will be established.

Accordingly, Defendant's motion to dismiss is denied.

A full-text copy of the District Court's February 12, 2018
Memorandum and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y7w95ptc
from Leagle.com.

James T. Halpern & Holly Stein, as Trustee for the Halpern
Insurance Trust, Plaintiffs, represented by Trenton K. Bond --
tkb@sauerwein.com -- SAUERWEIN SIMON, P.C. & Grant J. Mabie --
gjm@sauerwein.com -- SAUERWEIN SIMON, P.C.

Phoenix Life Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Cynthia
M. Juedemann -- cjuedemann@armstrongteasdale.com -- ARMSTRONG
TEASDALE LLP, Patrick J. Kenny -- pkenny@armstrongteasdale.com --
ARMSTRONG TEASDALE LLP & Westley William Medlin, EDISON AND
MCDOWELL, LLP, 333 South Wabash Avenue. 25th Floor. Chicago, IL
60604.


QUALITY RESOURCES: Court Certifies "Toney" TCPA Class
-----------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division, issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order
granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification in the case
captioned SARAH TONEY, Plaintiff, v. QUALITY RESOURCES, INC., et
al., Defendants, No. 13 C 42 (N.D. Ill.).

Plaintiff Sarah Toney moves for class certification pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 in her action alleging that
Quality Resources, Inc., and its sole owner, Cheryl Mercuris,
(Defendants) violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
(TCPA).

Toney purchased slippers online from Infomercials, Inc., d/b/a
Stompeez. The online order form on Stompeez's website required a
Stompeez costumer to submit his or her phone number for questions
about the order. Toney completed the online form and submitted
her phone number.

Quality developed a script to market Budget Savers that it
adhered to on its telemarketing calls.  Quality would first
verify a Stompeez costumer's online purchase, then market Budget
Savers, and then market a second product if the customer accepted
Quality's offer for Budget Savers. Quality placed thousands of
automated calls, and its telemarketing operation resulted in at
least 500 complaints from 2008 to 2013, which Quality tracked
internally.

Quality produced its outgoing call data to Toney, which Toney
provided to her expert, Jeffery Hansen. From this data, Hansen
opines that Quality called 35,191 unique cell phone numbers.
Toney offers, as a class list, a list of 35,191 unique cell phone
numbers that Quality called.

Toney seeks certification of the following class pursuant to Rule
23(b)(3):

     All persons who are or were the subscribers of the telephone
numbers on the Class List, and to whom, from January 3, 2009
through the date of preliminary approval,5 Quality Resources,
Inc., made a call or calls through its Vicidial calling system on
their cellular telephones promoting Sempris goods, and where the
cell phone number was obtained as a result of a transaction at
the website www.stompeez.com

The following persons are excluded from the Class:

     Quality, any parent, subsidiary, or affiliate of Quality,
Ms. Mercuris and the officers, directors, agents, servants or
employees of Quality as of the entry of the Preliminary Approval
Order, Class Counsel, and any judge presiding over the Action.

To prevail on a motion for class certification, a plaintiff must
demonstrate first, pursuant to Rule 23(a), that: (1) the class is
so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable
(numerosity); (2) there are questions of law or fact common to
the class (commonality); (3) the claims or defenses of the
representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of
the class (typicality); and (4) the representative parties will
fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class
(adequacy of representation).

Defendants argue that the proposed class cannot be ascertained,
and that Toney fails to satisfy Rule 23's requirements.

The admissibility of expert testimony is governed by Federal Rule
of Evidence 702 and the Supreme Court's decision in Daubert. C.
W. ex rel. Wood v. Textron, Inc., 807 F.3d 827, 834 (7th Cir.
2015). In performing its gatekeeper role under Rule 702 and
Daubert, the district court must engage in a three-step analysis
before admitting expert testimony.

The district court must evaluate: (1) the proffered expert's
qualifications; (2) the reliability of the expert's methodology;
and (3) the relevance of the expert's testimony. Steps one and
three are not at issue.

Hansen's Qualifications

Hansen is a consultant in the private sector who advises
companies using automated dialers, and has served as an expert
witness or consultant in more than 100 TCPA class action
lawsuits. In this capacity, he has assembled, configured,
maintained, and operated automated dialers. He has himself set up
and maintained automated dialers capable of generating over 1
million calls per hour, and has trained others on how to use and
maintain such systems.  Hansen also has experience in the use of
outgoing call lists in the telemarketing industry and how to use
cell block identifier and ported number lists8 to identify phone
numbers that are associated with a cell phone.

The Court concludes that, based on his vast experience with
automated dialers and in identifying cell phone numbers, Hansen
is qualified to testify as an expert on the unique cell phone
numbers Quality called in its telemarketing campaign.

Hansen's Methodology

To be reliable, the expert's opinion must be reasoned and founded
on data, and must also utilize the methods of the relevant
discipline. An expert's testimony is not unreliable simply
because it is founded on his experience rather than on data.

Hansen relies on a method of identifying cell phone numbers that
he represents is accepted within the telemarketing industry.
Defendant's rebuttal expert, Ken Sponslor, who is also a
telemarketing industry consultant, opines that Hansen's results
are incorrect. Sponslor, however, does not dispute that the use
of cell block identifier and ported number lists are accepted
within the industry to distinguish cell phone numbers from
landline numbers.

Accordingly, the Court finds that Hansen's methodology satisfies
Rule 702 and Daubert because it is founded on Quality's outgoing
call data, cell block identifier lists, and ported number lists,
and because Hansen utilizes a method accepted within the
telemarketing industry.

Assistance to the Trier of Fact

Toney alleges that Defendants violated the TCPA by placing calls
through an ATDS to Toney's and proposed class members' cell
phones without their consent. Thus, to prevail on her claim, she
will have to establish that Defendants placed a call using any
automated telephone dialing system autodialer to any telephone
number assigned to a cellular telephone service. A jury or other
factfinder is not capable of discerning on their own whether a
particular telephone number that Quality called is assigned to a
cell phone. The Court, therefore, concludes that Hansen's
testimony will assist the trier of fact in determining facts at
issue.

Accordingly, Hansen's expert opinion is admissible under Rule 702
and Daubert.

Whether the Proposed Class is Ascertainable

Turning now to whether Toney's proposed class is ascertainable,
Defendants argue that Toney fails to demonstrate that her
proposed class is sufficiently definite to identify class members
through objective criteria.

The Court does not find this argument persuasive.

Defendants also maintain that the class is not ascertainable
because Toney fails to establish that the proposed class members
have Article III standing.

While it is true a class should not be certified if it is
apparent that it contains a great many persons who have suffered
no injury at the hands of the defendant, Defendants fail to
submit evidence showing that the proposed class members were not
harmed by Defendants' conduct.   Loss of time and privacy
responding to unsolicited communications are concrete injuries
that confer Article III standing, and the record shows that the
proposed class members lost time and privacy as a result of
Quality's telemarketing campaign. Toney's proposed class, then,
does not fail for being too indefinite or difficult to ascertain.

Rule 23(a) Requirements

Numerosity

Defendants do not argue that Toney fails to establish numerosity,
which requires her to show that the class is so numerous that
joinder of all members is impracticable. Toney has shown that the
class would include thousands of persons. Toney, therefore,
satisfies Rule 23(a)(1)'s numerosity requirement.

Commonality

Commonality requires that there are questions of law or fact
common to the class.

Quality's and Mercuris' conduct therefore raise common questions,
the truth or falsity of which would resolve the claims in this
case in one stroke. For example, did Quality call cell phone
numbers using an ATDS to market Sempris products (Count II)? Did
Mercuris fraudulently transfer Quality's assets to herself (Count
III)? Can Quality's corporate veil be pierced in order to hold
Mercuris personally liable for Quality's conduct (Count IV)? Can
Plaintiffs hold Quality responsible for paying Sempris'
attorney's fees and funding the Sempris Settlement (Count V)?

Accordingly, the Court concludes that Plaintiff has satisfied
Rule 23(a)(2)'s commonality requirement.

Typicality

Typicality requires that the claims or defenses of the
representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of
the class. A claim is typical if it arises from the same event or
practice or course of conduct that gives rise to the claims of
other class members and the plaintiff's claims are based on the
same legal theory As noted above, Toney has shown by a
preponderance of the evidence that she shares claims that are
typical to each proposed class member because she received a call
from Quality to her cell phone marketing a Sempris product, like
the other proposed class members.

Thus, Toney's claims are typical of the class members' claims
given that her claim has the same essential characteristics as
the class at large.

Adequacy of Representation

Adequacy of representation requires that the representative
parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the
class.

Upon review of Toney's attorneys' declarations and their
performance in the case thus far, the Court is satisfied that
Toney's counsel is competent and has enough resources to
prosecute this action. Toney's counsel also has significant
experience with class action and TCPA litigation as well as
knowledge of the applicable law.  The Court also finds that,
because of the factual similarities between Toney's and the
proposed class members' claims described above, Toney's and the
proposed class members' interests are sufficiently aligned and
free of internal conflicts so that they do not pose any problems
related to adequacy of representation.

Accordingly, the Court concludes that Toney has established
adequacy of representation.

Rule 23(b)(3) Requirements

Predominance

The predominance inquiry tests whether proposed classes are
sufficiently cohesive to warrant adjudication by representation.
The Court finds that Toney has shown by a preponderance of the
evidence that common questions predominate in this case because,
in the Court's analysis on commonality, all members of the
proposed class suffered the same injury and were generally
subjected to the same telemarketing campaign by the same
Defendant using the same automated dialer.

Whether A Class Action is Superior to Other Methods of
Adjudication

Rule 23(b)(3) permits class certification if a class action is
superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently
adjudicating the controversy. Considerations relevant to this
inquiry are:

   (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 a class action.

Taking into account these considerations, the Court concludes
that they weigh in favor of class certification. There is no
impediment related to the class members' interests in
individually controlling the prosecution or defense of separate
actions or any litigation or controversy already begun by or
against class members, as the record is lacking in evidence that
another class member seeks to individually control a separate
action or even that another class member has a separate action
pending.

Toney's motion for class certification is granted. The class is
defined as follows:

     All persons who are or were the subscribers of the telephone
numbers on the Class List, and to whom, from January 3, 2009,
through August 16, 2016, Quality Resources, Inc., made a call or
calls through its Vicidial calling system to their cellular
telephones promoting Sempris goods, and where the cell phone
number was obtained as a result of their transaction at the
website www.stompeez.com

The following persons are excluded from the Class:

     Quality, any parent, subsidiary, or affiliate of Quality,
Mercuris and the officers, directors, agents, servants or
employees of Quality as of August 16, 2016, Class Counsel, and
any judge presiding over the action.

A full-text copy of the District Court's February 12, 2018
Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/yb7y3mfs from Leagle.com.

Sarah Toney, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, represented by Alexander Holmes Burke, Burke Law
Offices, LLC, 155 N Michigan Ave, Chicago, Illinois, United
States, Anthony Paronich -- anthony@broderick-law.com --
Broderick & Paronich, P.C., pro hac vice, Daniel J. Marovitch,
Burke Law Offices, LLC, 155 N Michigan Ave, Chicago, Illinois,
United States, Edward A. Broderick -- ted@broderick-law.com --
Broderick Law, P.C., pro hac vice & Matthew Mccue, Law Office Of
Matthew Mccue, 1 South Ave, Natick, MA 01760, USA, pro hac vice.

Molly Roake & Jessica McCool, Plaintiffs, represented by
Alexander Holmes Burke, Burke Law Offices, LLC.

Quality Resources, Inc., Defendant, represented by Ashley Crettol
Insalaco -- ainsalaco@tdrlawfirm.com -- Tabet Divito & Rothstein
Llc, Brent M. Ryan -- bryan@tdrlawfirm.com -- Tabet Divito &
Rothstein LLC, Derek Robert Young, Kaplan Young & Moll Parron
PLLC, pro hac vice, Justin Brett Kaplan, Kaplan Young & Moll
Parron PLLC, 600 Brickell Ave Ste 1715. Miami, FL, 33131-3076,
pro hac vice, Richard W. Epstein -- richard.epstein@gmlaw.com --
Greenspoon Marder, P.A. & Timothy A. Hudson --
thudson@tdrlawfirm.com -- Tabet DiVito Rothstein.

Cheryl Mercuris, Defendant, represented by Derek Robert Young
doyung@kymplaw.com -, Kaplan Young & Moll Parron PLLC, pro hac
vice & Justin Brett Kaplan -- jkaplan@kymplaw.com -- Kaplan Young
& Moll Parron PLLC, pro hac vice.


RBC CAPITAL: Faces "Pfeifer" Suit in Florida Palm Beach County
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against RBC Capital Markets
LLC. The case is captioned as Jennifer Pfeifer and Stacy Mihalik,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. RBC Capital Markets LLC, Defendant, Case No.
502018CA002095XXXXMB (Fla. Cir., Palm Beach Cty., Feb. 19, 2018).

RBC Capital Markets LLC offers corporate and investment banking
services to corporations, governments, and institutions. The
company was founded in 1909 and is based in New York, New York
with additional offices in Australia, Asia, Carribean, Europe,
Canada, and United States. RBC Capital Markets LLC operates as a
subsidiary of RBC USA Holdco Corporation. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

           SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
           1515 S. Federal
           Highway Suite 404
           Boca Raton, FL 33432


RITE CHECK: Fails to Pay Wages, "Guerrero" Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------
Manuel Guerrero, individually and on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Rite Check Cashing, Inc.
and Joseph Coleman, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-01538-GHW
(S.D.N.Y., Feb. 20, 2018) is an action against the Defendants for
unpaid wages, unpaid overtime, damages, interest, attorney's
fees, liquidated and other damages.

Mr. Guerrero was employed by the Defendant as Night Manager.

Rite Check Cashing provides banking services. The Bank offers
personal banking, wealth management, loans, savings accounts,
leasing, retirement plans, investment management, and insurance
services. Rite Check Cashing serves customers in the State of New
York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          George T. Peters, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF GEORGE T. PETERS, PLLC
          2510 Valentine Avenue, 3rd Floor
          Bronx, NY 10458
          Telephone: (347) 751-0157


ROBERT BOSCH: Bid for Production of Docs for European Suit Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan, Southern Division, issued an Opinion and Order denying
Plaintiffs' Application for Production of Documents for European
Litigation in the case captioned financialright GmbH, Katharina
Prinzessin zu Hohenlohe, Hartmut Baumer, and Eithne Higgins,
Applicants, v. Robert Bosch LLC, Respondent, Case No. 2:17-mc-
51337 (E.D. Mich.).

Applicants assert that the District Court should order Respondent
to produce documents for use in the European Litigation.

The Applicants in this case, financialright GmbH
(financialright), Katharina Prinzessin zu Hohenlohe, Harmut
Baumer and Eithne Higgins ask this court to exercise its
discretionary authority to assist in the production of evidence
for use in a foreign tribunal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1782.
Applicants claim that they are current or potential litigants
seeking relief in German and Irish courts in connection with
Volkswagen AG and Bosch GmbH's . . . well-known 'clean-diesel'
fraud.

The German Litigation

The Test Case

This lawsuit alleged that Volkswagen AG installed a defeat device
in its European vehicles in violation of European regulation. The
test case was filed on behalf of financialright representing the
interests of a single assignee, based upon the unique theory that
under the European Union (E.U.) Law, the Certificate of
Conformity VW issued to the car owner was incorrect as a result
of the emissions manipulation and was therefore invalid. The
lawsuit raised a number of claims based on tort and breach of
contract.  These claims were rejected, along with the plaintiff's
request to produce certain specified documents, finding that the
production of the respective documents is not relevant for the
decision in this litigation.

The Applicants' Litigation

The application represents that, Applicant Katharina Prinzessin
zu Hohenlohe intends to file a lawsuit in the coming months
against Volkswagen AG, and possibly Robert Bosch GmbH, in the
District Court of Braunschweig in Germany.

The application further represents that, Financialright intends
to bundle claims from European Volkswagen owners to pursue
similar legal actions in Europe against Volkswagen and, possibly,
Bosch GmbH.

The Irish Litigation

The application explains that, Applicant Eithne Higgins filed a
lawsuit against Volkswagen AG and Volkswagen Group of Ireland
Ltd. in the District Court of Castlebar in Ireland. Bosch has
endeavored to distinguish this lawsuit from the Volkswagen-
related emissions scandal in the United States by pointing out
that Ms. Higgins's lawsuit, as originally filed, was about CO2
emissions, not the NOx emissions that have been at issue in the
Volkswagen MDL. However, the Court is not persuaded by this
distinction, for two reasons. First, Ms. Higgins's claim was
subsequently amended (on June 7, 2016) to include NOx.

According to Ms. Higgins's retained expert, the Volkswagen
defendants consented to the application, as it was the Volkswagen
defendants that raised the issue of NOx affecting their EA 189
engines, including that of Mrs. Higgins. Second, the Court is not
convinced that a technology designed to thwart emissions readings
for NOx could not be used for the same or a closely related
purpose with respect to CO2.

Legal Framework: A Two Step Inquiry

Statutory Factors/Requirements

The present application is governed by 28 U.S.C. 1782(a), which
reads as follows, inter alia:

     The district court of the district in which a person resides
or is found may order him to give his testimony or statement or
to produce a document or other thing for use in a proceeding in a
foreign or international tribunal, including criminal
investigations conducted before formal accusation. The order may
be made pursuant to a letter rogatory issued, or request made, by
a foreign or international tribunal or upon the application of
any interested person and may direct that the testimony or
statement be given, or the document or other thing be produced,
before a person appointed by the court.

Discretionary Factors

The parties agree, as they must, that the leading and controlling
authority is supplied by the Supreme Court's decision in Intel,
where Justice Ginsburg, writing for the majority, identified
factors that bear consideration in ruling on a Section 1782(a)
request. Intel Corp., 542 U.S. at 264. These factors are
consistently introduced by discretionary language, such as may
take into consideration, could consider, and may be rejected or
trimmed.

As applied to the present application for discovery, the factors
that "bear consideration" are: (1) Whether Bosch is a participant
in the foreign proceedings; (2) the nature of the foreign
tribunals, including (a) the character of the proceedings
underway in the European Litigation and (b) the receptivity of
the foreign government or tribunal to judicial assistance from
United States federal courts; (3) whether the Section 1782(a)
request conceals an attempt to circumvent foreign proof-gathering
restrictions or other policies of a foreign country or of the
United States; and, (4) whether the requests are unduly
intrusive, and, if so, whether they ought to be rejected or
trimmed.

The Statutory Factors/Requirements Have not Been Met.

As a threshold matter, the Court must determine whether this
application meets the statutory requirements in order for the
requested relief to be authorized.

At oral argument, Bosch further argued, albeit passively, that
the Court should consider the Application as of the date it was
filed, before the newly filed (bundled) German Litigation was
pending, and not based upon subsequent events. Upon questioning
from the bench, however, Bosch conceded that, if the Court were
to ignore the current status of litigation in Germany (and
presumably ignore the fact that Applicant Baumer has had a suit
pending in Berlin since March 2017), nothing would preclude the
German Applicants from simply filing an altered application,
relying upon the newly filed German Litigation in support.

However, notwithstanding either the actual pendency of the two
country European Litigation or the objective evidence of
Applicants' intention to pursue proceedings in Germany, the Court
is not convinced that the requested documentation is for use in
either German or Irish proceedings. This is so because of what
has happened when German and Irish courts have actually
considered Applicants' claims. Consistent with this Court's
reluctance to ignore the most recent European Litigation history,
it is also reluctant to ignore the German and Irish courts' prior
negative rulings in these lawsuits. This Court is mindful of the
fact that the for use requirement could be satisfied even if the
discovery in question is not necessary for Applicants to succeed
in their foreign proceeding.

But the Court is also mindful that if history is any guide to the
future, the documents in question will not be usable and,
therefore, not for use in these foreign proceedings. The Court
takes cognizance of the fact that Ms. Higgins's lawsuit has
already been successfully appealed on jurisdictional grounds in
Ireland, where it has now been remanded to re-explore that very
issue, and that, in Germany, the test case against Volkswagen was
rejected on the merits. As Bosch points out, this latter
rejection casts serious doubt that any of the requested discovery
could be 'for use' in German proceedings.

Applicants have similarly failed to convince this Court that the
Bosch discovery is for use in the Irish Litigation. As Ms.
Higgins's Irish attorney explains in his declaration, the Court
granted leave to bring Judicial Review proceedings and in so
doing, also granted a stay on the further hearing of any
proceedings in the District Court pending the outcome of the
plenary Judicial Review hearing. That stay was granted on
September 15, 2016, just over a year before the present
Application was filed.

The Court thus agrees with Respondent that there's no basis on
which it can conclude that there is a proceeding that will go
forward in which it would be useful to grant this Application.
Or, put another way, there is no proceeding in reasonable
prospect in which discovery might serve a purpose or might be
used, so as to satisfy the threshold requirements of Section
1782.

Alternatively, the Intel Discretionary Factors Weigh in
Respondent's Favor.

Having concluded that the Applicants failed to meet the statutory
requirements, the Court's inquiry ends and the discretionary
factors under Intel need not be analyzed. Nevertheless, the Court
will analyze those factors here, as it alternatively finds that
the Application should likewise be rejected on this basis. Bosch
argues that all of the discretionary factors favor denial of the
application, refusing to concede that any of them might tip in
Applicants' favor. While the Court disagrees, finding that the
various factors tip in both directions, it does agree that on
balance they weigh in favor of Bosch.

Whether Bosch is a participant in foreign proceedings

Here, Applicants state in their brief that Bosch LLC is not and
will not be a defendant in any of the Applicants' actions; they
have filed or will file only against the German and Irish
Volkswagen or Bosch entities, and then their counsel confirmed at
oral argument that neither Bosch U.S. nor Bosch Europe is named
as a party in the European Litigation and that he doesn't believe
that any Bosch-related entity with the name Bosch in it is a
party either.

As a nonparticipant in the foreign proceedings, evidence from it
may therefore be unobtainable in the absence of Section 1782(a)
aid.

Receptivity of the foreign government or tribunals to judicial
assistance from United States courts

Irrespective of authoritative proof, this Court cannot ignore the
fact that the German court restricts discovery, has already
signaled its unwillingness to receive certain documentary
evidence (although neither party has enlightened this Court as to
exactly what that documentary evidence might be), and has
indicated that its law does not enable a party to demand
documents for the purpose of obtaining information independent of
a conclusive pleading. Nor can it ignore the apparent skepticism
of the German Government toward U.S. pre-trial discovery. It is
also quite likely that producing the requested discovery will
"involve substantial cost. This Court does not wish to be
irresponsible, as the Babcock court suggests, in the face of
certain indicators that the German tribunal may not welcome its
help; yet, neither party has painted an entirely clear picture as
to receptivity in Germany.

As to Irish receptivity, Mr. O'Dwyer's Declaration states that,
The District Courts of Ireland are receptive to the use of
evidence obtained pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1782 in Irish
courts, and that he is not aware of any policy of the government
of Ireland that would preclude Section 1782 assistance. Still,
even with this general statement as to the receptivity of the
Irish courts, it seems unlikely in the present posture of Ms.
Higgins's case  with an ongoing jurisdictional dispute and a
damage cap at EUR15,000 that the Irish court would welcome the
broad American style discovery being proposed here.

This factor is a draw, at best, with regard to the Irish
Litigation and favors Bosch, at least slightly, with regard to
the German Litigation.

Circumvention of foreign proof-gathering restrictions or other
policies of a foreign country or of the United States

Contrary to a line of reasoning suggested by Bosch, this Court
does not have concerns that this Application is being used to
circumvent proof-gathering restrictions of the United States.
Bosch points out that one of the broad categories of documents
requested in the proposed subpoena includes all Documents and
Communications that you produced to the plaintiffs in the MDL and
that it is well known and undisputed that these documents are
subject to a protective order in the Northern District of
California. Bosch further points out that Applicant Hohenlohe's
attempt to obtain these documents through a Section 1782
application in that district was rejected by Magistrate Judge
Jacqueline S. Corley and District Judge Charles R. Breyer;
however, as admitted by Bosch, Ms. Hohenlohe's and others'
applications were not rejected on the basis of the discretionary
factors, but, instead, solely upon the fact that Bosch and the
other respondents did not reside and were not 'found' in the
Northern District of California as required by Section 1782.

Applicants correctly pointed out at the hearing that this
protective order only restricts the parties to the MDL from using
or disclosing Bosch's document production outside of that
litigation; it does not restrict Bosch from producing or being
compelled to produce its own records. Applicants also filed an ex
parte Section 1782 application for VOA's and Bosch's documents in
the District of New Jersey, as noted above, apparently based upon
the location of Volkswagen's North American headquarters. This
was initially granted, but the request for Bosch's documents was
later abandoned when it became clear that Bosch had a valid
jurisdictional objection and that the Eastern District of
Michigan was the more appropriate place to pursue this relief.

In light of this procedural history, Bosch's characterization of
Applicants having participated in a total of four applications
for discovery pursuant to Section 1782 across the United States,
is factually accurate yet an unfair slant. These prior
applications have not been repeatedly rejected by our sister
courts in other federal districts other than for reasons of
personal jurisdiction. It is unclear why Ms. Hohenlohe did not
file her first application here, but, now that the present
Application has come to the right place, it is for this Court to
say whether the relief should be permitted.

For these reasons, and notwithstanding its relative comfort about
Applicants' previous efforts in United States District Courts,
this Court shares Bosch's concern about the circumvention of
foreign proof-gathering restrictions and finds that this
discretionary factor favors denial of the Application.

Intrusiveness of the requests

Finally, the Supreme Court instructs that unduly intrusive or
burdensome requests may be rejected or trimmed. In determining
whether such requests are intrusive or burdensome, the statute
itself instructs that, to the extent that the order does not
prescribe otherwise, the testimony or statement shall be taken,
and the document or other thing produced, in accordance with the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Even without the request for MDL documents, the bulk of the 25
document requests at issue, 24 of which are not identified as
documents produced in the MDL, also do not appear to be narrowly
tailored as to scope or content. This is particularly so in light
of the fact that Bosch is not a party and, according to
Applicants, will not be a defendant in any of the Applicants'
actions.

While the Court does see the odd request which is specific to a
particular document with a particular date  and some which
specify an approximate month or year, many of these requests are
prefaced by words such as including or including but not limited
to, indicating that they should be read more broadly. Other
requests are "prefaced by the word all, seeking things such as
organizational charts, test results, computer and source codes,
instructions and directions, communications, presentations,
minutes, notes and documents for a ten-year relevant time period"
running from January 1, 2006 to December 31, 2015.

The Court finds that these requests are overly broad and would be
unduly burdensome to Bosch, particularly in light of its non-
party role and the requests' lengthy temporal component.

The fourth Intel factor weighs against granting the Application.
The Application is denied.

A full-text copy of the District Court's February 12, 2018
Opinion and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y9zfdgpn
from Leagle.com.

financialright GmbH, Mr. Hartmut Baumer, Eithne Higgins &
Katharina Prinzessin zu Hohenlohe, Petitioners, represented by
Daniel T. Paluga, Young & Associates, 27725 Stansbury Boulevard,
Suite 125, Farmington Hills, MI, 8334, Michael David Hausfeld --
mhausfeld@hausfeld.com -- Hausfeld LLP, Sarah Rebecca LaFreniere
-- slafreniere@hausfeld.com -- Hausfeld LLP & Jaye Quadrozzi,
Young & Associates, 27725 Stansbury Boulevard, Suite 125,
Farmington Hills, MI, 8334

Robert Bosch LLC, Respondent, represented by Carmine D. Boccuzzi,
Jr. -- cboccuzzi@cgsh.com -- Cleary, Gottlieb,, Matthew D. Slater
-- mslater@cgsh.com -- Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP,
Michael G. Brady -- mslater@cgsh.com -- Warner, Norcross, &
William R. Jansen -- wjansen@wnj.com -- Warner, Norcross.


ROBINHOOD CRYPTO: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Tecson" Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Vivian Tecson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Robinhood Crypto, LLC; Robinhood Financial
LLC; and Robinhood Markets, Inc., and Does 1 through 10,
Defendants, Case No. 18CV323584 (Cal. Super., Santa Clara Cnty.,
Feb. 20, 2018) seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of sending
unsolicited text messages without prior express written consent,
invading the Plaintiff's right to privacy in violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Robinhood Financial, LLC provides stock trading services to buy
and sell stocks. It offers stock brokerage services to invest in
publicly-traded companies and exchange-traded funds listed on
U.S. exchanges. The company was founded in 2013 and is
headquartered in Palo Alto, California. Robinhood Financial, LLC
operates as a subsidiary of Robinhood Markets, Inc. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Zelenski, Esq.
          JAURIGUE LAW GROUP
          300 West Glenoaks Boulevard, Suite 300
          Glendale, CA 91202
          Telephone: (818) 630-7280
          Facsimile: (888) 879-1697
          E-mail: david@jlglawyers.com


SALSAS AND BEER: Ordered to Produce Designee for Deposition
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. James C. Dever, III, entered an order in the lawsuit
captioned MOISES VELASQUEZ, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. SALSAS AND BEER RESTAURANT, INC., SALSA AND
BEER, INC., NOE PATINO, PATRICIA PATINO, DIONISIO PATINO, and
ISMAEL PATINO, Case No. 5:16-cv-00655-D (E.D.N.C.), granting the
Plaintiff's motion to compel Defendants Salsas and Beer
Restaurant, Inc., Salsa and Beer, Inc., Noe Patino, Patricia
Patino, Dionisio Patino, and Ismael Patino to:

   (1) produce Salsa and Beer, Inc.'s Rule 30(b)(6) designee for
       a deposition;

   (2) respond to Plaintiff's interrogatory number 13 and request
       for production number 17, relating to the production of
       gross sales and annual dollar volumes;

   (3) produce Defendant Noe Patino's discovery responses; and

   (4) produce Defendant Patricia Patino's verification
       concerning her discovery responses.

Judge Dever denies without prejudice the Plaintiff's motion to
determine that Defendants Salsas and Beer Restaurant, Inc. and
Salsa and Beer, Inc., constitute a single enterprise under 29
U.S.C. Section 203(r)(1), and the Plaintiff's motion to certify
class.

Judge Dever grants the Plaintiff's motion for an extension of
time to file a motion for class certification and the Plaintiff's
motion for equitable tolling.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=qnl39BDu


SANTA BARBARA, CA: Murray Seeks to Certify ADA Class and Subclass
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit titled CLAY MURRAY, DAVID FRANCO,
SHAREEN WINKLE, MARIA TRACY, ERICK BROWN, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated v. COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA, and
SANTA BARBARA COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE, Case No. 2:17-cv-08805-GW-
JPR (C.D. Cal.), move the Court for an order certifying a
Plaintiff Class of:

    "all people who are now, or in the future will be,
     incarcerated in the Santa Barbara County Jail system"; and a
     Plaintiff Subclass (the "Disabilities Subclass") of:

    "all people who are now, or in the future will be,
     incarcerated in the Santa Barbara County Jail system and who
     are qualified individuals with disabilities, as that term is
     defined in the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA),
     42 U.S.C. Section 12102, the Rehabilitation Act,
     29 U.S.C. Section 705(9)(B), and California Government Code
     Section 12926(j) and (m)."

The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to:

   1. certify Plaintiffs Clay Murray, Shareen Winkle and Maria
      Tracy as representatives of the Plaintiff Class and
      Disabilities Subclass;

   2. appoint their counsel of record as Class Counsel for the
      Plaintiff Class and Disabilities Subclass; and

   3. direct the parties to confer and submit a proposed notice
      to the Plaintiff Class and Disabilities Subclass, and the
      method of distribution of that notice, within 30 days of
      the Order certifying the Plaintiff Class and Disabilities
      Subclass.

The Court will commence a hearing on April 12, 2018, at 8:30
a.m., to consider the Motion.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=B9nGayOK

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Aaron J. Fischer, Esq.
          DISABILITY RIGHTS CALIFORNIA
          1330 Broadway, Suite 500
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 267-1200
          Facsimile: (510) 267-1201
          E-mail: aaron.fischer@disabilityrightsca.org

               - and -

          Julia E. Romano, Esq.
          Jennifer T. Stewart, Esq.
          Stacy L. Foster, Esq.
          KING & SPALDING LLP
          633 W Fifth Street, Suite 1700
          Los Angeles, CA 900781
          Telephone: (213) 443-4355
          Facsimile: (213) 443-4310
          E-mail: jromano@kslaw.com
                  jstewart@kslaw.com
                  sfoster@kslaw.com

               - and -

          Richard Diaz, Esq.
          DISABILITY RIGHTS CALIFORNIA
          350 South Bixel Street, Suite 290
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 213-8000
          Facsimile: (213) 213-8001
          E-mail: richard.diaz@disabilityrightsca.org

               - and -

          Don Specter, Esq.
          Corene Kendrick, Esq.
          PRISON LAW OFFICE
          1917 Fifth Street
          Berkeley, CA 94710
          Telephone: (510) 280-2621
          Facsimile: (510) 280-2704
          E-mail: dspecter@prisonlaw.com
                  ckendrick@prisonlaw.com

               - and -

          Donald F. Zimmer, Jr., Esq.
          KING & SPALDING LLP
          101 Second Street, Suite 2300
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 318-1220
          Facsimile: (415) 318-1300
          E-mail: fzimmer@kslaw.com

               - and -

          Joshua C. Toll, Esq.
          KING & SPALDING LLP
          1700 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 737-8616
          Facsimile: (202) 626-3727
          E-mail: jtoll@kslaw.com


SANTO COYOTE: "Batista" Suit Seeks Damages under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------
Lianet B. Batista and Lucy Galvez, on behalf of themselves and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Santo Coyote, Inc.,
and Martin Jimenez, Case No. 8:18-cv-00322 (M.D. Fla., February
8, 2018), seeks damages under Fair Labor Standards Act for
failure to pay minimum wage, and overtime wages.

Plaintiff Lianet B. Batista began working for Defendants as a
server in May 2015 until November 2017.

Plaintiff Lucy Galvez began working for Defendants as a server in
March 2015 and worked in this capacity until December 2017.

Defendant Santo Coyote, Inc. operates a restaurant in Brandon, in
Hillsborough County, Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Christopher J. Saba, Esq.
      WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A.
      1110 North Florida Avenue, Suite 300
      Tampa, FL 33602
      Tel: (813) 224-0431
      Fax: (813) 229-8712
      E-mail: csaba@wfclaw.com


SAVOY BANCORP: Faces "Delacruz" Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Savoy Bancorp, Inc.
The case is captioned as Emanuel Delacruz, and on behalf of all
other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Savoy Bancorp,
Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-01388-ER (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 15,
2018). The case is assigned to Judge Edgardo Ramos, and referred
to Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker.

Savoy Bank offers personal and commercial banking services. The
bank was founded in 2008 and is based in New York, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SCHUMACKER ELECTRICAL: Fails to Pay Proper Wage, "Kelley" Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Kelley, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Schumacker Electrical and Robert
Schumacker, Defendants, Case No. 18CV-1251 (N.D. Ill., Feb. 19,
2018) is an action against the Defendants for failure to pay
minimum wages and overtime wages to Plaintiff and other similarly
situated employees for all time worked in excess of 40 hours in
individual work weeks.

Schumacher Electric Corporation Schumacher manufactures and
supplies battery chargers, jump starters, power converters,
battery testers, accessories, and OEM custom products. It serves
automotive, marine, power sport, agriculture, and industrial
markets. The company sells its products retailers. Schumacher
Electric Corporation Schumacher was founded in 1947 and is based
in Mount Prospect, Illinois. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John C. Ireland, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF JOHN C. IRELAND
          636 Spruce Street
          South Elgin, IL 60177
          Telephone: (630) 464-9675
          Facsimile: (630) 206-0889
          E-mail: attorneyireland@gmail.com


SHAKE SCHACK: Faces "Bostick" Suit over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kirstyn Bostick, individually, and on behalf of other similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Shake Shack Enterprises, LLC; and Does 1
through 100, Defendants, Case No. BC694785 (Cal. Super., Los
Cnty.) is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the California Labor Code.

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

Shake Shack Enterprises, LLC is in the Fast-food Restaurant Chain
business. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SOUTH PASADENA CARE: Fails to Pay Overtime, "Schwade" Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
PATRICIA SCHWADE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SOUTH PASADENA CARE CENTER, LLC;
SOUTH PASADENA CARE CENTER; BRIUS MANAGEMENT CO; BRIUS, LLC;
ELLIOT ZEMEL; YEHUDA SCHMUKLER; SCHLOMO RECHNITZ; and DOES 1
through 50, inclusive, Defendants, BC694824 (Cal. Super., Los
Angeles Cty., Feb. 16, 2018) is an action against the Defendants
for unpaid regular hours, overtime hours, minimum wages, wages
for missed meal and rest periods.

Ms. Schwade is a resident of the State of California and a former
employee of the Defendants.

South Pasadena Care Center, LLC, is a limited liability company
organized and existing under the laws of the State of California.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew J. Matem, Esq.
          Joshua D. Boxer, Esq.
          Roy K. Suh, Esq.
          MATERN LAW GROUP, PC
          1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 200
          Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
          Telephone: (310) 531-1900
          Facsimile: (310) 531-1901


ST. LOUIS RAMS: "McAllister" Suit to State Court
------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Missouri, Eastern Division, issued a Memorandum and Order
remanding the case captioned RONALD McALLISTER, Plaintiff, v. THE
ST. LOUIS RAMS, LLC, Defendants, Nos. 4:16-CV-172 SNLJ, 4:16-CV-
262, 4:16-CV-297, 4:16-CV-189 (E.D. Mo.), to Circuit Court of St.
Louis, Missouri.

Plaintiff James Pudlowski filed his first complaint in state
court, and the defendants removed the case to the District Court
citing diversity jurisdiction generally1 and, in the alternative,
minimal diversity" under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA).

Plaintiffs argued that, in light of the Court's conclusion that
the CAFA jurisdictional elements had been established, the Court
should have applied the local controversy exception to the facts
of the case. Under the local controversy exception, a district
court must decline to exercise jurisdiction over a class action
(1) in which more than two-thirds of the class members in the
aggregate are citizens of the state in which the action was
originally filed, (2) at least one significant defendant is a
citizen of the state in which the class action was originally
filed, (3) the principal injuries were incurred in the state in
which the action was filed, and (4) no other class action
alleging similar facts was filed in the three years prior to the
commencement of the current class action. 28 U.S.C. Section
1332(d)(4)(A).

Plaintiffs, as the party invoking the local controversy
exception, have the burden to prove the exception by a
preponderance of the evidence. Plaintiffs retained Dr. Charles
Cowan as their expert in statistics and survey design and
implementation. He took a random sample of potential class
members and ascertained their citizenship or domicile that is,
where the person (1) resides, and (2) intends to remain.

Defendants do not take issue with Dr. Cowan's credentials. They
do, however, submit an expert report from Dr. Stephen Cacciola
that disputes much of Dr. Cowan's conclusion, but without
offering a competing calculation of Missouri citizens versus
Missouri residents. Dr. Cowan later responded and refuted the
defendants' criticisms.

Ultimately, even accepting defendants' criticisms, Dr. Cowan's
opinion results in finding a Missouri citizenship rate
significantly larger than two-thirds at a 95% confidence level.
Defendants do not suggest that Dr. Cowan is not qualified as an
expert in these matters, nor is there any apparent basis for
defendants to do so. Dr. Cowan's opinion easily supports that
more than two-thirds of plaintiffs' class comprises Missouri
citizens. Plaintiffs' burden of proof is by a preponderance or
more than 50%  of the evidence. The Court finds that plaintiffs'
approach was disciplined and reliable so as to meet this burden.

The matter will be remanded to the Circuit Court for the City of
St. Louis, Missouri.

The defendants' motion to dismiss is denied as moot.

A full-text copy of the District Court's February 12, 2018
Memorandum and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yd37lvmm
from Leagle.com.

Ronald McAllister, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Anthony S. Bruning --
tony@bruninglegal.com -- THE BRUNING LAW FIRM, LLC, Anthony S.
Bruning, Jr. -- aj@bruninglegal.com -- THE BRUNING LAW FIRM, LLC,
Richard S. Cornfeld -- rcornfeld@cornfeldlegal.com -- LAW OFFICE
RICHARD S. CORNFELD, Ryan L. Bruning -- ryan@bruninglegal.com --
THE BRUNING LAW FIRM, LLC, Edward Morris Roth, THE BRUNING LAW
FIRM, LLC, 555 Washington Ave, St. Louis, MO, 63#600A 101, Kevin
Paul Green -- kevin@ghalaw.com -- GOLDENBERG HELLER, PC, Mark C.
Goldenberg -- mark@ghalaw.com -- GOLDENBERG HELLER, PC & Thomas
P. Rosenfeld -- tom@ghalaw.com -- GOLDENBERG HELLER, PC.

The St. Louis Rams, LLC, A Delaware General Partnership,
Defendant, represented by Amy Elizabeth Sestric, DENTONS US LLP,
Anders C. Wick, DENTONS US LLP, pro hac vice, Elizabeth T.
Ferrick, DENTONS US LLP, Roger K. Heidenreich, DENTONS US LLP &
Stephen H. Rovak, DENTONS US LLP, 211 North Broadway, Saint
Louis, MO 63102-0000


SURETEMPS LLC: Catherine Seeks Certification of Hoppers Class
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit captioned TERRY CATHERINE AND JAMIL
LEE v. SURETEMPS, LLC; FULL FORCE STAFFING, LLC; AND METRO
SERVICE GROUP, INC., Case No. 2:17-cv-07561-SM-JVM (E.D. La.),
ask the Court to enter an order conditionally certifying this
class of similarly situated individuals -- the "FLSA Collective
Class":

     All persons employed by Defendants as hoppers since March
     2015 who were paid on flat daily rate basis but were not
     paid at a rate equal to or higher than the federal minimum
     wage rate and/or who were not paid at an overtime rate of
     one and one-half times their hourly rate of pay for each
     hour worked in excess of 40 per week in violation of the
     Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. 201, et seq. ("FLSA").

In their Collective Action Complaint, the Plaintiffs asserted
claims on behalf of a collective class for overtime and/or
minimum wages wrongfully not paid to them by the Defendants.

The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to authorize notice to allow
potential members of the FLSA Collective Class to opt in to
preserve their rights.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jody Forester Jackson, Esq.
          Mary Bubbett Jackson, Esq.
          JACKSON+JACKSON
          201 St. Charles Avenue, Suite 2500
          New Orleans, LA 70170
          Telephone: (504) 599-5953
          Facsimile: (888) 988-6499
          E-mail: jjackson@jackson-law.net
                  mjackson@jackson-law.net


SWISSPORT SA: Fails to Pay Overtime Pay, "Jackson" Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
John Jackson, an individual, and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Swissport, SA, LLC; Swissport USA, Inc.,
and Does 1 through 50, Defendants, Case No. BC694782 (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.

Mr. Jackson was employed by the Defendants as a non-exempt
employee within the State of California.

Swissport USA, Inc. provides ground handling, passenger, baggage
and cargo handling, and aircraft loading and unloading services
for airlines. The company was formerly known as Dynair Services
Inc. As a result of the acquisition Dynair Services Inc. by
Swissport North America, Inc., Dynair Services Inc.'s name was
changed. The company was founded in 1967 and is based in Dulles,
Virginia. It has an airside warehouse at Jomo Kenyatta
International Airport in Nairobi, Kenya. Swissport USA, Inc.
operates as a subsidiary of Swissport North America, Inc. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew J. Matern, Esq.
          Tagore O. Subramaniam, Esq.
          Julia Z. Wells, Esq.
          MATERN LAW GROUP, PC
          1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 200
          Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
          Telephone: (310) 531-1900
                     (310) 531-1901
          E-mail: mmatern@maternlawgroup.com
                  tagore@maternlawgroup.com
                  jwells@maternlawgroup.com


SYSTEMS & SERVICES: "Chavez" Suit Seeks Damages Under TCPA
----------------------------------------------------------
Adrian Chavez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Systems & Services Technologies, Inc., Case No.
3:18-cv-00292 (S.D. Calif., February 7, 2018), seeks damages and
injunctive relief pursuant to the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act.

Plaintiff Adrian Chavez is a resident of the County of San Diego,
in the State of California.

Defendant Systems & Services Technologies, Inc. is a consumer
loan servicer, committed to being the third-party servicer of
choice for originators and purchasers of consumer assets.  [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
      Mona Amini, Esq.
      Clark R. Conforti, Esq.
      Veronica Cruz, Esq.
      KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
      245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1
      Costa Mesa, CA 92626
      Tel: (800) 400-6808
      Fax: (800) 520-5523
      E-mail: ak@kazlg.com
              mona@kazlg.com
              clark@kazlg.com
              veronica@kazlg.com


TAKEDA AMERICA: Court Allows Indirect Purchasers to Amend Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York issued an Opinion and Order granting in part and denying in
part Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend Complaint in the case captioned
IN RE ACTOS END-PAYOR ANTITRUST LITIGATION, No. 13-CV-9244 (RA)
(S.D.N.Y.), in light of a Second Circuit's decision.

At issue in this case is whether Defendants Takeda Pharmaceutical
Company Limited, Takeda America Holdings, Inc., Takeda
Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc., and Takeda Development Center
Americas, Inc., are liable to Plaintiffs, the indirect purchasers
of Takeda's diabetes medication called ACTOS, for unlawfully
inflating that drug's prices in violation of state antitrust,
consumer protection, and unjust enrichment laws.

Plaintiffs are indirect purchasers of ACTOS who sued Takeda and
several generic manufacturers under state antitrust laws.  They
claimed, among other things, that Takeda had unlawfully reaped
monopoly profits by delaying the generics' entry into the market.
The District Court dismissed the complaint on the basis that
Plaintiffs had failed to adequately allege that Takeda's actions
caused Plaintiffs' antitrust injury.

Plaintiffs appealed, arguing that they had adequately alleged
that Takeda's purportedly false representations about its '584
and '404 patents delayed the entry of generic competitors to the
ACTOS market, thereby facilitating Takeda's alleged monopoly over
the relevant market and causing Plaintiffs' claimed injuries.

The Second Circuit affirmed the District Court's rejection of
Plaintiffs' first causation theory, holding that Plaintiffs had
failed to plausibly allege that the generics had filed their
Paragraph IV certifications with knowledge of Takeda's 1999 and
2002 patent descriptions.  The Second Circuit vacated the
District Court's decision in part, however, as to Plaintiffs'
theory regarding Teva, remanding the case to the limited extent
that Plaintiffs "plausibly alleged that Takeda delayed Teva's
market entry."

LEGAL STANDARDS

Although courts should freely give leave to amend when justice so
requires, they need not grant leave to amend if the amendments
would be futile or cause undue delay, among other things. This
Court also may not permit amendments that would violate the law
of the case doctrine which requires a trial court to follow an
appellate court's previous ruling on an issue in the same case.

Proposed Amendments Based on Takeda's 1999 and 2002 Patent
Descriptions

The Second Circuit explicitly rejected a similarly flawed theory
on Plaintiffs' appeal. Plaintiffs had argued then that the
generics could have learned of Takeda's alleged
misrepresentations by consulting a supplemental filing that
Takeda had made to its New Drug Application, which Plaintiffs
claimed the FDA made available on its website. The Second Circuit
rejected this argument on the ground that the generics could not
plausibly have learned of the allegedly false patent descriptions
by consulting a supplemental Takeda filing on the FDA's website
because the supplemental filing did not have accurate information
about both the '584 and '404 patents and thus was not a
dependable source of patent information for generic applicants.

Similarly, the FDA's failure to comply with its own policy of
advising generics of incorrect certifications was not a
dependable source of patent information for the generics, because
the FDA applied that policy inconsistently even within the
context of this case. Thus, it is not plausible that the generics
would have relied on the FDA's silence as proof of Takeda's
alleged misrepresentations or even as confirmation that they had
filed the proper certifications.

Plaintiffs are therefore denied leave to amend to the extent that
they seek to add causation theories based on Takeda's allegedly
false patent descriptions in 1999 and 2002.

Proposed Amendments Based on Takeda's Public 2010 Patent
Description and the FDA's 2010 ruling

Plaintiffs alternatively rely on the FDA's March 2010 ruling as a
basis for their causation theory with regard to the non-Teva
generics. The Court concludes that these proposed amendments are
within the Second Circuit's mandate on remand. The spirit of the
mandate, as evidenced by the Circuit's reasoning and its
direction that the Court hold further proceedings consistent with
its decision, is broad enough to encompass amendments that
include more than one way in which the FDA's 2010 ruling harmed
Plaintiffs.

And Plaintiffs' proposed amendments to the extent they allege
that Takeda's misrepresentations caused the FDA's ruling and that
the FDA's ruling in turn caused a delay in the generics' entry
are consistent with the Circuit's ruling. The proposed amendments
also appear plausible as to the non-Teva generics for the same
reasons the Circuit identified as to Teva. Although the non-Teva
generics were not parties to the citizen petition, the FDA's
ruling was a matter of public record which the generics would
plausibly have been following with interest given the ruling's
potential impact on their own lawsuits and entries into the
market. Moreover, if the FDA's ruling had come out the other way
and permitted Teva to proceed as it had planned to do, that
outcome plausibly would have led the generics to enter the market
sooner, as alleged in the proposed amended complaint.

At this stage, Defendants have not contended otherwise.
Plaintiffs' proposed amendments are therefore within the scope of
Second Circuit's mandate on remand to the extent that they allege
that the FDA's ruling caused a delay in the generics' market
entry.

Amendment under Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

Although this case has been pending for just over four years, it
has only progressed to the motion-to-dismiss stage. And the types
of prejudice to which Takeda points primarily that the proposed
amendments will require additional briefing, delay, and expense
are not, on balance, unduly prejudicial. The proposed amendments
are closely enough related to Plaintiffs' prior theories that
Takeda is not unfairly disadvantaged by having to respond to them
at this point in the litigation. Moreover, the same Defendants
must respond to a functionally identical argument in the related
direct-purchaser action also pending before this Court. Thus, in
the interests of justice and in the absence of undue prejudice or
delay, Plaintiffs may expand their causation allegations in the
limited fashion.

Plaintiffs are granted leave to amend their complaint to the
extent that the amendments are unopposed or allege causation
based on the FDA's March 2010 ruling.

A full-text copy of the District Court's February 12, 2018
Memorandum and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y827gajp
from Leagle.com.

United Food and Commercial Workers Local 1776 & Participating
Employers Health and Welfare Fund, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by
Elizabeth G. Arthur, Hilliard & Shadowen LLP, 919 Congress Ave.
Suite 1325. Austin, TX 78701. 512-993-3072. Karen M. Leser-Grenon
-- kleser@sfmslaw.com -- Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLC,
Kolin C. Tang -- ktang@sfmslaw.com -- Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller
& Shah, LLC, Laurie Rubinow -- lrubinow@sfmslaw.com -- Shepherd,
Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLC, Matthew Weiner, Hilliard &
Shadowen LLP, 919 Congress Ave. Suite 1325. Austin, TX 78701.
512-993-3072. Natalie Finkelman Bennett -nfinkelman@sfmslaw.com -
- Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLP, pro hac vice & Steve
D. Shadowen, Hilliard & Shadowen LLP, 919 Congress Ave. Suite
1325. Austin, TX 78701. 512-993-3072.

Plumbers & Pipefitters Local 178 Health & Welfare Trust Fund,
Plaintiff, represented by Brian Philip Murray --
bmurray@glancylaw.com --  Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Gregory
Bradley Linkh -- glinkh@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Binkow & Goldberg
LLP, Lee Albert --  glinkh@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Binkow &
Goldberg LLP & Steve D. Shadowen -- Steve@hilliardshadoweniaw.com
-- Hilliard & Shadowen LLP.

199 SEIU-National Benefit Fund, Plaintiff, represented by Dan
Drachler -- ddrachler@zsz.com -- Zwerling, Schachter & Zwerling,
LLP, Steve D. Shadowen, Hilliard & Shadowen LLP & Karen M. Leser-
Grenon, Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLC.

Fraternal Order of Police, Fort Lauderdale Lodge 31, Insurance
Trust Fund, Consolidated Plaintiff, represented by Jayne Arnold
Goldstein, Pomerantz LLP, Adam G. Kurtz, Pomerantz LLP, Steve D.
Shadowen, Hilliard & Shadowen LLP & Karen M. Leser-Grenon,
Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLC.

Crosby Tugs, LLC, Consolidated Plaintiff, represented by Kara A.
Elgersma, Wexler Wallace LLP, pro hac vice, Karen M. Leser-
Grenon, Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLC, Kenneth A.
Wexler, Wexler Toriseva Wallace LLP, pro hac vice, Kolin C. Tang,
Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLC, Matthew Weiner, Hilliard
& Shadowen LLP, pro hac vice, Elizabeth G. Arthur, Hilliard &
Shadowen LLP, Justin N. Boley, Wexler Wallace LLP, Richard L.
Coffman, The Coffman Law Firm & Steve D. Shadowen, Hilliard &
Shadowen LLP.

International Union of Operating Engineers Local 132 Health and
Welfare Fund, Consolidated Plaintiff, represented by Christina
H.C. Sharp, Girard Gibbs LLP, Daniel Charles Girard, Girard Gibbs
LLP, pro hac vice, Domenico George Minerva, Morgan & Morgan,
P.C., John Anthony Kehoe, Girard Gibbs LLP, Scott M Grzenczyk,
Girard Gibbs LLP, pro hac vice, Peter George Safirstein, Morgan &
Morgan, P.C., Steve D. Shadowen, Hilliard & Shadowen LLP & Karen
M. Leser-Grenon, Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLC.

A.F. of L. -- A.G.C. Building Trades Welfare Plan, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Consolidated
Plaintiff, represented by Andrea B. Bierstein, Hanly Conroy
Bierstein Sheridan Fisher & Hayes, LLP, Brian James Robbins,
Robbins Arroyo, LLP, Derek Y. Brandt, McCune Wright Arevalo, LLP,
pro hac vice, John Andrew Ioannou, Motley Rice LLC, Kevin A.
Seely, Robbins Arroyo LLP, Michael Morris Buchman, Motley Rice
LLC, Mitchell Mark Breit, Milberg Tadler Phillips Grossman LLP &
Steve D. Shadowen, Hilliard & Shadowen LLP.

Painters District Council No. 30 Health and Welfare Fund,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
Consolidated Plaintiff, represented by Lori Ann Fanning, Miller
Law LLC, pro hac vice, Marvin Alan Miller, Miller Law, LLC, Steve
D. Shadowen, Hilliard & Shadowen LLP & Karen M. Leser-Grenon,
Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLC.

NECA-IBEW Welfare Trust Fund, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Consolidated Plaintiff, represented by
Brian O. O'Mara, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, pro hac vice,
David W. Mitchell, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, pro hac
vice, Samuel Howard Rudman, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP,
Steve D. Shadowen, Hilliard & Shadowen LLP & Karen M. Leser-
Grenon, Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLC.

City of Providence, Rhode Island, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Consolidated Plaintiff,
represented by Alex Rafael Straus, Motley Rice LLC, Andrea B.
Bierstein, Hanly Conroy Bierstein Sheridan Fisher & Hayes, LLP,
Derek Y. Brandt, McCune Wright Arevalo, LLP, pro hac vice,
Gregory E. Del Gaizo, Robbins Umeda, LLP, John Andrew Ioannou,
Motley Rice LLC, Kevin A. Seely, Robbins Arroyo LLP, Michael
Morris Buchman, Motley Rice LLC, Mitchell Mark Breit, Milberg
Tadler Phillips Grossman LLP, Steve D. Shadowen, Hilliard &
Shadowen LLP & Karen M. Leser-Grenon, Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller
& Shah, LLC.

Minnesota and North Dakota Bricklayers and Allied Craftworkers
Health Fund, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Consolidated Plaintiff, represented by Gary B.
Friedman, Friedman Law Group, Steve D. Shadowen, Hilliard &
Shadowen LLP & Karen M. Leser-Grenon, Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller
& Shah, LLC.

Greater Metropolitan Hotel Employers-Employees Health and Welfare
Fund, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated,
Consolidated Plaintiff, represented by Gary B. Friedman, Friedman
Law Group & Steve D. Shadowen, Hilliard & Shadowen LLP.

Local 17 Hospitality Benefit Fund, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, Consolidated Plaintiff, represented by
Garrett D. Blanchfield, Jr., Reinhardt, Wendorf & Blanchfield,
Gary B. Friedman, Friedman Law Group, Scott H. Levy, Friedman Law
Group, Tracey Kitzman, Friedman Law Group & Steve D. Shadowen,
Hilliard & Shadowen LLP.

New England Electrical Workers Benefit Fund, Individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Consolidated Plaintiff,
represented by Frank Rocco Schirripa, Hach Rose Schirripa &
Cheverie LLP, John Douglas Richards, Cohen Milstein Sellers &
Toll P.L.L.C., Sharon Kunjumon Robertson, Cohen Milstein Sellers
& Toll P.L.L.C., Donna M. Evans, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll
PLLC, Steve D. Shadowen, Hilliard & Shadowen LLP & Karen M.
Leser-Grenon, Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLC.

Man-U Service Contract Trust Fund, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, Consolidated Plaintiff,
represented by Stewart L. Cohen, Cohen, Placitella & Roth, Steve
D. Shadowen, Hilliard & Shadowen LLP & Karen M. Leser-Grenon,
Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLC.

Teamsters Union Local 115 Health & Welfare Fund, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Consolidated
Plaintiff, represented by Stewart L. Cohen, Cohen, Placitella &
Roth & Steve D. Shadowen, Hilliard & Shadowen LLP.

Takeda America Holdings, Inc., Takeda Pharmaceuticals, U.S.A.,
Inc. & Takeda Development Center Americas, Inc., Defendants,
represented by Jeffrey Ira Weinberger, Munger, Tolles & Olson,
Adam R. Lawton, Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP, pro hac vice, Gregory
L. Skidmore, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, John O'Quinn, Kirkland & Ellis
LLP & Rohit K. Singla, Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP.

Mylan, Inc. & Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., Defendants, represented
by Jessica Leigh Margolis, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, Seth
C. Silber, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, pro hac vice, Craig
Eldon Bolton, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati PC, Gregory L.
Skidmore, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Jeffrey C. Bank, Wilson Sonsini
Goodrich & Rosati, John O'Quinn, Kirkland & Ellis LLP & Kellie
Marie Kemp, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, pro hac vice.

Actavis plc, formerly known as & Watson Laboratories, Inc.,
Defendants, represented by Steven Craig Sunshine, Skadden, Arps,
Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, Gregory L. Skidmore, Kirkland & Ellis
LLP, John O'Quinn, Kirkland & Ellis LLP & Karen Hoffman Lent,
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP.

Ranbaxy, Inc. & Ranbaxy Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Defendants,
represented by Stacey Anne Mahoney, Morgan Lewis & Bockius, LLP,
Thane D. Scott, Morgan & Finnegan, LLP, pro hac vice & Gregory L.
Skidmore, Kirkland & Ellis LLP.

Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd., Defendant, represented by
Gregory L. Skidmore, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Jay Philip Lefkowitz,
Kirkland & Ellis LLP, John O'Quinn, Kirkland & Ellis LLP & Ross
Lee Weiner, Kirkland & Ellis LLP.

Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., Defendant, represented by Devin
Allan Debacker, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, pro hac vice, Gregory L.
Skidmore, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, pro hac vice, Jay Philip
Lefkowitz, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, John O'Quinn, Kirkland & Ellis
LLP, Katherine R. Katz, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, pro hac vice & Ross
Lee Weiner, Kirkland & Ellis LLP.

Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited, Defendant, represented by
Rohit K. Singla, Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP.

Ranbaxy Inc., Defendant, represented by Stacey Anne Mahoney,
Morgan Lewis & Bockius, LLP & Thane D. Scott, Morgan & Finnegan,
LLP, pro hac vice.

ALL PLAINTIFFS, All Plaintiffs, pro se.


TRAVELERS INDEMNITY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, "Hoyt" Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Hoyt, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. The Travelers Indemnity Company, and Does
1 through 50, Defendants, Case No. BC 695351 (Cal. Super., Los
Angeles Cnty., Feb. 20, 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.

Mr. Hoyt was employed by the Defendants in California from June
2015 to August 2017, as an outside property claim adjuster.

The Travelers Indemnity Company operates as a property and
casualty insurance company that provides a range of personal and
business insurance products. The company was founded in 1864 and
is based in Hartford, Connecticut. The Travelers Indemnity
Company operates as a subsidiary of Travelers Insurance Group
Holdings Inc. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

           Norman B. Blumenthal, Esq.
           BLUMENTHAL NORDREHAUG BHOWMIK DE BLOUW LLP
           2255 Calle Clara
           La Jolla, CA 92037
           Telephone: (858) 551-1223
           Facsimile: (858) 551-1232


TREEHOUSE FOODS: Court Denies Dismissal of Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division, issued a Memorandum Opinion denying
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the case captioned PUBLIC
EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF MISSISSIPPI, Plaintiff, v.
TREEHOUSE FOODS, INC. ET AL., Defendants, No. 16 C 10632 (N.D.
Ill.).

TreeHouse purchased the Private Brands business from ConAgra
Foods, Inc., for approximately $2.7 billion. Plaintiffs contend
that following these acquisitions, TreeHouse continued to
fraudulently reassure the market that the acquisitions were
successful.  TreeHouse disclosed that third quarter earnings
would be substantially below expectations.  On that same day,
TreeHouse also announced the resignation of the Company's
President, Christopher Silva.  Company shares fell roughly 20%.

Plaintiffs contend that as a result of Defendants' wrongful acts
and omissions, and the subsequent decline in the market value of
the Company's stock, Plaintiffs suffered significant loss and
damages.  Plaintiffs bring this putative class action lawsuit
against Defendants for alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Act).

In ruling on a motion to dismiss brought pursuant to Rule
12(b)(6), the court must draw all reasonable inferences that
favor the plaintiff, construe the allegations of the complaint in
the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and accept as true all
well-pleaded facts and allegations in the complaint.

Defendants move to dismiss Plaintiff's 10b-5 claim because
Plaintiff has not alleged any material misstatement, Plaintiff
failed to allege that any statements were false at the time they
were made, Plaintiff failed to allege a strong inference of
scienter, Plaintiff failed to adequately allege loss causation
and Plaintiff has failed to plead that the individual defendants
made certain alleged misstatements.

Material Misstatement

Puffery

Defendants argue that numerous alleged misstatements are
inactionable because they are statements of corporate optimism,
or puffery. Statements that are vague aspirations or unspecific
puffery are not considered material statements.

TreeHouse made repeated representations that their management was
handling business in a successful fashion. When such
representations are taken in context, a sophisticated investor
could believe that such comments were made in reference to actual
current handling of actual risks and challenges and it is
possible that a reasonable investor could believe there was a
factual basis for such statements. Plaintiffs have presented
enough support to show that Defendants' alleged misstatements and
omissions were important to investors and that a reasonable
investor could have believed there was a factual basis for such
statements.

Therefore, Plaintiffs have met the first pleading requirement of
a material misstatement or omission.

PSLRA Safe Harbor

Defendants argue that numerous alleged misstatements are forward-
looking and protected by the PSLRA's safe harbor. The PSLRA safe
harbor provides that a defendant cannot be held liable for
forward-looking statements that are (i) accompanied by meaningful
cautionary statements, (ii) immaterial, or (iii) made without
actual knowledge.

The PSLRA defines a forward-looking statement as (i) a statement
containing a projection of revenues or other financial items;
(ii) a statement of the plans and objectives of management for
future operations; (iii) a statement of future economic
performance or; (iv) any statement of the assumptions underlying
or relating to any of the previous three categories.

A forward-looking statement must be identified as such, and
accompanied by meaningful cautionary statements identifying
important factors that could cause actual results to differ
materially from those in the statement. A company providing
projections cannot simply include a generic list of factors that
might affect future performance, but instead, must list the
principal or important sources of variances from projections.
Here, the Defendants did not disclose any specific concerns, but
instead offered generic statements. The alleged misstatements do
not fall within the PSLRA's safe harbor.

Failure to Allege That Statements Were False At Time They Were
Made

Defendants argue that Plaintiff fails to allege that any
statements were false at the time they were made. Under the
PSLRA, a complaint must specify each statement alleged to have
been misleading and the reason or reasons why the statement is
misleading. The facts presented in plaintiff's complain are
sufficient to support a reasonable belief as to the misleading
nature of the statements or omissions.

Scienter

Defendants argue that even if plaintiff had alleged actionable
misstatement, the complaint should still be dismissed because
Plaintiff failed to meet its burden to allege facts giving rise
to a strong inference of scienter. For actions brought under Rule
10b-5, a plaintiff "must prove that the defendant acted with
scienter, 'a mental state embracing intent to deceive,
manipulate, or defraud.'

The inference that the defendant acted with scienter need not be
irrefutable, but it must be more than merely reasonable or
permissible it must be cogent and compelling, thus strong in
light of other explanations. When making this determination, the
court must review all allegations holistically. The complaint
sufficiently alleges facts showing that defendant knew the
statements were false or misleading.

Loss Causation

Defendants contend that Plaintiff has failed to adequately allege
loss causation. For securities fraud actions brought under Rule
10b-5, plaintiffs must plead adequately transaction causation as
well as loss causation.

Plaintiffs contend that the third quarter 2016 operating results
revealed the truth about the inability to successfully integrate
Flagstone and Private Brands and that if Defendants had revealed
the truth earlier, TreeHouse stock would not have traded at such
inflated levels.  This is adequate under Rule8(a), as well as any
heightened pleading standard, to allege loss causation.

Failure to Plead That Individual Defendants Made Certain Alleged
Misstatements

Defendants argue that Plaintiff has failed to plead that the
individual defendants made certain alleged misstatements. To
plead Rule 10b-5 liability as to an individual, a plaintiff must
show that the particular defendants actually made the untrue
statements of material fact at issue. 17 C.F.R. Section 240.10B-
5(b).  Therefore, corporate insiders are not liable under Rule
10b-5 unless they make the alleged misstatements under the Janus
standard. Plaintiff has adequately shown that the individual
defendants made certain alleged misstatements.

Defendants' motion to dismiss is denied.

A full-text copy of the District Court's February 12, 2018
Memorandum Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/y9edpvj8
from Leagle.com.

Annemarie Tarara, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Elizabeth Camper
Lyons --  elyons@lksu.com -- Lawrence, Kamin, Saunders, &
Uhlenhop, Llc, John Scott Monical-jmonical@LKSU.com -- Lawrence,
Kamin, Saunders & Uhlenhop, Mitchell Benjamin Goldberg, Lawrence,
Kamin, Saunders & Uhlenhop & Peter E. Cooper, Lawrence, Kamin,
Saunders & Uhlenhop, 300 S Wacker Dr Ste 500. Chicago, IL 60608.
Ivan Barenbaum, Plaintiff, represented by John Scott Monical,
Lawrence, Kamin, Saunders & Uhlenhop.

Treehouse Foods, Inc., Sam K Reed, Dennis F. Riordan &
Christopher D. Sliva, Defendants, represented by Dan K. Webb --
dwebb@winston.com -- Winston & Strawn LLP, Alexandra Jane
Schaller -- aschaller@winston.com -- Winston & Strawn LLP, James
P. Smith, III -- jpsmith@winston.com -- Winston & Strawn LLP, pro
hac vice, Matthew Robert Carter -- mcarter@winston.com -- Winston
& Strawn LLP & Tyler Gene Johannes -- tjohannes@winston.com --
Winston & Strawn LLP.

Dave Duff, Movant, represented by Andrew Charles Murphy-
acm@ditommasolaw.com -- DiTommaso Lubin, P.C., Patrick Doyle
Austermuehle paustermuehle@ditommasolaw.com -- DiTommaso Lubin,
P.C., Peter Scott Lubin, DiTommaso Lubin Austermuehle & Vincent
Louis DiTommaso, DiTommaso Lubin, P.C., 17W 220 22nd Street,
Suite 410. Oakbrook Terrace, IL 60181.

City of North Miami Beach Police Officers' and Firefighters'
Retirement Plan & City of North Miami Beach General Employees'
Retirement Plan, Movants, represented by Danielle S. Myers --
danim@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd Llp & Frank
Anthony Richter -- frichter@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman
& Dowd.


TURNER OIL: Wins Prelim. Approval of $500K Deal in "Stanley" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. James L. Graham granted the Joint Motion and Memorandum
of Law for Preliminary Approval of Class Settlement in the
lawsuit entitled JONATHAN STANLEY, et al. v. TURNER OIL & GAS
PROPERTIES, INC., Case No. 2:16-cv-00386-JLG-EPD (S.D. Ohio).

Turner has agreed to an amount capped at $500,000 to compensate
settlement class members and class counsel.  Once Turner is able
to calculate its actual payout to class members, class counsel
will apply for an award of attorneys' fees and costs out of the
actual payout amount.  The Settlement Agreement outlines a 30%
attorneys' fee for class counsel.  But the Settlement Agreement
recognizes that the compensation for each class member could
change if the Court determines that class counsel deserve less
than this.  The distribution to class members will be on a pro
rata basis calculated by reference to the number of days worked
in excess of 40 in a workweek during the covered period.  Each
day will be valued by the settlement class member's daily rate.

The class proposed in the Settlement Agreement is preliminarily
certified for settlement purposes.  The parties have agreed that
this class meets the requirements for certification under Rule 23
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: all individuals, who
provided contract Landman abstract title and related services to
Turner between May 20, 2014, and March 27, 2016.

Judge Graham appoints the law firm of Marshall & Forman, LLC, to
serve as class counsel for settlement purposes and the named
Plaintiffs to serve as class representatives.  Judge Graham
directs the claims administrator to send notice of the proposed
settlement to class members in the manner and form set forth in
the Settlement Agreement.  The Plaintiffs are to file a petition
for an award of attorneys' fees and costs by April 23, 2018.

A final fairness hearing is set for June 5, 2018, at 10:30 a.m.
The Court refers the class action fairness hearing to Magistrate
Judge Deavers to conduct the hearing and issue a report and
recommendation.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=r9fWjCag


ULTA BEAUTY: Removes "Devries" Suit to N.D. Illinois
----------------------------------------------------
The Defendant in the case of Meghan Devries, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Ulta
Beauty, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-01219 (N.D. Ill., Feb.
16, 2018) filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from the Circuit
Court of Cook County, Illinois (Case No. 2018-CH-01723) to the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois and
assigned Case No. 1:18-cv-01219 (N.D. Ill., Feb. 16, 2018).

Ulta Beauty, Inc. operates as a beauty retailer in the United
States. The company was formerly known as Ulta Salon, Cosmetics &
Fragrance, Inc. and changed its name to Ulta Beauty, Inc. in
January 2017. Ulta Beauty, Inc. was founded in 1990 and is based
in Bolingbrook, Illinois. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas A. Zimmerman, Jr., Esq.
          Sharon A. Harris, Esq.
          Matthew C. De Re, Esq.
          Nickolas J. Hagman, Esq.
          Maebetty Kirby, Esq.
          ZIMMERMAN LAW OFFICES, P.C.
          77 W. Washington Street, Suite 1220
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 440-0020
          Facsimile: (312) 440-4180
          E-mail: tom@attorneyzim.com
                  sharon@attorneyzim.com
                  matt@attorneyzim.com
                  nick@attorneyzim.com
                  maebetty@attorneyzim.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Craig C. Martin, Esq.
          Matt D. Basil, Esq.
          Paul B. Rietema, Esq.
          JENNER & BLOCK LLP
          353 N. Clark Street
          Chicago, IL 60654-33456
          Telephone: (312) 222-9350
                     (312) 527-0484
          E-mail: cmartin@jenner.com
                  mbasil@jenner.com
                  prietema@jenner.com


UNITED PARCEL: Removes "Vawter" Suit to C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
The Defendant in the case of Brandon Vawter, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. United
Parcel Service, Inc., Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants,
filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from Los Angeles Superior
Court (Case No. BC686104) to the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California and assigned Case No. 2:18-cv-
01318-RGK-E (C.D. Cal., Feb. 16, 2018). The case is assigned to
Judge R. Gary Klausner, and is referred to Magistrate Judge
Charles F. Eick.

United Parcel Service, Inc., a package delivery company, provides
transportation, logistics, and financial services in the United
States and internationally. United Parcel Service, Inc. was
founded in 1907 and is headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kevin Mahoney, Esq.
          Treana Louise Allen, Esq.
          MAHONEY LAW GROUP APC
          249 East Ocean Boulevard Suite 814
          Long Beach, CA 90802
          Telephone: (562) 590-5550
          Facsimile: (562) 590-8400
          E-mail: kmahoney@mahoney-law.net
                  tallen@mahoney-law.net

The Defendants are represented by:

          Claire A Hoffmann, Esq.
          GRUBE BROWN AND GEIDT LLP
          601 Montgomery Street Suite 1150
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 603-5000
          Facsimile: (415) 840-7210
          E-mail: clairehoffmann@gbgllp.com

               - and -

          E. Jeffrey Grube, Esq.
          GRUBE BROWN AND GEIDT LLP
          601 Montgomery Street Suite 1150
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 603-5001
          Facsimile: (415) 840-7210
          E-mail: jeffgrube@gbgllp.com

               - and -

          Elizabeth Alexandra Brown, Esq.
          GRUBE BROWN AND GEIDT LLP
          601 Montgomery Street, Suite 1150
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 603-5000
          Facsimile: (415) 840-7210
          E-mail: lisabrown@gbgllp.com

               - and -

          Amanda Bolliger Crespo, Esq.
          GRUBE BROWN &GEIDT LLP
          633 West 5th Street, Suite 3330
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 358-2810
          Facsimile: (213) 995-6382
          E-mail: amandacrespo@gbgllp.com


UNITED STATES: Ramirez Moves to Certify Class of Immigrant Teens
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit entitled WILMER GARCIA RAMIREZ,
SULMA HERNANDEZ ALFARO, on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated v. U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT
(ICE); THOMAS HOMAN, Acting Director of ICE; DEPARTMENT OF
HOMELAND SECURITY; KIRSTJEN NIELSEN, Secretary of Homeland
Security, Case No. 1:18-cv-00508-RC (D.D.C.), ask the Court to
certify a class defined as:

     All former unaccompanied alien children who are detained or
     will be detained by ICE after being transferred by ORR
     because they have turned 18 years of age and as to whom ICE
     did not consider placement in the least restrictive setting
     available, including alternative to detention programs, as
     required by 8 U.S.C. Section 1232(c)(2)(B).

The Plaintiffs contend that they are immigrant teenagers, who
were summarily locked up by Defendant U.S. Immigration and
Customs Enforcement (ICE) in adult detention facilities, without
any consideration of less restrictive alternatives -- such as
release to a sponsor or placement in a group home -- when they
turned 18.  They also ask the Court to appoint them as class
representatives and to appoint their counsel as class counsel.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=u3o5XVXI

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Tia T. Trout Perez, Esq.
          KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
          655 Fifteenth St., NW
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 879-5000
          Facsimile: (202) 879-5200
          E-mail: tia.trout-perez@kirkland.com

               - and -

          Stephen R. Patton, Esq.
          Anne K.H. Reser, Esq.
          KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
          300 North LaSalle
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 862-2000
          Facsimile: (312) 862-2200
          E-mail: stephen.patton@kirkland.com
                  anne.reser@kirkland.com

               - and -

          Katherine Melloy Goettel, Esq.
          NATIONAL IMMIGRANT JUSTICE CENTER
          208 South LaSalle Street, Suite 1300
          Chicago, IL 60604
          Telephone: (312) 660-1335
          Facsimile: (312) 660-1505
          E-mail: kgoettel@heartlandalliance.org

The Defendants are represented by:

          William Peachey, Esq.
          Colin Kisor, Esq.
          UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, CIVIL DIVISION
          OFFICE OF IMMIGRATION LITIGATION
          P.O. Box 868, Ben Franklin Station
          Washington, DC 20044
          Telephone: (202) 353-4419
          Facsimile: (202) 305-7000
          E-mail: William.Peachey@usdoj.gov
                  Colin.kisor@usdoj.gov

               - and -

          Daniel Van Horn, Esq.
          Wynne Kelly, Esq.
          U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
          DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
          555 4th Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20530
          Telephone: (202) 252-7566
          E-mail: Daniel.VanHorn@usdoj.gov
                  Wynne.Kelly@usdoj.gov


WAL-MART STORES: Goins Moves for Class Certification Under TCPA
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit entitled Amber Goins, on behalf of
herself and others similarly situated v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.,
d/b/a Walmart and Palmer Recovery Attorneys, PLLC, f/k/a Palmer,
Reifler & Associates, Case No. 6:17-cv-00654-GAP-KRS (M.D. Fla.),
asks the Court to certify this class under the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act:

     All persons and entities throughout the United States (1) to
     whom Palmer Recovery Attorneys, PLLC, on behalf of Wal-Mart
     Stores, Inc., placed, or caused to be placed, more than one
     call, (2) directed to a number assigned to a cellular
     telephone service, but not assigned to the intended
     recipient of Palmer Recovery Attorneys, PLLC's calls, (3)
     via vendor TCN Incorporated, (4) from April 6, 2013 through
     the date of class certification.

Ms. Goins also asks the Court to appoint her as the class
representative and to appoint appoint Greenwald Davidson Radbil
PLLC as class counsel.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=CM6koHGl

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael L. Greenwald, Esq.
          James L. Davidson, Esq.
          Jesse S. Johnson, Esq.
          GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC
          5550 Glades Road, Suite 500
          Boca Raton, FL 33431
          Telephone: (561) 826-5477
          Facsimile: (561) 961-5684
          E-mail: mgreenwald@gdrlawfirm.com
                  jdavidson@gdrlawfirm.com
                  jjohnson@gdrlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Aaron D. Radbil, Esq.
          GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC
          106 East Sixth Street, Suite 913
          Austin, TX 78701
          Telephone: (512) 322-3912
          Facsimile: (561) 961-5684
          E-mail: aradbil@gdrlawfirm.com


WALTERS & MASON: Fails to Pay Overtime, "Teixeira" Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------
TENDAI TEIXEIRA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WALTERS & MASON RETAIL, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-00717-RK (E.D. Pa., Feb. 16, 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 and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act.

Ms. Teixeira was employed by the Defendant on December 4, 2017 to
January 13, 2018, as an assistant store manager at the
Defendant's King of Prussia, Pennsylvania store.

Walters & Mason Retail Inc., doing business as Altar'd State,
owns and operates fashion boutiques. The company offers apparel
including tops, sweaters, jackets and coats, shorts, and skirts.
Walters & Mason Retail Inc. was founded in 2009 and is based in
Knoxville, Tennessee. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Peter Winebrake, Esq.
          R. Andrew Santillo, Esq.
          Mark J. Gottesfeld, Esq.
          WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC
          715 Twining Road, Suite 211
          Dresher, PA 19025
          Telephone: (215) 884-2491


WEBCOLLEX LLC: Conde Alleges Wrongful Debt Collection Conduct
-------------------------------------------------------------
Fernando Conde, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Webcollex, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:18-
cv-14060-KAM (S.D. Fla., Feb. 16, 2018), seeks to stop the
Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Webcollex, LLC is a Virginia Limited Liability Company doing
business as CKS Financial and is engaged in the business of
collecting consumer debts, which operates from offices.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by

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


WEINGARTEN REALTY: "Muschong" Suit Moved to Orlando Dist. Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ron Muschong and Milita Dolan, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Weingarten Realty
Investors, Defendant, was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of Florida, Ft. Myers Division
(Case Number 2:18-cv-107), to the U.S. District for the Middle
District of Florida, Orlando Division, and assigned Case No.
6:18-cv-258-ORL-37TBS (M.D. Fla., Feb. 16, 2018). The case is
assigned to District Judge Roy B. Dalton, Jr., and referred to
Magistrate Judge Thomas B. Smith.

According to the complaint, Plaintiffs have visited Defendant's
facilities and were denied full and equal access due to the
Defendant's inaccessible parking lots and paths of travel.

Weingarten Realty Investors (NYSE: WRI) --
http://www.weingarten.com/-- is a shopping center owner, manager
and developer. At September 30, 2017, the Company owned or
operated under long-term leases, either directly or through its
interest in real estate joint ventures or partnerships, a total
of 210 properties which are located in 18 states spanning the
country from coast to coast. These properties represent
approximately 42.4 million square feet of which our interests in
these properties aggregated approximately 27.2 million square
feet of leasable area.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Benjamin J. Sweet, Esq.
          CARLSON LYNCH SWEET KILPELA & CARPENTER, LLP
          1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Telephone: (412) 322-9243

               - and -

          Chris A. Barker, Esq.
          BARKER& COOK
          501 E Kennedy Blvd, Suite 1040
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 489-1001
          Facsimile: (813) 489-1008
          E-mail: chris@barkercook.com


WEST COAST: Court OKs $1MM "Rincon" PAGA Action Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
California issued an order granting Joint Motion for Settlement
in the case captioned SERAFIN RINCON, et al., Plaintiffs, v. WEST
COAST TOMATO GROWERS, LLC, et al., Defendants. ELISA VALERIO
ESPINOZA, et al., Plaintiffs, v. WEST COAST TOMATO GROWERS, LLC,
et al., Defendants, Case No. 13-CV-2473-JLS (KSC), Related Case
No. 14-CV-2984-JLS (KSC) (S.D. Cal.).

Plaintiffs alleged they did not receive compensation for time
worked off-the-clock while employed by Defendants, and raised
various other allegations related to Plaintiffs' expenses, meal
periods, and working conditions. Plaintiffs also alleged they
improperly were required to bring their own tools and equipment,
were not permitted legally-required meal periods, and worked in
unsafe working conditions.

The Hanlon factors, which are used to evaluate class action
settlements, include (1) the strength of plaintiffs' case; (2)
the risk, expense, complexity, and likely duration of further
litigation; (3) the risk of maintaining class action status
throughout the trial; (4) the amount offered in settlement; (5)
the extent of discovery completed; (6) the expertise and views of
counsel; (7) the presence of government participation; and (8)
the reaction of class members to the proposed settlement.

Under the terms of the settlement, Defendants will pay Plaintiffs
a total amount of $1,000,000. The settlement resolves, in both
actions, Plaintiffs' claims and the claims under The Labor Code
Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) Plaintiffs have alleged for
themselves and on behalf of the PAGA Members who participate in
the settlement Of the fund, Plaintiffs will receive varying
degrees of money, totaling $255,000, in settlement of their
individual claims. $30,000 of the fund will be used to pay
Settlement Administration Costs and $20,000 will be attributed to
civil penalties.

Plaintiffs' Counsel request up to $150,000 in fees and costs, as
approved by the Court. Of this amount for Counsel, $50,000 "would
be distributed only in the event that there are funds left in the
PAGA Members fund after all Participating PAGA Members have been
fully paid 100% of the PAGA Penalties and Wage Penalties
according to the formulas set forth in the Settlement
Stipulation.

The remainder of the settlement ($615,000) will be allocated to
settle the PAGA claims.

The Court will apply the Hanlon factors to determine whether the
settlement is fair and reasonable in light of PAGA's policy
goals.

Plaintiffs state that although they believe in the strength of
their case, they do face difficulties in proving claims that
would rely on Plaintiffs' testimony. Plaintiffs face difficulty
in proving they and the other workers were similarly aggrieved
for purposes of the PAGA.  The Parties have acknowledged the
inherent strengths (and potential weaknesses) in the two cases
and have reached a settlement that will afford all potential PAGA
members recovery. This factor weighs in favor of finding the
settlement fair and reasonable.

Plaintiffs assert they and Potential PAGA Members face the risk
of being bound by an adverse judgment that awards no penalties on
the many claimed violations, particularly should other field
workers, packers, and sorters, be found not to be aggrieved
employees. Therefore, there is a risk of success for both sides,
and both sides would face complex issues going forward should
this case proceed. This factor weighs in favor of finding the
settlement fair and reasonable.

Defendants are offering $1,000,000 in settlement, and $615,000 of
this is the PAGA allocation. This large recovery is significant
for the Participating PAGA Members.4 Also as part of the
settlement, Defendant West Coast will institute workplace
practices to ensure it is complying with California wage and hour
laws. This factor weighs in favor of finding the settlement fair
and reasonable.

The Parties state they engaged in extensive investigation,
discovery and motion practice that spanned several years before
settling the two cases. The Parties traded written discovery
responses, engaged in over three dozen depositions, spoke to
expert witnesses, and filed various motions and oppositions.
Because the Parties have engaged in extensive discovery and
worked on this case for several years, this factor weighs in
favor of finding the settlement fair and reasonable.

Plaintiffs' counsel Ms. Bonilla declares she and her co-counsel
have extensive experience in employment litigation. Ms. Bonilla
declares in her experience, she has observed the significantly
diminished likelihood that these low-wage workers overcome
barriers and power-imbalances to bring independent lawsuits and
claims. Given these opinions, this factor weighs in favor of
finding the settlement fair and reasonable.

Plaintiffs mailed at least one letter to the LWDA, the DOSH, and
Defendants giving notice of their intent to pursue a PAGA action.
Plaintiffs did not receive a letter from the LWDA in response.
Thus, the LWDA has not chosen to be a part of this lawsuit.

PAGA provides for reasonable attorney's fees and costs. The PAGA
does not provide a specific standard for evaluating attorney's
fees in connection with a settlement of PAGA claims.

Counsel requests $100,000 in fees and costs, with a maximum
amount of $150,000. The Court finds the requested fees to be
reasonable and appropriate, and AWARDS the amount requested. The
Court allows Counsel to recover: costs in the amount of
$39,485.99 and a guaranteed amount of $60,504.01 with an
additional fees amount of up to $50,000 that will only be
distributed by the settlement administrator to Plaintiffs'
counsel only in the event that there are funds left in the PAGA
Members fund after all Participating PAGA Members have been fully
paid 100% of the PAGA Penalties and Wages Penalties according to
the formulas in the Settlement Stipulation.

The Court grants Plaintiffs' Motions for Settlement Approval and
Plaintiffs' Counsel's request for attorney's fees.

A full-text copy of the District Court's February 12, 2018 Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/yc8zt5js from Leagle.com.

Elisa Valerio Espinoza, Plaintiff, represented by Jennifer C.
Bonilla -- jbonilla@crla.org -- California Rural Legal
Assistance, Inc., Prairie A. Bly -- pbly@crla.org -- California
Rural Legal Assistance, Inc., Cynthia L. Rice, California Rural
Legal Assistance & Michael Meuter, California Rural Legal
Assistance, 631 Howard Street, Suite 300. San Francisco, CA 94105

Guillermina Bermudez, Felix Gomez Diaz, Maria Martinez, Lorenzo
Lopez Pastrana, Arturo Salgado Manzano & Cipriano Capistran,
Plaintiffs, represented by Jennifer C. Bonilla, California Rural
Legal Assistance, Inc., Prairie A. Bly, California Rural Legal
Assistance, Inc. & Cynthia L. Rice, California Rural Legal
Assistance.

West Coast Tomato Growers, LLC, a California Limited Liability
Company, Defendant, represented by Julie A. Vogelzang --
julie@schorvogelzang.com -- Schor Vogelzang LLP, Lisa Marie Hird
Chung -- lisa@schonvogelzang.com -- Schor Vogelzang LLP & Renee
S. Schor -- renee@schonvogelzang.com -- Schor Vogelzang LLP.


WYNDHAM WORLDWIDE: Court Dismisses "Embree"
-------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Middle District of
Florida, Orlando Division, issued an Order granting Defendant's
Motion to Dismiss the case captioned TOMMY J. EMBREE, Plaintiff,
v. WYNDHAM WORLDWIDE CORPORATION, WYNDHAM VACATION RESORTS, INC.,
WYNDHAM VACATION OWNERSHIP, INC., FAIRSHARE VACATION OWNERS
ASSOCIATION, RCI LLC, TERRI DOST, PETER HERNANDEZ and ROB
HEBELER, Defendants, Case No. 6:16-cv-928-Orl-40GJK (M.D. Fla.).

Wyndham operates a global conglomerate of hotels and timeshares.
Plaintiff generally alleges that Defendants engaged in self-
dealing, ignored conflicts of interests, and otherwise used their
position of trust to enrich themselves at the expense of the
putative class. Specifically, the Amended Complaint presses six
Counts: (1) violations of the Arkansas Trust Code against all
Defendants; (2) breach of fiduciary duty against FVOA, WVR, and
the Individual Defendants; (3) negligence against FVOA, WVR, and
the Individual Defendants; (4) breach of implied duty of good
faith and fair dealing against FVOA and WVR; (5) unjust
enrichment against Worldwide, WVR, WVO, and RCI; and (6) civil
conspiracy against Worldwide, WVR, WVO, RCI, and the Individual
Defendants.

As with her initial complaint, Plaintiff's Amended Complaint is a
shotgun pleading, and repleader is necessary. Faced with a
shotgun pleading, district courts possess the inherent authority
to order repleader sua sponte.

In Weiland v. Palm Beach Cty. Sheriff's Office, 792 F.3d 1313
(11th Cir. 2015), the Eleventh Circuit outlined four types of
shotgun complaints:

   -- The most common type by a long shot is a complaint
containing multiple counts where each count adopts the
allegations of all preceding counts, causing each successive
count to carry all that came before and the last count to be a
combination of the entire complaint.

   -- The next most common type is a complaint replete with
conclusory, vague, and immaterial facts not obviously connected
to any particular cause of action.

   -- The third type of shotgun pleading is one that commits the
sin of not separating into a different count each cause of action
or claim for relief.

   -- Fourth, and finally, there is the relatively rare sin of
asserting multiple claims against multiple defendants without
specifying which of the defendants are responsible for which acts
or omissions, or which of the defendants the claim is brought
against.

Plaintiff's Amended Complaint falls within the third category of
shotgun pleadings identified by the Eleventh Circuit in Weiland.

For instance, Count I indiscriminately asserts claims for
violation of two alternative Arkansas Code sections against seven
defendants arising from four separate courses of conduct. The
complaint is a typical shotgun pleading, in that some of the of
the counts present more than one discrete claim for relief. The
Complaint fails to separate into counts the various claims
asserted, depriving Defendants of adequate notice of the claims
asserted and the grounds supporting each claim. In re-pleading,
Plaintiff shall separate each claim to relief based on a discrete
theory and/or series of facts into different Counts.

Defendants' Motions to Dismiss are granted.

A full-text copy of the District Court's February 12, 2018 Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/y79fwc2a from Leagle.com.

Tommy J. Embree, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Bradford D. Barron, The
Barron Law Firm, PLLC, 117 N Missouri Claremore, OK 74017-6831,
pro hac vice, James Matthew Stephens -- mstephens@mmlaw.net --
McCallum, Methvin & Terrell, PA, James M. Terrell --
jterrell@mmlaw.net -- McCallum, Methvin & Terrell, PA, pro hac
vice, John Allen Yanchunis, Sr. -- jyanchunis@forthepeople.com --
Morgan & Morgan, Tampa P.A., Patrick A. Barthle, Morgan & Morgan,
Tampa P.A.,  201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor. Tampa, Florida
33602, Richard Franklin Hatfield -- dhatfield@hatfield-law.com --
Richard F. Hatfield P.A., pro hac vice, Robert G. Methvin, Jr. --
rgm@mmlaw.com -- McCallum, Methvin & Terrell, PA, Timothy Michael
Morgan, Morgan & Morgan, PA & Andrew Parker Felix, Morgan &
Morgan, PA,  201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor. Tampa, Florida
33602.

Wyndham Worldwide Corporation, Wyndham Vacation Resorts, Inc.,
Wyndham Vacation Ownership, Inc., Fairshare Vacation Owners
Association, RCI LLC, Terri Dost, Peter Hernandez & Rob Hebeler,
Defendants, represented by Chris S. Coutroulis --
ccoutroulis@carltonfields.com -- Carlton Fields Jorden Burt, PA,
David Matthew Allen -- mallen@carltonfields.com -- Carlton Fields
Jorden Burt, PA & Johanna W. Clark -- jclark@carltonfields.com --
Carlton Fields Jorden Burt, PA.


XPO LOGISTICS: Pregent Moves for Certification of CS Reps Class
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit captioned ALEXIS PREGENT, JENNIFER
MASSAT, MEGAN KUCHENBECKER and JESSICA CLARK, Individually, and
on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. XPO LOGISTICS,
INC., a Foreign Corporation, Case No. 1:17-cv-00993 (N.D. Ill.),
move the Court for an order certifying a class consisting of:

     all individuals who were employed by the Defendant in the
     company's Illinois offices, as Customer Service Reps at any
     time during the relevant statute of limitations period who
     were not paid for all of the overtime hours they worked.

The action is brought for alleged unpaid compensation, monetary
damages, declaratory and injunctive relief and other equitable
and ancillary relief under the Illinois Wage Payment and
Collection Act and the Fair Labor Standards Act.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Terrence Buehler, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF TERRENCE BUEHLER
          20 North Clark Street, Suite 800
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 371-4385
          E-mail: tbuehler@tbuehlerlaw.com

               - and -

          Peter S. Lubin, Esq.
          Vincent L. DiTommaso, Esq.
          DITOMMASO-LUBIN P.C.
          17W220 22nd St., Suite 410
          Oakbrook Terrace, IL 60181
          Telephone: (630) 333-0000
          E-mail: psl@ditommasolaw.com
                  vdt@ditommasolaw.com


* Securities Class Action Settlement Dollars Decline in 2017
------------------------------------------------------------
Total settlement dollars from securities class actions fell
dramatically in 2017, even as the number of settlements remained
steady.  According to a new report by Cornerstone Research,
Securities Class Action Settlements - 2017 Review and Analysis,
the total value of securities class action settlements approved
by courts in 2017 was $1.5 billion -- the second-lowest amount
since 22008 -- and a substantial drop from $6.1 billion in 2016.

The total of 81 securities fraud class action settlements
approved in 2017 represented a slight decline from 85 settlements
in 2016.  The average settlement value, however, decreased 75
percent from $72.0 million in 2016 to $18.2 million in 2017.  For
the first time in more than five years, no settlement exceeded
$250 million.

"More than half of 2017 settlements were for $5 million or less.
We also saw a significant decline in mid-range to large
settlements," said Laura E. Simmons, a coauthor of the report and
a Cornerstone Research senior advisor.  "A combination of lower
estimates of the proxy for plaintiff-style damages and smaller
issuer defendant firms contributed to this decrease."

The decline in case size is also consistent with other trends.
Historically, smaller cases tend to settle faster than larger
cases.  In 2017, more than 23 percent of cases settled within two
years of the date they were filed, compared to less than 16
percent between 2008 and 2016.

"These data suggest that plaintiff counsel have recently been
going after smaller fry claims where the issuers are not as large
and there is less at stake.  The mega-cases involving large firms
appear to be in the rearview mirror for the moment," observed
Professor Joseph A. Grundfest of Stanford Law School, a former
commissioner of the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Key Trends

    * Mega settlements decline: A decrease in the number of mega
settlements (settlements of $100 million or more) also
contributed to the dramatic drop in total settlement dollars.  In
2017, there were only four mega settlements, comprising just 43
percent of total settlement dollars.  In contrast, during 2008-
22016, 70 percent of total settlement dollars were attributable
to mega settlements.

    * Small settlements jump to record levels: Both the number
and proportion of settlements less than or equal to $5 million
rose to the highest level in the last 10 years.  In 2017, 15
cases settled for $2 million or less (historically referred to as
"nuisance suits").

    * "Simplified tiered damages" decrease: This proxy for
potential shareholder losses is an important factor in predicting
settlement amounts.  In 2017, the decline in median settlement
amount was primarily driven by a reduction in "simplified tiered
damages."  "Simplified tiered damages" is based on the dollar
value of a defendant's stock price movements on the specific
dates detailed in the plan of allocation in the settlement
notice.

    * Size of defendant firms shrinks: In 2017, the median value
of issuer defendant total assets was $547 million, 37 percent
lower than for cases settled during 2008-2016.

    * Accounting allegations continue downward trend: The
proportion of settled cases alleging GAAP violations in 2017 was
53 percent, continuing a three-year decline from a high of 67
percent in 2014.  Of cases with accounting allegations settling
in the preceding nine years, 23 percent involved named auditor
codefendants.  In 2017, this dropped to 13 percent.

    * Institutional investors as lead plaintiffs fall to low
levels: The proportion of settlements with a public pension plan
as lead plaintiff declined to the lowest level in 10 years.  This
decline in part reflects the smaller cases involved.  However,
even in larger cases, public pension plans were less frequently
involved in 2017 than in prior years.

    * Derivative actions reach record levels: The percentage of
settled cases involving an accompanying derivative action was one
of the highest in the last 10 years, driven by a surge in
derivative cases corresponding to relatively small settlements.
Of cases settling for $5 million or less in 2017, 51 percent were
accompanied by derivative actions, compared to 37 percent for the
prior nine years.

    * Corresponding SEC actions remain consistent: Approximately
20 percent of cases settled in 2017 involved an accompanying SEC
action, comparable to 18 percent in 2016.

      About the Securities Class Action Settlements Report

Securities Class Action Settlements-2017 Review and Analysis
examines cases alleging fraudulent inflation in the price of a
corporation's common stock.  The sample includes only cases
alleging Rule 10b-5, Section 11, and/or Section 12(a)(2) claims
brought by purchasers of a corporation's common stock.  This
report's sample includes 1,697 securities class actions filed
after passage of the Reform Act (1995) and settled from 1996
through 2017.  These settlements are identified based on a review
of case activity collected by Securities Class Action Services
LLC (SCAS).  For purposes of this report, the designated
settlement year corresponds to the year in which the hearing to
approve the settlement was held.

                   About Cornerstone Research

Cornerstone Research provides economic and financial consulting
and expert testimony in all phases of complex litigation and
regulatory proceedings.  The firm works with an extensive network
of prominent faculty and industry practitioners to identify the
best-qualified expert for each assignment.  Cornerstone Research
has earned a reputation for consistent high quality and
effectiveness by delivering rigorous, state-of-the-art analysis
for over 25 years.  The firm has 700 staff and offices in Boston,
Chicago, London, Los Angeles, New York, San Francisco, Silicon
Valley, and Washington.




                            *********


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  * * *