CAR_Public/180322.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


             Thursday, March 22, 2018, Vol. 20, No. 59



                            Headlines


ACCOUNT CONTROL: Faces "Salgado" Suit in S.D. New York
ADFP MANAGEMENT: Simpkins Seeks Unpaid Wages
AHUJA MEDICAL: Brickel Sues over Human Fertility Service
AMAZON.COM: "Bishop" Suit says Website not Blind-Friendly
AMEDISYS HOLDING: Faces "Benco" Wage-and-Hour Suit

APPLE INC: Taylor Sues Over Undisclosed iOS Upgrade Bug
B PROPERTIES: "Temple" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA
BACKROADS INC: Faces "Sullivan" Suit in S.D. New York
BANDAS LAW: Court Narrows Claims in "Edelson" RICO Suit
BCA FINANCIAL: "Beneli" FDCPA Suit Settlement Has Final Approval

BEVERLY HEALTH: $450K Deal in "Ahmed" Wage Suit Has Prelim OK
BJ SERVICES: Underpays Field Engineers, "West" Suit Claims
BLACKHAWK NETWORK: Truong Balks at BHN Holdings Merger Deal
BREAD & CHOCOLATE: Fails to Provide Sick Leave, Soriano Says
BRYANT UNIVERSITY: Faces "Sullivan" Suit in S.D. New York

CAMDEN DEVELOPMENT: Morris Seeks Unpaid Wage, OT under Labor Code
CAPITALA FINANCE: "Sandifer" Suit Transferred to W.D. N.C.
CAVALRY PORTFOLIO: Velez Sues over Debt Collection Practices
CDK GLOBAL: Bob Baker Sues Over Data Mgmt Systems Price-fixing
CDK GLOBAL: Waconia Dodge Alleges Price-Fixing of Car Services

CDK GLOBAL: Northtown Sues Over Data Mgmt Systems Price-fixing
CDK GLOBAL: Teterboro Anti-trust Suit Transferred to N.D. Ill.
CENTURYLINK: "Scott" Suit Transferred to Minnesota Dist. Ct.
CENTURYLINK: "Thummeti" Suit Transferred to Minn. Dist. Ct.
CENTURYLINK: Inter-Marketing Suit Transferred to Minn. Dist. Ct.

CLOROX CO: Court Dismisses MMWA Claim in "Gregorio" Suit
CONSOLIDATED DISPOSAL: Pantoja et al. Sue over Trash Collection
CRAWFISH SPOT: Basilio et al. Sue over Earned Wages
DIAZ SUPERMARKET: Veranes Seeks Overtime Compensation under FLSA
DOWNTOWN RESTAURANT: Rivas Requests for Judicial Intervention

DREXEL UNIVERSITY: Faces "Adair" Suit in Cal. Superior Court
ESTEE LAUDER: Aug. 10 Deadline to File "Sakyi" Class Cert. Bid
EVERYDAY BEAUTY: "Lingmin" Suit Seeks OT, Spread-of-Hours Pay
EXPRESS DRILLING: "Peralez" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages, Damages
FIFTH THIRD: Violates Consumer Protection Statutes, Howards Says

GAB CALL: "Pollarolo" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages under FLSA
GANAHL LUMBER: Fails to Pay All Wages & Overtime, Woods Says
GC SERVICES: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss/Stay "Smith" FDCPA Suit
GENERAL MOTORS: Faces "Taylor" Suit in W.D. Oklahoma
GOOGLE NA: "Beecher" Sues Over Excessive Data Charges

GOPRO INC: April 19 Initial CMC in "Dye" Securities Suit
GREEN NRG: Invades Telephone Consumer Protection Act, Schopp Says
HP INC: Court Denies Bid to Enjoin Arbitration in "Forsyth" Suit
HSBC BANK: Objection to Production of Unredacted Docs Overruled
HWF REALTY: "Torres" Suit Seeks Overtime, Spread-of-Hours Pay

HYM CONSTRUCTION: Ayala Sues Over Denied Overtime Pay, Paystubs
I HEART FOODS: Faces "Ransom" Suit in E.D. New York
IPIC ENTERTAINMENT: Faces "Fischler" Suit in E.D. New York
JASON JAPANESE: "Yong" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT, Spread-of-Hours Pay
KNAUF GIPS: "Descher" Drywall Defect Case Transferred to E.D. La.

MAGIC HOME: Teshabaeva Seeks Minimum Wages under Labor Law
MAGICJACK VOCALTEC: Raines Balks at Merger Deal with B. Riley
MICHAEL STAPLETON: "Blackmon" Suit Transferred to N.Y.S.D.
MICROCHIP TECHNOLOGY: Court Narrows Claims in "Schuman" Suit
MISSISSIPPI: 5th Cir. Affirms Unitary Status Ruling

MOBILITY MEDICAL: "Llanes" Suit Seeks Overtime Wages under FLSA
MONSANTO CO: Bruce Farms Suit Transferred to E.D. Mo.
MONSANTO CO: "Harris" Pesticide Suit Transferred to E.D. Mo.
MORTGAGE LENDERS: "Charbonneau" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
MP&L METAL: "Vazquez" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages under FLSA

NCSPLUS INC: "Shore" Disputes Collection Letter
NISSAN NORTH: "Horne" Suit Moved to Northern Dist. of California
NLR CORNER: "Singh" Suit Seeks Minimum Wage, OT under Labor Code
NORTH AMERICAN: "McGhee" Stayed Pending Arbitration Appeal Ruling
NORTHSTAR ALARM: Freeman Sues Over Illegal Collection Calls

PANAGIRI INC: Hernandez Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code
PD PRODUCTS: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages & OT, Rodriguez Says
PERSONNEL STAFFING: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages & OT, Arias Says
PESSCO LLC: "Valdez" Suit Seeks Overtime Wages under FLSA
PLY GEM: Lowinger Balks at Merger Deal with Clayton

PROFESSIONAL RADIOLOGY: Renewed Bid to Dismiss "Jackson" Denied
PROGRESSIVE TRANS: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages, Posada Says
PUEBLOS RESTAURANT: Fails to Pay Overtime, Sanchez Says
QUINSTREET INC: Turner Sues over Spam Text
RADIOSHACK CORP: 5th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of "Singh" ERISA Suit

ROBERTO'S RESTAURANT: Faces "Hasanaj" Suit in S.D. New York
SAILORMEN INC: "Allen" Labor Suit Seek Unpaid Overtime
SECURITY CREDIT: Faces "Rahman" Suit in E.D. New York
SPACA INC: Faces Beane & Vine Wage-and-Hour Suit
STATE FARM: Ct. Denies Bid for Summary Judgment in "Hale" Suit

STRAUB MOTORS: "Wraith" Suit Seeks Unpaid Minimum Wage under FLSA
STRAX WELLNESS: Sent Unsolicited SMS Ads, "Bravo" Suit Says
SUNRUN INC: Knapp Sues over Robocalls
SUPREME KOURT: Violates Wage and Hour Law, Rodriguez Says
SYNERGY HEMATOLOGY: Avoyan Seeks Overtime Pay under Labor Code

TARGET CORP: Fails to Pay Wages, dela Cruz Claims
TELSTAR CABLE: "Siciliano" Suit Seeks Overtime Wages under FLSA
TOWN SPORTS: Pisarri Sues Over Denied Gym Membership Access
TRANSPORTATION MEDIA: Bid to Remand TJF Services Suit Denied
TRIFECTA JLS: "Martin" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code

TRINITY LOGISTICS: "Stichler" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA
TRUMP UNIVERSITY: 9th Cir. Affirms "Low" Settlement Approval
UNITED & STRONG III: "Sinclair" Labor Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
UNITED TECHNOLOGIES: "Post" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime under FLSA
VIDA CAFE: "Sanchez" Suit Seeks Overtime, Spread-of-Hours Pay

W.R. HAMBRECHT & CO: Switzer Seeks Damages under Securities Act
WAHOO'S FISH: Violates California's Gift Card Law, Pharmer Says
WIDEOPENWEST INC: "Porter" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA
WILLIS GROUP: Regents Balks at Merger Deal with Towers
WINE.COM: Secretly Records Telephone Calls, Gliadkovskaya Says

WORLD SERVICE: Fails to Pay Wages, Garcia Says
ZDS EXPRESS: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages, Pineda Says





                            *********


ACCOUNT CONTROL: Faces "Salgado" Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Account Control
Technology, Inc. The case is styled as Lourdes Salgado,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Account Control Technology, Inc., Defendant, Case
No. 1:18-cv-02115 (S.D. N.Y., March 8, 2018).

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

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


ADFP MANAGEMENT: Simpkins Seeks Unpaid Wages
--------------------------------------------
LIATORIA SIMPKINS, individually and on behalf of all other
persons similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. ADFP MANAGEMENT,
INC., ADF PIZZA 1, LLC, and PIZZA HUT OF AMERICA, LLC f/k/a PIZZA
HUT OF AMERICA, INC., and other affiliated entities that employed
Plaintiff and members of the putative class, the Defendant, Case
No. 152077/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Mar. 8, 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, upon information and belief, continuing through the
present, Pizza Hut required Plaintiffs to wear uniforms but did
not offer to launder them or to provide the uniform maintenance
pay set forth in New York Codes, Rules, and Regulations.

ADFP Management owns and operates franchised restaurants. The
company is based in Fairfield, New Jersey.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the putative class:

          Lloyd R. Ambinder, Esq.
          Jack L. Newhouse, Esq.
          VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP
          40 Broad Street, 7th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 943 9080
          E-mail: lambinder@vandallp.com


AHUJA MEDICAL: Brickel Sues over Human Fertility Service
--------------------------------------------------------
JOHN BRICKEL on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly
Situated c/o Spangenberg Shibley & Liber LLP 1001 Lakeside Avenue
East, Suite 1700 Cleveland, OH 44114; and KRISTINE BRICKEL on
Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly Situated c/o
Spangenberg Shibley & Liber LLP 1001 Lakeside Avenue East, Suite
1700 Cleveland, OH 44114, the Plaintiffs, v. UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS
AHUJA MEDICAL CENTER c/o Janet L. Miller 3605 Warrensville Center
Road, Suite 2135 Shaker Heights, OH 44122, the Defendants, Case
No. CV 18 894332 (Ohio Court of Common Pleas, Cuyahoga County,
Mar. 9, 2018), seeks to recover damages, including compensatory
and exemplary damages, including but not limited to the value of
the lost embryos, to Plaintiffs and the Class in an amount to be
determined at trial.

According to the complaint, UH operates the UH Fertility Center
at the Ahuja Medical Center that specializes in a wide range of
fertility services including the development of human embryos and
the freezing, storing, and safekeeping of viable embryos and eggs
for future procedures including in-vitro fertilization ("IVF").

Pursuant to an agreement for the developing, freezing, and
storing of human embryos and/or eggs between UH and Plaintiffs
and the other members of the Class, UH did develop, freeze, and
store Plaintiffs and the members of the Class's human embryos and
eggs in liquid nitrogen freezers at the Ahuja Medical Center in
Beachwood, Ohio. On March 3, 2018, the temperature rose in one or
more storage tanks and/or freezers located at the UH Fertility
Center. Based on reports, the rise in temperature triggered an
alarm regarding the potential danger to the frozen embryos and
eggs.

The alarm alerting UH to the rise in temperature inside the
tank(s) or freezer(s) went unanswered until the following morning
when employees or agents of UH arrived at work to discover the
alarm had been triggered the day before, resulting in harm to
Plaintiffs' embryos, which made the human embryos unusable.

UH failed to properly monitor the liquid nitrogen storage tank
containing the frozen embryos and eggs; failed to implement
appropriate policies and procedures to protect the embryos and
eggs from any environmental control malfunctions of the storage
tanks/freezers; and failed to maintain the human embryos and/or
eggs in a usable form and condition as required under the
Agreement.

As a result of the rise in temperature Plaintiffs and the members
of the Class's frozen human embryos and eggs were non-viable and
no longer fit for implantation and/or IVF. UH's failure to
properly protect the embryos and eggs has caused economic loss
for the amounts paid under the Agreement, future economic
damages, loss of the value of human embryos, and loss of property
to the Plaintiffs and other members of the Class.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stuart E. Scott, Esq.
          Brendan L. Heil, Esq.
          SPANGENBERG SHIBLEY & LIBER LLP
          1001 Lakeside Avenue East, Suite 1700
          Cleveland, OH 44114
          Telephone: (216) 696 3232
          Facsimile: (216) 696 3924
          E-mail: sscot@spanglaw.com
                  bheil@spanglaw.com


AMAZON.COM: "Bishop" Suit says Website not Blind-Friendly
---------------------------------------------------------
Cedric Bishop, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. AMAZON.COM, INC., Defendant, Case No.
18-cv-00973 (S.D. N.Y., February 4, 2017), seeks a permanent
injunction to cause a change in Amazon's website to be accessible
to blind and visually-impaired consumers pursuant to the
Americans with Disabilities Act.

Amazon maintains a website that provides consumers with access to
an array of products. Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and
legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read
website content using his computer. Bishop claims that Amazon's
website contains hindrances that prevent patrons using blind
accessibility software from full access. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
      JOSEPH H. MIZRAHI LAW P.C.
      300 Cadman Plaza West, 12 Fl.
      Brooklyn, NY 11201
      Telephone: (917) 299-6612
      Facsimile: (718) 425-8954
      Email: joseph@jmizrahilaw.com

             - and -

      Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
      Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
      GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
      150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
      New York, NY 10003-2461
      Telephone: (212) 228-9795
      Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
      Email: nyjg@aol.com
             danalgottlieb@aol.com


AMEDISYS HOLDING: Faces "Benco" Wage-and-Hour Suit
--------------------------------------------------
KATHY BENCO, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated Plaintiffs, the Plaintiff, v. AMEDISYS HOLDING, LLC and
AMEDISYS ILLINOIS, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 2018L000266
(Ill. Cir. Ct., Dupage Cty., Mar. 8, 2018), seeks to recover
unpaid wages under the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants are in the business of
providing home health care services throughout Illinois. The
Plaintiff and persons similarly situated to her are current and
former Clinical Managers and Clinical Supervisors employed by
Amedisys who are/were responsible for coordinating and providing
health care services to patients in their homes and who were
classified as exempt under applicable wage and hour laws.

Over the last ten years, Defendants paid Clinical Managers and
Clinical Supervisors working in Illinois on a combined salary and
hourly basis. According to Amedisys company policy and the
compensation agreement between Defendants and Plaintiff, the
Company agreed to pay these employees an extra stipend and an
hourly rate above and beyond their salaries for work done
afterhours and on weekends relating to time spent on after hours
calls and the work associated with them. Defendants failed to pay
the Clinical Managers and Clinical Supervisors the extra stipend
and hourly rate associated with the afterhours work in violation
of the IWPCA.

Amedisys provides physical, emotional, and spiritual care and
support during life-limiting illness, along with help for
families and caregivers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ethan G. Zelizer, Esq.
          John M. Liston, Esq.
          HR LAW COUNSEL, LLC
          South Main Street, Suite 200
          Naperville, IL 60540
          Telephone 630 551 8374
          Facsimile 630 566 0705
          E-mail: ethan@hrlawcounsel.com
                  john@hrlawcounsel.com


APPLE INC: Taylor Sues Over Undisclosed iOS Upgrade Bug
-------------------------------------------------------
Brian Taylor, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Apple Inc., Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-
00168, (N.D. Ala., February 1, 2018), seeks monetary damages,
including but not limited to, compensatory, incidental, and
consequential damages, punitive damages, attorney fees and costs
incurred by counsel for Plaintiffs in accordance with the Alabama
Deceptive Trade Practices Act.

Apple allegedly failed to inform consumers that updating their
iPhone 6, 6S, SE or 7 to iOS 10.2.1 (and/or later to iOS 11.2)
would dramatically and artificially reduce the performance of
these devices. Apple also failed to inform consumers that phone
performance would be restored by simply replacing the phone's
lithium-ion battery, a much cheaper solution than buying a new
phone.

iPhone users reported sudden shutdowns of iPhones 5 and 6 running
versions of iOS 10 software. In February of 2017, Apple claimed
that it had almost entirely resolved the issue in its latest
10.2.1 iOS update, however, users still complained of slow
devices.

Defendant is a manufacturer of smartphones under the trade name
"iPhone." Taylor purchased his legacy iPhone several years ago in
Alabama. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      W. Daniel Miles, III, Esq.
      Archie I. Grubb, II, Esq.
      BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES, P.C.
      218 Commerce Street
      Montgomery, AL 36104
      Tel: (334) 269-2343
      E-mail: dee.miles@beasleyallen.com
              archie.grubb@beasleyallen.com

              - and -

      Wilson F. Green, Esq.
      FLEENOR & GREEN LLP
      1657 McFarland Boulevard North, Ste. G2A
      Tuscaloosa, AL 35406
      Tel: (205) 772-108
      Email: wgreen@fleenorgreen.com


B PROPERTIES: "Temple" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------
RODERICK TEMPLE, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, the Plaintiffs, v. B PROPERTIES - 2001 S. STAPLES, LLC,
the Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-00748 (S.D. Tex., Mar. 8, 2018),
seeks to recover overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

This case is a private civil action brought against Defendant
pursuant to Section 16(b) of 29 U.S.C. section 216(b) of the Fair
Labor Standards Act. The Defendant did not pay its maintenance
professionals overtime as required by FLSA. Instead, Defendant
only paid them a salary with no overtime pay for hours worked
over 40 in a week.

The Plaintiff is a citizen of the United States of America and
the State of Texas and resides in Wharton County, Texas. The
Defendant is Plaintiff's former employer. The Defendant is a
Texas company with its principal office located in Corpus
Christi, Texas. B Properties - 2001 S. Staples, LLC. The
Collective Members are maintenance staff employed by Defendant
within the last three years who were paid an hourly rate with no
overtime pay.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Derrick A. Reed, Esq.
          REED, PLLC
          1920 Country Place Pkwy, Suite 350
          Pearland, Texas 77584
          Telephone: (281) 519 7606
          Facsimile: (281) 506 8693
          E-mail: derrick@srapllc.com

               - and -

          Marrick Armstrong, Esq.
          ARMSTRONG LEGAL PLLC
          2016 Main Street, Suite 111
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (832) 622 6562
          Facsimile: (281) 809 8735
          E-mail: marrick@armstronglegalpllc.com


BACKROADS INC: Faces "Sullivan" Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Backroads, Inc. The
case is styled as Phillip Sullivan Jr., on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Backroads, Inc., Defendant, Case
No. 1:18-cv-02100 (S.D. N.Y., March 8, 2018).

Backroads, Inc. is a travel agency.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   C.K. Lee, Esq.
   Lee Litigation Group, PLLC
   30 East 39th Street
   2nd Floor
   New York, NY 10016
   Tel: (212) 465-1188
   Fax: (212) 465-1181
   Email: cklee@leelitigation.com


BANDAS LAW: Court Narrows Claims in "Edelson" RICO Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
In the case, EDELSON PC, an Illinois professional corporation,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. THE BANDAS LAW FIRM PC, a Texas professional
corporation, CHRISTOPHER BANDAS, an individual, LAW OFFICES OF
DARRELL PALMER PC d/b/a DARRELL PALMER LAW OFFICE, a suspended
California professional corporation, JOSEPH DARRELL PALMER, an
individual, NOONAN PERILLO & THUT LTD, an Illinois corporation,
C. JEFFREY THUT, an individual, GARY STEWART, an individual and
JOHN DOES 1-20, Defendants, Case No. 16 C 11057 (N.D. Ill.),
Judge Rebecca R. Pallmeyer of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, granted the
Defendants' motions to dismiss with respect to the Plaintiff's
claims that arise under federal law and directed the Plaintiff to
show cause why the state law claims should not be dismissed.

The Plaintiff is an Illinois law firm whose attorneys have
extensive experience bringing class actions on behalf of consumer
plaintiffs.  The Defendant Christopher Bandas frequently
represents objectors to class action settlements.  In the
lawsuit, the Plaintiff alleges that Bandas' class-settlement-
objection practice constitutes criminal racketeering.

The scheme the Plaintiff alleges works as follows: Bandas
orchestrates the filing of meritless objections to proposed class
action settlements on behalf of purported class members.  Bandas
files the meritless objections with the expectation that the
trial court will overrule them, setting up a basis for appeal.
Before appealing the ruling (or while an appeal is pending), it
offers to forego appeal (or withdraw a pending appeal) in
exchange for "attorney's fees."

Though convinced that the appeal would be meritless, the class
counsel often agrees to pay Bandas to avoid the delay in payment
to the class and class counsel that would result from the appeal
process.  From the Plaintiff's perspective, when Bandas leverages
the delay of a frivolous appeal on behalf of a purported class
member to demand payment for himself, he is engaging in
extortion.  The Plaintiff itself became the victim of Bandas'
allegedly extortionate scheme when it paid Bandas $225,000 to
withdraw an appeal arising from class litigation in Illinois
state court.

The Plaintiff brings the putative class action against Bandas and
his law firm (The Bandas Law Offices), as well as two attorneys,
Jeffrey Thut and Darrell Palmer, and their law firms (Noonan
Perillo & Thut Ltd and Law Offices of Darrell Palmer), who have
assisted Bandas in finding potential objectors and filing
objections in courts throughout the country.  The Plaintiff has
also sued Bandas' objector clients, including Gary Stewart, the
objector in the Illinois state court litigation that resulted in
Edelson's payment to Bandas.

Alleging that each Defendant has played an active role in
advancing Bandas' scheme, the Plaintiff asserts claims against
all of them for engaging in a pattern of racketeering activity in
violation of the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act ("RICO").  According to the Plaintiff, the
Defendants' acts of racketeering include extortion, mail and wire
fraud, obstruction of justice, witness tampering, bribery, and
money laundering. Plaintiff also alleges that Defendants
conspired to engage in the pattern of racketeering activity, in
violation of 18 U.SC. Section 1962(d).

In addition to the RICO claims, the Plaintiff asserts state-law
claims for abuse of process and unauthorized practice of law.
The Plaintiff also urges the court to label Bandas, Palmer, and
Thut vexatious litigants and enjoin their behavior pursuant to
the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. Section 1651.

Defendants Bandas, Thut, and Stewart have moved to dismiss.  They
argue that the Plaintiff has not alleged a single RICO predicate
act, let alone a pattern of racketeering activity.  Once the
Court dismisses the federal RICO claims, the only remaining
claims will be state-law claims over which the Court lacks
jurisdiction, the Defendants contend.  In any event, they argue,
the Plaintiff has failed to state a claim for abuse of process or
unauthorized practice of law.

Judge Pallmeyer finds that the alleged conduct appears to be in
bad faith, to have no genuine social value, and to be
inconsistent with the ethical standards of the legal profession.
Gaming the rules of the legal system solely for personal self-
enrichment wastes the time and money of courts and attorneys,
wrests funds away from deserving litigants, and tarnishes the
public's view of the legal process.  Nevertheless, as vexing as
she finds the behavior of the Defendants and other "serial
objectors," the Judge is unable to find that the alleged conduct
constitutes racketeering activity.

For the reasons stated, Judge Pallmeyer granted the Defendants'
motions to dismiss except with respect to counts three and five
of the Plaintiff's complaint.  She finds that given that the
Plaintiff allegedly suffered at least $225,000 in damages, the
number of other potential class members who allegedly suffered
similar injuries, and the possibility of a significant punitive
damages award, there is no legal certainty that damages would be
less than $5 million.  Yet, for a different reason, the Judge
remains uncertain that it has jurisdiction under CAFA.

The Act does not apply to class actions in which the number of
proposed plaintiffs is below 100.  Regarding the number of
plaintiffs in the putative class, the Plaintiff's complaint says
only that the exact number of members of the Class is unknown but
likely consists of at least 40 persons.  It thus appears likely
that the class is not sufficiently numerous to allow the exercise
of CAFA jurisdiction.  None of the Defendants raised this issue
in their briefs, but federal courts are obligated to inquire into
the existence of jurisdiction sua sponte.  Where a court doubts
its own jurisdiction, it is ordinarily prudent to solicit the
parties' views on the subject prior to ruling.

Judge Pallmeyer therefore ordered the Plaintiff to show cause, in
writing, by Feb. 22, 2018, why those counts should not also be
dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 6, 2018 Memorandum Opinion
and Order is available at https://is.gd/E6eO6n from Leagle.com.

Edelson PC, Plaintiff, represented by Eve-Lynn J. Rapp --
erapp@edelson.com -- Edelson P.C., Alexander Glenn Tievsky --
atievsky@edelson.com -- Edelson Pc, Benjamin Harris Richman --
brichman@edelson.com -- Edelson PC, Ryan D. Andrews --
randrews@edelson.com -- Edelson P.C. & Rafey S. Balabanian --
rbalabanian@edelson.com -- Edelson PC.

The Bandas Law Firm PC, Christopher Bandas & Gary Stewart,
Defendants, represented by Darren Mark Raven Van Puymbrouck --
dvan@freeborn.com -- Freeborn & Peters, LLP, Alexander S.
Vesselinovitch -- avesselinovitch@freeborn.com -- Freeborn &
Peters, LLP & Matthew Thomas Connelly -- mconnelly@freeborn.com -
- Freeborn and Peters.

Noonan Perillo & Thut Ltd & C. Jeffery Thut, Defendants,
represented by Chris C. Gair -- cgair@gairlawgroup.com -- Gair
Eberhard Nelson Dedinas Ltd, Joseph R. Marconi --
marconij@jbltd.com -- Johnson & Bell, Ltd., Kristi Lynn Nelson --
knelson@gairlawgroup.com -- Gair Eberhard Nelson Dedinas Ltd,
Brian C. Langs -- langsb@jbltd.com -- Johnson & Bell Ltd., Thomas
Reynolds Heisler -- theisler@gairlawgroup.com -- Gair Eberhard
Nelson Dedinas Ltd & Victor J. Pioli -- pioliv@jbltd.com --
Johnson & Bell, Ltd.


BCA FINANCIAL: "Beneli" FDCPA Suit Settlement Has Final Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DAVID BENELI, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. BCA FINANCIAL SERVICES,
INC., Defendant, Civ. Act. No. 16-2737 (D. N.J.), Judge Freda F.
Wolfson of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey
granted (i) the parties' Joint Motion for Final Approval of Class
Settlement Agreement and Release and (ii) the Plaintiff's Motion
for an Award of Attorney Fees and Reimbursement of Expenses.

On May 13, 2016, the Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of a
class, filed the class action lawsuit, which alleges that BCA
violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, by, inter alia,
sending consumers written collection communications that
contained the consumer's account number visible through the
glassine window in the envelope in which the communication was
mailed.  On June 9, 2016, BCA filed its Answer and affirmative
defenses denying any wrongdoing.

In the Oct. 19, 2016 Pretrial Scheduling Order, Magistrate Judge
Lois H. Goodman stayed formal discovery to enable the parties to
explore settlement.  The parties were able to reach an agreement
to settle the claims of the Plaintiff and the Settlement Class,
which Agreement has been filed with the Court.  The Court
preliminarily approved the Agreement on June 5, 2017, and
approved an amendment to the Agreement on Aug. 3, 2017.

The  Court preliminarily certified a settlement class of 2,612
members, consisting of all New Jersey consumers who were sent a
collection letter from BCA, during the time period of May 13,
2015 to May 13, 2016, in an envelope with a glassine window, in
which the consumer's reference number assigned by BCA was visible
through the glassine window of the enclosing envelope.  The Court
also preliminarily approved Ari Marcus and Yitzchak Zelman of
Marcus & Zelman LLC as the class counsel.

Notice of the settlement of this action was mailed by first class
U.S. Mail to Settlement Class members on or before July 5, 2017.
Twenty-nine envelopes were returned by the United States Postal
Service, of which nine (9) were returned by the United States
Postal Service with a forwarding address, and were subsequently
re-mailed. Pursuant to the Agreement, class members had 45 days
after the mailing of the notice to exclude themselves from or
object to the proposed settlement. No settlement class members
have opted out or objected to the proposed settlement.

The Court previously considered the terms of the Agreement in
entering the Preliminary Approval Order, which are as follows:

     a. BCA will create a class settlement fund of $10,000, which
the Class Administrator, First Class, Inc. will distribute pro
rata among those Settlement Class Members who do not exclude
themselves.  The Claimants will receive a pro rata share of the
Class Recovery by check.  The shares of any of the Settlement
Class Members who cannot be located because the Notice has been
returned as undeliverable will be donated.  The checks issued to
Claimants will be void 60 days from the date of issuance.  If any
portion of the Settlement Class Recovery remains after the void
date on the Claimants' checks, these remaining funds will be
distributed.

     b. BCA will pay $1,000 to the Plaintiff for his statutory
damages, plus $500 in recognition for his services to the
Settlement Class.

     c. The shares of any of the Settlement Class Members who
cannot be located and any checks that have not been cashed by the
void date will be donated as a cy pres award to a charitable
organization.  The Parties propose that the cy pres award be
donated to Legal Services of New Jersey, and that the award will
be expressly earmarked for the benefit of New Jersey consumers.
The Parties' selection of the forgoing cy pres recipient is
subject to the Court's approval at the time of the final fairness
hearing.

Having weighed all the factors and considered all the
requirements of class certification, Judge Wolfson finds that it
is appropriate to certify the class for settlement purposes.
Having considered all of the Girsh and Prudential factors, she
approves the settlement as fair and reasonable.  She also finds
that the Class Counsel's request for $15,000 in fees and costs is
reasonable and warranted.  And in recognition of the substantial
benefit he conferred on the Settlement Class and his efforts
generally, a modest Case Contribution Award of $500 his statutory
damage of $1,000 to the Plaintiff is entirely appropriate.

Judge Wolfson therefore certified the proposed settlement class,
approved the proposed settlement, granted the Class Counsel's fee
request in amount of $15,000, which includes reimbursement of
expenses, and granted Beneli a Case Contribution Award in the
amount of $500 plus $1,000 in statutory damages.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 6, 2018 Opinion is available
at https://is.gd/19LRzP from Leagle.com.

DAVID BENELI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by ARI HILLEL MARCUS --
Ari@MarcusZelman.com -- MARCUS ZELMAN LLC & YITZCHAK ZELMAN --
yzelman@MarcusZelman.com -- Marcus Zelman, LLC.

BCA FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC., Defendant, represented by MONICA M.
LITTMAN -- mlittman@finemanlawfirm.com -- FINEMAN, KREKSTEIN &
HARRIS, PC & RICHARD J. PERR -- rperr@finemanlawfirm.com --
FINEMAN KREKSTEIN & HARRIS, PC.


BEVERLY HEALTH: $450K Deal in "Ahmed" Wage Suit Has Prelim OK
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, HENNA AHMED, an individual, Plaintiff, v. BEVERLY
HEALTH AND REHABILITATION SERVICES, INC.; GGNSC ADMINISTRATIVE
SERVICES, LLC and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Defendants, Civ. No.
2:16-1747 WBS KJN (E.D. Cal.), Judge William B. Shubb of the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of California granted the
Plaintiff's motion for preliminary certification of a conditional
settlement class and preliminary approval of the class action
settlement.

Ahmed brought the putative class-action lawsuit against the
Defendants, alleging that the Defendants violated the California
Labor Code.  The Plaintiff alleges the Defendants failed to
furnish wage statements accurately showing the name and address
of the legal entity that is the employer as required by Labor
Code Section 226(a)(8).  The Plaintiff also alleges that the
Defendants uniformly paid her, and the Defendants' other current
and former California employees, more than seven calendar days
following the close of the payroll period, in violation of Labor
Code Section 204.  In addition, she alleges the Defendants failed
to maintain copies of the wage statements issued to her and the
Defendants' other California employees, both current and former,
for at least three years, thereby violating Labor Code Section
226(a).

On June 3, 2016, the class counsel sent written notice to the
California Labor and Workforce Development Agency and the
Defendants regarding alleged violations of Labor Code section
226(a)(8).  In response, they adjusted their payroll system
effective June 16, 2016, to ensure that all future wage
statements had Beverly Health's name and address clearly listed
on top of each wage statement.

On Sept. 1, 2016, the class counsel sent written notice to the
Labor Agency and defendants regarding alleged violations of Labor
Code sections 204 and 226(a)(6).  Almost immediately, the
Defendants undertook efforts to remedy these violations.

On Nov. 10, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint
alleging the following: (1) failure to furnish accurate itemized
wage statements in violation of California Labor Code Section
226(a)(8); (2) failure to maintain copies of accurate itemized
wage statements in violation of California Labor Code Section
226(a), and (3) failure to timely pay wages in violation of
California Labor Code Section 204.  She also asserts individual
claims for disability discrimination and retaliation under the
California Fair Employment and Housing Act.

Based on the alleged violations of California Labor Code Sections
226(a)(8), 226(a)(6), and 204, the Plaintiff seeks to certify a
class of all current and former California employees of Beverly
Health and Rehabilitation Services, Inc. who were issued one or
more wage statements from July 25, 2015, through Sept. 1, 2016.

The parties litigated the case for over a year before finalizing
a settlement agreement on Dec. 11, 2017.  The Plaintiffs now seek
preliminary approval of the parties' stipulated class-wide
settlement, pursuant to Federal Rule  of Civil Procedure 23(e).

The key terms of the Settlement Agreement are:

     a. Settlement Class: All current and former California
employees of Beverly Health and Rehabilitation Services, Inc. who
were issued one or more wage statements from July 25, 2015,
through Sept. 1, 2016.

     b. Calculation of Individual Settlement Payments:

         Step 1: The Gross Settlement Fund will be deposited into
the Qualified Settlement Fund.

         Step 2: From the Gross Settlement Amount, the following
will be deducted: (i) the Court-approved fees and costs of the
claims administrator; (ii) the Court-approved payment to the
Labor Agency; (iii) the Court-approved incentive payment to the
class representative; and (iv) the Court-approved fees and costs
of class members.

         Step 3: Each participating class member's share of the
Net Settlement Amount will then be calculated as a percentage,
the numerator of which is the number of wage statements he or she
received between July 25, 2015 and Sept. 1, 2016 (allocated
points for each wage statement), the denominator of which is the
total number of points allocated for all Participating class
members.  The participating class members who were also parties
to the Veurink Class Action Settlement will not be allocated
points for the wage statements they received between July 25,
2015 and Feb. 12, 2016.  The total number of wage statements
issued and number of wage statements issued to each participating
class member will be determined using the Defendants' records.

     c. Opt-Out Procedure: To opt-out of the settlement, a class
member must, within 45 calendar days from the date of mailing of
the class notice, submit their desire to opt-out in writing to
Atticus indicating his or her full name, current home (or mailing
address), and the last four digits of his or her social security
number as well as written affirmation of the desire to opt-out.

     d. Objections to Settlement: Any class member who wishes to
object to the proposed settlement at the final Approval Hearing
must, within 45 calendar days from the date of mailing of the
class notice, submit their objection in writing to Atticus.

     e. Settlement Amount: The Defendant will pay $450,000 to
settle the case.  The Gross Settlement Amount includes payments
to the participating class members, the fees and costs of the
claims administrator, the service payment to the Plaintiff, and
the class counsel's attorneys' fees and costs, as well as a
payment to the State of California.

     f. Attorneys' Fees, Costs, and Plaintiff's Incentive Award:
The Defendant has agreed to pay class counsel one-third of the
Gross Settlement Amount, or $150,000, and reimbursement of
litigation costs up to $12,500.  The Plaintiff will apply to the
Court for a service payment to the Plaintiff in an amount not to
exceed $4,500, or one percent of the Gross Settlement Amount, in
consideration for her service as a participating class member.
This service payment is in addition to whatever the Plaintiff is
entitled to as a participating class member.

     g. Settlement Distribution: After being reduced by the fees
and costs of the claims administrator, the service payment to the
Plaintiff, and the class counsel's attorneys' fees and costs, as
well as a payment to the State of California, the remaining
settlement fund will be distributed by the claims administrator
to each participating class member in the form of a check.  Any
uncashed settlement compensation from the settlement fund that
remains after the expiration of 180 days will be transmitted by
the claims administrator to the State of California Unclaimed
Property Fund, to be held there in the name of and for the
benefit of such class members under California's escheatment
laws.

     h. Release: The class members who participate in the
settlement agree to release the Defendants and releases from any
and all claims based upon the Defendants.  They also agree to
release them and releases from any and all claims based upon
their alleged failure to (i) furnish and/or maintain accurate
wage statements under Labor Code sections 226(a), and (ii) to pay
wages within seven days of the close of each pay period in
violation of Labor Code section 204, between July 25, 2015 and
Sept. 1, 2016.  The Plaintiff will receive an additional $15,000
as consideration for the foregoing, and for which she will
execute a separate individual settlement agreement.

Judge Shubb granted the Plaintiff's motion for preliminary
certification of a conditional settlement class and preliminary
approval of the class action settlement.  The class members who
wish to opt-out of the settlement must submit such opt-out in
writing to the claims administrator in accordance with the
procedures set forth in the settlement agreement and the class
notice, postmarked no later than 45 calendar days after the
mailing of the class notice.  Any class member who wishes to
object to the settlement must submit such objection in writing to
the claims administrator in accordance with the procedures set
forth in the settlement agreement and class notice, postmarked no
later than 45 calendar days after the mailing of the class
notice.

Subject to further consideration by the Court at the time of the
final Approval Hearing, (i) the proposed service payment of
$4,500, or 1% of the gross settlement amount, for Plaintiff
Ahmed, in consideration of her services as class representative;
(ii) the class counsel's request of attorneys' fees in the amount
of $150,000 service or one-third of the gross settlement amount,
and declared costs of up to $12,500 are approved.

Subject to further consideration by the court at the time of the
final Approval Hearing, Judge Shubb preliminarily approved,
pursuant to California Labor Code section 2699(l)(2), the
parties' allocation of $4,500 to settlement of claims under the
California Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004.

He provisionally certified the class, for the purpose of the
settlement, of all current and former California employees of
Beverly Health and Rehabilitation Services, Inc. who were issued
one or more wage statements from July 25, 2015, through Sept. 1,
2016.

Plaintiff Ahmed is conditionally certified as the class
representative to implement the parties' settlement in accordance
with the settlement agreement; and the law firm of Mayall Hurley
P.C., by and through Lead Counsel Robert J. Wasserman, William J.
Gorham, Nicholas J. Scardigli, and Vladimir J. Kozina, is
conditionally appointed as the class counsel.  The parties agree
that Atticus Administration, LLC will serve as the settlement
administrator.

The Judge also approved the declared fees and costs of
administering the settlement of up to $16,000.  He stayed and
suspended until further notice from the Court, all discovery and
pretrial proceedings and deadlines, except for such actions as
are necessary to implement the settlement agreement and the
Order.

The final Approval Hearing is set for May 14, 2018 at 1:30 p.m.
The Court will also consider the Plaintiff's motion for
attorneys' fees, costs, and service payment.  The Judge directed
the Plaintiff to a motion for attorneys' fees no later than 35
calendar days after the mailing of the class notice.

Based on the date the Order is signed and the date of the final
Approval Hearing, the following are the certain associated dates
in the settlement: (i) the Defendant will provide the contact
information of the class members to the claims administrator
within 14 calendar days of the entry of the Order; (ii) the
claims administrator will launch its information only website
within 14 calendar days after receiving the class list; and (iii)
the last day for the class members to file a claim, request
exclusion, or object to the settlement is 45 calendar days after
the mailing of the notice.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 6, 2018 Memorandum and Order
is available at https://is.gd/ocYhfI from Leagle.com.

Henna Ahmed, Plaintiff, represented by Robert Joshua Wasserman --
rwasserman@mayallaw.com -- Mayall Hurley P.C.

Beverly Health and Rehabilitation Services, Inc., a California
Corporation, Defendant, represented by Adriana Cara --
adriana.cara@dinsmore.com -- Dinsmore & Shohl LLP, Andrew B.
Millar -- drew.millar@dinsmore.com -- Dinsmore & Shohl LLP, pro
hac vice, Charles Matthew Roesch -- chuck.roesch@dinsmore.com --
Dinsmore and Shohl LLP, pro hac vice, Jessica Grace Wilson --
jessica.wilson@dinsmore.com -- Dinsmore & Shohl LLP & Susan
Jackson -- susan.jackson@dinsmore.com -- Dinsmore & Shohl LLP,
pro hac vice.


BJ SERVICES: Underpays Field Engineers, "West" Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
RAYMOND WEST, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. BJ SERVICES, LLC, the Defendant, Case
No. 4:18-cv-00749 (S.D. Tex., Mar. 8, 2018), seeks to recover
overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, BJ Services failed to pay some of its
employees -- generally known as "field engineers" -- overtime for
hours worked in excess of 40 in a week. Instead, BJ Services pays
these workers what it calls a "salary" plus a job bonus. BJ
Services' policy of paying these employees on a "salary plus job
bonus" basis, with no overtime pay, violates the FLSA.

BJ Services is the largest North American-focused, pure-play
pressure pumping services provider.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David I. Moulton, Esq.
          Matthew S. Parmet, Esq.
          BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
          8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 877 8788
          Telecopier: (713) 877 8065
          E-mail: dmoulton@brucknerburch.com
                  mparmet@brucknerburch.com


BLACKHAWK NETWORK: Truong Balks at BHN Holdings Merger Deal
-----------------------------------------------------------
HA TRUONG, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. BLACKHAWK NETWORK HOLDINGS,
INC., ANIL D. AGGARWAL, RICHARD H. BARD, THOMAS BARNDS, STEVEN A.
BURD, ROBERT L. EDWARDS, MOHAN GYANI, PAUL HAZEN, ROBERT B.
HENSKE, TALBOTT ROCHE, ARUN SARIN, WILLIAM Y. TAUSCHER, and JANE
J. THOMPSON, the Defendants, Case No. 4:18-cv-01495-HSG (N.D.
Cal., Mar. 8, 2018), stems from a proposed transaction announced
on January 16, 2018, pursuant to which Blackhawk Network
Holdings, Inc. will be acquired by affiliates of Silver Lake and
P2 Capital Partners.

On January 15, 2018, Blackhawk's Board of Directors caused the
Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with BHN
Holdings, Inc. and BHN Merger Sub, Inc. Pursuant to the terms of
the Merger Agreement, shareholders of Blackhawk will receive
$45.25 in cash for each share of Blackhawk they own.

On February 16, 2018, defendants filed a proxy statement with the
United States Securities and Exchange Commission in connection
with the Proposed Transaction. The Proxy Statement omits material
information with respect to the Proposed Transaction, which
renders the Proxy Statement false and misleading. Accordingly,
plaintiff alleges that defendants violated Sections 14(a) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with
the Proxy Statement.

Blackhawk Network Holdings Inc., sometimes referred to as
Blackhawk, is a publicly traded company that operates in the
prepaid, gift card and payments industries.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Michael Schumacher, Esq.
          Brian D. Long, Esq.
          RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
          155 Jackson Street, no. 1903
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 855 8995
          Facsimile: (302) 654 7530
          E-mail: ms@rl-legal.com
                  bdl@rl-legal.com


BREAD & CHOCOLATE: Fails to Provide Sick Leave, Soriano Says
------------------------------------------------------------
JESUS ALF ARO SORIANO c/o 519 H Street NW Washington, DC 20001
Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated
individuals, the Plaintiff, v. BREAD & CHOCOLATE, INC. d/b/a
BREAD & CHOCOLATE 1033 West Glebe Road Alexandria, VA 22305, the
Defendant, Case No. 2018 CA 001651 8 (D.C. Super. Ct., Mar. 9,
2018), seeks to recover damages for Defendant's failure to
provide safe and sick leave pursuant to the District of Columbia
Accrued Safe and Sick Leave Act, the District of Columbia Minimum
Wage Act, and the District of Columbia Wage Payment and
Collection Law.

The Plaintiff brings his claims as a class action pursuant to
Super. Ct. Civ. R. 23 and D.C. Code sections 32-1308 on behalf
of: Defendant's hourly employees who have worked at a D.C. "Bread
& Chocolate" location at any point since three years before the
date this complaint was filed. The Defendant employed Plaintiff
and similarly situated individuals at their two District of
Columbia "Bread & Chocolate" restaurants.

According to the complaint, Defendant engaged in these unlawful
pay practices with respect to Plaintiff and similarly situated
individuals: a. Defendant did not provide legally-mandated paid
safe and sick leave; b. Defendant made unlawful automatic
paycheck deductions for meals; and c. Defendant made unlawful
automatic paycheck deductions for providing uniforms, and,
moreover, did not compensate Plaintiff and similarly situated
individuals for the fact they had to buy and maintain their
uniforms; and d. Defendant made a number of other unlawful
paycheck deductions that reduced Plaintiff and other similarly
situated individuals' pay below the minimum wage.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Justin Zelikovitz, Esq.
          DCWAGELAW
          519 H Street
          NW Washington, DC 20001
          Telephone: (202) 803 6083
          Facsimile: (202) 683 6102
          E-mail: justin@dcwagelaw.com


BRYANT UNIVERSITY: Faces "Sullivan" Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bryant University.
The case is styled as Phillip Sullivan Jr., on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Bryant
University, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-02096 (S.D. N.Y., March
8, 2018).

Bryant University is a private university in Smithfield, Rhode
Island. Until August 2004, it was known as Bryant College.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


CAMDEN DEVELOPMENT: Morris Seeks Unpaid Wage, OT under Labor Code
-----------------------------------------------------------------
KATRINA MORRIS, individually, and on behalf of other members of
the general public similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. CAMDEN
DEVELOPMENT, INC., an unknown business entity; and DOES 1 through
100, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. BC697449 (Cal. Super.
Ct., Mar. 9, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime, unpaid meal
period premiums, unpaid rest period, and unpaid minimum wages
under the California Labor Code.

The lawsuit further alleges that Defendants directly or
indirectly controlled or affected the working conditions, wages,
working hours, and conditions of employment of Plaintiff and the
other class members so as to make each of the Defendants
employers liable under the statutory provisions. The Plaintiff
bring this action on her own behalf and on behalf of all other
members of the general public similarly situated, and, thus,
seeks class certification under California Code of Civil
Procedure section 382.

Camden Development is a licensed real estate service provider in
Houston Texas.BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CAPITALA FINANCE: "Sandifer" Suit Transferred to W.D. N.C.
----------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Stephanie Sandifer, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. Capitala Finance
Corp., Joseph B. Alala III and Stephen A. Arnall, Defendants,
Case No. 18-cv-00052 (C.D. Cal., January 3, 2018), was
transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of North Carolina on February 5, 2018, under Case No. 18-cv-
00063.

Sandifer acquired common shares of Capitala between January 4,
2016 and August 7, 2017. Defendants failed to disclose that
Capitala Investment Advisors had been losing professional talent
in both underwriting and portfolio management due to the waiving
of its incentive fee and such loss of talent negatively impacted
the quality of its investment portfolio. Sandifer seeks to
recover compensable damages caused by violations of the federal
securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 when company shares
fell $3.82 per share, or approximately 30% to close at $8.99 per
share on August 10, 2017.

Capitala invests primarily in traditional mezzanine, senior
subordinated and unitranche debt, as well as senior and second-
lien loans and, to a lesser extent, equity securities issued by
smaller and lower middle-market companies. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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

             - and -

      Jennifer Pafiti, Esq.
      POMERANTZ LLP
      468 North Camden Drive
      Beverly Hills, CA 90210
      Telephone: (818) 532-6499
      E-mail: jpafiti@pomlaw.com

Capitala Finance Corp. is represented by:

      Jennifer Taylor Stewart, Esq.
      KING AND SPALDING LLP
      633 West 5th Street, Suite 1700
      Los Angeles, CA 90071
      Tel: (213) 443-4355
      Fax: (213) 443-4310


CAVALRY PORTFOLIO: Velez Sues over Debt Collection Practices
------------------------------------------------------------
Joel Velez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Cavalry Portfolio Services, LLC, the
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-20894-JLK (S.D. Fla., Mar. 8, 2018),
seeks to recover damages for Defendant's violations of the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant is regularly engaged,
for profit, in the collection of debts allegedly owed by
consumers. The Defendant is a "debt collector" as defined by 15
U.S.C. section 1692a(6).

The Defendant alleges Plaintiff owes a debt primarily for
personal, family or household purposes and is therefore a "debt"
as defined by 15 U.S.C. section 1692a(5). Sometime after the
incurrence of the Debt, Plaintiff fell behind on payments owed.
Thereafter, at an exact time known only to Defendant, the Debt
was assigned or otherwise transferred to Defendant for
collection. In its efforts to collect the debt, Defendant
contacted Plaintiff by letter -- a "communication" as defined by
15 U.S.C. section 1692a(2).

Cavalry Portfolio Services, LLC provides financial resolution
services. Its services cover various areas, such as collection
account and debt control. The company was founded in 1991 and is
based in Valhalla, New York. Cavalry Portfolio Services, LLC
operates as a subsidiary of Cavalry Investments, LLC.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
          BARSHAY SANDERS, PLLC
          100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Telephone: (516) 203 7600
          Facsimile: (516) 706 5055
          E-mail: ConsumerRights@BarshaySanders.com
                  csanders@barshaysanders.com


CDK GLOBAL: Bob Baker Sues Over Data Mgmt Systems Price-fixing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Baker Volkswagen, on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. CDK Global, LLC and The Reynolds and Reynolds
Company, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-00909, (N.D. Ill., February
2, 2018), seeks damages, injunctive relief and other relief
pursuant to the Sherman Act and various state anti-trust laws.

Defendants are alleged of allocating market share, reducing
competition, and fixing, raising and maintaining and/or
stabilizing prices in the market for the provision of data
management systems to retail automotive dealerships.

CDK and Reynolds are in the business of providing data management
systems services to the auto-dealer industry.

Bob Baker is a Volkswagen car dealership based in 5500 Paseo del
Norte, Carlsbad, CA 92008.

     Gregory S. Asciolla, Esq.
     Christopher J. McDonald, Esq.
     Brian Morrison, Esq.
     LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
     140 Broadway
     New York, NY 10005
     Tel: (212) 907-0700
     Fax: (212) 818-0477
     Email: gasciolla@labaton.com
            cmcdonald@labaton.com
            bmorrison@labaton.com

            - and -

     Richard J. Prendergast, Esq.
     Michael T. Layden, Esq.
     Collin M. Bruck, Esq.
     RICHARD J. PRENDERGAST, LTD.
     111 W. Washington Street, Suite 1100
     Chicago, IL 60602
     Telephone: (312) 641-0881
     Email: rprendergast@rjpltd.com
            mlayden@rjpltd.com
            cbruck@rjpltd.com

            - and -

     Michael N. Nemelka, Esq.
     Aaron M. Panner, Esq.
     Derek T. Ho, Esq.
     KELLOGG, HANSEN, TODD, FIGEL & FREDERICK, P.L.L.C.
     1615 M Street, N.W., Suite 400
     Washington, DC 20036
     Telephone: (202) 326-7900
     Fax: (202) 326-7999
     Email: mnemelka@kellogghansen.com
            apanner@kellogghansen.com
            dho@kellogghansen.com


CDK GLOBAL: Waconia Dodge Alleges Price-Fixing of Car Services
--------------------------------------------------------------
WACONIA DODGE, INC., the Plaintiff, v. CDK GLOBAL, LLC, and THE
REYNOLDS AND REYNOLDS COMPANY, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-
01707 (N.D. Ill., Mar. 8, 2018), seeks to recover damages and
injunctive relief under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, and for
treble damages under the antitrust laws, unfair competition laws,
consumer protection laws, and unjust enrichment under the common
law of Minnesota against Defendants.

The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants colluded for purposes of
eliminating competition in DIS and DMS markets and establishing
monopolies in their respective single-brand aftermarkets. The
effect of this conduct also caused prices for Vendor Services to
increase, which prices were then passed along to (and born by)
Plaintiff and the Classes.

The Defendants engaged in a scheme to fix prices of DIS and DMS
Services. Beginning on or around February 1, 2015, Defendants
entered into agreements for purposes of artificially inflating
prices and maximizing profits. Defendants deprived purchasers of
a competitive market for DMS, DIS, and Vendor Services.

The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of itself individually
and on behalf of the plaintiff classes who purchased Dealer
Management System Services, Data Integration Services, and the
service of business management applications from Defendants
during the Class Period.

CDK Global provides auto dealer software as well as solutions for
truck, motorcycle, marine and RV dealers throughout North America
and beyond.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Proposed Classes:

          Kenneth A. Wexler, Esq.
          Bethany R. Turke, Esq.
          Thomas A. Doyle, Esq.
          WEXLER WALLACE LLP
          55 W. Monroe Street, Suite 3300
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 346- 222
          E-mail: kaw@wexlerwallace.com
                  brt@wexlerwallace.com
                  tad@wexlerwallace.com

               - and -

          Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq.
          Daniel C. Hedlund, Esq.
          David A. Goodwin, Esq.
          Michelle J. Looby, Esq.
          Daniel J. Nordin, Esq.
          GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
          Canadian Pacific Plaza
          120 South Sixth Street, Suite 2600
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 333 8844
          Facsimile: (612) 339 6622
          E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com
                  dhedlund@gustafsongluek.com
                  dgoodwin@gustafsongluek.com
                  mlooby@gustafsongluek.com
                  dnordin@gustafsongluek.com

               - and -

          Brian D. Penny, Esq.
          Paul J. Scarlato, Esq.
          GOLDMAN SCARLATO & PENNY, P.C.
          161 Washington Ave, Suite 1025
          Conshohocken, PA 19428
          Telephone: (484) 342 0700
          Facsimile: (484) 580 8747
          E-mail: penny@lawgsp.com
                  scarlato@lawgsp.com

               - and -

          Heidi M. Silton, Esq.
          Anna M. Horning Nygren, Esq.
          LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
          100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
          Minneapolis, MN 55401
          Telephone: (612) 339 6900
          Facsimile: (612) 339 0981
          E-mail: hmsilton@locklaw.com
                  amhorningnygren@locklaw.com

               - and -

          Kevin Landau, Esq.
          Tess Bonoli, Esq.
          TAUS, CEBULASH & LANDAU, LLP
          80 Maiden Lane, Suite 1204
          New York, NY 10038
          Telephone: (646) 873 7654
          Facsimile: (212) 931 0703
          E-mail: klandau@tcllaw.com
                  tbonoli@tcllaw.com


CDK GLOBAL: Northtown Sues Over Data Mgmt Systems Price-fixing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Northtown Automotive Companies Inc., on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CDK Global, LLC and The
Reynolds and Reynolds Company, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-00833,
(N.D. Ill., February 1, 2018), seeks damages, injunctive relief
and other relief pursuant to the Sherman Act and New York General
Business Laws and from unjust enrichment.

Defendants are alleged of allocating market share, reducing
competition, and fixing, raising and maintaining and/or
stabilizing prices in the market for the provision of data
management systems to retail automotive dealerships.

CDK and Reynolds are in the business of providing data management
systems services to the auto-dealer industry.

Northtown Automotive Companies Inc. is a retail car dealership
located at 1135 Millersport Highway, Amherst, New York.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gary L. Specks, Esq.
      KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
      423 Sumac Road
      Highland Park, IL 60035
      Telephone: (847) 831-1585
      Facsimile: (847) 831-1580
      Email: gspecks@kaplanfox.com

             - and -

      Robert N. Kaplan, Esq.
      Matt McCahill, Esq.
      Aaron Schwartz, Esq.
      850 Third Avenue
      New York, NY 10022
      Telephone: (212) 687-1980
      Facsimile: (212) 687-7714
      Email: rkaplan@kaplanfox.com
             mmcahill@kaplanfox.com
             aschwartz@kaplanfox.com

             - and -

      Arthur N. Bailey, Esq.
      R. Anthony Rupp, III, Esq.
      Marco Cercone, Esq.
      RUPP BAASE PFALZGRAF CUNNINGHAM, LLC
      1600 Liberty Building
      424 Main Street
      Buffalo, NY 14202
      Telephone: (716) 664-2967
      Email: bailey@ruppbaase.com
             rupp@ruppbaase.com
             cerconeruppbaase.com


CDK GLOBAL: Teterboro Anti-trust Suit Transferred to N.D. Ill.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The captioned Teterboro Automall, Inc. and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CDK Global, LLC and The
Reynolds & Reynolds Company, Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-08714
(E.D. N.Y., October 17, 2017), was transferred to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois under Case
No. 18-cv-00867 on February 5, 2018.

Defendants are alleged of allocating market share, reducing
competition, and fixing, raising and maintaining and/or
stabilizing prices in the market for the provision of data
management systems to retail automotive dealerships.

CDK and Reynolds are in the business of providing data management
systems services to the auto-dealer industry.

Teterboro Automall operates a Chrysler, Dodge, Jeep and Ram
dealership. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      James E. Cecchi, Esq.
      CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO P.C.
      5 Becker Farm Road
      Roseland, NJ 07068
      Tel: (973) 994-1700
      Email: JCecchi@carellabyrne.com
             LTaylor@carellabyrne.com

The Reynolds and Reynolds Company is represented by:

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


CENTURYLINK: "Scott" Suit Transferred to Minnesota Dist. Ct.
------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Don J. Scott, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Centurylink, Inc.,
Glen F. Post, III, R. Stewart Ewing, Jr. and David D. Cole,
Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-01033, (W.D. La., October 25, 2017),
was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of
Minnesota on February 2, 2018, under Case No. 18-cv-00297.

CenturyLink is an integrated communications company that provides
local and long-distance voice, broadband, Multi-Protocol Label
Switching, private line, Ethernet, colocation, hosting, data
integration, video, network, public access, Voice over Internet
Protocol, information technology and other ancillary services.
CenturyLink, Inc. is incorporated in Louisiana and its
headquarters are in Monroe, Louisiana. CenturyLink's common stock
trades on the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol "CTL."

Centurylink is accused of adding services or lines to customer
accounts without customer approval. On June 16, 2017, a former
CenturyLink employee claimed she was fired for blowing the
whistle on the Company's high-pressure sales culture that
allegedly left customers paying millions of dollars for accounts
they didn't request.

As a result of this news, the price of CenturyLink's 7.60% Senior
Notes dropped to $92.61 on June 19, 2017 from its close of $98.43
on the previous trading day, a $5.82 or 6% drop, on heavy trading
volume. Scott purchased CenturyLink securities and lost
substantially.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Corey D. Holzer, Esq.
      HOLZER & HOLZER, LLC
      1200 Ashwood Parkway, Suite 410
      Atlanta, GA 30338
      Telephone: (770) 392-0090
      Fax: (770) 392-0029
      Email: cholzer@holzerlaw.com

             - and -

      Matthew E. Lundy, Esq.
      LUNDY, LUNDY, SOILEAU & SOUTH, LLP
      501 Broad St.
      Lake Charles, LA 70601
      Tel: (337) 439-0707
      Email: mlundy@lundylawllp.com

Defendants are represented by:

      George Edward Anhang, Esq.
      COOLEY (DC)
      1299 Pennsylvania Ave NW, Ste. 700
      Washington, DC 20004-2400
      Tel: (202) 842-7880
      Fax: (202) 842-7899
      Email: ganhang@cooley.com

             - and -

      Brandon Wade Creekbaum, Esq.
      CITY OF MONROE
      PO Box 123
      Monroe, LA 71210-0123
      Tel: (318) 329-2240
      Fax: (318) 329-3427
      Email: brandon.creekbaum@ci.monroe.la.us

             - and -

      Lyle Roberts, Esq.
      DEWEY & LEBOEUF LLP
      1101 New York Ave NW
      Washington, DC 20005-4213
      Tel: (202) 346-8000
      Email: lroberts@dl.com

             - and -

      Thomas M Hayes, III, Esq.
      HAYES HARKEY
      PO Box 8032
      Monroe, LA 71211-8032
      Tel: (318) 387-2422
      Fax: (318) 388-5809
      Email: tom@hhsclaw.com


CENTURYLINK: "Thummeti" Suit Transferred to Minn. Dist. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Amarendra Thummeti, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Centurylink,
Inc., Glen F. Post, III, R. Stewart Ewing, Jr. and David D. Cole,
Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-01065, (W.D. La., August 23, 2017),
was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of
Minnesota on February 2, 2018, under Case No. 18-cv-00298.

CenturyLink is an integrated communications company that provides
local and long-distance voice, broadband, Multi-Protocol Label
Switching, private line, Ethernet, colocation, hosting, data
integration, video, network, public access, Voice over Internet
Protocol, information technology and other ancillary services.
CenturyLink, Inc. is incorporated in Louisiana and its
headquarters are in Monroe, Louisiana. CenturyLink's common stock
trades on the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol "CTL."

Centurylink is accused of adding services or lines to customer
accounts without customer approval. On June 16, 2017, a former
CenturyLink employee claimed she was fired for blowing the
whistle on the Company's high-pressure sales culture that
allegedly left customers paying millions of dollars for accounts
they didn't request.

As a result of this news, the price of CenturyLink's 7.60% Senior
Notes dropped to $92.61 on June 19, 2017 from its close of $98.43
on the previous trading day, a $5.82 or 6% drop, on heavy trading
volume. Scott purchased CenturyLink securities and lost
substantially.

Plaintiff is represented by:

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

             - and -

      Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
      POMERANTZ LLP
      10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Telephone: (312) 377-1181
      Facsimile: (312) 377-1184
      Email: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com

Defendants are represented by:

      George Edward Anhang, Esq.
      COOLEY (DC)
      1299 Pennsylvania Ave NW, Ste. 700
      Washington, DC 20004-2400
      Tel: (202) 842-7880
      Fax: (202) 842-7899
      Email: ganhang@cooley.com

             - and -

      Brandon Wade Creekbaum, Esq.
      CITY OF MONROE
      PO Box 123
      Monroe, LA 71210-0123
      Tel: (318) 329-2240
      Fax: (318) 329-3427
      Email: brandon.creekbaum@ci.monroe.la.us

             - and -

      Lyle Roberts, Esq.
      DEWEY & LEBOEUF LLP
      1101 New York Ave NW
      Washington, DC 20005-4213
      Tel: (202) 346-8000
      Email: lroberts@dl.com

             - and -

      Thomas M Hayes, III, Esq.
      HAYES HARKEY
      PO Box 8032
      Monroe, LA 71211-8032
      Tel: (318) 387-2422
      Fax: (318) 388-5809
      Email: tom@hhsclaw.com


CENTURYLINK: Inter-Marketing Suit Transferred to Minn. Dist. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Inter-Marketing Group USA, Inc., individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
Centurylink, Inc., Glen F. Post, III, R. Stewart Ewing, Jr. and
David D. Cole, Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-01648, (W.D. La.,
October 25, 2017), was transferred to the U.S. District Court for
the District of Minnesota on February 2, 2018, under Case No. 18-
cv-00299.

CenturyLink is an integrated communications company that provides
local and long-distance voice, broadband, Multi-Protocol Label
Switching, private line, Ethernet, colocation, hosting, data
integration, video, network, public access, Voice over Internet
Protocol, information technology and other ancillary services.
CenturyLink, Inc. is incorporated in Louisiana and its
headquarters are in Monroe, Louisiana. CenturyLink's common stock
trades on the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol "CTL."

Centurylink is accused of adding services or lines to customer
accounts without customer approval. On June 16, 2017, a former
CenturyLink employee claimed she was fired for blowing the
whistle on the Company's high-pressure sales culture that
allegedly left customers paying millions of dollars for accounts
they didn't request.

As a result of this news, the price of CenturyLink's 7.60% Senior
Notes dropped to $92.61 on June 19, 2017 from its close of $98.43
on the previous trading day, a $5.82 or 6% drop, on heavy trading
volume. Plaintiff purchased CenturyLink's 7.60% Senior Notes,
Series P, due 2039 and lost substantially.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      William B. Federman, Esq.
      FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
      10205 N. Pennsylvania Avenue
      Oklahoma City, OK 73120
      Telephone: (405) 234-1560
      Email: wbf@federmanlaw.com

             - and -

      Ravi Kishan Sangisetty, Esq.
      Sangisetty Law Firm, LLC
      935 Gravier St., Ste. 835
      New Orleans, LA 70112
      Tel: (504) 662-1016
      Fax: (504) 662-1318
      Email: rks@sangisettylaw.com

Defendants are represented by:

      George Edward Anhang, Esq.
      COOLEY (DC)
      1299 Pennsylvania Ave NW, Ste. 700
      Washington, DC 20004-2400
      Tel: (202) 842-7880
      Fax: (202) 842-7899
      Email: ganhang@cooley.com

             - and -

      Lyle Roberts, Esq.
      DEWEY & LEBOEUF LLP
      1101 New York Ave NW
      Washington, DC 20005-4213
      Tel: (202) 346-8000
      Email: lroberts@dl.com

             - and -

      Thomas M Hayes, III, Esq.
      HAYES HARKEY
      PO Box 8032
      Monroe, LA 71211-8032
      Tel: (318) 387-2422
      Fax: (318) 388-5809
      Email: tom@hhsclaw.com


CLOROX CO: Court Dismisses MMWA Claim in "Gregorio" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California granted in part and denied in
part the Defendant's motion to dismiss or stay the case, JOSEPH
GREGORIO, et al., Plaintiffs, v. THE CLOROX COMPANY, Defendant,
Case No. 17-cv-03824-PJH (N.D. Cal.).

On Oct. 25, 2017, the Plaintiffs filed their first amended
complaint seeking to represent all persons in the United States
who purchased Green Works Products.  They also seek to represent
New York and California subclasses to be represented by Plaintiff
Gregorio and Plaintiffs Quiroz and Cooper, respectively.
Generally, the Plaintiffs allege that to capitalize on consumer
demand for "natural" home cleaning products, Clorox advertises
its "Green Works" cleaning products as "natural" or "naturally
derived," when in fact that representation is false.  The
Plaintiffs challenge 12 of Clorox's Green Works products,
including multi-surface cleaners, toilet bowl cleaners, and
cleaning wipes.

The Named Plaintiffs allege that they were misled by the green
works labeling.  Each Plaintiff purchased at least one green
works product because each of them was specifically interested in
purchasing a natural cleaning product.  Each relied on the term
"naturally derived" and understood that it meant that the product
was a natural product that did not contain any synthetic or non-
natural ingredients.  And each Plaintiff alleges that he would
not have purchased the product at all, or would have only been
willing to pay a substantially reduced price for the product, had
he known that the representations were false.

Based on these allegations, the Plaintiffs bring claims for (1)
violation of California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA");
(2) violation of California's False Advertising Law ("FAL"); (3)
violation of California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"); (4)
violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act ("MMWA"); (5)
violation of New York's General Business Law ("GBL") Section 349,
Deceptive Acts and Practices; (6) violation of New York's GBL
Section 350, False Advertising; (7) breach of express warranty;
(8) breach of the implied warranty of merchantability; (9) unjust
enrichment; (10) negligent misrepresentation; and (11) fraud.

Clorox's motion to dismiss the complaint in its entirety is now
before the Court.  The Defendant argues that under the reasonable
consumer standard the Plaintiffs' claims must be dismissed
because it is not probable that consumers, acting reasonably
under the circumstances, would have been misled by the green
works "naturally derived" labeling.  In support, it points to
various disclosures, and three class action settlements involving
competitors' products that used the terms "100% natural" or "all
natural."

Judge Hamilton finds that the class action settlements fail to
show that a reasonable consumer would not be deceived by Green
Works labels.  The Defendant points primarily to three class
action settlements involving competitor companies in which those
companies agreed to labeling practices that defendant purportedly
already employs.  The Judge says those settlements -- involving
different parties, litigating over different products, displaying
different allegedly deceptive terms -- barely amount to
persuasive authority that a reasonable consumer would not be
misled by the labeling at issue here.  Not to mention that by
their very nature settlements are a product of compromise that
involve numerous variables, including each parties' litigation
risks, recovery amount, etc.  The Defendant's argument must
therefore be rejected.

The Judge also finds that the complaint plausibly alleges that
Green Works labeling is misleading to a reasonable consumer.  He
says the Plaintiffs have plausibly stated a claim for relief
under Cal. Bus. and Prof. Code Sections 17200 et seq. & 17500 et
seq., Cal. Civ. Code Section 1750 et. seq., and the N.Y. GBL
Sections 349 & 350.  Accordingly, he will deny the Defendant's
motion to dismiss these claims.  Because the Defendant's argument
to dismiss the Plaintiffs' common law warranty claims rises and
falls with the above analysis, the Judge will also deny the
Defendant's motion to dismiss with respect to the Plaintiffs'
express and implied warranty claims.

Judge Hamilton, however, will grant the Defendant's motion to
dismiss the Plaintiffs' remaining warranty claim brought under
the MMWA.  The complaint contains no allegations speaking to
either of those requirements.  Accordingly, the Plaintiffs' MMWA
claim will be dismissed.  If the Plaintiffs believe they can
amend the complaint to include facts satisfying all requirements
under the MMWA, then they may do so within 28 days of the date of
the order.

The Judge will also deny the Defendant's motion to dismiss the
Plaintiffs' negligent misrepresentation and fraud claims.  He
reasons that courts routinely deny motions to dismiss similar
actions in which the complaint alleges that a price premium was
paid but fails to allege the specific amount paid for each
product.  That is exactly what the Plaintiffs' complaint does
here.

Finally, the Judge will not stay the case under the primary
jurisdiction doctrine.  In the event the Court is not inclined to
grant its motion to dismiss, the Defendant argues that the case
should be stayed in light of the FDA's rulemaking regarding
"natural" foods that began in November 2015.  He finds that the
Defendant concedes that the FDA does not regulate the cleaning
products at issue in the case.

For these reasons, Judge Hamilton denied the Defendant's motion
to dismiss or stay in all respects, other than the request to
dismiss the Plaintiffs' MMWA cause of action.  The Plaintiffs may
amend their complaint with respect to the MMWA claim within 28
days.  No additional parties or claims may be added without leave
of Court or consent of the Defendant.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 6, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/jgnD2E from Leagle.com.

Joseph Gregorio, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated & Patrick Quiroz, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by
Lawrence Timothy Fisher -- ltfisher@bursor.com -- Bursor &
Fisher, P.A., Bradley F. Silverman--
bsilverman@fleischmanlawfirm.com -- Fleischman Law Firm, pro hac
vice, Joel Dashiell Smith -- jsmith@bursor.com -- Bursor &
Fisher, Scott A. Bursor -- scott@bursor.com -- Bursor & Fisher,
P.A., pro hac vice & Todd S. Garber -- tgarber@fbfglaw.com --
Finkelstein, Blankinship, Frei-Pearson & Garber, LLP, pro hac
vice.

Adam Cooper, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Bradley F. Silverman,
Fleischman Law Firm, pro hac vice, Joel Dashiell Smith, Bursor &
Fisher, Kim E. Richman, The Richman Law Group, Todd S. Garber,
Finkelstein, Blankinship, Frei-Pearson & Garber, LLP, pro hac
vice & Lawrence Timothy Fisher, Bursor & Fisher, P.A.

The Clorox Company, Defendant, represented by Kenneth Kiyul Lee -
- klee@jenner.com -- Jenner & Block LLP & Dean N. Panos --
dpanos@jenner.com -- Jenner And Block LLP, pro hac vice.

RYAN MATUSZEWSKI, Miscellaneous, represented by Bradley F.
Silverman, Fleischman Law Firm, pro hac vice, Kim E. Richman, The
Richman Law Group & Todd S. Garber, Finkelstein, Blankinship,
Frei-Pearson & Garber, LLP, pro hac vice.


CONSOLIDATED DISPOSAL: Pantoja et al. Sue over Trash Collection
---------------------------------------------------------------
GUSTAVO PANTOJA, MARIAELENA ACENCIO, mid RAMON MARTINEZ, on
their own behalf and on behalf of all other similarly situated
persons and commercial entities in the City of Maywood, the
Plaintiff, v. CONSOLIDATED DISPOSAL SERVICES, LLC, a Delaware
Limited Liability Company; REPUBLIC SERVICES, INC,, a Delaware
Corporation; and DOES l through 100, the Defendants, Case No.
BC697244 (Cal. Super. Ct., Mar. 8, 2018), seeks to recover
damages and disgorgement from the Defendants' collection of
unlawful and fraudulent trash collection fees from customers in
the City of Maywood, based upon Fraud, Violation of California
Business Code section 17200 et seq., and Unjust Enrichment.

According to the complaint, from approximately 2004 to the
present, Defendants engaged in a pattern and practice of billing
and collecting excessive charges to its commercial and
residential customers in the City of Maywood, including from
Plaintiffs. These charges were the result of Defendants
fraudulently requesting and receiving rate increases for
commercial and residential customers in the City of Maywood.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Rod Pacheco, Esq.
          Brian Neach, Esq.
          Molly J. Magnuson, Esq.
          PACHECO & NEACH, P.C.
          One Park Plaza, Suite 600
          Irvine, CA 92614
          Telephone: (714) 462 1700
          Facsimile: (714) 462 1785
          E-mail: bneach@pncounsel.com


CRAWFISH SPOT: Basilio et al. Sue over Earned Wages
---------------------------------------------------
SOFIA BASILIO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated and the California general public; JESUS PERALTA,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated and
the California general public; SAUD ALEJANDRO RODRIGUEZ,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated and
the California general public, the Plaintiffs, v. THE CRAWFISH
SPOT, INC., a California corporation; THE CAJUN RECEIPT, INC., a
California corporation; ALEX NG; ALAN WU; DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive the Defendants, Case No. BC697092 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
Mar. 8, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid wages under California
Labor Code.

According to the complaint, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiffs
and the Class the overtime rate required by Industrial Welfare
Commission Order No. 5-2001 (8 C.C.R. section 11050) and Labor
Code section 510 by, among other things, only paying Plaintiffs
and the Class their regular hourly rate (straight time) for the
overtime hours Plaintiffs and the Class worked. The Defendants
failed to have a meal and rest period policy, failed to provide
Plaintiffs and the Class with meal and rest periods required by
law, and failed to pay Plaintiffs and the Class the additional
hour of wages (premium wages) they are owed under Labor Code
section 226.7 for each meal and rest period that was not
provided. The Defendants failed to pay Plaintiffs and the Class
all overtime and premium wages after their separation from their
employment with Defendants; and, Defendants failed to provide
Plaintiffs and the Class with accurate wage statements.

The Crawfish Spot is a privately held company in West Covina, CA
and is a Single Location business, and categorized under Seafood
Restaurants.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stephen Dick, Esq.
          M. Anthony Jenkins, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF STEPHEN GLICK
          1055 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1480
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 387 3400
          Facsimile: (213) 387 7872


DIAZ SUPERMARKET: Veranes Seeks Overtime Compensation under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
LORENZO VERANES, individually, and on behalf of all other
employees of Defendants similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v.
DIAZ SUPERMARKET OPA LOCKA, INC., a Florida corporation, and
JIMMY DIAZ, individually, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-20891-
JLK (S.D. Fla., Mar. 8, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
compensation, liquidated damages, attorney's fees and costs
pursuant to the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act of
1938.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff's work schedule was
from 7:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. Monday to Saturday and from 6:00 a.m.
to 9:00 p.m. on Sundays. During the mentioned period of time,
Plaintiff worked as much as 63 hours per week for the Defendants.
The Plaintiff was paid a salary of $600.00 per week, until
approximately October 22, 2016, and a cash wage of $10.00 per
hour until August 21, 2017. Furthermore, he was only paid a
maximum of 40 hours per week, despite the fact that he worked
more than 40 hours per week.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Santiago J. Padilla, Esq.
          FOWLER RODRIGUEZ LLP
          355 Alhambra Circle, Suite 801
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: (786) 364 8400
          Facsimile: (786) 364 8401
          E-Mail: spadilla@frfirm.com


DOWNTOWN RESTAURANT: Rivas Requests for Judicial Intervention
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned Jessica Rivas, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Downtown
Restaurant, RSNYC, LLC, and Christopher Reda, Defendants, Case
No. 701441/2017 (N.Y. Sup., January 31, 2017), the Plaintiff
filed a Request for Judicial Intervention on February 1, 2018. A
preliminary conference was set for February 13, 2018.

Rivas seeks to recover unlawfully retained gratuities owed to
Plaintiff and all similarly situated persons who are presently or
were formerly employed by Downtown Restaurant Group under New
York Labor Law. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Matthew Beckwith, Esq.
      SACCO & FILLAS, LLP
      31-19 Newtown Ave., 7th Floor
      Astoria, NY 11102
      Tel: (718) 746-3440
      Fax: (718) 425-9625


DREXEL UNIVERSITY: Faces "Adair" Suit in Cal. Superior Court
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Drexel University
Online LLC. The case is styled as Kelsey Adair, on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Drexel University Online
LLC and Does 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 34-2018-00228706-CU-BT-
GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., March 8, 2018).

Drexel University Online LLC is a separate not-for-profit
subsidiary of Drexel University, specializing in innovative,
Internet-based distance education programs for working
professionals and corporations in the United States and abroad. A
pioneer in online education, Drexel has offered programs online
since 1996.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
   Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman, P.C.
   324 S Beverly Blvd, Suite 725
   Beverly Hills, CA 90212
   Tel: 216-220-6496
   Fax: 866-633-0228
   Email: www.toddflaw.com


ESTEE LAUDER: Aug. 10 Deadline to File "Sakyi" Class Cert. Bid
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, PRINCESS SAKYI, Plaintiff, v. ESTEE LAUDER
COMPANIES, INC., et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 17-1863
(BAH) (D. D.C.), Judge Beryl A. Howell of the U.S. District Court
for the District of Columbia granted the Plaintiff's Motion to
Extend the Deadline for Class Certification.

The Plaintiff initiated the action, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, against the Defendants in the
Superior Court of the District of Columbia on July 31, 2017,
alleging unlawful and deceptive trade practices under D.C. Code
Section 28-3905, failure to pay minimum wage under the District
of Columbia Minimum Wage Revision Act, and failure to pay all
wages earned under the District of Columbia Wage Payment
Collection Law.  The Defendants removed the case to federal court
on Sept. 12, 2017, and the Plaintiff filed an amended complaint
on Oct. 24, 2017.

On Jan. 12, 2018, the parties filed their joint meet and confer
statement which mentioned, for the first time, that the Plaintiff
intended to file a motion for extension of time to seek class
certification.  The plaintiff filed the instant motion the same
day.

The plaintiff first filed a complaint in D.C. Superior Court on
July 31, 2017.  That court has a local rule almost identical to
the Court's Local Civil Rule 23.1(b), making a motion for class
certification due by Oct. 29, 2017.  The Plaintiff argues,
however, that he 90-day deadline runs from the deadline of the
filing of her Amended Complaint, which was filed on Oct. 24,
2017, making the deadline Jan. 22, 2018.

Judge Howell finds the Plaintiff incorrect.  The Court has not
had the opportunity to address whether the 90-day deadline runs
from the filing of the original complaint in state court or
instead from the removal of the case to federal court, and doing
so today is unnecessary because the deadline has lapsed under
either rule: 90 days from the filing of the complaint was Oct.
29, 2017, while 90 days from removal was Dec. 11, 2017.

Nevertheless, the Judge says the Plaintiff's neglect is
excusable.  The Plaintiff's motion and the Parties' Joint Meet
and Confer Statement indicate that the Plaintiff requested the
Defendants' consent to an extension of time sometime around Nov.
8, 2017, when the Defendants' counsel represented that they would
"confer" about the Plaintiff's request.

The Plaintiff's attempts to communicate the request for an
extension to the Defendants' counsel indicate that the defendants
have suffered no prejudice as a result of this delay.  Even in
the absence of a motion for class certification or a motion for
extension of time, the Defendants clearly still contemplated the
future filing of a class certification motion, and knew at least
by Nov. 8, 2017, that the Plaintiff intended to seek an
extension.

Assuming arguendo that the 90-day deadline runs from the date of
removal, the Plaintiff's 32-day delay is not so great that it has
made an appreciable impact on these proceedings.  The Plaintiff's
reasons for the delay, namely, the absence of discovery and the
delayed responses from the Defendants' counsel, also favor
granting an extension.  While the Plaintiff's tardiness is not
condoned, the Judge says the balance of equities favors granting
an extension of time to move for class certification.

Accordingly, Judge Howell granted the Plaintiff's motion and
directed the Plaintiff to, by Aug. 10, 2018, file any motion for
class certification.  The Scheduling Order entered on Jan. 30,
2018, remains in effect.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 6, 2018 Memorandum and Order
is available at https://is.gd/nc2Z9v from Leagle.com.

PRINCESS SAKYI, individually, on behalf of all others similarly
situated, and on behalf of the general public of the District of
Columbia, Plaintiff, represented by Jason Samuel Rathod --
jrathod@classlawdc.com -- MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP & Nicholas A.
Migliaccio -- nmigliaccio@classlawdc -- MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP.

ESTEE LAUDER COMPANIES, INC., Defendant, represented by Matthew
F. Nieman -- NiemanM@jacksonlewis.com -- JACKSON LEWIS P.C. &
Amanda Leigh Scott Vaccaro -- Amanda.Vaccaro@jacksonlewis.com --
JACKSON LEWIS P.C.

AVEDA CORPORATION, Defendant, represented by Matthew F. Nieman,
JACKSON LEWIS P.C.


EVERYDAY BEAUTY: "Lingmin" Suit Seeks OT, Spread-of-Hours Pay
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lingmin Yang, Lanqing Lin, Yong Shan Su, Lixian Qian, En Lin Xiao
individually and on behalf of all other employees similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Everyday Beauty Amore Inc., Beauty
Aritaum Corp., Xiu Qing Su and Xin Lin, Defendants, Case No. 18-
cv-00240, (E.D. Ind., January 31, 2018), seeks unpaid overtime
wages, liquidated damages, unpaid "spread-of-hours" premium,
compensation for failure to provide wage notice at the time of
hiring and failure to provide paystubs, attorney's fees and costs
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, New York Labor Law, New
York Codes, Rules and Regulations and the New York Wage Theft
Prevention Act.

Everyday Beauty Amore Inc. owns and operates beauty supply stores
in New York where Plaintiffs worked as in-store sales persons.
Defendants allegedly did not compensate Plaintiffs for overtime
hours. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Phillip H. Kim, Esq.
      HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC.
      136-18 39th Ave., Suite 1003
      Flushing, NY 11354
      Tel: (718) 353-8588
      Email: pkim@hanglaw.com


EXPRESS DRILLING: "Peralez" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages, Damages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Peralez and Mario Padilla, Individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Express Drilling Fluids,
LLC and Ronnie D. King Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-00032 (S.D.
Tex., February 1, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages,
damages, declaratory and injunctive relief and attorneys' fees
and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

Express Drilling provides fuels and lubricants to the oil and gas
industry throughout the State of Texas where Peralez and Padilla
worked as a mechanic and helper, respectively. Defendants
allegedly deduct thirty minute meal periods from Plaintiffs' time
despite knowing that they routinely worked throughout their
designated 30-minute meal periods. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Clif Alexander, Esq.
      Lauren E. Braddy, Esq.
      Carter T. Hastings, Esq.
      Austin W. Anderson, Esq.
      Alan Clifton Gordon, Esq,
      George Schimmel Esq.
      ANDERSON2X, PLLC
      819 N. Upper Broadway
      Corpus Christi, TX 78401
      Tel: (361) 452-1279
      Fax: (361) 452-1284
      Email: clif@a2xlaw.com
             lauren@a2xlaw.com
             carter@a2xlaw.com
             austin@a2xlaw.com
             geordie@a2xlaw.com


FIFTH THIRD: Violates Consumer Protection Statutes, Howards Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
TROY HOWARDS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. FIFTH THIRD BANK, the Defendant, Case
No. 2:18-cv-01963 (C.D. Cal., Mar. 8, 2018), seeks to recover
damages, restitution and injunctive relief for FTB's breaches of
contract and violation of California consumer protection
statutes.

The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and a class
of all similarly situated consumers against Defendant Fifth Third
Bank, arising from two separate practices involving its checking
accounts: 1) its assessment of so called Non-Fifth Third ATM Fees
on ATM withdrawal transactions that actually are in-network ATM
transactions that should be entirely free; and 2) the assessment
of multiple Non-Sufficient Funds Fees on the same transaction,
which is barred by the contract and is deceptive.

ATM Fee revenue for FTB has risen dramatically in recent years
and become one of the primary drivers of Bank fee income. FTB
assesses OON Fees in the amount of $2.75 on its accountholders
who withdraw funds from ATMs not owned by FTB or its partners,
including the Allpoint Network of ATMs and ATMs located in 7-
Eleven stores. However, even when FTB accountholders diligently
use in-network ATMs, FTB still charges OON Fees on ATM
withdrawals, in violation of express contract provisions.

Moreover, in violation of its contract and reasonable consumer
understanding, FTB often charges more than one $35 NSF Fee on the
same transaction, even though the contract states -- and
reasonable consumers understand -- that the same transaction can
only incur a single NSF Fee. The Plaintiff, and other FTB
customers, have been injured by FTB's improper practices.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Putative Class:

          Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq.
          Sophia G. Gold, Esq.
          KALIEL PLLC
          1875 Connecticut Ave., NW, 10th Floor
          Washington, D.C. 20009
          Telephone: (202) 350 4783
          E-mail: jkaliel@kalielpllc.com
                  sgold@kalielpllc.com


GAB CALL: "Pollarolo" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------
MISHA POLLAROLO, on behalf of herself, and those similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. GAB CALL CENTER SOLUTIONS, LLC,
a Florida Limited Liability Company and ALLISON PANDEV, the
Defendants, Case No. 9:18-cv-80300-DMM (S.D. Fla., Mar. 8, 2018),
seeks to recover unpaid wages, damages in excess of $15,000,
exclusive of interest, fees, and costs, for violations of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff is a resident of Polk
County, Florida. Gab is a corporation conducting business in Palm
Beach County, Florida, with a principal address of 2240 W.
Woolbright Rd., Suite 202, Boynton Beach, FL 33426. Pandev is a
resident of Palm Beach County, Florida, and is the owner,
Manager, and registered agent of Gab. Pandev was an individual
who owned and/or operated Gab and who exercised the authority to:
(a) supervise and control employee work schedules, job duties,
and/or conditions of employment; (b) control significant aspects
of Gab's day-to-day operations, including compensation of
employees; (c) maintain employment records; and/or (d) hire
and/or terminate employees.

The similarly situated individuals on whose behalf this Complaint
is filed are those who have been employees of Defendants at any
time during the past three years and who had similar job duties
and pay provisions to those of Plaintiff and who were subject to
similar violations of the FLSA.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Benjamin S. Briggs, Esq.
          Trenton H. Cotney, Esq.
          COTNEY CONSTRUCTION LAW, LLP
          8621 E. Martin Luther King, Jr. Blvd.
          Tampa, FL 33610
          Telephone: (813) 579 3278
          Facsimile: (813) 902 7612
          E-mail: tcotney@cotneycl.com
                  bbriggs@cotneycl.com
                  courtfilings@cotneycl.com


GANAHL LUMBER: Fails to Pay All Wages & Overtime, Woods Says
------------------------------------------------------------
ADAM WOODS, individually and on behalf of other individuals
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. GANAHL LUMBER COMPANY, a
California corporation, and DOES 1-10, inclusive, the Defendant,
Case No. BC697327 (Cal. Super. Ct., Mar. 9, 2018), seeks to
recover unpaid wages and overtime under the California Labor
Code.

The Plaintiff seeks relief on behalf of himself and the members
of the putative class as a result of employment policies,
practices and procedures, which violate the California Labor
Code, and the orders and standards promulgated by the California
Department of Industrial Relations, Industrial Welfare
Commission, and Division of Labor Standards, and which have
resulted in the failure of Defendant to pay Plaintiff and members
of the putative class all wages due to them. The employment
policies, practices and procedures are generally described as
follows: Defendants failed to provide Plaintiff and members of
the putative class with timely meal and rest breaks; failed to
provide Plaintiff and members of the putative class with proper
wage statements; failed to maintain accurate records of work
performed by members of the Class; improperly rounded employee
time and as a result of which Plaintiff and members of the
Plaintiff Class were not paid all wages due to them, including
overtime wages; failed to pay Plaintiff and said members of the
Plaintiff Class all wages due to them; and breached the
Commissions Agreement by failing to pay all commissions owed.

Ganahl Lumber provides quality hardware, lumber and building
materials for professional contractors and homeowners throughout
Southern California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Marcus J. Bradley, Esq.
          Kiley L. Grombacher, Esq.
          Taylor L. Emerson, Esq.
          BRADLEY/GROMBACHER, LLP
          2815 Townsgate Road, Suite 130
          Westlake Village, CA 91361
          Telephone: (805) 270 7100
          Facsimile: (805) 270 7589
          E-mail: mbradley@bradleygrombacher.com
                  kgrombacher@bradleygrombacher.com


GC SERVICES: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss/Stay "Smith" FDCPA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, FRANCINA SMITH, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. GC SERVICES LIMITED
PARTNERSHIP, a Delaware limited partnership, OWNERS RESOURCE
GROUP, and GC GP BUYER, LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-01897-RLY-DML (S.D. Ind.),
Judge Richard L. Young of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, denied GC's
Motion to Dismiss, Compel Arbitration, and Stay Action Pending
Arbitration.

On Feb. 9, 2014, the Plaintiff applied for a Sam's Club Discover
Card through Synchrony Bank, formerly known as GE Capital Retail
Bank.  She was approved, and a copy of the credit card and credit
card agreement were mailed to the Plaintiff.  In June 2014, the
Sam's Club Discover Card program ended, and was replaced with the
Sam's Club MasterCard program, and she was issued a new card
ending in -2836.  Except for a few changes inapplicable to the
case, the terms of the Plaintiff's prior Sam's Club Discovery
Card applied equally to her MasterCard account.

GC collects debts on credit cards issued by Synchrony Bank
pursuant to a Master Collection Services Agreement ("MCSA").  On
March 17, 2016, Synchrony placed the Plaintiff's MasterCard
account with GC for collection, and on that same day, GC sent the
Plaintiff a form collection letter which reads, in relevant part,
that as of the date of the letter, their records show that the
Plaintiff owes a balance of $3,095 to Synchrony Bank.  If she
disputes this balance or the validity of this debt, she may let
them know in writing.  If she does not dispute the debt in
writing within 30 days after she receives the letter, they will
assume the debt is valid.  The text of Section 1692g(a)(3) of the
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"), however, provides
that a consumer need only dispute the validity of the debt.

The Plaintiff's original Class Action Complaint was filed on July
15, 2016.  Her Amended Class Action Complaint, filed on Oct. 18,
2016, alleges that the Defendants violated Section 1692g by
wrongfully informing Plaintiff that disputes must be in writing
when, in fact, an oral dispute is valid.  She alleges GC's letter
also violated Sections 1692e and 1692f because the statement --
that any dispute of the debt must be in writing -- was false,
deceptive, and misleading, and unfair and unconscionable.

On March 10, 2017, after GC filed two Motions to Dismiss for lack
of subject matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1) and for
failure to state a claim under 12(b)(6), GC notified Plaintiff by
letter that it was provided information from Synchrony Bank that
the Sam's Club Discovery Card contains an arbitration agreement
and class action waiver. (Filing No. 112-1, Letter). The letter
asked Plaintiff to confirm, by the close of business on March 13,
2017, her agreement to comply with the alleged agreement to
arbitrate. (Id.). Plaintiff apparently never responded.

On April 19, 2017, GC filed an Answer to the Plaintiff's Amended
Class Action Complaint.  For reasons unknown, GC's Answer failed
to assert the existence of the arbitration agreement as a
defense.  Between the time GC filed its Answer and the present
Motion to Compel Arbitration (Aug. 7, 2017), the Court denied the
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1) and for failure
to state a claim under 12(b)(6).  The Court also granted the
Plaintiff's Second Amended Motion to Certify Class.  And
discovery disputes necessitated multiple conferences with the
Magistrate Judge.

GC filed the present motion to compel arbitration and stay the
action pending arbitration.  The Plaintiff opposes the motion on
two grounds.  First, she argues GC is not subject to the alleged
arbitration agreement set forth in Plaintiff's Sam's Club
MasterCard Agreement.  Second, she argues GC waived its right to
arbitrate by participating in the case for over a year without
ever mentioning its alleged right to arbitrate.

Judge Young finds that the Plaintiff's claims are not based on
the terms of the Credit Card Agreement.  The Plaintiff alleges GC
violated the FDCPA by informing her that any dispute of the debt
must be in writing.  Indeed, the Plaintiff's claims are not even
of a type that could be asserted in defense against a creditor
suing on a breach of the cardholder agreement because Synchrony
Bank is not a "debt collector" under the FDCPA.  Therefore, GC
may not compel arbitration under the doctrine of equitable
estoppel.

The Judge disagrees with GC's contention that the Plaintiff
cannot prove that it was prejudiced by its engagement in the
litigation process.  He says the case has been on the docket for
over a year-and-a-half.  The parties have vigorously engaged in
motion practice, have had their fair share of discovery disputes,
and a class has been certified.  Ordering the Plaintiff to go to
arbitration now due to GC's delay is simply not fair.  He
therefore concludes, based on the facts and circumstances of the
case, GC acted inconsistently with its right to arbitration.
GC's motion to compel arbitration must be denied.

Lastly, GC argues that, even if the court finds the Plaintiff
should not be compelled to submit her claims to arbitration, it
should still decertify the class because the Plaintiff separately
waived her right to bring, or participate in, a class action.
Therefore, GC continues, she is not an adequate representative.
The Judge finds that the provision at issue applies to a lawsuit
between the Plaintiff and Synchrony Bank.  As noted, "us" is
defined as Synchrony Bank.  Because Synchrony Bank is not a party
to the lawsuit, the Plaintiff did not waive her right to bring a
class action against GC.

For the reasons set forth, Judge Young denied GC's Motion to
Dismiss, Compel Arbitration, and Stay Action Pending Arbitration.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 6, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/QfZvKt from Leagle.com.

FRANCINA SMITH, Plaintiff, represented by Angie K. Robertson,
PHILIPPS AND PHILIPPS, LTD., John Thomas Steinkamp, JOHN T.
STEINKAMP AND ASSOCIATES, Mary E. Philipps, PHILIPPS AND
PHILIPPS, LTD. & David J. Philipps, PHILIPPS AND PHILIPPS, LTD.

GC SERVICES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, a Delaware limited partnership,
GC FINANCIAL CORP., a Delaware corporation & DLS ENTERPRISES,
INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendants, represented by William
S. Helfand -- Bill.Helfand@lewisbrisbois.com -- LEWIS BRISBOIS
BISGAARD SMITH LLP, pro hac vice.

OWNERS RESOURCE GROUP, GC GP BUYER, LLC, Defendant, represented
by William S. Helfand, LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD SMITH LLP.


GENERAL MOTORS: Faces "Taylor" Suit in W.D. Oklahoma
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against General Motors
Company. The case is styled as William Taylor and Hayes Ellis, on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. General
Motors Company, General Motors Holdings LLC and General Motors
LLC, Defendants, Case No. 5:18-cv-00215-M (W.D. Okla., March 8,
2018).

General Motors Company, commonly abbreviated as GM, is an
American multinational corporation headquartered in Detroit that
designs, manufactures, markets, and distributes vehicles and
vehicle parts, and sells financial services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Logan M Jones, Esq.
   Jones Brown PLLC
   616 S Boston Ave
   2nd Flr
   Tulsa, OK 74119
   Tel: (918) 574-6400
   Fax: (918) 549-6794
   Email: ljones@jonesbrownlaw.com


GOOGLE NA: "Beecher" Sues Over Excessive Data Charges
-----------------------------------------------------
Gordon Beecher, an individual, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Google North America
Inc., Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-00753, (N.D. Cal., February 5,
2018), seeks injunctive relief, restitution, statutory and
punitive damages, restitution or restitutionary disgorgement,
reasonable costs and expenses and attorneys' fees, including
counsel and expert fees and any other relief resulting from
breach of contract and for violation of California's Consumer
Legal Remedies Act, Unfair Competition Law and False Advertising
Law.

Google provides mobile phone and data services in partnership
with various mobile data carriers. Beecher claims that he was
billed for data usage beyond what Google's service itself
provides. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Shana E. Scarlett, Esq.
      HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
      715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 202
      Berkeley, CA 94710
      Telephone: (510) 725-3000
      Facsimile: (510) 725-3001
      Email: shanas@hbsslaw.com

             - and -

      Robert B. Carey, Esq.
      John M. DeStefano, Esq.
      HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
      11 West Jefferson Street, Suite 1000
      Phoenix, AZ 85003
      Telephone: (602) 840-5900
      Facsimile: (602) 840-3012
      Email: rob@hbsslaw.com
             johnd@hbsslaw.com

             - and -

      Jonathan Negretti, Esq.
      NEGRETTI & ASSOCIATES PLC
      2415 E Camelback Rd, Suite 700
      Phoenix, AZ 85016
      Telephone: (602) 531-3911
      Email: jonathan@negrettilaw.com


GOPRO INC: April 19 Initial CMC in "Dye" Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
In the case, NATHAN DYE, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. GOPRO, INC., NICHOLAS D.
WOODMAN AND BRIAN T. McGEE, Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-00248-
WHA (N.D. Cal.), Judge Edward M. Chen of the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division,
has entered an order extending the Defendants' time to answer or
otherwise respond to the complaint, and continuing case
management conference and associated deadlines.

On Jan. 11, 2018, the Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, filed a putative class action
complaint against the Defendants, alleging violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and
Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.

On Jan. 12, 2018, the Court issued an Order Setting Initial case
Management Conference and ADR Deadlines in the action, setting
the following deadlines:

     1. March 29, 2018 for the parties to comply with certain
requirements under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the
Northern District of California Civil Local Rules and Alternative
Dispute Resolution ("ADR") Local Rules regarding discovery, early
settlement, and the ADR Multi-Option Program;

     2. April 12, 2018 for the parties to file a Rule 26(f)
Report, complete initial disclosures or state objections in the
Rule 26(f) Report, and file a Joint Case Management Statement;
and

     3. April 19, 2018 at 11:00 a.m. for an initial case
management conference.

The Complaint asserts claims under the federal securities laws
that are subject to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act
of 1995 ("PSLRA"), which sets forth specialized procedures for
the administration of securities class actions, including a
specific process for the appointment of a Lead Plaintiff and a
Lead Counsel to represent the putative class.  A Lead Plaintiff
and a Lead Counsel have not yet been appointed pursuant to
Section 21D of the Securities Exchange Act.  The deadline to move
for appointment as a Lead Plaintiff is March 12, 2018.  Once a
Lead Plaintiff is appointed, the Court will then appoint a Lead
Counsel.

The Parties agree that in the interests of judicial economy,
conservation of time and resources, and orderly management of the
action, no response to any pleading in the action by any
Defendant should occur until after (i) a Lead Plaintiff and a
Lead Counsel are appointed by the Court pursuant to the PSLRA,
and (iii) such Lead Plaintiff serves an amended or consolidated
complaint.  They respectfully submit that good cause exists to
vacate the April 19, 2018 initial case management conference and
associated ADR deadlines until such time as the Court has the
opportunity to rule on the appointment of a Lead Plaintiff and
approval of a Lead Counsel.

The Parties stipulated, and respectfully requested the Court to
order, as follows:

     1. Within 14 days of an order by the Court appointing a Lead
Plaintiff and a Lead Counsel, the Defendants and any Lead
Plaintiff(s) appointed by the Court shall, through their
respective counsel, confer and jointly submit a proposed schedule
for the filing of any amended complaint or consolidated complaint
and for the filing of a responsive pleading, including a briefing
schedule with respect to any anticipated motions to dismiss;

     2. The Defendants will not be required to answer, move, or
otherwise substantively respond to the Complaint until the date
agreed upon by the Parties in the proposed schedule, if approved
by the Court, or until such other further order by the Court.

     3. Pursuant to Civil L.R. 16-2, the initial case management
conference scheduled for April 19, 2018 will be vacated, along
with any associated deadlines under the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure and Local Rules, to be rescheduled for a date after the
filing of any consolidated complaint or after the Court rules on
Defendants' anticipated motion to dismiss, as the Court
determines to be appropriate; and all associated ADR Multi-Option
Program deadlines likewise be deferred.

Pursuant to the Stipulation, Judge Chen so ordered.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 6, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/AZBZHW from Leagle.com.

Nathan Dye, Plaintiff, represented by Shawn A. Williams --
shawnw@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP.

GoPro, Inc., Nicholas D. Woodman & Brian T. McGee, Defendants,
represented by Catherine Duden Kevane -- ckevane@fenwick.com --
Fenwick & West LLP, Marie Caroline Bafus -- mbafus@fenwick.com --
Fenwick and West LLP, Susan Samuels Muck -- smuck@fenwick.com --
Fenwick & West LLP & Vincent Barredo -- vbarredo@fenwick.com --
Fenwick & West LLP.


GREEN NRG: Invades Telephone Consumer Protection Act, Schopp Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
George Kenneth Schopp, the Plaintiff, v. Green NRG Group, Inc.,
the Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-00160 (E.D. Tex., Mar. 8, 2018),
seeks to enforce the consumer-privacy provisions of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act, a federal statute enacted in 1991 in
response to widespread public outrage about the proliferation of
intrusive, nuisance telemarketing practices.

According to the complaint, it appears Defendant was "spoofing"
the phone number shown as the calling number. The Plaintiff is
not a customer of Defendant and has not provided Defendant with
his written consent to be called. All the calls were placed to a
telephone number that Plaintiff had listed on the National Do Not
Call Registry for more than 31 days prior to the calls. All of
the calls were made by Defendant or Defendant's authorized agents
and partners in Defendant's solicitation scheme. Thus, all of the
calls were made on behalf of Defendant. All of the calls were
willful and knowing violations of the TCPA.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Chris R. Miltenberger, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF CHRIS R. MILTENBERGER, PLLC
          1340 N. White Chapel, Suite 100
          Southlake, TX 76092
          Telephone: (817) 416 5060
          Facsimile: (817) 416 5062
          E-mail: chris@crmlawpractice.com


HP INC: Court Denies Bid to Enjoin Arbitration in "Forsyth" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DONNA J. FORSYTH, et al., Plaintiffs, v. HP INC., et
al., Defendants, Case No. 5:16-cv-04775-EJD (N.D. Cal.), Judge
Edward J. Davila of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, San Jose Division, denied the Defendants'
motion to enjoin arbitration and granted their motion to stay.

The Plaintiffs are former employees of HP who were terminated in
the 2015-16 timeframe as part of a workforce reduction plan
("WFR").  Upon termination of their employment with HP, some of
the Plaintiffs -- the 15 Arbitration Plaintiffs -- each signed a
release agreement ("RA") in exchange for severance benefits.  The
remaining 34 Plaintiffs ("Non-Arbitration Plaintiffs") did not.

The RA signed by the Arbitration Plaintiffs contains an
arbitration clause .  It also contains a class action waiver
provision, stating that the employee will not bring or
participate in any class, collective, or representative action.
The RA also provides that notwithstanding any other clause
contained in this Agreement, any claim that all or part of the
Class Action Waiver Is unenforceable, unconscionable, void or
voidable may be determined only by a court of competent
jurisdiction and not by an arbitrator.

The Plaintiffs filed the lawsuit in August 2018, alleging that HP
discriminated against them on the basis of their age by
terminating their employment under the WFR.  They brought their
claims under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act as well as
a variety of state-law claims.

The Defendants moved to dismiss.  They also moved to compel
arbitration with respect to the Arbitration Plaintiffs.  On Sept.
20, 2017, the Court issued an order granting the Defendants'
motions to compel arbitration.

The Plaintiffs then approached the Defendants to begin the
arbitration process, indicating that they envisioned proceeding
in a single arbitration to address the enforceability of the RA
for the Arbitration Plaintiffs.  After reaching impasse, the
Arbitration Plaintiffs filed a single arbitration demand with the
American Arbitration Association ("Pending Arbitration") seeking
resolution on a single issue: whether certain release provisions
contained in the RA signed by the Claimants are valid and
enforceable.  The demand stated that the RA was not valid and
enforceable because it failed to comply with the requirements of
the Older Workers Benefit Protection Act ("OWBPA"), namely: (1)
the waiver was not knowing and voluntary under Section 626(f)(1);
and (2) it did not meet the requirements with regard to how
"decisional units" must be identified pursuant to Section
626(f)(1)(H)(i).

The Defendants now move to enjoin the Pending Arbitration on the
theory that, under the terms of the RA and the September 20
Order, the Arbitration Plaintiffs must arbitrate individually.
They also argue that the Pending Arbitration violates certain
prerequisites required by the RA, namely that (1) it proceed
before neutral arbitrator and/or arbitration sponsoring
organization, selected by mutual agreement, in or near the city
in which Employee was last employed by the Company; and (2) after
submission of the written claim for arbitration, the parties will
submit the matter to non-binding mediation before a mutually
selected neutral mediator.  The Defendants also request, through
their motion to stay, that the Court continues to stay the entire
case until arbitration has concluded.

Judge Davila concludes that none of the Winter factors weigh in
favor of enjoining the Pending Arbitration.  Accordingly, he will
deny the Defendants' motion to enjoin the currently pending
arbitration.  He finds that the Defendants are not likely to
succeed on the merits.  This weighs against enjoining the current
arbitration; and will not be irreparably harmed if it is not
enjoined.  He also finds that the balance of hardships and the
public interest favor the Arbitration Plaintiffs' position.

As to the Defendants' motion to stay, the Judge agrees with the
Defendants that the case should continue to be stayed in its
entirety and will grant their motion to stay.  This decision
notwithstanding, the Court is sympathetic to the Plaintiffs'
concerns regarding difficulties in adding Plaintiffs due to the
administrative closure of the case.  Accordingly, the Judge will
permit the Plaintiffs to further amend the FAC to include
additional Plaintiffs.  In addition, he advised the Plaintiffs
that administrative closure does not prevent them from
electronically filing documents on ECF, if appropriate.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Davila denied the Defendants'
motion to enjoin arbitration.  The entire case continues to be
stayed and administratively closed, except that the Court will
allow further amendment of the FAC to include additional
Plaintiffs.  The parties will notify the Court within 10 days of
reaching a final resolution in the Pending Arbitration.  The
Judge set a status conference for May 10, 2018.  The parties will
file a joint status conference statement no later than May 3,
2018 informing the Court as to the status of the Pending
Arbitration.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 6, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/LtZAeC from Leagle.com.

Donna J. Forsyth, for and on behalf of themselves and other
person similarly situated, Sidney L. Staton, III, for and on
behalf of themselves and other person similarly situated, Arun
Vatturi, for and on behalf of themselves and other person
similarly situated & Dan Weiland, for and on behalf of themselves
and other person similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by
Douglas P. Dehler -- Doug.Dehler@wilaw.com -- O'Neil Cannon
Hollman DeJong and Laing SC, pro hac vice, Paul Zimmer --
Paul.Zimmer@wilaw.com -- O'Neil, Cannon, Hollman, DeJong and
Laing S.C., pro hac vice, Leland Humphrey Belew --
leland.belew@andrusanderson.com -- Andrus Anderson LLP & Jennie
Lee Anderson -- jennie@andrusanderson.com -- Andrus Anderson LLP.

Shafiq Rahman, Ed Kaplan, Karen Becks & Albert R. DeVere,
Plaintiffs, represented by Douglas P. Dehler, O'Neil Cannon
Hollman DeJong and Laing SC, Jennie Lee Anderson, Andrus Anderson
LLP & Leland Humphrey Belew, Andrus Anderson LLP.

HP Inc. & Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company, Defendants,
represented by Shannon Rutledge Creasy -- screasy@littler.com --
Littler Mendelson, PC, pro hac vice, Allan G. King --
agking@littler.com -- Benjamin A. Emmert -- bemmert@littler.com -
- Littler Mendelson, pro hac vice, Donald William Myers --
dwmyers@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, PC, pro hac vice, John
Sung Hong -- jhong@littler.com  -- Littler Mendelson, P.C., Lisa
A. Schreter -- lschreter@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, P.C. &
Richard W. Black -- rblack@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson,
P.C., pro hac vice.


HSBC BANK: Objection to Production of Unredacted Docs Overruled
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ROYAL PARK INVESTMENTS SA/NV, Plaintiff, v. HSBC
BANK USA, N.A., Defendant, Case No. 14 Civ. 8175 (LGS) (S.D.
N.Y.), Judge Lorna G. Schofield of the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York overruled Royal Park's
objection to Magistrate Judge Netburn's Orders dated July 24,
2017 and Aug. 11, 2017, compelling it to produce in unredacted
form documents located in Belgium from its assignor, BNP Paribas
Fortis.

Royal Park brings a putative class action on behalf of
certificateholders of RMBS trusts against HSBC for violations of
the agreements outlining HSBC's obligations as trustee.

On Dec. 4, 2015, the recently retired Judge Scheindlin ordered
Royal Park to produce documents held by BNP, the assignor of its
legal claims against HSBC.  Royal Park subsequently produced BNP
documents, but without custodial information and with substantial
redactions of names and email addresses in the To, From and CC
fields, in the bodies of the emails and in the attachments.

BNP's U.S. counsel claims that the redactions are required under
the Belgian Data Privacy Act of Dec. 8, 1992, as amended, which
restricts the transfer of personal data to countries outside the
European Union.  On July 11, 2017, HSBC moved to compel Royal
Park to produce these documents without the redactions and with
custodian information restored.

Magistrate Judge Netburn granted the motion on July 24, 2017,
adopting HSBC's reasoning in full as set forth in its letters
dated July 11 and 19, 2017.  On Aug. 7, 2017, Royal Park moved
for reconsideration, which Judge Netburn denied on August 11,
adopting the reasoning in HSBC's Aug. 10, 2017, letter.  On Aug.
25, 2017, Royal Park filed an objection seeking an order vacating
Judge Netburn's Orders and holding that the redactions were
proper pursuant to international comity.

The parties dispute whether the Belgian Act actually prohibits
the production of the documents without redactions.  Royal Park
argues that interpreting the act is a legal question that must be
examined de novo.  To resolve the instant objections, Judge
Schofield says she needs not interpret the Belgian Act pursuant
to the standard for reviewing non-dispositive orders by a
magistrate judge for contrariness to law.  Assuming arguendo that
the Belgian Act prohibits disclosure, Judge Netburn found
(incorporating HSBC's reasoning) that the comity analysis weighs
in favor of compelling Royal Park to produce the BNP documents
unredacted, with custodial information restored.  The decision
whether to grant comity is "within the court's discretion" and is
reviewed only for abuse of discretion.

Judge Netburn incorporated by reference in her July 24, 2017,
Order, HSBC's July 11 and July 19, 2017, letters.  That analysis,
according to Judge Schofield is well-reasoned, supports the
directive to compel production, and is well within the range of
permissible decisions.

For the reasons, Judge Schofield overruled Royal Park's
objections.  She respectfully directed the Clerk of Court to
close the motion at Docket No. 408.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 6, 2018 Opinion and Order is
available at https://is.gd/ZN8UST from Leagle.com.

Royal Park Investments SA/NA, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Arthur C.
Leahy -- artl@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP,
Kevin S. Sciarani -- ksciarani@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller
Rudman & Dowd LLP, Regis C. Worley, Jr. -- rworley@rgrdlaw.com --
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Samuel Howard Rudman --
SRudman@rgrdlaw.com --Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Steven W.
Pepich -- stevep@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP,
pro hac vice, Benjamin Galdston -- beng@blbglaw.com -- Bernstein
Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, Christopher M. Wood --
cwood@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Darryl J.
Alvarado, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Joseph Marco Janoski
Gray -- mjanoski@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP,
Juan Carlos Sanchez -- jsanchez@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller
Rudman & Dowd LLP, pro hac vice, Lucas F. Olts --
lolts@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP & Scott K.
Attaway -- sattaway@kellogghansen.com -- Kellogg, Huber, Hansen,
Todd & Evans, P.L.L.C.

National Credit Union Administration Board on Behalf of the NGN
Trusts, Consolidated Plaintiff, pro se.

HSBC Bank USA National Association, as trustee, Defendant,
represented by Andrew Wheeler Rudge -- arudge@wc.com -- Williams
& Connolly LLP, Edward C. Reddington -- ereddington@wc.com --
Williams & Connolly LLP, George Anthony Borden -- gborden@wc.com
--Williams & Connolly LLP, Kevin Michael Hodges -- khodges@wc.com
-- Williams & Connolly LLP, pro hac vice, Eric Alan Kuhl --
ekuhl@wc.com -- Williams & Connolly LLP, Eric Christopher Wiener
-- ewiener@wc.com -- Williams & Connolly LLP, Jonah Perlin --
jperlin@wc.com -- Williams & Connolly LLP, Lauren Heather Uhlig -
- luhlig@wc.com -- Williams & Connolly LLP, Matthew Boyd
Underwood -- munderwood@wc.com -- Williams & Connolly LLP, Meghan
A. Ferguson -- mferguson@wc.com -- Williams & Connolly LLP, Noah
Malachai Weiss -- nweiss@wc.com -- Williams & Connolly LLP, Tanya
Marie Abrams -- tabrams@wc.com -- Williams & Connolly LLP, Vidya
Atre Mirmira -- vmirmira@wc.com -- Williams & Connolly LLP, pro
hac vice & William Pruitt Ashworth -- washworth@wc.com - Williams
& Connolly LLP.

Triaxx Prime CDO 2006-1, Ltd., Triaxx Prime CDO 2006-2, Ltd. &
Triaxx Prime CDO 2007-1, Ltd., Interested Partys, represented by
Charles Richard Jacob, III -- cjacob@mw-law.com -- Miller &
Wrubel, P.C. & John G. Moon, Miller & Wrubel P.C.


HWF REALTY: "Torres" Suit Seeks Overtime, Spread-of-Hours Pay
-------------------------------------------------------------
Roque De Jesus Torres, Alfonso Batista and Yolanda Diaz, on of
behalf themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
v. HWF Realty Management, Inc., 2710 Morris Avenue Co., LLC, and
Hyman W. Fein, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-00994 (S.D. N.Y.,
February 5, 2018), seeks unpaid overtime wages, liquidated
damages, unpaid "spread-of-hours" premium, prejudgment and post-
judgment interest, attorney's fees and costs pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act, New York Labor Law, New York Codes, Rules
and Regulations and the New York Wage Theft Prevention Act.

Defendants oversaw 12 buildings in the Bronx, including buildings
where Plaintiffs worked. Torres worked as a building
superintendent while Batista and Yolanda worked as porter. They
were in charge of collecting and taking out garbage and
recycling, making minor apartment repairs including flooring,
plumbing repair, cleaning inside and outside the buildings, snow
removal, and addressing emergencies and other tenants' concerns.
[BN]

Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Chaya M. Gourarie, Esq.
      225 Broadway, Suite 2700
      New York, NY 10007
      Tel: (212) 227-5700
      Email: chaya@norinsberglaw.com


HYM CONSTRUCTION: Ayala Sues Over Denied Overtime Pay, Paystubs
---------------------------------------------------------------
Julio Ayala, individually and on behalf of all employees
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. H.Y.M. Construction Corp. d/b/a
H.Y.M. Construction and Ryong-Choo Kim, Defendants, Case No. 18-
at-00937 (S.D. N.Y., February 2, 2018), seeks unpaid overtime
wages, liquidated damages, unpaid "spread-of-hours" premium,
compensation for failure to provide wage notice at the time of
hiring and failure to provide paystubs, attorney's fees and costs
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, New York Labor Law, New
York Codes, Rules and Regulations and the New York Wage Theft
Prevention Act.

Ayala is a resident of Queens County and was employed as an
asbestos remover and construction worker by H.Y.M. Construction
Corp. located at 361 Central Park Avenue, Yonkers, NY 10003. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lian Zhu, Esq.
      HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
      136-20 38th Avenue, Suite 10G
      Flushing, NY 11354
      Tel: (718)353-8588
      Email: lzhu@hanglaw.com


I HEART FOODS: Faces "Ransom" Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against I Heart Foods Corp.
The case is styled as Russell Ransom, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. I Heart Foods
Corp., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-01465 (E.D. N.Y., March 8,
2018).

I Heart Foods Corp. is a confectionery company located in
Chicago, Illinois.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


IPIC ENTERTAINMENT: Faces "Fischler" Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against iPic Entertainment
Inc. The case is styled as Brian Fischler, individually and on
behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. iPic
Entertainment Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-01463 (E.D. N.Y.,
March 8, 2018).

iPic Entertainment, LLC operates theaters in the United States.
It operates 10 locations with 73 screens in Arizona, California,
Florida, Illinois, Texas, Washington, and Wisconsin. The company
was founded in 2006 and is headquartered in Boca Raton,
Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


JASON JAPANESE: "Yong" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT, Spread-of-Hours Pay
----------------------------------------------------------------
Yong Xin Wang, individually and on behalf of all other employees
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Jason Japanese Food Inc. (d/b/a
New Hama Fusion), Wen Tao Wang, Wen Yue Wang, Henry "Doe" (last
name unknown), Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-00730, (E.D. N.Y.,
February 1, 2018), seeks unpaid overtime wages, liquidated
damages, unpaid "spread-of-hours" premium, compensation for
failure to provide wage notice at the time of hiring and failure
to provide paystubs, attorney's fees and costs pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act, New York Labor Law, New York Codes,
Rules and Regulations and the New York Wage Theft Prevention Act.

Yong Xin Wang was employed by Defendants to work at their
restaurant New Hama Fusion, located at 1115 Old Country Road,
Plainview, NY 1180, as a fry wok from April 2016 until November
30, 2016. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lian Zhu, Esq.
      HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC.
      136-20 38th Ave., Suite 10G
      Flushing, NY 11354
      Tel: (718) 353-8588
      Email: lzhu@hanglaw.com


KNAUF GIPS: "Descher" Drywall Defect Case Transferred to E.D. La.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Greg & Meredith Descher, individually, on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Knauf Gips KG, Knauf
Plasterboard Tianjin Co., Ltd., and Fictitious Defendants A-Z,
Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-17500 (S.D. Miss., September 11,
2017,) was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Louisiana on February 5, 2018, and consolidated in
Case No. 17-cv-17500.

The Deschers' home used gypsum drywalls manufactured by Knauf.
Said drywall allegedly caused corrosion to air conditioning coils
and refrigerator units, electrical wiring and plumbing components
and caused allergic reactions, coughing, sinus and throat
infection, eye irritation, respiratory problems and other health
concerns. Plaintiffs seek redress under Mississippi Consumer
Protection Laws. [BN]

Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Stephen Wright Mullins, Esq.
      LUCKEY & MULLINS, PLLC
      1629 Government St.
      P. O. Box 990 (39566)
      Ocean Springs, MS 39564
      Tel: (228) 875-3175
      Fax: (228) 872-4719
      Email: smullins@luckeyandmullins.com

             - and -

      Nicholas Ryan Rockforte, Esq.
      PENDLEY, BAUDIN & COFFIN, LLP
      1515 Poydras Street, Suite 1400
      New Orleans, LA 70112
      Tel: (504) 355-0086
      Fax: (504) 523-0699
      Email: nrockforte@pbclawfirm.com


MAGIC HOME: Teshabaeva Seeks Minimum Wages under Labor Law
----------------------------------------------------------
MAKTUMMA TESHABAEVA, individually and on behalf of all other
persons similarly situated who were employed by MAGIC HOME CARE
LLC, along with other entities affiliated or controlled by MAGIC
HOME CARE LLC, the Plaintiffs, v. MAGIC HOME CARE LLC and/or any
other related entities, the Defendant, Case No. 152076/2018 (N.Y.
Sup. Ct., Mar. 8, 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, Defendant has 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, including failing to pay the
lawful minimum wage rate, overtime compensation for all hours
worked in excess of 40 hours in any given week, and "spread of
hours" compensation.

Magic Home is a home health agency in Brooklyn, New York.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff and the Putative Class:

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


MAGICJACK VOCALTEC: Raines Balks at Merger Deal with B. Riley
-------------------------------------------------------------
HUNTER RAINES, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. MAGICJACK VOCALTEC LTD., DON CARLOS
BELL III, IZHAK GROSS, DR. YUEN WAH SING, TALI YARON-ELDAR,
RICHARD HARRIS, and ALAN B. HOWE, the Defendants, Case No. 9:18-
cv-80297-DMM (S.D. Fla., Mar. 8, 2018), seeks to enjoin
Defendants from holding the shareholder vote on a proposed
transaction and taking any steps to consummate the proposed
transaction unless and until material information is disclosed to
magicJack's stockholders in advance of the Shareholder Vote or,
in the event the Proposed Transaction is consummated, to recover
damages resulting from the Defendants' violations of the Exchange
Act.

The case is a class action brought by Plaintiff on behalf of
himself and the other ordinary stockholders of magicJack VocalTec
Ltd., except Defendants and their affiliates, against magicJack
and the members magicJack's board of directors for their
violations of Section 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, 15.U.S.C. sections 78n(a), 78t(a), and SEC Rule 14a-
9, 17 C.F.R. 240.14a-9, in connection with the Proposed
Transaction between magicJack and B. Riley Financial, Inc..

On November 9, 2017, magicJack and B. Riley jointly announced
that they had entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger, by
and among the Company, B. Riley, and B. R. Acquisition Ltd., an
Israeli corporation and wholly owned subsidiary of B. Riley.
Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, B. Riley will
acquire magicJack through the merger of Merger Sub with and into
magicJack, with magicJack surviving as a wholly owned subsidiary
of B. Riley Principal Investments, LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary
of B. Riley.

Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, magicJack
stockholders will receive $8.71 per share in cash in exchange for
each share of magicJack common stock that they own. The Merger
Consideration and the process by which Defendants agreed to
consummate the Proposed Transaction are fundamentally unfair to
magicJack's public stockholders. In fact, the financial analyses
conducted by the Company's financial advisor, Merrill Lynch,
Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated, illustrates that the value
of the Company's shares exceeds the Merger Consideration. For
example, BofA Merrill Lynch's Selected Precedent Transactions
Analysis indicates an implied per share value range as high as
$10.40, which illustrates that each share of magicJack stock has
an inherent premium of approximately 20% over the $8.71 Merger
Consideration.

The Merger Consideration appears inadequate, and the process by
which Defendants consummated the Proposed Transaction is
fundamentally unfair to Plaintiff and the other magicJack common
stockholders. Defendants have now asked magicJack's stockholders
to support the Proposed Transaction based upon the materially
incomplete and misleading representations and information
contained in the Proxy Statement, in violation of Sections 14(a)
and 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

On February 8, 2018, to convince magicJack stockholders to vote
in favor of the Proposed Transaction, Defendants authorized the
filing of a materially incomplete and misleading Definitive Proxy
Statement on a Schedule 14A with the SEC, in violation of
Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. Specifically, the
Proxy Statement contains materially incomplete and misleading
information concerning: (i) the Company's financial projections;
(ii) the financial analyses performed by the Company's financial
advisor, BofA Merrill Lynch, in support of its fairness opinion;
and (iii) the background process leading up to the Merger
Agreement.

The special meeting of magicJack stockholders to vote on the
Proposed Transaction is scheduled for March 19, 2018. It is
therefore imperative that the material information omitted from
the Proxy Statement is disclosed to the Company's stockholders
prior to the Shareholder Vote so that they can properly exercise
their corporate suffrage rights. The Plaintiff asserts claims
against Defendants for violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of
the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Scott R. Shepherd, Esq.
          Nathan Zipperian, Esq.
          SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLP
          1625 N. Commerce Pkwy Suite 320
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33326
          Telephone: (866) 849 7545
          Facsimile: (866) 300 7367
          E-mail: sshepherd@sfmslaw.com
                  nzipperian@sfmslaw.com

               - and -

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


MICHAEL STAPLETON: "Blackmon" Suit Transferred to N.Y.S.D.
----------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Phillip Blackmon, on behalf of himself and
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Michael Stapleton
Associates, Ltd. d/b/a MSA Security, Defendant, Case No. 17-1362
(N.D. Tex., May 22, 2017), was transferred to the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York on February 2, 2018,
and assigned Case no. 1:18-cv-00936.

The Plaintiff seeks liquidated damages for the full amount of
their unpaid regular and overtime compensation, reasonable
attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses of this action, pre-judgment
and post-judgment interest and such other and further relief
under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Michael Stapleton Associates is a company in the business of
providing security, intelligence, training, and investigative
services. Blackmon worked as an explosive detection canine
handler assigned to train, board, and feed bomb-sniffing dogs.
Canine handlers were allegedly not paid for the time they worked
training Defendants' dogs, even though such training was a
required part of their jobs. Instead, MSA paid those non-exempt
workers a flat $400 monthly stipend for expenses, which usually
did not cover all of the expenses they paid per month in
association with dog-handling. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert W. Cowan, Esq.
      Justin Jenson, Esq.
      BAILEY PEAVY BAILEY COWAN HECKAMAN PLLC
      440 Louisiana Street, Suite 2100
      Houston, TX 77002
      Telephone: (713) 425-7100
      Facsimile: (713) 425-7101
      Email: rcowan@bpblaw.com
             jjenson@bpblaw.com


MICROCHIP TECHNOLOGY: Court Narrows Claims in "Schuman" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California granted in part and denied in
part the Defendants' motion to dismiss the case, PETER SCHUMAN,
et al., Plaintiffs, v. MICROCHIP TECHNOLOGY INCORPORATED, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 16-cv-05544-HSG (N.D. Cal.).

Schuman and William Coplin are former employees of Atmel and
Microchip, as well as participants in the Atmel Plan.  They bring
the putative class action under the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA").

Atmel Corp., a supplier of "general purpose microcontrollers,"
created the Atmel Plan in July 2015 in response to market
speculation regarding the company's future and the resulting
uncertainty among its approximately 1,800 U.S. employees.  The
company confirmed to employees that it was seeking a merger
partner and notified them that it was rolling out the Plan to
encourage all employees to continue working for Atmel and any
successor entity despite the uncertainty surrounding Atmel's
corporate future.  The Atmel Plan was covered by ERISA.

On Sept. 19, 2015, Atmel and a company named Dialog Semiconductor
plc executed and publicly announced a formal merger agreement.
Before the scheduled January 2016 closing date, Microchip made an
offer to acquire Atmel that Atmel's Board of Directors concluded
was better than Dialog's offer.  Meanwhile, the Plaintiffs and
other Atmel employees became aware of Microchip's attempt to
replace Dialog as Atmel's merger partner in mid-January 2016.

In the week following the merger's closing, Microchip terminated
several Atmel employees without cause, including Plaintiff
Schuman, and announced for the first time its position that the
Atmel Plan had expired on Nov. 1, 2015 and therefore it had no
obligation to pay, and would not pay, the severance benefits
provided by the Plan to any terminated employees.

On Sept. 29, 2016, Schuman submitted a claim for benefits under
the Atmel Plan to the plan administrator.  Coplin followed suit
on Sept. 30, 2016.  On Dec. 19, 2016, Microchip's human resources
manager, identifying herself as the plan administrator, denied
the Plaintiffs' claims on eligibility grounds, stating that the
Atmel Plan had expired on Nov. 1, 2015.

In response to the Plaintiffs' requests that the releases they
signed be rescinded, the denial letter deemed the releases
irrelevant to their claim for benefits since they were ineligible
for benefits under the Plan altogether.  The plan administrator
denied their appeals on March 23, 2017, again on grounds of
eligibility.  As to the Plaintiffs' request that the releases be
rescinded, the letter stated that the Plan Administrator does not
consider your request for rescission a claim for benefits under
the Atmel Plan, so they do not address the issue.

Plaintiffs filed the First Amended Plan on March 31, 2017.  The
Plaintiffs allege three independent class action claims for
relief.  In their First Cause of Action, they seek equitable
relief for the Defendants' alleged breaches of their fiduciary
duty under section 502(a)(3) of ERISA.  In their Second Cause of
Action, they seek to recover the severance benefits they allege
were wrongfully denied under section 502(a)(1)(B) of ERISA.  In
their Third Cause of Action, they allege that the Defendants
unlawfully interfered with their ERISA rights under Section 510
of ERISA.

The Defendants filed their motion to dismiss on April 28, 2017.
They seek dismissal of the FAC in its entirety on the grounds
that it fails to provide a short and plain statement showing that
the Plaintiffs are entitled to relief.  Alternatively, they move
to dismiss the First and Third Causes of Action for failure to
state a claim.

On May 1, 2017, the case was related to Berman v. Microchip
Technology Inc., No. 17-cv-01864-HSG, which is brought by former
Atmel employees who did not sign the post-merger releases but
otherwise allege similar facts and bring similar claims against
the Defendants.

Judge Gilliam granted in part and denied in part the Defendants'
motion.  He dismissed without leave to amend the Plaintiffs'
claims for injunctive relief under section 502(a)(3) of ERISA (1)
prohibiting the Defendants from continuing to deny Plan benefits
to eligible employees; (2) prohibiting the Defendants from
continuing to make false and fraudulent statements about the
existence of the Atmel Plan or any employee's right to benefits
under the Plan; and (3) requiring the Defendants to pay the full
amounts and benefits promised under the Atmel Plan.

The Judge dismissed with leave to amend the Plaintiffs' claim for
rescission under section 502(a)(3) of ERISA and their Third Cause
of Action under section 510 of ERISA.  He finds that the
Plaintiffs cite no authority in support of their argument, and
the law is clear: a plaintiff seeking rescission must allege
tender.  Because the Plaintiffs have failed to do so, they are
precluded from seeking rescission.

He also finds that while they do allege an adverse employment
action, the Plaintiffs fail to allege facts showing that their
attempt to exercise their rights under ERISA caused that adverse
action.  Perhaps more importantly, practically speaking, the
Plaintiffs fail to allege how their interference claim under
section 510 bolsters their relief.  They make no mention of any
freestanding remedies associated with interference claims.  Nor
do they state what further relief such a cause of action would
provide.

The Judge denied the remainder of the Defendants' motion.  Should
the Plaintiffs choose to amend the FAC, Judge Gilliam directed
them to do so no later than 28 days from the date of the Order.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 6, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/OhZy9c from Leagle.com.

Peter Schuman & William Coplin, Plaintiffs, represented by Cliff
Michael Palefsky -- CP@mhpsf.com -- McGuinn Hillsman & Palefsky,
Connie K. Chan -- cchan@altber.com -- Altshuler Berzon LLP,
Michael Rubin -- mrubin@altber.com -- Altshuler Berzon LLP,
Raphael N. Rajendra -- rrajendra@altber.com -- Altshuler Berzon,
William B. Reilly -- bill@williambreilly.com -- Law Office of
William Reilly & Keith A. Ehrman -- keith@mhpsf.com -- McGuinn,
Hillsman & Palefsky.

Microchip Technology Incorporated, Defendant, represented by Mark
E. Schmidtke -- mark.schmidtke@ogletree.com -- Ogletree, Deakins,
Nash, Smoak, Stewart, P.C., pro hac vice, Elizabeth M. Townsend -
- elizabeth.townsend@ogletree.com -- Ogletree, Deakins, Nash,
Smoak & Stewart, P.C., Mark Gerard Kisicki --
mark.kisicki@ogletree.com -- Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak &
Stewart P.C. & Sean Patrick Nalty -- sean.nalty@ogletree.com --
Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C.

Atmel Corporation & Atmel Corporation U.S. Severance Guarantee
Benefit Program, Defendants, represented by Mark E. Schmidtke,
Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak, Stewart, P.C., pro hac vice, Mark
Gerard Kisicki, Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak & Stewart P.C. & Sean
Patrick Nalty, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C.


MISSISSIPPI: 5th Cir. Affirms Unitary Status Ruling
---------------------------------------------------
In the case, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. CYNTHIA
FLETCHER, A minor, by Rev. Artis Fletcher, as next friend, and
Gloria Jean Barnes and David Barnes, minors, by Rev. Theotis
Smith, as next friend, suing in their own behalf and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Intervenor Plaintiff-Appellant, v.
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI, Defendant. SIMPSON COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT,
Intervenor Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 16-60722 (5th Cir.),
Judge Jacques L. Wiener, Jr. of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's order granting
unitary status in the area of faculty and staff employment.

Since 1970, the Simpson County School District has been under a
consent decree to monitor the District's efforts to desegregate
its school system.  Students attending District schools
("Intervenors") intervened in the litigation in 1982, contending
that the District had not properly complied with the consent
decree.

In July 1970, the United States sued the State of Mississippi and
several of its school districts, including the District, alleging
that they operated school systems that were segregated by race.
In August 1970, the district court enjoined the District from
discriminating based on race, and outlined various procedures
designed to end segregation in the District.  The 1970 order
addressed specific areas: faculty and staff assignments, student
transfers, transportation, school construction and site
selection, and extracurricular activities.

In 1982, the Intervenors filed a class action complaint against
the District for failing to comply with the 1970 order.  In 1983,
the district court entered another decree, outlining further
procedures for the District.  The 1983 decree also required that
the District notify the United States and Intervenors of any
proposed change to employment procedures.  In 2001, the District
moved for unitary status.  The Intervenors did not respond, and
the United States objected only in the area of faculty and staff
assignments.  The district court denied unitary status in that
area, but granted unitary status in all other areas.

In 2011, the court entered another consent decree expanding on
the required employment procedures.  The decree generally
required the District to interview candidates with high initial
scores.  If the District declined to interview an applicant with
a higher score than another applicant selected for an interview,
the principal or Superintendent had to state in writing why he or
she did not interview such applicant.  The District could decline
to offer the position to the highest-scoring applicant only if a
legitimate negative reason exists not to hire the applicant.

In 2012, the district court granted the United States' motion to
enjoin the District from violating the 2011 decree, on the
grounds that the District had hired several non-highest-scoring
applicants without proper notice to the United States.  In 2013,
the District moved for unitary status with respect to faculty and
staff assignments.  The United States did not object, but the
Intervenors did, and the district court held a two-day hearing.
The court received over 500 objections from the community, but
many of these were generic and did not state details.

In April 2014, the district court denied unitary status, citing
use of modified interview guides and ranking forms without notice
of the proposed change as an example of the District's non-
compliance.  The district court also extended the 2011 decree to
March 15, 2015.  The Intervenors appealed that decision,
challenging some of the court's factual findings.  That appeal
was dismissed for lack of standing.

In September 2015, the District yet again moved for unitary
status.  This time there were approximately 65 objections, many
of which were merely generic.  The district court held another
two-day hearing in 2016, and granted the motion for unitary
status, after considering the testimony from both the 2014 and
the 2016 hearings.  The Intervenors now appeal.

In sum, Judge Wiener finds that the Intervenors have pointed to
no practice or incident that was objectively a violation of the
consent decree.  Instead, they have claimed to show examples of
the District's bad faith.  Perhaps some of these examples could
be interpreted to show bad faith on the District's part, but the
evidence in the record does not compel that conclusion.  The
evidence before the district court supports the District's
explanations for all of its decisions.  To assess whether the
District acted in bad faith, the district court was required to
make factual determinations from the evidence, and the whole of
the record shows that these factual determinations were
plausible.  The Judge therefore has no basis to find clear error
in these conclusions.

As for the alleged racially motivated employment decisions, the
Intervenors complain that a number of hiring decisions were
racially discriminatory.  The Judge holds that these findings
were not clear error.  Because the Court does not reverse the
district court's holding that these decisions were in good faith,
did not conflict with the consent decree, and showed no pretext,
the Judge also must affirm the conclusion that none show the
racially discriminatory hiring that would perpetuate de jure
segregation.

As for the alleged cronyism, the Judge finds that the Intervenors
cite to no case in which a court has addressed -- much less held
-- that cronyism perpetuates the vestiges of de jure segregation.
The district court's determination that none of the hiring
decisions involved improper decision-making was plausible in
light of the record.  This compels the conclusion that none of
the hires were made because of cronyism.  In other words, the
district court found that the District's hiring decisions all
involved legitimate motives, and not cronyism.  Because these
were factual determinations that are plausible in light of the
record, the Judge will not disturb them on appeal.

Judge Wiener concludes that as the district court noted in
granting unitary status, its order is the final decision in a
process that began over 45 years ago.  In fact, this appeal
concerns only employment, which was ultimately only one aspect of
the racial segregation that once existed within the Simpson
County School District.  The district has been unitary in every
other area -- including in its most vital area, educating
students -- for more than 10 years.  As the district court noted,
there is an entire agency devoted specifically to the kinds of
employment disputes that are at issue in the appeal.

For these reasons, Judge Wiener affirmed the judgment of the
district court.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 6, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/mYGEl4 from Leagle.com.

Holmes S. Adams -- holmes.adams@arlaw.com -- for Intervenor
Defendant-Appellee.

Suzanne Griggins Keys, for Intervenor Plaintiff-Appellant.

John Simeon Hooks - john.hooks@arlaw.com -- for Intervenor
Defendant-Appellee.


MOBILITY MEDICAL: "Llanes" Suit Seeks Overtime Wages under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
PEDRO LLANES, and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C.
216(b), the Plaintiff, v. MOBILITY MEDICAL TRANSPORT, INC., and
MARIA J. COLLAZO EXPOSITO, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-
20876-DPG (S.D. Fla., Mar. 8, 2018), seeks to recover overtime
wages, double damages and reasonable attorney fees from
Defendants, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, this action arises under the laws of
the United States. This case is brought as a collective action
under 29 USC 216(b). It is believed that the Defendants have
employed several other similarly situated employees like
Plaintiff who have not been paid overtime and/or minimum wages
for work performed in excess of 40 hours weekly from the filing
of this complaint back three years.

The Plaintiff worked for Defendants as a driver from on or about
March 26, 2015 through on or about December 20, 2015. The
Defendants' business activities involve those to which the Fair
Labor Standards Act applies. Both the Defendants' business and
the Plaintiff's work for the Defendants affected interstate
commerce for the relevant time period. Plaintiff's work for the
Defendants affected interstate commerce for the relevant time
period because the materials and goods that Plaintiff used on a
constant and/or continual basis and/or that were supplied to him
by the Defendants to use on the job moved through interstate
commerce prior to and/or subsequent to Plaintiff's use of the
same. The Plaintiff's work for the Defendants was actually in
and/or so closely related to the movement of commerce while he
worked for the Defendants that the Fair Labor Standards Act
applies to Plaintiff's work for the Defendants.

Additionally, Defendants regularly employed two or more employees
for the relevant time period who handled goods or materials that
travelled through interstate commerce, or used instrumentalities
of interstate commerce, thus making Defendant's business an
enterprise covered under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Between
the period of on or about March 26, 2015 through on or about
December 20, 2015, Plaintiff worked an average of 60 hours a week
for Defendants and was paid an average of $10.00 per hour but was
never paid the extra half time rate for any hours worked over 40
hours in a week as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiff therefore claims the half time overtime rate for each
hour worked above 40 in a week.

The Defendants willfully and intentionally refused to pay
Plaintiff's overtime wages as required by the Fair Labor
Standards Act as Defendants knew of the overtime requirements of
the Fair Labor Standards Act and recklessly failed to investigate
whether Defendants' payroll practices were in accordance with the
Fair Labor Standards Act. Defendants remain owing Plaintiff these
wages since the commencement of Plaintiff's employment with
Defendants for the time period specified above.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J.H. Zidell, Esq.
          J.H. ZIDELL, P.A.
          300 71st Street, Suite 605
          Miami Beach, FL 33141
          Telephone: (305) 865 6766
          Facsimile: (305) 865 7167


MONSANTO CO: Bruce Farms Suit Transferred to E.D. Mo.
-----------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Bruce Farms Partnership, Ronnie Bruce, Karen
Bruce, Caleb Bruce, Curtis Nash, Dena Nash, Curtis & Dena Nash
JV, LA Farms, Incorporated, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. Monsanto Company, BASF SE, BASF
Corporation and John Doe Companies A-Z, Defendants, Case No.
3:17-cv-00154 (E.D. Ark., June 14, 2017), was transferred to the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri on
February 5, 2018, under Case No. 18-cv-00026.

Plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive damages, costs, expert
fees, disbursements and attorneys' fees incurred in prosecuting
this action, disgorgement of profits, pre-judgment and post-
judgment interest at the maximum rate and such other relief
resulting from unjust enrichment, negligence, fraud, fraudulent
concealment, breach of implied warranty of merchantability and in
violation of the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act.

The Monsanto Company developed and released genetically modified
soybeans designed to combat problematic weeds that have become
resistant to certain herbicides over time where its most popular
herbicide are Roundup and Dicamba. Monsanto partnered with BASF,
a German chemical company, a joint licensing agreement to
accelerate the development of dicamba-based weed control
products. Monsanto insists that dicamba-resistant seeds and the
dicamba-based herbicides should be used in tandem. However,
Monsanto sold the seeds before approval by the Environmental
Protection Agency of its partner herbicide. The farmers can no
longer use the old herbicide because of volatility issues. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Phillip Duncan, Esq.
     Richard Quintus, Esq.
     William Rob Pointer, Esq.
     Timothy P. Reed, Esq.
     J. Reid Byrd, Esq.
     DUNCAN FIRM, P.A.
     900 S. Shackleford, Suite 725
     Little Rock, AR 72211
     Telephone: (501) 228-7600
     Email: phillip@duncanfirm.com
            richard@duncanfirm.com
            rob@duncanfirm.com
            tim@duncanfirm.com

            - and -

     Paul Byrd, Esq.
     Joseph Gates, Esq.
     PAUL BYRD LAW FIRM, PLLC
     415 N. McKinley St. Suite 210
     Little Rock, AR 72205
     Email: paul@paulbyrdlawfirm.com
            joseph@paulbyrdlawfirm.com

            - and -

     Mr. Jerry Kelly, Esq.
     KELLY LAW FIRM, P.A.
     P.O. Box 500
     Lonoke, AR 72086
     Email: jkelly@kellylawfirm.net

The BASF Group is represented by:

     John P. Mandler, Esq.
     FAEGRE AND BAKER LLP
     2200 Wells Fargo Center
     90 S. Seventh St.
     Minneapolis, MN 55402
     Tel: (612) 766-7221
     Fax: (612) 766-1600
     Email: john.mandler@faegrebd.com

            - and -

     E.B. Chiles, IV, Esq.
     QUATTLEBAUM, GROOMS & TULL PLLC
     111 Center Street, Suite 1900
     Little Rock, AR 72201-3325
     Tel: (501) 379-1700
     Email: cchiles@qgtb.com

            - and -

     John E. Tull, III, Esq.
     QUATTLEBAUM, GROOMS & TULL PLLC
     111 Center Street, Suite 1900
     Little Rock, AR 72201-3325
     Tel: (501) 379-1705
     Email: jtull@qgtlaw.com

            - and -

     Sarah DeLoach, Esq.
     QUATTLEBAUM, GROOMS & TULL PLLC
     111 Center Street, Suite 1900
     Little Rock, AR 72201-3325
     Tal: (501) 379-1700
     Email: sdeloach@qgtlaw.com


MONSANTO CO: "Harris" Pesticide Suit Transferred to E.D. Mo.
------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Gregory Harris, on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Monsanto Company, BASF SE, BASF
Corporation, BASF Crop Protection and E.I. Dupont De Nemours and
Company, Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-5262 (W.D. Mo., June 14,
2017), was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri on February 5, 2018, under Case No. 18-cv-
00029.

Plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive damages, costs, expert
fees, disbursements and attorneys' fees incurred in prosecuting
this action, disgorgement of profits, pre-judgment and post-
judgment interest at the maximum rate and such other relief
resulting from unjust enrichment, negligence, fraud, fraudulent
concealment, breach of implied warranty of merchantability and in
violation of the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act.

Monsanto and DuPont developed and released genetically modified
soybeans and cotton designed to combat problematic weeds that
have become resistant to certain herbicides over time where its
most popular herbicide are Roundup and Dicamba. Monsanto
partnered with BASF, a German chemical company, a joint licensing
agreement to accelerate the development of dicamba-based weed
control products. Monsanto insists that dicamba-resistant seeds
and the dicamba-based herbicides should be used in tandem.
However, Monsanto sold the seeds before approval by the
Environmental Protection Agency of its partner herbicide. The
farmers can no longer use the old herbicide because of volatility
issues. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Charles F. Speer, Esq.
     SPEER LAW FIRM, P.A.
     104 W. Ninth Street, Suite 305
     Kansas City, MO 64105
     Tel: (816) 472-3560
     Fax: (816) 421-2150
     Email: cspeer@speerlawfirm.com

            - and -

     Paul Byrd, Esq.
     Joseph Gates, Esq.
     PAUL BYRD LAW FIRM, PLLC
     415 N. McKinley St. Suite 210
     Little Rock, AR 72205
     Email: paul@paulbyrdlawfirm.com
            joseph@paulbyrdlawfirm.com

            - and -

     Mr. Jerry Kelly, Esq.
     KELLY LAW FIRM, P.A.
     P.O. Box 500
     Lonoke, AR 72086
     Email: jkelly@kellylawfirm.net


MORTGAGE LENDERS: "Charbonneau" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Beau Charbonneau, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, vs. Mortgage Lenders of America, LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-02062, (D. Kan., February 5, 2018),
seeks to recover minimum wage and/or overtime compensation,
compensatory and liquidated damages, attorney fees and other
relief pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and Kansas Wage
Payment Act.

Defendant is an online mortgage lender where Charbonneau worked
as a loan officer. He routinely worked over eight hours per day
and more than 40 hours per week. Defendant offset any minimum
wage payments to Plaintiff from his commissions. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Tracey F. George, Esq.
      Brett A. Davis, Esq.
      DAVIS GEORGE MOOK LLC
      1600 Genessee, Ste. 328
      Kansas City, MO 64102
      Tel. (816) 569-2629
      Fax (816) 447-3939
      Email: brett@dgmlawyers.com
             tracey@dgmlawyers.com


MP&L METAL: "Vazquez" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------
ARMANDO VAZQUEZ, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. MP&L METAL INC., and MOISES ROBLES,
the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-01436 (E.D.N.Y., Mar. 8, 2018),
seeks to recover unpaid wages and related damages for unpaid
overtime hours worked under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, throughout the course of Plaintiff's
employment, the Defendants failed to compensate Plaintiff with
overtime premiums for hours worked over 40 hours per workweek.
The Plaintiff is not exempt from the overtime pay requirements
under federal or state law. The Defendants have failed to monitor
and/or properly record the actual hours worked by Plaintiff.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Darren P.B. Rumack, Esq.
          THE KLEIN LAW GROUP
          39 Broadway Suite 1530
          New York, NY 10006
          Telephone: (212) 344 9022
          Facsimile: (212) 344 0301


NCSPLUS INC: "Shore" Disputes Collection Letter
-----------------------------------------------
Michael D. Shore, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. NCSPlus Incorporated,
Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-60222 (S.D. Fla., February 1, 2018),
seeks statutory damages, costs and attorney's fees pursuant to
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Defendant sought to collect an alleged consumer debt owed by
Shore over a medical bill. Defendant sent a collection letter to
Plaintiff that failed to notify him that he had 30 days from
receipt of the notice to dispute the validity of the debt. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Christopher Legg, Esq.
      CHRISTOPHER W. LEGG, P.A.
      499 E. Palmetto Park Rd., Ste. 228
      Boca Raton, FL 33432
      Telephone: (954) 235-3706
      Email: Chris@theconsumerlawyers.com


NISSAN NORTH: "Horne" Suit Moved to Northern Dist. of California
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JANELLE HORNE, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. NISSAN NORTH AMERICA,
INC. and NISSAN MOTOR CO. LTD., Defendants, No. 2:17-cv-00436-
MCE-DB (E.D. Cal.), Judge Morrison C. England, Jr., of the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of California granted the
Defendants' Motion for Change of Venue.

On Jan. 4, 2017, Plaintiff Horne filed a Class Action Complaint
against the Defendants in the Solano County Superior Court.  She
brings the action on behalf of herself and all persons who
purchased or leased in the State of California a model year 2008-
present Nissan or Infiniti vehicle, with a factory-installed
sunroof made of tempered glass.  The Defendants removed the case
to the Court under 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d), the Class Action
Fairness Statute, and the provisions of 28 U.S.C. Section 1453.

The Plaintiff leased a new 2016-model Infiniti QX80 SUV in
September 2016 from an Infiniti dealership in Fairfield,
California.  She was driving the leased vehicle onto the freeway
at less than 50 miles per hour when the vehicle's sunroof
shattered.  She took the car to a Nissan dealership, where she
alleges Nissan refused her warranty coverage, would not reimburse
her for costs of repair, and generally deflected any
responsibility for the incident.  At the time of the incident,
the Plaintiff's vehicle had fewer than 3,000 miles on the
odometer and was within its four-year basic warranty period.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants knew or should have
known about the defective sunroof in her vehicle as well as those
on vehicles sold or leased to other class members.  She further
alleges that the Defendants concealed or failed to disclose the
defects to her and the class members.

Horne seeks damages from the Defendants for violations of
California state law.  Specifically, Plaintiff seeks relief for:
(1) violations of the California False Advertising Law, (2) the
California Consumer Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"), (3) the
California Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), and (4) breach of
warranty.

On Feb. 1, 2017, Plaintiff Sherida Johnson filed a putative class
action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California.  The Johnson Plaintiff seeks relief for: (1)
violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act; (2) unjust
enrichment; (3) violation of UCL; (4) violation of the CLRA; and
(5) violation of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act.

For the federal claims in the action, the Johnson Plaintiff
brings her action on behalf of herself and, during the fullest
period allowed by law, all persons and entities residing in the
United States, including its territories, who purchased or leased
a Class Vehicle.  For the California-specific claims, the Johnson
Plaintiff brings the action on behalf of herself and, during the
fullest period allowed by law, all persons and entities residing
in California who purchased or leased a Class Vehicle in
California.

The Johnson Plaintiff defines "Class Vehicle" as including the
following models when equipped with the panoramic sunroof at
issue: model years 2008-present Nissan Altima, Maxima,
Pathfinder, Rogue, and Sentra; model years 2009-present Nissan
Murano; and model years 2011 to present Nissan Juke.  In her
complaint, the Johnson Plaintiff notes that she anticipates
amending the Class Vehicles definition upon Nissan identifying in
discovery all of its vehicles manufactured and sold with the
panoramic sunroof feature.

Pending before the Court is the Defendants' Motion for Change of
Venue, in which they request transfer of the case to the Northern
District of California under 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a) pursuant
to the so-called "first-to-file" rule.  The Plaintiff filed an
Opposition to the Defendants' Motion.

Judge England finds that the parties in the two actions are
substantially similar.  The issues in the two cases are also
substantially similar, justifying application of the first-to-
file rule in support of transfer to the Northern District of
California. Finally, he finds that finds that transfer is
warranted even if the first-to-file rule does not apply, because
the similarity of the issues and furtherance of judicial
efficiency weigh in support of transferring the case to the
Northern District of California.

For these reasons, Judge England granted the Defendants' Motion
to Transfer Venue.  He transferred the case to the Northern
District of California.  The Clerk of this Court is directed to
close the case.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 6, 2018 Memorandum and Order
is available at https://is.gd/Pe4CgT from Leagle.com.

Janelle Horne, Plaintiff, represented by Jeffery Robert Krinsk,
Finkelstein & Krinsk, LLP & Lauren Renee Presser, Finkelstein &
Krinsks LLP.

Nissan North America, Inc., Defendant, represented by William R.
Sampson -- wsampson@shb.com -- Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP, pro hac
vice, Andrew L. Chang -- achang@shb.com -- Shook, Hardy & Bacon
L.L.P. & Amir M. Nassihi -- anassihi@shb.com -- Shook Hardy and
Bacon LLP.


NLR CORNER: "Singh" Suit Seeks Minimum Wage, OT under Labor Code
----------------------------------------------------------------
JATINDER SINGH, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. RAJBEER KAUR, BALJINDER
SINGH AND LAKHWINDER SINGH, Individually and jointly d/b/a NLR
CORNER STORE; UNITED STAR, LLC d/b/a ECONOMY LIQUOR; BOPP LIQUOR
ON 9TH STREET, LLC; VEER AND TAJ, LLC d/b/a ACME LIQUOR;
2017 AAP DA BOPP, LLC d/b/a BOPP'S LIQUOR; and AAM AADMI LLC
d/b/a SKY ROAD GAS, the Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-00179-JLH
(E.D. Ark., Mar. 8, 2018), seeks declaratory judgment, monetary
damages, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest and costs,
including a reasonable attorney's fee as a result of Defendants'
failure to pay Plaintiff and other hourly-paid Convenience Store
Employees a minimum wage for all hours worked and proper overtime
compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week,
under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Arkansas Minimum Wage
Act, Ark. Code Ann. section 11-4-201, et seq.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel Ford, Esq.
          SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
          One Financial Center
          650 South Shackleford, Suite 411
          Little Rock, AR 72211
          Telephone: (501) 221 0088
          Facsimile: (888) 787 2040


NORTH AMERICAN: "McGhee" Stayed Pending Arbitration Appeal Ruling
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Anthony J. Battaglia of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California granted NAB's motion to stay
proceedings pending the Ninth Circuit's ruling on its appeal on
the Court's denial of its motion to compel mandatory arbitration
in the case, Gerald McGhee, Plaintiff, v. North American Bancard,
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 17-cv-0586-AJB-KSC (S.D. Cal.).

NAB argues (1) its appeal presents serious legal questions, (2)
it is likely to win on the merits, (3) public interest favors
staying proceedings, and (4) it will suffer irreparable harm
should the Court deny the stay.

Judge Battaglia finds that although NAB will have to incur some
litigation costs eventually, it will lose the benefit of its
arbitration agreement.  While he sympathizes with McGhee's
concerns about his age and his health, the Judge says it does not
balance the hardship NAB would have if the stay were denied and
NAB would have to litigate a class action lawsuit to trial
possibly before the Ninth Circuit ruled arbitration was
necessary.  Such a decision would be extremely burdensome on NAB,
and could lead to inconsistent judgments, which would take more
years and resources to sort out.

Finally, the Judge finds that the public has a greater interest
in the benefit of saving judicial resources through arbitration
than the possibility of future consumers being allegedly
affected.  Judicial resources will be wasted if the case proceeds
all the way to trial, only for the Court to later discover that
the case should have proceeded through arbitration.

Judge Battaglia concludes that a stay of proceedings while the
parties appeal to the Ninth Circuit is appropriate.  He ordered
the parties to file a short status report every 90 days on the
status of the case and the appeal.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 6, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/NGTRGr from Leagle.com.

Gerald McGhee, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Alex M. Tomasevic -
- atomasevic@nicholaslaw.org -- Nicholas and Tomasevic LLP, Craig
McKenzie Nicholas -- cnicholas@nicholaslaw.org -- Nicholas and
Tomasevic, Eric A. LaGuardia, LaGuardia Law & Shaun A. Markley --
smarkley@nicholaslaw.org -- Nicholas & Tomasevic LLP.

North American Bancard, LLC, Defendant, represented by Matthew
Murray, Michelman & Robinson LLP & Peter L. Steinman --
psteinman@mrllp.com -- Michelman & Robinson LLP.


NORTHSTAR ALARM: Freeman Sues Over Illegal Collection Calls
-----------------------------------------------------------
Randall Freeman and Karen Freeman, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Northstar Alarm
Services, LLC (d/b/a Northstar Home, Northstar Connected Home,
Northstar Alarm, Northstar Home Automation and Northstar Alarm
Services), Defendant, Case No. 18-at-00250 (C.D. Cal., February
1, 2018), seeks statutory damages, injunctive relief and any
other relief for violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act.

Northstar provides various home security services, often provided
on credit or through monthly payments. Sometime in 2013, Mr.
Freeman purchased a security systems for his home from Northstar.
Said security system had not worked properly due to incorrect
installment. Freeman called Defendant to inform them that he was
canceling his security agreement. Despite this, Northstar
continued to charge his bank account and continued to make
collection calls for his alleged past due payments that were
incurred after the subscription was canceled. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
      Jason A. Ibey, Esq.
      Nicholas Barthel, Esq.
      KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
      245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1
      Costa Mesa, CA 92626
      Telephone: (800) 400-6808
      Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
      Email: ak@kazlg.com
             jason@kazlg.com
             nicholas@kazlg.com.


PANAGIRI INC: Hernandez Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code
-----------------------------------------------------------
SERGIO HERNANDEZ, an individual on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated and aggrieved employees, the Plaintiff,
v. PANAGIRI, INC. A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION doing business as
PACO'S MEXICAN RESTAURANT, and Does 1-100, the Defendant, Case
No. BC697365 (Cal. Super. Ct., Mar. 9, 2018), seeks to recover
unpaid wages under the California Labor Code.

Th Plaintiff has brought this action, pursuant to Code of Civil
Procedure section 382, on behalf of Plaintiff Class of current
and former non-exempt hourly employees of Defendants. For at
least three years prior to filing of this action and through the
present, Plaintiff is informed and believes that Defendants have
violated the California Labor Code and applicable California Wage
Orders in the manners alleged. For at least years prior to the
filing of this action and through the present, Plaintiff is
informed and believes that Defendants have violated California
Business & Professions Code.

According to the lawsuit, the Defendants' systematic violations
of the California Labor Code and the Business & Professions Code
include: (i) failure to pay all wages due; (ii) failure to
authorize and permit meal and rest periods; (iii) failure to pay
timely wages both during employment and upon separation from
employment; (iv) failure to issue compliant itemized wage
statements; and (v) unfair competition. Furthermore, Defendant
has violated minimum wage and overtime wage laws based on its
failure to pay wages according to Los Angeles County Minimum Wage
Laws in effect as of July 1, 2017. Defendant has failed and
continues to fail to pay $12.00/hr and the overtime wage premiums
based on this County-required minimum wage rate.

Ganahl Lumber provides quality hardware, lumber and building
materials for professional contractors and homeowners throughout
Southern California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alan L. Schimmel, Esq.
          Michael W. Parks, Esq.
          Arya Rhodes, Esq.
          SCHIMMEL & PARKS, APLC
          15303 Ventura Blvd., Suite 650
          Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
          Telephone: (818) 464 5061
          Facsimile: (818) 464 5091

               - and -

          David G. Torres-Siegrist, Esq.
          Shawna S. Nazari, Esq.
          TORRES SIEGRIST
          225 S. Lake Avenue Suite 300
          Pasadena, CA 91101
          Telephone: (626) 432 5460
          Facsimile: (626) 446 8927


PD PRODUCTS: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages & OT, Rodriguez Says
------------------------------------------------------------
TERESA RODRIGUEZ, an individual, on behalf of herself and others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. PD PRODUCTS, LLC, a
Delaware limited liability corporation; BARRETT BUSINESS
SERVICES, INC., a Maryland company; and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. BC696719 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
Mar. 9, 2018), seeks to recover minimum wages and overtime pay
under the California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the Defendants required Plaintiff and
the Employees to work off the clock and failed to record accurate
time worked by these Employees, including by rounding hours
worked to the nearest quarter-hour to their detriment, failed to
pay them for all hours worked, and provided Plaintiff and the
Class members with inaccurate wage statements that prevented
Plaintiff and the Class from learning of these unlawful pay
practices. Defendants also failed to provide Plaintiff and the
Class with lawful meal and rest periods, as employees were not
provided with the opportunity to take timely, uninterrupted, and
duty-free meal periods and were not authorized and permitted to
take certain rest breaks as required by the Labor Code.

PD Products is a DOT registered motor carrier located in
Chatsworth, CA.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Yeremian, Esq.
          Alvin B. Lindsay, Esq.
          DAVID YEREMIAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
          535 N. Brand Blvd., Suite 705
          Glendale, CA 1203
          Telephone: (818) 230 8380
          Facsimile: (818) 230 0308
          E-mail: david@yeremianlaw.com
                  alvin@yeremianlaw.com


PERSONNEL STAFFING: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages & OT, Arias Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
VALERIE ARIAS FKA VALERIE MARTINEZ, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. PERSONNEL
STAFFING GROUP, LLC, a Florida limited liability company; QUEST
NUTRITION, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, and DOES 1
through 20, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. (S.D. Fla., Mar.
8, 2018), seeks to recover minimum wages and overtime wages under
California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, Personnel Staffing Group, LLC, is an
employment staffing agency. Quest Nutrition, LLC, is in the
business of manufacturing, distributing, and selling nutrition
products. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants engaged in a
systematic pattern of wage and hour violations under the
California Labor Code and Industrial Welfare Commission Wage
Orders, all of which contribute to Defendants' deliberate unfair
competition.

The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have increased their
profits by violating state wage and hour laws by, among other
things: (a) failing to pay all wages (including minimum wages and
overtime wages); (b) failing to provide lawful meal periods or
compensation in lieu thereof; (c) failing to authorize or permit
lawful rest breaks or provide compensation in lieu thereof; (d)
failing to provide accurate itemized wage statements; and failing
to pay all wages due upon separation of employment.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kashif Haque, Esq.
          Samuel A. Wong, Esq.
          Jessica L. Campbell, Esq.
          Simon Kwak, Esq.
          AEGIS LAW FIRM, PC
          9811 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 100
          Irvine, CA 92618
          Telephone: (949) 379 6250
          Facsimile: (949) 379 6251


PESSCO LLC: "Valdez" Suit Seeks Overtime Wages under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------
ARTURO VALDEZ, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. PESSCO, LLC d/b/a PRODUCTION
EQUIPMENT SALES & SERVICES and GEN-NAN RESOURCES & EQUIPMENT,
L.P., the Defendants, Case No. 4:18-cv-00734 (S.D. Tex., Mar. 8,
2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages
and attorneys' fees and costs from Defendant pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants are in the business of selling oil and gas
equipment and supplies, as well as welding services to the oil
and gas industry; it does business in the territorial
jurisdiction of this Court. Though Defendants labeled Valdez as a
welder and a shop foreman/working foreman, Plaintiff's job duties
were primarily manual labor in nature, welding and fabrication,
requiring little to no official training, much less managerial
skill or power. The Plaintiff's job duties included welding and
fabrication of oil and gas machinery and equipment.

The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants from approximately March
2011 to January 2018. During Valdez's employment with Defendants,
he was engaged in commerce or the production of goods for
commerce. During Valdez's employment with Defendants, the company
had employees engaged in commerce or in the production of goods
for commerce or had employees handling, selling or otherwise
working on goods or materials that had been moved in or produced
for commerce by others. During Valdez's employment with
Defendants, the company had an annual gross volume of sales made
or business done of at least $500,000. Defendants paid Valdez on
an hourly basis. During Valdez's employment with Defendants, he
regularly worked in excess of forty hour per week.

The Defendants knew or reasonably should have known that Valdez
worked in excess of forty hours per week. The Defendants did not
pay Valdez overtime "at a rate not less than one and one-half
times the regular rate at which [he was] employed." Instead,
Defendants paid Valdez at his straight time rate for each hour
worked over forty in a workweek. In other words, Defendants paid
Valdez for his overtime at a rate less than one and one-half
times the regular rate at which he was in employed in violation
of the FLSA.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PLY GEM: Lowinger Balks at Merger Deal with Clayton
---------------------------------------------------
ROBERT LOWINGER, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. PLY GEM INDUSTRIES, INC.,
FREDERICK J. ISEMAN, MARY K. RHINEHART, JANICE E. STIPP,
JEFFREY T. BARBER, TIMOTHY T. HALL, JOHN FORBES, MICHAEL P.
HALEY, GARY E. ROBINETTE, and JOOST F. THESSELING, the
Defendants, Case No. 2018-0163 (Del. Chancery Ct., Mar. 8, 2018),
seeks to enjoin Defendants from taking any steps to consummate a
proposed merger transaction unless the appropriate disclosures
are made, or, in the event the Proposed Transaction is
consummated, to recover damages.

The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of the public
stockholders of Ply Gem Industries, Inc., against the Company and
its Board of Directors, seeking equitable relief for their
breaches of fiduciary duty and other violations of state law
arising out of a proposed transaction in which non-parties
Clayton, Dubliner & Rice, LLC and its wholly-owned merger
subsidiaries Pisces Midco, Inc., and Pisces Merger Sub, Inc. seek
to acquire all of the outstanding shares of Ply Gem common stock
for approximately $2.4 billion, by means of a flawed and unfair
process and for $21.64 per share in cash.

As alleged, both the value to Ply Gem's shareholders contemplated
in the Proposed Transaction and the process undertaken by the
Board to consummate the Proposed Transaction are fundamentally
unfair to Plaintiff and the other public shareholders of the
Company. Despite the Board's clear duty to maximize shareholder
value in this change of control transaction, the Board utterly
failed to do so. Indeed, the Board entered into a Merger
Agreement that contained preclusive deal protection devices that
unreasonably deters other bidders from seeking to acquire the
Company. All of this was undertaken at a time when the Company
was poised for growth.

The Individual Defendants breached their fiduciary duties to Ply
Gem's stockholders on February 14, 2018, when they caused the
materially misleading and incomplete Form PREM14C Preliminary
Information Statement to be filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission. Intended to assuage minority stockholders of
the Company and convince them of the fairness of the Proposed
Transaction and presumably dissuade them from seeking appraisal
of their shares, the Information Statement fails to include
material information concerning the terms of confidentiality
agreements that may foreclose superior proposals for the Company,
potential conflicts of interests on the part of the Company's
financial advisor, Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC, and the
Company's financial projections.

Ply Gem manufactures and sells various products for the
residential and commercial construction, manufactured housing,
and remodeling and renovation markets in the United States and
Canada. Its Siding, Fencing and Stone segment offers vinyl siding
and skirting; steel siding; vinyl and aluminum soffits.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          R. Joseph Hrubiec, Esq.
          NAPOLI SHKOLNIK, LLC
          919 N. Market Street, Suite 1801
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 330 8025
          E-mail: RHrubiec@NapoliLaw.com

               - and -

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


PROFESSIONAL RADIOLOGY: Renewed Bid to Dismiss "Jackson" Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Barbara Jackson, Plaintiff, v. Professional
Radiology Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:15cv587 (S.D.
Ohio), Judge Michael R. Barrett of the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Ohio, Western Division, denied the
Defendants' Renewed Motion to Dismiss.

The Plaintiff brought the class action, on behalf of herself and
others similarly situated, against Defendants Professional
Radiology, M.D. Business Solutions, Inc., and Controlled Credit
Corporation.  Jackson asserted eight claims for damages: (1)
breach of contract, (2) breach of third-party beneficiary
agreement, (3) a violation of Ohio's Consumer Sales Practices
Act, (4) a violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act,
(5) common law fraud, (6) conversion, (7) unjust enrichment, and
(8) punitive damages.

In November of 2015, Defendants M.D. Business Solutions and
Professional Radiology filed a Motion to Dismiss under Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure 8, 12(b)(6) and 23.  On Sept. 30, 2016,
the Court entered a final judgment when it granted the
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and Judgment on the Pleadings.  In
response, on Oct. 14, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a Notice of
Appeal to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.

On July 21, 2017, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the
Court's granting of the Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the
Pleadings, but reversed the granting of the Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss.  Following this decision, on Aug. 4, 2017, Defendants
M.D. Business Solutions and Professional Radiology filed a
Renewed Motion to Dismiss.  However, the Sixth Circuit Court of
Appeals did not issue its Mandate until Aug. 14, 2017.

The Plaintiff argues that by filing the Renewed Motion to Dismiss
prior to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals issuing its Mandate,
the Court lacked jurisdiction to rule on it.

Judge Barrett denied the Defendants' Renewed Motion to Dismiss,
explaining that the filing of a notice of appeal is an event of
jurisdictional significance -- it confers jurisdiction on the
court of appeals and divests the district court of its control
over those aspects of the case involved in the appeal.  The
district court only regains jurisdiction upon the conclusion of
the appeal through the issuance of a mandate.

A mandate is the document by which the Court relinquishes
jurisdiction and authorizes the originating court or agency to
enforce the Court's judgment, and formally represents the end of
the appeal.  The mandates take effect on the date they are
issued, but not before.  Until this formality occurs, the
district court cannot proceed in the interim.  Therefore, the
Court did not regain jurisdiction over matters involved in the
appeal until the Mandate was issued on Aug. 14, 2017.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 6, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/yPVdBW from Leagle.com.

Barbara Jackson, Plaintiff, represented by Charles David Ewing,
Ewing & Willis PLLC, Gary Francis Franke & Michael Dillon O'Neill
-- mdoneill@martinsquires.com.

Professional Radiology Inc & M.D. Business Solutions, Inc.,
Defendants, represented by Benjamin G. Dusing --
bdusing@ficlaw.com --Faruki Ireland Cox Rhinehart & Dusing PLL,
Stephen A. Weigand -- sweigand@ficlaw.com -- Faruki Ireland Cox
Rhinehart & Dusing PLL & Zachary S. Heck -- zheck@ficlaw.com --
Faruki, Ireland & Cox PLL.

Controlled Credit Corporation, Defendant, represented by David B.
Shaver, Surdyk, Dowd & Turner Co., L.P.A. & Jeffrey Charles
Turner, Surdk Dowd & Turner Co., L.P.A..


PROGRESSIVE TRANS: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages, Posada Says
----------------------------------------------------------
GUILLERMO POSADA, an individual, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. PROGRESSIVE
TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, LLC; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive,
the Defendants, Case No. BC697554 (Cal. Super. Ct., Mar. 9,
2018), seeks to recover minimum wages and all wages upon
separation under the California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the Defendants employed Plaintiff and
Class members as drivers to perform drayage trucking services out
of ports in Long Beach and Oakland, among others. The Defendants
paid Plaintiff and Class members on a piece rate, per-load basis.
Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff and the Class minimum wages
for all time worked, failed to compensate for rest breaks, failed
to reimburse business expenses, failed to pay all wages on
separation, and engaged in other labor code violations and unfair
business practices. The Plaintiff seeks to represent all current
or former California drivers for Defendants' who were
misclassified as "independent contractors" in connection with
these wage and hour violations.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joshua H. Haffner, Esq.
          Graham Lambert, Esq.
          HAFFNER LAW PC
          445 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2325
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 514 5681
          Facsimile: (213) 514 5682
          E-mail: jhh@haffherlawyers.com
                  gl@haffnerlawyers.com


PUEBLOS RESTAURANT: Fails to Pay Overtime, Sanchez Says
-------------------------------------------------------
ARTURO SANCHEZ, as an individual and on behalf of others
similarly situated, and MANUEL VENEGAS, as an individual and
on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v.
PUEBLOS RESTAURANT, INC. dba Casa Torres, a California
corporation, and DOES 1-50, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No.
BC697241 (Cal. Super. Ct., Mar. 8, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid
premium wages for missed meal breaks, rest breaks, wages,
inaccurate itemized wage statements and wages upon termination.
Statutory penalties, restitution, declaratory and injunctive
relief, attorneys' fees and costs, prejudgment interest and other
relief under California Industrial Welfare Commission and the
California Labor Code.

The Plaintiff brings this class action on behalf of all non-
exempt employees employed by Defendant that worked at Pueblo
Restaurant, Inc. dba Casa Torres and, DOES 1-50 in California
from four years from the date of filing this complaint through
the date of trial in this action. The Defendant violated
California law by preventing Class Members from taking their
11 entitled rest breaks, meal breaks, accurate itemized wage
statements, wages upon termination, and waiting time penalties
upon termination. During the Class Period, Defendants had a
consistent policy and/or practice of (1) failing to provide Class
Members with adequate off-duty meal periods at least one half
hour.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


QUINSTREET INC: Turner Sues over Spam Text
------------------------------------------
JENNIFER TURNER, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. QUINSTREET, INC. d/b/a Schools.com, a
Delaware corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-01486-JSC
(N.D. Cal., Mar. 8, 2018), seeks to recover damages arising from
Defendant's unlawful practice of sending Plaintiff text (SMS)
messages without his consent, in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

The Defendant sent commercial text messages to the mobile
cellular telephones of Plaintiff and the Class. The Defendant
used an ATDS to send commercial text messages to the mobile
cellular telephones of Plaintiff and the Class. The Defendant did
not obtain express written consent prior to sending commercial
text messages to Plaintiff or the Class. The Defendant did not
"clearly and conspicuously" disclose the "seller" on whose behalf
the text messages were sent, in violation of 47 CFR section
64.1200(f)(8). The Defendant did not provide to Plaintiff or the
Class the disclosures required by the FCC concerning the use of
an ATDS.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Putative Class:

          Michael Aschenbrener, Esq.
          KAMBERLAW LLP
          401 Center St, Suite 111
          Healdsburg, CA 95448
          Telephone: (212) 920 3072
          Facsimile: (212) 202 6364
          E-mail: masch@kamberlaw.com


RADIOSHACK CORP: 5th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of "Singh" ERISA Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MANOJ P. SINGH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. RADIOSHACK
CORPORATION; JAMES F. GOOCH; JOSEPH C. MAGNACCA; MARTIN O. MOAD;
ROBERT E. ABERNATHY; FRANK J. BELATTI; JULIA A. DOBSON; DANIEL R.
FEEHAN; H. EUGENE LOCKHART; JACK L. MESSMAN; THOMAS G. PLASKELL;
EDWINA D. WOODBURY; ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE OF THE RADIOSHACK
401(K) PLAN; ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE OF THE RADIOSHACK PUERTO
RICO 1165(E) PLAN; RADIOSHACK 401(K) PLAN EMPLOYEE BENEFITS
COMMITTEE; RADIOSHACK PUERTO RICO PLAN EMPLOYEE BENEFITS
COMMITTEE; DOES 1-10, inclusive; JUSTIN JOHNSON; WELLS FARGO
BANK, N.A.; MARK BARFIELD; BANCO POPULAR DE PUERTO RICO; KARINA
DAVIS; ERIC HALES; MICHAEL E. KEYSER; KEVIN KRAUTKRAMER; SRI
REDDY; BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF RADIOSHACK, Defendants-Appellees.
JEFFREY SNYDER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. RADIOSHACK CORPORATION;
JAMES F. GOOCH; JOSEPH C. MAGNACCA; MARTIN O. MOAD; ROBERT E.
ABERNATHY; FRANK J. BELATTI; JULIA A. DOBSON; DANIEL R. FEEHAN;
H. EUGENE LOCKHART; JACK L. MESSMAN; THOMAS G. PLASKELL; EDWINA
D. WOODBURY; ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE OF THE RADIOSHACK 401(K)
PLAN; ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE OF THE RADIOSHACK PUERTO RICO
1165(E) PLAN; RADIOSHACK 401(K) PLAN EMPLOYEE BENEFITS COMMITTEE;
RADIOSHACK PUERTO RICO PLAN EMPLOYEE BENEFITS COMMITTEE; DOES 1-
10, inclusive, Defendants-Appellees. WILLIAM A. GERHART, On
Behalf of Himself and the RadioShack 401(k) Plan and the
RadioShack Puerto Rico 1165(e) Plan, and/or Alternatively on
Behalf of a Class Consisting of Similarly Situated Participants
and Beneficiaries of the Plans, Plaintiff-Appellant, v.
RADIOSHACK CORPORATION; THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE OF THE
RADIOSHACK 401(K) PLAN; ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE OF THE
RADIOSHACK PUERTO RICO 1165(E) PLAN; DOES 1-10, inclusive; THE
BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF RADIOSHACK; ROBERT E. ABERNATHY; FRANK J.
BELATTI; JULIA A. DOBSON; DANIEL R. FEEHAN; H. EUGENE LOCKHART;
JACK L. MESSMAN; THOMAS G. PLASKELL; EDWINA D. WOODBURY,
Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 16-11587 (5th Cir.), the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district
court's dismissal of all of the Plaintiffs' claims and the final
judgment entered.

The RadioShack 401(k) Plan allowed the participants to invest
their deferred salary or company match contributions in over 20
investment options.  The Plan had an employee stock ownership
plan that allowed participants to invest their retirement savings
in RadioShack stock, which was held in the RadioShack Stock Fund.
The Plan documents required that RadioShack be offered as an
investment option.  If the participants did not choose an
investment option, their contributions were placed in a default
age-appropriate mutual fund.

During the class period, RadioShack's stock price dropped from
$11.48 per share to pennies as the company experienced a
financial decline that culminated in Chapter 11 bankruptcy.  The
complaint describes RadioShack's demise at length, citing
numerous articles that document the company's descent from an
electronics powerhouse to an obsolete brick-and-mortar retailer.
The company's decline was accompanied by a series of poor annual
and quarterly financial results, including 11 consecutive
quarters of substantial net losses and significant drops in
income from year to year.

The three Named Plaintiffs in the putative class action filed
suit against the members of the Committee, the board of
directors, and the plan trustees.  They also sued the plan
administrative committee and trustees of the RadioShack Puerto
Rico 1165(e) Plan.  The district court consolidated the cases.
Shortly after Plaintiffs filed the class action complaint, they
settled with the trustees.

The district court granted Defendants' motion to dismiss the
first complaint but granted the Plaintiffs leave to file a second
amended complaint.  However, the district court concluded that
the second amended claim failed to state a cause of action and
dismissed all of the Plaintiffs' claims and entered final
judgment.  The Plaintiffs timely appealed.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants breached their
fiduciary duties under ERISA by allowing the Plan to invest in
RadioShack stock.  First, they claim that the Committee
Defendants breached the duty of prudence by failing to respond to
public information spelling RadioShack's financial ruin or
insider information suggesting RadioShack's stock was overvalued.
Second, they argue that all the Defendants violated the duty of
loyalty, some by owning RadioShack stock and others by not owning
it.  Third, the Plaintiffs argue that the Director Defendants
failed to monitor the Committee adequately.  The Plaintiffs
assert each of these claims in relation to both the Plan and the
Puerto Rico Plan.

The Appellate Court concludes that the complaint does not
plausibly state any fiduciary claims with respect to the Plan and
that the Plaintiffs do not have standing to bring claims
regarding the Puerto Rico Plan.  The Plaintiffs' public
information claims fail under the standard announced in Fifth
Third Bancorp v. Dudenhoeffer and that no special circumstances
warrant relief.  The Plaintiffs' complaint also fails to state a
plausible duty of loyalty claim and fails to make plausible
allegations that the Defendants failed to act in accordance with
these standards.

The Court also concludes that because the Committee did not
breach any duty to the Plan, the Plaintiffs' duty-to-monitor
claims against the Director Defendants collapse. Finally, because
the Plaintiffs have not alleged a concrete injury stemming from
the actions of the Puerto Rico Plan administrative committee
acting as such, the Court affirms the dismissal of their claims
related to that plan.

For these reasons, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the judgment of the
district court.

A full-text copy of the Fifth Circuit's Feb. 6, 2018 Order is
available at https://is.gd/mGUTpt from Leagle.com.

Howard Shapiro -- howshapiro@proskauer.com -- for Defendant-
Appellee.

Roger L. Mandel -- rlm@lhlaw.net -- for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Edward W. Ciolko -- eciolko@ktmc.com -- for Plaintiff-Appellant.

David I. Monteiro -- david.monteiro@morganlewis.com -- for
Defendant-Appellee.

Dennis J. Keithly -- dennis.keithly@yungkeithly.com -- for
Defendant-Appellee.

Justin Roel Chapa -- justin.chapa@morganlewis.com -- for
Defendant-Appellee.

Matthew Allen Russell -- marussell@morganlewis.com -- for
Defendant-Appellee.

Mark K. Gyandoh -- mgyandoh@ktmc.com -- for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Michael J. Klein -- mklein@ssbny.com -- for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Julie Siebert-Johnson -- jsjohnson@ktmc.com -- for Plaintiff-
Appellant.

Brian T. Ortelere -- brian.ortelere@morganlewis.com -- for
Defendant-Appellee.


ROBERTO'S RESTAURANT: Faces "Hasanaj" Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Roberto's
Restaurant Corp. The case is styled as Diamantino Hasanaj, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Roberto's Restaurant Corp. doing business as: Roberto's
Restaurant and Roberto Paciullo, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-
02108 (S.D. N.Y., March 8, 2018).

Roberto's Restaurant Corp. is an Italian Restaurant.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


SAILORMEN INC: "Allen" Labor Suit Seek Unpaid Overtime
------------------------------------------------------
Tito Allen, on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. Sailormen Inc., Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-00199,
(M.D. Fla., February 2, 2018), seeks to recover compensatory and
liquidated damages, attorney fees and other relief pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendant is a Popeye's Restaurant franchisee where Allen worked
as a back hand in their in Jacksonville store. He claims to have
worked in excess of 40 hours per week, usually for off-the-clock
work.

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SECURITY CREDIT: Faces "Rahman" Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Security Credit
Systems, Inc. The case is styled as Sharzil Rahman, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Security Credit Systems, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-01455
(E.D. N.Y., March 8, 2018).

Security Credit Systems Inc. was founded in 1983. The company's
line of business includes collection and adjustment services on
claims and other insurance related issues.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


SPACA INC: Faces Beane & Vine Wage-and-Hour Suit
------------------------------------------------
JAMES BEANE and KERRY VINE, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. SPACA, INC. (d/b/a
STAR PROTECTION AGENCY CA); and DOES 1-50, inclusive, the
Defendant, Case No. RG18896197 (Cal. Super. Ct., Mar. 8, 2018),
seeks to recover unpaid Pay for all hours worked under the
California Labor Code.

The Plaintiffs bring this class action on behalf of themselves
and other similarly situated individuals who work or worked for
SPACA, INC. as non-exempt employees to challenge Defendants'
violations of the California Labor Code. This is a class and
representative action against Defendants to challenge their
policies and practices of: (1) failing to authorize and permit
Plaintiffs and proposed Class members to take meal and rest
breaks to which they are entitled by law; (2) failing to pay
Plaintiffs and proposed Class members for all hours worked; (3)
failing to pay Plaintiffs and proposed Class members minimum
wage; (4) failing to pay Plaintiffs and proposed Class members
overtime and double time wages; (5) failing to provide Plaintiffs
and proposed Class members accurate, itemized wage statements;
(6) failing to timely pay Plaintiffs and proposed Class members
full wages upon termination or resignation; and (7) failing to
reimburse Plaintiffs and proposed Class members for necessary
business expenses.

The Plaintiffs and proposed Class members are current and former
hourly non-exempt employees who work for Defendants providing
security services to media crews, among other 21 individuals and
buildings, in California. Plaintiffs and proposed Class members
are routinely denied meal and rest periods. In addition,
Plaintiffs and proposed Class members often work over eight hours
in a shift and/or over forty hours in a week, but are not paid
for all of the hours they 24 work, and do not receive adequate
compensation in the form of minimum wage as well as overtime or
double time wages. Plaintiffs and proposed Class members also do
not receive accurate, itemized wage statements reflecting the
hours they actually work and the amount of wages and overtime
compensation to which they are entitled. Plaintiffs and proposed
Class members are not 2 paid all amounts owed following their
voluntary or involuntary termination. Finally, Plaintiffs and
proposed Class members are not reimbursed for necessary business
expenses.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Carolyn Hunt Cottrell, Esq.
          David C. Leimbach, Esq.
          Mira P. Karageorge, Esq.
          SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTIRELL
          KONECKY WOTKYNS LLP
          2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400
          Emeryville, CA 94608
          Telephone: (415) 421 7100
          Facsimile: (415) 421 7105


STATE FARM: Ct. Denies Bid for Summary Judgment in "Hale" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MARK HALE, TODD SHADLE, and LAURIE LOGER, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, EDWARD MURNANE,
and WILLIAM G. SHEPHERD, Defendants, Case No. 12-0660-DRH (S. D.
Ill.), Judge David R. Herndon of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Illinois denied the Defendants' motion for
summary judgment on grounds of Rooker-Feldman, res judicata, and
collateral estoppel.

Back in 2012, Plaintiffs Hale, Shadle and Morse, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, filed a two-count
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"),
class action complaint against the Defendants.  Count One alleged
violations of 18 U.S.C. Section 1962(c) and Count Two alleged
violations of 18 U.S.C. Section 1962(d) by conspiring to violate
18 U.S.C. Section 1962(c).

On Nov. 4, 2014, the Plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint
containing the same counts as the original complaint.   In
essence, the Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants secretly
recruited Judge Karmeier to run for an open seat on the Illinois
Supreme Court, where the Avery v. State Farm Mutual Automobile
Insurance Co. appeal against State Farm was pending; that the
Defendants organized and managed his campaign behind the scenes;
that the Defendants covertly funneled millions of dollars to
support his campaign through intermediary organizations over
which State Farm exerted considerable influence; and, after
Justice Karmeier was elected to the Illinois Supreme Court, the
Defendants obscured, concealed and misrepresented the degree and
nature of their support of Justice Karmeier so that Justice
Karmeier could participate in the Avery decisions.

Further, the Plaintiffs maintain that the Defendants' scheme
deprived them of their constitutionally-guaranteed right to be
judged by a tribunal uncontaminated by politics; that the
Plaintiffs did not have an opportunity during the state court
process to conduct the necessary discovery to uncover State
Farm's conduct and that their motions to recuse were summarily
denied and as a result Justice Karmeier participated in the Avery
decision and broke the deadlock when he voted to overturn the
judgment.

Before the Court is the Defendants' motion for summary judgment
on grounds of Rooker-Feldman, res judicata, and collateral
estoppel.  The Plaintiffs vigorously oppose the motion.  The
Defendants contend that the Court should grant summary judgment
in their favor under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, the doctrine of
res judicata and collateral estoppel.

Reviewing the record, Judge Herndon finds once again that that
the Rooker-Feldman doctrine does not apply to the case.  The case
boils down to a complete and different cause of action that does
not ask the Court to overturn or vacate the Illinois state court
judgment in Avery.  The Plaintiffs' federal claims allege
different injuries and different violations that are separate
from the Avery state court judgment.

The Judge also finds that neither res judicata nor collateral
estoppel apply in in the matter.  The petition to recall the
mandate was not a cause of action.  The Plaintiffs' RICO claims,
which were not raised in state court, did not accrue until State
Farm's 2011 mailing.  Further, there is no "identity of cause of
action" between Avery and this cause of action.  Clearly, these
are two separate causes of action that do not arise from the same
transactions or involve the same factual allegations.  Simply,
the Defendants' actions in the two cases are entirely different
and do not seek redress from the same wrong.

Similarly, the Judge finds that collateral estoppel does not
apply for the same reasons stated with regard to res judicata.
The issues decided in the Avery proceedings are not the same
issues raised in this litigation.  Therefore, the Defendants have
not met their burden of demonstrating that collateral estoppel
bars the Plaintiffs' claims.  Thus, the Judge will deny the
Defendants' motion for summary judgment based on res judicata and
collateral estoppel.

Accordingly, Judge Herndon denied the Defendants' motion for
summary judgment on grounds of Rooker-Feldman, res judicata, and
collateral estoppel.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 6, 2018 Memorandum and Order
is available at https://is.gd/f5qwEH from Leagle.com.

Illinois Chamber of Commerce, Objector, represented by August M.
Appleton, August Appleton - Attorney.

Mark Hale, Plaintiff, represented by Bradley M. Cosgrove --
BMC@CliffordLaw.com -- Clifford Law Offices PC, Charles F.
Barrett -- cbarrett@nealharwell.com -- Neal & Harwell, PLC, Kevin
P. Durkin -- KPD@CliffordLaw.com -- Clifford Law Offices PC,
Patrick W. Pendley -- pwpendley@pbclawfirm.com -- Pendley Law
Firm, Robert A. Clifford -- rclifford@CliffordLaw.com -- Clifford
Law Offices. P.C., Stephen A. Saltzburg, Stephen A. Saltzburg --
ssaltz@law.gwu.edu -- pro hac vice, W. Gordon Ball, Ball & Scott,
Brent W. Landau -- blandau@hausfeld.com -- Hausfeld LLP, David T.
Brown -- dbrown@muchshelist.com -- Much, Shelist et al. Cook
County, Elizabeth J. Cabraser -- ecabraser@lchb.com -- Lieff,
Cabraser et al., Erwin S. Chemerinsky --
echemerinsky@law.berkeley.edu -- University of California -
School of Law, pro hac vice, George S. Bellas -- george@bellas-
wachowski.com -- Clifford Law Offices P.C., Jeannine M. Kenney --
jkenney@hausfeld.com -- Hausfeld LLP, Jessica A. Perez --
jperez@pbclawfirm.com -- Pendley, Baudin & Coffin, L.L.P., John
(Don) W. Barrett -- dbarrett@barrettlawgroup.com -- Barrett Law
Group, Jonathan L. Loew -- jloew@muchshelist.com -- Much, Shelist
et al., Kevin Reid Budner -- kbudner@lchb.com -- Lieff, Cabraser
et al., Kristofer S. Riddle -- KSR@CliffordLaw.com -- Clifford
Law Offices PC, Lance K. Baker -- lkbakerlaw@gmail.com -- Gordon
Ball PLLC, Marcus Neil Bozeman -- bozemanmarcus@sbcglobal.net --
Thrash Law Firm PA, pro hac vice, Megan Elizabeth Jones --
mjones@hausfeld.com -- Hausfeld LLP, pro hac vice, Melinda R.
Coolidge -- mcoolidge@hausfeld.com -- Hausfeld LLP, Michael S.
Krzak -- MSK@CliffordLaw.com -- Clifford Law Offices. P.C.,
Nicholas R. Rockforte -- nrockforte@pbclawfirm.com -- Pendley,
Baudin & Coffin, L.L.P., Nimish Ramesh Desai -- ndesai@lchb.com -
- Lieff, Cabraser et al., Richard R. Barrett --
rrb@rrblawfirm.net -- Barrett Law Office, Richard M. Heimann --
rheimann@lchb.com -- Lieff, Cabraser et al., Robert J. Nelson --
rnelson@lchb.com -- Lieff, Cabraser et al., Robert P. Sheridan --
RPS@CliffordLaw.com -- Clifford Law Offices, Of Counsel, Shannon
M. McNulty -- SMM@CliffordLaw.com -- Clifford Law Offices, P.C.,
Steven P. Blonder -- sblonder@muchshelist.com -- Much, Shelist et
al., Cook County, Thomas P. Thrash, Thrash Law Firm PA, pro hac
vice & William P. Butterfield -- wbutterfield@hausfeld.com --
Hausfeld LLP.

Todd Shadle, Plaintiff, represented by Bradley M. Cosgrove,
Clifford Law Offices PC, Charles F. Barrett, Neal & Harwell, PLC,
Kevin P. Durkin, Clifford Law Offices PC, Patrick W. Pendley,
Pendley Law Firm, Robert A. Clifford, Clifford Law Offices. P.C.,
Stephen A. Saltzburg, Stephen A. Saltzburg, pro hac vice, W.
Gordon Ball, Ball & Scott, Brent W. Landau, Hausfeld LLP,
Elizabeth J. Cabraser, Lieff, Cabraser et al., Erwin S.
Chemerinsky, University of California - School of Law, pro hac
vice, George S. Bellas, Clifford Law Offices P.C., Jeannine M.
Kenney, Hausfeld LLP, John (Don) W. Barrett, Barrett Law Group,
Jonathan L. Loew, Much, Shelist et al., Kevin Reid Budner, Lieff,
Cabraser et al., Kristofer S. Riddle, Clifford Law Offices PC,
Lance K. Baker, Gordon Ball PLLC, Marcus Neil Bozeman, Thrash Law
Firm PA, pro hac vice, Megan Elizabeth Jones, Hausfeld LLP,
Melinda R. Coolidge, Hausfeld LLP, Michael S. Krzak, Clifford Law
Offices. P.C., Nimish Ramesh Desai, Lieff, Cabraser et al.,
Richard R. Barrett, Barrett Law Office, Richard M. Heimann,
Lieff, Cabraser et al., Robert J. Nelson, Lieff, Cabraser et al.,
Robert P. Sheridan, Clifford Law Offices- Of Counsel, Shannon M.
McNulty, Clifford Law Offices. P.C., Steven P. Blonder, Much,
Shelist et al. Cook County & Thomas P. Thrash, Thrash Law Firm
PA.

Laurie Loger, Plaintiff, represented by Bradley M. Cosgrove,
Clifford Law Offices PC, Kevin P. Durkin, Clifford Law Offices
PC, Robert A. Clifford, Clifford Law Offices. P.C., Stephen A.
Saltzburg, Stephen A. Saltzburg, pro hac vice, Elizabeth J.
Cabraser, Lieff, Cabraser et al., Erwin S. Chemerinsky,
University of California - School of Law, pro hac vice, George S.
Bellas, Clifford Law Offices P.C., Jeannine M. Kenney, Hausfeld
LLP, Jonathan L. Loew, Much, Shelist et al., Marcus Neil Bozeman,
Thrash Law Firm PA, pro hac vice, Megan Elizabeth Jones, Hausfeld
LLP, Melinda R. Coolidge, Hausfeld LLP, Nimish Ramesh Desai,
Lieff, Cabraser et al., Steven P. Blonder, Much, Shelist et al.
Cook County & W. Gordon Ball, Ball & Scott.

Mark Covington, Plaintiff, represented by Robert A. Clifford,
Clifford Law Offices. P.C., George S. Bellas, Clifford Law
Offices P.C., Jeannine M. Kenney, Hausfeld LLP, Jonathan L. Loew,
Much, Shelist et al., Marcus Neil Bozeman, Thrash Law Firm PA,
pro hac vice, Megan Elizabeth Jones, Hausfeld LLP, Melinda R.
Coolidge, Hausfeld LLP, Nimish Ramesh Desai, Lieff, Cabraser et
al., Steven P. Blonder, Much, Shelist et al. Cook County & W.
Gordon Ball, Ball & Scott.

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Defendant,
represented by Joseph A. Cancila, Jr. -- jcancila@rshc-law.com --
Riley Safer et al, Patrick D. Cloud -- pcloud@heylroyster.com --
Heyl, Royster et al., Ronald S. Safer -- rsafer@rshc-law.com --
Riley Safer et al, Harnaik Kahlon -- nkahlon@rshc-law.com --
Riley Safer et al, J. Timothy Eaton -- teaton@taftlaw.com -- Taft
Stettinius & Hollister, James P. Gaughan -- jgaughan@rshc-law.com
-- Riley Safer et al, Jonathan D. Parente --
jonathan.parente@alston.com -- Alston & Bird LLP, pro hac vice,
Jonathan M. Redgrave -- jredgrave@redgravellp.com -- Partner,
Redgrave LLP, Matthew C. Crowl -- mcrowl@rshc-law.com -- Riley
Safer et al, Michael P. Kenny -- mike.kenny@alston.com -- Alston
& Bird LLP, pro hac vice, Monica McCarroll --
MMcCarroll@redgravellp.com -- Redgrave LLP, pro hac vice,
Patricia B. Holmes -- pholmes@rshc-law.com -- Riley Safer et al &
Patricia T. Mathy -- pmathy@rshc-law.com -- Riley Safer et al.

Edward Murnane, Defendant, represented by Andrew Chinsky --
ACHINSKY@SIDLEY.COM -- Sidley Austin LLP, Karim Basaria --
KBASARIA@SIDLEY.COM -- Sidley Austin LLP, Patrick Edward Croke --
PCROKE@SIDLEY.COM -- Sidley Austin LLP & Paul E. Veith --
PVEITH@SIDLEY.COM -- Sidley Austin LLP.

William G Shepherd, Defendant, represented by Russell K. Scott --
rks@greensfelder.com -- Greensfelder, Hemker & Gale PC & Clark W.
Hedger -- ch1@greensfelder.com -- Greensfelder, Hemker & Gale,
PC.

Illinois State Bar Association, Stanley Tucker & April Troemper,
Movants, represented by Michael J. Nester, Donovan Rose Nester
PC.

Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois, Movant,
represented by Julie Fix Meyer -- jfixmeyer@armstrongteasdale.com
-- Armstrong Teasdale LLP.

Lloyd A Karmeier, Interested Party, represented by A. Courtney
Cox -- ccox@sandbergphoenix.com -- Sandberg, Phoenix et al. &
Anthony L. Martin -- amartin@sandbergphoenix.com -- Sandberg,
Phoenix et al.

Tillery Group, Interested Party, represented by J. William Lucco,
Lucco, Brown et al. & Joseph R. Brown, Jr., Lucco, Brown et al.

U.S. Chamber of Commerce & Institute for Legal Reform,
Intervenors, represented by Bobby Roy Burchfield --
bburchfield@kslaw.com -- King & Spalding, LLP, pro hac vice.


STRAUB MOTORS: "Wraith" Suit Seeks Unpaid Minimum Wage under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
GILBERT WRAITH, JR., and similarly situated individuals, the
Plaintiffs, v. STRAUB MOTORS, INC., and CHARLES F. STRAUB, III,
individually, Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-03420 (D.N.J., Mar. 9,
2018), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wage compensation,
liquidated damages, costs and reasonable attorneys' fees under
the Fair Labor Standards Act, and the New Jersey State Wage and
Hour Law.

According to the complaint, the Defendants did not properly
compensate Plaintiff, and those similarly situated employees, in
that Plaintiff and those similarly situated employees were being
paid less than minimum wages for their hours worked in a work
week. The Plaintiff Wraith was paid a salary of each and every
work week, regardless of the number that he worked. The Plaintiff
Wraith was paid approximately $250.00 per week from December,
2015, until in or about December, 2016, at which time he began
receiving approximately $350.00 per week.

The Plaintiff usually worked five days per workweek. The
Plaintiff routinely worked approximately from December, 2015,
until in or about December, 2016, 47 hours per week; and from
December, 2016, through in or about December, 2017, plaintiff
worked approximately 49 hours per workweek. Employees similarly
situated to Plaintiff, were also deprived of their minimum wages
for their hours worked in a workweek. The Defendants have engaged
in a widespread pattern, policy, and practice of violating the
FLSA and NJWHL, as described in this Complaint. The Plaintiff and
all similarly situated employees were performing their duties for
the benefit of and on behalf of Defendants.

Straub Motors sells automobiles and car accessories.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew I. Glenn, Esq.
          Jodi J. Jaffe, Esq.
          JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP, P.A.
          301 N. Harrison Street, Suite 9F, #306
          Princeton, NJ 08540
          Telephone: (201) 687 9977
          Facsimile: (201) 595 0308
          E-mail: AGlenn@JaffeGlenn.com
                  JJaffe@JaffeGlenn.com


STRAX WELLNESS: Sent Unsolicited SMS Ads, "Bravo" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jason Bravo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Strax Wellness Center, LLC (d/b/a Strax
Rejuvenation), Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-20426 (S.D. Fla.,
February 2, 2018), seeks injunctive relief prohibiting
unsolicited text message ads, statutory damages of $500.00 for
each and every text message, and such other relief under the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Strax operates a cosmetic surgery center in Florida. Plaintiff
alleges that Strax sent unsolicited text messages to his cellular
telephones using an autodialer. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
      SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
      14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 400
      Miami, FL 33132
      Tel: (305) 479-2299
      Email: efilings@shamisgentile.com


SUNRUN INC: Knapp Sues over Robocalls
-------------------------------------
SUSAN KNAPP, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. SUNRUN, INC., and DOES 1 through
10, inclusive, and each of them, the Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-
00509-MCE-AC (E.D. Cal., Mar. 8, 2018), seeks damages and any
other available legal or equitable remedies resulting from the
illegal actions of Defendant, in negligently, knowingly, and/or
willfully contacting Plaintiff on Plaintiff's cellular telephone
in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

According to the complaint, around August 2017, Defendant
contacted Plaintiff on Plaintiff's cellular telephone number
ending in -9870, in an attempt to solicit Plaintiff to purchase
Defendant's services. The Defendant used an "automatic telephone
dialing system" as defined by 47 U.S.C. section 227(a)(1) to
place its call to Plaintiff seeking to solicit its services. The
Defendant contacted or attempted to contact Plaintiff from
telephone number (925) 808-7569 confirmed to be Defendant's
number.

The Defendant's calls constituted calls that were not for
emergency purposes as defined by 47 U.S.C. section 227(b)(1)(A).
Defendant's calls were placed to telephone number assigned to a
cellular telephone service for which Plaintiff incurs a charge
for incoming calls. During all relevant times, Defendant did not
possess Plaintiff's "prior express consent" to receive calls
using an automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or
prerecorded voice on his cellular telephone pursuant to 47 U.S.C.
section 227(b)(1)(A).

Further, Plaintiff's cellular telephone number ending in -9870
was added to the National Do-Not-Call Registry on or about March
20, 2009. Defendant placed multiple calls soliciting its business
to Plaintiff on his cellular telephone ending in -9870 in or
around August 2017. Such calls constitute solicitation calls
pursuant to 47 C.F.R. section 64.1200(c)(2) as they were attempts
to promote or sell Defendant's services. The Plaintiff received
numerous solicitation calls from Defendant within a 12-month
period. The Defendant continued to call Plaintiff in an attempt
to solicit its services and in violation of the National Do-Not-
Call provisions of the TCPA.

Sunrun Inc. is a United States-based provider of residential
solar electricity, headquartered in San Francisco,
California.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

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


SUPREME KOURT: Violates Wage and Hour Law, Rodriguez Says
---------------------------------------------------------
LUIS RODRIGUEZ, the Plaintiff, v. SUPREME KOURT, LLC, and, STEVEN
KREIGER, individually, the Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-03303
(D.N.J., Mar. 8, 2018), seeks to recover damages including lost
earnings against Defendants for Defendants' violations of the
Fair Labor Standards Act, and the New Jersey State Wage and Hour
Law.

The Plaintiff performed work as a laborer, driving a pickup
truck, travelling with his co-workers to various jobs, which
consisted of construction, surfacing, and maintenance of sports
courts, i.e. tennis courts, basketball courts, volleyball courts,
throughout New Jersey and neighboring states. Defendants are
therefore within the jurisdiction and venue of this Court.

The Plaintiff and those similarly situated employees worked in
interstate commerce, i.e., using the tools and products, which
moved through interstate channels so as to produce an end product
for Defendants' consumers. Thus, Plaintiff and those similarly
situated employees fall within FLSA's protections.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew I. Glenn, Esq.
          Jodi J. Jaffe, Esq.
          JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP, P.A.
          301 N. Harrison Street, Suite 9F, No. 306
          Princeton, NJ 08540
          Telephone: (201) 687 9977
          Facsimile: (201) 595 0308
          E-mail: AGlenn@JaffeGlenn.com
                  JJaffe@JaffeGlenn.com


SYNERGY HEMATOLOGY: Avoyan Seeks Overtime Pay under Labor Code
--------------------------------------------------------------
SILVA AVOYAN, as an individual and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. SYNERGY HEMATOLOGYONCOLOGY
MEDICAL ASSOCIATES, INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1
through 50, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. BC697578 (Cal.
Super. Ct., Mar. 9, 2018), challenges the systemic illegal
employment practices resulting in violations of the California
Labor Code against employees of Defendants.

The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants jointly and severally have
acted intentionally and with deliberate indifference and
conscious disregard to the rights of all employees by failing to
pay overtime for all hours in excess of hours in a day and/or 40
hours in a workweek.

Synergy Hematology provides care for patients with cancer and
diseases of the blood. It provides services in the areas of
cancer screening, outpatient infusions, hematology-oncology,
transfusion -- free medicine, HIV/AIDS, infectious disease,
internal medicine, and urology.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Majed Dakak, Esq.
          KESSELMAN BRANTLY STOCKINGER LLP
          1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 690
          Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
          Telephone: (310) 307 4555
          Facsimile: (310) 307 4570
          E-mail: mdakak@kbslaw.com

               - and -

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


TARGET CORP: Fails to Pay Wages, dela Cruz Claims
-------------------------------------------------
ARMANDO DE LA CRUZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. TARGET CORPORATION and DOES
1 through 100, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. 37-2018-
00011389-CU-OE-CTL (Cal. Super. Ct., Mar. 6, 2018), challenges
Defendant's systemic unlawful employment practices resulting in
violations of the California Labor Code, applicable regulations,
and California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"). Specifically,
Defendant's policies and practices force employees to routinely
remain under the control of Defendant during purported "rest
breaks". As such, Defendant's policies and practices result in
widespread violations of California's law.

The Defendant is a large retailer that sells everyday essentials
-- from toiletries to electronics -- to consumers. Defendant
primarily staffs its stores with non-exempt employees. These non-
exempt employees are subjected to Defendant's uniform employment
policies, including those that violate California labor law. The
Defendant engages in a policy and practice of providing purported
rest breaks to Plaintiff and Class Members where Defendant does
not actually relinquish control over Plaintiff and the Class
Members. As a matter of policy Plaintiff and Class Members are
uniformly not permitted to leave "Target property" during their
rest breaks, under any circumstances whatsoever. Plaintiff and
the Class, specifically, were denied the opportunity to take
legally mandated rest breaks because they were required to remain
subject to Defendant's prohibition against leaving company
property and were thereby denied the freedom to use their breaks
in a manner they saw fit.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stanley D. Saltzman, Esq.
          Cody R. Kennedy, Esq.
          MARLIN & SALTZMAN, LLP
          29800 Agoura Rd. Suite 210
          Agoura Hills, CA 91301
          Telephone: (818) 991 8080
          Facsimile: (818) 991 8081
          E-mail: ssaltzman@marlinsaltzman.com
                  ckennedy@marlinsaltzman.com

               - and -

          Emil Davtyan, Esq.
          DAVTYAN, PLC
          21900 Burbank Boulevard, Suite 300
          Woodland Hills, CA 91367
          Telephone: (818) 992 2935
          Facsimile: (818) 975 5525
          E-mail: Emil@davtyanlaw.com


TELSTAR CABLE: "Siciliano" Suit Seeks Overtime Wages under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
DOMINIC SICILIANO, CODY RITCHIE, On behalf of themselves and
other similarly situated employees, the PLAINTIFFS, v. TELSTAR
CABLE COMMUNICATIONS, INC., JAMES COLLINS & DAWN COLLINS, the
Defendants, Case No. 4:18-cv-00653-RBH (D.S.C., Mar. 8, 2018),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages declaratory relief,
liquidated damages, attorney's fees, and taxable costs of court
under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The class that Plaintiffs seek to represent may be described as
follows: All current and former installers of Telstar Cable
Communications, Inc., and James and Dawn Collins or equivalent
titles, who (1) installed cable for customers and (2) who worked
more than 40 hours per week without receiving payment for
overtime at one and one half times their regular rate of pay, and
(3) who received less than minimum wage from the Defendant(s) for
their work for some hours, days or weeks based on the Defendants'
use of "charge backs."

The Plaintiffs seek to represent only those members who, after
appropriate notice of their ability to opt-in to this action,
have provided consent in writing to be represented by Plaintiffs'
counsel as required by 29 U.S.C. section 216(b). [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William J. Luse, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF WILLIAM J. LUSE
          917 Broadway Street
          Myrtle Beach, SC 29577
          Telephone: (843) 839 4795
          Facsimile: (843) 839 4815
          E-mail: Bill@Getlusenow.com


TOWN SPORTS: Pisarri Sues Over Denied Gym Membership Access
-----------------------------------------------------------
Carly Pisarri and Aubily Remus Jasmin, Plaintiffs, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. Town Sports
International, LLC And Town Sports International Holdings, Inc.
(d/b/a New York Sports Clubs, Boston Sports Clubs, Washington
Sports Clubs And Philadelphia Sports Clubs), Defendants, Case No.
650509/2018 (N.Y. Sup., February 1, 2018), seeks declaratory,
injunctive and monetary relief for violation of General Business
Law, D.C. Consumer Protection Procedures Act, Pennsylvania Unfair
Trade Practices & Consumer Protection Law and Mass. Consumer
Protection Act.

New York Sports Clubs is a gym club chain owned and operated by
Town Sports International, LLC and/or Town Sports International
Holdings, Inc., which also own and operate Boston Sports Clubs,
Washington Sports Clubs and Philadelphia Sports Clubs. Plaintiffs
are members of the said club who claims they were denied access
to certain gym locations despite what was agreed upon in their
membership contract. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      David E. Gottlieb, Esq.
      Taylor J. Crabill, Esq.
      85 Fifth Avenue
      New York, NY 10003
      Telephone: (212) 257-6800
      Facsimile: (212) 257-6845
      Email: dgottlieb@wigdorlaw.com
             tcrabill@wigdorlaw.com


TRANSPORTATION MEDIA: Bid to Remand TJF Services Suit Denied
------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Louise W. Flanagan of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of North Carolina, Western Division, denied the
Plaintiffs' corrected motion to remand the case, TJF SERVICES,
INC. d/b/a CAPE FEAR FLOORING & RESTORATION; CHAPPELL CREATIVE,
INC.; RUSTY ALLEN INSURANCE, LLC; and CHRIS HERRMAN, Plaintiffs,
v. TRANSPORTATION MEDIA, INC. d/b/a BENCH CRAFT COMPANY, an
Oregon corporation, Defendant, Case No. 5:17-CV-626-FL (E.D.
N.C.).

The Plaintiffs filed the putative class action in Wake County
Superior Court on Oct. 16, 2017, estimating the class size in the
case to be over 1,000 North Carolina individuals and companies.
The Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief, monetary damages including
punitive damages, and restitution arising from unfair and
deceptive conduct in the marketing and sale of advertising on
golf courses to businesses in North Carolina, in violation of
North Carolina General Statutes Section 75.1.1, et seq.  They
served their complaint on the Defendant on Oct. 19, 2017.

On Dec. 19, 2017, the Defendant filed a notice of removal to this
court, asserting that the action may be removed because the
action involves a controversy between citizens of different
states and based on information and belief, the amount in
controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs.

On Jan. 4, 2018, the Plaintiffs filed the instant corrected
motion to remand, arguing in part the Defendant has failed to
plead or establish the amount in controversy.  Specifically, they
argue in part that the class suit does not meet the
jurisdictional requirements under the Class Action Fairness Act
("CAFA") pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d)(2), which requires
that the amount in controversy exceed $5,000,000.  They
additionally contend that the Defendant failed to file its notice
of removal within 30 days of receipt of their complaint.

The Defendant filed a response on Jan. 18, 2018, arguing the
Court has traditional diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28
U.S.C. Section 1332.  On Jan. 23, 2018, the Plaintiffs filed a
reply.

Judge Flanagan finds that the Plaintiffs do not challenge the
Defendant's claim that the amount in dispute exceeds $75,000,
only that the amount in dispute exceeds $5,000,000.  Therefore,
the Judge holds the amount in controversy requirement satisfied
as required under traditional diversity jurisdiction.

The Judge also holds that the 30-day time period for removal
began when the Defendant received indication that the amount of
controversy in the case exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interests
and costs.  Accordingly, removal was timely under 28 U.S.C.
1446(b).

Finally, the Judge finds that the Plaintiffs do not contend that
the diversity requirement is lacking in the case.  According to
submissions by the Defendant, the Plaintiffs are citizens of
North Carolina.  Therefore the parties are diverse, and all
requirements for diversity jurisdiction are met.

Based on the foregoing, Judge Flanagan denied the Plaintiffs'
corrected motion to remand.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 6, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/gbBW4U from Leagle.com.

TJF Services, Inc, d/b/a Cape Fear Flooring & Restoration,
Chappell Creative, Inc., Rusty Allen Insurance, LLC & Chris
Herrman, Plaintiffs, represented by Aaron C. Hemmings --
ahemmings@hemmingsandstevens.com -- Hemmings & Stevens, PLLC &
Kelly Ann Stevens -- kstevens@hemmingsandstevens.com -- Hemmings
& Stevens, PLLC.

Transportation Media, Inc., d/b/a Bench Craft Company, an Oregon
corporation, Defendant, represented by Jonathan Wellons Anderson
-- lawyer@lawofficejwa.com -- The Law Office of Jonathan W.
Anderson, PLLC.


TRIFECTA JLS: "Martin" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code
---------------------------------------------------------------
DAYNA MARTIN, an individual and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. TRIFECTA JLS I, INC., a Delaware
20 II corporation; TRIFECTA MANAGEMENT GROUP, INC., a Delaware
corporation; and 21 11 DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, the
Defendants, Case No. RG18896061 (Cal. Super. Ct., Mar. 8, 2018),
seeks to recover penalties and/or damages for violations of the
California Labor Code, including without limitation, failure to
pay all employees their earned wages in a timely manner and
failure to issue accurate wage statements.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants, jointly and severally,
have acted intentionally and with deliberate indifference and
conscious disregard to the rights of all employees by failing to
pay all employees their earned wages in a timely manner and
failing to issue accurate wage statements. The Plaintiff alleges,
Defendants have engaged in, among other things a system of
willful violations of the California Labor Code and applicable
IWC wage orders by creating and maintaining policies, practices
and customs that knowingly deny employees their rights and
benefits.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Class:

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

               - and -

          William L. Marder, Esq.
          POLARIS LAW GROUP LLP
          8 11 501 San Benito Street, Suite 200
          Hollister, CA 95023
          Telephone: (831) 531 4214
          Facsimile: (831) 634 0333


TRINITY LOGISTICS: "Stichler" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
DIANA M. STICHLER, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. TRINITY LOGISTICS, INC.
d/b/a TRINITY LOGISTICS INCORPORATED OF DELAWARE, the Defendant,
Case No. 5:18-cv-06029-RK (W.D. Mo., Mar. 8, 2018), seeks to
recover unpaid wages, including straight time and overtime
compensation and related penalties and damages under the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the Missouri Minimum Wage Law.

The Defendant's policies and practices are to willfully fail and
refuse to properly pay all compensation, including straight time
and overtime compensation due Plaintiff, and all other similarly
situated employees, who work or worked at Defendant's locations
throughout the United States. This matter is brought on behalf of
two separate types of employees who Plaintiff alleges were
unlawfully misclassified as exempt employees and were denied
compensation for hours worked in excess of forty hours in a
workweek at the rates required by the FLSA and MMWL.

Trinity Logistics is a third-party logistics company that started
in 1979 with one location and only three employees.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ryan L. McClelland, Esq.
          Michael J. Rahmberg, Esq.
          McCLELLAND LAW FIRM
          The Flagship Building
          200 Westwoods Drive
          Liberty, MP 64068-1170
          Telephone: (816) 781 0002
          Facsimile: (816) 781 1984
          E-mail: ryan@mcclellandlawfirm.com
                  mrahmberg@mcclellandlawfirm.com


TRUMP UNIVERSITY: 9th Cir. Affirms "Low" Settlement Approval
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SONNY LOW; J. R. EVERETT; JOHN BROWN, on Behalf of
Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated; ART COHEN,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiffs-Appellees, SHERRI B. SIMPSON, Objector-Appellant, v.
TRUMP UNIVERSITY, LLC, AKA Trump Entrepreneur Initiative, a New
York limited liability company; DONALD J. TRUMP, Defendants-
Appellees, Case No. 17-55635 (9th Cir.), Judge Jacqueline H.
Nguyen of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
affirmed the district court's approval of the settlement over
Sherri Simpson's objection and refusal to allow her to opt out.

Trump University, now defunct, was a for-profit entity that
purported to teach Donald J. Trump's "secrets of success" in the
real estate industry.  During the 2016 presidential election,
Trump University and Trump were defendants in three lawsuits
alleging fraud and violations of various state and federal laws:
two class actions in the Southern District of California, and a
suit by the New York Attorney General in state court.  Each suit
alleged that Trump University used false advertising to lure
prospective students to free investor workshops at which they
were sold expensive three-day educational seminars.  At these
seminars, instead of receiving the promised training, attendees
were aggressively encouraged to invest tens of thousands of
dollars more in a so-called mentorship program that included
resources, real estate guidance, and a host of other benefits,
none of which ever materialized.

In the California cases, the district court certified two classes
of over eight thousand disappointed "students," and scheduled the
cases for trial in late November 2016.  On Nov. 8, 2016, Trump
was elected President of the United States.  Within weeks, the
parties reached a global settlement on terms highly favorable to
class members.  The Plaintiffs would receive between 80% to 90%
of what they paid for Trump University programs, totaling $21
million.  The Defendants agreed to pay an additional $4 million
in the case brought by the Attorney General of New York.

The appeal involves a lone objector, Sherri Simpson, who seeks to
opt out of the class and bring her claims in a separate lawsuit,
which would derail the settlement.  Simpson does not dispute that
she received, at the class certification stage, a court-approved
notice of her right to exclude herself from the class and chose
not to do so by the deadline.  She argues, however, that the
class notice promised her a second opportunity to opt out at the
settlement stage, or alternatively, that due process requires
this second chance.

Reading the notice as a whole and in context, Judge Nguyen
concludes that it promised only one opportunity to opt out.  Read
as a whole, the mailed and long-form notices informed class
members that they faced a binary choice -- to stay in the lawsuit
or to opt out -- and that they needed to make that choice by Nov.
16, 2015.  The Judge says the most reasonable reading of the
notice suggests that class members had a single opt-out
opportunity that expired if not exercised by the deadline.  The
pervasive language in both class notices supports the district
court's conclusion that class members were clearly apprised that
if they wished to bring a separate lawsuit against the
Defendants, they had to elect to opt out immediately.  She holds
that the class notice language did not provide a second,
settlement-stage opportunity to opt-out of the class.

The Judge rejects Simpson's next argument that even if the class
notice did not give her a second opt-out right at the settlement
stage, due process requires such an opportunity.  She says
Simpson is incorrect that intervening Supreme Court precedent has
implicitly overruled Officers for Justice.  To the contrary, the
cases she cites simply support the case's holding that due
process requires that class members be given a single opportunity
to opt out of a Rule 23(b)(3) class.

Finally, as to Simpson's argument that the district court abused
its discretion in approving the settlement, the Judge easily
concludes that the district court properly exercised its
discretion.  Both classes of the Plaintiffs would have faced
significant hurdles had they proceeded to trial, including the
difficulty of prevailing in a jury trial against either the
President Elect or the sitting President.  Weighed against this
was the fairness of the settlement as a whole, which the court
estimated would provide class members with almost a full
recovery.  Under these challenging circumstances, the district
court acted well within its discretion by approving the
settlement.

For these reasons, Judge Nguyen affirmed.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 6, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/gkLSFS from Leagle.com.

Deepak Gupta -- deepak@guptawessler.com --(argued) and Jonathan
E. Taylor -- jon@guptawessler.com -- Gupta Wessler PLLC,
Washington, D.C.; Gary B. Friedman -- gary.friedman@weil.com --
New York, New York; Edward S. Zusman -- ezusman@mzclaw.com -- and
Kevin K. Eng -- keng@mzclaw.com -- Markun Zusman Freniere &
Compton LLP, San Francisco, California; for Objector-Appellant.

Steven Francis Hubacheck -- shubachek@rgrdlaw.com -- (argued),
Daniel J. Pfefferbaum -- dpfefferbaum@rgrdlaw.com -- Rachel L.
Jensen -- rachelj@rgrdlaw.com -- Jason A. Forge --
jforge@rgrdlaw.com -- and Patrick J. Coughlin -- patc@rgrdlaw.com
-- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, San Diego, California; Amber
L. Eck -- ambere@zhlaw.com -- Haeggquist & Eck LLP, San Diego,
California; for Plaintiffs-Appellees.

Daniel M. Petrocelli -- dpetrocelli@omm.com -- and David L.
Kirman -- dkirman@omm.com -- O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Los Angeles,
California, for Defendants-Appellees.

Gregory A. Beck, Washington, D.C.; Christopher L. Peterson, S.J.
Quinney College of Law, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah;
for Amici Curiae Plain-Language Notice Experts, The National
Association of Consumer Advocates, and Professors of Consumer
Law.

Elizabeth Rogers Brannen -- elizabeth.brannen@strismaher.com --
and Peter K. Stris -- peter.stris@strismaher.com -- Stris & Maher
LLP, Los Angeles, California; Jay Tidmarsh and Judge James J.
Clynes Jr., Professor of Law, Notre Dame Law School, Notre Dame,
Indiana; for Amici Curiae Civil Procedure Professors.

Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General; Steven C. Wu, Deputy
Solicitor General of Counsel; Barbara D. Underwood, Solicitor
General; Office of the Attorney General, New York, New York; for
Amicus Curiae State of New York.

John T. Jasnoch -- JJASNOCH@SCOTT-SCOTT.COM -- Scott & Scott LLP,
San Diego, California; for Amici Curiae Claims Administrators.


UNITED & STRONG III: "Sinclair" Labor Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
-------------------------------------------------------------
Gerald Sinclair, for himself and on behalf of those similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. United & Strong III, Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 18-cv-00187 (M.D. Fla., February 1, 2018), seeks to
recover unpaid wages, liquidated damages and reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs under the fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendant hired Plaintiff to work as an hourly-paid carpenter,
for Defendant's construction company. Sinclair worked in excess
of forty hours within a workweek, without overtime pay, says the
complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Angeli Murthy, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN, PA
      Suite 400, 600 N Pine Island Rd.
      Plantation, FL 33324
      Tel: (954) 967-5377
      Fax: (954) 327-3016
      Email: amurthy@forthepeople.com


UNITED TECHNOLOGIES: "Post" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
RYANN POST, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION, a
foreign profit corporation and OTIS ELEVATOR COMPANY, a foreign
profit corporation, the Defendants, Case No. 9:18-cv-80294-RLR
(S.D. Fla., Mar. 8, 2018), alleges that the Defendants failed to
pay Plaintiff the mandatory wages as required under state and
federal law.  The Plaintiff was employed with the Defendants from
on or about January 20, 2016, up to and including his separation
on January 12, 2018. The Plaintiff held the position of National
Accounts-Inside Sales Specialist.

United Technologies Corporation is an American multinational
conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Cathleen Scott, Esq.
          SCOTT WAGNER & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
          www.ScottWagnerLaw.com
          Jupiter Gardens
          250 South Central Boulevard
          Suite 104-A
          Jupiter, FL 33458
          Telephone: (561) 653-0008
          Facsimile: (561) 653-0020
          E-mail: cscott@scottwagnerlaw.com
                  mail@scottwagnerlaw.com


VIDA CAFE: "Sanchez" Suit Seeks Overtime, Spread-of-Hours Pay
-------------------------------------------------------------
Luis Sanchez, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. Vida Cafe Inc. (d/b/a Mamajuana Cafe) and Vida
Group, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-00968 (S.D. N.Y.,
February 2, 2018), seeks unpaid overtime wages, liquidated
damages, unpaid "spread-of-hours" premium, prejudgment and post-
judgment interest, attorney's fees and costs pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act, New York Labor Law, New York Codes, Rules
and Regulations and the New York Wage Theft Prevention Act.

Defendants run a chain of dining establishments located in New
York and New Jersey under the name "Mamajuana Cafe." Sanchez
worked as a busser and barback from April 2017 until January
2018. He claims that Defendants did not pay him the proper
minimum wage, overtime wage and spread-of-hours pay. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mohammed Gangat, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF MOHAMMED GANGAT
      675 3rd Avenue, Suite 1810
      New York, NY 10017
      Tel: (718) 669-0714
      Email: mgangat@gangatllc.com


W.R. HAMBRECHT & CO: Switzer Seeks Damages under Securities Act
----------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN R. SWITZER, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. W.R. HAMBRECHT & CO., LLC,
ARCIMOTO, INC., MARK FROHNMA YER, DOUGLAS M. CAMPOLI, THOMAS
THURSTON, TERRY BECKER, JEFFERSON CURL and DOES 1-25, inclusive,
the Defendants, Case No. CGC-18-564904 (Cal. Super. Ct., Mar. 9,
2018), is a securities class action on behalf of all those who
purchased Arcimoto common stock pursuant to Arcimoto's September
21, 2017 initial public stock offering, seeking to pursue
remedies under the Securities Act of 1933.

According to the lawsuit, Defendants are responsible for false
and misleading statements and omitted material facts in
connection with the IPO. Defendants authorized or signed the
Registration Statement, including an Offering Circular that
formed part of the Registration Statement, and/or participated in
making false and misleading statements that omitted material
facts in connection with the IPO roadshow.

Defendant W.R. Hambrecht & Co., LLC orchestrated and conducted
that roadshow largely through its website, where it played
madshow videos that investors viewed before purchasing shares
through web forms on the website. The IPO was made under
Regulation A of the 1933 Act, and the Offering Circular was filed
purportedly pursuant to Rule 253(g)(2).

This lawsuit asserts claims under 22 section 12(a)(2) of the 1933
Act, which provides buyers of securities an express remedy for
material misstatements or omissions made by any seller or
solicitor in connection with the offer or sale of the issuer's
securities involving a prospectus or oral communications.

WR Hambrecht provides underwriting, corporate advisory, equity
research, sales and trading, electronic brokerage, and private
equity services to technology and emerging growth companies. The
company uses Internet and auction processes to serve investors
and issuers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
          Mary K. Blasy, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN
          & DOWDLLP
          58 South Service Road, Suite 200
          Melville, NY 11743
          Telephone: (631) 367 7100
          Facsimile: (631) 367 1173

               - and -

          Frank J. Johnson, Esq.
          Phong L. Tran, Esq.
          JOHNSON FISTEL, LLP
          600 West Broadway, Suite 1540
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 230 0063
          Facsimile: (619) 255 1856

               - and -

          Michael I. Fistel, Jr.
          JOHNSON FISTEL, LLP
          Murray House
          40 Powder Springs Street
          Marietta, GA 30064
          Telephone: (770) 200 3104
          Facsimile: (770) 200 3101


WAHOO'S FISH: Violates California's Gift Card Law, Pharmer Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
ANNA PHARMER, on behalf of herself, the General Public, and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. the WAHOO'S FISH
TACO, LLC and DOES 1 through 20, the Defendant, Case No. 37-2018-
00011S72-CU-BT-NC (Cal. Super. Ct., Mar. 9, 2018), seeks public-
wide injunction requiring Defendant to provide written
instructions on complying with California's gift card law to its
California customer-facing employees.

"Gift Card" means an electronic promise, plastic card, or other
payment code or device that is: (i) redeemable by Defendant; (ii)
issued in a specified amount, whether or not that amount may be
increased in value or reloaded at the request of the holder (iii)
purchased on a prepaid basis in exchange for payment; and (iv)
honored upon presentation by Defendant. The terms "Gift Card" and
"Gift Certificate" are interchangeable. Defendant sells gift
cards in California to consumers that contain various stored
values, which represent the balance on the gift card.

Within the last 12 months, Plaintiff visited a California Wahoo's
location with a Wahoo's gift card and Plaintiff purchased items
Plaintiff wanted using the Wahoo's gift card to pay for the
items. After paying for the items selected using the Wahoo's gift
card, Plaintiffs gift card balance was less than $10.00.

The Plaintiff did not want any other items offered by Defendant;
instead, Plaintiff wanted the cash value of the gift card. The
Plaintiff asked the Wahoo's employee if Plaintiff could obtain
the cash balance of the card. The employee informed Plaintiff
that Plaintiff could not get the balance in cash and the balance
had to remain on the card for future use at Wahoo's.

The Plaintiff was denied the cash balance of Plaintiff s gift
card despite the fact that the balance on the card was less than
$ 10.00 and Defendant's employee was aware of the balance on the
card at the time of the request. Prior to filing this lawsuit,
investigations were performed on Plaintiff s behalf to determine
if this particular Wahoo's employee's failure to comply with
California's gift card law was an isolated incident.

The results of Plaintiffs pre-filing investigations revealed that
Wahoo's employees consistently refused to honor valid requests
for cash back on gift cards with a balance of less than $10.00.
By Defendant's actions in not having an existing policy of
complying with Civil Code section 1749.5(b)(2), or in failing to
comply with such a policy to provide California consumers cash
for gift cards with a stored value of under $10.00, (e.g.,
failing to have a consistent practice of honoring requests for
cash pursuant to Civil Code section 1749.5(b)(2)), all current
and future holders of gift cards with a balance of less than
$10.00 are denied certain consumer protections afforded to
consumers under the laws of this State.

Defendant has become unjustly enriched - and will continue to
become unjustly enriched - by Defendant retaining the actual cash
paid for such gift cards and by requiring consumers to redeem
gift cards for Defendant's products or services only, even when
Plaintiff and other California consumers do not wish to purchase
Defendant's products or services.

Wahoo's Fish Taco is a U.S.-based restaurant chain that offers
Mexican food mixed with Brazilian and Asian flavors.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Phillip R. Poliner, Esq.
          Neil B. Fineman, Esq.
          FINEMAN O. POLINER LLP
          155 North Riverview Drive
          Anaheim Hills, CA 92808-1225
          Telephone: (714) 620 1125
          Facsimile: (714) 701 0155
          E-mail: Phillip@FinemanPoliner.com
                  Neil@FinemanPoliner.com


WIDEOPENWEST INC: "Porter" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
LASHAWNDA PORTER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. WIDEOPENWEST, INC.,
WIDEOPENWEST ILLINOIS, LLC, and WIDEOPENWEST ILLINOIS, INC., the
Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-01700 (N.D. Ill., Mar. 8, 2018),
seeks to recover overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act,
the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, and the Illinois Wage Payment and
Collection Act.

Defendants are a broadband provider that offers internet, cable
and telephone service to customers in Illinois, Indiana,
Michigan, Ohio, Tennessee, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, South
Carolina and Maryland. Defendants manage, control and operate
customer service call centers within this judicial district and
in Maryland and Colorado. At their call centers in Illinois,
Maryland and Colorado, Defendants manage and control the
telephone-dedicated customer service representatives who are the
putative class members in this lawsuit. Defendants knowingly
required and/or permitted Plaintiff, who worked as a telephone-
dedicated customer service representative, and other similarly
situated telephone-dedicated customer service representatives, to
perform unpaid work before and after the start and end times of
their shifts, including but not limited to booting up computers,
initializing several software programs, reading company issued
emails and instructions, and completing customer service calls.
The amount of uncompensated time Plaintiff and those similarly
situated to her spend or have spent on these required and unpaid
work activities averages approximately 10 to 15 minutes per day
per person.

Wide Open West is the sixth largest cable operator in the United
States. The company offers landline telephone, Cable Television,
and broadband Internet services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James X. Bormes, Esq.
          Catherine P. Sons, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JAMES X. BORMES, P.C.
          8 South Michigan Avenue Suite 650
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 201 0575

               - and -

          Thomas M. Ryan, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF THOMAS M. RYAN, P.C.
          35 East Wacker Drive Case, Suite 2600
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 726 3400


WILLIS GROUP: Regents Balks at Merger Deal with Towers
------------------------------------------------------
THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, on behalf of itself
and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. JOHN J.
HALEY, WILLIS GROUP HOLDINGS plc, VALUEACT CAPITAL MANAGEMENT,
L.P., DOMINIC CASSERLEY, and JEFFREY W. UBBEN, the Defendants,
Case No. 2018-0166 (Del. Chancery Ct., Mar. 9, 2018), seeks award
and compensatory damages in favor of Plaintiff and other Class
members against all Defendants, jointly and severally, for all
damages sustained as a result of Defendants' wrongdoing, in an
amount to be proven at trial, including interest.

This class action is brought on behalf of all Towers shareholders
who have been damaged by Defendants' wrongful actions. This
action arises from substantial breaches of fiduciary duty by
Haley and aiding and abetting of these breaches of fiduciary duty
by Willis, Casserley, ValueAct, and Ubben in connection with a
"merger of equals" between Towers and Willis.

The merger was announced on June 30, 2015, and closed after
shareholder approval on January 4, 2016. By March of 2015,
confidential merger discussions between Towers and Willis had
progressed significantly. Armed with the knowledge that Towers's
stock price would likely decline on the public announcement of
the deal, on March 2, 2015, Haley sold over 55% of his Towers
stock in one trading day for over $14 million.

Soon thereafter, on June 30, 2015, Towers and Willis announced
that they had entered into an agreement to merge, pursuant to
which Towers shareholders would receive 2.649 shares of Willis
stock and a $4.87 per share cash dividend in exchange for each
Towers share. Under the agreement, Towers shareholders would own
49.9% of the combined entity, Willis Towers Watson plc, with
Willis shareholders owning the remaining majority. As Haley had
anticipated, on the announcement of this news, Towers's stock
immediately dropped 8.8%.

Investors and analysts criticized the merger as a bad deal for
Towers. Among other problems, Towers was in a period of record-
breaking financial growth, while Willis's financial performance
was challenged due to increasing costs from a proposed
restructuring plan, and other issues. In response, Defendants
began a concerted effort to obtain shareholder approval of the
transaction. Throughout this solicitation process, Haley failed
to disclose a number of material facts to Towers shareholders and
to the Towers Board in breach of his fiduciary duties. The other
Defendants, who were aware of the misrepresentations and
omissions in the proxy materials, aided and abetted in those
breaches of fiduciary duty, as they too wished to obtain
shareholder approval for the merger and enrich themselves.

While the merger was a poor transaction for Towers shareholders,
the deal was a very lucrative one for Haley, unbeknownst to
investors voting on the merger. Specifically, in September 2015,
Haley and Ubben, who was the CEO of ValueAct, Willis's second
largest shareholder and a member of the Willis Board, privately
negotiated an equity compensation package for Haley to continue
as CEO of the combined company, which was worth up to $165
million over the next three years if the transaction closed.

Despite the obvious importance of this to shareholders, this fact
was never disclosed to shareholders voting on the merger. Indeed,
while the Proxy was issued on October 13, 2015 -- after Haley had
negotiated his compensation -- it did not say a word about
Haley's massive compensation package. Nor did Haley disclose the
compensation agreement to his own Board at Towers.

Following the issuance of the Proxy, investor and analyst
backlash continued, as the market reiterated the view that Towers
shareholders were not getting fair value for their shares. These
risks were exacerbated by the fact that Towers continued to
report stellar financial results, while Willis's financial
performance continued to decline. One of the most vocal investors
opposed to the deal was Driehaus. Driehaus repeatedly issued
letters to Towers shareholders warning them that the deal was not
a good deal for Towers. Driehaus also raised questions about
whether Haley and the other Defendants had discussed Haley's
compensation during the negotiation process. In response, Towers
issued emphatic denials that there was any conflict of interest,
and Ubben denigrated Driehaus.

The University of California is a public university system in the
U.S. state of California. Under the California Master Plan for
Higher Education.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joel Friedlander, Esq.
          Jeffrey M. Gorris, Esq.
          Christopher P. Quinn, Esq.
          FRIEDLANDER & GORRIS, P.A.
          1201 N. Market Street, Suite 2200
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 573 3500

               - and -

          Salvatore J. Graziano, Esq.
          John Rizio-Hamilton, Esq.
          Rebecca E. Boon, Esq.
          Julia K. Tebor, Esq.
          BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER
          & GROSSMANN LLP
          1251 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10020
          Telephone: (212) 554 1400


WINE.COM: Secretly Records Telephone Calls, Gliadkovskaya Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
EKATERINA GLIADKOVSKAYA, on Behalf of Herself and all Others
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. WINE.COM INC. and DOES 1
through 100, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. CGC-18-564838
(Cal. Super. Ct., Mar. 6, 2018), seeks award of statutory damages
as set forth in Penal Code section 637.2 and injunctive relief as
a result of Defendant's violations to record, without the consent
of all parties, consumer-initiated telephone calls made to
Defendant's toll-free customer service telephone numbers,
including but not limited to 1-800-592-5870 which connect callers
to Defendant.

Defendant's policy and practice of intentionally and
surreptitiously recording Plaintiffs and the Class members'
telephone conversations without first providing notice and
without first obtaining caller consent to record the telephone
conversation violates California's Invasion of Privacy Act,
California Penal Code section 630, et seq. 13 2. Specifically,
Defendant's practice violates Penal Code section 632, which
prohibits the recording of confidential communications made by
telephone without the consent of all 15 parties to the
communication, and Penal Code section 632.7, which prohibits the
recording of any communication made from a cellular or cordless
telephone without the consent of all parties to the
communication.

The complaint explains that Penal Code sections 632 and 632.7 are
violated the moment the recording is made 18 without the consent
of all parties thereto, regardless of whether it is subsequently
disclosed. The only intent required is that the act of recording
itself be done intentionally. There is no requisite intent on
behalf of the party doing the surreptitious recording to break
California law, or to invade the privacy rights of any other
person. Both Penal Code sections 632 and 632.7 play an important
role in protecting the privacy of California residents. As
recognized by the California Supreme Court, secret recording
denies the speaker an important aspect of privacy of
communication.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Proposed Class:

          Zev B. Zysman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF ZEV B. ZYSMAN
          15760 Ventura Boulevard, 16th Floor
          Encino, CA 91436
          Telephone: (818) 783 8836
          Facsimile: (818) 783 9985
          E-mail: zev@zysmanlawca.com


WORLD SERVICE: Fails to Pay Wages, Garcia Says
----------------------------------------------
DORA GARCIA, an individual; on behalf of herself, all others
similarly situated, and the general public, the Plaintiff, v.
WORLD SERVICE WEST/LA INFLIGHT SERVICE COMPANY, LLC.; MENZIES
AVIATION (USA) INC., and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, the
Defendant, Case No. BC697098 (Cal. Super. Ct., Mar. 8, 2018),
seeks to recover unpaid wages under California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was incorrectly
classified as a non-exempt employee by Defendants and was paid on
an hourly basis. The Plaintiff was not paid the hourly wage
required by the LWO. The Defendants knowingly failed to pay all
wages due to Plaintiff and those similarly situated. The
Defendants failed to provide accurate itemized wage statements to
Plaintiff and those similarly situated.

The Defendants' conduct was oppressive, fraudulent, and
malicious. California Labor Code section prohibits any employer
or any other person acting on behalf of an employer from
violating, or causing to be violated, certain Labor Code Statutes
and Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order provisions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Asaf Agazanof, Esq.
          ASAF LAW APC
          11150 W. Olympic Blvd. Suite 1080
          Los Angeles, CA 90064
          Telephone: (424) 254 8870

               - and -

          J.D. Henderson, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF J.D. HENDERSON
          215 North Marengo Avenue, Suite 322
          Pasadena, CA 91101
          Telephone: (626) 529 5891
          E-mail: JDLAW@charter.net


ZDS EXPRESS: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages, Pineda Says
----------------------------------------------------
GIOVANNI PINEDA, on behalf of himself and those similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. ZDS EXPRESS COURIERS, a California
corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, the Defendant,
Case No. BC696764 (Cal. Super. Ct., Mar. 6, 2018), seeks to
recover minimum wages under the California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff began working for
Defendant on or about May 2017 as a driver at Defendant's Irvine,
California location. Plaintiffs employment with Defendant ended
on/or about July 2017. The Plaintiff worked as Defendant's full-
time employee by working at least 40 hours per week. During the
Class Period, Defendant was obligated to pay Plaintiff and Class
overtime compensation for all hours worked over eight hours of
work in one day or 40 hours in one week and double-time for hours
worked in excess of 12 hours in one day.

Throughout Plaintiffs employment Defendant required Plaintiff and
Class in the position of dispatchers, drivers and warehouse
workers to work more than eight hours in a day without receiving
overtime for hours worked over eight. Defendant routinely
scheduled Plaintiff and Plaintiff Class for 10 hour shifts. Due
to Defendant's practice of scheduling putative Class Members with
ten hour shifts but refusing to pay them overtime, Plaintiff and
Plaintiff Class were denied all wages owed to them.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kevin Mahoney, Esq.
          Treana L. Allen, Esq.
          MAHONEY LAW GROUP, APC
          249 E. Ocean Blvd., Ste. 814
          Long Beach, CA 90802
          Telephone: (562) 590 5550
          Facsimile: (562) 590 8400
          E-mail: kmahonev@mahoney-law.net
                  tallen@mahoney-law.net

               - and -

          Gregory H.D. Alumit, Esq.
          HOWARD LAW, PC
          2099 S. State College Blvd., Suite 600
          Anaheim, CA 92806
          Telephone: (800) 872 5925
          Facsimile: (888) 533 7310
          E-mail: galumit@howardlawpc.com


                            *********


S U B S C R I P T I O N  I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills,
Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.
Marion Alcestis A. Castillon, Jessenius Pulido, Noemi Irene A.
Adala, Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche
Maricon Castillon-Lopez, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G.
Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2018.  All rights reserved.  ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail.  Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each.  For subscription information, contact Peter A.
Chapman at 215-945-7000.



                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *