CAR_Public/180321.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


             Wednesday, March 21, 2018, Vol. 20, No. 58



                            Headlines


AEG MANAGEMENT: "Bryant" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code
ALLTRAN FINANCIAL: Can Enforce Arbitration Clause Under Agreement
AMAZON.COM LLC: Judge Dismisses Class Suit Over Undisclosed Fees
AMERICAN GENERAL: "Sluyski" Suit Moved to Dist. of Massachusetts
AMERICAN QUEST: Hurtado & Mora Sue over Workers' Transport Cost

AMERICAN TEXTILE: Fails to Pay Overtime & Double Time, Pina Says
APPLE INC: Donahoe Sues over iPhone Battery Performance Issues
APPLE INC: Rosalia & Goodrich Sue over iPhone Performance
APPLE INC: Can't Contact Benelhachemi Without Counsel
APPLIED UNDERWRITERS: Judge Upholds Class Action Counterclaim

AVM ENTERPRISES: Loses Bid to Dismiss Gorss Motels' TCPA Suit
BANK OF AMERICA: Joint Partial Bid to Dismiss ISDAfix Suit Denied
BANK OF AMERICA: Faces Class Action on Illegal Charges
BISHOP OF SONOMA: To Expel Student on Free Speech, CA Says
BJG FOOD: "De Leon" Suit Seeks Minimum Wage, OT under FLSA

BREW DR. KOMBUCHA: Bazer Sues over Probiotics in Drinks
BROADWAY TYPEWRITER: Tiscareno Alleges Wage & Hour Violation
CAFE COUSINA: "Reyes" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages under FLSA
CANADA: Dolden Wallace Attorney Comments on Privacy Class Action
CAPITAL ONE: NAACP Files Racial Discrimination Class Action

CAREFIRST INC: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss "Ades" Suit
CASH CALL: Can't Enforce Arbitration of Lawsuit, 3rd Cir. Rules
CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG: Benitez Sues over Contract Restrictions
CLAYTON PARKING: "Robinson" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages under FLSA
COCA-COLA CO: Judge Dismisses Class Action Over Diet Coke Ads

COMPETITIVE POWER: Class Action Mulled Over Plant Emissions
COINCHECK: Additional 132 Investors Join Crypto Class Action
COUNTRYWIDE FIN'L: BofA Wants Real Estate Appraisal Case Stayed
CRST EXPEDITED: "Childs" Suit Moved to C.D. California
CSRA INC: Violates Securities Exchange Act, Williams Says

DO & CO: Fails to Pay Minimum Wage and Overtime, Guerrero Says
EL TIO PIO: "Yepes" Suit Seeks Unpaid Minimum & OT under FLSA
FIAT CHRYSLER: Judge Trims Claims in Clutch Defect Class Action
FILM INDEPENDENT: Volunteers File Labor Class Action in Calif.
FIRST MARINER: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss "Bezek" RESPA Suit

FLEETGISTICS HOLDINGS: Logistics Managers Not Exempt, Vargas Says
FRED'S INC: Bid to Dismiss 1st Amended "Taylor" Suit Partly OK'd
FRIEDMAN'S 47TH: Demarest Seeks Pay for Uniform Maintenance
GENERAL ELECTRIC: "Haskins" Suit Transferred to Massachusetts
GIGAMON: Wants to Block Class Action Lead Counsel Appointment

GOOGLE LLC: Faces Zombie Video Makers' Class Action
HERTZ CORPORATION: Kurth Sues over Concession Fee Recovery Charge
HSNC BANK: Faces Class Action on $37 Million Ponzi
ILLINOIS: Drivers Too Late to Sue Over 'Vigilante' Police Force
INTEL CORPORATION: West Sues over Security Flaws in CPUs

J.B. HUNT: Underpays Employees, "Wilson" Suit Claims
JAMES SQUARE: Asks Supreme Court to Halt Class Action
JOHN MCNEIL: Refuses to Pay Compensation, Dreher Says
JUSTFOODFORDOGS: "Vasquez" Suit Moved to C.D. California
KERN COUNTY, CA: Faces Class Action Over Juvenile Inmate Abuses

LEAPFROG ENTERPRISES: Settles Shareholder Class Action for $5.5MM
LIFECARE SOLUTIONS: Frando Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code
LIFETOUCH INC: D&Os Mishandled Employee Plan, Vigeant Claims
LITTLE SHEEP: Fails to Pay Wages and Overtime, "Dong" Suit Says
LIVE NATION: Class Action Seeks Refunds for Route 91 Attendees

LYMI INC: Fails to Pay Timely Wages Upon Termination, Ajin Says
M.A.C. COSMETICS: Monteon Sues over Wage and Hour Violations
MDL 2814: 110 Suits Transferred to Central Dist. of California
MICHAEL KORS: "Lucas" Suit Moved to Central Dist. of California
MLB ADVANCED: Faces Class Action Over Subscription Renewal

MONSANTO COMPANY: Butlers Sue over Sales of Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Conley et al., Sue over Sales of Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Hymases Sue over Sales of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Pertuits Sue over Sales of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Pica Sues over Sales of Herbicide Roundup

MONSANTO COMPANY: Rasey Sues over Sales of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Upshaws Sue over Sales of Herbicide Roundup
MSP CROSSROADS: $650K Settlement in "Soderstrom" Has Final OK
NAVIENT CORP: Levi & Korsinsky to Lead in Securities Suit
NEW MEXICO: "Coss" Suit vs. Tax Dept Moved to Federal District

NEW PRIME: Supreme Court to Hear Appeal in Arbitration Case
NORTH PLAZA RESTAURANT: "Dimalanta" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages
OCHLAR INCORPORATED: Roman Seeks Minimum Wages under Labor Law
OWL INC: "Whaley" Suit Seeks Overtime Wages under FLSA
PARADIES-LONG BEACH: No Meal & Rest Breaks, "Lopez" Suit Says

PARAMOUNT OF OAK PARK: Insurer Denies Coverage in Biometrics Suit
PDR VOICE: Engelman Alleges Sexual Assault by Voice Coach
PERSONAL-TOUCH: Fails to Pay Wages & Overtime, Belabarodaya Says
PETROLEO BRASILEIRO: Court Preliminarily Approves Settlement
PLANET HOLLYWOOD: Padder Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Law

PRAXAIR INC: "Hassan" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code
PROFESSIONAL DIVERSITY: Gerbie Sues over Spam Text Messages
RASH CURTIS: Summary Judgment Bid in "McMillion" Partly OK'd
RH: Securities Class Action Survives Motion to Dismiss
RIVERPARK OPERATING: Padder Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Law

ROHRER CORP: Cameron Sues over Collection of Biometric Data
SAKE HIBACHI: "Williams" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages under FLSA
SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CA: Court Denies Certification of Minors Class
SAN FRANCISCO, CA: Judge Certifies Money Bail Class Action
SIMPLIFIED LABOR: Garcia Alleges Inaccurate Wage Statements

SMALL PLANET: Peacock Alleges Mislabeling of Frozen Products
SMART SYSTEMS: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages & OT, Ascencio Says
SOLARWORLD INDUSTRIES: Court Refuses to Stay "Makaneole" Suit
ST CLOUD UNIVERSITY: Title IX Suit Granted Class-Action Status
STATE FARM: Court Partly Grants Bid to Dismiss "McKinnie" Suit

STONELEIGH RECOVERY: Ct. Denies Bid to Certify Order in "Cadillo"
TANDOORI TOUCH: "Rosales" Suit Seeks Minimum Wage under FLSA
TED WIENS: Filing of Joint Amended "Acuna" Settlement Bid Ordered
TOYOTA: Faces Class Action on Defective Windshields
TWITTER INC: Ct. Extends Page Limit for Joint Discovery Brief

ULTA BEAUTY: Sells Outdated Cosmetics, Ogurkiewicz Claims
UNITED PROPANE: Court Grants Writ of Mandamus Bid in "Cullman"
UNITED ROAD: "Taylor" Suit Moved to Eastern Dist. of California
UNITED STATES: "Wren" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA
UNITED STATES: SCOTUS to Review Criminal Immigrants Bond Hearings

UNITED STATES: Sued Over Vietnamese Immigrant Detentions
UNITED STATES: Supreme Court Issues Decision in Immigration Case
UNITED STATES: Immigrant Teen Freed Amid ICE Class Action
VERSACE RETAIL: "Guzman" Suit Seeks Wages under Labor Law
WAL-MART ASSOCIATES: "Garcia" Suit Goes to S.D. California

WELLS FARGO: Sued for Failing to Return Customer GAP Fee Share
WINCO HOLDINGS: "Jaco" Suit Moved to Eastern Dist. of California

* Fleming Opposes Mandatory Arbitration of Shareholder Cases
* Littler Mendelson Attorneys Discuss FCRA Class Action Rulings
* OEMs Face Class Action in Australia Over Takata Airbags
* Sheppard Mullin Attorneys Discuss 2018 TCPA Class Action Trends


                            *********


AEG MANAGEMENT: "Bryant" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TONJA FULLER BRYANT, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated and on behalf of the general public, the
Plaintiff, v. AEG MANAGEMENT OAKLAND, LLC, a California Limited
Liability Corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, the
Defendant, Case No. RG18895393 (Cal. Super. Ct., Mar. 5, 2018),
seeks to recover unpaid wages under the California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was employed by
Defendant AEG from approximately 2012 through February 1, 2017 as
an Event Security Captain. Her primary duties were to provide
security for events at Oracle Arena and Oakland/ Alameda
Coliseum. During her employment with Defendant AEG, Plaintiff
worked various positions depending on the event. Pursuant to
AEG's contract with Plaintiffs union, Plaintiffs hourly rate
varied with the position that Plaintiff was assigned when she
worked.

The Defendant AEG failed to pay Plaintiff and the other aggrieved
employees and class members the higher hourly rates contracted
when they served as security officer gate-primary, event captain
or event leads. In addition, since Defendants failed to pay
Plaintiff and Class Members all wages due to them, Defendants are
liable for waiting time penalties pursuant to Labor Code section
203. During her employment with Defendant AEG, Plaintiff and
other class member were required to use their cell phones to
perform their duties. Defendant AEG routinely failed to indemnify
and reimburse Plaintiff and the other class members for
expenditures and losses incurred by them in direct consequence of
their duties.

While she was employed with Defendant AEG, Plaintiff and other
class members received pay stubs that did not comply with Labor
Code section 226(a)(8) because the pay stubs did not accurately
state the address of the employer. The pay stubs that Plaintiff
and other class members received stated that the address of the
employer was 7000 Coliseum Way, Oakland, CA 94621.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jocelyn Burton, Esq.
          Scott Nakama, Esq.
          BURTON EMPLOYMENT LAW
          1939 Harrison Street, Suite 400
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 350 7025
          Facsimile: (510) 473 3672
          E-mail: jburton@burtonemploymentlaw.com
                  snakama@burtonemploymentlaw.com


ALLTRAN FINANCIAL: Can Enforce Arbitration Clause Under Agreement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Katie Neill, Compliance & Litigation Counsel of ARS National
Services, Inc., in an article for insideARM, wrote reports that
the Eastern District of New York just provided some relief for
agencies embattled with class action lawsuits. In its decision in
Clarke v. Alltran Financial, LP f/k/a United Recovery Systems,
LP, 2018 WL 1036951 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 22, 2018), the court found
that a collection agency can enforce the arbitration clause of an
underlying credit agreement that the consumer entered into with
the original creditor.

Factual and Procedural Background

Donovan Clarke entered into a credit agreement with Citibank.
The credit agreement contained an arbitration clause that states
in pertinent part:

Either you or we may, without the other's consent, elect
mandatory, binding arbitration for any claim, dispute, or
controversy between you and us (called "Claims").

Whose Claims are subject to arbitration?  Not only ours and
yours, but also Claims made by or against anyone connected with
us or you or claiming through us or you, such as a co-applicant,
authorized user of your account, an employee, agent,
representative, affiliated company, predecessor or successor,
heir assignee, or trustee in bankruptcy.

After Mr. Clarke failed to make payments on this account,
Citibank "retained and authorized" Alltran to collect the balance
due on behalf of Citibank. While attempting to collect this debt,
Alltran sent a letter to Clarke.

Mr. Clarke, through his counsel at the Law Offices of Gus Michael
Farinella, P.C., filed a putative class action claiming that
Alltran's letter violates the FDCPA by misstating the amount due.
Alltran filed a motion to compel the arbitration clause in the
underlying credit agreement, which Clarke opposed.

The Decision

The court found that Alltran can compel the arbitration clause of
the underlying agreement under two theories.

First, following the well-established principles of contract
interpretation, the plain language of the underlying agreement
allows Alltran to compel the arbitration clause.  The court
looked to state law to determine the interpretation of the
arbitration agreement.  Here, the choice of law in the contract
was South Dakota.  When interpreting contractual terms, South
Dakota instructs courts to look at the parties' intent, to
examine the contract as a whole, and to "give words their plain
and ordinary meaning" (internal citation omitted).  Using these
principles as a guide, the court found that the underlying
agreement allowed Alltran to compel arbitration.

Clarke unsuccessfully argued that the contract excludes a third-
party like Alltran from enforcing the clause since the provision
only states that either "you" (Clarke) or "we" (Citibank) can
compel arbitration.  The court discarded this argument, finding
that such an interpretation looks at a sentence in isolation
rather than looking at the contract as a whole.  The "Whose
Claims are subject to arbitration?" section plainly states that
the right to enforce binding arbitration extends to parties other
than just Clarke and Citibank.

Second, the court found that Alltran, which Citibank "retained
and authorized" to collect Clarke's balance, was acting as
Citibank's agent and thus was entitled to enforce the arbitration
clause of the underlying credit agreement.

Clarke attempted to argue that case law, including White v.
Sunoco, Inc., 870 F.3d 257 (3rd Cir. 2017) precludes Alltran from
compelling arbitration since Sunoco was unable to do so for the
same underlying credit agreement.  The court, however, found
Sunoco distinguishable from the instant case.  In Sunoco, the
plaintiff claimed that Sunoco fraudulently induced him to obtain
a Sunoco rewards card through marketing materials.  The Third
Circuit ultimately precluded Sunoco from compelling the
arbitration clause because the claims of the suit were "governed
by an entirely separate agreement between [plaintiff] and Sunoco"
and had nothing to do with the terms of the underlying agreement.
In the present case, Clarke's underlying claims are related to
the collection of the balance due on the account, which is the
subject of the underlying agreement.

Taking all of this into consideration, the court found that
Alltran had the right to compel the arbitration clause and
referred the case to arbitration.

Analysis

Many plaintiffs' attorneys file suits against collection agencies
as putative class actions.  Many believe this is a tactic to
secure a larger settlement amount since a class action puts more
at stake for the agency, thus justifying a higher dollar value of
a settlement.  Class actions cost more to defend and have higher
liability for agencies than individual suits. When weighing
whether to settle a claim, these are all items that agencies take
into consideration.

With this decision, plaintiffs' counsel in Eastern District of
New York just lost this bargaining tactic, at least against
agencies who collect on behalf of creditors that have arbitration
clauses in their credit agreements.  Arbitration clauses
typically contain a class waiver provision, where the consumer
agrees to waive the right to participate as a representative or
member of a class.  Since an agency can compel the arbitration
clause, they compel the class waiver provision along with it.

Compelling the arbitration clause is a great way to get a case
resolved out of court without the formalities involved in a
lawsuit.  While arbitration makes the dispute and its outcome
non-public, the other side of this coin is that arbitration is
expensive.  The agency will likely be required to pay the cost
associated with the arbitration, which can cost several thousand
dollars depending on the arbitrator used.  Arbitrators are also
known to "split the baby" when it comes to deciding the dollar
value of any award.  This means the agency will likely have to
pay the arbitration costs and, at the very least, some sort of
amount to plaintiff.

In the end, this decision allows agencies to add another tool to
their litigation defense toolbox.  Especially in a litigious
jurisdiction like the Eastern District of New York, this tool is
happily accepted. [GN]


AMAZON.COM LLC: Judge Dismisses Class Suit Over Undisclosed Fees
----------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a
federal judge dismissed a class action on Feb. 26 that accused
Amazon of charging people annual Amazon Prime fees without their
knowledge or consent.

The case is LAURA MAKENNA, REGINALD SCOTT, LORI MARIE WEAVER,
MARK CASTRO, and DRESSTIN WAGONER, individually, and on behalf of
other members of the general public similarly situated,
Plaintiff, vs. AMAZON.COM, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 4:17-cv-
04412-YGR (N.D. Calif.).

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

     Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
     Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
     Meghan E. George, Esq.
     Thomas E. Wheeler, Esq.
     Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman, P.C.
     21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780
     Woodland Hills, CA 91367
     Tel: 877-206-4741
     Fax: 866-633-0228
     Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
            abacon@toddflaw.com
            mgeorge@toddflaw.com


AMERICAN GENERAL: "Sluyski" Suit Moved to Dist. of Massachusetts
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Kristen Sluyski, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
American General Life Insurance Company, the Defendant, No. 0101-
7033289, was removed from the to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts (Boston) on March 2, 2018. The District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:18-cv-10411 to the proceeding.

American General offers life insurance products for the
individuals. It provides universal, index universal, variable
universal, whole life, and term life insurance products. The
company was incorporated in 1960 and is based in Houston, Texas.
American General Life Insurance Company, Inc.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark B. Ryan, Esq.
          RYAN LAW LLC
          481 Great Road, Suite 19
          Acton, MA 01720
          Telephone: (978) 264 9966
          Facsimile: (978) 264 9979
          E-mail: MRyan@RyanLawLLC.com

Attorneys for American General Life Insurance Company:

          Christine Kingston, Esq.
          Kevin P. Polansky, Esq.
          Matthew G. Lindenbaum, Esq.
          NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH LLP
          One Post Office Square, 30th Floor
          Boston, MA 02109
          Telephone: (617) 217 4700
          Facsimile: (617) 217 4710
          E-mail: christine.kingston@nelsonmullins.com
                  kevin.polansky@nelsonmullins.com
                  Matthew.lindenbaum@nelsonmullins.com


AMERICAN QUEST: Hurtado & Mora Sue over Workers' Transport Cost
---------------------------------------------------------------
According to the case, JENNIFER HURTADO and ALMA MORA, on behalf
of themselves and similarly situated employees, the Plaintiffs,
v. QUEST STAFFING SOLUTIONS, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 2018-
CH-0290 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty., Mar. 6, 2018), American Quest
provided transportation to Plaintiffs and similarly situated
employees to the company's third party client companies,
including, but not limited to, Vision and Vee Pak, where the
plaintiffs worked.  American Quest charged at least $5.00 per day
to Plaintiffs and similarly situated employees for the
transportation that it provided to and from Defendant's third
party client companies.

The lawsuit contends that the Illinois Day and Temporary Labor
Services Act provides that a staffing agency or its contractor or
agent "shall charge no fee to transport a day or temporary
laborer to or from the designated work site. American Quest
Staffing's practice of charging Plaintiffs and similarly situated
employees for transportation resulted in Plaintiff and similarly
situated employees' wages falling below the Illinois mandated
minimum rate of pay for all time worked during individual work
weeks in their employment.

The Defendant is in the business of recruiting temporary laborers
and selling the labor of such laborers for a fee. Defendant was
Plaintiffs' employer. Hurtado worked for Defendant from early
March, 2017 through mid December 2017. Morales worked for
Defendant from early August 2017 through mid December 2017.

Hurtado and Morales were assigned to work at Defendant's third
party clients companies, Vision, in Bolingbrook, Illinois and Vee
Pak, in Hodgkins, Illinois. The Plaintiffs were paid at an hourly
rate of approximately $8.25 for all time worked when they began
working for Defendant. The Plaintiffs eventually received a raise
to approximately $10.00 per hour in approximately late July
2017.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Alvar Ayala, Esq.
          CHRISTOPHER J WILLIAMS WORKERS' LAW OFFICE PC
          53 W. Jackson blvd., Suite 701
          Chicago, IL 60605
          Telephone: (312) 795 9121


AMERICAN TEXTILE: Fails to Pay Overtime & Double Time, Pina Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT PINA, an individual, on his own behalf and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN TEXTILE
MAINTENANCE COMPANY, a California corporation; BRADLEY J. SHAMES,
an individual; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, the Defendant,
Case No. BC696974 (S.D. Fla., Mar. 7, 2018), seeks to recover
correct overtime and double time compensation in violation of the
California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, sometime in 2005, the Plaintiff was
hired at linen rental department of Defendants. The Defendants
ATMC offers linen rental services to medical facilities and
restaurants. Shames and ATMC use the fictitious business names,
Medico Professional Linen Services and Republic Master Chefs. The
Plaintiff's duties included, but not limited to, maintaining the
linens and delivering them to customers. Plaintiff clocked in and
out of his shift using his finger print on a timeclock system
called "Schlage Handunch (TM) JHP 3K".

Throughout his employment with Defendants, Defendants failed to
pay Plaintiff all of his overtime and double-time wages. The
Plaintiff's timesheets were submitted weekly, but Plaintiff was
strictly ordered not to bill overtime hours than allowed, no
matter how many overtime he did during the week. When he
complained about it to a supervisor, Mr. Donaldson, he told
Plaintiff not to contact him about these issues.

American Textile, doing business as Republic Master Chefs,
provides textile rental services to the restaurant, hospitality,
and tourism industries in Southern California. It offers
uniforms, such as chef coats, cook shirts, chef pants, chef caps,
bus coats, waiter coats, and server vests.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Young W. Ryu, Esq.
          Jesse Yanco, Esq.
          Jordan T. Wada, Esq.
          LOYR, APC
          3130 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 204
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Telephone: (888) 365 8686
          Facsimile: (800) 576 1170
          E-mail: young.ryu@loywr.com
                  jesse.yanco@loywr.com
                  jordan.wada@loywr.com


APPLE INC: Donahoe Sues over iPhone Battery Performance Issues
--------------------------------------------------------------
Carter Donahoe, the Plaintiff, v. Apple, Inc., the Defendant,
Case No. CV18894080 (Ohio Ct. of Common Pleas, Cuyahoga County,
Mar. 6, 2018), seeks to recover damages arising from Apple's
failure, despite years of knowledge, to inform them that simply
replacing the battery on their iPhones would return the iPhone's
performance to "normal," while instead providing inaccurate
information on which the customers relied to their damage.

The Defendant sold hundreds of millions of the iPhone 6 and 6s,
including millions in Ohio. For many years, starting as early as
2015, many thousands of users of the iPhone in Ohio, including
Plaintiff, experienced random, unexpected shut downs, dropped
calls or other performance issues under normal operating
conditions. Although the battery appeared to be sufficiently
charged when these issues occurred, in fact degradation of the
battery was the cause of the issues.

Apple recently has admitted that it knew these issues were caused
by the batteries in the iPhones, that the problem was common to
all of the batteries installed in the iPhones, and that
replacement of the batteries would restore the iPhones to normal
performance. Prior to Apple's recent announcement, customers who
complained about the issues with their iPhones were not told that
they could replace the batteries and restore their iPhones to
normal performance. Instead, they were told that they needed to
either purchase replacement iPhones or upgrade to a newer model.

Further, Apple had made public statements which misled customers
into believing the issues they were experiencing were not caused
by the batteries. Ohio consumers who purchased replacement
iPhones were damaged because the replacements were not necessary;
and, in fact, the refurbished replacement phones were worth less
than their original phones would have been if they had simply
replaced the batteries.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James S. Wertheim, Esq.
          JAMES S WERTHEIM LLC
          24700 Chagrin Blvd., Suite 309
          Beachwood, OH 44122
          Telephone: (216) 902 1719
          E-mail: wertheimjim@gmail.com


APPLE INC: Rosalia & Goodrich Sue over iPhone Performance
---------------------------------------------------------
SHERI ROSALIA and TANYA GOODRICH on their own behalf and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v.
APPLE, INC., and DOES 1 THROUGH 10 Defendants, Case No. CGC-18-
564832 (Cal. Super. Ct., Mar. 6, 2018), alleges that numerous
versions of the Apple iPhone suffer from a design defect: the
processor sometimes demands too much power from the battery, and
it causes the iPhone to shut down without warning. This defect
was a hidden defect, and not disclosed to purchasers. To address
the hidden defect, Apple issued "updates" to the operating system
(the "iOS") that slowed the processor (called "throttling").
Again, Apple did not disclose to iPhone owners that the updates
would have the effect of slowing their iPhones. Frequently, these
"updates" occurred prior to the release of a new version of the
iPhone.

Plaintiffs and Class Members have purchased and updated numerous
versions of the iPhone including the 4, 5, 6, 7 as well as the
"S" and "+" variants. The Plaintiffs and Class Members have
noticed that their older iPhone models slowdown when new models
come out. The Plaintiffs and Class Members never consented to
allow Defendants to slow their

As a result of Defendants' wrongful actions, Plaintiffs and Class
Members unknowingly purchased defective iPhones, and then
unknowingly had their phones throttled, thereby interfering with
Plaintiffs' and Class Members' use or possession of their iPhones
and causing them to purchase new batteries and/or new iPhones,
and have otherwise been damaged.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Thomas J. Brandi, Esq.
          Terence D. Edwards, Esq.
          THE BRANDI LAW FIRM
          354 Pine Street, Third Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 989 1800
          Facsimile: (415) 989 1801

               - and -

          Andrew J. Brown, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF ANDREW J. BROWN
          501 W. Broadway, Ste. 1490
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 501 6550
          E-mail: andrewb@thebrownlawfirm.com


APPLE INC: Can't Contact Benelhachemi Without Counsel
-----------------------------------------------------
In the case, THOMAS DAVIDSON, et al., Plaintiffs, v. APPLE, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 5:16-cv-04942-LHK (HRL) (N.D. Cal.),
Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd of the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California, San Jose Division, has
entered an order holding that Apple may not communicate or
contact Plaintiff Adam Benelhachemi without including the
Plaintiffs' counsel.

In Discovery Dispute #3, Apple seeks an order allowing its
attorneys to contact Benelhachemi in order to elicit information
that Apple might use in opposition to the pending motion for
class certification.  Benelhachemi, an Illinois resident, had
been a Named Plaintiff in the putative class action against Apple
over alleged touchscreen defects in its iPhone 6.  Benelhachemi
was to represent a sub-class of iPhone 6 users: people residing
in Illinois who were alleged to be entitled to recover against
Apple under Illinois consumer fraud statutes.

Subsequently, the Plaintiffs' attorneys decided that Benehachemi
was not an adequate class representative and sought to substitute
another Illinois resident in his place.  The parties entered a
Joint Stipulation and [Proposed] Order Substituting Illinois
Plaintiff that Eric Segal would take Benelhachemi's place as a
Named Plaintiff for the Illinois sub-class and that
Benelhachemi's claims would be voluntarily dismissed without
prejudice.  The Plaintiffs agreed to continue their efforts to
secure Benelhachemi's deposition for Apple.

There seems to be no dispute that Benelhachemi, although no
longer a Named Plaintiff, continued to be represented by the
Plaintiffs' counsel.  After some time had passed, however, that
changed. Both Benelhachemi and the Plaintiffs' counsel confirmed
to Apple that there no longer was an attorney-client relationship
between them.  At that point, Apple said it was going to try to
directly contact Benelhachemi and question him.

The Plaintiffs objected to any such contact unless it also
included them.  Apple refused, arguing that, since the Plaintiffs
no longer represented Benelhachemi, Apple did not have to include
them in on any contact with the former Named Plaintiff, now
unrepresented.  Apple's position would be quite sound, if it were
not for the aforementioned Stipulation.

Apple and the Plaintiffs have differing interpretations of what
the italicized language means.  Apple says that once the
Benhachemi-Plaintiffs attorney client relationship terminated,
the requirement that Apple must include the Plaintiffs' attorneys
if it makes direct contact with Benhachemi goes away.  The
Plaintiffs counter with the argument that a deal is a deal.
There is no language in the Stipulation that conditions this
requirement upon a continued attorney client relationship.

Magistrate Judge Lloyd holds that if the language was only
intended to apply when there was a continuing attorney client
relationship, there would be no need to put in the language that
is there.  Apple may not have anticipated that Benelhachemi would
become unrepresented and now regrets that it did not more
carefully cabin its agreement to include the Plaintiffs' lawyers
in any of its direct contact efforts.  But, the language says
what it says, and he will not rewrite it or imply a qualification
or proviso that is not there.  Hence, Apple may not communicate
or contact Benelhachemi without including the Plaintiffs'
counsel.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 2, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/3Dfw7p from Leagle.com.

Thomas Davidson, Todd Cleary, Jun Bai, Adam Benelhachemi, Brooke
Corbett, Kathleen Baker, Taylor Brown, Michael Pajaro, Heirloom
Estate Services, Inc., John Borzymowski & Justin Bauer,
Plaintiffs, represented by David Christopher Wright --
dcw@mccunewright.com -- McCune Wright Arevalo, LLP, Gregory F.
Coleman, Esq. -- greg@gregcolemanlaw.com -- GREG COLEMAN LAW PC -
- David Christopher Wright, Esq. -- dcw@mccunewright.com --
Joseph G. Sauder, Esq. -- jgs@mccunewright.com -- and -- Richard
D. McCune, Jr., Esq. -- rdm@mccunewright.com -- MCCUNE WRIGHT
AREVALO, LLP -- Mitchell M. Breit, Esq. -- mbreit@simmonsfirm.com
-- and -- Paul J. Hanly, Jr., Esq. -- phanly@simmonsfirm.com --
SIMMONS HANLY CONRY LLC, pro hac vice & Richard D. McCune, Jr. --
rdm@mccunewright.com -- McCune Wright Arevalo, LLP.

William Bon & Matt Muilenburg, Plaintiffs, represented by David
Christopher Wright, McCune Wright Arevalo, LLP, Gregory F.
Coleman, Greg Coleman Law PC, Stephen Gerard Larson, Larson
O'Brien LLP, Adam A. Edwards, Greg Coleman Law PC, pro hac vice,
Joseph G. Sauder, McCuneWright, LLP, pro hac vice, Matthew David
Schelkopf, McCuneWright LLP, pro hac vice, Mitchell M. Breit,
SIMMONS HANLY CONROY, LLC, pro hac vice, Paul J. Hanly, Jr.,
Simmons Hanly Conry LLC, pro hac vice, Richard Christian Harlan,
Sidley Austin LLP & Richard D. McCune, Jr., McCune Wright
Arevalo, LLP.

Jason Petty, Plaintiff, represented by David Christopher Wright,
McCune Wright Arevalo, LLP, Gregory F. Coleman, Greg Coleman Law
PC, Mitchell M. Breit, SIMMONS HANLY CONROY, LLC, Adam A.
Edwards, Greg Coleman Law PC, pro hac vice, Joseph G. Sauder,
McCuneWright, LLP, Matthew David Schelkopf, McCuneWright LLP, pro
hac vice & Richard D. McCune, Jr., McCune Wright Arevalo, LLP.

Eric Siegal, Plaintiff, represented by Joseph G. Sauder,
McCuneWright, LLP, Richard D. McCune, Jr., McCune Wright Arevalo,
LLP & David Christopher Wright, McCune Wright Arevalo, LLP.

Apple, Inc., Defendant, represented by Arturo J. Gonzalez --
agonzalez@mofo.com -- Morrison & Foerster LLP, David Ramraj Singh
-- david.singh@weil.com -- Weil, Gotshal and Manges LLP,
Alexandria Armida Amezcua -- aamezcua@mofo.com -- Morrison &
Foerster LLP, Ashley K. Nakamura -- anakamura@mofo.com --
Morrison Foerster, LLP, Christopher Leonard Robinson --
christopherrobinson@mofo.com -- Morrison & Foerster LLP, David
Michael Walsh, Esq. -- dwalsh@mofo.com -- Morrison & Foerster,
Diane P. Sullivan -- diane.sullivan@weil.com -- Weil, Gotshal and
Manges LLP, pro hac vice, Penelope Athene Preovolos --
ppreovolos@mofo.com -- Morrison & Foerster LLP, Sabrina Larson,
Morrison and Foerster, LLP & Tiffany Cheung -- tcheung@mofo.com -
- Morrison & Foerster LLP.


APPLIED UNDERWRITERS: Judge Upholds Class Action Counterclaim
-------------------------------------------------------------
HarrisMartin Publishing reports that a Nebraska federal judge has
overruled Applied Underwriters Inc. (AUI)'s objection to an order
allowing Top's Personnel Inc. to assert a class action
counterclaim accusing AUI of charging policyholders grossly
inflated premiums for workers' compensation insurance.

In a Feb. 21 order, Judge John M. Gerrard of the U.S. District
Court for the District of Nebraska refused to strike the
counterclaim, in which Top's seeks to represent a class of
thousands of "EquityComp" program participants who executed
allegedly fraudulent promissory notes with AUI. [GN]


AVM ENTERPRISES: Loses Bid to Dismiss Gorss Motels' TCPA Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Victor A. Bolden of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Connecticut denied the Defendants' motion to dismiss
the case, GORSS MOTELS, INC., a Connecticut corporation,
individually and as the representative of a class of similarly-
situated persons, Plaintiff, v. A.V.M. ENTERPRISES, INC., a
Tennessee corporation, and John Does 1-5, Defendants, Case No.
3:17-cv-1078 (VAB) (D. Conn.).

Gorss Motels alleges that A.V.M., a Tennessee corporation, sent
unsolicited advertisements by facsimile on or about June 15,
2015, June 23, 2015, July 15, 2015, Oct. 19, 2015, and May 16,
2016.  It alleges that the faxes describe the commercial
availability or quality of the Defendants' products, goods and
services.

Gorss Motels asserts that A.V.M. sent the same and similar faxes
to at least 40 other recipients within the four-year statute of
limitations period, without obtaining the recipients' express
invitation or permission and without having an established
business as defined by the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and
its regulations.

Gorss Motels filed the class action Complaint on June 29, 2017,
alleging that A.V.M. and John Does 1-5 sent unsolicited
facsimiles to Gorss Motels and other similarly situated
Plaintiffs in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
of 1991 ("TCPA"), as amended by the Junk Fax Prevention Act of
2005 ("JFPA"), and Conn. Gen. Stat. Section 52-570c.  It also
claims that A.V.M. did not provide a sufficient opt-out
provision, as required by 47 C.F.R. Section 64.1200.  Gorss
Motels also asserts claims under Conn. Gen. Stat. Section 52-
570c.

Gorss Motels claims that the Court has federal question
jurisdiction over the case under 28 U.S.C. Section 1331 and 47
U.S.C. Section 227.  In addition, it asserts that the Court has
supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section 1367(a) over
its state law claims.  Gorss Motels also claims that the Court
has personal jurisdiction over the Defendants because the
Defendants transact business within this judicial district, have
made contacts within this judicial district, and/or have
committed tortious acts within this judicial district.  Finally,
Gorss Motels claims that venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. Sections
1391(b)(2) because this is the judicial district in which a
substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the
claims in the case occurred, and that they bring the suit under
47 U.S.C. Section 227(b)(3), which establishes a private right of
action.

On Oct. 2, 2017, A.V.M. moved to dismiss the Complaint under
Federal Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).  It argues that the faxes
were sent to the recipients in the context of their relationships
with Wyndham Worldwide, not as unsolicited advertisements.
Second, A.V.M. argues that the TCPA requires an opt-out notice
only for unsolicited faxes; because these were not unsolicited,
A.V.M. argues, this Count must also be dismissed.  It also argues
that the alleged technical violation of the opt-out requirement
does not amount to an injury in fact under Spokeo, Inc. v.
Robins.

Judge Bolden finds that the issue of whether the faxes were
solicited, including whether there was an established business
relationship between Gorss Motels and A.V.M, is better determined
at a later stage of the case.  For now, he says it is sufficient
that A.V.M. is provided fair notice of what the claim is and the
grounds upon which it rests.  While A.V.M. wishes for Gorss
Motels to plead more, A.V.M. cannot argue that it does not
understand the lawsuit.  The Complaint therefore alleges
sufficient facts to give A.V.M. fair notice of Gorss Motels'
claims.

The Judge also finds that the Plaintiffs have not admitted that
they had expressly given permission to A.V.M. to send faxes to
them.  In any event, regardless of the applicability of the 2006
Solicited Fax Rule, the underlying issues are factual and better
addressed at a later stage of the case.  And whether the faxes
were solicited, and whether the faxes contained a proper opt-out
notice is a factual dispute that may be addressed at the summary
judgment stage.  At this early stage, the Judge finds that Gorss
Motels has made sufficiently concrete and particularized claims
to support standing.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Bolden denied the Defendant's
motion to dismiss.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 2, 2018 Ruling and Order is
available at https://is.gd/MEIXba from Leagle.com.

Gorss Motels Inc., a Connecticut corporation, individually and as
the representative of a class of similarly-situated persons,
Plaintiff, represented by Ryan Michael Kelly --
rkelly@andersonwanca.com -- Anderson & Wanca & Aytan Y. Bellin --
Aytan.Bellin@bellinlaw.com -- Bellin & Associates LLC.

A.V.M. Enterprises, Inc., a Tennessee corporation, Defendant,
represented by Eric L. Samore -- esamore@salawus.com -- Smith
Amundsen, LLC, pro hac vice, Erin A. Walsh, Smith Amundsen, LLC,
pro hac vice, Yesha S. Hoeppner -- ewalsh@salawus.com -- Smith
Amundsen, LLC, pro hac vice, Eric Charles Shinaman --
yhoeppner@salawus.com -- Litchfield Cavo LLP & Melicent B.
Thompson -- thompson@litchfieldcavo.com -- Litchfield Cavo LLP.


BANK OF AMERICA: Joint Partial Bid to Dismiss ISDAfix Suit Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ALASKA ELECTRICAL PENSION FUND, et al., Plaintiffs,
v. BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, Case No. 14-
CV-7126 (JMF) (S.D. N.Y.), Judge Jesse M. Furman of the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York denied the
Defendants' joint partial motion to dismiss; granted Nomura
Securities' partial motion to dismiss; denied Wells Fargo's
partial motion to dismiss is as to Portigon AG and EAA, and
granted as to all other Plaintiffs' state law claims; and denied
the Plaintiffs' motion to amend.

The Plaintiffs bring claims under the Sherman Act, and, under
state law, for breach of contract and unjust enrichment.  They
allege that the Defendants -- large banks that dominate the
market for interest-rate derivatives and set ISDAfix rates, and
ICAP Markets, LLC, an interdealer broker that served, until Jan.
26, 2014, as the administrator in charge of setting the ISDAfix
rates -- engaged in a longstanding conspiracy to manipulate
ISDAfix rates so as to extract higher profits from interest rate
swaps and "swaptions."

Specifically, the Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant Banks
conspired by (1) agreeing to "rubberstamp" the ISDAfix reference
rate posted daily by ICAP at 11:02 a.m.; (2) manipulating the
reference rate itself by flooding the swaps market with
interdealer transactions just before 11 a.m. to achieve the
desired rate -- a process known as "banging the close"; and (3)
having ICAP simply set the reference rate at a predetermined
level when "banging the close" failed to achieve the desired
rate.

The Defendants previously moved to dismiss the Plaintiffs' claims
under Section One of the Sherman Act. They argued that the
Plaintiffs lacked "antitrust standing" -- specifically, that they
failed to allege "antitrust injury" and to demonstrate that they
are "efficient enforcers" of the antitrust laws.

In an Opinion and Order entered on March 28, 2016, the Court
rejected those arguments and largely denied that motion,
dismissing only a narrow slice of the Plaintiffs' state-law
claims.  Most relevant for present purposes, the Court held that
the Plaintiffs had standing to bring their claims under the
Sherman Act -- specifically, "antitrust standing."  Thereafter,
the Plaintiffs filed the Second Consolidated Amended Class Action
Complaint ("SAC").

Based on that ruling, the Defendants do not challenge here the
sufficiency of the Plaintiffs' antitrust allegations with respect
to two categories of transactions in the SAC: ISDAfix
transactions (defined as all transactions whose payment or value
is linked to ISDAfix rates); and "vanilla swaps" traded in the
"interdealer market," which the Defendant Banks allegedly used to
"bang the close."

Instead, relying on the Second Circuit's decisions in In re
Aluminum Warehousing Antitrust Litigation and Gelboim v. Bank of
America Corp., the Defendants move to dismiss the Plaintiffs'
antitrust claims with respect to a purported "third category" of
transactions: vanilla swaps transacted outside the "interdealer
market" -- or "non-interdealer swaps."

In addition, Nomura and Wells Fargo move to dismiss the
Plaintiffs' state-law claims for breach of contract and unjust
enrichment, alleging that the Plaintiffs fail to allege any
contract or counterparty relationship with them.

Judge Furman begins with the Defendants' joint motion to dismiss.
He concludes that the SAC plausibly alleges that there is a
single market for interdealer and non-interdealer swaps.  It
follows that the Plaintiffs adequately allege antitrust injury.
And as the Court previously held, the damages at issue are tied
to particular transactions and contracts, obviating the danger of
duplicative recovery.  It follows that the Plaintiffs who
transacted in non-interdealer vanilla swaps plausibly allege
antitrust injury and "efficient enforcer" status and, thus, have
"antitrust standing" to pursue their claims, at least for now.

Turning to Nomura Securities' motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs'
state-law claims for breach of contract and unjust enrichment, on
the ground that they fail to allege the existence of any contract
or counterparty relationship between a named plaintiff and Nomura
Securities; and the Plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend, the
Judge finds that Plaintiffs' memorandum of law does include some
allegations concerning NGFP and its relationship with Nomura
Securities.  The SAC contains no allegations whatsoever to
establish that Nomura Securities had an intention to substitute
its personal liability for that of its principal.  In fact, the
SAC does not mention NGFP at all, let alone include any
allegations concerning the relationship between NGFP and Nomura
Securities.

Having failed to demonstrate that they were diligent in their
efforts to meet the Court's deadline, the Plaintiffs cannot amend
their Complaint again to add claims against NGFP.

Finally, as to Wells Fargo's motion to dismiss the state-law
claims against it for breach of contract and unjust enrichment,
on the ground that the Plaintiffs fail to plead factual
allegations establishing any ISDAfix Transaction between Wells
Fargo and a named Plaintiff, Judge Furman finds that Wells
Fargo's arguments are not without force, as the Plaintiffs'
allegations in the SAC are far from specific, and the
confirmations for the only two Wells Fargo swaptions identified
in the SAC's Appendix allegedly indicate that they were not tied
to ISDAfix.  Nevertheless, the Judge disagrees with Wells Fargo's
assertion that it may consider the confirmations at this stage of
the litigation.  The Plaintiffs do not incorporate the
confirmations by reference into the SAC, as they make passing
reference to "confirmations" only three times and in generalized
terms.

On the other hand, to the extent that the Plaintiffs other than
Portigon AG and EAA seek to bring unjust enrichment or contract
claims against Wells Fargo, their claims must be dismissed, the
Judge says.  As Wells Fargo argues, and the Plaintiffs do not
really dispute, to sustain a claim of unjust enrichment or breach
of contract, a plaintiff must allege at least some relationship
with Wells Fargo.  Portigon AG and EAA are the only named
Plaintiffs that have done so with respect to Wells Fargo.
Accordingly, Wells Fargo's motion to dismiss will be denied as to
Portigon AG and EAA (without prejudice to renewal on summary
judgment) and will be granted as to all other Plaintiffs.

For the reasons he stated, Judge Furman denied the Defendants'
joint partial motion to dismiss; granted Nomura Securities'
partial motion to dismiss; denied Wells Fargo's partial motion to
dismiss is as to Portigon AG and EAA, and granted as to all other
Plaintiffs' state law claims.  Finally, the Judge denied the
Plaintiffs' motion to amend.  The Clerk of Court is directed to
terminate Docket Nos. 396, 398, 401, 417, and 429.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 2, 2018 Opinion and Order is
available at https://is.gd/hrsBhV from Leagle.com.

Alaska Electrical Pension Fund, Plaintiff, represented by
Christopher M. Burke -- cburke@scott-scott.com -- Thomas Kay
Boardman -- tboardman@scott-scott.com -- Sylvia Sokol --
ssokol@scott-scott.com -- Kristen M. Anderson -- kanderson@scott-
scott.com -- at Scott Scott, LLP; Daniel Lawrence Brockett --
danbrockett@quinnemanuel.com -- Daniel Paul Cunningham --
danielcunningham@quinnemanuel.com -- Marc Laurence Greenwald --
marcgreenwald@quinnemanuel.com -- Steig Olson --
steigolson@quinnemanuel.com -- Jeremy Daniel Andersen --
jeremyandersen@quinnemanuel.com -- Jonathan Bacon Oblak --
jonoblak@quinnemanuel.com -- at Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan
LLP; David W. Mitchell -- davidm@rgrdlaw.com -- Patrick Joseph
Coughlin -- patc@rgrdlaw.com -- Brian O. O'Mara --
bomara@rgrdlaw.com -- Randi Dawn Bandman -- randib@rgrdlaw.com --
at Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP; Ronald Judah Aranoff --
Aranoff@bernlieb.com -- Stanley D. Bernstein --
Bernstein@bernlieb.com -- at Bernstein Liebhard, LLP

Genesee County Employees' Retirement System, Plaintiff,
represented by Christopher M. Burke -- cburke@scott-scott.com --
at Scott Scott, LLP; Daniel Lawrence Brockett--
danbrockett@quinnemanuel.com -- at Quinn Emanuel Urquhart &
Sullivan LLP.

Magnolia Regional Health Center, Plaintiff, represented by Stuart
Halkett McCluer -- R. Bryant McCulley -- at McCulley McCluer
PLLC; Michael C. Dell'Angelo -- mdellangelo@bm.net -- at Berger &
Montague, P.C.; Daniel Lawrence Brockett --
danbrockett@quinnemanuel.com -- Jonathan Bacon Oblak --
jonoblak@quinnemanuel.com -- at Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan
LLP.

The County of Beaver, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel Lawrence
Brockett -- danbrockett@quinnemanuel.com -- Jonathan Bacon Oblak
-- jonoblak@quinnemanuel.com -- at Quinn Emanuel Urquhart &
Sullivan LLP.

The City of New Britain, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher M.
Burke -- cburke@scott-scott.com -- Donald A. Broggi --
dbroggi@scott-scott.com -- Peter Anthony Barile, III --
pbarile@scott-scott.com -- at Scott Scott, L.L.P.; Daniel
Lawrence Brockett -- danbrockett@quinnemanuel.com -- Jonathan
Bacon Oblak -- jonoblak@quinnemanuel.com -- at Quinn Emanuel
Urquhart & Sullivan LLP.

The County of Westmoreland, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel
Lawrence Brockett -- danbrockett@quinnemanuel.com -- Jonathan
Bacon Oblak -- jonoblak@quinnemanuel.com -- at Quinn Emanuel
Urquhart & Sullivan LLP.

The County of Montgomery, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher
M. Burke -- cburke@scott-scott.com -- Daniel Lawrence Brockett --
danbrockett@quinnemanuel.com -- Jonathan Bacon Oblak --
jonoblak@quinnemanuel.com -- at Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan
LLP; Peter Anthony Barile, III -- pbarile@scott-scott.com -- at
Scott Scott, L.L.P.; Charles Thomas Caliendo --
ccaliendo@gelaw.com -- Robert Gerard Eisler -- reisler@gelaw.com
-- at Grant & Eisenhofer P.A.

The County of Washington, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher
M. Burke -- cburke@scott-scott.com -- Daniel Lawrence Brockett --
danbrockett@quinnemanuel.com -- Jonathan Bacon Oblak --
jonoblak@quinnemanuel.com -- at Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan
LLP; Donald A. Broggi -- dbroggi@scott-scott.com -- Peter Anthony
Barile, III -- pbarile@scott-scott.com -- at Scott Scott, L.L.P.

Bank Of America Corporation, Defendant, represented by Adam Selim
Hakki -- ahakki@shearman.com -- Richard Franklin Schwed --
rschwed@shearman.com -- at Shearman & Sterling LLP.

Barclays Bank PLC, Defendant, represented by Alexander John
Willscher -- willschera@sullcrom.com -- Benjamin Robert Walker --
walkerb@sullcrom.com -- David Harold Braff -- braffd@sullcrom.com
-- Jeffrey T. Scott -- scottj@sullcrom.com -- Matthew Joseph
Porpora -- porporam@sullcrom.com -- Matthew Alexander Schwartz --
schwartzmatthew@sullcrom.com -- at Sullivan & Cromwell, LLP;
Andrew Zenner Michaelson -- amichaelson@bsfllp.com -- Jonathan
David Schiller -- jschiller@bsfllp.com -- at Boies, Schiller &
Flexner, LLP.

BNP Paribas SA, Defendant, represented by Alejandro Hari Cruz --
acruz@pbwt.com -- Deirdre Ann McEvoy -- Joshua Aaron Goldberg --
jgoldberg@pbwt.com -- Amy Neda Vegari -- avegari@pbwt.com --
William Francis Cavanaugh, Jr. -- wfcavanaugh@pbwt.com -- at
Patterson, Belknap, Webb & Tyler LLP.

CitiGroup Inc., Defendant, represented by Alan M. Wiseman --
awiseman@cov.com -- Andrew D. Lazerow -- alazerow@cov.com --
Andrew Arthur Ruffino -- aruffino@cov.com -- Jamie A. Heine --
jheine@cov.com -- at Covington & Burling, L.L.P.

Deutsche Bank AG, Defendant, represented by James L. Brochin --
jbrochin@paulweiss.com -- Moses Silverman --
msilverman@paulweiss.com -- Aaron Sean Delaney --
adelaney@paulweiss.com -- at Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton &
Garrison LLP.

HSBC Bank USA, N.A. and HSBC Bank PLC, Defendants, represented by
Edwin R. Deyoung -- Andrew L. Fish -- Gregory Thomas Casamento --
gcasamento@lockelord.com -- Roger Brian Cowie --
rcowie@lockelord.com -- at Locke Lord Bissell & Liddell LLP.

Royal Bank of Scotland PLC, Defendant, represented by Jay B.
Kasner -- jay.kasner@skadden.com -- Paul Madison Eckles --
paul.eckles@skadden.com -- Shepard Goldfein --
shepard.goldfein@skadden.com -- Thomas Mcauley Leineweber --
thomas.leineweber@skadden.com -- at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher
& Flom LLP.

UBS AG, Defendant, represented by Peter Sullivan --
psullivan@gibsondunn.com -- Eric Jonathan Stock --
estock@gibsondunn.com -- Jefferson Eliot Bell --
jbell@gibsondunn.com -- Joel Steven Sanders --
jsanders@gibsondunn.com -- Lawrence Jay Zweifach --
lzweifach@gibsondunn.com -- Nathaniel L. Bach -- at Gibson, Dunn
& Crutcher, LLP.

Nomura Securities International, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Joseph John Frank -- joseph.frank@shearman.com -- Brian Howard
Polovoy -- bpolovoy@shearman.com -- Heather Lamberg Kafele --
hkafele@shearman.com -- Katherine Mallory Tosch Brennan --
mallory.brennan@shearman.com -- at Shearman & Sterling LLP.

JPMorgan Chase & Co., Defendant, represented by Arthur J. Burke -
- arthur.m.t.burke@davispolk.com -- at Davis Polk & Wardwell.

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Defendant, represented by Eric Jonathan
Seiler -- eseiler@fklaw.com -- Andrew W. Goldwater --
agoldwater@fklaw.com -- Anne Elizabeth Beaumont --
abeaumont@fklaw.com -- Jamuna D. Kelley -- jkelley@fklaw.com --
Priyanka Kishore Wityk -- pwityk@fklaw.com -- at Friedman,
Kaplan, Seiler & Adelman, LLP.

Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, Defendant, represented by Kenneth Ian
Schacter -- kenneth.schacter@morganlewis.com -- Anthony R. Van
Vuren -- anthony.vanvuren@morganlewis.com -- Jon Randall Roellke
-- jon.roellke@morganlewis.com -- at Morgan Lewis & Bockius, LLP.

Credit Suisse AG, New York Branch, Defendant, represented by
David George Januszewski -- djanuszewski@cahill.com -- Herbert
Scott Washer -- hwasher@cahill.com -- Landis C. Best --
lbest@cahill.com -- at Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP.

The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Elizabeth Vicens -- evicens@cgsh.com -- Leah Brannon --
lbrannon@cgsh.com -- Sue Siyan Guan -- sguan@cgsh.com -- Thomas
J. Moloney -- tmoloney@cgsh.com -- at Cleary Gottlieb Steen &
Hamilton LLP.

ICAP Capital Markets, LLC, Defendant, represented by Brian S.
Fraser -- bfraser@rkollp.com -- Rowan Gaither, IV --
rgaither@rkollp.com -- Shari A. Brandt -- sbrandt@rkollp.com --
at Richards Kibbe & Orbe LLP.


BANK OF AMERICA: Faces Class Action on Illegal Charges
------------------------------------------------------
Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that a
federal class action claims Bank of America illegally charges $30
each time a customer tries to stop an electronic funds transfer
to a predatory lender.


BISHOP OF SONOMA: To Expel Student on Free Speech, CA Says
----------------------------------------------------------
Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that
parents filed a class action against the Roman Catholic bishop of
Sonoma dba St. Francis Solano School for threatening to expel
students if they use the internet to make "derogatory statements
about the school" or its teachers, administrators or pastor, even
if true.


BJG FOOD: "De Leon" Suit Seeks Minimum Wage, OT under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------
JUAN ANTONIO VELAZQUEZ DE LEON, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. BJG FOOD CORP.
(D/B/A DAISEY'S DINER), IOANNIS KAMITSIS , and EVANGELOS
KAMITSIS, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-01386 (E.D.N.Y., Mar.
6, 2018), seeks to recover minimum wage and overtime pay under
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

Velazquez is a former employee of Defendants. The Defendants own,
operate, or control an American restaurant, located at 452 5th
Ave., Brooklyn, NY 11215 under the name "Daisey's Diner". The
Defendants Ioannis Kamitsis and Evangelos Kamitsis, serve or
served as owners, managers, principals, or agents of Defendant
Corporation and, through this corporate entity, operate or
operated the restaurant as a joint or unified enterprise.

Velazquez worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week,
without appropriate minimum wage, overtime, and spread of hours
compensation for the hours that he worked. Rather, Defendants
failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours worked,
failed to pay Plaintiff Velazquez appropriately for any hours
worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any additional
overtime premium. Further, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff
Velazquez the required "spread of hours" pay for any day in which
he had to work over 10 hours a day. Defendants employed and
accounted for Plaintiff Velazquez as a delivery worker in their
payroll, but in actuality his duties required a significant
amount of time spent performing non-tipped duties. Regardless,
Defendants paid Plaintiff Velazquez at a rate that was lower than
the required tip-credit rate.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Michael Faillace, Esq.
          MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
          New York, New York 10165
          Telephone: (212) 317-1200
          Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
          E-mail: Faillace@employmentcompliance.com


BREW DR. KOMBUCHA: Bazer Sues over Probiotics in Drinks
-------------------------------------------------------
VLADISLA V BAZER, individually and on behalf of a class of
similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiff, v. BREW DR.
KOMBUCHA, LLC, an Oregon limited liability company, the
Defendants, Case No. 2018CH02943 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty. Mar.
6, 2018), seeks redress for Defendant's sale of products that
were falsely advertised and labeled as having a significantly
higher amount of probiotic bacteria than the sold products
actually contained.

The Defendant is a producer of various "kombucha" drink products
that are sold in a variety of stores throughout the country,
including Jewel Osco, Whole Foods, as well as many "health food"
stores. Kombucha is a drink product that is made from tea and
added bacteria that cause fermentation to occur. Kombucha is
often advertised and promoted as having a variety of health
benefits, including most commonly that it contains various
"probiotic" bacteria that provide a number of health benefits.

In the context of food products such as kombucha, "probiotics"
commonly refers to beneficial bacteria that reside in a person's
digestive system and help regulate various bodily processes. The
scientific method for determining the amount of pro biotic
bacteria in any given product or substance is by counting the
number of "Colony Forming Units" ("CFU") -- that is, the number
of bacterial colonies that grow from a given sample of the
product.

The Defendant, like many other sellers of kombucha products that
claim to contain beneficial probiotics, advertises to consumers
on its product labeling and through its advertisements the high
number of probiotic bacteria that its kombucha drink products
contain. Specifically, Defendant states directly on its product
labeling that "each bottle hosts billions of probiotic bacteria,
beneficial yeasts and organic acids." However, independent
laboratory testing has revealed that Defendant's product labeling
and advertisements are false and misleading because its kombucha
drink products contain far less probiotics than specifically
represented by Defendant. In fact, Defendant's "Clear Mind"
kombucha drink has been shown to contain only 50,000 CFUs of
probiotic bacteria per bottle far less than the "billions"
advertised on its product labeling. Accordingly, Defendant
regularly sells kombucha drink products that feature false and
inaccurate representations about their probiotic content that do
not correspond to the actual amount of probiotics in the
product.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Class:

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


BROADWAY TYPEWRITER: Tiscareno Alleges Wage & Hour Violation
------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE TISCARENO, individually, and on behalf of other members of
the general public similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. BROADWAY
TYPEWRITER COMPANY, INC. DBA AREY JONES EDUCATIONAL SOLUTIONS, a
California corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, the
Defendants, Case No. BC695668 (Cal. Super. Ct., Feb. 28, 2018),
seeks to recover monetary damages and restitution including
regular and/or overtime wages under California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the Defendants employed Plaintiff and
other persons as hourly-paid or non-exempt employees within the
State of California, including the County of Los Angeles. The
Defendants, jointly and severally, employed Plaintiff as an
hourly-paid, nonexempt employee from approximately March 2014 to
approximately June 2014, in the State of California, County of
Los Angeles. Defendants hired Plaintiff and the other class
members and classified them as hourly-paid or non-exempt
employees, and failed to compensate them for all hours worked and
missed meal periods and/or rest breaks. Defendants had the
authority to hire and terminate Plaintiff and the other class
members, to set work rules and conditions governing Plaintiffs
and the other class members' employment, and to supervise their
daily employment activities. Defendants exercised sufficient
authority over the terms and conditions of Plaintiffs and the
other class members' employment for them to be joint employers of
Plaintiff and the other class members.

The Defendants directly hired and paid wages and benefits to
Plaintiff and the other class members. The Defendants continue to
employ hourly-paid or non-exempt employees within the State of
California. The Plaintiff and the other class members worked over
eight hours in a day, and/or 40 hours in a week during their
employment with Defendants. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants
engaged in a pattern and practice of wage abuse against their
hourly-paid or non-exempt employees within the State of
California. This pattern and practice involved, inter alia,
failing to pay them for all regular and/or overtime wages earned
and for missed meal periods and rest breaks in violation of
California law.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CAFE COUSINA: "Reyes" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------
MATEO REYES, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. CAFE COUSINA RESTAURANT INC, (d/b/a
CAFE COSINA RESTAURANT), MARIA CARINO , and ISRAEL MORAN , the
Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-01873 (S.D.N.Y., Mar. 1, 2018),
seeks to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1 and the New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff was employed as a delivery worker at the restaurant
located at 1350 Jerome Ave., Bronx, New York 10452. The Plaintiff
was ostensibly employed as a delivery worker. However, he was
required to spend a considerable part of his work day performing
non-tipped duties, including but not limited to dishwashing,
cleaning the restaurant, sweeping and mopping and bringing
products up from the basement for cooks. At all times relevant to
this Complaint, the Plaintiff worked for Defendants in excess of
40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage, overtime,
and spread of hours compensation for the hours that he worked.
Rather, Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of
the hours worked, failed to pay Plaintiff Reyes appropriately for
any hours worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any
additional overtime premium. Further, Defendants failed to pay
Plaintiff Reyes the required "spread of hours" pay for any day in
which he had to work over 10 hours a day.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Faillace, Esq.
          MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
          New York, NY 10165
          Telephone: (212) 317 1200
          Facsimile: (212) 317 1620
          E-mail: Faillace@employmentcompliance.com


CANADA: Dolden Wallace Attorney Comments on Privacy Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Contant, writing for Canadian Underwriter, reports that
judges in class action lawsuits involving privacy breaches are
going to become "more accepting of the notion that you can get
money for your inconvenience," a lawyer said on Feb. 23 at
NetDiligence's Cyber Risk Summit in Toronto.

Eric Dolden -- edolden@dolden.com -- a partner with Dolden
Wallace Folick LLP, explained that typically a judge won't
certify a class action when the plaintiffs argue that the breach
is "kind of inconvenient," such as bank client having to go out
and get a new credit card or double check their credit score.
Acknowledging that he was oversimplifying the issue to make a
point, "inconvenience and upset is generally not sufficient for
certification," Dolden said.

"If you had a psychological sequela secondary to an invasion of
privacy, that's going to get you over the finish line." [A
sequela is a condition that is the consequence of a previous
condition or a disease.]

Even though judges typically won't certify a class action lawsuit
simply due to inconvenience, an ongoing case is going to give
effect to this topic.  "You're going to see that more and more,"
Mr. Dolden said of plaintiffs receiving compensation for
inconvenience.

In Condon v. Canada, the Federal Court of Appeal allowed claims
for negligence and breach of confidence to be included as part of
a class proceeding.  The original Federal Court judge did not
include it as part of the class action lawsuit, noting that "it
is plain and obvious that the claims based on negligence and
breach of confidence would fail for lack of compensable damages."

The appeal court decision, released on July 6, 2015, referred the
matter back to the Federal Court to include the claims in the
class proceeding and "to determine the common questions" in
relation to claims for negligence and breach of confidence.

"People whose privacy's being infringed electronically or
otherwise have a right to claim damage even if they have no
actual injury," Mr. Dolden said during the session Claims &
Losses Update.  "[There's cases] where Canadian judges awarded
damage where there's no harm to the claimant, merely the fear of
harm -- my credit card might be used or my personal medical
details might be disclosed to someone.  That's really important
because that's the bulk of claims that as defence counsel we face
in Canada."

In allowing the appeal, Federal Court of Appeal Judge Wyman Webb
wrote that "in my view, the Federal Court Judge erred in law in
evaluating the merits of the claims for negligence and breach of
confidence based on the evidence submitted by the parties and in
failing to address the claims for special damages for 'costs
incurred in preventing identity theft' and 'out-of-pocket
expenses' in her analysis."

The plaintiffs in the case are individuals who applied for and
received loans through the Canada Student Loans Program from 2002
to 2006.  Personal information of these individuals was stored in
a hard drive that had been kept in a filing cabinet at the
offices of the federal ministry now known as Employment and
Social Development Canada.  The hard drive was lost and had not
been recovered as of the appeal decision date. [GN]


CAPITAL ONE: NAACP Files Racial Discrimination Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Cameron Langford, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that the NAACP claims in a federal class action that Capital One
Bank is closing branches in minority neighborhoods because it
prefers white customers, while featuring black celebrities in
commercials as cover for its discrimination.

Established in 1994 and headquartered in McLean, Va., Capital One
Bank says it has more than 70 million account holders. Its 2017
revenue was $27.2 billion, a 7 percent increase from 2016.

NBA Hall of Famer Charles Barkley, actor Samuel L. Jackson and
director Spike Lee regularly appear in its ubiquitous "What in
your Wallet?" bank-card TV advertisements.

The NAACP claims in its lawsuit that Capital One's use of these
prominent black celebrities for its ads is a "devious ploy" to
hide the bank's discriminatory "redlining" campaign in which it
is allegedly closing banks in black and Latino communities to
deny them access to mortgages, car loans and credit lines.

The Houston branches of the NAACP and the League of United Latin
American Citizens and Laurie Vignaud, a black former Capital One
employee, filed a class action against the bank on Feb. 27 in
Houston federal court.

Lead class attorney Benjamin Hall said in a phone interview on
Feb. 28 that Capital One has closed 30 to 34 branches since 2010
in minority communities in South Texas and Louisiana. Capital One
had 731 U.S. branches as of Sept. 30, 2017, according to the
Federal Reserve.

Mr. Hall, a longtime NAACP member who ran for Houston mayor in
2015, said he learned about Capital One's alleged discrimination
after members of Congress told him to investigate banking
industry trends.

"When I looked into it I saw at least a pattern of closures.  I
did not know why it was occurring.  And then I searched around
for witnesses and found several.  Ms. Vignaud is the one that is
most brave to come forward and say, 'Yes I know what is going on,
and I am willing to share that information with you,'" Mr. Hall
said.

Ms. Vignaud worked for Capital One for nearly 20 years and was a
senior director of its South Central U.S. region for more than a
decade, according to the complaint.

She says in the lawsuit that one of her main jobs was to ensure
the bank's compliance with the Community Reinvestment Act, which
Congress passed in 1977 to protect poor people of color from
redlining, a practice in which banks purposely avoid opening
branches in minority communities.

Mr. Hall said Congress specifically crafted that law to stop
banks from discriminating against racial minorities, and that
black and Latino customers should not have to travel to Capital
One's branches in white neighborhoods.

"That's just like saying we are going to put all the good grocery
stores in the white neighborhood and you negros can go over there
and buy if you want to," Mr. Hall said.  "That's not the law. You
don't have the right to congregate good banking facilities over
in white neighborhoods and tell the black and brown customers,
just go into the white neighborhoods to bank."

According to the lawsuit, Ms. Vignaud complained to Capital One
higher-ups about the bank closures and, aware they were violating
the law, they told her and other managers to keep tabs on the
social media accounts of civil rights groups like the NAACP,
LULAC, Black Lives Matter and the Urban League, fearing a
backlash against its redlining campaign.

"They also had people attend events where there might be black
activists to make sure that they were not criticizing the bank,"
Hall said.

Ms. Vignaud, who is also an NAACP member, says Capital One fired
her last September for speaking out against the discrimination.

Mr. Hall said that Capital One encourages African-Americans,
through its ad campaigns, to use its debit cards.

"That is really a devious plan because black customers should be
able to walk into a bank and get credit applications and mortgage
applications, as opposed to just having an ATM card where they go
to an ATM machine to take out money that they have already put
in," he said.

Mr. Hall said he places no blame on the black celebrities Capital
One hires for its ads.

"I don't think Samuel L. Jackson or Spike Lee know anything about
this, but they are unwittingly being used," he said.

The NAACP and LULAC seek class certification as well as
compensatory and punitive damages for alleged violations of the
Fair Housing Act, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, the Community
Reinvestment Act, and the Civil Rights Act.

Ms. Vignaud seeks more than $1 million in damages for claims of
First Amendment violations and racial discrimination.

Capital One said in a statement it is not discriminating, but
being "thoughtful" about where to locate its branches.

"The allegations in this case are baseless and we will vigorously
defend ourselves in this matter.  Capital One has been thoughtful
about its branch strategy in order to provide the right physical
presence in all of our markets that considers the needs of our
customers, the communities we serve, and Capital One," it said.
[GN]

CAREFIRST INC: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss "Ades" Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Judge Ellen Lipton Hollander of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Maryland denied the Defendants' motion to dismiss the
case, RICHARD ADES, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CAREFIRST, INC. et al.,
Defendants, Civil Action No. ELH-17-1557 (D. Md.).

The Plaintiff alleges that he purchased a Preferred Provider
Organization ("PPO") health insurance policy for himself and his
family from Group Hospitalization and Medical Services, Inc.
("GHMS").  Under the PPO plan, the Plaintiff could go either to a
"Preferred Provider" or a "Non-Preferred Provider."  CareFirst
has negotiated rates with Preferred Providers, but not with Non-
Preferred Providers.

According to the Plaintiff, if an insured uses a Non-Preferred
Provider, CareFirst will pay the "Allowed Benefit."  Quoting the
Policy, he states that the "Allowed Benefit for a Covered
Service" is no less than the amount paid to a similarly licensed
provider who is a Preferred Provider for the same Covered Service
in the same geographic region.  If the Non-Preferred Provider
charges more than a Preferred Provider would, the insured pays
the difference, known as the "Balance Bill."

On behalf of his son, O.A., then a minor, the Plaintiff sought an
orthodontic surgeon who was competent to deal with complex
surgery related to sleep apnea.  He chose Dr. Jeffrey Posnick, a
board certified maxillofacial plastic surgeon.  Dr. Posnick was a
Non-Preferred Provider, although the surgery itself was a
"Covered Service."  The Plaintiff alleges that Dr. Posnick was
assisted in the surgery by Dr. Adachi.  He paid for the surgery
in advance.

The Plaintiff subsequently sought reimbursement of the Allowed
Benefit.  According to the Complaint, the total Allowed Benefit
for the surgery was $10,079.60.  However, he alleges that
CareFirst did not reimburse Mr. Ades consistent with the terms of
the Policy.  In particular, the Plaintiff alleges that CareFirst
only reimbursed him for a percentage for the Allowed Benefit,
totaling $5,398.54.  This reduced reimbursement rate was based on
a "Provider Manual," which he contends was not incorporated into
the Policy with CareFirst.

The Plaintiff acknowledges that some of the $4,681.06 difference
between the total alleged Allowed Benefit and the reimbursed
amount was permissible, due to higher deductibles and co-
insurance associated with Non-Preferred Providers.  Nevertheless,
he avers that CareFirst reimbursed him $1,935.35 less than it
should have.  Thus, he claims that the Defendants breached the
contract by reimbursing Mr. Ades at rates lower than contracted
for, and causing Mr. Ades to pay more than the Balance Bill.

The suit followed.  Ades, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, has filed suit against the Defendants.
He alleges, on behalf of himself and the putative class, that the
Defendants breached their contract of insurance with him when
they insufficiently reimbursed him for his son's orthodontic
surgery.

The Plaintiff claims that the class comprises all persons
nationwide who purchased a policy from the Defendants within the
last three years and who received medical care from a Non-
Preferred Provider for a Covered Service, and who were reimbursed
by the Defendants pursuant to the terms of the Provider Manual
and not the terms of the Policy.  The Plaintiff has not sought
conditional certification of the class.

The Plaintiff filed his Complaint on April 18, 2017, in the
Circuit Court for Baltimore City.  The Defendants removed the
case to the Court on June 6, 2017, pursuant to the Class Action
Fairness Act.  Thereafter, the Defendants moved to dismiss the
Complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).

In brief, the Defendants argue that CareFirst is not a proper
party; that the Plaintiff fails to state a claim for breach of
contract; and that the Court should decline jurisdiction under
the doctrine of Burford abstention.  The Plaintiff opposes the
Motion.

Judge Hollader finds that the Plaintiff has stated a claim for
breach of contract.  The Plaintiff alleged in his Complaint that
the Allowed Benefit was impermissibly reduced.  Of course, he may
be wrong.  It is entirely possible that the Defendants'
assertions as to the proper meaning and function of the Allowed
Benefit are correct.  However, at this stage, the Judge must
accept the allegations of the Complaint as true.

The Judge also finds that the Defendants' stated preference for a
proceeding before the Maryland Insurance Administration ("MIA")
carries no legal weight.  Pursuant to Burford v. Sun Oil Co., the
Judge says, a federal court may, in its discretion, use its
equitable powers to abstain from consideration of cases over
which it has jurisdiction in order to show proper regard for the
rightful independence of state governments in carrying out their
domestic policy.  In this case, however, no such independence is
at stake because, as defendants freely admit, there is no pending
state proceeding.

Moreover, the Jude says, even if there were an ongoing proceeding
before the MIA, the Plaintiff's administrative remedy is neither
exclusive nor primary.  The Maryland common law contract remedy
is fully concurrent, and may be pursued in court without
exhausting the administrative remedy.  In addition, the Supreme
Court's decision in Quackenbush v. Allstate Ins. Co. dictates
that the Court must decline abstention as to all counts
concerning claims at law.  Rather, abstention would be available
only as to claims for relief that are equitable in nature.
Because the Plaintiff seeks only damages and not equitable
relief, Burford abstention does not apply.  Accordingly, the
Court will retain jurisdiction over the case.

For the reasons she stated above, Judge Hollander denied the
Defendants' Motion.  An Order follows, consistent with the
Memorandum Opinion.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 2, 2018 Memorandum Opinion
is available at https://is.gd/aC1ldR from Leagle.com.

Richard Ades, Individually and on Behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Jonathan Barry Nace, Nidel &
Nace, PLLC.

Carefirst, Inc. & Group Hospitalization and Medical Services,
Inc., Defendants, represented by Alexandria Kirsten Montanio --
amontanio@gfrlaw.com -- Gordon Feinblatt LLC & George Faulkner
Ritchie, IV -- gritchie@gfrlaw.com -- Gordon Feinblatt LLC.


CASH CALL: Can't Enforce Arbitration of Lawsuit, 3rd Cir. Rules
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dena Aubin, writing for Reuters, reports that a New Jersey man
who filed a proposed class action against online lender CashCall
does not have to submit the dispute to arbitration because
CashCall's purported tribal arbitration panel is "illusory," a
federal appeals court ruled on Feb. 27.

The decision by the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals allows
Pompton Lakes, New Jersey borrower John MacDonald to proceed with
a 2016 lawsuit accusing CashCall and two related companies of
charging illegally high interest rates and creating a sham
organization with purported tribal links to claim sovereign
immunity from states' caps on interest rates. [GN]


CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG: Benitez Sues over Contract Restrictions
--------------------------------------------------------------
RAYMOND BENITEZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. THE CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG
HOSPITAL AUTHORITY, d/b/a CAROLINAS HEALTHCARE SYSTEM, ATRIUM
HEALTH, the Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-00095 (W.D.N.C., Feb. 28,
2018), seeks to recover classwide damages and injunctive relief
under Section One of the Sherman Act and Sections 4 and 16 of the
Clayton Act.

The case arises from CHS's abuse of its market dominance through
the imposition of unlawful contract restrictions that prohibit
commercial health insurers from offering inpatients financial
benefits to use less-expensive health care services offered by
CHS's competitors. This unlawful restraint of trade is the
subject of a separate injunctive action by the United States of
America and the State of North Carolina. This related action
seeks a remedy for consumers who, as a result of CHS's unlawful
conduct, have been forced to pay CHS above competitive prices for
inpatient services through co-insurance payments and other direct
payments.

CHS is the second largest public health system in the United
States. It has what CHS calls 12 million patient "encounters"
each year, or "one every three seconds" in the Charlotte area.
Many of these involve hospital admissions. More than 50% of all
Charlotte inpatient revenues are paid to CHS. Its largest
competitor has less than half of CHS's revenues.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and Proposed Class Co-Counsel

          J. Gentry Caudill, Esq.
          Adam S. Hocutt, Esq.
          DOZIER MILLER LAW GROUP
          301 S. McDowell St., #700
          Charlotte, NC 28204
          Telephone: (704) 372 6373
          Facsimile: (704) 347 0674
          E-mail: gcaudill@doziermillerlaw.com
                  ahocutt@doziermillerlaw.com

               - and -

          R. Stephen Berry, Esq.
          BERRY LAW PLLC
          1717 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Suite 850
          Washington, D.C. 20006
          Telephone: (202) 296 3020
          Facsimile: (202) 296 3038
          E-mail: sberry@berrylawpllc.com

               - and -

          Steven F. Molo, Esq.
          Justin M. Ellis, Esq.
          Thomas J. Wiegand, Esq.
          MOLOLAMKEN LLP
          430 Park Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 607 8160
          Facsimile: (212) 607 8161
          E-mail: smolo@mololamken.com
                  jellis@mololamken.com
                  twiegand@mololamken.com


CLAYTON PARKING: "Robinson" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
MISTY ROBINSON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. CLAYTON PARKING, LLC, and
CLAYTON VALET, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-00350 (E.D.
Mo., Mar. 1, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid wages and other
damages Defendants owe to their employees under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants failed to pay overtime
for all overtime hours worked by their employees. When
Defendants' employees work at more than one location, Defendants
divide the time worked between two paychecks instead of combining
the hours for overtime purposes. For example, employees working
40 hours at one location plus 20 hours at another location
receive no overtime pay. Instead they receive two checks, with
all sixty hours paid at straight time. Defendants' payroll policy
shorts the overtime owed to its workforce. The Defendants
routinely underpaid Robinson and their other employees under this
same payroll practice that violates the FLSA.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
          David I. Moulton, Esq.
          BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
          8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 877 8788
          Telecopier: (713) 877 8065
          E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com
                  dmoulton@brucknerburch.com


COCA-COLA CO: Judge Dismisses Class Action Over Diet Coke Ads
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Stempel, writing for Reuters, reports that a federal
judge has dismissed a lawsuit claiming that Coca-Cola Co's
advertising for Diet Coke misleads people into thinking that
consuming the soft drink assists in weight loss, and that it
actually causes weight gain.

The plaintiff, Shana Becerra, claimed that she and others would
not have bought Diet Coke, which was launched in 1982, but for
the word "diet" and ads such as one showing the soft drink being
poured by a bare-chested man with a well-muscled torso.

In a decision on Feb. 27, however, U.S. District Judge William
Alsup in San Francisco said 13 studies cited by Becerra were
"equivocal" as to whether diet soda causes weight gain, and that
she must prove it does to prevail.

He also noted that supermarkets do not display Diet Coke in the
health food section, and said reasonable consumers would
understand that any caloric savings would lead to weight loss
only as part of a "sensible diet and exercise regimen" dependent
on individual metabolism.

"Becerra has overstated the actual science," Judge Alsup wrote.

The judge separately rejected Coca-Cola's argument that federal
law preempted the lawsuit, which sought class-action status.

A lawyer for the plaintiff did not immediately respond on Feb. 28
to a request for comment.  Coca-Cola did not immediately respond
to a similar request.

Ms. Becerra, who lives in Santa Rosa, California, claimed that
non-nutritive sweeteners such as Diet Coke's aspartame interfere
with the ability to metabolize calories, and raise the risk of
cardiovascular disease and diabetes.

She sued on behalf of California residents for unspecified
damages and an injunction against marketing Diet Coke as "diet."

Coca-Cola relaunched the Diet Coke brand in January to stem
falling sales, and added blood orange, cherry, ginger-lime and
mango flavors in taller, thinner cans.

The case is Becerra v Coca-Cola Co, U.S. District Court, Northern
District of California, No. 17-05916. [GN]


COMPETITIVE POWER: Class Action Mulled Over Plant Emissions
-----------------------------------------------------------
Lana Bellamy, writing for Times Herald-Record, reports that
about 150 people looking for answers to concerns about the
Competitive Power Ventures power plant showed up for a community
forum in the Town of Wallkill on Feb. 27.

Emissions from the ultra low-sulfur diesel oil tests at the plant
have wafted into communities and homes.  Some claimed the fuel
has caused a number of health symptoms, including respiratory
problems, headaches, sinus irritation and nausea.

A spokesman for CPV said on Feb. 27 the plant is abiding by state
and federal emissions rules and has made operational changes
since residents began speaking out about health concerns.

The spokesman also said the company has reconfigured startup
tests to be completed as soon as possible by delaying unnecessary
tests.

The forum was hosted by Protect Orange County, an environmental
activist group that has extensively protested against the plant's
upcoming opening.

Many at the Wallkill forum hadn't attended the group's meetings
or its weekly Saturday pickets.  When the POC Chair Pramilla
Malick asked attendees which towns they were from, the room was
evenly split between Wawayanda, Wallkill and Middletown
residents.

Health professionals, such as Larysa Dyrszka and Westchester
nurse Sam Caquias, fielded health questions, while attorney
Michael Sussman answered legal inquiries.

Melinda Niper of Wallkill asked Mr. Sussman about legal options
to defend her family's property value, in light of the emissions
in her neighborhood.  Her husband, James, said the two have lived
at the house they purchased for $150,000 for 13 years.  But after
diesel fumes caused his wife to have an asthma attack earlier in
February, James Niper said they will take legal action, if
needed.

"We plan to get on board with this group in any way that we can,"
James Niper said.

Mary Lou Deitrich, of Middletown, asked Mr. Sussman if it was
possible for the group to form a class action lawsuit against CPV
for the recent nuisances, and if she should keep a journal of
different ways the plant is affecting her.

"Everyone who's interested in this, or understanding the idea of
a class action, or might want to be involved or present evidence,
should absolutely chronicle the impacts of this on their life,"
Mr. Sussman advised.

The state Department for Environmental Conservation said it would
be at the plant on March 2 as part of ongoing inspections and has
conducted visual monitoring, but not air sample tests.

Orange County Executive Steve Neuhaus sent a letter to DEC
Commissioner Basil Seggos, dated Feb. 23, asking about air
quality testing but has not yet heard back.

An Orange County spokesman said, "People have legitimate
questions about the pollution. The state needs to answer them."

Mr. Sussman said people concerned about the plant need to stand
up for themselves instead of waiting on local politicians to
guide them.

"We need to look outside the box for leadership," he said.
[GN]


COINCHECK: Additional 132 Investors Join Crypto Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
CoinDesk's Wolfie Zhao relates that Coincheck, the Japanese
cryptocurrency exchange that saw major losses in a recent hack,
is reportedly being hit by another lawsuit demanding refund of
cryptocurrency assets.

According to Japanese media outlet Sankei, an additional 132
investors have joined a class action suit filed with the Tokyo
District Court on Feb. 27 that seeks a refund of about 228
million yen (around $2.1 million) in cryptocurrency.

The new case again puts Coincheck in the spotlight once more, as
the exchange has yet to disclose details of how it plans to
compensate victims who saw some $530 million-worth of NEM tokens
stolen from the exchange on Jan. 26.

As reported, following the heist, Coincheck said it would refund
victims with its existing capital.  Yet, the claim has drawn
attention from Japan's financial watchdog, which said it will
conduct an on-site inspection to determine the firm's capability
of repaying such a large amount.

Seven Coincheck customers previously filed a class action - the
first against the platform -- on Feb. 15, according a Reuters
report.

That case sought damages of $183,000 in cryptocurrency assets,
and also demanded that Coincheck pay 5 percent annualized
interest on the amount until a refund is possible.

Currently, Coincheck has only reinstated the withdrawal of
Japanese yen on its platform, prompting an immediate outflow
equivalent to $373 million on the first day of resumption on Feb.
14.

Meanwhile, the platform's plan for cryptocurrency withdrawals and
compensation are still unclear. [GN]


COUNTRYWIDE FIN'L: BofA Wants Real Estate Appraisal Case Stayed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Hill, writing for Law360, reports that Bank of America has
asked to pause a lawsuit that alleges Countrywide Financial Corp.
used inflated real estate appraisals to juice its loan
origination business during the mid-2000s, telling a California
federal judge that it is seeking Ninth Circuit review of her
decision to grant class action status to the case.

The bank urged U.S. District Judge Christina A. Snyder to stay
all proceedings while the appeals court decides what it wants to
do with the bank's so-called Rule 23(f) petition for
interlocutory review.

The case is Elizabeth Williams et al v. Countrywide Financial
Corporation et al, Case No. 2:16-cv-04166 (C.D. Calif.).  The
case is assigned to Judge Christina A. Snyder.  The case was
filed June 10, 2016. [GN]


CRST EXPEDITED: "Childs" Suit Moved to C.D. California
------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Edwin Childs, as an individual
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
CRST Expedited, Inc., a Corporation and Does 1 through 50,
inclusive, Case No. RIC1802172, was removed from the Riverside
County Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California (Eastern Division - Riverside) on Mar. 1,
2018. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:18-cv-00436-
JGB-KK to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge
Jesus G. Bernal.

CRST Expedited, Inc. provides truckload carrier services in the
United States. Its transportation solutions include expedited
van, flatbed, dedicated, brokerage, transportation management,
high value product white glove moving, and expedited temperature
controlled services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edward W Choi, Esq.
          CHOI AND ASSOCIATES APC
          515 South Figueroa Street Suite 1250
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 381 1515
          Facsimile: (213) 465 4885
          E-mail: edward.choi@calaw.biz

               - and -

          David J Lee, Esq.
          DAVID LEE LAW GROUP
          515 South Flower Street Suite 3600
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 236 3536
          Facsimile: (866) 658 4722
          E-mail: david@davidjleelaw.com

               - and -

          Larry W Lee, Esq.
          Nicholas Rosentha, Esq.
          DIVERSITY LAW GROUP PC
          515 South Figueroa Street Suite 1250
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 488 6555
          Facsimile: (213) 488 6554
          E-mail: lwlee@diversitylaw.com
                  nrosenthal@diversitylaw.com

Attorneys for CRST Expedited, Inc.:

          Megan Emslie Ross, Esq.
          Christopher Chad McNatt, Jr. Esq.
          SCOPELITIS GARVIN LIGHT
          HANSON AND FEARY LLP
          2 North Lake Avenue Suite 560
          Pasadena, CA 91101
          Telephone: (626) 795 4700
          Facsimile: (626) 795 4790
          E-mail: mross@scopelitis.com
                  cmcnatt@scopelitis.com


CSRA INC: Violates Securities Exchange Act, Williams Says
---------------------------------------------------------
CHARLES WILLIAMS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. CSRA, INC., NANCY KILLEFER, BILLIE
IDA WILLIAMSON, SANJU K. BANSAL, JOHN F. YOUNG, CRAIG L. MARTIN,
SEAN O'KEEFE, MICHELE A. FLOURNOY, LAWRENCE B. PRIOR, III,
KEITH B. ALEXANDER, MARK A. FRANTZ, and MICHAEL E. VENTLING, the
Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-00407 (D. Nev., Mar. 6, 2018), seeks
to enjoin a Tender Offer or, in the event the Tender Offer is
consummated, recover damages resulting from the Individual
Defendants' violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

According to the complaint, on February 9, 2018, the Company
announced that it had entered into an agreement and plan of
merger with General Dynamics, by which General Dynamics will
acquire all of the outstanding shares of CSRA common stock
through an all-cash tender offer at a purchase price of $40.75
per share. The Tender Offer commenced on March 5, 2018, and the
Company concurrently filed a 14D-9 on Schedule 14D-9,
recommending that the Company's stockholders tender their shares
for the Tender Offer price. The Tender Offer is set to expire on
April 2, 2018. Plaintiff alleges that the 14D-9 is materially
false and/or misleading because, inter alia, it fails to disclose
certain material internal financial information about the
Company, relied on by the Individual Defendants to recommend the
Tender Offer and by the Company's financial advisors, Macquarie
Capital (USA) Inc. and Evercore Group L.L.C. to render an opinion
that the Tender Offer is fair to CSRA stockholders, and certain
material information regarding the sale process leading up to the
Tender Offer, which omissions render the 14D-9 incomplete and/or
misleading.

In particular, the 14D-9 omits material information regarding:
(i) certain of the Company's financial projections and generally
accepted accounting principles reconciliation of those
projections; (ii) the valuation analyses performed by Financial
Advisors in support of its fairness opinion; and (iii) certain
information regarding the background of the transaction. The
failure to adequately disclose such material information
constitutes a violation of sections 14(e), 14(d)(4), and 20(a) of
the Exchange Act, among other reasons, because CSRA stockholders
are entitled to such information in order to make a fully-
informed decision regarding whether to tender their shares in
connection with the Tender Offer. For these reasons and as set
forth in detail herein, the Individual Defendants have violated
federal securities laws.

CSRA Inc. provides information technology services to U.S.
government clients in national security, civil government, and
health care and public health.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

                - and -

          James M. Wilson, Jr.
          FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
          685 Third Avenue
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 983 9330
          Facsimile: (212) 983 9331
          E-mail: jwilson@faruqilaw.com


DO & CO: Fails to Pay Minimum Wage and Overtime, Guerrero Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
J. GUERRERO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. DO & CO LOS ANGELES INC., a Delaware
Corporation, and DOE ONE through and including DOE TEN, the
Defendant, Case No. BC6968802 (Cal. Super. Ct., Mar. 6, 2018),
seeks to recover minimum wage and overtime under the California
Labor Code.

According to the complaint, from August 28, 2017 to October 5,
2017, the Defendants employed Guerrero as a dishwasher in DCLA's
commercial kitchen facilities. Many other individuals have been
and/or continue to be employed as non-exempt workers in
California by DCLA. Wages were due within 72 hours of Guerrero's
last day of work on or about October 5, 2017, but she was not
paid until October 10, 2017.

According to the complaint, Defendants failed to timely
compensate Plaintiff or Aggrieved Employees for all outstanding
wages, and did not routinely provide Plaintiff or Aggrieved
Employees wage statements with all required information,
including but not limited to, the legal name and address of the
employer. Plaintiff was not provided with proper meal breaks
because she and Aggrieved Employees were not permitted to leave
the business premises. Rather, DCLA provided meals for employees
on the premises. Oftentimes, meal periods were tardy and
Plaintiff and Aggrieved Employees were never provided with a
second meal break when working ten or more hours in a day.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alan Harris, Esq.
          Priya Mohan, Esq.
          Min Ji Gal, Esq.
          HARRIS & RUBLE
          655 North Central Avenue 17th Floor
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (323) 962 3777
          Facsimile: (323) 962 3004
          E-mail: harrisa@harrisandruble.com
                  pmohan@harrisandruble.com
                  mgal@harrisandruble.com


EL TIO PIO: "Yepes" Suit Seeks Unpaid Minimum & OT under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
JORGE YEPES and JULIO CESAR ESQUIVEL RIVERA, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. EL TIO
PIO WEST INC. (D/B/A TIO PIO), EL TIO PIO CORP. (D/B/A TIO PIO),
PIO BAGEL EIGHT INC. (D/B/A PIO BAGEL), JAVIER ESPINOZA, PATRICIO
ESPINOZA, CARLOS ESPINOSA, PATRICIA ESPINOZA, and NARCISA
ESPINOZA, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-02038 (S.D.N.Y., Mar.
6, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the New York
Labor Law.

The Defendants own, operate, or control three Latin American
restaurants. The Plaintiffs were employees of Defendants. The
Plaintiffs were employed as food preparers, dishwashers, delivery
workers, salad preparers, grillers and cooks mainly at the
restaurant located at 46 W 36th St, New York, NY 10018.

Plaintiff Jorge Yepes also worked for Defendants at the
Willoughby street location for approximately two weeks and at the
Lawrence street location for approximately a month and a half.

From approximately May 2011 until on or about March 2015, Yepes
was ostensibly employed as a delivery worker. However, he was
required to spend a considerable part of his work day performing
non-tipped duties, including but not limited to cleaning the
restaurant, washing dishes, sweeping, mopping, bringing things
such as sodas up from the basement, stocking deliveries and
arranging the basement and cleaning his stations.

According to the lawsuit, the Plaintiffs worked for Defendants in
excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage,
overtime, and spread of hours compensation for the hours that
they worked.  Rather, Defendants failed to maintain accurate
recordkeeping of the hours, failed to pay Plaintiffs
appropriately for any hours, either at the straight rate of pay
or for any additional overtime premium. Further, Defendants
failed to pay Plaintiffs the required "spread of hours" pay for
any day in which they had to work over 10 hours a day.
Furthermore, Defendants repeatedly failed to pay Yepes's wages on
a timely basis.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael Faillace, Esq.
          MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
          New York, New York 10165
          Telephone: (212) 317-1200
          Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
          E-mail: Faillace@employmentcompliance.com


FIAT CHRYSLER: Judge Trims Claims in Clutch Defect Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kat Greene, writing for Law360, reports that Fiat Chrysler will
have to face at least part of a proposed class action brought by
Dodge Dart owners over an alleged clutch defect, a California
federal judge ruled on Feb. 27 in a decision that trimmed some of
the case but kept alive unfair competition and other claims.

U.S. District Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel ruled that the drivers in
the case had sufficiently shown there was a dispute over the
cause of a clutch defect.

The case is Victorino et al v. FCA US LLC, Case No.
3:16-cv-01617 (S.D. Calif.).  The case is assigned to Judge
Gonzalo P. Curiel.  The case was filed June 24, 2016. [GN]


FILM INDEPENDENT: Volunteers File Labor Class Action in Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Gene Maddaus, writing for Variety, reports that a legion of
volunteers will be on hand at the Independent Spirit Awards,
staffing tables and making sure the event runs smoothly.

But according to a class-action lawsuit filed in Los Angeles
Superior Court, that arrangement violates California labor law.

The complaint, filed by former volunteer Laurie Woods, alleges
that Film Independent -- which runs the awards show --lures in
volunteers with the promise of access to an exclusive event.  But
the suit claims that the promise is illusory, as volunteers are
forced to work long hours without breaks and are unable to
actually attend the show.

The suit seeks class status for the thousands of volunteers who
have worked at the Spirit Awards and two other events run by Film
Independent: the Los Angeles Film Festival and Film Independent
at LACMA.

"Instead of paying Volunteer Employees for their work, Defendants
provided volunteers only with free admission to the event a
volunteer employee was to work," the suit states.  "However, the
value of this 'free admission' was highly overstated and
essentially worthless, as volunteers spent the majority of their
time performing duties under the direction and control of
Defendants."

Film Independent did not immediately respond to a request for
comment.

In the complaint, Ms. Woods says that she was forced to work
12-14 hour days as a volunteer at the 2014 Spirit Awards.  She
says she was also told to come to work early and often stayed
late.

The suit claims that the events are understaffed, and there is no
written meal and rest policy, so volunteers are not afforded
breaks as required by law.  The suit was filed by attorneys
Shaun Setareh and Richard Lloyd Sherman, both of Beverly Hills.

"Film Independent has not yet been served with papers in this
matter so I can't comment in detail.  What I can say,
emphatically, is that Film Independent is now and has always been
committed to treating its employees, members, and volunteers with
gratitude and respect, and we adhere to all applicable labor laws
regarding hiring and utilizing volunteer services.  Over the
years we've been fortunate to work with thousands of volunteers
and we are deeply appreciative of their contributions to our
programs and mission. I myself began as a volunteer at the
organization, as have several other staff members. Many of our
volunteers come back year after year, and to my knowledge not one
has ever filed a complaint like this one." [GN]


FIRST MARINER: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss "Bezek" RESPA Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Richard D. Bennett of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Maryland granted the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss
the case, JILL BEZEK, et al., Plaintiff, v. FIRST MARINER BANK,
Defendant, Civil Action No. RDB-17-2902 (D. Md.).

The Class Action Complaint in the case alleges in one count that
First Mariner violated the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act
("RESPA") by entering into a kickback scheme whereby the
Defendant received unearned fees from Genuine Title, LLC for
referrals.

The alleged kickback scheme in the case involves Genuine Title
which has an extensive history with the Court.  In December 2013,
Edward and Vickie Fangman (represented by the same counsel
involved in the case) filed a complaint against Genuine Title
involving essentially identical allegations in the Circuit Court
of Baltimore County that was removed to the Court in January
2014.  The Fangmans alleged that Genuine Title, in exchange for
the referral of title services on their mortgage loan, paid cash
kickbacks to loan brokers and provided marketing materials for
free or at a drastically-reduced rate for various loan officers
who were part of the mortgage lending process.

On Jan. 2, 2015, the plaintiffs in Fangman filed a First Amended
Complaint naming other financial institutions, including E
Mortgage Management, LLC.  That First Amended Complaint in
Fangman alleged violations of RESPA, Maryland's state-law analog
to RESPA, and the Maryland Consumer Protection Act.  The Fangman
plaintiffs further alleged that Genuine Title and its affiliated
marketing companies provided Free Marketing Materials and/or
"Referring Cash" payments without disclosure on HUD-1 settlement
documents.

They filed a Second Amended Complaint on May 20, 2015, adding
additional parties and clarifying some of their previous
allegations.  Following discovery concerning Genuine Title's
business practices and relationship with other lenders, some
defendants have struck class settlements which have been the
subject of public filings and class notices.  The Court granted
final approval of the E Mortgage settlement on May 31, 2017.

Meanwhile, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ("CFPB") and
the Maryland Attorney General initiated an enforcement action in
the Court on Jan. 22, 2015 against Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. and
JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. predicated on similar schemes involving
Genuine Title.  The CFPB and Attorney General also filed an
enforcement action on April 29, 2015 directly against Genuine
Title, its principals, and affiliates arising out of the same
alleged scheme.

The CFPB issued a press release on April 29, 2015 in which the
CFPB outlined the enforcement action against Genuine Title based
on the same facts alleged by the Fangman Plaintiffs.  On May 1,
2015, the CFPB and Maryland Attorney General announced a
settlement with Genuine Title, and the Court entered a Stipulated
Final Judgment and Order approving the settlement.  The
settlement orders in these enforcement actions explicitly
contemplate related litigation by affected consumers.

Plaintiff Bezek closed on the refinancing of her residential
mortgage loan in December 2010, and Plaintiff Harris closed on
the refinancing of her residential mortgage loan in October 2012.
On Sept. 29, 2017, the Plaintiffs jointly filed the action
alleging that both Ms. Bezek and Ms. Harris refinanced their
homes through Tony Sergi, who was a branch manager of First
Mariner.  Mr. Sergi, who worked in the same branch office as
Angela Pobletts, allegedly referred the Plaintiffs to Genuine
Title in exchange for "Referring Cash" paid through Competitive
Advantage Media Group, a company formed by Brandon Glickstein,
Genuine Title's lead marketing and account representative.

The Plaintiffs seek to represent the purported class of all
individuals in the United States who were borrowers on a
federally related mortgage loan originated or brokered by First
Mariner Bank for which Genuine Title provided a settlement
service, as identified in Section 1100 on the HUD-1, between Jan.
1, 2009, and Dec. 31, 2014.

The Defendant filed the currently pending Motion to Dismiss on
Oct. 23, 2017.

The Plaintiff's counsel, who has been in possession of Genuine
Title's records since 2014 and who processed the data by June
2015, has filed the following seven class actions against other
lenders who, like the defendants in Fangman, allegedly engaged in
kickback schemes with Genuine Title: (i) Edmondson v. Eagle
National Bank, et al., Civil Case No. RDB-16-3938 (D. Md.); (ii)
Dobbins, et al. v. Bank of America, N.A., Civil Case No. RDB-17-
540 (D. Md.); (iii) Callum v. Priority Financial Services, Civil
Case No. RDB-17-0623 (D. Md.); (iv) James v. Acre Mortgage &
Financial, Civil Case No. RDB-17-1734 (D. Md.); (v) Baugh, et al.
v. The Federal Savings Bank, Civil Case No. RDB-17-1735 (D. Md.);
(vi) Ryman v. First Mortgage Corporation, Civil Case No. RDB-17-
1757 (D. Md.); (vii) Bezek, et al. v. First Mariner Bank, Civil
Case No. RDB-17-2902 (D. Md.).

On Oct. 31, 2017, Miles & Stockbridge, defense counsel in both
Edmondson (RDB-16-3938) and Bezek (RDB-17-2902), requested a
consolidated hearing on ripe motions to dismiss.  The Plaintiffs'
counsel, Smith, Gildea & Schmidt, agreed to a consolidated
hearing for the ripe motions to dismiss in five of the seven
cases -- namely, Edmondson (RDB-16-3938); Dobbins (RDB-17-540);
James (RDB-17-1734); Baugh (RDB-17-1735); and Bezek (RDB-17-
2902).  Generally, the motions to dismiss in these five cases
present statute of limitations and equitable tolling issues.  The
Court conducted the requested consolidated hearing on Jan. 16,
2018.

The Plaintiff concedes that RESPA's one-year statute of
limitations would bar the lawsuit, which was filed more than four
years after the Plaintiff closed her loan and two years after her
counsel processed Genuine Title's data.  However, the parties
dispute whether equitable tolling saves her claim.

Judge Bennett holds that even if the Plaintiffs can establish
that she was pursuing their rights diligently with or without
credit for their counsel's actions, the Judge cannot ignore the
role the Plaintiffs' counsel has played in determining the timing
of the action -- and the other pending cases related to the
Genuine Title kickback scheme.

In June 2015, the Judge finds that the Plaintiffs' counsel had
access to Genuine Title's buyers' names, addresses, telephone
numbers, property addresses, settlement dates, lender and in some
cases mortgage broker information, information sufficient to
uncover the scheme in this case.  Even if their counsel's
knowledge is not relevant to the due diligence analysis, the
counsel's in-depth investigation into Genuine Title's records
certainly bears heavily on the question of whether "extraordinary
circumstances" stood in the Plaintiffs' way and prevented timely
filing.

The Judge further holds that the Plaintiffs fail to fulfill the
extraordinary circumstances element required to equitably toll
their claim.  The Plaintiffs proffer no amendment to the
pleadings that could overcome this conclusion, and no amount of
discovery would aid the Judge's analysis of their claim for
equitable tolling.  As the Plaintiffs have failed to establish
the extraordinary circumstances element, the Judge needs not
determine whether the Plaintiffs were diligently pursuing their
rights.  While the parties here earnestly contest the content of
the due diligence requirement in the wake of Menominee Indian
Tribe of Wisconsin v. United States, the Judge finds no reason to
address those contentions.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 2, 2018 Memorandum Opinion
is available at https://is.gd/F1cpk6 from Leagle.com.

Jill Bezek & Michelle Harris, Plaintiffs, represented by Megan
Aileen Benevento -- mbenevento@jgllaw.com -- Joseph Greenwald and
Laake, P.A., Melissa Lynn English -- menglish@sgs-law.com --
Smith Gildea & Schmidt LLC, Michael Paul Smith -- mpsmith@sgs-
law.com -- Smith Gildea and Schmidt LLC, Sarah A. Zadrozny --
szadrozny@sgs-law.com -- Smith, Gildea & Schmidt, LLC, Timothy
Francis Maloney -- tmaloney@jgllaw.com -- Joseph Greenwald and
Laake PA & Veronica Byam Nannis -- vnannis@jgllaw.com -- Joseph
Greenwald and Laake PA.

First Mariner Bank, Defendant, represented by Brian L. Moffet --
bmoffet@milesstockbridge.com -- Miles & Stockbridge, P.C.


FLEETGISTICS HOLDINGS: Logistics Managers Not Exempt, Vargas Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
RICHARDO VARGAS, Individually and On behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, FLEETGISTICS HOLDINGS, LLC,
SCRIPTFLEET, LCC, PARTSFLEET, LLC, PARTSFLEET II, LLC and
MEDIFLEET, INC., the Defendants, Case No. 6:18-cv-00338-PGB-GJK
(M.D. Fla., Mar. 6, 2018), alleges that the Defendants classified
all Logistics Managers as salaried exempt, regardless of their
job duties or any individualized variances. The Plaintiff brings
this complaint individually and on behalf of all present and
formerly employed Logistics Managers, also known as the putative
class of similarly situated persons for recovery of overtime
wages for all hours over 40 in each and every work week.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mitchelle L. Feldman, Esq.
          FELDMAN WILLIAMS PLLC
          6940 W. Linebaugh Ave.
          Tampa FL 33625
          E-mail: mitch@felmanwilliams.com


FRED'S INC: Bid to Dismiss 1st Amended "Taylor" Suit Partly OK'd
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, TIFFANY TAYLOR, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. FRED'S, INC. and FRED'S
STORES OF TENNESSEE, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:17-CV-
0495-VEH (N.D. Ala.), Judge Virginia Emerson Hopkins of the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, Southern
Division, granted in part and otherwise termed as moot Fred's
Motion To Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Class Action
Complaint ("FAC").

Ms. Taylor initiated the purported class action arising under the
Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003 ("FACTA"), an
amendment to the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA"), against
Fred's on March 29, 2017.  On May 24, 2017, Ms. Taylor filed the
FAC.

Pending before the Court is Fred's Motion filed on June 7, 2017.
Fred's brings the Motion pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) and Rule
12(b)(6).  It raises two issues in its initial brief regarding
standing.  First, Fred's maintains that Ms. Taylor's allegations
do not show that she has suffered an injury-in-fact.  Second,
even assuming Ms. Taylor has suffered a cognizable injury-in-
fact, such an injury is not traceable to any alleged violation of
the FACTA by Fred's.

Judge Hopkins finds that Ms. Taylor has not carried her burden of
demonstrating an injury-in-fact concerning Fred's card-truncation
statutory violation.  The Judge is persuaded that Ms. Taylor's
preventative actions taken and her negatively-impacted state of
mind are not enough to establish an injury-in-fact here as the
underlying risk of "low-tech" identity theft tied to Fred's card-
truncation violation is so speculative for both the retained and
the lost/discarded receipts and further is certainly far from
imminent.

As to Fred's alleged expiration-date violation of FACTA, the
Judge finds that Ms. Taylor has not carried her burden of showing
an injury-in-fact with respect to Fred's alleged expiration-date
violation of FACTA.  Further, in the absence of establishing an
injury-in-fact under either FACTA's card-truncation or
expiration-date provision, Ms. Taylor's case is due to be
dismissed without prejudice for lack of standing.

Fred's alternatively contends that, even if Ms. Taylor satisfies
particularity, concreteness, and imminence, she still lacks
standing because she cannot show that her injury is tracebable to
its alleged conduct.  It also argues that if standing is
satisfied, the Court should dismiss Ms. Taylor's FAC for failure
to state a claim.  Having found the absence of an injury-in-fact
for both of Ms. Taylor's FACTA claims due to a lack of
concreteness and/or imminence, the Judge does not reach those
additional issues.  Accordingly, the remainder of Fred's Motion
is due to be termed as moot.

Thus, Judge Hopkins granted in part and otherwise termed as moot
Fred's Motion.  The Court will enter a separate order consistent
with the Memorandum Opinion.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 2, 2018 Memorandum Opinion
is available at https://is.gd/CSqpzr from Leagle.com.

Tiffany Taylor, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Austin Brock
Whitten -- Austinw@Pittmandutton.Com -- Christopher T. Hellums --
ChrisH@Pittmandutton.Com -- PITTMAN DUTTON & HELLUMS PC, Jonathan
S. Mann -- JonM@Pittmandutton.Com -- PITTMAN DUTTON & HELLUMS &
Michael C. Bradley -- MikeB@Pittmandutton.Com -- PITTMAN DUTTON &
HELLUMS.

Fred's, Inc. & Fred's Stores of Tennessee, Inc., Defendants,
represented by D. Keith Andress -- kandress@bakerdonelson.com --
BAKER DONELSON BEARMAN CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ PC, Kristine Leporati
Roberts -- klroberts@bakerdonelson.com -- BAKER DONELSON BEARMAN
CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, Mary Wu Tullis -- mtullis@bakerdonelson.com
-- BAKER DONELSON BEARMAN CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ PC & Jade E. Sipes
-- jsipes@bakerdonelson.com -- BAKER DONELSON BEARMAN CALDWELL &
BERKOWITZ PC.


FRIEDMAN'S 47TH: Demarest Seeks Pay for Uniform Maintenance
-----------------------------------------------------------
TYRA DEMAREST, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. FRIEDMAN'S 47TH LLC,
FRIEDMAN'S 31ST STREET, LLC, MAYFAIR WEST AT CHELSEA MARKET LLC,
PHILLIPS FOOD 35 LLC, and PHILLIPS FOODS LLC, the Defendant, Case
No. 151954/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Mar. 5, 2018), seeks to recover
unpaid uniform maintenance pay, minimum wages, and unlawful
deductions as set forth under the New York Labor Law.

Beginning in February 2012 and continuing through the present,
Defendants required Plaintiffs to wear uniforms but did not offer
to launder them or to provide the uniform maintenance pay set
forth in 12 NYCRR section 146-1.7.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Putative Class:

          Lloyd R. Ambinder, Esq.
          Jack L. Newhouse, Esq.
          Alanna R. Sakovits, Esq.
          VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP
          40 Broad Street, 7th Floor
          New York, NY 0004
          Telephone: (212) 943 9080
          E-mail: jnewhouse@vandallp.com


GENERAL ELECTRIC: "Haskins" Suit Transferred to Massachusetts
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, KRISTI HASKINS, LAURA SCULLY, AND DONALD J. JANAK,
individually and as representatives of a class of similarly
situated persons in the General Electric Retirement Savings Plan
and the General Electric Savings and Security Program, Plaintiff,
v. GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY; GENERAL ELECTRIC RETIREMENT SAVINGS
PLAN TRUSTEES, Defendant, Case No. 17-CV-1960-CAB-BLM (S.D.
Cal.), Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo of the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of California granted the Defendants'
motion to transfer venue, and transferred the case to the
District of Massachusetts.

On Sept. 26, 2017, the Plaintiffs filed the putative class action
under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974
("ERISA") alleging breaches of fiduciary duties and mismanagement
of the Defendant's 401(k) plan.  Within the next two months,
three virtually identical putative class actions were filed in
the District of Massachusetts, where GE is headquartered.

On Dec. 12, 2017, Judge Denise Casper entered an order granting a
stipulation by the parties in the three Massachusetts cases to
consolidate them into one action captioned In re GE ERISA
Litigation, Case No. 1:17-CV-12123-DJC.  On Jan. 12, 2018, a
consolidated amended complaint was filed in the Consolidated
Action.

Meanwhile, the Defendants in the instant case move to transfer
venue to Massachusetts, while the named Plaintiffs have moved to
intervene in the Consolidated Action seeking to have the
Consolidated Action transferred to the district or stayed.  All
parties to the Consolidated Action oppose the Plaintiffs' motion,
and the Plaintiffs oppose the Defendants' motion to transfer in
the case.

Judge Bencivengo finds that all the factors relevant to the
determination of whether transfer is appropriate under Section
1404(a) are either neutral or favor transfer to Massachusetts.
The alleged wrongdoing occurred primarily in Massachusetts or
Connecticut.  Meanwhile, many of the Defendants and relevant
witnesses as well as many of the putative class members reside in
or near Massachusetts.  Thus, while some of the operative facts
may have occurred in the district, significantly more of the
operative facts occurred and originated in or near Massachusetts.
Further, the costs of litigating and the availability of
compulsory process here versus Massachusetts are at best neutral
and more likely favor Massachusetts considering that more
witnesses reside there.  Likewise, the ease of access to sources
of proof is at best neutral but likely favors Massachusetts
considering that GE is headquartered there.

The Plaintiffs quibble with the Defendants' support for their
arguments that the more appropriate venue for this case is
Massachusetts, but provide little support for the idea that San
Diego would be a better or even equal venue.  Ultimately, the
Plaintiffs only argument for denying the Defendant motion to
transfer venue is that they filed the lawsuit before the lawsuits
that were joined into the Consolidated Action.  The fact that the
lawsuit was filed first does not overcome the many reasons why
Massachusetts is the more appropriate forum.

In sum, Judge Bencivengo holds that the convenience of the
parties, the convenience of the witnesses, the interests of
justice, and judicial efficiency all overwhelmingly favor
litigating the dispute between a nationwide class and the
Defendants in Massachusetts instead of San Diego.   Therefore,
she granted the Defendants' motion to transfer venue, and
transferred the case to the District of Massachusetts.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 2, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/SSwbOO from Leagle.com.

Kristi Haskins, individually and as representatives of a class of
similarly situated persons in the General Electric Retirement
Savings Plan and the General Electric Savings and Security
Program, Laura Scully, individually and as representatives of a
class of similarly situated persons in the General Electric
Retirement Savings Plan and the General Electric Savings and
Security Program & Donald J. Janak, individually and as
representatives of a class of similarly situated persons in the
General Electric Retirement Savings Plan and the General Electric
Savings and Security Program, Plaintiffs, represented by Andrew
H. Miller -- amiller@sanfordheisler.com -- Sanford Heisler Sharp,
LLP, pro hac vice, Charles H. Field -- cfield@sanfordheisler.com
-- Sanford Heisler Sharp, LLP, David W. Sanford --
dsanford@sanfordheisler.com -- Sanford Heisler Sharp, LLP, pro
hac vice, David Hahn Tracey -- dtracey@sanfordheisler.com --
Sanford Heisler Sharp, LLP, pro hac vice & Kevin Sharp --
ksharp@sanfordheisler.com -- Sanford Heisler Sharp, LLP, pro hac
vice.

General Electric Company & General Electric Retirement Savings
Plan Trustees, Defendants, represented by Alison V. Douglass --
adouglass@goodwinlaw.com -- Goodwin Procter LLP, pro hac vice,
James O. Fleckner -- jfleckner@goodwinlaw.com -- Goodwin Procter
LLP, pro hac vice, Laura Alexandra Stoll -- lstoll@goodwinlaw.com
-- Goodwin Procter LLP, Matthew S. Sheldon --
msheldon@goodwinlaw.com -- Goodwin Procter LLP, pro hac vice &
Jaime A. Santos -- jsantos@goodwinlaw.com -- Goodwin Procter LLP.


GIGAMON: Wants to Block Class Action Lead Counsel Appointment
-------------------------------------------------------------
Reuters' Alison Frankel says "We've become inured to squabbles
among plaintiffs' lawyers who want to be appointed to lead juicy
securities class actions.  Under the protocols Congress laid out
in 1995's Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, shareholders
and their lawyers have an opportunity to tell judges why they --
and not the other shareholders who want the job -- will best
represent the interests of all investors.  That all too often
entails plaintiffs' lawyers bashing other folks ostensibly on the
same side."

"Defendants aren't supposed to pick a dog in the lead counsel
fight.  Sure, if there are parallel cases in different
jurisdictions they can manipulate the outcome by negotiating a
settlement with one set of plaintiffs' lawyers instead of
another, effectively preempting the lead counsel selection
process.  But I can't remember ever seeing a defendant in a
federal securities class action submit a brief opposing selection
of a lead plaintiff and lead lawyer. "

Until now.

In a brief in federal court in San Francisco on behalf of the
networking and security company Gigamon, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich
& Rosati opposed a motion by Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd to lead
the case.   To be fair, Wilson Sonsini's motion didn't
specifically object to Robbins Geller or its client, an investor
who held 3,000 Gigamon shares on the date stockholders voted to
approve the company's $1.6 billion acquisition by Elliott
Management. The firm argued, however, that no lead counsel should
be appointed because the company has already reached settlements
with all of the plaintiffs who first filed deal challenge suits
in San Francisco federal court, after disclosing some additional
information about the merger in proxy materials and agreeing to
pay mootness fees to plaintiffs' lawyers.

There's no live case or controversy, Gigamon's brief said, so no
reason to designate anyone to lead it.  "The Gigamon defendants
respectfully submit that the claims asserted in this action are
moot, and there is no need for the appointment of a lead
plaintiff to litigate moot claims," the brief said.

It is certainly true that the six Gigamon shareholders who kicked
off the M&A class action in federal court have settled and
dismissed their suits.  On Jan. 26, Gigamon filed a stipulation
informing U.S. District Judge William Orrick that it had reached
a deal with plaintiffs' lawyers from Faruqi & Faruqi, Rigrodsky &
Long, RM Legal, Brodsky Smith, Glancy Prongay & Murray, Wolf
Popper and WeissLaw.  The plaintiffs' firms agreed that Gigamon's
supplemental disclosures adequately addressed their allegations;
Gigamon agreed it would pay the firms a (yet undetermined)
mootness fee.

The settlement dismissed only claims by the individual
shareholders who filed suits.  It wasn't a class action deal and
did not release claims by any other Gigamon investors. Wilson
Sonsini nevertheless argued in its opposition to the Robbins
Geller lead plaintiff motion that the settlement has mooted
claims by all Gigamon shareholders.

In a scathing brief filed on Feb. 27, Robbins Geller said that's
preposterous. Gigamon even said in its supplemental proxy
materials that the new disclosures were not material, the brief
said, so it can't turn around and claim that it has resolved
accusations of failing to disclose material information.
"Defendants cannot now have it both ways," Robbins Geller said.

More pointedly, the firm accused Gigamon of striking a sweetheart
deal with pliant shareholder firms looking for a quick payout.
The plaintiffs' firms that settled with Gigamon filed "bare-
bones" or "cookie-cutter" complaints, Robbins Geller asserted,
and did virtually no additional work on their cases against
Gigamon.  The cases settled just before the deadline for lead
plaintiff motions, the Robbins Geller brief said, presumably for
fear that a more vigorous shareholder would show up.  And
according to Robbins Geller, the deal benefits only the company
and plaintiffs' lawyers -- exactly the sort of settlement the 7th
U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decried as "no better than a
racket" in its 2016 ruling in In re Walgreen.

These deals, Robbins Geller said, cannot deter shareholders who
didn't release claims and still want to litigate on behalf of a
class of investors.  Its client, the firm said, "does not believe
the claims for violation of the federal securities laws alleged
in the complaints are moot and intends to vigorously prosecute
the claims on behalf of the putative class," its brief said.
"Neither (the client) nor his counsel are willing to abandon the
class's claims in exchange for a private settlement or payment of
a so-called mootness fee. That defendants prefer plaintiffs (and
their counsel) who have agreed to compromise these claims is not
surprising. Alas, defendants have no say in the lead plaintiff
process."

Ms. Frankel emailed Gigamon counsel David Berger, Jerome Birn and
Joni Ostler of Wilson Sonsini to ask about the Robbins Geller
brief but didn't hear back.  She also reached out to a half-dozen
of the plaintiffs' lawyers who settled their clients' cases
against Gigamon.  Only Carl Stine of Wolf Popper responded.

Mr. Stine said he wouldn't respond to Robbins Geller's criticism
of disclosure-only settlements in exchange for mootness fees.
But he said he agreed Wilson Sonsini has no business arguing that
the entire case is moot because a half-dozen shareholders settled
their claims individually. "It makes no sense.  It's ridiculous,"
he said.  "We agreed to dismiss only with prejudice to our
clients. That means what it means -- no release of claims by
other shareholders."

"As you know, there's been an explosion of M&A shareholder class
action in federal court after Delaware Chancery Court more or
less announced its hostility to deal tax litigation in 2015.
Scores of cases follow the trajectory Robbins Geller scorned in
its Gigamon brief: quick settlements and dismissal of individual
claims; no classwide cash recovery or injunctive relief; and
privately negotiated mootness fees.  I'm going to be writing more
about these cases in the upcoming months. Keep an eye out,"
Ms. Frankel says. [GN]


GOOGLE LLC: Faces Zombie Video Makers' Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Iovino, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports
that a Google attorney on March 1 fought to behead a zombie-video
maker's class action seeking millions of dollars from YouTube for
abruptly dropping ads from videos deemed violent or
objectionable.

Plaintiffs James Sweet, Chuck Mere and their Arkansas-based
company Zombie Go Boom sued YouTube in July 2017, claiming the
online video service abruptly changed its rules in the last year,
resulting in a more than 90 percent drop in ad revenue.

The plaintiffs, who create satirical and often-gory skits about
killing zombies, seek to recover millions in lost income for
themselves and other content providers affected by YouTube's
change in policy, which the plaintiffs dubbed the "Adpocalyse."

"YouTube has no obligation to run ads," attorney Maura Rees, Esq.
-- MRees@wgrs.com -- of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, argued
in court March 1.

During the motion to dismiss hearing, U.S. District Judge Edward
Chen appeared inclined to accept Google's argument that its
contract with content providers gives it unfettered control to
post and pull ads from videos.

The abrupt change in rules came in March 2017 as YouTube faced
mounting criticism for pairings ads with racist and violent
content, including neo-Nazi and ISIL support videos. That's when
YouTube unveiled a "secret" rating system that allowed
advertisers to pull ads for certain categories of content.

Zombie Go Boom attorney Adrian Bacon, Esq. of the Todd Friedman
firm, said YouTube's agreement is so lopsided, it should be
rendered unconscionable and invalid by the court.

"Imagine if Uber had a contract with drivers that said we'll just
give you whatever fare we want after you finish a ride," Bacon
argued.

Chen appeared skeptical of that argument, noting that he would
need to find YouTube's agreement so unfair and one-sided that it
provides virtually no benefit to the content providers.

YouTube offers a popular online forum where users can post videos
for free, and it shares 55 percent of advertising and
subscription revenues with content providers, Chen said.

"In this case, there is adequate consideration that supports the
agreement between Zombie Go Boom and YouTube," the judge said.

Bacon contended that YouTube broke promises it made in its
partner program policies, which assured content providers that
ads would only be pulled from videos that violate the company's
community guidelines, terms of service and other requirements.

But Google maintains that the agreement still gives it unfettered
discretion to pull ads from videos, and that the contract is by
no means so one-sided as to make it invalid under the law.

"YouTube is providing a service for free, providing bandwidth,
hosting, a worldwide audience," Rees said. "These are all things
the plaintiffs benefits from, not a wholly one-sided situation
which is what you would have to find for unconscionability."

In February 2017, the plaintiffs earned about $10,000 in ad
revenue from YouTube. After the "Adpocalypse," the amount of
money Zombie Go Boom earned from one million views dropped from
$1,000 to $2,000 to approximately $150, according to the
complaint.


HERTZ CORPORATION: Kurth Sues over Concession Fee Recovery Charge
-----------------------------------------------------------------
KATHRYNE ANNE KURTH, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. THE HERTZ CORPORATION, the Defendant,
Case No. 2018-CH-02994 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Mar. 6, 2018), seeks to
recover enjoin and restrain Defendant and its officers and agents
from continuing or engaging in unlawful imposition and collection
of a 10% "concession fee recovery" charge on car rentals at
locations where Defendant incurs no concession fee.

This deceptive charge violates the consumer fraud laws of
Illinois and other states and has resulted in Defendant's unjust
enrichment. Defendant's business acts or practices therefore
offend an established public policy, and Defendant engaged in
immoral, unethical, oppressive, and unscrupulous activities that
are substantially injurious to consumers, as alleged in detail
previously, and therefore Defendant's actions are unfair or
deceptive acts or practices prohibited by 815 ILCS 505/2. The
alleged unfair acts and practices proximately caused actual
damage to Plaintiff and the class, including, but not limited to,
the actual amounts they were unlawfully overcharged for
Defendant's concession fee recovery, plus sales tax charged
thereon. The Plaintiff and the other members of the class have
suffered injury in fact and have lost money as a result of these
unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent practices.

The Hertz Corporation, a subsidiary of Hertz Global Holdings
Inc., is an American car rental company based in Estero, Florida
that operates 9,700 international corporate and franchisee
locations.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Clinton A. Krislov, Esq.
          Kenneth T. Goldstein, Esq.
          Christopher M. Hack, Esq.
          KRISLOV & ASSOCIATES, LTD
          20 North Wacker Drive, Suite 1300
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 606 0500


HSNC BANK: Faces Class Action on $37 Million Ponzi
--------------------------------------------------
Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that
Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Ltd. and HSBC Bank USA
laundered money for the WMC777 Ponzi scam, victims claim in a
federal class action demand for $37 million.


ILLINOIS: Drivers Too Late to Sue Over 'Vigilante' Police Force
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lorraine Bailey, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports
that a federal judge dismissed March 5 a class action brought by
drivers stopped by an Illinois prosecutor's "vigilante" police
force, ruling that the motorists should have known about their
civil rights claims before the independent police unit was ruled
illegal.

Last June, Alyssa Larson filed a class action in Chicago federal
court against LaSalle County and its former State's Attorney
Brian Towne, Esq. over Towne's organization of a "vigilante
police force" that arrested dozens of people - particularly
targeting out-of-state license plates - and confiscated $1.7
million from drivers before the program was suspended in 2015.

Towne formed the police force separate from the county's police
unit in 2011, and called it the State's Attorney Felony
Enforcement, or SAFE, unit.

SAFE officers were tasked with drug interdiction along interstate
highways passing through LaSalle County, just west of Chicago,
particularly along I-80, which is the fastest way to get from
northern California to Chicago and the big cities of the eastern
seaboard.

Towne's authority to operate an independent police force became
highly controversial, as did his spending of $100,000 of the
money collected by the civil forfeitures to fund his own travel
to law enforcement conferences, including a $17,000 per diem
award for travel expenses.

In their June 2017 complaint, the class of motorists argued Towne
had no authority to make traffic stops or drug arrests.

Just one month later, in a separate criminal action, the Illinois
Supreme Court vacated Cara Ringland's drug-trafficking
conviction, which is based on a SAFE traffic stop, finding that
the unit indeed operated illegally.

But despite the state high court's ruling in Ringland's case,
U.S. District Judge Amy St. Eve on March 5 dismissed Larson's
class action against the county over the same conduct as
untimely.

"Larson's Section 1983 claims are time-barred," St. Eve wrote in
a 12-page ruling. "SAFE's stop, seizure, and search of Larson and
the car occurred sometime in October or November 2012. Larson
knew (or should have known) then that the officers lacked
probable cause or justification--as she claims, she had violated
no 'traffic, city, state, or federal law[s],' yet the officers
had put her in an unmarked vehicle, leaving her grandmother in
her car, and without consent took a drug-sniffing dog around and
into it."

Larson argued that she could not have known SAFE lacked authority
to stop her until an Illinois appeals court ruled in Ringland's
favor in 2015.

But the judge found this claim doesn't hold up.

"The complaint's factual allegations affirmatively plead that
Larson knew SAFE targeted out-of-staters and that her stop and
search lacked suspicion or cause at the time the officers pulled
her over," St. Eve said. "Even if Ringland was Larson's first
indication that SAFE was not authorized to conduct traffic stops,
the complaint does not allege that such illegitimate
authorization gives rise to a constitutional injury."


INTEL CORPORATION: West Sues over Security Flaws in CPUs
--------------------------------------------------------
GEORGE WEST, INDIVIDUALLY, AND ON BEHALF OF CLASSES OF SIMILARLY
SITUATED PERSONS; WESTMED DISPOSAL, INC., INDIVIDUALLY, AND ON
BEHALF OF CLASSES OF SIMILARLY SITUATED PERSONS, the Plaintiffs,
v. INTEL CORPORATION, the Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-00357-HNJ
(N.D. Ala., Mar. 6, 2018), seeks legal and equitable relief
against Intel, including damages, specific performance,
rescission, attorneys' fees, costs of suit, and other relief as
appropriate.

Intel Corporation is the top-selling semiconductor company in the
world and manufactures central processing units ("CPUs") utilized
by the most popular personal computers, servers, and electronic
devices sold on the market. Much of Intel's success is
attributable to producing some of the fastest operating CPUs
available. On its products' packaging, Intel advertises the speed
and high performance offered by its CPUs. But to achieve high
speed and performance, Intel took shortcuts with its CPUs, which
left vulnerabilities open to hackers and malicious software.
These vulnerabilities exposed Intel customers to critical
security threats and placed customers' sensitive, private, and
otherwise secure information in jeopardy. The exposure to these
vulnerabilities is so far-reaching that it affects every PC
containing an Intel processor manufactured since 1995.

The computer industry labels these security flaws as "Meltdown"
and "Spectre," which take advantage of the CPU process called
speculative execution. Because the security flaws cannot be fixed
at the hardware level, operating system designers, such as Apple
and Microsoft, are forced to develop software patches to close
the exposure. These software patches, however, degrade CPU
performance as much as 30%. Thus, PC owners with an Intel CPU are
left with the unappealing choice of (a) purchasing a new CPU or
PC containing a non-defective CPU; (b) continuing to use a
vulnerable PC without up-to-date software, or (c) continuing to
use a PC with updated software but degraded performance.
5. PCs that do not utilize Intel processors are not affected by
Meltdown. Likewise, PCs that do not use Intel processors are not
susceptible to -- or are substantially less susceptible to --
Spectre. Thus, Intel's representations that its CPUs are some of
the fastest available on the market are demonstrably false
because the very feature that gave the CPUs their speed caused
serious security vulnerabilities that must be fixed -- thereby
actually degrading performance.

Plaintiffs and Members of the Classes purchased and used Intel's
CPUs. Intel's scheme has caused Plaintiffs and Members of the
Classes to lose money and property by being overcharged for and
paying for the defective CPUs at issue, and/or being required to
purchase an additional working CPU. These losses occurred at the
point of sale and continued thereafter and were the direct result
of Intel's misconduct.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Ryan Lutz, Esq.
          F. Jerome Tapley, Esq.
          Douglas A. Dellaccio, Esq.
          Adam W. Pittman, Esq.
          Brett C. Thompson, Esq.
          CORY WATSON, P.C.
          2131 Magnolia Avenue South
          Birmingham, AL 35205
          Telephone: (205) 328 2200
          Facsimile: (205) 324 7896
          E-mail: rlutz@corywatson.com
                  jtapley@corywatson.com
                  ddellaccio@corywatson.com
                  apittman@corywatson.com
                  bthompson@corywatson.com

               - and -

          W. Daniel "Dee" Miles, III, Esq.
          Leslie Pescia, Esq.
          BEASLEY ALLEN CROW METHVIN PORTIS & MILES, P.C.
          218 Commerce Street
          Montgomery, AL 36103
          Telephone: (334) 269 2343
          Facsimile: (334) 954 7555
          E-mail: Dee.Miles@beasleyallen.com
                  Leslie.Pescia@beasleyallen.com

               - and -

          Chris T. Hellums, Esq.
          Jonathan S. Mann, Esq.
          PITTMAN DUTTON & HELLUMS, P.C.
          2001 Park Place North, Suite 1100
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: (205) 322 8880
          Facsimile: (205) 328 2711
          E-mail: chrish@pittmandutton.com
                  jonm@pittmandutton.com


J.B. HUNT: Underpays Employees, "Wilson" Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------
KAREEM WILSON, on behalf of himself, and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. J.B. HUNT LOGISTICS, INC., an
Arkansas corporation; J.B. HUNT TRANSPORT, INC., a business
entity of unknown form; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, the
Defendant, Case No. BC696222 (Cal. Super. Ct., Mar. 2, 2018),
seeks to recover all wages earned for all hours worked at the
correct rates of pay under the California Labor Code.

The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants are liable to him and other
similarly situated current and former employees for unpaid wages
and other related relief. These claims are based on Defendants'
alleged failures to provide all rest and meal periods, pay all
wages earned for all hours worked at the correct rates of pay,
indemnify for all business expenses, fairly compete, provide
accurate written wage statements, and (6) timely pay final wages
upon termination of employment.

J.B. Hunt is a Fortune 500 Transportation Company dedicated to
helping our customers move freight efficiently.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David G. Spivak, Esq.
          Caroline Tahmassian, Esq.
          THE SPIVAK LAW FIRM
          16530 Ventura Blvd., Ste 312
          Encino, CA 91436
          Telephone (818) 582 3086
          Facsimile (818) 582 2561
          E-mail: david@spivaklaw.com
                  caroline@spivaklaw.com

               - and -

          Walter Haines, Esq.
          UNITED EMPLOYEES LAW GROUP
          5500 Bolsa Ave, Suite 201
          Huntington Beach, CA 92649
          Telephone: (562) 256 1047
          Facsimile: (562) 256 1006
          E-mail: whaines@uelglaw.com


JAMES SQUARE: Asks Supreme Court to Halt Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
Andrew Donovan, writing for WSYR-TV, reports that attorneys for
several previous owners of the James Square Nursing and
Rehabilitation Centre asked a State Supreme Court Judge to put
the case on hold pending the results of a New York State Attorney
General's investigation.

Hon. Anthony Paris did not grant the request, so the case will
move forward, but he will hear the request in the future.

It was the primary decision made in a hearing on Feb. 28 that
resulted in the judge scolding the attorneys on both sides of the
case for scheduling disagreements and legal procedure issues.

The class action attorney out of New York City hopes the case is
certified as class action sometime this year, so he will be able
to represent hundreds of former and current residents.

James Square was recently sold and renamed the Bishop
Rehabilitation and Nursing Center, and the new administration has
previously committed to care improvements and increased staffing.
[GN]


JOHN MCNEIL: Refuses to Pay Compensation, Dreher Says
-----------------------------------------------------
DALE DREHER, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated
current and former employees, the Plaintiff, v. JOHN MCNEIL
STUDIO, LLC; JOHN MCNEIL; NILS PEYRON and DOES 1 through 10,
inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC696518 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
Mar. 5, 2018), seeks relief under California law for Defendants'
breaches of their obligations to treat them as employees, timely
pay wages, including premium wages, and to provide them with meal
and rest periods.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and the proposed class
have been deprived of their rightfully earned wages as a direct
and proximate result of Defendants' failure and refusal to pay
said compensation.  The Plaintiffs and the proposed class are
entitled to recover their unpaid wages, plus interest computed
at the rate of 10% per annum pursuant to California Labor Code,
sections 218.6 and 1194(a). As a consequence of Defendants'
willful conduct in not timely paying wages upon termination,
Plaintiff and the proposed class are entitled to thirty days of
wages as a penalty pursuant to section 203 of the Labor Code.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert A. Cantore, Esq.
          Nancy Sotomayor, Esq.
          GILBERT & SACKMAN A LAW CORPORATION
          3699 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1200
          Los Angeles, CA 90010-2732
          Telephone: (323) 938 3000
          Facsimile: (323) 937 9139


JUSTFOODFORDOGS: "Vasquez" Suit Moved to C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Laura Vasquez, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
JustFoodForDogs, LLC, a California limited liability company and
Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. BC689098, was removed from
the Los Angeles County Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California (Western Division - Los
Angeles) on Feb. 28, 2018. The District Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 2:18-cv-01739-AB-MRW to the proceeding. The case is assigned
to the Hon. Judge Andre Birotte Jr.

JustFoodForDogs is a first-to-market retailer of small batch,
home-cooked pet food.[BN]

Attorneys for Laura Vasquez:

          Kenneth S Gaines, Esq.
          Alex P Katofsky, Esq.
          Daniel F Gaines, Esq.
          Miriam L Schimmel, Esq.
          Sepideh Hirmand, Esq.
          GAINES AND GAINES APLC
          27200 Agoura Road Suite 101
          Calabasas, CA 91301
          Telephone: (818) 703 8985
          Facsimile: (818) 703 8984
          E-mail: ken@gaineslawfirm.com
                  alex@gaineslawfirm.com
                  daniel@gaineslawfirm.com
                  miriam@gaineslawfirm.com
                  sepideh@gaineslawfirm.com

Attorneys for JustFoodForDogs, LLC:

          Mark Jason Austin, Esq.
          Alisha A Patterson, Esq.
          RUTAN AND TUCKER LLP
          611 Anton Boulevard Suite 1400
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626-1931
          Telephone: (714) 641 5100
          Facsimile: (714) 546 9035
          E-mail: maustin@rutan.com
                  apatterson@rutan.com


KERN COUNTY, CA: Faces Class Action Over Juvenile Inmate Abuses
---------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
three disabled Kern County, California, teens claim in a federal
class action that juvenile-detention staffers abused them with
pepper spray, prolonged solitary confinement, excessive force,
painful prone restraint holds and denial of education.

The case is T.G., by and through his Next Friend, TANITA J.;
P.P., by and through his General Guardian, REBECCA P.; and J.A.;
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. KERN COUNTY; KERN COUNTY PROBATION DEPARTMENT; TR
MERICKEL, in his official capacity as Chief of the Probation
Department; KERN COUNTY SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS; and MARY C.
BARLOW, in her official capacity as Superintendent of Schools,
Defendants, Case No. _____ (E.D. Calif.).

Attorneys for Plaintffs:

     MELINDA BIRD, Esq.
     Disability Rights California
     350 S. Bixel Street, Suite 290
     Los Angeles, CA 90017
     Telephone: (213) 213-8000
     Facsimile: (213) 213-8001
     Email: melinda.bird@disabilityrightsca.org

     CARLY J. MUNSON, Esq.
     Disability Rights California
     1831 K Street
     Sacramento, CA 95811-4114
     Telephone: (916) 504-5800
     Facsimile: (916) 504-5801
     Email: carly.munson@disabilityrightsca.org

     THOMAS P. ZITO, Esq.
     FREYA PITTS, Esq.
     Disability Rights Advocates
     2001 Center Street, Fourth Floor
     8 Berkeley, California 94704-1204
     Telephone: (510) 665-8644
     Facsimile: (510) 665-8511
     Email: tzito@dralegal.org
            fpitts@dralegal.org


LEAPFROG ENTERPRISES: Settles Shareholder Class Action for $5.5MM
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
Leapfrog will pay $5.5 million to settle a shareholder class
action accusing it of misleading investors about the market for
its educational toys.

The case is In re LEAPFROG ENTERPRISES, INC. SECURITIES
LITIGATION, Master File No. 3:15-cv-00347-EMC (N.D. Calif.).

Co-Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs:

SHAWN A. WILLIAMS, Esq.
WILLOW E. RADCLIFFE, Esq.
MATTHEW S. MELAMED, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
Post Montgomery Center
One Montgomery Street, Suite 1800
San Francisco, CA 94104
Tel: 415/288-4545
Fax: 415/288-4534
Email: shawnw@rgrdlaw.com
       willowr@rgrdlaw.com
      mmelamed@rgrdlaw.com

     ELLEN GUSIKOFF STEWART, Esq.
     ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
     655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
     San Diego, CA 92101-8498
     Telephone: 619/231-1058
     Fax: 619/231-7423
     Email: elleng@rgrdlaw.com

     JAMES M. HUGHES, Esq.
     WILLIAM S. NORTON, Esq.
     CHRISTOPHER F. MORIARTY, Esq.
     MOTLEY RICE LLC
     28 Bridgeside Blvd.
     Mount Pleasant, SC 29464
     Telephone: 843/216-9000
     Fax: 843/216-9450
     Email: jhughes@motleyrice.com
            bnorton@motleyrice.com
            cmoriarty@motleyrice.com


LIFECARE SOLUTIONS: Frando Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code
--------------------------------------------------------------
BARNEY FRANDO, individually, and on behalf of other members of
the general public similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. LIFECARE
SOLUTIONS, INC., a Delaware corporation; PREFERRED HOMECARE
INFUSION, L.L.C., an Arizona limited liability company; FOUNDERS
HEALTHCARE, LLC, an Arizona limited liability company; and DOES 1
through 10, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC695711 (Cal.
Super. Ct., Feb. 28, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime and
unpaid minimum wages under California Labor Code.

The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants knew or should have known
that Plaintiff and class members were entitled to rest periods in
accordance with the Labor Code and applicable IWC Wage Order or
payment of one (1) additional hour of pay at their regular rates
of pay when they were not provided with a compliant rest period
and that Plaintiff and class members were not provided compliant
rest periods or payment of one (1) additional hour of pay at
their regular rates of pay when they were not provided a
compliant rest period.

The Defendants are a provider of home healthcare products and
services, such as infusion, nutrition, respiratory, and home
medical equipment therapies and services, operating facilities
throughout the across western and southwestern United States.
Defendants are headquartered in Phoenix, Arizona, with numerous
locations throughout the United States, including approximately
13 locations in California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert Drexler, Esq.
          Jonathan Lee, Esq.
          Ariel Harman-Holmes, Esq.
          CAPSTONE LAW APC
          1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 556 4811
          Facsimile: (310) 943 0396
          E-mail: Robert.Drexler@capstonelawyers.com
                  Jonathan.Lee@capstonelawyers.com
                  Ariel.Harman-Holmes@CapstoneLawyers.com


LIFETOUCH INC: D&Os Mishandled Employee Plan, Vigeant Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
DEBORAH VIGEANT, and all other individuals similarly situated,
the Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL MEEK, PAUL HARMEL, P. ROBERT LARSON,
DONALD GOLDFUS, JOHN ANDERSON, BRUCE NICHOLSON, BERNIE ALRICH,
and NEWPORT TRUST COMPANY, the Defendants, Case No. 0:18-cv-00577
(D. Minn., Mar. 1, 2018), seeks an order compelling Defendants to
make good to a Lifetouch Inc. Employee Stock Ownership Plan all
losses to the Plan resulting from Defendants' breaches of their
fiduciary duties, including loss of vested benefits to the Plan
resulting from imprudent investment of the Plan's assets; to
restore to the Plan all profits Defendants made through use of
the Plan's assets; and to restore to the Plan all profits which
the Plan and participants would have made if Defendants had
fulfilled their fiduciary obligations.

The case is a class action brought pursuant to Section 502 of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act, 29 U.S.C. section 1132,
by participants in the Plan, and on behalf of the Plan, to
recover hundreds of millions of dollars of damage suffered in
their retirement accounts due to breaches of fiduciary duties
owed to them. The Plaintiff's claims are based on the
investigation of her counsel, which included a review of the
Plan's governing documents; the Plan's annual reports filed with
the U.S. Department of Labor; discussions with Plan participants;
other lawsuits against Lifetouch; press releases and other public
statements issued by Lifetouch; media reports about Lifetouch;
and Securities and Exchange Commission filings by Shutterfly,
Inc. about Lifetouch.

Beginning in 2015, the price of Lifetouch stock has been in
decline, and for the more than 16,000 employees who participate
in the Company's Plan, so have the holdings on which they rely as
their primary source of retirement savings. Each year has been
worse than the last. Fiscal year 2015 saw a decrease of nearly
10%. While fiscal year 2016 was slightly better with a decrease
of just over 5%, fiscal year 2017 saw an astounding 36% drop.
This downward spiral continued right up until the January 30,
2018 announcement of Lifetouch's acquisition by Shutterfly for
$825 million, which price indicates a further decrease of 17.5%
in only a few months' time. Since June 30, 2015, the value of
Lifetouch stock held by the Plan decreased by over $840 million,
or over 50%. By a very crude calculation, that represents an
average loss of over $52,000 in retirement savings for each of
the roughly 16,000 Plan participants.

All of this happened while the Plan's fiduciaries, who owed "the
highest [duty] known to the law" to Plan participants, sat idle
and disregarded their responsibilities for overseeing the
prudence of the Lifetouch stock investment held by the Plan. The
Plan is a defined contribution plan governed by ERISA. Sponsored
by Lifetouch, the Plan's purpose is to enable eligible employees
to acquire a beneficial interest in Lifetouch to share in the
growth and prosperity of Lifetouch and accumulate retirement
savings. All contributions to the Plan were made by the Company
and invested primarily in shares of Lifetouch stock. During the
Class Period, Lifetouch stock was the largest single investment
purchased and held by the Plan.

Newport Trust provides America's leading corporations and
institutions with institutional trustee and independent fiduciary
services for retirement and employee benefit plans.

Lifetouch is a professional photography company that has focused
primarily on the school picture business for over 80 years. It
has ranked as one of the nation's five largest 100% employee-
owned companies. Since it was founded in 1936, Lifetouch has
expanded its operations through a series of acquisitions. In the
early 1980s, Lifetouch acquired the company that operated
portrait studios located in J.C. Penney stores, and it later did
the same for those operated in Target stores. Lifetouch also
aggressively acquired its competitors, beginning with Olan Mills'
school photography business in 1999 and later with Herff Jones'
photography division in 2011.[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiff and the Putative Class:

          Douglas J. Nill, Esq.
          DOUGLAS J. NILL, PLLC
          2050 Canadian Pacific Plaza
          120 South Sixth Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402-1801
          Telephone: (612) 573 3669
          Facsimile: (612) 330 0959
          E-mail: dnill@farmlaw.com

               - and -

          Jacob H. Zamansky, Esq.
          Samuel E. Bonderoff, Esq.
          Edward H. Glenn, Jr., Esq.
          Justin Sauerwald, Esq.
          ZAMANSKY LLC
          50 Broadway, 32nd Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 742 1414
          Facsimile: (212) 742 1177
          E-mail: jake@zamansky.com


LITTLE SHEEP: Fails to Pay Wages and Overtime, "Dong" Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
WEI DONG, WENRU1 WANG, and ZONGZHI HU, individuals, for
themselves and all members of the putative class, and on behalf
of aggrieved employees pursuant to the Private Attorneys General
Act ("PAGA), the Plaintiffs, v. LITTLE SHEEP INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
a California Corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, the
Defendant, Case No. BC696904 (Cal. Super. Ct., Mar. 7, 2018),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages in violation of the
California Labor Code.

The Defendants employed Plaintiffs as a non-exempt or hourly-paid
employees. Their last day of employment was September 30, 2017.
Defendants had the authority to hire and terminate Plaintiffs and
the other class members; to set work rules and conditions
governing Plaintiffs and the other class members; and to
supervise their daily employment activities. The Defendants
directly hired and paid wages and benefits to Plaintiffs and the
other class members. The Plaintiffs allege that Defendants were
advised by skilled lawyers and other professionals, employees,
advisors, and consultants highly knowledgeable about California
wage law, employment and personnel practices. The Plaintiffs
allege that Defendants ignored the employment and personnel
policy changes proposed by skilled lawyers and other
professionals, employees, advisors, and consultants highly
knowledgeable about California wage laws, employment, and
personnel practice. The Plaintiffs allege that Defendants knew or
should have known that Plaintiffs and class members were entitled
to receive certain wages for all work performed, including for
overtime compensation. The Plaintiffs allege that Defendants knew
or should have known that, Plaintiffs and the other class members
were working over eight hours per day and were entitled to
receive certain wages for overtime compensation and that they
were not receiving wages for overtime compensation.

Little Sheep, an investment holding company, engages in the
operation of full-service restaurants chain, provision of
catering services, and sale of related food products. It operates
Chinese hot pot restaurants. The company also involved in the
production of soup-based seasonings and sale of lamb meat; and
provision of slaughtering and meat processing services. It
operates and franchises full-service restaurants chain under the
Little Sheep brand in Mainland China, Hong Kong, and Macau.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          R. Rex Parris, Esq.
          Kitty K. Szeto, Esq.
          John M. Bickford, Esq.
          Ryan A Crist, Esq.
          PARRIS LAW FIRM
          43364 10th Street West
          Lancaster, CA 93534
          Telephone: (661) 949 2595
          Facsimile: (661) 949 7524


LIVE NATION: Class Action Seeks Refunds for Route 91 Attendees
--------------------------------------------------------------
Taylor Mims, writing for Amplify, reports that an Orange County
law firm has filed a suit against Route 91 Harvest Festival
promoter Live Nation requiring full refunds for all 22,000
festival attendees.  According to the Southern California firm
Robinson Calcagnie, Inc., Live Nation has only refunded some
attendees for their tickets to the country festival that was
attacked by a gunman, leaving 58 killed and hundreds injured.

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

The suit states that plaintiffs Kevin and Laura Thompson paid
over $500 combined for their general admission tickets to the
three-day festival held from Sept. 26- Oct. 1, 2017.  General
Admission tickets for the festival cost about $210 each with VIP
packages ranging from $375 to $750 per ticket.

The Las Vegas event culminated in a gunman firing at fans who
were watching the final set from headliner Jason Aldean.  While
not all 22,000 attendees were present during the attack,
attorneys are still looking to get ticketholders refunded for the
entire event.

Attorneys for the suit say that of the roughly 22,000 fans who
attended the event throughout the weekend, only those who
actively sought out a refund were given one.

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


LYMI INC: Fails to Pay Timely Wages Upon Termination, Ajin Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
RAMON AJIN, as an individual and on behalf to of other similarly
situated employees, the Plaintiff, v. LYMI, INC., a California
corporation, and DOES 1-50, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No.
BC696168 (Cal. Super. Ct., Mar. 2, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid
premium wages for missed meal breaks and wages upon termination.
Statutory penalties, restitution, attorneys' fees and costs,
prejudgment interest and other relief under California Industrial
Welfare Commission Wage Order and the California Labor Code

According to the complaint, the Defendant violated California law
by preventing Class Members from taking their entitled meal
breaks, paying waiting time penalties upon termination.

LYMI Inc., doing business as The Reformation, designs and
manufactures limited-edition clothes for women. The company
offers dresses, wedding/party collections, tops, jumpsuits,
bottoms, two pieces, tees, accessories, and bodysuits.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Armond M. Jackson, Esq.
          JACKSON LAW, APC
          Venture Plaza, Ste. 240
          Irvine, CA 92618
          Telephone (949) 281 6857
          Facsimile (949) 777 6218


M.A.C. COSMETICS: Monteon Sues over Wage and Hour Violations
------------------------------------------------------------
JANET MONTEON, individually and on behalf of herself and others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. M.A.C. COSMETICS, INC., a
Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, the
Defendants, Case No. BC695765 (Cal. Super. Ct., Feb. 28, 2018),
is a proposed wage and hour class action arising out of a
facially non-compliant written rest period policy, and the
failure to reimburse employees for reasonable and necessary cell
phone expenses.

The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant failed to authorize or
permit a second rest period after six hours of work, and instead
did not provide or authorize a second rest period until after
eight hours of work, in violation of Wage Order. All employees
whose shifts exceeded six hours in length, therefore, were and
are owed a rest period premium under Labor Code section 226.7.
Plaintiff also alleges that MAC expected its employees to use
their personal cell phones to download the company application
for communications with their employees, which communications
from management to hourly employees occurred several times each
day on a daily basis. MAC has no policy regarding reimbursement
for this reasonable and necessary business expense, and failed to
reimburse MONTEON when she requested reimbursement for these
monthly expenses incurred for the benefit of MAC, in violation of
Labor Code section 2802.

According to the complaint, as a result of failure to pay owed
rest period premiums, which are considered wages under Murphy v.
Kenneth Cole Prods., Inc., 40 Cal.4th 1094, 1099 (2007), wage
statements furnished to Plaintiff and similarly-situated hourly
employees did not accurately reflect the true amount of wages
earned during each pay period, in violation of Labor Code section
226(a). Similarly, because earned wages were underpaid due to the
failure to pay earned premiums, all separated employees during
the relevant time period were not furnished all wages earned upon
separation, in violation of Labor Code sections 201-203. These
policies constitute unfair business practices under Business &
Professions Code section.

MAC Cosmetics, stylized as M A C, is a cosmetics manufacturer
founded in Toronto in 1984 by Frank Toskan and Frank Angelo. The
company is headquartered in New York City and became part of the
Estee Lauder Companies in 1998.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael D. Singer, Esq.
          Janine R. Menhennet, Esq.
          COHELAN KHOURY & SINGER
          605 C Street, Suite 200
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 595 3001
          Facsimile: (619) 595 3000

               - and -

          Jonathan Lebe, Esq.
          LEBE LAW, APC
          5723 Melrose Avenue, Suite 100
          Los Angeles, CA 90038
          Telephone: (310) 921 7056
          Facsimile: (310) 820 1258

               - and -

          Rodney Mesriani, Esq.
          MESRIANI LAW GROUP, APLC
          5723 Melrose Avenue
          Los Angeles, CA 90038
          Telephone: (310) 921 7046
          Facsimile: (310) 820 1258


MDL 2814: 110 Suits Transferred to Central Dist. of California
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: FORD MOTOR CO. DPS6 POWERSHIFT TRANSMISSION
PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, MDL No. 2814, Judge Sarah S. Vance
of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has
entered an order transferring the actions listed on Schedule A
and pending outside the Central District of California to the
Central District of California, and, with the consent of that
Court, assigning to the Hon. Andre Birotte, Jr., for coordinated
or consolidated pretrial proceedings.

Defendant Ford Motor Co. moves under 28 U.S.C. Section 1407 to
centralize the litigation in the Central District of California.
The litigation currently consists of 110 actions pending in seven
districts, as listed on Schedule A.  Since the filing of the
motion, the Panel has been notified of 57 related federal
actions.

The Plaintiffs in 60 actions on the motion and 32 potential tag-
along actions, represented by two law firms, oppose
centralization.  At oral argument, the opposing Plaintiffs in all
but one of those actions stated that the Central District of
California would be an acceptable choice to them.  The Plaintiffs
in the remaining 50 actions on the motion have not responded and
thus are deemed to have acquiesced in the motion under Panel Rule
6.1(c).

The Plaintiffs opposing centralization argue that centralization
is not appropriate because the actions also involve
individualized questions of fact regarding the problems
experienced by each Plaintiff's vehicle, the nature and number of
repairs, the efficacy of the repairs, and the extent to which the
alleged defect impaired each Plaintiff's use of the vehicle.
They further argue that centralization would be unjust on the
ground that Ford improperly removed the vast majority of cases to
avoid adverse state court rulings, and many Plaintiffs have
remand motions pending.

Judge Vance finds that these actions involve common questions of
fact, and that centralization will serve the convenience of the
parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct
of the litigation.  The actions share complex factual questions
arising out of allegations that the DPS6 PowerShift Transmission
installed in certain Ford Fiesta and Ford Focus vehicles3 is
defective and negatively affects the drivability, safety, and
useful life of the vehicles.  Centralization will eliminate
duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings; and
conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the
judiciary.

The Judge concludes that the Central District of California is an
appropriate transferee district for the litigation.  The vast
majority of the actions are pending in California, including 35
actions in the Central District.  Centralization in the district
also will facilitate coordination with California state court
litigation involving the same alleged defect.  Judge Birotte,
Jr., managed a related nationwide class action settlement
involving the same Ford vehicles and alleged transmission defect,
and thus is familiar with the factual and legal issues in the
litigation.  She is confident he will steer the litigation on a
prudent course.

Judge Vance therefore transferred the actions listed on Schedule
A and pending outside the Central District of California to the
Central District of California and, with the consent of that
court, assigned to Judge Birotte, for coordinated or consolidated
pretrial proceedings.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 2, 2018 Transfer Order is
available at https://is.gd/RoTvzo from Leagle.com.


MICHAEL KORS: "Lucas" Suit Moved to Central Dist. of California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Victoria E Lucas, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Michael Kors (USA), Inc. a Delaware corporation; Decton Inc.,
a California corporation; Decton Staffing Services, a business
entity form unknown; and Does 1 through 100, Inclusive, the
Defendants, Case No. BC688239, was removed from the Superior
Court, County of Los Angeles, to the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California (Western Division - Los Angeles)
on Feb. 27, 2018. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:18-cv-01608-MWF-MRW to the proceeding. The case is assigned to
the Hon. Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald.

Michael Kors (USA), Inc. designs, manufactures, and sells
apparel, accessories, and footwear in the United States and
internationally. The company offers shirts, tees and polos,
sweaters, jackets and outerwear, pants, suits and blazers, shorts
and swimwear, and underwear for men; and dresses, sweaters, and
jackets.[BN]

Attorneys for Victoria E Lucas:

          James Alexander De Sario, Esq.
          Michael Nourmand, Esq.
          NOURMAND LAW FIRM APC
          8822 West Olympic Boulevard
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Telephone: (310) 553 3600
          Facsimile: (310) 553 3603
          E-mail: jdesario@nourmandlawfirm.com
                  mnourmand@nourmandlawfirm.com

Attorneys for Michael Kors (USA), Inc.:

          Jonathan D Meer, Esq.
          Elizabeth Mary Levy, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
          2029 Century Park East Suite 3500
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-3021
          Telephone: (310) 277 7200
          Facsimile: (310) 201 5219
          E-mail: jmeer@seyfarth.com
                  emlevy@seyfarth.com


MLB ADVANCED: Faces Class Action Over Subscription Renewal
----------------------------------------------------------
Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a
federal class action claims that MLB Advanced Media dba MLB.Com
offers a one-year subscription for $79.99, but automatically
renews at $112.99 after eight months, double-billing for the
final four months of the first year.

The case is ERIN L. PERRY, individually, and on behalf of other
members of the general public similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs.
MLB ADVANCED MEDIA, L.P., DBA MLB.COM, and DOES 1-10, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. ____ (E.D. Calif.).

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

     Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
     Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
     Meghan E. George, Esq.
     Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman, P.C.
     21550 Oxnard St. Suite 780,
     Woodland Hills, CA 91367
     Phone: 877-206-4741
     Fax: 866-633-0228
     Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
            abacon@toddflaw.com
            mgeorge@toddflaw.com


MONSANTO COMPANY: Butlers Sue over Sales of Roundup
---------------------------------------------------
TIMOTHY BUTLER AND CATHY BUTLER, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO
COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-00327 (E.D. Mo., Feb.
27, 2018), seeks to recover damages suffered by Plaintiff as a
direct and proximate result of Defendant negligent and wrongful
conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture,
testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising,
distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup
(TM), containing the active ingredient glyphosate.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff maintains that Roundup
(TM) and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health,
unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and
lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers
associated with its use. The Plaintiff's injuries, like those
striking thousands of similarly situated victims across the
country, were avoidable.

Monsanto Company is a publicly traded American multinational
agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation. It is
headquartered in Creve Coeur, Greater St. Louis, Missouri.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


MONSANTO COMPANY: Conley et al., Sue over Sales of Roundup
----------------------------------------------------------
JAMES T. CONLEY AND MARGARET CONLEY, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO
COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-00322 (E.D. Mo., Feb.
27, 2018), seeks to recover damages suffered by Plaintiff as a
direct and proximate result of Defendant negligent and wrongful
conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture,
testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising,
distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup
(TM), containing the active ingredient glyphosate.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff maintains that Roundup
(TM) and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health,
unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and
lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers
associated with its use. The Plaintiff's injuries, like those
striking thousands of similarly situated victims across the
country, were avoidable.

Monsanto Company is a publicly traded American multinational
agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation. It is
headquartered in Creve Coeur, Greater St. Louis, Missouri.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


MONSANTO COMPANY: Hymases Sue over Sales of Herbicide Roundup
-------------------------------------------------------------
RICKY AND CAROL HYMAS, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the
Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-00330 (E.D. Mo., Feb. 27, 2018),
seeks to recover damages suffered by Plaintiff as a direct and
proximate result of Defendant negligent and wrongful conduct in
connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing,
packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution,
labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing
the active ingredient glyphosate.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff maintains that Roundup
(TM) and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health,
unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and
lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers
associated with its use. The Plaintiff's injuries, like those
striking thousands of similarly situated victims across the
country, were avoidable.

Monsanto Company is a publicly traded American multinational
agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation. It is
headquartered in Creve Coeur, Greater St. Louis, Missouri.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


MONSANTO COMPANY: Pertuits Sue over Sales of Herbicide Roundup
--------------------------------------------------------------
CLIFFTON and DOREEN PERTUIT, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY,
the Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-00332 (E.D. Mo., Feb. 27, 2018),
seeks to recover damages suffered by Plaintiff as a direct and
proximate result of Defendant negligent and wrongful conduct in
connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing,
packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution,
labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing
the active ingredient glyphosate.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff maintains that Roundup
(TM) and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health,
unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and
lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers
associated with its use. The Plaintiff's injuries, like those
striking thousands of similarly situated victims across the
country, were avoidable.

Monsanto Company is a publicly traded American multinational
agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation. It is
headquartered in Creve Coeur, Greater St. Louis, Missouri.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


MONSANTO COMPANY: Pica Sues over Sales of Herbicide Roundup
-----------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH PICA, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant,
Case No. 4:18-cv-00318 (E.D. Mo., Feb. 27, 2018), seeks to
recover damages suffered by Plaintiff as a direct and proximate
result of Defendant negligent and wrongful conduct in connection
with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging,
promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or
sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the active
ingredient glyphosate.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff maintains that Roundup
(TM) and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health,
unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and
lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers
associated with its use. The Plaintiff's injuries, like those
striking thousands of similarly situated victims across the
country, were avoidable.

Monsanto Company is a publicly traded American multinational
agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation. It is
headquartered in Creve Coeur, Greater St. Louis, Missouri.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


MONSANTO COMPANY: Rasey Sues over Sales of Herbicide Roundup
------------------------------------------------------------
MATTHEW T. RASEY, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the
Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-00320 (E.D. Mo., Feb. 27, 2018),
seeks to recover damages suffered by Plaintiff as a direct and
proximate result of Defendant negligent and wrongful conduct in
connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing,
packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution,
labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing
the active ingredient glyphosate.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff maintains that Roundup
(TM) and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health,
unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and
lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers
associated with its use. The Plaintiff's injuries, like those
striking thousands of similarly situated victims across the
country, were avoidable.

Monsanto Company is a publicly traded American multinational
agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation. It is
headquartered in Creve Coeur, Greater St. Louis, Missouri.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


MONSANTO COMPANY: Upshaws Sue over Sales of Herbicide Roundup
-------------------------------------------------------------
MARILYN UPSHAW AND JAMES UPSHAW, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO
COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-00323 (E.D. Mo., Feb.
27, 2018), seeks to recover damages suffered by Plaintiff as a
direct and proximate result of Defendant negligent and wrongful
conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture,
testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising,
distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup
(TM), containing the active ingredient glyphosate.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff maintains that Roundup
(TM) and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health,
unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and
lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers
associated with its use. The Plaintiff's injuries, like those
striking thousands of similarly situated victims across the
country, were avoidable.

Monsanto Company is a publicly traded American multinational
agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation. It is
headquartered in Creve Coeur, Greater St. Louis, Missouri.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


MSP CROSSROADS: $650K Settlement in "Soderstrom" Has Final OK
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Linda Lee Soderstrom, Maria Johnson, Craig Goodwin,
Jurline Bryant, and Julio Stalin de Tourniel, on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated, and HOME Line, a
Minnesota nonprofit corporation, Plaintiffs, v. MSP Crossroads
Apartments LLC, a Minnesota corporation, and Soderberg Apartment
Specialists (SAS), a Minnesota corporation, Defendants, Civil No.
16-233 ADM/KMM (D. Minn.), Judge Ann D. Montgomery of the U.S.
District Court for the District of Minnesota granted the
Plaintiffs' Motion for Order and Judgment Granting Final Approval
of Class Action Settlement and Certifying Settlement Class, and
overruled Claire J. Lee's Objections to the Motion.

On Feb. 1, 2016, the Plaintiffs commenced the action alleging
that Defendants violated the Fair Housing Act's ("FHA")
prohibitions against disparate treatment and disparate impact
discrimination under 42 U.S.C. Section 3604, and also violated
Minn. Stat. Section 504B.315.

In April 2017, the parties participated in multiple mediation
sessions with United States Magistrate Judge Katherine M.
Menendez.  Although no settlement was reached during these
sessions, the parties continued to negotiate potential settlement
terms and participated in periodic status conferences with Judge
Menendez from April through August 2017.

In June 2017, Judge Menendez entered an order severing the
individual claims of Lee, then a named Plaintiff, from the
putative class action claims raised by the Class Plaintiffs.
Lee's individual claims were severed due to the very different
approaches to the litigation taken by Interim Class Counsel and
Ms. Lee, which made it difficult to achieve progress in the
litigation.  A separate civil case was opened for Lee's
individual claims.  Lee's individual case remains pending.

In September 2017, the parties arrived at a finalized Settlement
Agreement which provides that for three years after the effective
date of the Settlement Agreement, the Defendants will amend their
screening criteria for applications for tenancy at the apartment
complex formerly known as Crossroads at Penn and now known as
Concierge Apartments and will amend all public marketing
materials, application materials, screening criteria disclosures,
and any other public documents.

Additionally, the Defendants will pay $650,000 to resolve all
claims in the lawsuit.  The payment will be distributed as
follows: (1) $200,000 to an Equitable Relief Fund for the purpose
of assisting in the acquisition and preservation of naturally
affordable rental properties in the Twin Cities Metro Area at
risk of conversion to higher rents and the threat of displacement
of low and moderate income residents; (2) $300,000 in payments to
the Settlement Class, which consists of two subclasses, the
Displacement Class and the Application Class, as defined in the
Settlement Agreement; (3) $40,000 to Plaintiff HOME Line; (4)
$76,000 to pay attorneys' fees; (5) $14,000 to pay incentive
awards; and (6) $20,000 to pay notice and administration costs.

The Settlement Agreement explicitly recognizes that the severed
individual claims asserted by Lee in her separate action are not
affected by the Settlement Agreement.

The Court preliminarily approved the Settlement Agreement on Oct.
19, 2017.  After preliminary approval of the settlement, the
parties carried out the Court-approved notice program.  Claims
administrator JND Legal Administration, LLC mailed notice and
claim forms to 501 addresses for the potential Displacement Class
Members and received 230 claim forms from the Displacement Class.
JND mailed notice and claim forms to 1,648 addresses for
Application Class Members and received 131 claim forms from the
Application Class.  Lee is the only Class Member who has objected
to the settlement.

The Plaintiffs now move for final approval of the settlement;
approval of the notice plan as comporting with due process;
approval of the proposed plan of allocation for the settlement
proceeds; authorization to distribute the settlement proceeds;
approval of the Plaintiffs' request for incentive awards,
attorneys' fees and expenses; conditional certification of the
Settlement Class, and entry of judgment.

Judge Montgomery finds that numerous objections to the settlement
that Lee raises do not alter the Court's conclusion that the
settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate; that certification
of the Settlement Class is appropriate; and that the notice
program comported with due process and Rule 23.  All of the
concerns stated in Lee's Objections are unfounded.  Accordingly,
the Judge overruled Lee's Objections, and granted the Plaintiffs'
Motion for Order and Judgment Granting Final Approval of Class
Action Settlement and Certifying Settlement Class.

The Judge certified the following Settlement Class, made up of
two classes:

     a. The Displacement Class: All persons who were tenants at
the Property as of Sept. 30, 2015, but no longer reside there and
whose household at the time of their occupancy of the property
included at least one person qualifying as a member of a
protected class under the FHA under one of the following
categories: (i) Non-white; (ii) Handicapped as defined by the
Act; (iii) National origin; and (iv) Familial status.  In this
case, that would be limited to tenants who had or desired to have
more than two individuals reside in the unit due to at least one
individual under the age of 18 residing in the unit.

     b. The Application Class: All persons who, from Sept. 30,
2015, until the Execution Date of the Settlement Agreement,
either applied for tenancy at the Property but were rejected, or
completed a Guest Card expressing interest in tenancy at the
Property but did not apply, as a result of the screening criteria
imposed by Defendants and whose household included at least one
person qualifying as a member of a protected class under the Act,
under one of the following categories: (i) Non-white; (ii)
Handicapped as defined by the Act; (iii) National origin; and
(iv) Familial status.  In this case, that would be limited to
tenants who had or desired to have more than two individuals
reside in the unit due to at least one individual under the age
of 18 residing in the unit.

The Judge entered a judgment of dismissal of the Complaint in the
Action with prejudice and without costs pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.
P. 54 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 58.

Judge Montgomery ordered the parties to follow the settlement
allocation process and timeline specified in their Settlement
Agreement.  Consistent with that timeline, within 10 days of the
Effective Date of the Settlement Agreement, the Defendants will
pay a total of $650,000 to the Class Counsel's designee, pursuant
to instructions to be provided by the Class Counsel.  However, if
any Participating Class Member is determined to be a Medicare
beneficiary, payment to that class member will be held in the
client trust account of Defendants' attorneys until such time as
any potential lien claimed by Medicare is resolved.  If the lien
may not be resolved, any amounts that are held in trust pending
resolution of potential liens from Medicare may be excepted from
this payment until the potential lien claim is resolved.

From the Settlement Proceeds, a minimum of $200,000, plus any
funds remaining unspent after the notice and claims
administration costs have been fully paid, and any funds deemed
waived following expiration of a check, will be allocated to the
NOAH Impact Fund, which is a subsidiary non-profit entity of the
Greater Minnesota Housing Fund, for the purpose of assisting in
the acquisition and preservation of naturally affordable rental
properties in the Twin Cities Metro Area at risk of conversion to
higher rents and the threat of displacement of low and moderate
income residents.

From the Settlement Proceeds, a total of $300,000 will be
allocated to the Participating Class Members as follows:

     a. A total of $290,000 will be allocated to Participating
Class Members with respect to the Displacement Class to
Participating Class Members who timely submit an executed Claim
Form and Release.  Individual payments from this amount will be
made consistent with the pro rata allocations agreed upon by the
parties as set forth in the Settlement Agreement.

     b. A total of $10,000 will be allocated with respect to the
Application Class to Participating Class Members who timely
submit an executed Claim Form and Release.  Individual payments
from this amount will not exceed $25 per Participating Class
Member, and any funds allocated but not distributed will revert
to the Equitable Relief Fund.

From the Settlement Proceeds, the following additional amounts
will be paid to certain current or former Class Representatives
or the Plaintiffs for their participation in the litigation:

     a. Tier 1: Certain current or former Class Representatives
who testified at a deposition in the Action and who attended one
or more settlement conferences in their capacity as class
representatives -- Jurline Bryant and Maria Johnson -- will each
be paid $2,500 as an Incentive Award.

     b. Tier 2: Certain current or former Class Representatives
who either testified at a deposition in the Action or who
attended one or more settlement conferences in their capacity as
class representatives -- Linda Soderstrom, Julio Stalin de
Tourniel, and Viky Martinez-Melgar -- will each be paid $2,000 as
an Incentive Award.

     c. Tier 3. Certain current or former Class Representatives
or the Plaintiffs who produced documents to the Defendants in the
Action -- Craig Goodwin, Norma Ziegler, and Kerly Rios -- will
each be paid $1,000 as an Incentive Award.

From the Settlement Proceeds, Plaintiff HOME Line will be
allocated $40,000 to resolve all claims brought on its own behalf
in the Action.

The Class Counsel will be allocated a total of $76,000 as
reimbursement of reasonable litigation expenses and attorney's
fees, as follows: (i) Housing Justice Center will be allocated
$46,000 as reimbursement of its reasonable litigation expenses
and attorney's fees; and (ii) Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P.
will be allocated $30,000 as reimbursement of its reasonable
litigation expenses and attorney's fees.

From the Settlement Proceeds, $15,000 will be allocated to the
Claims Administrator, and $5,000 will be allocated to Plaintiff
HOME Line, for expenses incurred and fair compensation for work
related to the Notice Program and Claims Administration.

Any settlement funds relating to uncashed checks issued as
Settlement Proceeds, allocated but unused Notice Costs, allocated
but undistributed Application Class Funds, or other residual
settlement funds will revert to the Equitable Relief Fund.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 2, 2018 Memorandum Opinion
and Order is available at https://is.gd/WUeQlr from Leagle.com.

Linda Lee Soderstrom, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Maria Johnson, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, Craig Goodwin, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Jurline Bryant, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Julio
Stalin de Tourniel, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated & HOME Line, a Minnesota nonprofit
corporation, Plaintiffs, represented by Charles N. Nauen --
cnnauen@locklaw.com -- Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P., John D.
Cann -- jcann@hjcmn.org -- Housing Justice Center, Kate M.
Baxter-Kauf -- kmbaxter-kauf@locklaw.com -- Lockridge Grindal
Nauen PLLP, Kristen G. Marttila -- kgmarttila@locklaw.com --
Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P., Lael E. Robertson, Mid-
Minnesota Legal Assistance & Timothy L. Thompson --
tthompson@hjcmn.org -- Housing Justice Center.

MSP Crossroads Apartments LLC, a Minnesota corporation &
Soderberg Apartment Specialists (SAS), a Minnesota corporation,
Defendants, represented by Bradley J. Lindeman --
blindeman@meagher.com -- Meagher & Geer, PLLP, Christopher T.
Kalla, Hanbery & Turner, P.A., Donna E. Hanbery, Hanbery &
Turner, PA, Jennifer M. Zwilling -- jzwilling@meagher.com --
Meagher & Geer, PLLP & Margaret R. Ryan -- mryan@meagher.com --
Meagher & Geer, PLLP.


NAVIENT CORP: Levi & Korsinsky to Lead in Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Eli POPE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. NAVIENT CORPORATION, et al.
Defendant. Melvin GROSS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. NAVIENT CORPORATION, et al.,
Defendant, Civil Nos. 17-8373 (RBK/AMD), 17-11014 (RBK/AMD) (D.
N.J.), Judge Robert B. Kugler of the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey, Camden Vicinage, (i) granted Yuri
Marakhovsky and the Group's motions to consolidate, (ii) denied
Marakhovsky's Motions for Appointment as the Lead Plaintiff; and
(iii) granted the Navient Investor Group's Motion for Appointment
as Lead Plaintiff and Approval as Lead Counsel.

This is a federal securities class action brought on behalf of a
class consisting of all persons and entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired the publicly-traded securities of Navient from
Feb. 25, 2016 through Oct. 4, 2017.  The Plaintiffs seek to
recover compensable damages caused by the Defendants' alleged
violations of federal securities laws and bring the action under
sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5.  The complaints allege that the Defendants made
materially false and misleading statements regarding Navient's
business, causing losses and damages among the holders of Navient
securities.

A class-action complaint was first filed with the Court on Oct.
16, 2017 on behalf of one Pope, who had bought three shares of
Navient on Sept. 15, 2017 for $13.73.  A subsequent class-action
complaint, concerning essentially the same subject matter, class,
and allegations was filed on behalf of Gross on Nov. 3, 2017, a
putative class member who had 12 shares of Navient.

On Dec. 15, 2017, Yuri Marakhovsky moved to appoint the lead
plaintiff in both the Pope and Gross actions, and also moved to
consolidate the actions.  Marakhovsky had bought 150 shares of
Navient on Jan. 19, 2017 at $15.57.  Also on Dec. 15, 2017,
Navient Investor Group also moved to appoint the lead plaintiff
and consolidate the actions.  The Group consists of at least two
individuals who purchased Navient shares: Jesse Wayne Pritchard,
who bought 700 shares on July 19, 2017 at $15.559, and Jay
Montblanc, who bought 450 shares on Aug. 9, 2016 at $14.39.

Shortly after Navient Investor Group moved to be the lead
plaintiff, Marakhovsky submitted notice that he was not opposing
its appointment because the Group had taken greater losses than
Marakhovsky.  The Group claims losses totaling $3,114.58, much
larger than Marakhovsky's losses of $479.00, and the Court is
unaware of any losses greater than those claimed by the Group.

Judge Kugler finds that the Pope and Gross actions are
essentially the same action, with the same class, concerning the
same events.  Pope alleges a class who had purchased Navient
securities between Feb. 25, 2016 and Oct. 4, 2017 and was injured
by alleged material misrepresentations; so does the Gross action.
The Pope action alleges violations of Section 10(b) of the
Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 78j(b) and Rule 10b-5, and
violations of Section 20(a), 15 U.S.C. Section 78t; so does the
Gross action.  The Judge thus finds that consolidation is
appropriate and would facilitate the administration of justice,
and will grant Marakhovsky's motion for consolidation of the Pope
and Gross actions.

As Navient Investor Group appears to have the largest financial
interest, has satisfied the Rule 23 requirements, and the
presumption that Navient Investor Group is the most adequate
Plaintiff has not been rebutted, the Judge will appoint the Group
as the Lead Plaintiff in the consolidated action.

Finally, the Judge finds that Levi & Korsinsky is clearly capable
of handling the matter -- the firm has extensive experience in
private securities litigation and has received numerous favorable
judgments in its past representations.  In any event, its
appointment as the lead counsel is unopposed.  And although the
Judge does not know how or why Navient Investor Group, or its
constituents Pritchard and Montblanc, came to select Levi &
Korsinsky as its counsel, he is satisfied that the certifications
of Pritchard and Montblanc establish that the Group's choice of
counsel comports with a good-faith selection and negotiation
process.  He therefore will approve Levi & Korsinsky, LLP as the
Lead Plaintiff's counsel.

For the reasons stated, Judge Kugler granted Group's motion, and
granted in part and denied in part Marakhovsky's motion.  An
order follows.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 2, 2018 Opinion is available
at https://is.gd/5KdHu9 from Leagle.com.

Yuri Marakhovsky, Movant, represented by BRUCE DANIEL GREENBERG -
- bgreenberg@litedepalma.com -- LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC.

Navient Investor Group, Lead Plaintiff, represented by EDUARD
KORSINSKY -- ek@zlk.com -- LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP.

ELI POPE, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by LAURENCE M. ROSEN --
lrosen@rosenlegal.com -- THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, PA.

MELVIN GROSS, Plaintiff Consolidated, represented by BRUCE DANIEL
GREENBERG, LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC.


NEW MEXICO: "Coss" Suit vs. Tax Dept Moved to Federal District
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled David Coss, the Honorable; Raul
Aaron Lara Martinez; Charlie Maldonado Jr.; Elizabeth Lara;
Eulalia Robles; Drucilla Hager; and Reyna Carmona Perez, all
residents of New Mexico on behalf of themselves and individuals
similarly situated Plaintiff; The New Mexico Coalition to End
Homelessness; and Somos Un Pueblo Unido, New Mexico membership-
based organizations representing low-income individuals, the
Plaintiffs, v. John Montforte, Alicia Ortiz, and New Mexico
Taxation and Revenue Department, Case No. 18cv00302, was removed
from the First Judicial District Court, to the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Mexico (Albuquerque) on March 2,
2018. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:18-cv-00209-
LF-KK to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon.
Magistrate Judge Laura Fashing.

The New Mexico Taxation and Revenue Department is the state
agency responsible for collecting and distributing governmental
revenue in New Mexico.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          David H Urias, Esq.
          Jeremy Daniel Farris, Esq.
          FREEDMAN BOYD HOLLANDER GOLDBERG URIAS & WARD, PA
          20 First Plaza, NW Suite 700
          Albuquerque, NM 87108
          Telephone: (505) 842 9960
          Facsimile: (505) 842 0761
          E-mail: dhu@fbdlaw.com
                  jdf@fbdlaw.com

               - and -

          Gabriela Ibanez Guzman, Esq.
          Law Offices of Nancy L. Simmons
          120 Girard SE
          Albuquerque, NM 87106
          Telephone: (505) 232 2575
          Facsimile: (505) 232 2574
          E-mail: gcguzman00@hotmail.com

               - and -

          Kristin G. Love, Esq.
          Leon F Howard, III, Esq.
          ACLU OF NEW MEXICO
          1410 Coal Ave. SW
          Albuquerque, NM 87104
          Telephone: (505) 266 5915
          Facsimile: (505) 266 5916
          E-mail: klove@aclu-nm.org
                  lhoward@aclu-nm.org

               - and -

          Sovereign Hager, Esq.
          NEW MEXICO CENTER ON LAW AND POVERTY
          924 Park Ave., SW, Suite C
          Albuquerque, NM 87102
          Telephone: (505) 255 2840
          Facsimile: (505) 255 2778
          E-mail: sovereign@nmpovertylaw.org

Attorneys for Defendants:

          Drew Larkin, Esq.
          Doughty Alcaraz, Esq.
          20 First Plaza NW, Suite 412
          Albuquerque, NM 87103
          Telephone: (505) 242 7070
          Facsimile: (505) 242 8707
          E-mail: larkin@dadglaw.com

               - and -

          Patrick Joseph Rogers, Esq.
          PATRICK J. ROGERS, LLC
          20 First Plaza, Ste. 725
          Albuquerque, NM 87102
          Telephone: (505) 938 3335
          Facsimile: (505) 243 6458
          E-mail: patrogers@patrogerslaw.com

               - and -

          Robert M Doughty, III, Esq.
          DOUGHTY ALCARAZ, P.A.
          20 First Plaza NW, Suite 412
          Albuquerque, NM 87102
          Telephone: (505) 242 7070
          Facsimile: (505) 242 8707
          E-mail: rob@doughtyalcaraz.com


NEW PRIME: Supreme Court to Hear Appeal in Arbitration Case
-----------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Payne, Esq., of Barnes & Thornburg LLP, in an article for
Lexology, reports that an important case is on the horizon for
those involved in the transportation industry.  On Feb. 26, the
Supreme Court agreed to hear the appeal of New Prime, Inc., a
transportation company that is asking the Court to overrule the
First Circuit and find that an independent contractor's class
action claim should be compelled to arbitration.

Here is the scenario.  A truck driver signed an independent
contractor agreement as part of the company's apprentice program
-- that agreement contained a clause compelling any disputes
between the driver and company to arbitration.  The driver filed
a class action in New York, alleging that the company
misclassified drivers as independent contractors and the
company's deduction of lease payments on his truck and other
costs took his wage below the federal minimum wage during the
training program.

The company moved to compel this class action to arbitration,
invoking the clause in the independent contractor agreement.

At issue is the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), which generally
allows for the enforcement of arbitration agreements. However,
section one of the FAA contains an exception for interstate
transportation workers with "contracts of employment."  Like many
legal disputes, the company's ability to compel arbitration
hinges on the interpretation of this statutory language.  The
First Circuit ruled that this independent contractor agreement
was a "contract of employment," so the dispute could not be
compelled to arbitration based on it falling under the FAA
exception.

At the Supreme Court the company will argue that like many lower
court decisions in the past, independent contractor agreements
should not be considered "contracts of employment" because that
phrase applies only to contracts between employers and employees,
not independent contractors.

The case is important because of the high prevalence of
arbitration agreements in the transportation industry, where
companies often use independent contractors.  The Supreme Court
has said in the past that arbitration is an efficient and
effective means of dispute resolution that should be favored.
The case will be argued during the court's next term, which
starts in October.

This isn't the only Supreme Court case pending involving
arbitration agreements.  The court currently has a consolidated
trio of cases pending involving the NLRB's position on class
action waivers in arbitration agreements violating the National
Labor Relations Act (NLRA).  That decision was argued in October
and has yet to be decided.

The numerous employers who rely on arbitration agreements with
their employees and independent contractors will want to pay
attention to these big decisions as the law on these agreements
continues to evolve.

Thomas Payne is an associate in the Indianapolis office of Barnes
& Thornburg, where he is a member of the Labor and Employment
Department.  Prior to joining Barnes & Thornburg full time,
Thomas served as a summer associate in the firm's Indianapolis
office. He also gained experience as a pro bono law clerk for the
Indiana Office of the Attorney General and for the Honorable
Lance Hamner of the Johnson County Superior Court. [GN]


NORTH PLAZA RESTAURANT: "Dimalanta" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
KIMBERLY DIMALANTA, an individual, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated; and SHAVAI OWENS, an individual, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, v. NORTH PLAZA RESTAURANT PARTNERS LLC, a California
limited liability company, d/b/a DRAGO CENTRO; DRAGO AIR
CATERING, INC., a California corporation; ANTONINO NATALE, INC.,
a California corporation, d/b/a CELESTINO RISTORANTE; CELESTINO
DRAGO ENTERPRISES, INC., a California corporation, d/b/a DRAGO
BAKERY; ENOTECA DRAGO, INC., a California corporation; GTA
RESTAURANTS LLC, a California limited liability company,
d/b/a VIA ALLORO; 4 FRATELLI, INC., a California corporation,
d/b/a PANZANELLA RESTAURANT; GD ASSOCIATES LLC, a California
limited liability company, d/b/a PICCOLO PARADISO; FSC
CORPORATION, a California corporation, d/b/a IL PASTAIO;
CARNIVALE RESTAURANTS INC., a California corporation, d/b/a IL
BUCO RISTORANTE; MG RESTAURANTS LLC, a California limited
liability company, d/b/a SHU SUSHI HOUSE UNICO; YOGISAN LLC, a
California limited liability company, d/b/a YOJISAN SUSHI;
GALAT1, LLC, a California limited liability company, d/b/a IL
SEGRETO RISTORANTE; 1043 WESTWOOD BLVD LLC, a California limited
liability company, d/b/a TAN1NO RISTORANTE; DRAGO HOLDINGS, INC.,
a California corporation; DRAGO MANAGEMENT LLC, a California
limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, the
Defendant, Case No. BC695657 (Cal. Super. Ct., Feb. 28, 2018),
seeks to recover wages and penalties from unpaid wages earned and
due, including but not limited to unpaid minimum wages, unpaid
and illegally calculated overtime compensation, illegal meal and
rest period policies, failure to pay all wages due to discharged
and quitting employees, failure to indemnify employees for
necessary expenditures and/or losses incurred in discharging
their duties, failure to provide accurate itemized wage
statements, failure to maintain required records, and interest,
attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses under California Labor Code.

North Plaza is in the eating places business.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Matthew J. Matern, Esq.
          Dalia Khalili, Esq.
          Irina Kirnosova, Esq.
          MATERN LAW GROUP, PC
          1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 200
          Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
          Telephone: (310) 531 1900
          Facsimile: (310) 531 1901


OCHLAR INCORPORATED: Roman Seeks Minimum Wages under Labor Law
--------------------------------------------------------------
ROSE ROMAN, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated who were employed by OCHLAR, INCORPORATED
d/b/a RIGHT AT HOME, OCHLOR SI, INC. d/b/a RIGHT AT HOME, along
with other entities affiliated or controlled by OCHLAR,
INCORPORATED d/b/a RIGHT AT HOME, OCHLOR SI, INC. d/b/a RIGHT AT
HOME, the Plaintiffs, v. OCHLAR, INCORPORATED d/b/a RIGHT AT
HOME, OCHLOR SI, INC. d/b/a RIGHT AT HOME and/or any other
related entities, the Defendants, Case No. 152053/2018 (N.Y. Sup.
Ct., Mar. 7, 2018), seeks to recover minimum wages, overtime
compensation, and benefits which Plaintiffs were statutorily and
contractually entitled to receive pursuant to New York Labor Law.

According to the complaint, beginning in March 2012 and
continuing through the present, Defendants have maintained a
policy and practice of requiring Plaintiffs to regularly work in
excess of ten hours per day, without providing the proper hourly
compensation for all hours worked, overtime compensation for all
hours worked in excess of 40 hours in any given week, and "spread
of hours" compensation.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lloyd R. Ambinder, Esq.
          LaDonna M. Lusher, Esq.
          Milana Dostanitch, Esq.
          VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP
          40 Broad Street, Seventh Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 943 9080
          Facsimile: (212) 943 9082
          E-mail: llusher@vandallp.com


OWL INC: "Whaley" Suit Seeks Overtime Wages under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------
JOE A. WHALEY, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated persons, the Plaintiff, v. OWL, INC., the Defendants,
Case No. 4:18-cv-00046-D (E.D.N.C., Mar. 6, 2018), seeks to
recover unpaid overtime wages under Fair Labor Standards Act.

The case is a collective action pursuant to the FLSA, and a class
action under the NC Wage and Hour Act by one former employee
against a closely held enterprise and corporation who employed
him and other similarly situated persons to provide nonemergency
medical transportation (NEMT) through the driving of vans with a
gross vehicle weight of less than 10,000 pounds in and around
Greenville, Pitt County, North Carolina, other locales in North
Carolina, Virginia, Georgia, Florida, South Carolina, Missouri,
and California.

The closely held enterprise and corporation were and are part of
a single business enterprise operated by its CEO, President and
Secretary Laster B. Walker, Sr. since at least 2004 in one or
more counties in North Carolina that are listed in 28 U.S.C.
Sections 113(a)-(b), and in other counties located in Virginia,
Georgia, Florida, South Carolina, Missouri, and California. The
regular scheduled payday for the plaintiff and those employees
who were and/or are similarly situated to him based upon the
defendant's failure to compensate the plaintiff and those
similarly situated employees for travel that was and is all in
the day's work and for work time when they were and are not
completely relieved from duty when they were on the road engaged
in NMET of OWL, INC. clients.[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiff:

          Robert J. Willis, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT J. WILLIS, P.A.
          Pittsboro, NC 27312
          Telephone: (919) 821 9031
          Facsimile: (919) 821 1763
          488 Thompson Street
          E-mail: rwillis@rjwillis-law.com


PARADIES-LONG BEACH: No Meal & Rest Breaks, "Lopez" Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
KATHERINE LOPEZ, an individual, on behalf of herself and others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. PARADIES-LONG BEACH II,
LLC; and DOES 1 thru 50, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No.
BC696899 (Cal. Super. Ct., Mar. 7, 2018), alleges that, from at
least four years prior to the filing of this action and
continuing to the present, Defendant has had a consistent policy
of failing to inform Proposed Class Members of their right to
take meal periods by way of a lawful policy and requiring
Proposed Class Members within the State of California, including
Plaintiff, to work at least five hours without a meal period and
failing to pay such employees one hour of pay at the employees'
regular rate of compensation for each workday that the meal
period is not provided or provided after five hours, as required
by California state wage and hour laws. For at least four years
prior to the filing of this action and continuing to the present,
Defendant has had a consistent policy of failing to inform
Proposed Class Members of their right to take rest periods by way
of a lawful policy and of failing to provide Proposed Class
Members within the State of California, including Plaintiff, rest
periods of at least 10 minutes per four hours worked or major
fraction thereof and failing to pay such employees one hour of
pay at the employee's regular rate of compensation for each
workday that the rest period was not provided, as required by
California state wage and hour laws.

For at least three years prior to the filing of this action
continuing to the present, Defendant has failed to pay all wages
due at the time of termination or resignation to Plaintiff and
the Proposed Class.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Eric B. Kingsley, Esq.
          Kelsey M. Szamet, Esq.
          KINGSLEY & KINGSLEY, APC
          16133 Ventura Blvd., Suite 1200
          Encino, CA 91436
          Telephone: (818) 990 8300
          Facsimile: (818) 990 2903
          E-mail: eric@kingsleykingsley.com
                  kelsey@kingsleykingsley.com


PARAMOUNT OF OAK PARK: Insurer Denies Coverage in Biometrics Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ILLINOIS UNION INSURANCE COMPANY, the Plaintiff, v. PARAMOUNT OF
OAK PARK REHABILITATION & NURSING CENTER; and MARTIN RAGSDALE,
the Defendants, Case No. 2018-CH-02781 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty.,
Mar. 1, 2018), disputes that Plaintiff has any obligation to
defend or indemnify Oak Park with respect to a class action
lawsuit under the parties' insurance policy.

Oak Park has demanded that Illinois Union defend and indemnify it
under liability policy no. HPL 027957985 002 with respect to a
putative class action lawsuit filed by Ragsdale against Oak Park
entitled Ragsdale v. Paramount of Oak Park Rehabilitation &
Nursing Center, LLC, Case No. 17 CH 13911, pending in the Circuit
Court of Cook County, Illinois.

The Ragsdale Lawsuit alleges that Oak Park violated the lllinois
Biometric Information Privacy Act, 740 ILCS 14/l, et seq.
("BIPA") through Oak Park's collection, storage, and use of
employees' fingerprints for timekeeping purposes.

Paramount of Oak is a nursing home in Oak Park, Illinois.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Myles McGuire, Esq.
          William P. Kingston, Esq.
          MCGUIRE LAW, P.C.
          55 W. Wacker Drive,
          9th Fl. Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 893 7002
          Facsimile: (312) 275 7895
          E-mail: mmcguire@mcgpc.com
                  wkingston@mcgpc.com


PDR VOICE: Engelman Alleges Sexual Assault by Voice Coach
---------------------------------------------------------
LUCY ENGELMAN, on behalf of herself and on behalf of other
similarly-situated individuals, the Plaintiff, v. PETER ROFE and
PDR VOICE, INC., the Defendants, Case No. 152072/2018 (N.Y. Sup.
Ct., Mar. 7, 2018), alleges that Ms. Engelman, an artist, was
subjected to emotional and physical abuse while she attended a
voice-over coaching session at PDR Voice-Over Coaching. Defendant
Peter Rofe, who as an instructor at PDR Voice-Over Coaching, used
his position of power to sexually assault Ms. Engelman.

During a recording of a voice-over demo, Mr. Rofe groped and
tried to force himself onto Ms. Engelman under the pretext that
the sexual acts were part of a scene, even though it was not.
Mr. Rofe insisted that they both ran through the same dialogue
three times and each time he forced himself onto her, pulling her
against his body, and forcibly kissing her. Ms. Engelman rejected
all of his advances, but that did not stop him from persisting
his illicit contact until such time as she could finally escape
his grip and run out of the studio forever. This did not occur in
some back alley in New York City. It sadly happened in the
offices of a purportedly reputable voice coach, who upon
information and belief, has done this to many other women who
have already spoken out against defendant in unison with the "Me-
Too" movement.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jordan K. Merson, Esq.
          MERSON LAW. PLLC
          150 East 58th Street 34th Floor
          New York, NY 10155
          Telephone: (212) 603 9100


PERSONAL-TOUCH: Fails to Pay Wages & Overtime, Belabarodaya Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
NELA BELABARODAYA, individually and on behalf of all other
persons similarly situated who were employed by PERSONAL-TOUCH
HOME CARE OF N.Y., INC., PERSONAL TOUCH HOME CARE IPA, INC.,
PERSONAL TOUCH HOME AIDES OF NEW YORK INC., and PERSONAL TOUCH
HOME CARE AGENCY, LLC d/b/a PERSONAL TOUCH HOME CARE, along with
other entities affiliated or controlled by PERSONAL-TOUCH HOME
CARE OF N.Y., INC., PERSONAL TOUCH HOME CARE IPA, INC., PERSONAL
TOUCH HOME AIDES OF NEW YORK INC. and PERSONAL TOUCH HOME CARE
AGENCY, LLC d/b/a PERSONAL TOUCH HOME CARE, the Plaintiffs, v.
PERSONAL-TOUCH HOME CARE OF N.Y., INC. d/b/a PERSONAL TOUCH HOME
CARE, PERSONAL TOUCH HOME CARE IPA, INC. d/b/a PERSONAL TOUCH
HOME CARE, PERSONAL TOUCH HOME AIDES OF NEW YORK INC. d/b/a
PERSONAL TOUCH HOME CARE, and PERSONAL TOUCH HOME CARE AGENCY,
LLC d/b/a PERSONAL TOUCH HOME CARE, and/or any other related
entities, the Defendants, Case No. 152051/2018 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
Mar. 7, 2018), seeks to recover wages and benefits which
Plaintiffs were statutorily and contractually entitled to receive
pursuant to New York Labor Law, the New York Codes, Rules, and
Regulations, and the New York Public Health Law.

According to the complaint, beginning in April 2012 and,
continuing through the present, Defendants have maintained a
policy and practice of requiring Plaintiffs to regularly work in
excess of ten hours per day, without providing the proper hourly
compensation for all hours worked, overtime compensation for all
hours worked in excess of 40 hours in any given week, and "spread
of hours" compensation.

The Plaintiff has initiated this action seeking for herself, and
on behalf of all similarly situated employees who are citizens of
New York and who performed work within the State of New York,
minimum wages, overtime compensation, "spread of hours"
compensation, reimbursement for business expenses borne for the
benefit and convenience of the Defendants, as well as damages
arising from Defendants' breach of contract, which they were
deprived of, plus interest, attorneys' fees, and costs.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lloyd R. Ambinder, Esq.
          LaDonna M. Lusher, Esq.
          Milana Dostanitch, Esq.
          VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP
          40 Broad Street, Seventh Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 943 9080
          Facsimile: (212) 943 9082
          E-mail: llusher@vandallp.com


PETROLEO BRASILEIRO: Court Preliminarily Approves Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
Gram Slattery, writing for Reuters, reports that a U.S. federal
court preliminarily approved on Feb. 28 the terms of a $3 billion
class action settlement Brazilian state oil company Petroleo
Brasileiro SA reached with U.S. shareholders in January, the firm
said in a March 1 securities filing.

The company said a judge will assess potential objections to the
accord at a hearing scheduled for June 1.

In early January, Petrobras, as the company is known, agreed to
pay $2.95 billion to U.S. shareholders due to corruption-related
losses, in what was said to be the biggest such payout in the
United States by a foreign entity.  That number could be slightly
higher due to legal and administrative fees. [GN]


PLANET HOLLYWOOD: Padder Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Law
-----------------------------------------------------------
DIPON PADDER, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. PLANET HOLLYWOOD (BROADWAY), LLC
d/b/a PLANET HOLLYWOOD; THOMAS AVALLONE; BRUCE F. HAWKINS; and
any other related entities, the Defendant, Case No. 151827/2018
(N.Y. Sup. Ct., Feb. 28, 2018), seeks to recover compensation,
including unpaid minimum wages and unpaid monies, including tips
and gratuities pursuant to the New York Labor Law.

According to the complaint, the Defendants have engaged in a
policy and practice of failing to distribute the proceeds
collected from the assessment of the mandatory charge to
Plaintiff and similarly situated employees and instead retained
the money for their own benefit in violation of Labor Law Article
6 section 196-d. Moreover, throughout the Relevant Period,
Defendants have engaged in a policy and practice of unlawfully
compensating its service employees an hourly rate lower than the
applicable minimum wage.

Planet Hollywood is a theme restaurant inspired by the popular
portrayal of Hollywood.[BN]

Attorneys for the Named Plaintiff & Putative Class:

          Brett R. Cohen, Esq.
          Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq.
          Michael A. Tompkins, Esq.
          LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C.
          One Old Country Road, Suite 347
          Carle Place, NY 11514
          Telephone: (516) 873 9550


PRAXAIR INC: "Hassan" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code
--------------------------------------------------------------
LOUIE HASSAN, in his individual capacity, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. PRAXAIR, INC., a
Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1-100, inclusive, the Defendants,
Case No. Bc696124 (Cal. Super. Ct., Mar. 1, 2018), seeks to
recover unpaid wages under the California Labor Code.

The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself, as a class
action, and on behalf of the California general public, against
Defendants for their failure to provide mandated timely meal
periods to truck drivers; their failure to pay truck drivers for
missed and untimely meal and break periods; their failure to
issue accurate itemized wage statements to drivers; and their
failure to pay drivers' wages due upon termination of employment.
As a result of these acts or omissions, Defendants have violated
California statutory laws.

Praxair, Inc. is an American worldwide industrial gases company.
It is the largest industrial gases company in North and South
America, and the third-largest worldwide by revenue.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert L. Esensten, Esq.
          Jordan S. Esensten, Esq.
          ESENSTEN LAW
          12100 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1660
          Los Angeles, CA 90025
          Telephone: (310) 273 3090
          Facsimile: (310) 207 5969
          E-mail: resensten@esenstenlaw.com
                  jesensten@esenstenlaw.com


PROFESSIONAL DIVERSITY: Gerbie Sues over Spam Text Messages
-----------------------------------------------------------
DANIELLE GERBIE, individually and on behalf of classes of
similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiff, v. PROFESSIONAL
DIVERSITY NETWORK, INC., a Delaware corporation, the Defendants,
Case No.2018CH02864 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook County, Mar. 2, 2018),
seeks to Defendant's practice of making unauthorized and
unsolicited text messages to consumer's cellular telephones, and
to obtain redress for all persons injured by its conduct.

According to complaint, in a misguided effort to provide
networking and employment opportunities, PDN, a global operator
of professional job networks, engaged in an invasive and unlawful
form of marketing through the transmission of unauthorized text
messages to the cellular telephones of consumers throughout the
nation. By effectuating these unauthorized text messages,
Defendant and its agents have violated the called parties'
statutory rights and have caused consumers actual harm, not only
because consumers were subjected to the aggravation and invasion
of privacy that necessarily accompanies unauthorized automated
text messages, but also because consumers, like Plaintiff, must
frequently pay their cell phone service providers or incur a
usage allocation deduction from their calling plans for the
receipt of such messages, notwithstanding that the text messages
were made in violation of specific legislation on the subject.

Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and the proposed Class defined
below, brings this suit under the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act, which protects the privacy right of consumers to be free
from receiving unauthorized text messages.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Eugene Y. Turin, Esq.
          MCGUIRE LAW, P.C.
          55 W. Wacker Drive, 9th FL
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 893 7002
          Facsimile: (312) 275 7895
          E-mail: eturin@mcgpc.com


RASH CURTIS: Summary Judgment Bid in "McMillion" Partly OK'd
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SANDRA McMILLION, ET AL., Plaintiffs, v. RASH CURTIS
& ASSOCIATES, Defendant, Case No. 16-cv-03396-YGR (N.D. Cal.),
Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California

The Plaintiffs bring the instant class action against the
Defendant in connection with its allegedly unlawful debt
collection practices.  The Defendant is a large, nationwide debt
collection agency and the Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant
uses repeated robocalls, pre-recorded voice messages, and auto-
dialed calls to threaten and harass consumers in an attempt to
collect debts, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act ("TCPA"), the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"),
and the California Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant repeatedly called them
on their cellular telephones using an autodialer and/or an
artificial or prerecorded voice.  They further allege that they
did not provide the Defendant with prior express consent, and
they specifically asked the Defendant to stop calling.  The
Defendant allegedly called McMillion 33 times, Adekoya 45 times,
and Perez four times.  The complaint further alleges that several
consumer complaints have been filed against the Defendant
regarding similarly unsolicited robocalls and autodialed calls.

To make these calls, the Plaintiffs offer evidence indicating
that the Defendant employs three Dialers, namely, the (i)
DAKCS/VIC Software System, (ii) Global Connect system, and (iii)
TCN.  They allege thus regarding Defendant's business practices
related to its debt collection calls that the Defendant generally
receives debt-accounts from creditors.  While some of these
accounts include debtors' phone numbers, the Defendant receives
many accounts without any telephone numbers at all using the
process referred to as skip tracing.  The Defendant would often
call these numbers despite not having any accounts related to
those individuals.

Now before the Court are the parties' cross motions for partial
summary judgment.  With respect to claims affecting the class,
the Plaintiffs move for partial summary judgment on the issue of
whether the Dialers constitute Automatic Telephone Dialing
Systems ("ATDSs") within the meaning of the TCPA.  Both parties
move on whether the Plaintiffs provided prior express consent.

With respect to the individual claims, the Defendant seeks
summary judgment as to (i) Perez claiming that he lacks standing
to assert a claim under the Section 1692e(11) of the FDCPA
because he is not a "consumer" within the meaning of the FDCPA;
(ii) the Plaintiffs' FDCPA claims under Section 1692d because the
Plaintiffs cannot show that Rash Curtis engaged in harassing
conduct, failed to disclose its identity, or acted with the
intent to annoy; (iii) the Plaintiffs' Rosenthal Act claims
because they  cannot show that Rash Curtis called them to "annoy"
or with such frequency as to be unreasonable and to constitute
harassment under the circumstances; and (iv) all the Plaintiffs
on the ground they lack Article III standing for their TCPA and
FDCPA claims.

Judge Rogers granted the Plaintiffs' motion for partial summary
judgment with regard to Rash Curtis' Dialers and holds that the
Dialers constitute ATDSs within the meaning of the TCPA.  The
record reflects that defendants used three dialers during the
class period.  Further, the Defendant's advertising materials
highlight that Rash Curtis uses "predictive dialers" to increase
productivity.  Accordingly, the Defendant's Dialers fall squarely
within the FCC's definition of ATDS.

On the issue of McMillion's prior express consent, the Judge
granted the Defendant's motion for partial summary judgment with
regard to calls received on or prior to Feb. 2, 2016.  The
Plaintiffs concede that the Defendant initially had prior express
consent to call McMillion.  Accordingly, the Judge holds that
Rash Curtis had prior express consent with regard to calls
received on or prior to Feb. 2, 2016.  However, the Plaintiffs
assert that McMillion revoked consent and was subsequently called
by defendant on at least two occasions, namely on Feb. 16, 2016
and Feb. 17, 2016.   Further, they offer Rash Curtis call logs
which show that McMillion's cellphone was called by Global
Connect on Feb. 16, 2016 and again on Feb. 17, 2016.
Accordingly, the Judge granted the Plaintiffs' motion as to calls
after Feb. 2, 2016.

With regard to Adekoya's prior express consent, Judge Rogers
granted the Plaintiffs' motion as to calls received after April
18, 2016.  The Judge has reviewed the audio file of the April 18,
2016, call and finds that Adekoya clearly expressed her desire
not to receive further calls.  By contrast, in light of the
Defendant's unrebutted showing that Rash Curtis had express
consent to call Adekoya prior to the call quoted, the Judge
granted in part the Defendant's motion for summary judgment as to
calls received on or prior to April 18, 2016.

The Judge granted the Plaintiffs' motion for partial summary
judgment on the issue of prior express consent with regard to
Perez.  She finds that it is undisputed that Defendant did not
call Perez in connection with a particular debt owned by Perez.
Rather, the calls were in connection with a debt apparently owed
by non-party Reynoso.

She granted the Defendant's motion for partial summary judgment
on the Plaintiffs' FDCPA claims.  She finds that Perez does not
qualify as a "consumer" as defined under the FDCPA because Perez
was not obligated on the Rash Curtis debt.  Further, he is not
the debtor's spouse, guardian, executor, or administrator.

Judge Rogers also granted the Defendant's motion for partial
summary judgment on the Plaintiffs' Rosenthal Act claims as to
Plaintiff Perez and denied as to Plaintiffs Adekoya and
McMillion.  She finds that Perez fails to make a sufficient
showing show that the Defendant's "actual contact" was with such
frequency as to be unreasonable and to constitute harassment to
the debtor under the circumstances.  By contrast, Plaintiff
McMillion has proffered evidence sufficient to establish a
triable with regard to her claim under Section 1788.11(e).
Similarly, Adekoya proffers sufficient evidence to establish a
triable issue as to her claim under Section 1788.11(e).

Finally, Judge Rogers denied the Defendant's motion to dismiss
the Plaintiffs' TCPA and FDCPA claims for lack of Article III
standing. She finds the Plaintiffs' showing sufficient to satisfy
the "concrete" injury requirement of Article III.

The Order terminates Docket Numbers 139-140, 153, 156.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 2, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/YO70Dw from Leagle.com.

Sandra McMillion, Jessica Adekoya & Ignacio Perez, on Behalf of
Themselves and all Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs,
represented by Yeremey O. Krivoshey -- ykrivoshey@bursor.com --
Bursor Fisher, P.A. & Lawrence Timothy Fisher --
ltfisher@bursor.com -- Bursor & Fisher, P.A.

Rash Curtis & Associates, Defendant, represented by Andrew M.
Steinheimer, Ellis Law Group, LLP, Anthony Paul John Valenti --
AValenti@EllisLawGrp.com  -- Ellis Law Group, LLP & Mark Ewell
Ellis -- mellis@ellislawgrp.com -- Ellis Law Group, LLP.

Kourtney Richardson, Movant, represented by Yeremey O. Krivoshey,
Bursor Fisher, P.A.


RH: Securities Class Action Survives Motion to Dismiss
------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights law firm Robbins Arroyo LLP is investigating
whether certain officers and directors of RH (NYSE: RH) breached
their fiduciary duties to shareholders. RH, together with its
subsidiaries, operates as a retailer in the home furnishings
market.

Investors filed a consolidated class action complaint against RH
for alleged violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
The complaint alleges that RH repeatedly touted its business
prospects, including the introduction of its "RH Modern" brand,
which RH described as "the most important . . . new home
furnishings business to be launched in the last 15 or 20 years."
It therefore came as a surprise to investors when RH revealed
that the company faced production delays and that it had issued
$18 million in customer accommodations.  On this news, RH's stock
plunged over 21% on the highest trading volume in history since
its IPO.  On February 26, 2018, the Honorable Yvonne Gonzalez
Rogers of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California denied RH's motion to dismiss, paving the way for
litigation to proceed.

View this information on the law firm's Shareholder Rights Blog:
www.robbinsarroyo.com/rh-inc

RH Shareholders Have Legal Options

Concerned shareholders who would like more information about
their rights and potential remedies can contact attorney Leonid
Kandinov at (800) 350-6003, LKandinov@robbinsarroyo.com or via
the shareholder information form on the firm's website.

Robbins Arroyo LLP -- http://www.robbinsarroyo.com-- is a
shareholder rights law firm.  The firm represents individual and
institutional investors in shareholder derivative and securities
class action lawsuits, and has helped its clients realize more
than $1 billion of value for themselves and the companies in
which they have invested. [GN]


RIVERPARK OPERATING: Padder Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Law
--------------------------------------------------------------
DIPON PADDER, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. RIVERPARK OPERATING, LLC d/b/a
RIVERPARK; THOMAS COLICCHIO; ROBERT G. SCOTT; and any other
related entities, the Defendant, Case No. 151826/2018 (N.Y. Sup.
Ct., Feb. 28, 2018), seeks to recover compensation, including
unpaid minimum wages and unpaid monies, including tips and
gratuities, pursuant to the New York Labor Law.

According to the complaint, the Defendants have engaged in a
policy and practice of failing to distribute the proceeds
collected from the assessment of the mandatory charges to
Plaintiff and similarly situated employees and instead retained
the money for their own benefit in violation of Labor Law Article
6 section 196-d. Moreover, throughout the Relevant Period,
Defendants have engaged in a policy and practice of unlawfully
compensating its service employees an hourly rate lower than the
applicable minimum wage.[BN]

Attorneys for the Named Plaintiff & Putative Class:

          Brett R. Cohen, Esq.
          Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq.
          Michael A. Tompkins, Esq.
          LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C.
          One Old Country Road, Suite 347
          Carle Place, NY 11514
          Telephone: (516) 873 9550


ROHRER CORP: Cameron Sues over Collection of Biometric Data
-----------------------------------------------------------
BRENT CAMERON, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. ROHRER CORPORATION,
SHOREVIEW INDUSTRIES, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 2018-CH-02900
(Ill. Cir. Ct., Mar. 6, 2018), seeks to put a stop to Defendants'
unlawful collection, use, storage, and disclosure of Plaintiff's
and proposed Class' sensitive biometric data.

Rohrer Corporation designs, manufactures, and supplies
thermoformed plastic, folding carton, and carded packaging
products in the United States, with manufacturing facilities in
Illinois, Ohio, Georgia, and Arizona. When Rohrer hires an
employee, he or she is enrolled in an employee database. Rohrer
uses the employee database to monitor the time worked by each of
its hourly employees.

While most manufacturing facilities use conventional methods for
tracking time worked (such as ID badge swipes or punch clocks),
Rohrer employees are required to have their fingerprints scanned
by a biometric timekeeping device. Biometrics are not relegated
to esoteric comers of commerce. Many businesses -- such as
Defendants -- and financial institutions have incorporated
biometric applications into their workplace, in the form of
biometric timeclocks, and into consumer products, including such
ubiquitous consumer products as checking accounts and cell
phones. Unlike ID badges or time cards -- which can be changed or
replaced if stolen or compromised -- fingerprints are unique,
permanent biometric identifiers associated with each employee.
This exposes Rohrer employees to serious and irreversible privacy
risks. For example, if a biometric database is hacked, breached,
or otherwise exposed -- such as in the recent Equifax and Uber
data breaches -- employees have no means by which to prevent
identity theft, unauthorized tracking, and other improper or
unlawful use of this information.

Rohrer is a consumer packaging provider, with visual packaging
options such as blister cards, club store packaging, cartons,
clamshells, & many more retail packaging solutions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ryan F. Stephan, Esq.
          James B. Zouras, Esq.
          Andrew C. Ficzko, Esq.
          Haley R. Jenkins, Esq.
          STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
          205 N. Michigan Avenue Suite 2560
          Chicago, IL 6060
          Telephone: 312 233 1550
          Facsimile: 312 233 1560
          E-mail: rstephan@stephanzouras.com
                  jzouras@stephanzouras.com
                  aficzko@stephanzouras.com
                  hjenkins@stephanzouras.com


SAKE HIBACHI: "Williams" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------
Catherine Williams, Individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. section 216(b), the
Plaintiffs, v. Sake Hibachi Sushi & Bar, Inc. and Wen Qin Lu,
Individually, the Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-00517-D (N.D.
Tex., Mar. 5, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid wages, liquidated
damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

According to the complaint, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff
and Class Members in accordance with the FLSA in that Defendants
failed to lawfully administer a "tip credit" system, thereby
violating the minimum wage provisions of Section 206 of the FLSA.
The Plaintiff and Class Members were paid a sub-minimum hourly
wage plus tips, which were improperly shared with other employees
and managers, who may not lawfully participate in a tip pool.
Furthermore, Defendants also unlawfully deducted other amounts
from Plaintiff and Class Members' tips, which is also a violation
of condition two of the tip credit.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Drew N. Herrmann, Esq.
          Pamela G. Herrmann, Esq.
          HERRMANN LAW, PLLC
          777 Main St., Suite 600
          Fort Worth, Texas 76102
          Telephone: (817) 479 9229
          Facsimile: (817) 260 0801
          E-mail: drew@herrmannlaw.com
                  pamela@herrmannlaw.com

               - and -

          LAW OFFICE OF JERRY MURAD
          Jerry Murad, Jr.
          P.O. Box 470067
          Fort Worth, Texas 76147
          Telephone: (817) 335 5691
          Facsimile: (817) 870 1162
          E-mail: jerrymurad@mac.com


SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CA: Court Denies Certification of Minors Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, D.C., a minor by and through his Guardian Ad Litem,
Helen Garter, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO; JESSIE POLINSKY
CHILDREN'S CENTER; and SAN DIEGO COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
AGENCY, Defendants, Case No. 15cv1868-MMA (NLS) (S.D. Cal.),
Judge Michael M. Anello of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California granted in part and denied in
part the Plaintiff's Renewed Motion for Class Certification and
to Alter or Amend the Order Denying Motion for Class
Certification.

Plaintiff D.C., a minor, filed the putative class action through
his guardian ad litem pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983,
alleging Defendants violated his and putative class members'
constitutional rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments
to the United States Constitution.

Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(3),
the Plaintiff previously filed a motion to certify a class of all
children who had not yet reached 20 years of age as of Aug. 24,
2015 and who were placed at A.B. and Jessie Polinsky Children's
Center and subjected to a physical examination without the
presence of their parent or legal guardian, without the consent
of their parent or legal guardian, without an individualized
order of the court authorizing their examination, and without
exigent circumstances.  The Court found that the requirements of
Rule 23(a) -- numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy
of representation -- were met, but that the Plaintiff failed to
satisfy Rule 23(b)(3)'s predominance requirement because
individualized damages issues predominate over common questions.

Presently before the Court is the Plaintiff's Renewed Motion for
Class Certification and to Alter or Amend the Order Denying
Motion for Class Certification.  The Plaintiff asks the Court,
for the first time, to certify the putative class as a liability
class pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c)(4).
Defendant County of San Diego opposes, arguing the Plaintiff's
failure to propose a methodology for determining damages class
wide prohibits certification under Rule 23(c)(4).

The Plaintiff also moves the Court to correct "typographical
errors" pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(a) the
Court's Nov. 7, 2017 "Order: Denying Plaintiff's Motion to
Strike; and Denying Motion for Class Certification" .  The
Defendant did not address this in its opposition.

Judge Anello finds that while liability may be determined on a
class wide basis, this determination will not materially advance
the litigation because individualized damages determinations
would still be required.  Further, if the Plaintiff succeeds in
determining that Defendant is liable for violations of the Fourth
and Fourteenth Amendments, this will have preclusive effect in
subsequent suits with respect to liability.  As such, a series of
individual lawsuits are just as efficient as a class action where
damages would need to be determined on an individualized basis.
Accordingly, the Judge will deny the Plaintiff's request to
certify a liability class under Rule 23(c)(4).

As to corrections to the Court's prior Order, the Judge has
reviewed the Plaintiff's proposed amendments and will amend the
Order filed on Nov. 7, 2017as follows: (1) subsequent replaces
the word prior on page 15, line 2; (2) consented replaces the
words did not consent on page 26, line 17; and (3) an replaces
the word no on page 26, line 17.

Based on the foregoing, Judge Anello granted in part and denied
in part the Plaintiff's motion.  Specifically, he denied the
Plaintiff's renewed request to certify the putative class and
granted the Plaintiff's request to amend the Order as delineated.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 2, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/DHTweJ from Leagle.com.

D.C., a minor by and through his Guardian Ad Litem, Helen Garter,
on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, represented by Donnie R. Cox -- drc@drcoxlaw.com --
Law Offices of Donnie R. Cox, Kevin Gilbert Cooper --
kgilbert@ohshlaw.com -- Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz
LLP, pro hac vice, Paul W. Leehey -- aw@leehey.com -- Law Office
of Paul W. Leehey, Rachele R. Rickert -- rickert@whafh.com --
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman and Herz, Carree K. Nahama, Law
Office of Carree K. Nahama & Jeffrey G. Smith -- smith@whafh.com
-- Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP.

County of San Diego, A.B. and Jessie Polinsky Children's Center &
San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency, Defendants,
represented by Christina R. Snider, County Counsel & David L.
Brodie -- avid.brodie@sdcounty.ca.gov -- Office of the County
Councel.

Helen Garter, Guardian Ad Litem Party, represented by Donnie R.
Cox, Law Offices of Donnie R. Cox, Jeffrey G. Smith, Wolf
Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP & Rachele R. Rickert, Wolf
Haldenstein Adler Freeman and Herz.


SAN FRANCISCO, CA: Judge Certifies Money Bail Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that a federal judge on Feb. 26
certified a class of pretrial arrestees in a class action
fighting money bail in San Francisco.

The case is RIANA BUFFIN, ET AL., Plaintiffs, vs. CITY AND COUNTY
OF SAN FRANCISCO, ET AL., Defendants, CASE NO. 15-cv-04959-YGR
(S.D. Calif.).


SIMPLIFIED LABOR: Garcia Alleges Inaccurate Wage Statements
-----------------------------------------------------------
MARIA C. GARCIA, an individual, on behalf of herself and others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. SIMPLIFIED LABOR STAFFING
SOLUTIONS, INC.; and DOES 1 thru 50, inclusive, the Defendant,
Case No. BC696898 (Cal. Super. Ct., Mar. 7, 2018), seeks accurate
itemized wage statements, other penalties, injunctive and other
equitable relief, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs under
California Labor Code.

For at least one year prior to the filing of this action
continuing to the present, the Defendant has failed to comply
with Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order 4-2001(7)(B) and
Labor Code section 226(a) by failing to provide accurate itemized
wage statements in compliance with Labor Code section 226(a),
Wage Order 4-2001 (7)(B)(2) and Labor Code section 226(a)(6)
require that every employer shall, semi-monthly or at the time of
each payment of wages, furnish each of his or her employees,
either as a detachable part of the check, draft, or voucher
paying the employee's wages, or separately when wages are paid by
personal check or cash, an accurate itemized statement in writing
showing the inclusive dates of the period for which the employee
is paid. The Plaintiff and the Proposed Class are issued wage
statements that do not include the start date of the pay
period.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Proposed Class:

          Eric B. Kingsley, Esq.
          Kelsey M. Szamet, Esq.
          KINGSLEY & KINGSLEY, APC
          16133 Ventura Blvd., Suite 1200
          Encino, CA 91436
          Telephone: (818) 990 8300
          Facsimile: (818) 990 2903
          E-mail: eric@kingsleykingsley.com
                  kelsey@kingsleykingsley.com


SMALL PLANET: Peacock Alleges Mislabeling of Frozen Products
------------------------------------------------------------
BRENDA PEACOCK, an individual, on behalf of himself, the general
public and úthose similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. SMALL
PLANET FOODS, INC.; GENERAL MILLS, INC.; and DOES 1 THROUGH 50,
the Defendant, Case No. RG18895553 (Cal. Super. Ct., Mar. 6,
2018), alleges violations of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act,
false advertising, unfair trade practices, and fraud, deceit
and/or misrepresentation.  The case concerns Defendants' false
and deceptive marketing and sale of Cascadian Farm brand frozen
fruits and vegetables. Defendants' identical misrepresentations
mislead consumers into believing that all of their frozen fruit
and vegetable products are grown on an organic farm in Skagit
Valley, a small region in the state of Washington along the
Skagit River in the Cascade mountains. In truth, Defendants'
frozen fruit and vegetables are not grown on a farm in the
Cascades mountain range and/or in the Skagit Valley region.
Rather, because Defendants are multinational agrobusinesses, the
fruit and vegetables used in their frozen products are sourced
from all over the United States and the world.

As a direct and proximate result of such actions, Plaintiff and
the other members of the Class have suffered and continue to
suffer injury in fact and have lost money and/or property as a
result of such deceptive and/or unlawful trade practices and
unfair competition in an amount which will be proven at trial,
but which is in excess of the jurisdictional minimum of this
Court.  Plaintiff seeks to recover price premium paid for
Defendants' Products, i.e., the difference between the price
consumers paid for the Products and the price that they would
have paid but for Defendant's misrepresentation.

Small Planet Foods, Inc. grows, markets, and distributes organic
fruits and tomatoes. The company offers blueberries,
strawberries, raspberries, hardy kiwis, peppers, corn, and
pumpkins. It also provides fire roaster, diced, whole, crushed
and ground tomatoes; soups; tomato sauces, pastes, and purees;
pasta sauce; and salsa.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adam J. Gutride, Esq.
          Seth A. Safier, Esq.
          Marie Mccrary, Esq.
          GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP
          100 Pine St., Suite 1250
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 336 6545
          Facsimile: (415) 449 6469


SMART SYSTEMS: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages & OT, Ascencio Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
JOE ASCENCIO, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. SMART SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGIES, INC., a
California corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, the
Defendant, Case No. BG 696187 (Cal. Super. Ct., Mar. 2, 2018),
brings this action against Defendant for California Labor Code
violations and unfair business practices stemming from
Defendants' failure to pay minimum and straight time wages,
failure to pay overtime wages, failure to provide meal periods,
failure to authorize and permit rest periods, failure to maintain
accurate records of hours worked and meal periods, failure to
indemnify necessary business expenses, failure to pay vested
vacation wages at termination, failure to timely pay all wages to
terminated employees, and failure to furnish accurate wage
statements supplies, and then working at various client locations
throughout Los Angeles and Orange counties.

The Defendants own/owned and operate/operated an industry,
business, and establishment within the State of California,
including Los Angeles County. As such, and based upon all the
facts and circumstances incident to Defendants' business in
California, Defendants are subject to the California Labor Code,
Wage Orders issued by the Industrial Welfare Commission, and the
California Business & Professions Code.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kane Moon, Esq.
          Justin F. Marquez, Esq.
          MOON & YANG, APC
          1055 W. Seventh St., Suite 1880
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 232 3128
          Facsimile: (213) 232 3125
          E-mail: kane.moon@moonyanglaw.com
                  justin.marquez@moonyanglaw.com


SOLARWORLD INDUSTRIES: Court Refuses to Stay "Makaneole" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MICHAEL MAKANEOLE, Plaintiff, v. SOLARWORLD
INDUSTRIES AMERICA, INC., SOLARWORLD INDUSTRIES AMERICA, LP,
SOLARWORLD INDUSTRIES SERVICES, LLC, SOLARWORLD POWER PROJECTS,
INC., and RANDSTAD US, LP, Defendants, Case No. 3:14-CV-1528-PK
(D. Or.), Magistrate Judge Paul Papak of the U.S. District Court
for the District of Oregon, Portland Division, denied Makaneole's
constructive motion for stay of further proceedings in connection
with the currently pending motion for class certification to the
extent it addresses his claims alleged against Randstad.

Makaneole brought the putative class action against the
Defendants in the Multnomah County Circuit Court on Aug. 26,
2014.  Defendant Randstad removed Makaneole's action to the Court
effective Sept. 24, 2014.  Subsequent to removal, Makaneole
amended his complaint in the Court effective April 6, 2015.

By and through his amended complaint, Makaneole alleges that the
SolarWorld Defendants are in the business of manufacturing and
selling photovoltaic products, and that Defendants Kelly and
Randstad are both in the business of providing temporary workers
to employers in need of short-term staff.  He alleges that he was
employed first by Kelly, then by Randstad, and then by
SolarWorld.

It is Makaneole's allegation that during all three periods of
employment, SolarWorld engaged in a practice of programming an
electronic time-keeping system to deduct minutes from his hours
worked prior to reporting them to payroll for purposes of
computing his compensation, and that Kelly and Randstad used the
hours reported to them by SolarWorld following such deduction in
calculating his compensation during the periods when he worked
for those employers.  It is further Makaneole's position that
each of the three employers treated all of their similarly
situated employees' hours worked in the same fashion during
approximately the same time period.

Arising out of that practice, Makaneole alleges all the
Defendants' liability for violation of Oregon's Or. Rev. Stat.
652.120 and 653.010 by failing to pay all wages owed, for
violation of Oregon's Or. Rev. Stat. 652.120 and 653.010 by
failing to pay overtime wages owed; and for violation of Oregon's
Or, Rev. Stat. 652.140 by failing to pay all wages owed at the
termination of employment.  He seeks damages for unpaid wages in
an unspecified amount, as well as award of his attorney fees and
costs.

On Sept. 2, 2016, the Court recommended (inter alia) that it
issue summary judgment in Kelly's favor as to all of Makaneole's
claims against it, and in Randstad's favor as to Makaneole's
Section 652.120 claim against it for failure to pay overtime
wages owed.  On Jan. 17, 2017, Judge Brown adopted those
recommendations without modification.  Judge Brown entered final
judgment as to Makaneole's claims against Kelly on Feb. 28, 2017.

On Jan. 4, 2018, Makaneole advised the Court that he had reached
a settlement in principle with Randstad.  In connection with such
notice, Makaneole additionally purported to provide notice to the
Court that, in consequence of Makaneole's settlement in principle
with Randstad, the currently pending motion for class
certification is "presently" moot as to Randstad "subject to
court approval" of the proposed settlement.  On that basis,
Makaneole purported to notify the Court that any ruling as to the
pending motion for class certification should be stayed and
deferred as to Randstad, as such a ruling would be contrary to
the parties' settlement efforts and the current settlement
posture of the action with respect to Randstad.

Magistrate Judge Papak construes such purported notice as a
motion to stay further proceedings in connection with the
currently pending motion for class certification to the extent it
addresses Makaneole's claims alleged against Randstad.
SolarWorld opposes Makaneole's motion so construed, arguing that
either no stay should be imposed or that the stay should have the
effect of deferring proceedings in connection with the pending
motion for class certification as to all defendants equally,

Before the Court is Makaneole's constructive motion for stay of
further proceedings in connection with the currently pending
motion for class certification to the extent it addresses
Makaneole's claims alleged against Randstad.

The Magistrate Judge finds that Makaneole offers no argument (i)
that he, the absent putative class members, or Randstad would
suffer any hardship or inequity in the event the Court were to
decide the pending motion for class certification in its
entirety, other than that such a ruling would be "contrary" to
the parties' settlement efforts and the "current settlement
posture" of the action; or (ii) that failure to effect the
requested stay would complicate any issues of proof or questions
of law.

For their part, the Solar World Defendants take the position that
if a stay were entered as to the pending motion for class
certification to the extent it addresses Makaneole's claims
alleged against Randstad only, and not to the extent it addresses
Makaneole's claims against SolarWorld, they would potentially
suffer prejudice in the event the proposed settlement with
Randstad were not approved, in that under that circumstance it is
possible that different filing deadlines might thereafter apply
to SolarWorld on the one hand and to Randstad on the other.

Although he finds SolarWorld's objections to the requested stay
unpersuasive -- case deadlines could be trivially reconciled by
Court order in the event the stay were granted as to proceedings
against Randstad only and the proposed settlement subsequently
disapproved -- the Magistrate Judge is similarly not persuaded
that good grounds exist for issuing the requested stay in the
first instance.

Because no good grounds appear to exist for staying any portion
of these proceedings at this time, Magistrate Judge Papak denied
Makaneole's constructive motion for stay, and accordingly
disregarded as moot Solar World's objections to the proposed
stay.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 2, 2018 Opinion and Order is
available at https://is.gd/kMfTBG from Leagle.com.

Michael Makaneole, individually and on behalf of all similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by David Arthur Schuck, Schuck
Law, LLC, Karen A. Moore, Schuck Law LLC & Stephanie J. Brown,
Schuck Law, LLC.

Solarworld Industries America, Inc., SolarWorld Industries
America, LP, SolarWorld Industries Services, LLC & SolarWorld
Power Projects, Inc., Defendants, represented by Todd A. Hanchett
-- todd.hanchett@stoel.com -- Stoel Rives LLP, Victor Joseph
Kisch -- victor.kisch@stoel.com -- Stoel Rives LLP & John Baird
Dudrey -- john.dudrey@stoel.com -- Stoel Rives LLP.

Randstad Professionals US, LP, Defendant, represented by Andrew
S. Moses -- amoses@gordon-polscer.com -- Gordon & Polscer, LLC,
Gerald L. Maatman, Jr. -- gmaatman@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw
LLP, pro hac vice, Joshua M. Henderson -- jhenderson@seyfarth.com
-- Seyfarth Shaw LLP, pro hac vice & Michael W. Kopp --
mkopp@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw LLP, pro hac vice.


ST CLOUD UNIVERSITY: Title IX Suit Granted Class-Action Status
--------------------------------------------------------------
Clairissa Baker, writing for SC Times, reports that a judge
granted class-action status in the Title IX lawsuit against
St. Cloud State University on Feb. 26, broadening the scope of
the lawsuit to focus on all female athletes who may have been
harmed by the university's alleged actions.

Class certification allows for a focus on institutional harm and
personal harm, said Andrew James, a representative of the
athletes.

"It's about the harm to all female athletes," Mr. James said.

The lawsuit began after the university removed six athletic
programs in 2016: men's and women's tennis, men's cross country,
women's Nordic skiing, and both indoor and outdoor men's track
and field.

Five women from the varsity tennis team sued St. Cloud State,
alleging the university offered more opportunities in athletics
for men than for women.  They were later joined by women from the
Nordic ski team.

In an order issued on Feb. 26, Chief U.S. District Judge John
Tunheim granted class certification.  The order also addressed
three other motions in the case, including a motion to dismiss a
damages claim.

The court recognized the class as "all present, prospective, and
future female students at St. Cloud State University" who may
have been harmed by the university's alleged discrimination,
according to court documents.

Judge Tunheim also dismissed a damages claim in the lawsuit,
which means the athletes will not be able to get monetary
damages.

This decision was not surprising, according to James, who said
remaining claims in the case include allocation of athletic
opportunities, financial assistance and benefits provided to
varsity athletes.

With the damages claim out, the athletes are still able to ask
for injunctive relief from the court, which, if granted, would
order the university to change aspects of the athletic program
related to financial assistance and benefits, among others.

St. Cloud State previously motioned for the court to disregard a
late document filed on behalf of the athletes, Mr. James said,
but the court denied the motion.

In the last piece of the order, the court weighed in on whether
to exclude the testimony and opinions of the athletes' proposed
expert witness Donna Lopiano.

Ms. Lopiano holds a doctorate degree in physical education and
was a gender-equity consultant to the Office for Civil Rights of
the U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.  She
assisted in drafting the 1979 Policy Interpretation on Title IX.

The judge granted and denied parts of the university's motion and
set guidelines for what Ms. Lopiano may discuss as a witness.

For example, Ms. Lopiano is not allowed to testify about the
requirements of the Title IX law, but she may discuss the
history, purpose and industry practice or standards of Title IX,
among other topics.

The next step in the case, according to James, is to identify
others who may qualify under the class-action lawsuit.

Adam Hammer, executive director of marketing and communications
for St. Cloud State, said the decision was just another order of
motions in the case. Both Hammer and James said more motions may
be filed in the case before it is ready for trial.

All parties must be ready for trial by June, according to James,
but a trial date has not been set and deadlines are subject to
change. [GN]


STATE FARM: Court Partly Grants Bid to Dismiss "McKinnie" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Waverly D. Crenshaw of the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Tennessee, Cookeville Division, granted in
part and denied in part State Farm's Motion to Dismiss the case,
JAMES MCKINNIE, LONNIE MCKINNIE, LARRY ROBERTS, and TINA ROBERTS,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. STATE FARM FIRE and CASUALTY COMPANY, Defendant,
Case No. 2:17-cv-00048 (M.D. Tenn.).

The putative class action is brought by James and Lonnie
McKinnie, and Larry and Tina Roberts on behalf of State Farm
insureds.  The core claim is that State Farm refuses to pay prime
contractor's overhead and profit associated with the estimated
cost to reconstruct a structure where the covered loss is $25,000
or more.

The Plaintiffs collectively owned two commercial structures
(connected by a breeze way) located at 650 and 654 North Spring
Street in Sparta, Tennessee.  Those structures are insured
against property loss through an insurance policy issued by State
Farm.  The Policy contained an endorsement providing coverage on
an "actual cash value" valuation basis, i.e. replacement cash
value less depreciation.

On July 14, 2015, their buildings suffered extensive damage as a
result of a hail storm.  The damage affected the entire roof of
both structures (more than 200,000 square feet), necessitating
their replacement, as well as the replacement of skylights, ridge
end caps, ridge vents, ridge cap flashing, eave trim, gable trim,
and other items.

The Plaintiffs sought payment for the omitted licensed prime
contractors' overhead and profit from State Farm.  State Farm has
refused to pay those amounts.

Both with respect to their individual claims and that of the
class they seek to represent, the Plaintiffs contend that State
Farm's pattern and practice is to fail to pay overhead and
expenses when a prime contractor is required by Tennessee law to
perform repairs.  It does this by manipulating Xactimate.  That
is, even though Xactimate allows an insurance adjuster to choose
whether to provide full payment for a prime contractor's overhead
and profit when calculating replacement cost value, State Farm
intentionally changes the settings to omit overhead and profit
for a prime contractor.

In so doing, State Farm eliminates payments for all overhead that
is not directly attributable to an individual construction
project.  Instead of paying proper overhead and profit when a
prime contractor is necessary, State Farm pays only "job-related"
overhead.  Such overhead is the type incurred by a single,
unlicensed tradesman or a small, unlicensed subcontractor working
a job and is directly related to the job.

The Plaintiffs seek to represent a class consisting of all
persons and legal entities insured under a State Farm homeowner
or property policy insuring property in Tennessee, and for these
policyholders: (1) State Farm determined that the policyholder
suffered direct physical loss to a dwelling or other structure
located in Tennessee that State Farm determined was covered by
the terms of the policy; (2) the estimated costs to make the
repairs caused by the covered loss met or exceeded one or more of
the thresholds set by the Tennessee Contractor's Licensing Act
and mandate that those performing work to repair or replace the
damaged property hold a valid Tennessee contractor's license and
be a prime contractor; and (3) State Farm refused to pay the
policyholder for overhead and profit as more fully described
herein in its adjusting/settlement of the claim.

Judge Crenshaw granted State Farms' Motion to Dismiss with
respect to the Plaintiffs' class claim for punitive damages as
set forth in Count I of the First Amended Complaint, and denied
the Motion in all other respects.  An appropriate Order will
enter.

The Judge finds, among other things, that the Plaintiffs' class
claims for breach of contract should be dismissed for failure to
state a claim upon which relief can be granted.  Leaving aside
that the Plaintiffs fail to explain what is meant by licensure-
related overhead and profits, fail to explain how the same would
be calculated, and fail to allege any facts that it is the custom
and practice in Tennessee for "prime contractors" to charge of
such expenses, their class claim fails for at least four reasons.

First, the Plaintiffs mistakenly equate a "prime contractor" with
a "general contractor" by citing cases like Winter v. Smith.
Second, the TCLA provides for a single "contractor" license and
does not differentiate between a "contractor," a "general
contractor," or a "prime contractor."  Third, insofar as the
Plaintiffs now argue that the class is entitled to "licensure-
related overheard and profit," this claim is not moored to their
individual claim.  Fourth, while the Plaintiffs claim that State
Farm "misconstrues Parkway Associates by arguing that the TCLA
has nothing to do with whether overhead and profits is owed," and
"contorts the opinion" by claiming it applies only to general
contractors it is the Plaintiffs who read the decision too broad.

The Judge also finds that there is more than enough in the First
Amended Complaint to support the Plaintiffs' individual breach of
contract claim based on State Farm's refusal to pay overhead and
profits.  And because he finds differently in regard to the
Plaintiffs' individual capacity breach of contract claim,
dismissal of their request for a declaratory judgment would be
premature.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 2, 2018 Memorandum Opinion
is available at https://is.gd/yac0I8 from Leagle.com.

James McKinnie, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Lonnie McKinnie, Individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Tina Roberts, Individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated & Larry Roberts,
Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, represented by Clinton H. Scott --
cscott@gilbertfirm.com -- Gilbert Russell McWherter PLC, David
McMullan -- dmcmullan@barrettlawgroup.com -- Don Barrett, P.A.,
J. Brandon McWherter -- mcwherter@gilbertfirm.com -- Gilbert
McWherter Scott & Bobbitt PLC, Sarah Sterling Starns --
sstarns@barrettlawgroup.com -- Don Barrett, P.A. & T. Joseph
Snodgrass, Larson King, LLP.

State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, Defendant, represented by
Bradford Telfeyan -- btelfeyan@lewisthomason.com -- Lewis,
Thomason, King, Krieg & Waldrop, P.C., James P. Gaughan --
jgaughan@rsch-law.com -- Riley Safer Holmes & Cancila LLP, Jason
M. Pannu -- jpannu@lewisthomason.com -- Lewis, Thomason, King,
Krieg & Waldrop, P.C. & Joseph Cancila, Jr. -- jcancila@rshc-
law.com -- Riley Safer Holmes & Cancila LLP.


STONELEIGH RECOVERY: Ct. Denies Bid to Certify Order in "Cadillo"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Susan D. Wigenton of the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey denied the Defendant's Motion to Certify
Order Denying Motion to Dismiss for Immediate Appeal under 28
U.S.C. Section 1292(b) in the case, Re: Cadillo, v. Stoneleigh
Recovery Associates, LLC, Civil Action No. 17-7472 (SDW) (SCM)
(D. N.J.).

On Dec. 21, 2017, the Court issued an Opinion and Order denying
the Defendant's motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's Class Action
Complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be
granted.  In so doing, the Court found that the Plaintiff had
sufficiently pled that the Defendant's attempt to collect a debt
the Plaintiff owed to a third-party violated the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act because the Defendant's collection
letter failed to adequately inform Plaintiff that any dispute
regarding the debt must be in writing.  It held that the least
sophisticated consumer may not understand that she is required to
respond in writing, and could be misled by the Defendant's
collection notice.

The Court's Order does present a controlling question of law
that, "if erroneous, would be reversible error on final appeal."
In addition, an appeal at this time would eliminate the need for
trial, and indeed any further litigation.

However, Judge Wigenton finds that the Defendant has failed to
show substantial ground for difference of opinion as to the
Order's correctness.  To pass muster, a substantial ground for a
difference of opinion must arise out of genuine doubt as to the
legal standard.  Here, there is no doubt that the least
sophisticated consumer standard is the applicable standard when
assessing whether a debt collection letter is misleading or
employed untoward collection tactics.  That is the standard the
Court applied.

Accordingly, the Judge denied the Defendant's Motion for
Certification of the Court's Dec. 21, 2017 Order for Immediate
Appeal.  An appropriate order follows.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 2, 2018 Opinion is available
at https://is.gd/zSiVnZ from Leagle.com.

NATALIE CADILLO, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by BENJAMIN JARRET WOLF --
BWOLF@LEGALJONES.COM -- Jones, Wolf & Kapasi, LLC & JOSEPH K.
JONES, Jones, Wolf & Kapasi, LLC.

STONELEIGH RECOVERY ASSOCIATES, LLC, Defendant, represented by
ANDREW MICHAEL SCHWARTZ -- amschwartz@mdwcg.com -- MARSHALL
DENNEHEY WARNER COLEMAN & GOGGIN, PC.


TANDOORI TOUCH: "Rosales" Suit Seeks Minimum Wage under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------
LEONIDES ROSALES, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. TANDOORI TOUCH LLC (d/b/a TANDOORI
TOUCH), AVREET INC. (d/b/a TANDOORI TOUCH), PUNJAB KABAB HOUSE
INC. (d/b/a PUNJABI KABAB HOUSE), BABAR RAJA, SHAWN M., JOHN HO
and HASAN SULTAN, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-01291
(E.D.N.Y., Feb. 28, 2018), seeks to recover minimum wage and
overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938
and New York Labor Law.

Rosales regularly worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per
week, without appropriate minimum wage and overtime compensation
for any of the hours that he worked over 40 each week. Rather,
Defendants failed to maintain accurate records of hours worked
and failed to pay Plaintiff Rosales appropriately for any hours
work, either at the straight rate of pay or for any additional
overtime premium. Further, the defendants failed to pay Plaintiff
Rosales the required "spread of hours" pay for any day in which
he worked over 10 hours per day. Defendants' conduct extended
beyond Plaintiff Rosales to all other similarly situated
employees.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Faillace, Esq.
          MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
          New York, New York 10165
          Telephone: (212) 317 1200
          Facsimile: (212) 317 1620
          E-mail: Faillace@employmentcompliance.com


TED WIENS: Filing of Joint Amended "Acuna" Settlement Bid Ordered
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DANIEL ACUNA and JERRY SHAFFER, as individuals and
on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. So. Nev.
T.B.A. Supply Co., a Nevada corporation, doing business as Ted
Wiens Tire & Auto Centers, Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-00457-GWF
(D. Nev.), Magistrate Judge George Foley, Jr., of the U.S.
District Court for the District of Nevada has entered an order
requesting the parties to file an amended joint motion to approve
settlement, and stipulation and agreement for settlement and
release, to clarify their proposed settlement.

The parties' joint motion to approve settlement requests
preliminary approval and conditional certification of the
"Mechanics Subclass" and "Technicians Subclass" as FLSA opt-in
collective action classes pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216.
This is consistent with paragraphs 1.i. and 1.j. of the
Stipulation and Agreement for Settlement and Release, which
states that the members of those proposed classes are persons who
consent to be a party in the FLSA claims in the Action and to
release claims subject to Court approval.  The joint motion does
not propose that the Uniform Subclass be conditionally certified
as an FLSA collective action class pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section
216.

A reading of the joint motion and Stipulation and Agreement for
Settlement and Release appears to contemplate the certification
of a Rule 23 class that includes the Mechanics, Technicians, and
Uniform subclasses.  At the Jan. 11, 2018 hearing, however, the
counsel for Plaintiffs and the Defendant advised the Court that
they do not request certification of the Mechanics or Technicians
subclasses as part of the Rule 23 class.  Rather, the only Rule
23 class will be the Uniform Class.  The joint motion and
Stipulation and Agreement for Settlement and Release should be
amended to clarify this position.

During the January 11th hearing, the Court also recommended that
the settlement and related documents be modified to provide that
payments be made to Rule 23 Uniform Class members without
requiring them to submit written claim forms to participate in
the settlement.  The Defendants' counsel indicated that she would
work on revised provisions to address the issue.

Magistrate Judge Foley requests that the parties file an amended
joint motion to approve settlement, and stipulation and agreement
for settlement and release to make clear: (1) that the proposed
settlement in the case does not contemplate the inclusion of the
"Mechanics" and "Technicians" subclasses in the Rule 23 class;
(2) that claims of Rule 23 Uniform Subclass members arising under
the FLSA will not be released or extinguished; and (3) to address
whether Rule 23 class members who do not request exclusion from
the class, should be required to submit a written claim form to
participate in the settlement.  The parties may also request a
hearing to further discuss these matters if they so desire, and
the Court will promptly schedule a hearing.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 2, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/UQxmX0 from Leagle.com.

Daniel Acuna & Jerry Schaffer, Plaintiffs, represented by Andrew
L. Rempfer -- Andrew@Plawyer.com -- Law Offices of Steven J.
Parsons,
Joseph Nathan Mott, Law Offices of Steven J. Parsons & Steven J.
Parsons, Law Office Of Steven J. Parsons.

So. Nev. T.B.A. Supply Co., doing business as Ted Wiens Tire &
Auto Centers, Defendant, represented by Carol Davis Zucker, Kamer
Zucker & Abbott & Nicole Ann Young, Kamer Zucker Abbott.


TOYOTA: Faces Class Action on Defective Windshields
---------------------------------------------------
Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that
Toyota Fourth Generation 2016-17 Priuses have defective
windshields that crack under normal conditions, a class action
claims in federal court.


TWITTER INC: Ct. Extends Page Limit for Joint Discovery Brief
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE TWITTER, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No.
3:16-cv-05314-JST (N.D. Cal.), Judge Jon S. Tigar of the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, San
Francisco Division, has entered an order extending the page limit
for joint discovery brief.

At the Jan. 17, 2018 Case Management Conference, the Court
directed Lead Plaintiff KBC Asset Management NV and the
Defendants to further meet and confer, and to submit a joint
five-page brief by Feb. 2, 2018, that outlines any remaining
disagreements concerning discovery issues.  Since Jan. 17, 2018
the Parties have met and conferred telephonically on multiple
occasions and exchanged numerous written proposals concerning
such disputes.

The scope of these extensive meet and confer sessions has ranged
from particularized search terms to detailed discussions of whose
custodial files will be searched, as well as many other discrete
and complex matters relating to the production of electronic
documents and how most efficiently to search for responsive
materials.  Despite their best efforts, the Parties have been
unable to resolve all of the issues upon which they disagree.

The Parties agree that enumerating and addressing their
respective positions will require more than the five pages
allocated by the Court and respectfully seek leave of Court for
an extension of an additional five pages.

The Parties stipulated and agreed, and the Court granted, that
they may have 10 pages to address their respective positions,
five for the Plaintiff and five for the Defendants.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 2, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/5ydtD5 from Leagle.com.

Doris Shenwick, Plaintiff, represented by Lesley Elizabeth Weaver
-- lweaver@bfalaw.com -- Bleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP.

Doris Shenwick, Plaintiff, represented by Shawn A. Williams --
shawnw@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Daniel S.
Drosman -- dand@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP,
Danielle Suzanne Myers -- denim@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller
Rudman & Dowd LLP, David Conrad Walton -- davew@rgrdlaw.com --
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Jeffrey S. Abraham --
jabraham@aftlaw.com -- Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky, LLP &
Susannah Ruth Conn -- sconn@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman
& Dowd LLP.

KBC Asset Management NV, Plaintiff, represented by Gregg S. Levin
-- glevin@motleyrice.com -- Motley Rice LLC, pro hac vice, James
Michael Hughes -- jhughes@motleyrice.com -- Motley Rice LLC, pro
hac vice, Joseph A. Fonti -- jfonti@bfalaw.com -- Bleichmar Fonti
Tountas & Auld LLP, Lesley Elizabeth Weaver -- lweaver@bfalaw.com
-- Bleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP, Matthew Sinclair Weiler --
mweiler@bfalaw.com -Bleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP. & Meghan Shea
Blaszak Oliver -- moliver@motleyrice.com -- Motley Rice LLC, pro
hac vice.

Mark Wallace, Plaintiff, represented by Rosemary M. Rivas --
rrivas@zlk.com -- Levi & Korsinsky LLP, Charles J. Piven --
piven@browerpiven.com -- Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation
& Quentin Alexandre Roberts, Levi & Korsinsky LLP.  Claire
Degenhardt, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Jennifer Pafiti --
jpafiti@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, J. Alexander Hood II --
ahood@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz, LLP, Jeremy A. Lieberman --
jalieberman@pomlaw.com  -- Pomerantz, LLP, Marc Gorrie --
mgorrie@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz, LLP, Patrick V. Dahlstrom --
pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP & Peretz Bronstein --
peretz@bgandg.com -- Bronstein Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC.

Twitter, Inc., Defendant, represented by James Glenn Kreissman --
jkreissman@stblaw.com -- Simpson Thatcher & Bartlett LLP,
Jonathan K. Youngwood --  jyoungwood@stblaw.com --  Simpson
Thacher and Bartlett, pro hac vice & Simona Gurevich Strauss --
sstrauss@stblaw.com -- Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP.

Richard Costolo, Defendant, represented by James Glenn Kreissman,
Simpson Thatcher & Bartlett LLP, Jonathan K. Youngwood, Simpson
Thacher and Bartlett, pro hac vice & Simona Gurevich Strauss,
Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP.

Anthony Noto, Defendant, represented by James Glenn Kreissman,
Simpson Thatcher & Bartlett LLP, Jonathan K. Youngwood, Simpson
Thacher and Bartlett, pro hac vice & Simona Gurevich Strauss,
Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP.

John P. Norton, Movant, represented by Michael Walter Stocker --
mstocker@labaton.com -- Labaton Sucharow LLP, Christopher J.
Keller --  ckeller@labaton.com -- Labaton Sucharow LLP & Francis
P. McConville -- fmcconville@labaton.com -- Labaton Sucharow LLP.

National Elevator Industry Pension Fund, Movant, represented by
Daniel S. Drosman, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Danielle
Suzanne Myers, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Shawn A.
Williams, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP & Susannah Ruth Conn,
Robbins Geller Rudman and Dowd LLP.

Youri Hazanov, Movant, represented by Laurence M. Rosen --
lrosen@rosenlegal.com -- The Rosen Law Firm, P.A..

Diane Stearns, Movant, represented by Kim Elaine Miller, Kahn
Swick & Foti, LLC, Ramzi Abadou, Kahn Swick & Foti, LLP & Lewis
S. Kahn, Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC, 12 East 41s' Street, Suite 1200,
New York, New York 10017 pro hac vice.

Zeyad AlMukhaizeem, Movant, represented by Jennifer Pafiti,
Pomerantz LLP & Jeremy A. Lieberman, Pomerantz LLP.

Charles Cheatham, Movant, represented by Jennifer Pafiti,
Pomerantz LLP & Jeremy A. Lieberman, Pomerantz LLP.

Joseph Cwiertniewicz, Movant, represented by Jennifer Pafiti,
Pomerantz LLP & Jeremy A. Lieberman, Pomerantz LLP.

SNS Holding Co., Movant, represented by Jennifer Pafiti,
Pomerantz LLP & Jeremy A. Lieberman, Pomerantz LLP.

Ernesto Espinoza, Movant, represented by Shane Palmesano Sanders,
Robbins Arroyo LLP.

Jim Porter, Interested Party, represented by Phong L. Tran --
PhongT@JohnsonFistel.com -- Johnson Fistel, LLP.


ULTA BEAUTY: Sells Outdated Cosmetics, Ogurkiewicz Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
PAULA M. OGURKIEWICZ, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. ULTA BEAUTY, INC., the
Defendant, Case No. 2018-CH-0300 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty., Mar.
7, 2018), alleges that, unbeknownst to consumers and contrary to
the Company's public representations, Ulta stores surreptitiously
resell used and outdated beauty products to consumers. Thus, the
Company's marketing and advertising of its beauty products is
false, deceptive and misleading to reasonable consumers who
believe that they are purchasing new, unused, and previously
unopened cosmetics.

Moreover, the resale of used beauty products jeopardized the
health and wellbeing of Ulta consumers.  Following a torrent of
social media postings by concerned Ulta customers and former Ulta
employees, media outlets began to report in early 2018 that Ulta
stores routinely doctored used beauty products, many of which had
been used and returned to the store, order to deceive consumers
into believing the products were new and unused. The practice was
driven by a desire to increase profits and reduce loses from
returned and previously used products. According to media
reports, at the store level the practice of reselling used beauty
products was orchestrated by "higher-level managers" in order to
"keep the dollar amount for damaged or returned goods down."! By
way of example, former Ulta employees reported using cotton swabs
to make used cosmetics appear to be new.

Plaintiff purchased cosmetics at multiple Ulta locations which
she believed to be new and unused at the time of purchase, only
to later discover that the products were, in fact, old, dried out
and/or previously used. For example, Plaintiff purchased hair dye
from the clearance section at an Ulta retail store in
Bolingbrook, Illinois which, after purchase, she discovered was
dried out and unusable. In addition, Plaintiff purchased mascara
from the regular, full price section at an Ulta retail store in
Downers Grove, Illinois which Plaintiff discovered was dried out
and unusable after purchasing. Moreover, Plaintiff also purchased
lip cream from an Ulta retail store in Downers Grove, Illinois
which, upon information and belief, had been previously used and
repacked in such a manner as to make Plaintiff believe that the
lip cream was new and unused. Plaintiff understood that the lip
cream was new and unused at the time of purchase. Thus, Plaintiff
purchased cosmetics from both the full price and the discount
sections of Ulta retail locations which, upon information and
belief, were previously used and unsuitable for resale.

Defendant Ulta operates a chain of beauty stores throughout the
United States offering cosmetics, fragrance, skin care products,
hair care products, and salon services. As of October 28, 2017,
Ulta Beauty operates 1,058 retail stores across 48 states and the
District of Columbia and also distributes its products through
its website, www.ulta.com.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          Louis C. Ludwig, Esq.
          Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
          Gustavo F. Bruckner, Esq.
          Samuel J. Adams, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          South LaSalle Street, Suite 3505
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 377 1181
          E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com
                  lcludwig@pomlaw.com
                  gfbruckner@pomlaw.com
                  sjadams@pomlaw.com


UNITED PROPANE: Court Grants Writ of Mandamus Bid in "Cullman"
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Ex parte United Propane Gas, Inc. (In re: Cullman
Security Services, Inc., on behalf of itself and other similarly
situated entities v. United Propane Gas, Inc.), Case No. 1160891
(Ala.), Judge Michael F. Bolin of the Supreme Court of Alabama
granted United Propane's motion for writ of mandamus compelling
the Cullman Circuit Court to vacate its order denying its motion
to dismiss an action filed by Cullman Security Services ("CSS"),
and to enter an order dismissing the action.

United Propane, a Kentucky corporation, offers pre-purchase
contracts to its customers, pursuant to which the customers agree
to purchase their anticipated fuel usage for a season based upon
a fixed price per gallon of gas.

CSS, a corporation with its principal place of business in
Cullman, Alabama, was a customer of Golden Propane Gas, Inc., an
affiliate and agent of United Propane.  On Sept. 30, 2013, CSS
entered into a pre-purchase contract with United Propane.  CSS
agreed to purchase 550 gallons of propane at the fixed price of
$1.6990 per gallon between Oct. 1, 2013 through March 31, 2014.

Upon signing the contract, CSS paid an outstanding bill for
$607.82 and also paid $1,382.522 to guarantee the delivery of 550
gallons of propane gas during the upcoming 2013-2014 winter
season.  In October 2013, United Propane delivered 200 gallons of
propane gas to CSS.  When CSS requested the delivery of
additional propane gas in January 2014, United Propane advised
that the only way CSS could acquire the gas would be to purchase
it at the rate of $3.599 per gallon.  Consequently, CSS purchased
gas from another distributor at the higher market rate.

In April 2014, CSS, on its behalf and on behalf of other
similarly situated gas consumers, filed a class-action lawsuit
against United Propane in the circuit court in McCracken County,
Kentucky.  Kentucky circuit courts have jurisdiction in civil
cases when the amount in controversy exceeds $5,000, exclusive of
interest and costs, in matters affecting title to real estate,
and in matters of equity.

Kentucky law provides, however, that a class action based on
breach of contract cannot be maintained in a state circuit court
where none of the individual claims is equal to the statutory
jurisdictional amount.  Consequently, the Kentucky court
dismissed the complaint without prejudice because no claim in
CSS's amended complaint alleges an amount in controversy over
$5,000; CSS's claims do not affect title to real estate; and CSS
has not asserted a valid claim for equitable relief.  The
Kentucky Court of Appeals affirmed the circuit court's dismissal.

On Feb. 11, 2017, CSS filed in the Cullman Circuit Court a
nationwide class action, on behalf of itself and all other
commercial entities and business associations similarly situated,
seeking redress for United Propane's policy and practice to
breach uniform written pre-paid contracts, and to systematically
violate its duty of good faith and fair dealing by uniformly
raising prices on pre-paid commercial contracts and failing to
honor the contracts.  The complaint sought damages, a declaratory
judgment, and injunctive relief.

On April 11, 2017, United Propane filed its motion to dismiss
CSS's action as having been filed in an improper venue.  It
argued that the outbound forum-selection clause in the pre-
purchase contract required CSS to bring the action in Kentucky
and that the case had been previously dismissed by the Kentucky
circuit court for failing to meet the statutory jurisdictional
amount.

In response, CSS argued that both it and the class it seeks to
represent were denied the ability to seek any practical relief in
the designated forum because Kentucky, unlike Alabama, does not
allow a class to aggregate damages to meet the threshold
jurisdictional amount.  CSS asserted that it was not economically
feasible to litigate smaller individual claims in a Kentucky
small-claims court, especially given that the court is located a
considerable distance from Cullman, Alabama.

Following a hearing on the Rule 12(b)(3) motion, the trial court
denied United Propane's motion to dismiss.  United Propane timely
filed a petition for writ of mandamus.

Judge Bolin holds that it is clear that CSS, the party
challenging the forum-selection clause, has failed to clearly
establish that the enforcement of the outbound forum-selection
clause would be unreasonable or unfair.  He finds that the crux
of CSS's argument concerns public policy.  In its order, the
trial court found under the facts of this case that the outbound
forum-selection clause contained in the parties' contract is
unfair and unreasonable because it deprives CSS of the ability to
file a class action in contravention of a recognized Alabama
public policy enunciated in Leonard v. Terminix International Co.
Leonard, however, is distinguishable from the case.

First, the plaintiffs in Leonard were individual consumers; CSS,
as well as the other potential members of the class, are all
businesses.  Secondly, there is no arbitration clause included
within the contracts with United Propane.  Third, the arbitration
clause in Leonard expressly limited the amount of damages; the
propane contract in this case, however, includes no such
limitation of damages as a remedy, and there is nothing before
this Court indicating that it would be unfair, unreasonable, or
cost-prohibitive for CSS to bring its breach-of-contract claim in
the Kentucky small-claims court.  Finally, although Leonard
discussed the effect arbitration clauses may have on class-action
lawsuits in forum-selection cases, the contract there did not
include an outbound forum-selection clause; therefore, any
discussion on this specific matter is not binding precedent.

Moreover, the Court has consistently held that outbound forum-
selection clauses are not per se void as being against public
policy.  Therefore, under the particular circumstances of this
case, this Court cannot say that the outbound forum-selection
clause is an unconscionable violation of public policy

The Judge concludes that United Propane has shown a clear legal
right to have the action dismissed on the basis that venue in the
Cullman Circuit Court is, by application of the outbound forum-
selection clause, improper.  The trial court exceeded its
discretion in denying the motion to dismiss CSS's action.

For these reasons, Judge Bolin granted the petition and issued
the writ.  He directed the trial court to dismiss the cause,
without prejudice, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(3), Ala. R. Civ. P.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 2, 2018 Opinion is available
at https://is.gd/rzENed from Leagle.com.


UNITED ROAD: "Taylor" Suit Moved to Eastern Dist. of California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Cedric Taylor, on behalf of
himself, all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the
general public, the Plaintiff, v. United Road Services, Inc., the
Defendant, Case No. bcv-17-100222, was removed from the Kern
County Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of California (Fresno). The case is assigned to the Hon.
Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill. The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 1:18-cv-00330-LJO-JLT to the proceeding.

An Initial Scheduling Conference is set for May 31, 2018, at 8:45
a.m. in Bakersfield, 510 19th Street before Magistrate Judge
Jennifer L. Thurston.

United Road Services Inc. provides automobile transport services
in the United States and Canada. Its services include closed
carrier/specialty vehicle transport, new vehicle logistics,
remarketing, retail single vehicles and privately owned vehicles
transport and marshalling.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William Turley, Esq.
          THE TURLEY & MARA LAW FIRM, APLC
          7428 Trade Street
          San Diego, CA 92121
          Telephone: (619) 234 2833
          Facsimile: (619) 234 4048
          E-mail: bturley@turleylawfirm.com

Attorneys for United Road Services, Inc.:

          Michael A. Kaia, Esq.
          Jerry Wayne Pearson, Jr., Esq.
          YOUNG WOOLDRIDGE
          The Unocal Plaza
          1800 30th Street, Fourth Floor
          Bakersfield, CA 93301
          Telephone: (661) 327 9661
          Facsimile: (661) 327 0409
          E-mail: mkaia@youngwooldridge.com
                  JPearson@youngwooldridge.com


UNITED STATES: "Wren" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------
LEXINGTON WREN, MICHAEL JOHNSON, AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED UNDER 29 USC section 216(b), the Plaintiffs, v. UNITED
STATES GYPSUM COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-00519-M
(N.D. Tex., Mar. 5, 2018), seeks to recover overtime pay under
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendant has been a leading manufacturer and distributor of
building products throughout the last three years. Defendant
employs non-exempt, hourly-paid employees ("Hourly Paid
Employees" or "HPEs") to directly and indirectly help manufacture
and distribute its products to customers, but fails to pay HPEs
overtime at the rate required by the FLSA. Defendant has violated
and is violating the FLSA by miscalculating the overtime pay owed
to HPEs. Specifically, Defendant calculates the overtime rate
paid to employees based solely on the employees' hourly rate of
pay. Defendant categorically fails to include in the overtime
rate additional amounts paid to the employees as remuneration for
employment ("Additional Pay"). The Additional Pay includes,
without limitation, such payments as non-discretionary incentive
bonuses and non-cash award pay. Defendant's categorical exclusion
of Additional Pay from the regular rate ('Overtime Miscalculation
Policy") violates the FLSA.

USG Corporation, also known as United States Gypsum Corporation,
is an American company which manufactures construction materials,
most notably drywall and joint compound.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J. Derek Braziel, Esq.
          Travis Gasper, Esq.
          Lee & Braziel, L.L.P.
          www.overtimelawyer.com
          1801 N. Lamar Street, Suite 325
          Dallas, TX 75202
          Telephone: (214) 749 1400
          Facsimile: (214) 749 1010
          E-mail: jdbraziel@l-b-law.com
                  gasper@l-b-law.com

               - and -

          Jack Siegel, Esq.
          SIEGEL LAW GROUP, PLLC
          www.siegellawgroup.biz
          2820 McKinnon, Suite 5009
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: (214) 706 0834
          Facsimile: (469) 339 0204
          E-mail: jack@siegellawgroup.biz


UNITED STATES: SCOTUS to Review Criminal Immigrants Bond Hearings
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Supreme Court will hear the appeal of the U.S.
government of two rulings finding that only convicted immigrants
who enter immigration custody soon after being released from
criminal custody may be detained without bond hearings, various
news sources reported.

According to Nicole Narea of Law360, the pair of cases hinges on
the proper application of the Immigration and Nationality Act's
mandatory detention provision, which requires that a non-citizen
be detained without any bond hearing even if an immigration judge
would find that they do not pose a risk of fleeing or danger to
public.  The law, however, is unclear whether mandatory detention
applies if the Department of Homeland Security doesn't take
custody right away and the person has already been released, Greg
Stohr of Bloomberg Politics pointed out.

Lorelei Laird of The American Bar Association Journal said the
certification petitions came from the cases Nielsen v. Preap, 16-
1363, which asked whether immigrants are subject to mandatory
detention if they serve their time for conviction and are
released by criminal authorities some time before they enter
immigration custody.

The ABA Journal related that the case centers around Mony Preap,
a California man who served time for marijuana possession
offenses and was released in 2006.  Preap, who came to the United
States in 1981 from Cambodia as an infant, was deportable because
of the convictions but he was not picked up by the immigration
authorities until 2013 when he was convicted of battery, which is
a non-deportable offense, the ABA Journal said.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in San Franciso
ruled that immigrants who are not immediately taken into custody
have a right to a bond hearing.  The U.S. government is seeking
an appeal, arguing that the ruling frustrates "DHS's ability to
remove deportable criminal aliens from the United States," the
ABA Journal further related.

The ABA Journal pointed out that the Supreme Court has ruled in
Jennings v. Rodriguez that people already in immigration
detention, with or without criminal convictions, are not entitled
to bond hearings.

The ABA Journal said Preap has implications for the political
debate over so-called "sanctuary cities," many of which decline
to hold immigrants past the ends of their sentences so that
immigration authorities may pick them up.

The Supreme Court will hear arguments during the nine-month term
that starts in October.


UNITED STATES: Sued Over Vietnamese Immigrant Detentions
--------------------------------------------------------
Roxana Kopetman, writing for Orange County Register, reports that
Hoang Trinh was four years old when he arrived from Vietnam, part
of a large Catholic family that fled a war-torn homeland to build
a new life together in Garden Grove.

But now the United States government wants him to return to
Vietnam -- despite a 10-year-old agreement between the two
countries that dictates who Vietnam will and won't accept back.

The detentions of Vietnamese refugees and other Asian immigrants
may easily get lost in the immigration debate, which typically
centers on Latinos.  But civil rights advocates brought it front
and center on Feb. 28 when they announced a class action lawsuit
challenging what they allege are unlawful detentions by the Trump
administration.

"This administration is an equal opportunity abuser of
immigrants.  It's important to highlight that this issue
certainly is impacting Asian American communities . . . They are
just as vulnerable" as Latino immigrants, said Laboni Hoq,
litigation director with Los Angeles office of Asian Americans
Advancing Justice, a nonprofit that advocates for Asian American
civil rights.

Specifically, the group says the Trump administration has
targeted a handful of Vietnamese refugees who have been in the
United States since prior to 1995, and holding them in detention
indefinitely for deportation.

The lawsuit cites Trinh and three other petitioners among
approximately 40 Vietnamese refugees awaiting deportation while
housed in immigration detention facilities.  Some have been
detained over 90 days; some as long as 11 months.  And that is
illegal, their attorneys say, because the U.S. government doesn't
have the right to hold people indefinitely unless there's an
expectation that their country of origin will take them back.

In the case of Vietnam, that country doesn't just take anyone
back.  And, traditionally, it hasn't.

There is a 2008 agreement that sets the provisions, conditions
and procedures under which a Vietnamese citizen living in the
United States can be repatriated.  The Vietnamese government
considers requests on a case-by-case basis. But if the refugees
left Vietnam for the United States before July 12, 1995, the date
when diplomatic relations were re-established between the two
countries, they may not be deported back to their home country.

Yet, that's exactly what started happening last year, attorneys
said.

"Today, the American government -- the one that my mom equates
with freedom and justice -- is illegally and indefinitely
incarcerating Vietnamese refugees who came to the United States
before July 12, 1995 and who therefore cannot be removed under a
longstanding agreement between Vietnam and the United States,"
said Phi Nguyen, litigation director with the Asian Americans
Advancing Justice, Atlanta affiliate.  Her family also are
Vietnamese refugees, though none are represented in the suit.

Officials with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement declined
to comment on the potential class action.

According to data available through U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement, 71 individuals were deported to Vietnam last year -
compared to 35 the previous year.  An ICE spokesman said the
agency does not break down deportation cases by the year in which
the refugees arrived in the United States.

Attorneys with Asian Americans Advancing Justice said there are
at least half a dozen cases of Vietnamese refugees who arrived
prior to 1995 who have been deported since last year.  But the
trend, if this becomes a new policy, could affect as many as
8,000 to 10,000 Vietnamese with final orders of removal from this
country, attorneys said.

That includes people like Tung Nguyen.  He arrived from Vietnam
as a teenager in 1991. The way he described it on Feb. 28, he did
"stupid" things when he was young.  At 16, he was involved in a
fatal stabbing and was tried and convicted as an adult.  He was
sentenced to 25 years to life.  But after serving 18 years in
prison -- after he risked his life to protect civilians during a
prison brawl -- he was released on parole by Gov. Jerry Brown.

Since then, he said, "I have dedicated my life to service in the
community."  He founded a program called Asian Pacific Islander
Re-Entry Orange County to help people coming out of jail.

Still, though Nguyen is not among the detainees currently held by
ICE, he is among those who face potential deportation.  He's not
a citizen of the United States, but Vietnam hasn't said it will
take him back.  "I live every day with uncertainty and fear," he
said.

In Trinh's case, he arrived in Orange County in 1980, where he
attended private Catholic high schools, including Mater Dei,
according to his attorneys.  He's married and a father to a 13-
year-old son and an 18-year-old daughter who attends Cal State
Long Beach.  In 2015, he was arrested on a drug charge and served
one year in prison.  Then, after he was allegedly found in
possession of a marijuana plant last year, he went back to jail.
That's where his odyssey with the immigration agency began.

Trinh was ordered deported on July 27 and since then has been
held at the Theo Lacy detention facility in Orange County.

"What we think is happening is that they're rounding people up
and hoping Vietnam will take them back," Hoq said.  "That's a
violation of law."

The Vietnamese currently in immigration detention previously were
charged with crimes but all have already served time for those
incidents, the lawyers said. Since then, Hoq said, they have
"reintegrated into society."

The lawsuit filed in federal court in Santa Ana on Feb. 22 names
ICE, Orange County Sheriff Sandra Hutchens and other officials.

A similar lawsuit filed by the same group last October alleges
ICE is ordering the deportation of Cambodian refugees, in many
cases, for decades-old convictions. More than 100 Cambodian
refugees were detained last October, many of them from Long
Beach, Modesto and Stockton.  Cambodia has accepted an average of
35 individuals for repatriation annually, but the U.S. government
is pressuring that country to take more, attorneys said.

In both communities, ICE agents are often showing up at people's
homes or work places to arrest them.

"For those who believe in learning from your wrongs and being
forgiven," Hoq said, "this isn't right." [GN]


UNITED STATES: Supreme Court Issues Decision in Immigration Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Johnson, writing for SCOTUS Blog, reports that on Feb. 27,
the Supreme Court decided Jennings v. Rodriguez, a class-action
challenge to provisions of the immigration laws allowing for
immigrant detention.  After hearing oral argument in the case
last term, the court asked for further briefing on the
constitutionality of the detention of immigrants. At the end of
the term, still shorthanded after Justice Antonin Scalia's death
the previous year, the court ordered reargument.  With President
Donald Trump's administration promising to increase the use of
detention as a form of immigration enforcement, the case has
great practical significance.

Justice Alito with opinion in Jennings v. Rodriguez (Art Lien)

As discussed in my preview of the argument, two Supreme Court
cases decided at the dawn of the new millennium offer contrasting
approaches to the review of decisions of the U.S. government to
detain immigrants. In 2001, in Zadvydas v. Davis, the Supreme
Court interpreted an immigration statute to require judicial
review of a detention decision because "to permit[] indefinite
detention of an alien would cause a serious constitutional
problem." Just two years later, the court in Demore v. Kim
refused to disturb a provision of the immigration statute
requiring detention of immigrants awaiting removal based on a
crime. Relying on Zadvydas v. Davis, the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the 9th Circuit affirmed a district court injunction that, in
the words of the appeals court, avoided "a serious constitutional
problem" by requiring bond hearings every six months for
immigrant detainees.

Mr. Johnson noted in his argument analysis that during the
reargument, some justices worried that the 9th Circuit had acted
more like a legislature than a court in fashioning an injunction
requiring bond hearings every six months. Such concerns carried
the day.

Justice Samuel Alito wrote for a 5-3 court. (Justice Elena Kagan
recused herself, in all likelihood because she was involved in
the case while serving as U.S. solicitor general.) Using a
textual approach to interpreting the immigration statute, the
majority found that nothing in the statute supports the
imposition of periodic bond hearings as mandated by the court of
appeals.  The court held that, because the statute was clear, the
9th Circuit had misapplied the doctrine of constitutional
avoidance. Alito emphasized that "a court relying on that canon
. . . must interpret the statute, not rewrite it."

In Part II of the opinion, not joined by Justices Clarence Thomas
and Neil Gorsuch, a plurality of the court found that the statute
(8 U.S.C. Sec 1252(b)(9), 1226(c))did not preclude the court from
exercising jurisdiction over the case.  Although not engaging in
"a comprehensive interpretation" of Section 1252, the plurality
suggested that it only applied to individual removal orders.
Because the detention is not a part of the U.S. government's
discretionary authority, Section 1226(e), which limits review of
discretionary judgments, does not apply.

The court next reiterated the doctrine of constitutional
avoidance as a tool of statutory construction. Ultimately, the
court found that the 9th Circuit had misapplied the canon
"because its interpretations of the three provisions at issue
here are implausible."  As the court emphasized, "[s]potting a
constitutional issue does not give a court the authority to
rewrite a statute as it pleases."

In Part IV, the court challenged Justice Stephen Breyer's dissent
for "ignoring the statutory language" and asserted that his
interpretation of the statute was "implausible."

In the last part of the opinion, the court remanded the case to
the 9th Circuit, instructing it to address the constitutional
challenges to the statute in the first instance. In so doing, it
raised statutory jurisdictional questions that were not raised by
the parties, questioned "whether a Rule 23(b)(2) class action
continues to be the appropriate vehicle for  respondents' claims
in light of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes," and directed the
court of appeals to consider whether a class action is the
appropriate tool for resolving due process clams that often are
fact-specific.

Thomas, joined by Justice Gorsuch, concurred in all but the
jurisdictional part of Alito's opinion. Thomas read the statute
as preventing judicial review "except in a petition for review
from a final removal order or in other circumstances not present
here." He went on to conclude that the bar on jurisdiction is
constitutional.

Justice Breyer, joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia
Sotomayor, dissented, reading portions of his opinion from the
bench.  Justice  Breyer would have applied the doctrine of
constitutional avoidance because "the majority's interpretation
of the statute would likely render the statute unconstitutional,"
and he addressed the constitutional question in detail.  In the
course of a thorough review of the cases, Justice Breyer observed
that the Supreme Court "generally has not held that bail
proceedings are unnecessary. Indeed, it almost always has
suggested the contrary." His conclusion: The decisions "tell us
that an interpretation of the statute  . . . would deny bail
proceedings where detention is prolonged would likely mean that
the statute violates the Constitution." Justice  Breyer also read
the statute as requiring "bail proceedings in instances of
prolonged detention without doing violence to the statutory
language or to the provisions' basic purposes."  Finally, Justice
Breyer disputed the majority's suggestions that the statute bars
review and that the case was inappropriately brought as a class
action.

In some respects, the court's decision in Jennings v. Rodriguez
takes us back to the drawing board. After sparring among
themselves over two terms, the justices remanded the case to the
9th Circuit to decide a meaty constitutional question -- whether
indefinite detention of noncitizens without a bond hearing as
authorized by the immigration statute is constitutional. [GN]


UNITED STATES: Immigrant Teen Freed Amid ICE Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
V¡ctor Manuel Ramos, writing for Newsday, reports that an
immigrant teen from Long Island, who is among the chief
plaintiffs in a class-action lawsuit against the federal
government and its contracted shelter, was released after more
than seven months in custody, said the advocacy organization
representing him.

The 17-year-old boy, identified only as L.V.M. in court filings,
is a Salvadoran who was living in Bellport until July, when
agents for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement placed him in
detention, pending possible deportation.

The class action suit, filed Feb. 16 by the New York Civil
Liberties Union, seeks to end "the government's prolonged
detention of immigrant children across New York State" for minors
who have been placed under heightened supervision.  He was
released on Feb. 22 after several news reports on the case.

"We're thrilled to see L.V.M. reunited with his mom," Paige
Austin, staff attorney with the NYCLU, said in a statement.
"Their family is so happy to be together again, after over half a
year of waiting for a response to his mother's request for his
release."  The Office of Refugee Resettlement, responsible for
the custody of immigrant minors, "had no reason to keep this
child in its custody and separated from his family for months on
end."

The suit, Austin added, will go on "and we will continue to fight
to ensure that other children caught up in the Trump deportation
dragnet get the due process and the prompt reunification with
family that they deserve."

The federal government has not filed a response to the suit. A
spokeswoman for the government agencies declined to comment on
Feb. 27 on the pending litigation.

The legal complaint targets officials with the federal Office of
Refugee Resettlement and its overseeing agencies, the
Administration for Children and Families and the U.S. Department
of Health and Human Services. It also names The Children's
Village, a nonprofit contracted to keep custody of those children
in Dobbs Ferry, Westchester County.

L.V.M. was among several students at Bellport High School in the
South Country school district who had been suspended over
suspected gang involvement, but he denied the allegations.  He
told Newsday last summer he was falsely accused of throwing gang
signs after making an obscene gesture at another student. [GN]


VERSACE RETAIL: "Guzman" Suit Seeks Wages under Labor Law
---------------------------------------------------------
SHARIFA GUZMAN, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. VERSACE RETAIL SYSTEMS
LLC, KIDSTOWN 161 STREET LLC, and any other affiliated entities
that employed Plaintiff and members of the putative class, the
Defendants, Case No. 151859/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Mar. 1, 2018),
seeks to recover wages and benefits which Plaintiffs were
statutorily entitled to receive pursuant to New York Labor Law.

According to the complaint, beginning in approximately February
2012, and continuing through the present, Defendants required
Plaintiff and members of the putative class to wear uniforms but
did not launder them or to provide the uniform maintenance pay.
Accordingly, Plaintiff has initiated this action seeking for
herself, and on behalf of all similarly situated employees to
recover the uniform maintenance pay set forth in 12 NYCRR section
142-2.5(c), plus interest, attorneys' fees, and costs.

Versace Retail Systems is a children's and infants' wear store
located in Roselle Park, New Jersey.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the putative class:

          Lloyd R. Ambinder, Esq.
          VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP
          Jack L. Newhouse
          40 Broad Street, 7th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 943 9080
          E-mail: lambinder@vandallp.com


WAL-MART ASSOCIATES: "Garcia" Suit Goes to S.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Julio Garcia, individually and on
behalf of all those similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Wal-
Mart Associates, Inc., a Delaware corporation; Wal-Mart Stores,
Inc., a Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive,
Case No. 37-02018-00005861-CU-OE-OTL, was removed from the
Superior Court of California, County of San Diego, to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California (San
Diego) on Mar. 7, 2018. The District Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 3:18-cv-00500-L-MDD to the proceeding. The case is assigned
to Hon. Judge M. James Lorenz.

Walmart operates retail stores in various formats worldwide. It
operates through three segments: Walmart U.S., Walmart
International, and Sam's Club. The company operates discount
stores, supermarkets, supercenters, hypermarkets, warehouse
clubs, cash and carry stores, and home improvement stores.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

Attorneys for Defendants:

          Robert J Herrington, Esq.
          GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
          1840 Century Park East, Suite 1900
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-2121
          Telephone: (310) 586 7700
          Facsimile: (310) 586 7800
          E-mail: herringtonr@gtlaw.com


WELLS FARGO: Sued for Failing to Return Customer GAP Fee Share
--------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a
federal class action claims Wells Fargo Bank keeps the pro rata
share of prepaid Guaranteed Automobile Protection, or GAP fees,
when a customer cancels early or totals a car before it expires,
rather than returning the pro rata share to the customer, as
required.

The case is ARMANDO HERRERA, MONICA HERRERA, DEANA LUCERO,
MELISSA LUCAS, V ANITY ARRINGTON, NICHOLE DARTIS, FREDERICK
BROWN, ANTHONY DILLARD, JANET CORPES, TERRI JONES, RIA MARTEINS,
CHAKA SMITH, SHANNON GENTRY, GRETA CARTER, and JANET ATKINS, each
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, vs. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. D/B/A WELLS FARGO DEALER
SERVICES, INC., WELLS FARGO & COMPANY and MARGUERITE DREW, an
individual, Defendants, Case No.: 8:18-cv-00332 (C.D. Calif.).

Attorneys for Plaintiffs, the Proposed Class and Sub-Classes:

     JASON M. FRANK, Esq.
     ANDREW D. STOLPER, Esq.
     SCOTT H. SIMS, Esq.
     FRANK SIMS & STOLPER LLP
     19800 MacArthur Blvd., Suite 855
     Irvine, CA 92612
     Telephone: (949) 201-2400
     Facsimile: (949) 201-2405

     IVY T. NGO, Esq.
     FRANKLIN D. AZAR, Esq.
     BRIAN HANLIN, Esq.
     FRANKLIN D. AZAR & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
     14426 East Evans Avenue
     Aurora, CO 80014
     Telephone: (303) 757-3300
     Facsimile: (303) 759-5203

     CHARLES E. SHAFFER, Esq.
     DANIEL C. LEVIN, Esq.
     LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN
     510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
     Philadelphia, PA 19106
     Telephone: (215) 592-1500
     Facsimile: (215) 592-4663


WINCO HOLDINGS: "Jaco" Suit Moved to Eastern Dist. of California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Shirley Jaco, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
WinCo Holdings, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 2027761, was
removed from the Stanislaus Cty. Ct., to the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of California (Fresno) on March 2, 2018.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:18-cv-00301-DAD-EPG
to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. District
Judge Dale A. Drozd.

WinCo Foods, Inc. is a privately held, majority employee-owned
American supermarket chain based in Boise, Idaho with retail
stores in Arizona, California, Idaho, Nevada, Oklahoma, Oregon,
Texas, Utah, and Washington.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robin G. Workman, Esq.
          Rachel Elizabeth 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: robin@workmanlawpc.com
                  rachel@workmanlawpc.com

               - and -

          Julie Grace Yap, Esq.
          Christopher J. Truxler, Esq.
          Kristina Marie Launey, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
          400 Capitol Mall, Suite 2350
          Sacramento, CA 95814
          Telephone: (916) 448 0159
          Facsimile: (916) 558 4839
          E-mail: jyap@seyfarth.com
                  ctruxler@seyfarth.com
                  klauney@seyfarth.com


* Fleming Opposes Mandatory Arbitration of Shareholder Cases
------------------------------------------------------------
Steven D. Lofchie, Esq. -- steven.lofchie@cwt.com -- of
Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP, in an article for Mondaq,
wrote that SEC Investor Advocate Rick Fleming expressed
disapproval of mandatory arbitration provisions that prohibit
shareholders from pursuing class actions.  These provisions
generally require shareholders to pursue claims on an individual
basis through arbitration.

In an SEC Speaks program sponsored by the Practising Law
Institute, Mr. Fleming responded to several commentators who
recommended that U.S. public companies adopt mandatory
arbitration provisions in their articles of incorporation or
bylaws to avoid the high costs of class action litigation.
Mr. Fleming argued that such a view neglects the negative side
effects of limiting shareholders' class actions.

Mr. Fleming asserted that the class action mechanism serves a
number of beneficial purposes.  These include (i) encouraging
private enforcement of the securities laws where the SEC's
resources are limited, (ii) providing a means of redress for all
investors, regardless of their holding size, (iii) avoiding
collective action problems resulting from the high costs of
pursuing securities claims, and (iv) serving as the basis for an
extensive body of case law interpreting the federal securities
laws.  Mr. Fleming stated that arbitration does not offer
comparable benefits because it does not effectively handle
multiple plaintiffs, avoids public disclosure, does not require
written decisions or opinions, renders appeals difficult to
pursue, and does not incentivize investors with small holdings.

Mr. Fleming urged the SEC to continue its objection to U.S. IPO
issuers that impose mandatory arbitration provisions on the basis
of Securities Act Section 14, and Exchange Act Section 29(a),
which provide that any condition that forces a person to waive
compliance with those laws is void.  Mr. Fleming also urged
public companies to consider the downside risks of mandatory
arbitration provisions.

Notwithstanding Mr. Fleming's arguments that the market would
disfavor mandatory arbitration clauses, it seems quite plausible
that the reverse would be true.  In any case, academics can see
how the stock markets react to the adoption of such provisions by
individual companies.  The hard question, then, becomes whether
there is any public policy reason to disfavor such clauses even
if securities holders as a group prefer them. [GN]


* Littler Mendelson Attorneys Discuss FCRA Class Action Rulings
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rod M. Fliegel, Esq. -- rfliegel@littler.com -- and Allen P.
Lohse, Esq. -- alohse@littler.com -- of Littler Mendelson PC, in
an article for Lexology, wrote that the FCRA is not a classic
employment law, but regulates the procurement and use of
background checks by employers.  Before procuring a background
check from a consumer reporting agency (CRA), the employer must
disclose its intention to do so and obtain the individual's
authorization (known as the "stand-alone disclosure
requirement").  And, before taking any adverse action against the
individual based, in whole or in part, on the background check,
the employer must provide the individual with a copy of the
background check and the statutory summary of FCRA rights (known
as the "pre-adverse action" notice).  The plaintiffs' bar has
been flooding the courts with class action lawsuits asserting
technical violations of these requirements.  Some of these
lawsuits have settled on a class-wide basis.  However, employers
have notched some significant victories in recent cases.

Lewis v. Southwest Airlines

In Lewis, the plaintiff asserted classwide and "willful"
violations of the FCRA's disclosure requirement and corresponding
violations of California's fair credit reporting act.  The
plaintiff did not accuse Southwest of ignoring the FCRA outright,
but rather of impermissibly presenting the statutory disclosure
to him along with other supposedly "extraneous" information.
Southwest successfully moved to transfer the case from California
to Texas, persuaded the court to trim the plaintiff's California
claims by filing a motion to dismiss, and then convinced the
court to dismiss the suit by filing a motion for summary
judgment.  Relying on the U.S. Supreme Court's opinion in Safeco
Insurance Company of America v. Burr, the court agreed that
Southwest's precise disclosure obligation was too uncertain to
support a willful violation when the plaintiff applied for a job
in January 2015.  The court reasoned that the district courts
that have considered whether extraneous information in an FCRA
disclosure constitutes a willful violation have provided
inconsistent and even conflicting answers.2

Branch v. GEICO

In Branch, GEICO did not defeat a pre-adverse action claim on
summary judgment, but did beat the plaintiff's motion to certify
a class action.  The plaintiff alleged that GEICO took an adverse
action when it assigned the plaintiff's background check a
preliminary grade of "Fail"--based on GEICO's "Adjudication
Process."  Because this grading occurred before the plaintiff was
provided her report and the statutory summary of rights, she
alleged a FCRA violation.  GEICO moved for summary judgment--
relying on substantial evidence that its preliminary grading is
not a "final" decision and citing to prior cases holding that the
grading (or scoring) of a background check, without more, does
not constitute an adverse action.  The court acknowledged the
"legitimacy" of GEICO's pre-adverse action notice processes, and
commented that they exemplify "the very manner in which dispute
processes are supposed to operate under the FCRA." The court also
agreed that the grading of a background check, alone, does not
constitute an adverse action.  However, the court denied summary
judgment because a GEICO employee allegedly told the plaintiff,
on the day of the grading, that the plaintiff's job offer had
been rescinded.  If GEICO's employee deviated from its normal
process by denying the plaintiff an opportunity to dispute the
background results, a jury could find the plaintiff's "Fail"
grade was an adverse action.  At the same time, the court denied
class certification because no common proof existed as to whether
calls made to any other class members deprived them of an
opportunity to respond to the pre-adverse action notice before
adverse action was taken.  Relying on the U.S. Supreme Court's
opinion in Spokeo v. Robins, the court also refused to certify a
class that included class members both with and without Article
III standing.3

Culberson v. Walt Disney

Culberson involved allegations similar to those in Branch.
Disney "coded" the plaintiffs' background checks as "no hire"
based on certain criminal convictions.  The plaintiffs alleged
that this pre-notice "coding" constituted an adverse action and a
"willful" violation of the FCRA.  Disney moved for summary
judgment following an order certifying the case as a class
action.  Similar to GEICO, Disney argued that its "coding" was
not an adverse action itself, but rather only an "internal
decision" to potentially take an adverse action in the future.
Disney further argued that its alleged conduct (i.e., "coding"
prior to sending applicants their reports) was not based on an
"objectively unreasonable" FCRA interpretation, and thus the
plaintiffs could not prove any willful violation.  The court
agreed. Relying on the opinion in Lewis v. Southwest, the court
held that Disney did not act "objectively unreasonable" even if
its FCRA practices were similar to those in recent cases in which
courts found non-compliance.  As the Culberson court explained,
the plaintiffs cannot demonstrate a willful violation by relying
on authorities that "were decided years after Plaintiffs applied
for employment at Disneyland."

Takeaways

The law in this area is dynamic, and employers should continue to
monitor case law and regulatory developments.  To mitigate risk,
employers should also arrange for a privileged review of their
disclosure documents and pre-adverse action notices and
procedure.  In addition, employers should continue to be mindful
of their obligations under expanding state and local ban-the-box
laws, which intersect with the FCRA's required processes. [GN]


* OEMs Face Class Action in Australia Over Takata Airbags
---------------------------------------------------------
Neil Dowling, writing for GoAutoNews Premium, reports that
lawyers have jumped on the case for owners of cars fitted with
Takata airbags and the subject of the March 11 compulsory recall.
While OEMs are grappling with the sudden demand from the
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) that wants
all airbags replaced by December 31, 2020, lawyers have placed
the OEMs directly in their sights saying they want to ensure
owners are protected in the case of injury.

The meat in the sandwich are car dealers who are trying to cope
with the influx of cars for the urgent replacement of the airbags
as their workshops begin to delay normal service demands from
other customers.

Reports from the industry say that as much as 65% of workshop
time is now being allocated to airbag replacement for one of the
key brands which involves complete removal of the facia.

But the biggest impact is to the consumer.  Unlike the OEMs and
dealers, the motorist knows very little about the effect of the
world's biggest automotive recall on the car in their garage.

That's the cue for Damian Scattini, a partner with legal firm
Quinn Emanuel, who told GoAutoNews Premium that with the Takata
airbag recall, OEMs are breaching Australian Consumer Law (ACL).

He claimed that the ACCC announcement was "unprecedented" and
showed the Takata airbag issue was an "incredibly urgent and
potentially lethal problem".

"Under the ACL, goods specifically need to be safe and consumers
have a right to a replacement or refund if they are not -- that
is what we are seeking to enforce with this action," he said.

"It is hard for manufacturers to defend their actions or say
there isn't any urgency to replace these airbags when they are
the subject of the largest product safety recall in Australia's
history."

Mr Scattini said: "OEMs say they are doing their best and they
haven't.

"The truth is that they have been dragged kicking and screaming
by the ACCC and if you weigh up who should bear the cost of that
-- is it the companies that chose cheaper airbags to put in their
cars and should have known full well that there was a chance they
could blow up, or is it the consumer who knew nothing?"

Mr Scattini said that one of the core issues is that a Takata
airbag can be replaced with another Takata airbag "that will
still contain ammonium nitrate and that's still not good enough".

"So we want a replacement airbag that is safe," he said.

"For customers, they should have a replacement vehicle made
available or a rental vehicle until the time when the OEM can
replace the airbags with non-ammonium nitrate bags.

"But the preference, in my opinion, is to give car owners their
money back and let them go and buy a Hyundai or something that
doesn't have a Takata airbag so it never has this problem.

"That's what we're claiming in the action.  It's slightly
different from the ACCC's compulsory replacement but we support
the ACCC."

He said there are "thousands" of people involved in the class
action.

"But this is an open-class action which means anyone with a
vehicle from the six manufacturers who is affected by the Takata
recall is covered by the class action," he said.

"They can opt out of the class action at a later date.  That
means there's well over a million in the class action."

Mr Scattini said six class actions -- each representing a
manufacturer -- have been filed in Australia.

"The first directions hearing was on February 14 and the case is
being case managed together - because they're similar -- and I'll
hope we have a resolution soon," he said.

"There may be a situation where the OEMs will want to delay it as
long as possible but we're not going to let them do that.

"No-one is exempt from this action.  We have strict liability
laws in this country and the cases in the US revolve around the
OEMs saying 'we are the victims too'.  That doesn't matter in
Australia.

"It's the same as any component manufacturer.  What happens in
the US is not relevant here. We have consumer guarantees and if a
product has a safety defect then there are consequences for that.

"We are not working hand-in-glove with the ACCC but they are
aware of what we are doing and there is a section of the ACCC
airbag notice that states that what we are doing does not affect
the rights of the car owner under consumer laws."

Ammonium nitrate is the propellant used to inflate the airbag. It
is seen as the prime reason for the airbag faults and the
resulting global deaths and injuries, of which one death was
recorded in Australia.

Takata changed the airbag propellant in 2001 from tetrazole to
ammonium nitrate.  A US Senate Commerce Committee in June 2015
claimed Takata knew of the problems with the new propellant --
importantly, its unstable nature which can make it explode
unexpectedly -- as early as 2001.

Rival airbag makers TRW Automotive and Autoliv use the less
volatile propellant, guanidine nitrate.  None of these airbags
are subject to recall and none have shown faults linked to deaths
or injuries. [GN]


* Sheppard Mullin Attorneys Discuss 2018 TCPA Class Action Trends
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul A. Werner, Esq. -- pwerner@sheppardmullin.com -- and
David M. Poell, Esq. -- dpoell@sheppardmullin.com -- of Sheppard,
Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP, in an article for The National Law
Review, discuss 5 TCPA class action trends to watch in 2018.
These are the following:

1. Have the GOP's Hopes for Enacting the Fairness in Class Action
Litigation Act Been Dashed? - Passed in March 2017 by the U.S.
House of Representatives, the Fairness in Class Action Litigation
Act of 2017, H.R. 985, has stalled in the Senate.  Among other
things, the House bill would dictate the method by which to
calculate attorneys' fees in a class action and significantly
limit recoverable attorneys' fees to a "reasonable percentage of
(1) any payments received by class members; and (2) the value of
any equitable relief." (H.R. 985, Sec. 103) The bill also
installs a stringent "ascertainability" rule that would likely
result in more denials of class certification.  On March 13,
2017, the House bill was sent to the Senate Judiciary Committee,
but the Committee has not taken any further actions to advance
the bill.  In the current political climate, there may be a
tailwind for this legislative effort in 2018.

2. The FCC's Progress and Speed in Resolving the Backlog of TCPA
Petitions - Several petitions for declaratory ruling were filed
with the FCC in late 2016 and 2017 requesting clarification on
issues relating to the meaning of "prior express consent" under
the TCPA.  After soliciting and receiving comments from the
public, those petitions are ripe for decision by the FCC. See In
the Matter of Credit Union Nat'l Ass'n Petition for Declaratory
Ruling, Dkt. No. 02-278 (filed Sept. 29, 2017) (requesting FCC to
exempt from the TCPA all informational calls made by credit
unions to cell phones where the wireless subscriber has an
established business relationship with the credit union, or the
called party is not charged for the call); In the Matter of
Petition for Expedited Declaratory Ruling of Bebe Stores, Inc.,
Dkt. No. 02-278 (filed Nov. 18, 2016) (requesting retroactive
waiver of TCPA's "prior express written consent" requirement for
robocalls for calls made by Bebe from October 16, 2013, to
October 7, 2015).  At least two petitions for declaratory ruling
were filed by defendants in pending TCPA fax class actions last
year, and those petitions also await decision from the FCC.

3. Will Courts Continue to Snuff Out Flu-Shot Reminder Call Class
Actions? - The Second Circuit has already issued two decisions
this year affirming dismissals of putative TCPA class actions
because the calls in question conveyed a "health care message."
In Zani v. Rite Aid Headquarters, No. 17-1230-cv, 2018 WL 992309
(2d Cir. Feb. 21, 2018), the Second Circuit affirmed the district
court's summary judgment ruling in Rite Aid's favor and held that
its flu shot reminder calls were "health care messages" exempt
from the TCPA's written consent requirement.  The Zani decision
follows on the heels of another recent Second Circuit decision
affirming summary judgment in a case involving flu-shot text
message reminders. In Latner v. Mount Sinai Health System, Inc.,
879 F.3d 52 (2d Cir. Jan. 9, 2018) (as amended), the Second
Circuit upheld summary judgment in defendant's favor because the
reminder text at issue constituted a "health care message" exempt
from the TCPA.

4. The Supreme Court Considers Cert. Petition in TCPA Class
Action Seeking Resolution of the "Ascertainability" Circuit-Split
- The lingering circuit split among the federal courts of appeals
regarding proper interpretation of the so-called
"ascertainability" requirement under Rule 23 seems ripe for
resolution by the Supreme Court.  On November 30, 2017,
plaintiffs in a TCPA fax case challenged their class
certification defeat in the Sixth Circuit by seeking Supreme
Court review on the question of whether the trial court's ability
to identify class members qualifies as a prerequisite to Rule 23
class certification under the rubric of ascertainability,
predominance, or superiority. See Sandusky Wellness Center, LLC
v. ASD Specialty Healthcare, Inc., 863 F.3d 460 (6th Cir. Sept.
1, 2017), as corrected on denial of reh'g en banc (affirming
denial of TCPA plaintiffs' motion for class certification because
plaintiffs could not satisfy ascertainability requirement),
petition for cert. filed(U.S. Nov. 30, 2017) (No. 17-803).[1] The
Supreme Court's resolution of the nettlesome ascertainability
standard would provide much-need clarity on the standard a
plaintiff must satisfy to prove that a class can be identified
for certification purposes.  The defendant filed its opposition
to the cert. petition on February 8, 2018.

5. The Extinction of Post-Spokeo Challenges to Article III
Standing in TCPA Cases? - Ever since the Supreme Court's 2016
decision in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1536, defendants
have filed motions to dismiss putative TCPA class actions for
lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. But while Defendants have
argued in such cases that a single call (or text or fax), without
more, is not enough to qualify as a "concrete" injury for Article
III standing purposes, the argument has not gained significant
traction. See Manuel v. NRA Group LLC, 2018 WL 388622 (3d Cir.
Jan. 12, 2018); Susinno v. Work Out World Inc., 862 F.3d 346 (3d
Cir. 2017); Florence Endocrine Clinic, PLLC, 858 F.3d 1362 (11th
Cir. 2017); Van Patten v. Vertical Fitness Group, LLC, 847 F.3d
1037 (9th Cir. 2017); Hossfeld v. Compass Bank, 2017 WL 5068752
(N.D. Ala. Nov. 3, 2017). But see Winner v. Kohl's Dep't Stores,
Inc., 2017 WL 3535038 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 17, 2017) (granting Rule
12(b)(1) motion to dismiss for lack of standing in TCPA case
where plaintiff had consented to receive defendant's commercial
text messages). Looking ahead, future remains uncertain for the
viability of such challenges. [GN]



                            *********


S U B S C R I P T I O N  I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills,
Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.
Marion Alcestis A. Castillon, Jessenius Pulido, Noemi Irene A.
Adala, Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche
Maricon Castillon-Lopez, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G.
Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2018.  All rights reserved.  ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail.  Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each.  For subscription information, contact Peter A.
Chapman at 215-945-7000.



                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *