CAR_Public/180327.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


             Tuesday, March 27, 2018, Vol. 20, No. 62



                            Headlines


3D SYSTEMS: June 25 Fairness Hearing on $50MM Settlement
24/7 SECURITY: Refuses to Pay Overtime Wages, "Alonso" Suit Says
29STUDIOS.US: Curtis Files TCPA Suit for Invasion of Privacy
ALLIQUA BIOMEDICAL: Faces "Cresta" Suit Over Sale to Celularity
ALLTRAN FIN'L: Court Grants Arbitration in "Clarke"

AMBIT ENERGY: Court Grants Prelim Approval of $9.3MM Settlement
AMERICAN EQUITY: Faces "Thorne" Suit in S.D. New York
APPLE INC: Accused by Wade of Not Fairly Paying Women Experts
APPLE INC: Removes "Borstelmann" Class Suit to E.D. Missouri
AR RESOURCES: Court Dismisses "Molina" FDCPA Suit

BANCTEC THIRD PARTY: Denial of Bid to Strike Withdrawal Reversed
BED BATH BEYOND: Donde Seeks Damages Over Unsolicited SMS Ads
BJ INSPECTIONS: Accused by "Bly" Suit of Not Paying Overtime
BRISTOL-MYERS: "Giugno" Hits Share Drop Over Failed Cancer Meds
CALIFORNIA CEMETERY: Faces "Ortiz" Suit in Cal. Superior Court

CENTRAL OHIO ELDERLY: "Adams" Suit Seeks to Recover OT Under FLSA
CIOX HEALTH: Court Narrows Claims in "Ortiz"
CLEARVIEW CENTERS: Denied "Purnell" Overtime Pay
COINBASE: Arizona Citizen Files Insider Trading Class Suit
COINBASE: Faces Class Actions Over Insider Bitcoin Cash Trading

CRUCIAL CUSTOMS: "Silcox" Suit Alleges Time-Shaving
DENKA PERFORMANCE: Dupont's Bid to Dismiss "Taylor" Granted
DEM JET INC: "Fridman" Sues Over Unsolicited SMS Ads
DIRECTV LLC: Faces "Burson" Suit in N.D. Alabama
DISH NETWORK: Sent Unsolicited SMS Ads, "Huff" Suit Says

DOMETIC CORP: "Zimmer" Suit Transferred to S.D. Fla.
EASTERLY ACQUISITION: Monteverde Probes Securities Violations
ENCORE PIPE: "Caballero" Suit to Recover Unpaid Overtime
ENTERPRISE FOODS: May Face Class Action Over Listeriosis Outbreak
EQUIFAX INC: Data Breach Class Action Set to Be Argued in Georgia

EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Court Certifies Class in "Rodriguez"
EXPRESS OIL: Faces "Adams" Suit in N.D. Alabama
FORD MOTOR: Meeting Held to Discuss Sexual Harassment Allegations
GATESTONE & CO: Dykes Disputes Student Loan Collection Letter
GEORGIA: Bill to Block Refunds of Property Taxes in Class Action

GOOGLE: Sued for Discrimination Against White, Asian Men
HARKAY ENTERPRISES: "Adams" Class Suit Seeks to Recoup Back Wages
HONEYWELL: "Watkins" Seeks Extension to File Writ of Certiorari
HUDSON GLOBAL: Potential Securities Violations Investigated
IDEALTEL DOMINICANA: "Frangos" Sues Over Illegal SMS Ads

IKEA US RETAIL: "Donofrio" Suit Asserts Age Discrimination
INTERFOR US INC: "Everett" Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime
INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Fails to Pay OT Under FLSA, "Bryant" Claims
INT'L PAPER: Gets Favorable Ruling in Dam Failure Flooding Case
IV SUPPORT: Faces Ryoo Dental Suit in C.D. California

KATZNER'S DELITERRANEAN: Celestin Wants to Recover Unpaid Wages
KENNETH REES: Brice Sues Over Loans Made Under Rent-a-Tribe Model
KEYPOINT GOVERNMENT: "Judd" Labor Suit Transferred to Colorado
LCNB CORP: Law Firm Investigates Potential Securities Violations
LINDSEY & COMPANY: "Pitts" Action to Recover Overtime Pay

LIVING ESSENTIALS: Mislabels Energy Drinks, "DePhillippis" Claims
LJM FUNDS: Faces "Bennett" Suit Over Securities Law Violations
LOAN CARE: Faces "Hyde" Suit in S.D. California
LUTHERAN METROPOLITAN: Dudek Seeks to Recover Wages Under FLSA
MDL 2804: City of Joplin May Join Opioid Crisis Class Action

MDL 2804: Carlton County Joins Legal Case Against Drug Companies
MEDICAID: Providers Didn't Exhaust Government Appeals
MG CREDIT: Accused by "Ceballo" Suit of Violating FDCPA in Fla.
MIMEDX GROUP: Levi & Korsinsky Files Securities Class Action
MISSISSIPPI: Trial Starts in Class Action Over Prison Conditions

MURATA MANUFACTURING: Arch Electronics Sues Over Inductors' Price
NAR INC: Faces "Scillieri" Suit in D. New Jersey
NASSAU COUNTY, NY: Davidson Questions Unequal Pay to PCOs & PCOSs
NEW LEXINGTON: Faces "Mosso-Salazar" Suit in S.D. New York
NEW YORK & ATLANTIC: Laborers File Suit Over Safety Practices

NEW YORK UNIVERSITY: Sued Over Mismanagement of Retirement Plans
NORTHERN MARIANAS: Suit Spurs Establishment of New Pension Fund
NORTHWESTERN MUTUAL: Faces "Thorne" Suit in S.D. New York
NYC GREEN: Taxi Drivers File Suit Over Unpaid Wages
OBALON THERAPEUTICS: Faces "Cook" IPO-Related Suit in California

OBALON THERAPEUTICS: Robbins Arroyo Files Securities Class Action
OLD DOMINION: "Prieto" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Premiums
OMNICARE INC: Faces "Davis" Class Suit for Misclassifying Drivers
PENNSYLVANIA: Pa. Cmmw. to Review Charter School's Petition
PIZZA BAKER: Fails to Refund Drivers' Delivery Costs, Clark Says

SAFEWAY CONSTRUCTION: Sued for Denying OT Pay, Wage Notices
SELIP & STYLIANOU: Faces "Natela" Suit in E.D. New York
SEQWATER: Expert in Class Action Defends Analysis of 2011 Floods
SIDETRACKS NYC: Sued by Chimborazo for Not Properly Paying Wages
SINGLETON DIGGERS: Underpaid Contract Workers File Class Action

SPECTRUM BIOTECHNOLOGIES: Breaux Seeks to Recover OT Under FLSA
SUNOCO GP: Claybrook Seeks OT Pay, Hits Retaliatory Remarks
SUNPRO SOLAR: Made Illegal Unsolicited Calls, Antonio Suit Claims
SUNSET NURSING: "Jones" Action Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
SYNERGY PHARMA: Faruqi & Faruqi Files Securities Class Action

TOWN SPORTS: "Balde" Suit Seeks to Recoup Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
ULTA BEAUTY: Stockholder Chandler Files Securities Class Action
ULTA BEAUTY: Kahn Swick Files Securities Class Action
UNITED STATES: Asian Americans Advancing Justice Files Class Suit
VOLKSWAGEN AG: U.S. Judge Dismisses Bondholder Lawsuit

VOLKSWAGEN AG: Hearing Begins in Australia Emissions Class Action
VOLKSWAGEN AG: Denies Claims in Australian Emissions Class Action
WASHINGTON: SSOSA Evaluations Not Exempt Under PRA
WOLVERINE WORLDWIDE: Naffziger Couple Joins 90+ in Class Action
XPO LOGISTICS: Drivers Sue Over Contractor Classification

YOUTUBE: Faces Hiring Discrimination Class Action
ZEPRA: Settles Class Action Over Pork Scandal for $700,000
ZUCCA TRATTORIA: Fails to Pay Minimum Wage and OT, "Barrios" Says

* Bill to Prohibit Individual Arbitration for Data Breach Victims
* Class Actions Not Reason for Scarcity of IPOs
* South Africa Needs Formal Rules to Regulate Class Actions







                            *********


3D SYSTEMS: June 25 Fairness Hearing on $50MM Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Motley Rice LLC and
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP in regard to a proposed class
action settlement.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ROCK HILL DIVISION

KBC ASSET MANAGEMENT NV, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated,

Plaintiff,

vs.

3D SYSTEMS CORPORATION, ABRAHAM N. REICHENTAL, DAMON J. GREGOIRE,
and TED HULL,

Defendants.


Civil Action No. 0:15-cv-02393-MGL


CLASS ACTION


TO: ALL PERSONS AND ENTITIES WHO PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED
3D SYSTEMS CORPORATION ("3D SYSTEMS") COMMON STOCK DURING THE
PERIOD FROM OCTOBER 29, 2013, THROUGH AND INCLUDING MAY 5, 2015
(THE "CLASS")

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

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States
District Court for the District of South Carolina, that the
above-captioned action (the "Litigation") has been certified as a
class action on behalf of the Class, except for certain persons
and entities who are excluded from the Class by definition as set
forth in the full printed Notice of Proposed Settlement of Class
Action (the "Notice").

YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that Lead Plaintiff in the Litigation, KBC
Asset Management NV, on behalf of itself and the other members of
the Class, has reached a proposed settlement of the Litigation
with defendants 3D Systems, Abraham N. Reichental, Damon J.
Gregoire, and Theodore A. Hull (collectively, "Defendants") for
the sum of $50,000,000 in cash (the "Settlement").  If the
Settlement is approved, it will resolve all claims in the
Litigation.

A hearing will be held on June 25, 2018, at 11:00 a.m. ET, before
the Honorable Mary Geiger Lewis at the Matthew J. Perry, Jr.
Courthouse, 901 Richland Street, Columbia, SC 29201, for the
purpose of determining: (1) whether the proposed Settlement
should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable and adequate;
(2) whether, thereafter, this Litigation should be dismissed with
prejudice against the Defendants as set forth in the Stipulation
of Settlement dated February 14, 2018; (3) whether the Plan of
Allocation of settlement proceeds is fair, reasonable and
adequate and therefore should be approved; and (4) the
reasonableness of the application of Lead Counsel for the payment
of attorneys' fees and expenses incurred in connection with this
Litigation, together with interest thereon (which request may
include a request for reimbursement of Lead Plaintiff's
reasonable costs and expenses pursuant to the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act of 1995).

IF YOU PURCHASED OR ACQUIRED 3D SYSTEMS COMMON STOCK DURING THE
PERIOD FROM OCTOBER 29, 2013, THROUGH AND INCLUDING MAY 5, 2015
(THE "CLASS PERIOD"), YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY THIS
LITIGATION AND THE SETTLEMENT THEREOF. If you have not received a
detailed Notice as referred to above and a copy of the Proof of
Claim and Release form, you may obtain copies by writing to 3D
Systems Securities Settlement, Claims Administrator, P.O. Box
3170, Portland, OR 97208-3170, or by downloading this information
at www.3DSystemsSecuritiesSettlement.com.  If you are a Class
Member, in order to share in the distribution of the Net
Settlement Fund, you must submit a Proof of Claim and Release
online at www.3DSystemsSecuritiesSettlement.com by July 11, 2018,
or by mail postmarked no later than July 11, 2018, establishing
that you are entitled to a recovery.  You will be bound by any
judgment rendered in the Litigation unless you request to be
excluded, in writing, postmarked by May 29, 2018.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired 3D Systems common stock
during the Class Period and you desire to be excluded from the
Class, you must submit a request for exclusion such that it is
postmarked no later than May 29, 2018, in the manner and form
explained in the detailed Notice referred to above.  All Members
of the Class who do not validly request exclusion from the Class
will be bound by any judgments or orders entered in the
Litigation pursuant to the Stipulation of Settlement.

Any objection to any aspect of the Settlement must be filed with
the Clerk of the Court and also delivered by hand or First-Class
Mail to each of the following addresses such that it is received
no later than May 29, 2018:

COURT:
CLERK OF THE COURT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
MATTHEW J. PERRY, JR. COURTHOUSE
901 Richland Street
Columbia, SC 29201

LEAD COUNSEL:
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
ELLEN GUSIKOFF STEWART
655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
San Diego, CA 92101

MOTLEY RICE LLC
JOSHUA LITTLEJOHN
28 Bridgeside Boulevard
Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464

DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL:
ALSTON & BIRD
JOHN JORDAK
1201 West Peachtree Street, Suite 4900
Atlanta, GA 30309

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING
THIS NOTICE.

DATED: February 20, 2018

BY ORDER OF THE COURT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA


24/7 SECURITY: Refuses to Pay Overtime Wages, "Alonso" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
LUIS MARTINEZ ALONSO, and all others similarly situated under 29
U.S.C. 216(b) v. 24/7 SECURITY SCHOOL, INC. d/b/a 24/7 SECURITY
OF SOUTH FLORIDA, TOMAS A GONZALEZ, YOLANDA GONZALEZ, Case No.
1:18-cv-20682-CMA (S.D. Fla., February 21, 2018), alleges that
the Defendants willfully and intentionally refused to pay the
Plaintiff's overtime wages as required by the Fair Labor
Standards Act as they knew of the overtime requirements of the
FLSA and recklessly failed to investigate whether their payroll
practices were in accordance with the FLSA.

24/7 Security School, Inc., doing business as 24/7 Security of
South Florida, is a corporation that regularly transacts business
within Dade County.  The Individual Defendants are corporate
officers, owners or managers of the Defendant Corporation.[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
          E-mail: zabogado@aol.com


29STUDIOS.US: Curtis Files TCPA Suit for Invasion of Privacy
------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT CURTIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. 29STUDIOS.US; DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No.
2:18-cv-01362 (C.D. Cal., February 19, 2018), accuses the
Defendants of negligently, knowingly and willfully contacting the
Plaintiff on his cellular telephone in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act, thereby, invading his privacy.

29STUDIOS.US is a company in the business of selling and
marketing credit services.  The true names and capacities of the
Doe Defendants are currently unknown to the Plaintiff.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
          Meghan E. George, Esq.
          Adrian R. Bacon, 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
                  mgeorge@toddflaw.com
                  abacon@toddflaw.com


ALLIQUA BIOMEDICAL: Faces "Cresta" Suit Over Sale to Celularity
---------------------------------------------------------------
RONALD CRESTA, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. ALLIQUA BIOMEDICAL, INC., DAVID JOHNSON, JOSEPH M.
LEONE, GARY RESTANI, JEFFREY SKLAR, and MARK WAGNER, Case No.
1:18-cv-00301-UNA (D. Del., February 22, 2018), accuses the
Defendants of violating the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in
connection with the proposed sale of all or substantially all of
the Company's assets to Celularity Inc.

On January 5, 2018, Alliqua issued a press release announcing
that it had entered into an Asset Purchase Agreement by and among
the Company and Celularity.  Pursuant to the Asset Purchase
Agreement, Celularity will acquire all or substantially all of
the Company's assets, including certain assets comprising its
MIST, Biovance, and Interfyl product lines (the "Purchased
Assets").  Pursuant to the terms of the Asset Purchase Agreement,
the consideration for the Proposed Transaction payable at closing
to the Company will be $29 million in cash.

The Plaintiff contends that the Asset Consideration appears
inadequate, and the process by which the Defendants agreed to
consummate the Proposed Transaction is fundamentally unfair to
the Plaintiff and Alliqua's other public stockholders.

Alliqua is a Delaware corporation, with its principal executive
offices in Yardley, Pennsylvania.  The Individual Defendants are
directors and officers of the Company.

Alliqua is a provider of wound care solutions.  The Company
operates in commercial wound care segment, which consists of
approximately five product categories, such as Wound Bed
Preparation & Stimulation; Human Biologics; Antimicrobial
Protection; Exudate Management, and Contract Manufacturing.
Alliqua has a suite of wound care solutions that enable surgeons,
clinicians, and wound care practitioners to address the
challenges in chronic and acute wounds.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Blake A. Bennett, Esq.
          COOCH AND TAYLOR, P.A.
          The Brandywine Building
          1000 West Street, 10th Floor
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 984-3800
          E-mail: bbennett@coochtaylor.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


ALLTRAN FIN'L: Court Grants Arbitration in "Clarke"
---------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New
York issued a Memorandum and Order granting Defendant's Motion to
Compel Arbitration in the case captioned DONOVAN J. CLARKE,
Plaintiff, v. ALLTRAN FINANCIAL, LP F/K/A UNITED RECOVERY
SYSTEMS, LP, Defendant, No. 17-CV-3330 (JFB)(AYS)(E.D.N.Y.).

Alltran filed a motion to compel arbitration on an individual
basis under the credit card agreement between Clarke and Citibank
to which Alltran is not a signatory.

Citibank issued plaintiff a credit card.  In connection with
obtaining the credit card, plaintiff received a card agreement
that governed his account.  The card agreement provided that
Clarke agreed to be bound by its terms by either using the credit
card or failing to cancel the credit card within thirty days of
receiving it.

Plaintiff allegedly failed to make payments on his Citibank
credit card and Citibank "retained and authorized" Alltran to
collect the amount owed.  To that end, Alltran sent a debt
collection letter to plaintiff. Clarke alleges that the letter
was false and misleading in violation of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

Plaintiff argues that Alltran cannot compel arbitration here
because the card agreement's plain terms do not allow non-
signatories to do so.

Alltran asserts that Clarke's argument is flawed under well-
established principles of contract interpretation. In particular,
Alltran argues that plaintiff's interpretation fails to examine
the card agreement as a whole and would render provisions of the
card agreement meaningless. According to Alltran, when read in
its entirety, the card agreement allows certain third parties,
including Alltran under these circumstances, to compel
arbitration.

The Court concludes that Alltran can compel arbitration under the
plain language of the card agreement.  As an initial matter, the
paragraph entitled Agreement to Arbitrate is not as limited as
plaintiff asserts. That provision states that either Clarke or
Citibank may elect arbitration; it does not state that only
Clarke or Citibank may do so. Under basic principles of contract
interpretation, the Court may not read the word only into the
card agreement in order to resolve this dispute.

Moreover, the arbitration provision states that it is to be
interpreted in the broadest way the law will allow it to be
interpreted. Plaintiff's interpretation drastically narrows the
arbitration provision by limiting its availability to only the
cardholder and Citibank. On the other hand, Alltran's
interpretation gives effect to the expressed intent that the
arbitration provision be applied broadly.

Thus, reading the card agreement as a whole, and giving
reasonable effect to all of its terms, the Court concludes that
the card agreement allows anyone connected with Clarke or
Citibank, such as an agent or representative, to compel
arbitration.

The Court concludes that Alltran's relationship with Citibank is
sufficient to establish that Alltran is connected with Citibank
under the card agreement. As explained in a declaration submitted
by a Citibank employee, Citibank retained and authorized Alltran
to collect amounts owed to Citibank on Clarke's Citibank credit
card. Alltran's collection letter makes clear that Alltran sent
the letter in an attempt to collect a debt on behalf of Citibank.
That letter further instructs Clarke to remit payment to
Citibank, and indicates that Citibank had authorized Alltran to
negotiate on behalf of Citibank to settle the debt. The Court,
thus, concludes that the relationship between Citibank and
Alltran satisfies the connected with language in the card
agreement.

The Court grants defendant's motion to compel arbitration.

A full-text copy of the District Court's February 22, 2018
Memorandum and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yaf2quu6
from Leagle.com.

Donovan J. Clarke, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Ryan L. Gentile --
rlg@lawgmf.com -- Law Offices of Gus Michael Farinella & Gus
Michael Farinella -- gmf@lawgmf.com -- Law Offices of Gus Michael
Farinella P.C.

Alltran Financial, LP, formerly known as, Defendant, represented
by Adam Patrick Hartley -- hartleya@ballardspahr.com -- Ballard
Spahr LLP & Denise Lynne Plunkett -- Plunkett@ballardspahr.com --
Ballard Spahr.


AMBIT ENERGY: Court Grants Prelim Approval of $9.3MM Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania issued a Memorandum granting Plaintiff's Unopposed
Amended Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action
Settlement in the case captioned AMY SILVIS, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated v. AMBIT ENERGY L.P, et al.,
Civil Action No. 14-5005 (E.D. Pa.).

Plaintiff Amy Silvis switched from her local energy provider to
Defendant Ambit after being enticed with competitive and
attractive rates.  Under the Residential Disclosure Statement to
which Silvis agreed, energy rates would be based on energy and
capacity markets, plus all applicable taxes. However, Plaintiff
asserts that the energy rates charged by Ambit were approximately
double that of her local energy provider one year after switching
to Ambit. Plaintiff alleges Defendant failed to act in good faith
when contracting with her and other putative Class members
because they made promises and contracts they did not intend
honor.

The Proposed Settlement Class

The Settlement Agreement provides for a settlement Class defined
as follows:

     All persons in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania who were
enrolled as a customer of Defendant and were on Defendant's
Select Variable Plan at any time during the Class Period.

The Proposed Settlement Terms

The parties estimate that the potential aggregated pay out for
100% claims participation would be approximately $9,300,000.

Notice and claims administration costs will be paid by Ambit.
Ambit will also separately pay Plaintiff Silvis' Named Plaintiff
Enhancement Award up to $5,000 and attorneys' fees not to exceed
$1,450,000.  As of February 1, the parties estimate that that
class counsel's current loadstar is $1,348,000 with $38,000 in
expenses.

Whether Class Certification is Proper

Under Rule 23(a), Plaintiffs must demonstrate that: (1) the class
is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable; (2)
there are questions of law or fact common to the class; (3) the
claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of
the claims or defenses of the class; and (4) the representative
parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the
class.

Rule 23(b)(3), under which Silvis seek class certification,
requires that questions of law or fact common to class members
predominate over any questions affecting only individual members,
and that a class action is superior to other available methods
for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy.

Rule 23(a) Factors

Numerosity

Rule 23(a)(1) requires that the class be so numerous that joinder
of all members is impracticable.

Numerosity is easily satisfied here as Ambit's records show that
there are approximately 73,000 possibly affected accounts of
current and former customers, rendering joinder of all members
highly impracticable.

Commonality

Rule 23(a)(2) requires a showing of the existence of questions of
law or fact common to the class.

Commonality exists in this case because all of the settlement
Class members' claims stem from a common course of conduct. Each
Class member contracted with Ambit in a similar fashion and each
alleges that Defendant breached the price terms in its agreements
by utilizing factors not contained in the agreements.

Typicality

Rule 23(a)(3) requires that the class representatives' claims be
typical of the claims of the class.

The typicality element is satisfied because Silvis' claims are
identical to those of the settlement Class. She alleges the same
type of breach of contract arising out of the same conduct to
which the other settlement Class members were exposed. All
members of the proposed Class were subject to the same
Residential Disclosure Statement which purported to list the
factors used to determine energy prices. Thus, the Plaintiff is
well-suited to represent the other settlement Class members.

Adequacy of Representation

Rule 23(a)(4) requires representative parties to fairly and
adequately protect the interests of the class.

First, Plaintiff's counsel, Jonathan Shub, Esq., of Kohn, Swift &
Graf, P.C., and Troy Frederick, Esq., of Marcus & Mack, P.C.,
have represented to the Court that they have successfully handled
multiple class actions and other complex litigation around the
country.  Second, Plaintiff's interests are coextensive with, and
not antagonistic to, the interests of the settlement Class
because she and the absent Class members have an equal interest
in the relief offered by the Settlement Agreement, and there is
no divergence between Plaintiff's interests and those of the
other Class members.

Plaintiff has demonstrated compliance with each of the Rule 23(a)
prerequisites for class certification.

Rule 23(b)(3) Factor

Plaintiff satisfies the predominance requirement because
liability questions common to the settlement Class substantially
outweigh any possible individual issues. Plaintiff's claims and
those of the Class are based on the same legal theories and same
uniform conduct: all of the Class member's claims turn on whether
Defendant breached the price terms in its agreements with them
and whether Defendant's rates were higher than otherwise
available in the market.

Regarding superiority:

   (a) It is in the interest of Class members to proceed with
this litigation as a class action since individual prosecution of
the claims is impractical. In that the individual claims are
relatively small and would be outweighed by the cost of
individual litigation, without the Class, individuals might lack
incentive to pursue their claims.

   (b) Neither of the parties has raised an issue of a competing
action to the Court. As such, the proposed class action is
clearly superior to the non-existent alternative suits.

   (c) Concentrating this litigation in the proposed class action
also indicates superiority because of the potentiality of
multiple forums reaching inconsistent conclusions on similar
issues and facts.

   (d) Because of the predominance of the core issues in the
case, the case is well manageable as a class action.

Ultimately, common questions predominate in this litigation and
resolution of the claims via class action is superior to
individual law suits. Thus, the Court concludes that the class
action meets the predominance and superiority requirements of
Rule 23(b)(3).

Whether the Proposed Settlement is Fair

Even if the requirements for class certification under Rule 23
are satisfied, the court must approve settlement of a class
action and determine whether the proposed settlement is fair,
adequate, and reasonable, as required by Rule 23(e)(2).

Defendant has offered compensation of 15% or 2% of all fees paid
by the putative Class members, depending on when their respective
contractual obligations began. The difference between the amounts
is related to changes made to Ambit's contracts after a certain
date that potentially weaken the cases of the second category of
Class members. The Court finds that there is a conceivable basis
for presuming that the fairness, adequacy, and reasonableness of
the Settlement Agreement will be demonstrated during the final
approval process.

The Court notes that Defendant has also agreed to pay the fees
associated with the settlement administrator and the notice
requirements. In addition, there is no appearance of preferential
treatment in that all Class members are entitled to the same
relief depending on their enrollment date. The Settlement
Agreement was reached at arms-length and utilized a neutral
mediator. On its face, the Settlement Agreement does not disclose
grounds to doubt its fairness or other obvious deficiencies.
As a result, the Settlement Agreement appears proper under Rule
23(e)(2).

Whether the Notices Are Adequate

The Settlement Administrator, Angeion Group, appears well suited
to handle the notice and claims process. The parties describe two
main forms of notice in their motion. First, they propose a long
form notice sent to each Class members' last known address via
first class mail and to their email address, if known. The long
form notice will include a website address and phone number for
additional information. Second, a summary notice will be
published once in each of the following publications:
Philadelphia Inquirer, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Harrisburg
Patriot News, Allentown Morning Call, and Erie Times-News.

The Court has reviewed the notices and concludes that they
explain, in plain language, the settlement and the procedures.
Accordingly, the Court finds that the notice program used in this
case satisfies Rule 23(c)(2)(B) and (e).

Whether Proposed Class Counsel is Adequate

After reviewing the motion and attachments, it appears to the
Court that counsel has spent a significant amount of time
investigating the claims, has extensive experience with class
actions as well as with the applicable law, and has adequate
resources to properly represent the Class.

Therefore, the Court finds that Jonathan Shub, Esq. of Kohn,
Swift & Graf, P.C. and Troy M. Frederick, Esq. of Marcus & Mack,
P.C. should be appointed as Class counsel.

The Court will grant Silvis' motion for preliminary approval of
the Settlement Agreement.

A full-text copy of the District Court's February 22, 2018
Memorandum is available at https://tinyurl.com/yc8mqe5w from
Leagle.com.

AMY SILVIS, ON BEHALF OF HERSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, Plaintiff, represented by JONATHAN SHUB --
jshub@kohnswift.com -- KOHN SWIFT & GRAF PC, HARPER SEGUI --
hsegui@kohnswift.com -- KOHN SWIFT & GRAF, P.C., KEVIN LAUKAITIS
--  klaukaitis@kohnswift.com -- KOHN SWIFT & GRAF PC, SCOTT A.
GEORGE  -- sgeorge@seegerweiss.com -- SEEGER WEISS & TROY M.
FREDERICK-troy.frederick@gmail.com -- MARCUS & MACK PC.

AMBIT NORTHEAST, LLC & AMBIT NORTHEAST, LLC, doing business as
AMBIT ENERGY, Defendants, represented by JOANNA J. CLINE
clinej@pepperlaw.com, PEPPER HAMILTON LLP, STEPHEN C. RASCH
Stephen.Rasch@tklaw.com, THOMPSON & KNIGHT LLC, JENNIFER MEGHAN
NYLIN -- Meghan.Nylin@tklaw.com -- THOMPSON & KNIGHT LLP &
MICHAEL W. STOCKHAM -- michael.stockham@tklaw.com -- THOMPSON &
KNIGHT LLP.


AMERICAN EQUITY: Faces "Thorne" Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against American Equity
Investment Life Insurance Company. The case is styled as Braulio
Thorne, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. American Equity Investment Life Insurance Company,
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-02474 (S.D. N.Y., March 20, 2018).

American Equity Investment Life Insurance Company provides
annuity insurance products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


APPLE INC: Accused by Wade of Not Fairly Paying Women Experts
-------------------------------------------------------------
CAMILLE WADE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated and aggrieved v. APPLE, INC., Case No. BC694499 (Cal.
Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., February 20, 2018), alleges that
Apple violates the California Equal Pay Act by paying women
Experts less than it pays men for substantially equal work
(through December 31, 2015) or for substantially similar work
(from January 1, 2016 forward).

Ms. Wade also alleges that Apple has also violated and continues
to violate the Unfair and Unlawful Business Practices Act through
its violations of the Equal Pay Act and its violations of the
Fair Employment and Housing Act by paying women Experts less than
men Experts.  Specifically, she contends, Apple has paid and
continues to pay women less than men in the same job position and
level, even though Apple acknowledges that persons in the same
job position and level perform substantially equal or
substantially similar work.

Apple is a corporation that designs, develops, and sells consumer
electronics, computer software, and online services.  The Apple
Store is a retail chain owned and operated by Apple.  The
Plaintiff worked at the Apple Store located at 8500 Beverly
Boulevard in Los Angeles, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Carney R. Shegerian, Esq.
          Anthony Nguyen, Esq.
          SHEGERIAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
          225 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 700
          Santa Monica, CA 90401
          Telephone: (310) 860-0770
          Facsimile: (310) 860-0771
          E-mail: CShegerian@Shegerianlaw.com
                  ANguyen@Shegerianlaw.com


APPLE INC: Removes "Borstelmann" Class Suit to E.D. Missouri
------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Apple Inc. removed on February 20, 2018, the lawsuit
titled DANIEL BORSTELMANN, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. APPLE INC., AT&T CORP., VERIZON WIRELESS
SERVICES, LLC, T-MOBILE USA, INC., SPRINT CORP., and DOES 1-10,
Case No. 1722-CC12017, from the Circuit Court of the City of St.
Louis, Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri.  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
4:18-cv-00289-JAR to the proceeding.

Apple states that it does not waive any of its defenses or rights
by filing this notice of removal, and expressly preserves all
defenses and rights.

On December 24, 2017, Plaintiff Daniel Borstelmann filed this
putative class action lawsuit in the Circuit Court.  He alleged
claims against the Defendants for (1) violations of the Missouri
Merchandising Practices Act; (2) breach of implied warranty of
merchantability; (3) breach of implied warranty of fitness for a
particular purpose; (4) fraudulent misrepresentation; and (5)
negligent misrepresentation.

Mr. Borstelmann seeks to certify a class of:

     All Missouri residents who replaced any iPhone 5, iPhone 6
     or iPhone 7 because of the slow performance of their Old
     iPhones led them to believe they had to upgrade their phones
     and purchase a newer model iPhone 7, iPhone 8 or iPhone X in
     order to remedy the slow operating of their Old iPhones and
     were not told by Defendants that a battery replacement would
     improve performance time, or that installing an iOS update
     would further slow or throttle their phones.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Anthony G. Simon, Esq.
          THE SIMON LAW FIRM, P.C.
          800 Market Street, Suite 1700
          St. Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: (314) 241-2929
          E-mail: asimon@simonlawpc.com

Defendant Apple Inc. is represented by:

          Christopher A. Smith, Esq.
          Matthew D. Knepper, Esq.
          HUSCH BLACKWELL LLP
          190 Carondelet Plaza #600
          St. Louis, MO 63105
          Telephone: (314) 480-1500
          Facsimile: (314) 480-1505
          E-mail: chris.smith@huschblackwell.com
                  matt.knepper@huschblackwell.com

               - and -

          Jordan T. Ault, Esq.
          HUSCH BLACKWELL LLP
          235 East High Street
          Jefferson City, MO 65101
          Telephone: (573) 761-1123
          Facsimile: (573) 634-7854
          E-mail: jordan.ault@huschblackwell.com

               - and -

          Theodore J. Boutrous Jr., Esq.
          Rachel S. Brass, Esq.
          Christopher Chorba, Esq.
          Theane Evangelis, Esq.
          Timothy W. Loose, Esq.
          GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
          333 South Grand Avenue
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197
          Telephone: (213) 229-7000
          Facsimile: (213) 229-7520
          E-mail: tboutrous@gibsondunn.com
                  rbrass@gibsondunn.com
                  cchorba@gibsondunn.com
                  tevangelis@gibsondunn.com
                  tloose@gibsondunn.com


AR RESOURCES: Court Dismisses "Molina" FDCPA Suit
-------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
issued an Opinion granting Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the case
captioned FRANCILLIA MOLINA, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. AR RESOURCES, INC.,
Defendant, Civil Action No. 17-6573-SDW-SCM, (D.N.J.).

Plaintiff filed a two-count Complaint alleging Defendant violated
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA).

The FDCPA provides private causes of action to consumers who have
suffered the use of abusive, deceptive, and unfair debt
collection practices.

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant failed to clearly and explicitly
identify and name the creditor to whom the debt is owed, in
violation of both 1) FDCPA Section 1692e(10) which prohibits the
use of any false, deceptive, or misleading representations or
means to collect or attempt to collect any debt and 2) Section
1692g(a)(2) which requires that within five days after the
initial communication with a consumer in connection with the
collection of any debt, a debt collector shall send the consumer
a written notice containing (2) the name of the creditor to whom
the debt is owed.

The Court finds that the collection letter is neither deceptive
nor misleading. A letter is deceptive when it can reasonably be
read to have two or more meanings, one of which is inaccurate or
contradictory to another requirement.  Defendant's letter
unambiguously identifies BBC as the creditor, and provides
Plaintiff with more than enough information to identify the exact
debt allegedly owed.

Therefore, Defendant's motion to dismiss the Complaint will be
granted.

A full-text copy of the District Court's February 22, 2018
Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/y93tb2q7 from
Leagle.com.

FRANCILLIA MOLINA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by YAAKOV SAKS --
ysaks@rclawgroup.com -- Revaz Chachanashvili Law Group. PLLC.

AR RESOURCES, INC., Defendant, represented by MARK RICHARD
FISCHER, Jr. -- mfischer@highswartz.com -- HIGH SWARTZ LLP.


BANCTEC THIRD PARTY: Denial of Bid to Strike Withdrawal Reversed
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk, issued an
Opinion reversing the Appellate Tax Board's order denying the
Appellant Dedham Health's Motion to Strike Withdrawal in the case
captioned WORLDWIDE TECHSERVICES, LLC vs. COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE
& another (and three consolidated cases), No. SJC-12328 (Mass.).

Fifteen years and three Supreme Judicial Court decisions ago,
this protracted case commenced regarding taxes imposed on
computer service contracts.  The litigation began when purchasers
of the service contracts filed a putative class action against
the sellers, claiming under G. L. c. 93A that the imposition of
these taxes was unlawful and an unfair and deceptive practice.
The "sellers" are BancTec Third Party Maintenance, Inc.,
QualxServ, LLC, and Dell Marketing L.P., the corporate appellees
in the present litigation.  The sellers successfully moved to
compel arbitration pursuant to the terms of the computer service
contracts, and a judge in the Superior Court eventually confirmed
the award.  The next chapter in this tax saga, and the one before
the Supreme Judicial Court then ensued.

For the sole and express purpose of hedging their bets in
response to the class action, the sellers had applied for tax
abatements from the Commissioner of Revenue beginning in 2004.
The commissioner denied the applications, and the sellers
petitioned the Appellate Tax Board (board).  The appellant,
Econo-Tennis Management Corp., doing business as Dedham Health
and Athletic Complex (Dedham Health), one of the consumers who
purchased these service contracts, moved to intervene in the
proceedings, which the board allowed.  Thereafter, the board,
with certain exceptions, reversed the decision of the
commissioner and allowed the abatements, ordering the parties to
compute the amounts to be abated.  Taxes totaling $215.55 were
imposed on the service contracts purchased by Dedham Health.
After the class action litigation on the claims under G. L. c.
93A ended in the sellers' favor, the sellers withdrew their tax
abatement petitions with prejudice.  Dedham Health moved to
strike the withdrawals.  The board denied the motion to strike
the withdrawals and terminated the proceedings, deciding that
"any pending or further motions . . . [were] moot" and that it
would "take no further action on these appeals."  Dedham Health
now appeals from that order.

Dedham Health argues that the board (1) improperly denied Dedham
Health's motion to strike the sellers' withdrawals, (2)
incorrectly ruled that the withdrawals rendered all pending and
future motions moot, and (3) violated Dedham Health's right to
due process by terminating the proceedings.

Withdrawal

Dedham Health contends that the board erred in allowing the
sellers to withdraw their petitions for abatement.

The Court cannot conclude as a matter of law that the board
abused its discretion in allowing the sellers' withdrawals in
these circumstances. The proceedings had already gone on for
thirteen years at that point; the putative class action lawsuit
had ended in the sellers' favor; there were limited amounts of
money at stake for individual purchasers; and only two plaintiffs
had been identified in the class action, one of whom had died in
the interim.

The board's prior decision allowing Dedham Health to intervene on
its own behalf lends further support to the board's discretion to
accept the sellers' withdrawals. As an intervener, Dedham Health
had rights separate from the sellers' rights. Thus, the sellers'
withdrawal, by itself, did not leave Dedham Health without a
right or remedy.

Independent right to abatement

Dedham Health asserts that, as an intervening party, it had an
independent right to continue to litigate the abatement
proceedings even after the sellers' withdrawal.

Statutory rights

In Massachusetts, sales and use taxes are designed as
complementary components of a unitary taxing program created to
reach all transactions in which tangible personal property is
sold inside or outside the Commonwealth for storage, use, or
other consumption within the Commonwealth.

Here, the taxes at issue were collected and remitted by the
sellers, not Dedham Health. Therefore, regardless of whether the
taxes at issue were sales taxes or use taxes, the sellers were
the party statutorily responsible for the payment of the tax and
statutorily entitled to seek abatement, not Dedham Health. This
is true even though the economic burden of the taxes at issue
were passed along to Dedham Health. Placing the legal
responsibility for the tax on vendors is also in accord with the
purpose of the tax scheme. By making the vendors responsible, the
Legislature adopted what it believed to be the most efficacious
method of ensuring the payment of the tax.

Because the vendor is already collecting the tax from the
purchasers, placing the legal responsibility for collecting,
paying, and abating the tax on the vendor is a logical way of
administering the tax burden, such that the State does not have
to pursue individual purchasers for payment.

Intervener rights

Although Dedham Health was not statutorily entitled to seek
abatement here, the board allowed Dedham Health to intervene in
the proceedings before the board. The sellers argue that such
intervention violated the statutory scheme.

The Court recognizes that Dedham Health's rights as an intervener
were limited. It did not have the same statutory powers and
responsibilities as the sellers, and thus could not seek to
displace the sellers or play an equivalent role in the abatement
process. The intervention order itself expressly stated that it
in no way extends or expands the limitations contained in G. L.
c. 62C, Section 37. Dedham Health's rights were appropriately
limited to defending its own interest in the abatement that
applied to its own transactions. It was not allowed or entitled
to step into the sellers' shoes or to intervene, as Dedham Health
suggests, as to the entirety of the sellers' tax abatement
claims.

Although these rights were limited, the Court concludes that
their existence could not be entirely contingent on the sellers'
decision whether to continue the abatement process, once it had
begun. In the instant cases, the board made this exact legal
error. It decided Dedham Health had a substantial interest in the
abatement and a limited right to intervene to defend that
interest, but as soon as the sellers filed their withdrawals, the
board terminated the proceedings, eliminating both the interest
and the right.

In these circumstances, where the board had already found that
the taxes were improperly imposed, it could not simply terminate
the proceedings and leave Dedham Health without a remedy. Dedham
Health should have been permitted to proceed after the sellers'
withdrawal to recoup the tax payment the board found had been
unlawfully imposed on Dedham Health.

The Court therefore concludes that the board erred as a matter of
law by instead choosing to terminate the proceedings after the
sellers' unilateral withdrawal.

The Court reverses the final order of the board and remands for
further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

A full-text copy of the Supreme Judicial Court's February 22,
2018 Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/yav33thq from
Leagle.com.

Edward D. Rapacki, 85 Merrimac St # 500, Boston, MA 02114 for the
intervener.

John A. Shope -- jshope@foleyhoag.com -- (Michael Hoven also
present) for the taxpayers.

Daniel J. Hammond, Assistant Attorney General (Daniel A. Shapiro,
4301 W Boy Scout Blvd, Tampa, FL 33607, also present) for
Commissioner of Revenue.

Ben Robbins, 726 Stone Avenue, Talladega, AL 35160 & Martin J.
Newhouse, for New England Legal Foundation, amicus curiae,
submitted a brief.


BED BATH BEYOND: Donde Seeks Damages Over Unsolicited SMS Ads
-------------------------------------------------------------
Aaron Donde, an individual, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Bed Bath & Beyond, Defendant,
Case No. 18-cv-60331 (S.D. Fla., February 12, 2018), seeks
injunctive relief, statutory damages and any other available
legal or equitable remedies under the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

Bed Bath & Beyond is a chain of domestic merchandise retail
stores. To boost its profits, Bed Bath & Beyond engages in
unsolicited telemarketing. This case arises from the transmission
of telemarketing text messages to Donde's cellular telephone
promoting its products.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Avi R. Kaufman, Esq.
      KAUFMAN P.A.
      400 NW 26TH Street
      Miami, FL 33127
      Tel: (305) 469-5881
      Email: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com


BJ INSPECTIONS: Accused by "Bly" Suit of Not Paying Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
TRACY BLY, individually and on behalf of all persons similarly
situated v. BJ INSPECTIONS, INC., Case No. 3:18-cv-00406-JGC
(N.D. Ohio, February 20, 2018), asserts that BJI did not pay the
Plaintiff and the class members any compensation for hours worked
over 40 per workweek, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act of 1938, the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act, the Ohio
Constitution, and all other applicable Ohio state law.

BJI is incorporated in Pennsylvania and maintains its corporate
headquarters in Westfield, Pennsylvania.  BJI is a servicing
corporation providing pipeline inspections to oil and gas
companies throughout the United States.  BJI also provides
quality assurance, quality control, and managerial services to
the oil and gas industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Frank Consolo, Esq.
          Horace F. Consolo, Esq.
          CONSOLO LAW FIRM CO., LPA
          212 Hoyt Block
          700 West St. Clair Avenue
          Cleveland, OH 44113
          Telephone: (216) 696-5400
          Facsimile: (216) 696-2610
          E-mail: fconsolo@consololaw.com
                  hconsolo@consololaw.com


BRISTOL-MYERS: "Giugno" Hits Share Drop Over Failed Cancer Meds
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Giugno, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, Michael
Giordano, Fouad Namouni, Francis M. Cuss, Giovanni Caforio,
Lamberto Andreotti and Charles A. Bancroft, Defendants, Case No.
18-cv-00878 (N.D. Cal., February 9, 2018), seeks to pursue
remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Bristol-Myers develops, licenses, manufactures, markets,
distributes and sells biopharmaceutical products globally. Its
CheckMate-026 study investigating the use of Opdivo (nivolumab)
monotherapy as first-line therapy in patients with advanced non-
small cell lung cancer failed because it did not meet its primary
endpoint of progression-free survival. On this news, the
company's stock price fell $5.62 per share, or 10.1%, to close at
$49.81 per share on October 10, 2016, on unusually heavy trading
volume. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
      Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
      Joshua L. Crowell, Esq.
      Charles H. Linehan, Esq.
      GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
      1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
      Los Angeles, CA 90067
      Telephone: (310) 201-9150
      Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
      Email: rprongay@glancylaw.com

             - and -

      Howard G. Smith, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF HOWARD G. SMITH
      3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112
      Bensalem, PA 19020
      Telephone: (215) 638-4847
      Facsimile: (215) 638-4867


CALIFORNIA CEMETERY: Faces "Ortiz" Suit in Cal. Superior Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against California Cemetery
and Funeral Services, LLC. The case is styled as John Ortiz and
Rainbow Padilla, individually and on behalf of all other
similarly situated consumers, Plaintiffs v. California Cemetery
and Funeral Services, LLC, SCI California Funeral Services, Inc.,
Service Corporation International and Does 1 to 10 inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. CGC18565120 (Cal. Super. Ct., March 20,
2018).

California Cemetery and Funeral Services, LLC, is a subsidiary of
ECI Capital, LLC, offering funeral services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Robert W. Ottinger, Jr., Esq.
   The Ottinger Law Firm
   535 Mission Street
   San Francisco, CA 94105
   Tel: (415) 993-8161
   Email: robert@ottingerlaw.com


CENTRAL OHIO ELDERLY: "Adams" Suit Seeks to Recover OT Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Misti Adams, Individually and on behalf of other members of the
general public similarly situated v. Central Ohio Elderly Care,
LLC, Central Ohio Elderly Care Plus, LLC and Osman Hassan,
individually, Case No. 2:18-cv-00134-MHW-EPD (S.D. Ohio, February
20, 2018), seeks to collect alleged unpaid overtime and other
unpaid compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938,
the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act, and the Ohio Prompt Pay
Act.

Central Ohio Elderly Care, LLC, is a domestic limited liability
company with its principal place of business in the Southern
District of Ohio.  COEC operates a home care staffing agency of
direct care workers for the elderly and/or disabled, who are in
need of in home assistance.

Central Ohio Elderly Care Plus, LLC, is a domestic limited
liability company with its principal place of business in the
Southern District of Ohio.  COEC PLUS operates a home care
staffing agency of direct care workers for the elderly and/or
disabled, who are in need of in home assistance.  Osman Hassan is
the Chief Executive Officer of Defendants COEC and COEC PLUS, and
is believed to be the owner of COEC and COEC PLUS.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq.
          COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC
          1457 S. High St.
          Columbus, OH 43207
          Telephone: (614) 949-1181
          Facsimile: (614) 386-9964
          E-mail: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com

               - and -

          Peter Contreras, Esq.
          CONTRERAS LAW, LLC
          PO Box 215
          Amlin, OH 43002
          Telephone: (614) 787-4878
          Facsimile: (614) 923-7369
          E-mail: peter.contreras@contrerasfirm.com


CIOX HEALTH: Court Narrows Claims in "Ortiz"
--------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York issued an Opinion and Order granting in part and denying in
part Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the first amended complaint in
the case captioned VICKY ORTIZ, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. CIOX HEALTH LLC, as
successor in interest of IOD INC., and THE NEW YORK AND
PRESBYTERIAN HOSPITAL, Defendants, No. 17cv4039 (DLC)(S.D.N.Y.).

Ortiz alleges that defendants violated a provision of New York
Public Health Law Section 18, which limits charges for copies of
medical records to $0.75 per page, when they charged $1.50 per
page for copies of Ortiz's medical records. Ortiz seeks money
damages and injunctive relief, for herself and on behalf of a
proposed state-wide class.

A complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as
true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face to
survive a motion to dismiss.

The NYPH argues that Ortiz lacks standing to pursue her claims
because the FAC fails to allege that she, rather than Sidney, was
injured.

To establish Article III standing, Ortiz must demonstrate (1)
injury-in-fact, which is a concrete and particularized harm to a
legally protected interest; (2) causation in the form of a fairly
traceable connection between the asserted injury-in-fact and the
alleged actions of the defendant; and (3) redressability, or a
non-speculative likelihood that the injury can be remedied by the
requested relief.

NYPH facially challenges the complaint on the ground that the FAC
alleges that Ortiz's attorney, Sidney, paid for the copies of
medical records, rather than Ortiz herself. The FAC alleges that
Plaintiff, through her attorneys The Law Office of Lowell J.
Sidney, paid the bill which charged in excess of seventy-five
cents ($0.75) per page for her medical records.

The FAC further alleges that as a direct and proximate result of
the foregoing, Plaintiff suffered damages by, amongst other
things, being caused to pay fees for the medical records in
excess of the legally permissible rate. These allegations of an
agency relationship and damages are sufficient to establish
standing for a damages claim at the pleading stage.

Jurisdiction over Claims for Class Relief

After Ortiz filed this action, CIOX unilaterally refunded the
overcharge Ortiz alleges she paid by refunding the amount to her
attorney's credit card. Based on this refund, NYPH moves to
dismiss the FAC on the grounds that there is no longer a live
controversy between the parties.

In a situation such as this, it is the plaintiff's choice, not
the defendant's or the court's, whether the satisfaction of her
individual claim, without redress of her viable class-wide
allegations, is sufficient to bring the lawsuit to an end.
These reservations apply with full force here. Individual
plaintiffs bringing claims under Public Health Law Section 18 are
unlikely to be entitled to more than a few hundred dollars in
damages, making such claims easy targets to be picked off
individually. Accordingly, NYPH's motion to dismiss on mootness
grounds is denied.

Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing

Ortiz claims that defendants violated their duty of good faith
and fair dealing to her when they charged her $1.50 per page for
copies of her medical records. Defendants move to dismiss this
claim on the ground that Ortiz has not alleged that they
prevented or interfered with Ortiz's performance of a contract,
as required to state a claim of breach of the duty of good faith
and fair dealing under New York law.

The FAC fails to state a claim for breach of the implied covenant
of good faith and fair dealing. Through this claim, the FAC does
not assert that the defendants deprived Ortiz of the benefit of
her contract with NYPH, that is her agreement to pay NYPH in
order to obtain copies of her medical records. Instead, the FAC
asserts that the contract itself violated public policy as
embodied in Section 18 of the Public Health Law. That theory is
duplicative of Count 1 and does not state a claim of breach of
the duty of good faith and fair dealing. As such, Count 2 is
dismissed.

Fraud

Ortiz claims that defendants defrauded her when NYPH sent her
records to IOD, and when IOD sent her a bill that listed charges
in excess of the statutory maximum of $0.75 per page.

Under New York law, a fraud claim must allege five elements:
(1) a material misrepresentation or omission of a fact, (2)
knowledge of that fact's falsity, (3) an intent to induce
reliance, (4) justifiable reliance by the plaintiff, and (5)
damages.

The FAC fails to state a claim of fraud. The FAC alleges that the
defendants issued Ortiz fraudulent bills which materially
misrepresented what was owed by Plaintiff and members of her
class in order to induce Plaintiff into payment of more money
than she was required to pay by law, and that Plaintiff did rely
on the fraudulently induced charges and paid the inflated bill.
Among other things, this conclusory statement fails to plead
reasonable reliance on a false statement of the defendants. As
the FAC explains, the request made by Ortiz's attorney instructed
the hospital that it was not legally permitted to charge more
than $0.75 per page. Count 3 is accordingly dismissed.

Unjust Enrichment

Ortiz claims that defendants were unjustly enriched when they
charged her more than $0.75 per page for copies of her medical
records.

Defendants move to dismiss Ortiz's claim on the grounds that she
has not sufficiently alleged inequitable conduct on their part
and that she alleges the existence of a contract, which precludes
a claim of unjust enrichment.

The FAC is premised on the existence of an agreement between
Ortiz and defendants to pay $1.50 per page for copies of medical
records. The existence of a contract precludes a claim of unjust
enrichment under New York law. For these reasons, Count 4 is
dismissed.

Motions to dismiss are granted as to Counts 2, 3, 4, and 5 of the
FAC. The motions to dismiss are denied as to Count 1 of the FAC.

A full-text copy of the District Court's February 22, 2018
Opinion and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yart2b53
from Leagle.com.

Vicky Ortiz, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Lowell Jay Sidney, Lowell J.
Sidney.

IOD Inc. & CIOX HEALTH LLC, successor in interest, Defendants,
represented by Jodyann Galvin jgalvin@hodgsonruss.com, Hodgson
Russ LLP & Kathryn Anne Tiskus -- ktiskus@hogsonruss.com --
Hodgson Russ, LLP.

The New York And Presbyterian Hospital, Defendant, represented by
John Houston Pope  -- jhpope@ebglaw.com -- Epstein, Becker &
Green, P.C..


CLEARVIEW CENTERS: Denied "Purnell" Overtime Pay
------------------------------------------------
Carla Purnell and Tanisha Slaughter, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Clearview
Centers, LLC, 1334 Westwood, LLC, 2432 Walnut, LLC, 2435 Glyndon,
LLC, Quaint LLC and Michael Roy, jointly and severally,
Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-01172 (C.D. Cal., February 12, 2018),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime and other damages for violation
of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Clearview Treatment Programs is a comprehensive mental health and
dual diagnosis treatment center and provides a broad array of
residential, day and outpatient treatment programs. Clearview
employed Purnell and Slaughter as Community Counselors. They both
worked in excess of forty in a single workweek and for hours in
excess of eight hours in a work day. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     David Yeremian, Esq.
     DAVID YEREMIAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
     535 N. Brand Blvd., Suite 705
     Glendale, CA 91203
     Telephone: (818) 230-8380
     Facsimile: (818) 230-0308
     Email: david@yeremianlaw.com

             - and -

      Kevin J. Stoops, Esq.
      Rod M. Johnston, Esq.
      SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
      One Towne Square, Suite 1700
      Southfield, MI 48076
      Tel: (248) 355-0300
      Email: kstoops@sommerspc.com
             rjohnston@sommerspc.com


COINBASE: Arizona Citizen Files Insider Trading Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Helen Partz, writing for Coin Telegraph, reports that Coinbase, a
major US-based cryptocurrency exchange and wallet platform, faces
a class action lawsuit claiming that its employees and other
insiders benefited from trading on non-public information that
the exchange planned to introduce Bitcoin Cash (BCH) support last
December, The Recorder Law reported on March 2.

The complaint was filed by Coinbase user and Arizona citizen
Jeffrey Berk, represented by two law firms, in the US District
Court for the Northern District of California on March 1.

The introduction to the class action complaint brought against
Coinbase explains that it is being made:

"on behalf of all Coinbase customers who placed purchase, sale or
trade orders with Coinbase . . . during the period of December
19, 2017 through and including December 21, 2017 . . . and who
suffered monetary loss as a result of Defendants' wrongdoing."

In the lawsuit, the plaintiff accuses Coinbase of "artificially
inflated prices" by means of disclosing buy and sell orders
moments after Coinbase launched BCH support on Dec. 19, 2017. The
move may have caused the price of the cryptocurrency to soar by
over 130 percent -- from $1,865 on Dec. 18 it reached as high as
$4,300 by Feb. 20, according to data from CoinMarketCap.

BCH was launched in August 2017 as a hard fork from Bitcoin. The
day it launched on Coinbase, senior manager Brian Armstrong
published a blog post stating that Coinbase employees were
subject to the company's trading policies, which applies to all
trading activities on any platform and prohibits non-public
information disclosure.

"Given the price increase in the hours leading up the
announcement, we will be conducting an investigation into this
matter. If we find evidence of any employee or contractor
violating our policies -- directly or indirectly -- I will not
hesitate to terminate the employee immediately and take
appropriate legal action," Armstrong stated in his post.

On Feb. 23, Coinbase officially informed around 13,000 "high-
transacting" customers that personal data from accounts would be
turned over to the US Internal Revenue Service (IRS) following a
legal order that is the result of an ongoing legal battle between
the IRS and the crypto platform. [GN]


COINBASE: Faces Class Actions Over Insider Bitcoin Cash Trading
---------------------------------------------------------------
Samantha Chang, writing for Investopedia, reports that Bitcoin
exchange Coinbase was hit with two federal class action lawsuits
in two days, including one accusing employees of insider trading
of Bitcoin Cash (BCH).

In the first lawsuit, filed on March 1, the plaintiffs claim
Coinbase employees illegally profited by trading on insider
information that the exchange had planned to roll out Bitcoin
Cash support in December 2017.

The action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California by lead plaintiff Jeffrey Berk on behalf
of himself and a group of Coinbase customers.

Artificially Inflated Prices

The lawsuit alleges that insider trading activity by Coinbase
employees artificially inflated the price of Bitcoin Cash,
causing customers and the rest of the cryptocurrency market (who
did not have the benefit of inside information) to unfairly lose
money on their trades.

The plaintiffs alleged in their complaint:

On December 19, 2017, a month after tipping off its own employees
as to when it would commence fully supporting BCH, Coinbase
suddenly announced that it was opening up its books to the buying
and selling of BCH within minutes after its announcements.

Unsurprisingly, those who had been tipped off, immediately
swamped Coinbase and the GDAX with buy and sell orders, thinning
the liquidity but obtaining BCH at fair prices.  The market
effect was to unfairly drive up the price of BCH for non-insider
traders once BCH came on line on the Coinbase exchange.

Indeed, the price and trading volume of Bitcoin Cash spiked
dramatically on Dec. 20, as shown by the chart below:

The lawsuit demands a jury trial and unspecified monetary damages
for "all Coinbase customers who placed purchase, sale or trade
orders with Coinbase during the period of Dec. 19, 2017 through
and including Dec. 21, 2017 . . . and who suffered monetary loss
as a result of Defendants' wrongdoing."

Accused of Unfair Business Practices
The second lawsuit was filed a day later, with Coinbase accused
it "unlawful and unfair business practices" and violating
California's Unclaimed Property Law.

Timothy G. Faasse and Jeffrey Hansen, filing on March 2 on behalf
of a class of customers, accuse Coinbase of fraudulently keeping
funds they knew did not belong to them simply because users had
not claimed them.  The complaint alleges:

Imagine writing a cashier's check to a friend.  The bank
withdraws funds from your account, but your friend never cashes
the check.  Does the bank get to keep the funds? The law clearly
says no.  But this is exactly what has happened with
Cryptocurrencies sent through Coinbase.com, owned and operated by
Coinbase, Inc.

Coinbase users can send Bitcoin, Ethereum, Litecoin and Bitcoin
Cash (collectively "Cryptocurrencies") to an email address.
Plaintiffs and the Class were sent an email from Coinbase stating
they had Cryptocurrency, with a link to create a Coinbase account
to redeem it.  But until 2017, most people never heard of a
"bitcoin" or cryptocurrency, so most of these emails were
disregarded. And most of the Cryptocurrency went unclaimed.

But instead of notifying Plaintiffs and the Class they had
unclaimed Cryptocurrencies, or turning those Cryptocurrencies
over to the State of California as required by California's
Unclaimed Property Law . . . Coinbase kept them.

IRS to Get Coinbase User Data
This has been a rough few weeks for Coinbase.  In mid-February,
the digital currency exchange and wallet platform was accused of
overcharging its customers.

Amid outrage from users, payments processor Visa Inc. (V) later
admitted that it had been responsible for the charging error.

One week later, Coinbase notified users that the IRS had ordered
it to turn over data on 13,000 customers. Why? Because Uncle Sam
wants to tax your bitcoin gains.

Investing in cryptocurrencies and other Initial Coin Offerings
("ICOs") is highly risky and speculative, and this article is not
a recommendation by Investopedia or the writer to invest in
cryptocurrencies or other ICOs.  Since each individual's
situation is unique, a qualified professional should always be
consulted before making any financial decisions. Investopedia
makes no representations or warranties as to the accuracy or
timeliness of the information contained herein.  As of the date
this article was written, the author owns no cryptocurrencies.
[GN]


CRUCIAL CUSTOMS: "Silcox" Suit Alleges Time-Shaving
---------------------------------------------------
Kristie Silcox, individually on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Crucial Customs and
Restorations, LLC and Dallas Atwood, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-
00141 (M.D. Tenn., February 12, 2018), seeks unpaid overtime
compensation, liquidated damages, interest and attorneys' fees
and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Crucial Customs -- www.crucialrestorations.com -- is an auto
restoration service in Wilson County TN owned by Atwood. Silcox
regularly and repeatedly performed work in excess of forty hours
per week. Defendants required Plaintiff and other employees to
clock in and out using a cellular application but would regularly
edit their time, shaving off time, says the complaint. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Emily S. Emmons, Esq.
     GILBERT RUSSELL McWHERTER SCOTT BOBBITT PLC
     341 Cool Springs Blvd, Suite 230
     Franklin, TN 37067
     Telephone: (615) 354-1144
     Email: eemmons@gilbertfirm.com


DENKA PERFORMANCE: Dupont's Bid to Dismiss "Taylor" Granted
-----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Louisiana issued an Order and Reasons denying Plaintiffs' Motion
for Extension of Time to File Motion for Class Certification in
the case captioned ROBERT TAYLOR, JR., ET AL., v. DENKA
PERFORMANCE ELASTOMER LLC, ET AL., Civil Action No. 17-7668 (E.D.
La.).

Before the Court is the plaintiffs' Rule 54(b) motion to
reconsider the Court's order denying motion for extension of time
to file motion for class certification; and defendant E. I. du
Pont de Nemours and Company's motion to strike plaintiffs' motion
for class certification and appointment of class counsel.

The plaintiffs allege that DuPont has emitted chloroprene for
many years at levels resulting in concentrations many times the
upper limit of acceptable risk, and DPE continues to do so.  In
April 2017, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency released a
redacted inspection report showing more than 10,000 violations by
Denka related to emissions of chloroprene from the Pontchartrain
Works Facility (PWF). It is alleged that the top six census
tracts in the nation with the highest NATA-estimated cancer risks
are the census tracts in the vicinity of the PWF.

Accordingly, the plaintiffs allege Louisiana state law claims of
nuisance, trespass, negligence, and strict and absolute
liability; they seek injunctive relief and damages resulting from
alleged exposure to chloroprene released from the PWF.

Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs the
plaintiffs' motion to reconsider this Court's Order and Reasons
in which it denied the plaintiffs' request for an extension of
time to seek class certification. Rule 54(b) states:

     "(b) Judgement on Multiple Claims or Involving Multiple
Parties. When an action presents more than one claim for relief
whether as a claim, counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party
claim or when multiple parties are involved, the court may direct
entry of a final judgment as to one or more, but fewer than all,
claims or parties only if the court expressly determines that
there is no just reason for delay. Otherwise, any order or other
decision, however designated, that adjudicates fewer than all the
parties does not end the action as to any of the claims or
parties and may be revised at any time before the entry of a
judgment adjudicating all the claims and all the parties' rights
and liabilities."

The plaintiffs fail to identify anything resembling a manifest
error of law or an injustice.  As movants seeking an extension of
time, the plaintiffs suggested (without any supporting or
persuasive analysis) that Rule 23.1(B)'s 91-day deadline began to
run from the day the defendants filed their amended notice of
removal. The Court rejected the argument, given the plain
language of the local rule, as reinforced by the case literature.
Notably, neither the motion to reconsider nor the proposed reply
offered in support of the motion for extension persuades the
Court that it erred in its calculation of the 91-day deadline, or
that it misinterpreted its Local Rule, or that it disregarded
controlling authority in determining that the plaintiffs' motion
for extension to seek class certification was filed more than 91
days after the defendants removed this putative class action
lawsuit from state court.

DuPont moves to strike the plaintiffs' motion.

What DuPont seeks to achieve in moving to strike the plaintiffs'
motion for class certification is in reality a dismissal of the
class allegations. Accordingly, the Court construes the motion to
strike as a motion to dismiss class allegations. Given that the
penalty for failing to timely seek class certification is the
dismissal of class allegations, the request to dismiss the
plaintiffs' class allegations shall be granted.

Accordingly, for these reasons, the plaintiffs' Rule 54(b) motion
to reconsider the Court's order denying motion for extension of
time to file for a motion for class certification is denied.

DuPont's motion to strike the plaintiffs' motion for class
certification and appointment of class counsel is construed as a
motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' class allegations, and the
motion is granted.

A full-text copy of the District Court's February 22, 2018 Order
and Reasons is available at https://tinyurl.com/yaodmdjz from
Leagle.com.

Robert Taylor, Jr., individually and as representative of all
those similarly situated, Kershell Bailey, individually and as
representative of all those similarly situated, Shondrell P.
Campbell, individually and as representative of all those
similarly situated, Gloria Dumas, individually and as
representative of all those similarly situated, Jenelle Emory,
individually and as representative of all those similarly
situated, Annette Houston, individually and as representative of
all those similarly situated, Rogers Jackson, individually and as
representative of all those similarly situated, Michael Perkins,
individually and as representative of all those similarly
situated, Allen Schnyder, Jr., individually and as representative
of all those similarly situated, Larry Sorapuru, Sr.,
individually and as representative of all those similarly
situated, Kelli Tabb, individually and as representative of all
those similarly situated & Robert Taylor, III, individually and
o/b/o his Minor Daughter, N.T. and as representative of all those
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Hugh Palmer
Lambert -- hlambert@thelambertfirm.com -- Lambert Firm, APLC,
Cayce Christian Peterson -- cpeterson@thelambertfirm.com --
Lambert Firm, APLC, Darryl Jude Tschirn, Law Office of Darryl J.
Tschirn, 7825 Fay Avenue, Suite 320. La Jolla, California 92037,
Eberhard D. Garrison -- egarrison@jonesswanson.com -- Jones,
Swanson, Huddell & Garrison, LLC, Gladstone N. Jones, III --
gjones@jonesswanson.com --  Jones, Swanson, Huddell & Garrison,
LLC, Harvey Sylvanous Bartlett, III- tbartlett@jonesswanson.com -
- Jones, Swanson, Huddell & Garrison, LLC, John J. Cummings, III,
Cummings & Cummings, PLC, Joseph M. Bruno --
jbruno@brunobrunolaw.com -- Bruno & Bruno, Kevin Earl Huddell,
Jones, Swanson, Huddell & Garrison, LLC, 601 Poydras Street,
Suite 2655. New Orleans, LA 70130, Lindsay E. Reeves, Jones,
Swanson, Huddell & Garrison, LLC, Lynn E. Swanson, Jones,
Swanson, Huddell & Garrison, LLC,  601 Poydras St Ste 2655. New
Orleans. LA. 70130-6004, Morgan M. Embleton --
membleton@thelambertfirm.com -- The Lambert Firm & Randal Leroy
Gaines, Randal L. Gaines Law Office, 7 Turnberry Dr, La Place, LA
70068

George Handy, individually and as representative of all those
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Hugh Palmer
Lambert, Lambert Firm, APLC, Cayce Christian Peterson, Lambert
Firm, APLC, Eberhard D. Garrison, Jones, Swanson, Huddell &
Garrison, LLC, Gladstone N. Jones, III, Jones, Swanson, Huddell &
Garrison, LLC, Harvey Sylvanous Bartlett, III, Jones, Swanson,
Huddell & Garrison, LLC, John J. Cummings, III, Cummings &
Cummings, PLC, Joseph M. Bruno, Bruno & Bruno, Kevin Earl
Huddell, Jones, Swanson, Huddell & Garrison, LLC,Lindsay E.
Reeves, Jones, Swanson, Huddell & Garrison, LLC, Lynn E. Swanson,
Jones, Swanson, Huddell & Garrison, LLC, Morgan M. Embleton, The
Lambert Firm & Randal Leroy Gaines, Randal L.Gaines Law Office.

Denka Performance Elastomer LLC, Defendant, represented by James
Conner Percy, Jones Walker, Brett S. Venn bvenn@joneswalker.com,
Jones Walker, Justin J. Marocco -- jmarocco@joneswalker.com --
Jones Walker, Michael A. Chernekoff, Jones Walker & Michael R.
Rhea, Jones Walker, Four United Plaza. 8555 United Plaza
Boulevard. Baton Rouge, LA 70809.

E.I. Dupont De Nemours & Co., Defendant, represented by Deborah
DeRoche Kuchler, Kuchler Polk Weiner, LLC, Kevin T. Van Wart,
Kirkland & Ellis, LLP, pro hac vice, Bradley H. Weidenhammer,
Kirkland & Ellis, LLP, pro hac vice, Joshua Doguet, Kuchler Polk
Weiner, LLC, Rebecca C. Fitzpatrick, Kirkland & Ellis, LLP, pro
hac vice, Sarah E. Iiams, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson,
L.L.C. & Stanley M. Wash, Kirkland & Ellis, LLP, pro hac vice.


DEM JET INC: "Fridman" Sues Over Unsolicited SMS Ads
----------------------------------------------------
Jacqueline Fridman, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Dem Jet, Inc., Defendant, Case
No. 18-cv-20543, (S.D. Fla., February 12, 2018), seeks injunctive
relief, statutory damages and any other available legal or
equitable remedies under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Jets.com is a private jet charter and jet rental company. It
transmitted telemarketing text messages to Fridman's cellular
telephone promoting its services, notes the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Avi R. Kaufman, Esq.
      KAUFMAN P.A.
      400 NW 26th Street
      Miami, FL 33127
      Tel: (305) 469-5881
      Email: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com


DIRECTV LLC: Faces "Burson" Suit in N.D. Alabama
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against DIRECTV LLC. The
case is styled as Jason Burson and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. DIRECTV LLC, Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-00437-SGC
(N.D. Ala., March 20, 2018).

DirecTV is an American direct broadcast satellite service
provider based in El Segundo, California and is a subsidiary of
AT&T.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Wesley L Phillips, Esq.
   PHILLIPS LAW GROUP LLC
   P O Box 362001
   Birmingham, AL 35236
   Tel: (205) 383-3585
   Fax: (800) 536-0385
   Email: wlp@wphillipslaw.com


DISH NETWORK: Sent Unsolicited SMS Ads, "Huff" Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------
Kristin Huff, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. DISH Network, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
18-cv-00340 (M.D. Fla., February 9, 2018), seeks statutory and
treble damages and injunctive relief and an award of attorneys'
fees and costs for violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act.

DISH is a television service providers, with more than 13 million
subscribers. It operates an aggressive contact schedule which
bombards unsuspecting consumers, with whom it has no relationship
with prerecorded messages.

Plaintiff is not a DISH subscriber, has never had a business
relationship with DISH and never consented to be contacted by
DISH on her cellular telephone.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Tamra Givens, Esq.
      LEMBERG LAW, L.L.C.
      43 Danbury Road, 3rd Floor
      Wilton, CT 06897
      Telephone: (203) 653-2250
      Facsimile: (203) 653-3424


DOMETIC CORP: "Zimmer" Suit Transferred to S.D. Fla.
----------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Central District of
California issued an Order denying Plaintiffs' Motion to Stay
Judgment on Transferring the case captioned JAMES ZIMMER, MELVIN
RICH, ERNIE ARNOLD, SANDRA GREENE, JAMES MITCHELL, KURT SHOEMAKER
SR., RANDALL ORTEGO, STEVEN HORNER, SR., JAMES JACKSON, DEBRA
SADLER, AND RICHARD HAISC, Plaintiffs, v. DOMETIC CORPORATION,
Defendant, Case No. CV 2:17-cv-06913 ODW (MRWx) (C.D. Cal.), and
granted Defendant Motion to Transfer the Action.

Defendant moved to transfer the action from the Central District
of California to the Southern District of Florida, where a
previously consolidated action is also pending against Dometic.

Plaintiffs moved to stay judgment on transferring this case to
the Southern District of Florida until the Judicial Panel on
Multi-Issue Litigation (JPML) issued its opinion.

Plaintiffs brought a putative class action against Dometic
Corporation alleging the existence of a common, dangerous, and
inherent defect in Dometic's gas absorption refrigerators.
Dometic Corporation is currently defending three separate
putative class actions brought in three different districts.  One
of these is the action currently before the Court. All three
suits involve similar allegations and claims.

The power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent
in every court to control the disposition of the causes on its
docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel,
and for litigants. This is done at the discretion of the Court
after weighing competing interests.

Mootness of Plaintiffs' Motion to Stay

Plaintiffs requested a stay pending the decision of the JPML. On
January 30, 3018, the JPML denied Plaintiffs' request to
centralize these actions in a multidistrict litigation, making
this motion moot.

Accordingly, the Court denies Plaintiffs' Motion to Stay.

Appropriateness of Transfer

The first-to-file rule plays a significant role in reducing
wasted time, avoiding contradictions between courts of concurrent
jurisdiction, and ensuring uniformity of decisions.

To determine when the first-to-file rule applies, courts
consider: (1) the chronology of the actions; (2) the similarity
of the parties; and (3) the similarity of the issues.

The Papasan action was filed first, on April 21, 2016, in the
Northern District of California.  Plaintiffs assert that this
means the only venue to which transfer would be appropriate under
the first-to-file rule is the Northern District.  However, to
properly apply the first-to-file rule with regard to chronology,
the district court need only find that a pending case in another
federal court was filed previously. Here, the
Varner/Zucconiaction was filed before this case and already
includes two related actions. Whether Papasan will also be
transferred is left to the discretion of Northern District.
Transferring this case to the Southern District of Florida, where
two similar cases have already been consolidated, serves the
interests of justice and the purpose underlying the first-to-file
rule.

Similarity of the Parties

Here, the defendants in both actions are identical.  As to the
plaintiffs, in a class action context, plaintiffs' similarity is
determined by comparing the putative classes. Thus, the class, as
defined in Zucconi, subsumes those in this action. Plaintiffs do
not dispute this, and, instead, rest their entire opposition on
their assertion that this case should be transferred to the
Northern District of California.

Thus, this factor favors transfer.

Similarity of the Issues

Plaintiffs do not dispute the similarity between the actions;
indeed, they themselves acknowledge the actions should be
consolidated. Thus, the similarity of issues is also satisfied.

Fairness & Equitable Concerns

The purpose of the first-to-file rule is to avoid placing an
unnecessary burden on the federal judiciary and to avoid the
embarrassment of conflicting judgments. This means consolidating
discovery where possible and conserving time, energy, and
financial resources. Because the Varner/Zucconi action has
progressed further than this one, and Papasan has a similar
procedural posture, the equities demand transfer.

The Court denies, as moot, Plaintiffs' Motion to Stay Judgment
and grants Defendant's Motion to Transfer Venue. Accordingly, the
Court instructs the Clerk to transfer this case to the District
Court of the Southern District of Florida.

A full-text copy of the District Court's February 22, 2018 Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/y9huyrr8 from Leagle.com.

James Zimmer, individually and as representative of a class of
similarly situated persons, Melvin Rich, individually and as
representative of a class of similarly situated persons, Ernie
Arnold, individually and as representative of a class of
similarly situated persons, Sandra Greene, individually and as
representative of a class of similarly situated persons, James
Mitchell, individually and as representative of a class of
similarly situated persons, Kurt Shoemaker, Sr., individually and
as representative of a class of similarly situated persons,
Randall Ortego, individually and as representative of a class of
similarly situated persons, Steven Horner, Sr., individually and
as representative of a class of similarly situated persons, James
Jackson, individually and as representative of a class of
similarly situated persons, Debra Sadler, individually and as
representative of a class of similarly situated persons & Richard
Haisch, individually and as representative of a class of
similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs, represented by Caleb
Marker -- caleb.marker@zimmreed.com -- Zimmerman Reed LLP & Hart
L. Robinovitch -- hlr@zimmreed.com -- Zimmerman Reed PLLP, pro
hac vice.

Dometic Corporation, a Delaware Corporation, Defendant,
represented by Corey K. Brady -- corey.brady@weil.com -- Weil
Gotshal and Manges LLP, pro hac vice, Edward Soto --
edward.soto@weil.com -- Weil Gotshal and Manges LLP, pro hac
vice, Erica W. Rutner -- erutner@lashgoldberg.com -- Lash and
Goldberg LLP, pro hac vice, Marcy C. Priedeman  --
marcy.priedeman@lw.com -- Latham and Watkins LLP, Peter Allen
Wald -- peter.wald@lw.com -- Latham and Watkins LLP, Pravin R.
Patel -- pravin.patel.weil.com -- Weil Gotshal and Manges LLP,
pro hac vice, Robert C. Collins, III robert.collins@lw.com,
Latham and Watkins LLP, pro hac vice & Wesley J. Horton, Latham
and Watkins LLP.


EASTERLY ACQUISITION: Monteverde Probes Securities Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Monteverde, Esq., founder and managing partner at Monteverde
& Associates PC, a national securities firm headquartered at the
Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating Easterly
Acquisition Corp. ("Easterly" or the "Company")(NasdaqCM "EACQ")
regarding the proposed business combination transaction between
Easterly and JH Capital Group Holdings, LLC ("JH Capital")(the
"Business Combination").  Following the completion of the
Business Combination, Easterly will own a controlling interest in
JH Capital and Easterly is expected to change its name to JH
Capital Group Holdings, Inc. ("JH Capital Inc.").

Click here for more information:
http://monteverdelaw.com/investigations/m-a/. It is free and
there is no cost or obligation to you.

The investigation focuses on whether Easterly and/or its Board of
Directors violated federal securities laws and/or breached their
fiduciary duties to the Company's stockholders by 1) failing to
properly value the Business Combination and 2) failing to
disclose all material information in connection with the Business
Combination.

Monteverde & Associates PC is a national class action securities
and consumer litigation law firm that has recovered millions of
dollars and is committed to protecting shareholders and consumers
from corporate wrongdoing.  Monteverde & Associates PC lawyers
have significant experience litigating Mergers & Acquisitions and
Securities Class Actions, whereby they protect investors by
recovering money and remedying corporate misconduct.
Mr. Monteverde, who leads the legal team at the firm, has been
recognized by Super Lawyers as a Rising Star in Securities
Litigation in 2013 and 2017, an award given to less than 2.5% of
attorneys in a particular field.  He has also been selected by
Martindale-Hubbell as a 2017 Top Rated Lawyer.

If you own common stock in Easterly and wish to obtain additional
information and protect your investments free of charge, please
visit us at www.monteverdelaw.com/investigations/m-a/ or contact
Juan E. Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at
jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341.
[GN]


ENCORE PIPE: "Caballero" Suit to Recover Unpaid Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------
Arnulfo Caballero on behalf of himself and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Encore Pipe &
Construction, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-00020, (W.D. Tex.,
February 8, 2018), seeks unpaid overtime compensation and
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, costs and expenses,
prejudgment and post-judgment interest and such other and further
relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New Mexico
Minimum Wage Act.

Encore Pipe & Construction, LLC is an oilfield services company
that provides pipe construction and maintenance services to
pipelines across Texas, New Mexico and other states. Caballero
worked for Defendant as a welder from approximately August of
2013 to February of 2016. Welders commonly work in excess of 12
hours each day for days straight with little rest. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Beatriz Sosa-Morris, Esq.
      SOSA-MORRIS NEUMAN ATTORNEYS AT LAW
      5612 Chaucer Drive
      Houston, TX 77005
      Telephone: (281) 885-8844
      Facsimile: (281) 885-8813
      Email: BSosaMorris@smnlawfirm.com


ENTERPRISE FOODS: May Face Class Action Over Listeriosis Outbreak
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Natarah Nadesan, writing for East Coast Radio, reports that
one of the largest food recalls in South Africa's recent history
is currently underway due to the listeriosis outbreak -- which
has killed at least 180 people.

Health Minister, Aaron Motsoaledi has revealed the source of the
outbreak was a factory for Enterprise polony in Polokwane.

Polony, viennas, russians, frankfurters and other cold meats were
found to be carrying the bacteria responsible for Listeriosis.

Consumerwatch's Wendy Knowler explains what you can do if you've
purchased any of these products.

Ms. Knowler says the families of those who lost their lives to
the outbreak could take action as per the Consumer Protection
Act.

"The CPA requires companies to produce products that don't harm
consumers and if they are found guilty of that -- the sanction is
ultimately 10% of their annual turnover.  The families of all
those that lost their lives to this disease could mount a class
action and that could run into the tens or hundreds of millions,"
she said.

Some of the country's major supermarkets have cleared their
shelves to get rid of products linked to the deadly Listeriosis
outbreak. [GN]


EQUIFAX INC: Data Breach Class Action Set to Be Argued in Georgia
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tamar Hallerman and J. Scott Trubey, writing for The Atlanta
Journal-Constitution, report that in the weeks after Equifax
disclosed its expansive database of Americans' most personal
information had been hacked, officials on Capitol Hill seethed
with rage.

Congressional hearings with Rick Smith, the former top executive
of the Atlanta credit bureau, were testy.  Lawmakers from both
parties vented and wagged their fingers, demanding that something
be done to prevent another breach like Equifax's, which exposed
the personal data of more than 145 million Americans and was
concealed from the public for six weeks after first being
discovered.

It has now been six months since the hack was first exposed, and
Congress has yet to pass or even debate any major legislation
strengthening the country's patchwork of data security laws.

Action on the state level has also been slow to come.  Georgia
legislators are only now beginning to discuss limited legislation
that would make computer hacking a crime and eliminate fees for
consumers seeking to freeze their credit reports.

Most activity so far has been limited to legal channels.  A rare
50-state class action lawsuit against Equifax will be argued in
Georgia, and some notable Atlanta attorneys, including former
Gov. Roy Barnes and Peter Canfield, are part of the legal team
leading the case against the credit bureau involving consumers
and financial institutions.

Georgia Attorney General Chris Carr joined dozens of his
counterparts from other states in a probe examining the
circumstances surrounding the breach and how it has impacted
Georgians.  And Atlanta-based U.S. Attorney Byung "BJay" Pak is
involved in a parallel federal investigation of the hack.

Legal action so far is focused mainly on the criminals who hacked
the company and what Equifax did and didn't do to protect its
data, the reams of personal information that help banks determine
who's worthy of receiving credit to buy homes, cars or to get a
credit card.

But when it comes to setting the rules of the road to ensure that
such breaches won't occur again, there is little certainty that
lawmakers, particularly on the federal level, will be able to
find much consensus.

That leaves consumers exposed to even more hacks.

"In some ways it seems like such a cut and dry issue that should
be an easy one to tackle," said Jason Kratovil, vice president of
government affairs for payments at the Financial Services
Roundtable, an advocacy group for the financial services industry
that has been pushing for data breach legislation.  "But when you
start to think about it, it's so big that it is very difficult to
get Congress' arms around it and get something to move."

Legislative inaction

When Equifax disclosed last September that criminals had accessed
the personal information of 145 million Americans -- essentially
half of the country's adult population == the news sent shudders
down the spines of millions.

Dunwoody resident Stephen Patrick said he felt "violated" when he
learned of the breach, and he doesn't understand the lack of
action by lawmakers and regulators.

"They are responsible for our personal information. They gather
it, they give us a FICO score," Mr. Patrick said, referring to
the model used to score credit worthiness.  "They're the ones who
dictate what I can and cannot buy."

Social security numbers, addresses and birthdays were among the
heaps of data stolen. But the punishments have been slow to come
-- there is no federal cop to regulate how companies protect
themselves from this type of digital hacking.

Equifax offered a year of credit monitoring in the wake of the
breach, and the company also waived fees for credit freezes and
offered a service to "lock" credit files for free.

The company said it has enhanced its security controls and
continuously reviews its technology to catch any system flaws.
It also said it has changed its corporate structure to boost
internal accountability.

"We have been hard at work since the cybersecurity incident,
committed to deliver on two top priorities; to strengthen
security and to rebuild trust with consumers," an Equifax
statement said.  "Cybersecurity is a complex challenge that needs
to be faced as an industry."

Congress has done little since the internet was developed to
regulate how companies such as Equifax should collect, store and
protect their data.

Forty-eight states have stepped in and developed their own
standards. But most, including Georgia, have kept their rules
relatively lax.

The patchwork nature of the status quo has tripped up many large
corporations, and some have lobbied for a single national
standard to cut down on compliance costs and confusion.

But even that call has not led to action from Congress.
Businesses and small-government conservatives worry the feds will
overregulate, while consumer advocates don't want a Washington
mandate to supplant tighter state-level regulations in places
like California.

"One problem is to decide how strict the federal law should be,"
said cybersecurity expert Peter Swire, a professor of law and
ethics at Georgia Tech's Scheller College of Business. "Each side
has been able to block the others' goals so far."

Perhaps the biggest obstacle for lawmakers so far has been
infighting among the various sectors that would be regulated by
such a law.  Those industries, including banking, retail and
telecommunications, have been unable to agree on any one
approach.  Many worry that legislators will not be able to keep
up with the newest innovations in technology, or, even worse,
stifle the wheels of commerce.

Supporters of a national data breach standard were hopeful that
the Equifax hack would be the moment when the stars finally
aligned on Capitol Hill after years of stops and starts.

A bipartisan working group of key senators was formed after the
breach was disclosed, but it was promptly stymied by turf battles
both internal and external.  Meanwhile, higher-priority items
like immigration and the tax overhaul have siphoned away much of
the political oxygen on Capitol Hill.

Idaho Republican Mike Crapo, the chairman of the Senate Banking
Committee, said his panel is vetting several different
cybersecurity policy proposals, but that there are a number of
other issues in the queue that the panel will likely tackle
first, such as flood insurance and North Korean sanctions.

"The main thing is that there's a number of senators who are
working on pieces of legislation and we're in the process of
vetting those pieces with them and seeing if there can be a
bipartisan agreement somewhere," he said of data breach
legislation.

'Shouldn't be trusted'

Liz Coyle, executive director of consumer advocacy group Georgia
Watch, bemoaned the lack of progress on Capitol Hill and in state
legislatures to tighten enforcement of the credit bureaus. In
Georgia, proposed legislation has been introduced that would
eliminate fees on consumers for freezing their credit reports.

Another bill designed to outlaw "hacking" in Georgia has caused
some angst in the cyber security world because of its potential
to chill legitimate research into cyber defense.  The state is
one of a handful where penetrating a computer network isn't
illegal. That bill, however, enjoys the backing the state's
attorney general.

The true betrayal, in the eyes of Ms. Coyle, is the pullback by
the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, or CFPB.  The
independent federal watchdog, created in the wake of the
financial crisis to crack down on abuse by banks and other
financial companies, has effectively been neutered under the
Trump Administration.  Reuters recently reported that acting
director Mick Mulvaney, who took a light touch approach to
financial regulation and often excoriated the agency as a member
of Congress, has pumped the brakes on the CFPB's investigation of
Equifax.

"The days of letting these credit reporting agencies self-police,
for heaven's sake, that went out the window a long time ago,"
Ms. Coyle said.  "This industry shouldn't be trusted to regulate
themselves."

The Federal Trade Commission has announced it is also
investigating Equifax through its authority to protect consumers
against unfair and deceptive practices as it relates to data
security.

Equifax said it is "cooperating" with regulators, federal
agencies and legislators.

"We have been briefing federal and state regulators and agencies
to ensure they are abreast of developments," a company
spokesperson said.  "Additionally, we are committed to working
with different groups to explore ways to work together as an
industry to strengthen identity theft protection and to combat
cybersecurity issues."

Georgia in a 'leadership role'

In July, Equifax alerted the FBI to the breach.  The federal
investigation continues.

In an interview in January, U.S. Attorney Pak, who oversees the
Northern District of Georgia, acknowledged the ongoing hacking
investigation and said his office is "very involved in it," but
he declined to discuss any specifics of the probe.

The northern district is among the nation's top prosecutors of
cybercrime.  The office has charged 14 people, for instance, in
association with a 2008 hacking of payment processor Worldpay,
which has its U.S. hub in Atlanta.

The cases are complicated.  Hackers often hide their tracks using
servers across the globe.  It's up to investigators to track the
cyber breadcrumbs to find the perpetrators.

Once suspects are identified, then comes another vexing
challenge: how to apprehend the alleged hackers, who often
operate in nations without strong judicial assistance treaties
with the U.S.

"The challenge of course is not the complexity of how they did
it, you can figure it out, it's the extra-territorial nature of
cybercrime," Mr. Pak said, speaking about complex cybercrimes in
general and not solely Equifax.  "Some of them are state-
sponsored hacking.  Others are people based in countries that we
do not have very good legal mutual assistance treaties and
relationships.

"That adds additional complexity from a traditional criminal
prosecution case," he said.

Mr. Carr also wouldn't discuss the specifics of the state
attorneys general investigation, but he did say Georgia was
taking a "leadership role" as a member of the probe's executive
committee.  He said the group is also cooperating with businesses
and the federal government.

"At the 50,000-foot level, we need to determine what occurred in
this particular breach so that we can ensure that the law was
followed," Mr. Carr said in an interview.  "And then we have an
obligation to learn and to employ those lessons for the future.
The ultimate justice needs to be to protect those people of
goodwill that . . . through no fault of their own, [had their]
information breached."

'Urgent need'

Credit bureaus such as Equifax, TransUnion and Experian are vital
cogs in the global financial system.  Not only are they the
gatekeepers to help bankers determine who to give loans to, but
they also weigh in when you're seeking a job, rental housing or
insurance, helping companies verify whether you are who you say
you are.

Equifax holds data on when someone misses credit card payments
and when they're late on their mortgage.  The company also likely
knows people's immigration status.

New revelations emerged that more consumer information was
accessed than Equifax previously acknowledged.

The additional information includes email addresses and phone
numbers that could leave consumer vulnerable to so-called
"phishing" scams, according to the U.S. Public Interest Research
Group.

"Why did it take Equifax so long to disclose this additional
stolen information? And why hasn't Equifax directly notified
consumers about this yet?" Mike Litt, consumer campaign director
with U.S. PIRG, said in a news release.  "In addition to raising
more questions over Equifax's many failures, these new
revelations show the urgent need for action."

Summary of the Equifax breach
Equifax disclosed the hack in September, but the cyber-heist's
roots stretch back to early March 2017 when the U.S. Department
of Homeland Security alerted Equifax of the need to patch a vital
software application used on its websites and those of many major
companies.

Former Equifax Chairman and CEO Rick Smith told Congress in
October the alert was sent the next day via email to the Equifax
personnel who oversee security of the application, known as
Apache Struts.  It's Equifax's policy that such security updates
be made within 48 hours.

But in this case, it wasn't.

That vulnerability allowed hackers to access some of the most
valuable and sensitive personal information on the planet.

A week after Equifax first received the Apache Struts alert from
DHS, a scan that "should have identified any systems that were
vulnerable" didn't, leaving the vulnerability in place, Smith
told Congress in October.  Equifax didn't notice suspicious
activity within its systems until July 29.

Equifax has said hackers gained access to the company's systems
from May 13 to July 30 of last year.

Key players

   -- Credit bureaus: Equifax and its two major competitors,
TransUnion and Experian, dominate the business of collecting
information about a person's credit-worthiness and then selling
it to banks, landlords, credit card companies and others.  They
are an integral part of the country's financial system, and had
previously fought government attempts to regulate aspects of
their operations, including data collection and protection.

   -- Georgia officials: State Attorney General Chris Carr has
joined dozens of his counterparts from other states to probe
Equifax's actions.  He has also endorsed legislation advanced in
the state Senate by Bruce Thompson, R-White, that would make it a
crime to hack or log into a computer without permission.  Other
state officials to watch are Congressmen David Scott, D-Atlanta,
and Barry Loudermilk, R-Cassville, who sit on the House Financial
Services Committee, the panel that will likely be integral to any
final data breach legislation. Ahead of hack, Loudermilk authored
legislation that sought to curb the use of class action lawsuits
against companies such as Equifax, a measure that has since been
effectively abandoned.

   -- Federal judiciary: There is a federal investigation into
the Equifax breach, and Atlanta-based U.S. Attorney Byung "BJay"
Pak, who oversees the Northern District of Georgia, has
acknowledged his office is "very involved" in that probe.  Little
is known about what specific angles are being pursued, but
Georgia's northern district is among the nation's top prosecutors
of cybercrime.

   -- Trump administration: While the Trump administration has
largely pursued a deregulatory agenda since arriving in
Washington, it has also backed some federal cybersecurity
initiatives.  The Justice Department has reportedly opened a
criminal investigation into the former Equifax officials facing
insider trading allegations, while the Federal Trade Commission
is probing the company through its authority to protect consumers
against unfair and deceptive practices as it relates to data
security.  But Reuters also recently reported that Mick Mulvaney,
the acting director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau,
has effectively slow-walked the agency's Equifax investigation.

   -- Interest groups: Federal data breach legislation would
impact a vast cross-section of industries, from telecom to retail
to banking, all with their own interests.  The inability to get
those sectors behind a single plan has stymied past attempts to
move cybersecurity legislation.  Some cybersecurity experts said
they were encouraged when nearly two-dozen trade groups
representing bankers, credit unions and others recently wrote to
a key House committee asking for new data security legislation.
Separately, other interests such as consumer advocates and
privacy groups have lobbied against past bills because of
respective fears of federal overreach or Congress supplanting
more rigorous state laws.

   -- Congress: Georgia's lawmakers have tread carefully since
the Equifax breach, given that the credit bureau is one of the
state's largest corporations and a major Atlanta employer. U.S.
Sens. Elizabeth Warren, Sherrod Brown and other Senate Democrats
have pushed particularly hard for steep penalties for Equifax and
its former executives.  Key players also include the Republican
chairmen of the House and Senate committees that have partial
jurisdiction over the issue, including House Financial Services
leader Jeb Hensarling of Texas and Mike Crapo, who heads the
Senate Banking panel.

The Story So Far

Previously: In September, Equifax announced a breach of its
network and ultimately revealed that the personal information of
more than 145 million Americans had been exposed.

The latest: The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau reportedly
pulled back on its investigation of the company, and little
progress has been made by lawmakers or regulators in coming up
with fixes to prevent future breaches.

What's next: Investigations continue by the attorneys general of
the 50 states and the federal government.  A nationwide class
action lawsuit against Equifax also is in progress. [GN]


EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Court Certifies Class in "Rodriguez"
----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington, Seattle, issued an Order granting Plaintiffs' Motion
for Class Certification in the case captioned JESSE RODRIGUEZ, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff,
v. EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC. and ALLIANCEONE
RECEIVABLES MANAGEMENT, INC., Defendants, Case No. C15-01224-RAJ
(W.D. Wash.).

Plaintiffs filed suit against Defendants Experian Information
Solutions, Inc. (Experian) and AllianceOne, claiming that
Defendants violated the Fair Credit Report Act (FCRA).

AllianceOne is a debt collecting agency that contracted with the
City of Seattle to collect on unpaid parking ticket judgments.
When collecting a judgment, AllianceOne would typically attempt
to work with the judgment debtor to pay off the unpaid debt. If
the debtor did not cooperate or was unresponsive, AllianceOne
would request the debtor's credit report to obtain updated
contact information or attachable assets.

Rule 23(a) requires a plaintiff to demonstrate that the proposed
class is sufficiently numerous, that it presents common issues of
fact or law, that it will be led by one or more class
representatives with claims typical of the class, and that the
class representative will adequately represent the class.

Plaintiff also seeks certification under Rule 23(b)(3). A class
may be certified under this subdivision if: (1) common questions
of law and fact predominate over questions affecting individual
members, and (2) if a class action is superior to other means to
adjudicate the controversy.

Plaintiff moves that the Court certify a class under the
following definition:

     All natural persons residing in the United States whose
consumer report as defined by 15 U.S.C. Section 1681a(d) was
obtained by AllianceOne, from Experian, for the purpose of
collecting a debt arising out of any vehicle parking violation in
the United States. The class excludes all persons who have filed
for bankruptcy.

AllianceOne does not dispute that Plaintiff's proposed class
meets the requirement of numerosity.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a)

Rule 23(a)(2) requires a common contention of such a nature that
it is capable of class-wide resolution. A contention is common to
all members if `determination of its truth or falsity will
resolve an issue that is central to the validity of each one of
the claims in one stroke.

AllianceOne does not dispute that it pulled Experian credit
reports for each potential plaintiff to collect on a judgment for
unpaid parking tickets or that they had a common practice of
doing so when collecting on such judgments. AllianceOne's attempt
to differentiate each plaintiff by the circumstances under which
they agreed to settle their debt or whether they might have
another collection account with AllianceOne is not persuasive.
Therefore, Plaintiff's claim satisfies the requirement of
commonality.

Plaintiff's claim also satisfies the typicality requirement of
Rule 23(a). Rule 23(a)(3) requires that the claims of the
representative parties be typical of the claims of the class. The
test of typicality is whether other members have the same or
similar injury, whether the action is based on conduct which is
not unique to the named plaintiffs, and whether other class
members have been injured by the same course of conduct.

Questions of a class representative's adequacy dovetail with
questions of his counsel's adequacy. Plaintiff does not seek to
appoint Mr. Pesicka as class counsel and AllianceOne makes no
argument challenging the qualifications of Plaintiff's other
counsel. AllianceOne makes no argument as to how Plaintiff's
personal connection with Mr. Pesicka would affect the ability of
Plaintiff's three other attorneys to fairly and adequately
protect the interests of the class" pursuant to Rule 23(a)(4).

Even if Plaintiff is, as AllianceOne implies, a serial filer of
lawsuits against collection agencies, it does not necessarily
follow that there is a conflict of interest between Plaintiff and
the rest of the class members. The Court finds that Plaintiff has
and will continue to vigorously prosecute this matter on behalf
of the class. Moreover, based on the record, the Court concludes
that counsel has provided and will likely continue to provide
adequate representation for the proposed class.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3)

Predominance

To meet the predominance requirement, common questions of law and
fact must be a significant aspect of the case that can be
resolved for all members of the class in a single adjudication.
AllianceOne's argument that common issues do not predominate
because an individualized determination must be made regarding
its possible defenses of res judicata or collateral estoppel, is
similarly unpersuasive. If such a determination was an impediment
to class certification, then very few classes would ever be
certified. Rule 23(b)(3) does not require that a class be devoid
of all individualized inquiries in order to be certified, only
that the common questions of law and fact be a significant aspect
of the case. The same principle is applicable to AllianceOne's
argument regarding calculation of damages.

While it might be necessary to conduct an individualized review
of each claim to ascertain each class member's actual damages,
Plaintiff represents that AllianceOne maintains thorough and
easily searchable electronic records which would presumably aid
in determining relevant information. Despite the possible
individualized nature of damages calculations in this matter, the
Court nevertheless finds that class-wide resolution of the common
issues is superior to the filing of multiple and duplicative
lawsuits and will result in the efficient and consistent
resolution of overarching questions.

Superiority

The Court considers whether the class is superior to individual
suits.

AllianceOne presents no new arguments in support of its claim
that a class action would not be a superior method for managing
this litigation, merely repeating its contention that the
potential class members will be required to litigate numerous and
substantial separate issues in order to prove their entitlement
to relief. As noted above, these arguments are largely
unpersuasive. Plaintiff argues that class certification is
superior to numerous individual FCRA actions because each class
member is an individual consumer who is not likely able to
successfully maintain an FCRA action against AllianceOne where
the maximum statutory damages per violation of the FCRA is only
$1,000.

If the class members were forced to bring individual claims for
relatively small amounts of damages, then many members would most
likely refrain after realizing the disparity between their
litigation costs and what they hope to recover. Accordingly, the
superiority requirement of Rule 23(b)(3) is satisfied.

The Court grants Plaintiff's motion for class certification.

A full-text copy of the District Court's February 22, 2018 Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/y8dyw6n4 from Leagle.com.

Jesse Rodriguez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Ari Marcus --
Ari@MarcusZelman.com -- MARCUS & ZELMAN, LLC, pro hac vice,
Gabriel Posner -- gabe@posnerlawpllc.com -- POSNER LAW LLC, pro
hac vice, Todd Friedman -- tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com --
LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C., pro hac vice & Ryan
Matthew Pesicka -- ryan@condordlawseattle.com -- CONCORD LAW,
P.C.

AllianceOne Receivables Management Inc, Defendant, represented by
David William Cramer, GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, &
Christopher E. Hawk, GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, 121 SW
Morrison St., Suite 1575, Portland, OR 97204


EXPRESS OIL: Faces "Adams" Suit in N.D. Alabama
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Express Oil Change
LLC. The case is styled as Vincent Adams and all those similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Express Oil Change LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 6:18-cv-00438-TMP (N.D. Ala., March 20, 2018).

Express Oil Change, L.L.C. provides automotive repair services.
The Company offers brakes, air conditioning, transmission,
shocks, timing belts, alignment, fuel injectors, batteries,
pumps, hoses, tires, electronic ignitions, computer diagnostics,
and filters maintenance services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Wesley L Phillips, Esq.
   PHILLIPS LAW GROUP LLC
   P O Box 362001
   Birmingham, AL 35236
   Tel: (205) 383-3585
   Fax: (800) 536-0385
   Email: wlp@wphillipslaw.com


FORD MOTOR: Meeting Held to Discuss Sexual Harassment Allegations
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Project Six reports that Chicago's City Council held its monthly
meeting on February 28, at City Hall.  A new renovation deal for
O'Hare Airport, restrictions on body armor, police misconduct
settlements and many other items were discussed and voted on.

Sexual harassment in Chicago workplaces

A special Finance Committee meeting was held to discuss the
recently revealed allegations of sexual harassment at Chicago's
Ford plants.  Keith Hunt, attorney for the class-action lawsuit
against the Ford Plant, testified along with three plaintiffs. A
New York Times investigation in late December 2017 revealed
ongoing abuse and harassment for decades at the two Chicago
plants. Back in 2002, Ford spent $10 million to train managers
and male autoworkers and established a tip line, after the EEOC
found proof of harassment.  This latest lawsuit filed identifies
the same two plants, Ford's Chicago Assembly Plant and Ford's
Chicago Heights, Illinois, stamping facility.

Additional witnesses spoke to council about their Ford harassment
experiences, and Lorna Brett, former president of the Chicago
Chapter of NOW (National Organization for Women), also testified
on the need for better regulations in the workplace.  Brett now
serves as spokesperson for Alaina Hampton, the woman accusing
Madigan aide Kevin Quinn of sexual harassment.

The next City Council meeting will be held March 28, 2018, at 10
a.m. [GN]


GATESTONE & CO: Dykes Disputes Student Loan Collection Letter
-------------------------------------------------------------
Carolyn Dykes, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Gatestone & Co. International Inc., Case
No. 18-cv-00154, (E.D. Va., February 12, 2018), was brought
before the court pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act and federal student loan law.

Dykes was a debtor with federal student loans that were placed
into default status and were assigned to Gatestone for collection
purposes. The collection letters sent by Gatestone implied that
Dykes could not initiate an administrative review hearing of a
student loan debt which was accrued through the fraudulent
actions of the school attended, notes the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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

            - and -

     Brian L. Bromberg, Esq.
     BROMBERG LAW OFFICE, P.C.
     26 Broadway, 21st Floor
     New York, NY 10004
     Tel: (212) 248-7906
     Fax: (212) 248-7908
     Email: brian@bromberglawoffice.com


GEORGIA: Bill to Block Refunds of Property Taxes in Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Taylor Cooper, writing for The Brunswick News, reports that State
Rep. Don Hogan, R-St. Simons Island, is sponsoring a bill that
would prevent a taxpayer from requesting a refund of property
taxes on behalf of a class of other taxpayers in a similar
situation.

This comes just a month after the Georgia Court of Appeals
affirmed a class action lawsuit alleging Glynn County overcharged
residents on their property taxes from 2001 to 2010.

House Bill 1012 would amend Georgia code to prevent taxpayers
from submitting a claim for a refund of property taxes from a
county or municipality on behalf of other taxpayers in a similar
situation.

It would also prevent them from bringing an "action or suit for a
refund," against a county or municipality on behalf of others in
a similar situation.

The bill was introduced on Feb. 26, after the court of appeals
decision came down on Jan. 22.

"I dropped the bill, and I'm getting a lot of discussion about
it," Mr. Hogan said.

He was motivated to introduce the bill by the class action
lawsuit that was brought against the county in 2012.

Mr. Hogan said he doesn't want to take away the residents'
ability to seek a refund.  If the county owes them money, it
should repay them.  The class action part was what didn't sit
well with him.

"If they overpaid their taxes, maybe they're due some of their
taxes back, but I don't know about a class action lawsuit, that's
what I'm trying to look into right now," Mr. Hogan said.

Glynn County Commission Chairman Bill Brunson made a similar
statement, saying he is in favor of the bill because he would
rather the county not put money in the pockets of lawyers.

Right now, the bill is in limbo, he said.  It's late enough in
the session that his bill wouldn't be able to go before the
Georgia House of Representatives without being attached to
another bill first, he said.

Jay Roberts, an attorney with St. Simons Island law firm Roberts
Tate, said the bill was an attempt to cut the members of the
class action off from being able to get a refund.

"There's 7,500 taxpayers Glynn County in the class, and this
seems like an effort to deprive them of a remedy," Mr. Roberts
said. "Our government shouldn't try to change the rules during
the game."

According to County Manager Alan Ours, county commissioners made
an informal request that Hogan look into the matter of property
tax refund law in relation to the class action suit.

County commission Chairman Bill Brunson and commissioners
Peter Murphy and Allen Booker discussed the matter with Mr. Hogan
during a meeting in Atlanta in February, Ours said.

"This bill is something (the Association of County Commissioners
of Georgia) has had on their legislative agenda for a few years
now," said county spokeswoman Kathryn Downs.

It's not an attempt to deprive anyone of rights, Ms. Downs said,
because each person in the class can would still be able to seek
refunds individually.  Since the case is still in litigation, she
said she doubted the legislation would help the county much
anyway.

"The intent is to prevent these class action lawsuits," Ms. Downs
said.  "People may get a small refund, but in the long term it's
really going to be detrimental to the county and (Glynn County
Schools)."


The school system would be harder hit that the county, Ms. Downs
said, as it takes a larger chunk of property taxes than the
county does.

"It's going to be the Glynn County taxpayers that have to make up
this difference," Ms. Downs said.  "It will affect the level of
service we can provide."

Three class action lawsuits were filed against Glynn County in
2012 alleging the county had miscalculated their property taxes.
The suits claimed the county used wrong base year when
establishing a homestead exemption.

A homestead exemption prevents a resident's property taxes from
increasing with the property's appraised value, should they meet
certain criteria.

When setting up a homestead exemption, the year prior to the year
an exemption is granted should be used as the base year when
calculating property taxes.

J. Matthew and Elizabeth Coleman were granted the exemption in
2006, and the county used 2006 as the base year.

The state appeals court sided with the plaintiffs, saying the
county used the wrong base year.  According to the court's
decision, 2005 should have been used as the base year.

Ms. Downs said the tax commissioner at the time applied the
homestead exemptions in the way she thought was correct.  Tax
commissioners are elected officers, and are not county employees.

The appeals court upheld a different part of the Superior Court's
decision, confirming that state law prevents the plaintiffs from
seeking refunds outside of a three-year window.

Both Mr. Roberts and the county filed their intentions to seek
writs of certiorari, which are essentially appeals to the Georgia
Supreme Court to hear a case.

Mr. Roberts wants the Supreme Court to allow the plaintiffs to
seek refunds for taxes paid outside the three-year window.

If the writs aren't granted, the case will come back to Superior
Court, which will decide the amount of damages owed, Mr. Roberts
said.

Mr. Roberts declined to estimate what the amount of overpaid
taxes might be.  A former Glynn County chief appraiser claimed in
2014 the county had overcharged residents on property taxes to
the tune of $11 million.

At the time, county officials said the claim was false, and
nothing more than spite from a disgruntled former employee.

Messrs. Booker and Murphy did not return requests for comment.

This article originally stated that county spokeswoman Kathryn
Downs said a property tax exemption was not incorrectly applied
on purpose.  She said the tax commissioner at the time applied it
in a way she thought was correct, but did not say it was
incorrectly applied. [GN]


GOOGLE: Sued for Discrimination Against White, Asian Men
--------------------------------------------------------
Vanessa Romo, writing for WAMU News, reports that Google is
facing diverse diversity lawsuits.

A former employee is suing the company for allegedly
discriminating against white and Asian male applicants as it
tries to boost the number of black, Latino and female staffers.

Arne Wilberg worked for seven years as a recruiter at YouTube,
which is owned by Google. His job was to court and hire
candidates for engineering and technology positions. In court
documents filed in January, he alleges Google's "quota-based
hiring practices" systematically instructed recruiters to "purge"
eligible Caucasian and Asian candidates from potential hiring
pools. He says they were told to favor applicants from
underrepresented groups within the company. That meant
interviewing only Hispanic, African-American or female job
seekers.

California labor law prohibits employers from making job
decisions based on characteristics like race or gender.

The lawsuit describes several instances in which Wilberg says he
raised concerns with supervisors and human resources executives
only to allegedly be retaliated against. Wilberg claims he and
other recruiting team members were made to feel "completely
uncomfortable and psychologically unsafe" reporting to their
boss, a champion of the diversity policies.

He also alleges Google subjected him "to unsubstantiated
performance reviews, performance criticisms and [terminated] his
employment." Wilberg was fired in November 2017.

The court documents recount alleged conversations wherein several
employees complained to Google managers about the company's
diversity hiring practices. Although he maintains that Google
favored minorities, Wilberg declares that "one recruiter told her
peers that she felt the way the team talked about black people in
team meetings was like we were talking about black slaves as
slave traders on a ship." In another encounter, Wilberg recalls,
"One team member complained that managers were speaking about
blacks like they were objects."

Google has denied the company implemented discriminatory policies
toward Caucasian and Asian men. In a statement to Gizmodo, the
company said it "will vigorously defend this lawsuit."

Google added:

"We have a clear policy to hire candidates based on their merit,
not their identity. At the same time, we unapologetically try to
find a diverse pool of qualified candidates for open roles, as
this helps us hire the best people, improve our culture, and
build better products."

Wilberg's lawsuit is the latest legal attack on Google and its
workplace culture.

Just March 1, Gizmodo reported that a former female software
engineer had filed a lawsuit accusing the company of condoning a
"bro-culture" that encouraged sexual harassment and turning a
blind eye to harmful pranks and physical violence.

In January a woman named Heidi Lamar sued the company on charges
that women working as preschool teachers in Google's child care
center were paid lower salaries than male counterparts who had
fewer qualifications.

Wilberg's lawsuit is also the second asserting that the tech
giant discriminates against white men. James Damore, who was
fired after criticizing Google's diversity efforts, filed a
class-action lawsuit against the company in January. He claimed
Google's top brass discriminated against conservative men.

Finally, a Department of Labor official has also accused Google
of practicing "systemic" discrimination against female employees.
[GN]


HARKAY ENTERPRISES: "Adams" Class Suit Seeks to Recoup Back Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ASHLEY ADAMS, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated
v. HARKAY ENTERPRISES, INC., Case No. 1:18-cv-00033-MW-GRJ (N.D.
Fla., February 21, 2018), asks the Court to require the Defendant
to pay back wages owed to the Plaintiff and those similarly
situated, which it failed to pay in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938.

Harkay Enterprises, Inc., is a Florida corporation, which
provided automotive repair services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


HONEYWELL: "Watkins" Seeks Extension to File Writ of Certiorari
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ann Watkins and James Ulicny, for themselves and others
similarly-situated, Petitioners-Applicants, v. Honeywell
International Inc., Respondent, Case No. 17A852, (Supreme Court
of United States, February 12, 2018), is an application to extend
the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from
February 26, 2018 to April 27, 2018.

Petitioners retired from Honeywell's now-closed Fostoria, Ohio
plant. While working, they were represented by International
Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement
Workers of America (UAW). UAW and Honeywell were parties to
collective bargaining agreements governing UAW-represented
employees. Petitioners, for themselves and about 850 similarly-
situated retirees, sued to enforce Honeywell's collectively-
bargained lifetime family healthcare promises which they claim
are in breach of their collective bargaining agreement under
Labor-Management Relations Act and the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act.

The Sixth Circuit affirmed dismissal of the retirees' complaint
per Case No. 17-3032 with the United States Court of Appeals.
[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Stuart M. Israel
      Legghio & Israel, P.C.
      306 South Washington, Suite 600
      Royal Oak, MI 48306
      Email: israel@legghioisrael.com


HUDSON GLOBAL: Potential Securities Violations Investigated
-----------------------------------------------------------
Juan Monteverde, founder and managing partner at Monteverde &
Associates PC, a national securities firm headquartered at the
Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating Hudson
Global, Inc ("Hudson" or the "Company") (Nasdaq: HSON) relating
to the definitive purchase agreements to sell its recruitment and
talent management operations in Europe and Asia Pacific to
strategic buyers in three transactions.  Under the terms of the
agreements, Hudson will receive estimated proceeds of $41.2
million in cash, subject to adjustment.

Click here for more information:
http://monteverdelaw.com/investigations/m-a/. It is free and
there is no cost or obligation to you.

The investigation focuses on whether Hudson and its Board of
Directors violated securities laws and/or breached their
fiduciary duties to the Company's stockholders by 1) failing to
conduct a fair process, 2) whether and by how much this proposed
transaction undervalues the Company by and 3) failing to disclose
all material financial information in connection with the
shareholder meeting set for March 20, 2018.

Monteverde & Associates PC is a national class action securities
and consumer litigation law firm that has recovered millions of
dollars and is committed to protecting shareholders and consumers
from corporate wrongdoing.  Monteverde & Associates lawyers have
significant experience litigating Mergers & Acquisitions and
Securities Class Actions, whereby they protect investors by
recovering money and remedying corporate misconduct.
Mr. Monteverde, who leads the legal team at the firm, has been
recognized by Super Lawyers as a Rising Star in Securities
Litigation in 2013 and 2017, an award given to less than 2.5% of
attorneys in a particular field.  He has also been selected by
Martindale-Hubbell as a 2017 Top Rated Lawyer.

If you own common stock in Hudson and wish to obtain additional
information and protect your investments free of charge, please
visit our website or contact Juan E. Monteverde, Esq. either via
e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212)
971-1341. [GN]


IDEALTEL DOMINICANA: "Frangos" Sues Over Illegal SMS Ads
--------------------------------------------------------
Michael Frangos, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Idealtel Dominicana USA, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-20527, (S.D. Fla., February 9, 2018),
seeks injunctive relief, statutory damages and any other
available legal or equitable remedies pursuant to the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

Idealtel is a company that deals in pinless long distance
telephone service for individuals who purchase minutes from them
directly. This service is intended to be a cheaper alternative to
calling cards. Defendant sent telemarketing text messages to
Frangos' cellular telephone number in order to promote its
services. [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


IKEA US RETAIL: "Donofrio" Suit Asserts Age Discrimination
----------------------------------------------------------
Frank Donofrio, on behalf of himself individually and on behalf
of those similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Ikea US Retail, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-00599, (E.D. Pa., February 12, 2018),
seeks injunctive and declaratory relief, damages, including
compensatory and liquidated damages, attorney's fees and costs,
and all other relief under the Age Discrimination in Employment
Act, Pennsylvania Human Relations Act and the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Donofrio, is a current employee of IKEA who has been
discriminated because of his age, denied leadership development
opportunities and promotion to management level positions.

The IKEA Group is an international furniture retail chain which,
through its controlled subsidiaries, operates more than 50 retail
stores. Defendant is an indirect, controlled subsidiary of the
IKEA Group. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Stephen G. Console, Esq.
     Laura C. Mattiacci, Esq.
     Susan M. Saint-Antoine, Esq.
     Emily R. Derstine Friesen, Esq.
     1525 Locust Street, 9th Floor
     Philadelphia, PA 19102
     Tel: (215) 545-7676
     Fax: (215) 565-2855
     Email: console@consolelaw.com
            mattiacci@consolelaw.com
            santanto@consolelaw.com
            derstinefriesen@consolelaw.com


INTERFOR US INC: "Everett" Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Reginald Everett, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Interfor U.S. Inc., Case No. 18-cv-00303,
(E.D. Ark., February 12, 2018), seeks monetary damages,
liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, costs, including
reasonable attorneys' fees as a result of failure to pay lawful
overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of forty hours
per week under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Arkansas
Minimum Wage Act.

Defendant is involved in the milling, manufacture and sale of
lumber products, including from structural components to
finishing, including framing, decking, furniture, paneling, and
other lumber products and supplies. Defendant operates several
milling and production facilities where Everett was employed at
their facility in Monticello. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Fails to Pay OT Under FLSA, "Bryant" Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
ALEXIS BRYANT, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. INTERNATIONAL PAPER COMPANY, Case No. 4:18-cv-00151-
JLH (E.D. Ark., February 23, 2018), is brought under the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act for
declaratory judgment, monetary damages, liquidated damages,
prejudgment interest, and costs, including reasonable attorneys'
fees, as a result of the Defendant's alleged failure to pay the
Plaintiff and other Production Workers lawful overtime
compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week.

International Paper Company is a foreign corporation, registered
and licensed to do business in the state of Arkansas.  The
Company is a fiber-based packaging, pulp and paper company in
which it manufactures a variety of products for industrial and
consumer use.  The Company operates over 200 facilities in the
United States and has one corporate headquarters located in
Memphis, Tennessee, that centralizes all pay, time and human
resource policies so that they are the same across all United
States facilities.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Sean Short, Esq.
          Chris Burks, Esq.
          Josh Sanford, 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
          E-mail: sean@sanfordlawfirm.com
                  chris@sanfordlawfirm.com
                  josh@sanfordlawfirm.com


INT'L PAPER: Gets Favorable Ruling in Dam Failure Flooding Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
NorthEscambia.com reports that a federal court judge ruled that
International Paper was not negligent in its design, maintenance
or continued operation of an abandoned dam near Kingsfield Road
and that the company was not responsible for flood damage to
scores of homes.  The jury took a little more than an hour to
return the verdict.

The class action lawsuit with over 300 property owners claimed
the flooding of homes in several neighborhoods was caused by
failure of the "Kingsfield Road Dam", located on IP's mill
property in Cantonment.

The suit was filed in federal court in Pensacola in 2014, with
class action status granted in September 2017 on behalf of real
property owners in the Bristol Park, Bristol Woods, Bristol Creek
and Ashbury Hills subdivisions in Cantonment.

The lawsuit claimed that on the night of a record rainfall, a
large "swell" or "wave" of water breached and overflowed into
Eleven Mile Creek, including the Bristol Park and Ashbury Hills
subdivisions, Devine Farms Road and other surrounding areas, as a
result of International Paper's dam or levee.  Both residential
areas are located in "Flood Zone X" on flood insurance maps,
meaning they were not in special flood hazard areas and required
no mandatory flood insurance.

The paper mill stopped using the dam t0 discharge wastewater in
2012, according to court documents.

The failure, the lawsuit asserted, was the result of IP's
negligence in maintaining the Eleven Mile Creek Dam and levee,
failure to counteract continued development, failed to control
debris buildup in and around the dam, and of a failure to notify
those downstream of the potential or ultimate failure of the
levee system.

The plaintiffs were seeking damages for loss and damage to
personal and real property, diminished property values, loss of
enjoyment, mental anguish, loss of income and additional expenses
due to the flooding in the neighborhoods.

In a May 2014 statement, International Paper told
NorthEcambia.com:

"On April 29, 2014, the Pensacola Mill experienced the
storm/flood event that the rest of the county experienced. There
was significant erosion and wash-out of an inactive erosion
control structure near Kingsfield Road.  The structure was
previously used to control erosion at this now abandoned outfall
point, but it has been out of service since the mill completed
transition to the pipeline in October of 2012.

"Our heartfelt thoughts and prayers go out to all those who have
been directly affected by the area floods. Many of our team
members were impacted by this event.  On April 29, record storm
water flows from across the entire 48-square mile watershed of
Elevenmile creek [sic] rapidly exceeded the capacity of the
creek. During and after the storm, the Pensacola mill continued
to discharge to our pipeline, which bypasses the Elevenmile creek
[sic] watershed. No part of the mill's waste treatment facility
failed or collapsed during or after the storm event.  We have
fully communicated with both state and local agencies regarding
the impacts of the storm on the Pensacola mill." [GN]


IV SUPPORT: Faces Ryoo Dental Suit in C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against I V Support
Systems, Inc. The case is styled as Ryoo Dental, Inc. doing
business as: Ryoo Dental individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. I V Support Systems, Inc. doing
business as: Siella Medical, George R Davis and Todd Kehrli,
Defendants, Case No. 8:18-cv-00443 (C.D. Cal., March 20, 2018).

Siella Medical provides services to the Biomedical (HTM), Home
Pharmacy, and Surgery Centers. It provides repair services for
component level to software related issues.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


KATZNER'S DELITERRANEAN: Celestin Wants to Recover Unpaid Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
SONEL CELESTIN, on his own behalf and others similarly situated
v. KATZNER'S DELITERRANEAN CAFE, LLC, a Florida Limited Liability
Company, and ALAN ADAMS, an individual, Case No. 9:18-cv-80198-BB
(S.D. Fla., February 19, 2018), seeks to recover from the
Defendants overtime compensation, unpaid wages, minimum wage,
liquidated damages, and the costs and reasonable attorney's fees
under the provisions of Section 216(b) of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Katzner's Deliterranean Cafe, LLC, a Florida Limited Liability
Company, is a corporation that is in the food and beverage
industry.  Katzner's Deliterranean Cafe is a restaurant that is
open to the public in Boynton Beach, Florida.  The Company caters
food to its customers and is licensed to sell premium wine and
beer.  Alan Adams owns, manages, directs, and operates the
Company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Maguene D. Cadet, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF DIEUDONNE CADET, P.A.
          2500 Quantum Lakes Drive, Suite 203
          Boynton Beach, FL 33426
          Telephone: (561) 853-2212
          Facsimile: (561) 853-2213
          E-mail: Maguene@DieudonneLaw.com


KENNETH REES: Brice Sues Over Loans Made Under Rent-a-Tribe Model
-----------------------------------------------------------------
KIMETRA BRICE, EARL BROWNE, and JILL NOVOROT v. KENNETH REES, GPL
SERVICING, LTD., PLAIN GREEN, LLC, GREAT PLAINS LENDING, LLC,
VICTORY PARK CAPITAL ADVISORS, LLC, VICTORY PARK MANAGEMENT, LLC,
SCOTT ZEMNICK, JEFFREY SCHNEIDER, THOMAS WELCH, HAYNES
INVESTMENTS, LLC, and L. STEPHEN HAYNES, Case No. 3:18-cv-01200
(N.D. Cal., February 23, 2018), is brought on behalf of the
Plaintiffs and all individuals similarly situated against the
Defendants for alleged violations of the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act.

The case involves a rent-a-tribe enterprise that was established
with the intent of evading state usury laws, according to the
complaint.  Prior to establishing the rent-a-tribe enterprise at
issue, Defendant Kenneth Rees and his company, Think Finance,
LLC, made millions of dollars through a rent-a-bank relationship
with First Bank of Delaware.  After federal regulators shut down
the rent-a-bank arrangement, Think Finance, under the direction
of Rees, established a rent-a-tribe lending scheme with the
Chippewa Cree Tribe and Otoe-Missouria Tribe.

Under the rent-a-tribe model, loans were made in the name of
Defendants Plain Green, LLC and Great Plains Lending, LLC -- two
entities formed under tribal law to serve as the fronts to
disguise Defendants' roles and to ostensibly shield the scheme by
exploiting tribal sovereign immunity, the Plaintiffs say.  In
return for the use of their name, the tribal companies received a
nominal flat-fee of the revenue from the loans, but they
otherwise had no control over the income, expenses, or day-to-day
operations of the businesses.

Kenneth Rees, resident of the state of Texas, was the president
and chief executive officer of Think Finance, LLC and its
subsidiaries, which Rees set up to make and collect on the
usurious loans.  Rees is also the founder, chief executive
officer, and sole registered member of Tailwind Marketing, LLC
and TC Decision Sciences, LLC.

GPL Servicing is a foreign corporation incorporated under the
laws of the Cayman Islands.  Plain Green, LLC, is a limited
liability company doing business as an Internet lending Web site
under the domain name http://www.plaingreenloans.com/ Plain
Green claims to be a "tribal lending entity wholly owned by the
Chippewa Cree Tribe of the Rocky Boy's Indian Reservation,
Montana, a sovereign nation located within the United States."
In return for a small fraction of the revenue, the Chippewa Cree
Tribe allowed the lending scheme to use its name and falsely
claim that it is operated by the Chippewa Cree Tribe.

Great Plains Lending, LLC, is a limited liability company doing
business as an Internet lending Web site under the domain name
http://www.greatplainslending.com/. Great Plains claims to be a
"tribal lending entity wholly owned by the Otoe-Missouria Tribe
of Indians, a sovereign nation located within the United States."
In return for a small fraction of the revenue, the Otoe-Missouria
Tribe allowed the lending scheme to use its name and falsely
claim that it was "wholly owned" and operated by the Otoe-
Missouria Tribe.

Haynes Investments, LLC, is a limited liability company with a
principal place of business in Dallas, Texas.  Haynes Investment
is a private equity company focused on investments related to
Native American tribes.  Haynes Investments claims that its
"Native American investments have successfully monetized the
tribal advantages of sovereignty to enhance yield while
substantially reducing risk."  L. Stephen Haynes is the managing
partner and owner of Haynes Investments.

Victory Park Capital Advisors, LLC, is a private equity firm
headquartered in Chicago.  Victory Park invested no less than
$250-$300 million in Plain Green and Great Plains.  Victory Park
Management, LLC is a wholly owned subsidiary of Victory Park.
Scott Zemnick is a partner at Victory Park and the firm's general
counsel.  Jeffrey Schneider is a partner at Victory Park and the
firm's chief financial officer.  Thomas Welch is a partner and
investment professional at Victory Park.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Craig C. Marchiando, Esq.
          Leonard A. Bennett, Esq.
          CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          763 J. Clyde Morris Blvd., Suite 1-A
          Newport News, VA 23601
          Telephone: (757) 930-3660
          Facsimile: (757) 257-3450
          E-mail: craig@clalegal.com
                  lenbennett@clalegal.com

               - and -

          Kristi C. Kelly, Esq.
          Andrew J. Guzzo, Esq.
          KELLY & CRANDALL, PLC
          3925 Chain Bridge Road, Suite 202
          Fairfax, VA 22030
          Telephone: (703) 424-7572
          Facsimile: (703) 591-0167
          E-mail: kkelly@kellyandcrandall.com
                  aguzzo@kellyandcrandall.com

               - and -

          Anna C. Haac, Esq.
          Andrew J. Silver, Esq.
          TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
          1828 L Street, N.W., Suite 1000
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 973-0900
          Facsimile: (202) 973-0950
          E-mail: ahaac@tzlegal.com
                  asilver@tzlegal.com


KEYPOINT GOVERNMENT: "Judd" Labor Suit Transferred to Colorado
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Orson Judd, an individual, on behalf of
himself and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. Keypoint Government Solutions, Inc., Defendants,
Case No. 3:17-cv-08050, (D. Ariz., March 10, 2017), was
transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of
Colorado under Case No. 18-cv-00327, on February 9, 2018.

KeyPoint is in the business of performing background
investigations for the federal government where Judd worked as an
investigator. He claims to be misclassified by Defendant as
independent contractors, thus did not receive overtime pay. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael McKay, Esq.
      SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKYWOTKYNS LLP
      8501 North Scottsdale Road, Suite 270
      Scottsdale, AZ 85253
      Tel: (480) 428-0142
      Fax: (866) 505-8036
      Email: mmckay@schneiderwallace.com

             - and -

      Joshua Konecky, Esq.
      Leslie H. Joyner, Esq.
      SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY WOTKYNS LLP
      2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400
      Emeryville, CA 94608
      Telephone: (415) 421-7100
      Facsimile: (415) 421-7105
      Email: jkonecky@schneiderwallace.com
             ljoyner@schneiderwallace.com


LCNB CORP: Law Firm Investigates Potential Securities Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Monteverde, founder and managing partner at Monteverde &
Associates PC, a national securities firm headquartered at the
Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating LCNB
Corp. ("LCNB" or the Company") (NasdaqCM: LCNB) and its Board of
Directors for potential securities laws violations and/or
breaches of fiduciary duties in connection with the merger with
Columbus First Bancorp, Inc.("CFB").  As a result of the merger,
LCNB will acquire CFB in an all-stock transaction.

Click here for more information:
http://monteverdelaw.com/investigations/m-a/. It is free and
there is no cost or obligation to you.

The investigation focuses on whether LCNB and/or its Board of
Directors violated federal securities laws and/or breached their
fiduciary duties to the Company's stockholders by 1) failing to
properly value the Merger and 2) failing to disclose all material
information in connection with the Merger.

Monteverde & Associates PC is a boutique class action securities
and consumer litigation law firm that has recovered millions of
dollars and is committed to protecting shareholders and consumers
from corporate wrongdoing.  Monteverde & Associates PC lawyers
have significant experience litigating Mergers & Acquisitions and
Securities Class Actions, whereby they protect investors by
recovering money and remedying corporate misconduct.  Mr.
Monteverde, who leads the legal team at the firm, has been
recognized by Super Lawyers as a Rising Star in Securities
Litigation in 2013 and 2017, an award given to less than 2.5% of
attorneys in a particular field.  He has also been selected by
Martindale-Hubbell as a 2017 Top Rated Lawyer.

If you own common stock in LCNB and wish to obtain additional
information and protect your investments free of charge, please
visit us at www.monteverdelaw.com/investigations/m-a/ or contact
Juan E. Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at
jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341.
[GN]


LINDSEY & COMPANY: "Pitts" Action to Recover Overtime Pay
---------------------------------------------------------
Lakin Pitts, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Lindsey & Company, Inc., Defendants, Case
No. 18-cv-00124 (E.D. Ark., February 12, 2018), seeks monetary
damages, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, costs,
including reasonable attorney's fee as a result of failure to pay
minimum wage and overtime compensation for hours worked in excess
of forty hours per week pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act
and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act.

Lindsey provides fee accounting and software services to housing
managers throughout the United States. Pitts worked as a software
trainer who provided assistance to Defendant's clients in
implementing, trouble-shooting and housing software services.
Software trainers were often required to perform on-site training
and trouble-shooting for Defendant's clients and were paid a 5%
commission on all referrals that they closed. Lindsey says
Defendant did not include commissions in their regular rates of
pay when calculating their overtime premium. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Allison Koile, Esq.
      Chris Burks, Esq.
      Josh Sanford, Esq.
      SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
      One Financial Center
      650 S. Shackleford Suite 411
      Little Rock, AR 72211
      Telephone: (501) 221-0088
      Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
      Email: chris@sanfordlawfirm.com
             josh@sanfordlawfirm.com
             allison@sanfordlawfirm.com


LIVING ESSENTIALS: Mislabels Energy Drinks, "DePhillippis" Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ELISA DEPHILLIPPIS, on behalf of herself, all others similarly
situated, and the general public v. LIVING ESSENTIALS, LLC, a
Michigan Limited Liability Company; INNOVATION VENTURES, LLC, a
Michigan Limited Liability Company, Case No. 3:18-cv-00404-BEN-
MDD (S.D. Cal., February 22, 2018), alleges that the Defendants'
beverage products are all misbranded and unlawfully labeled.

The Defendants manufacture, distribute, advertise, market, and
sell a variety of flavored "energy shot" beverage products --
pocket-sized plastic beverage containers containing 1.93 ounces
of artificially-sweetened water in which small amounts of
vitamins and minor nutrients and large amounts of caffeine are
dissolved.  The Defendants label the Products with various
natural fruit names including, for example, "Grape," "Citrus,"
"Lime," and "Pomegranate".  The Product labels display the fruit
name and pictured representations of each of the namesake natural
fruits.

Ms. DePhillippis alleges that none of the Products contain any of
the fruit or fruit juices represented by the names and pictures
on the label; all are flavored with added flavors to counterfeit
the flavor of the fruit named on the label.

Living Essentials, LLC, is a Michigan limited liability company
with its principal place of business in Farmington Hills,
Michigan.  Innovation Marketing, LLC, is a Michigan limited
liability company with its principal place of business in
Farmington Hills.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ronald A. Marron, Esq.
          Michael T. Houchin, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF RONALD A. MARRON
          651 Arroyo Drive
          San Diego, CA 92103
          Telephone: (619) 696-9006
          Facsimile: (619) 564-6665
          E-mail: ron@consumersadvocates.com
                  mike@consumersadvocates.com


LJM FUNDS: Faces "Bennett" Suit Over Securities Law Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
STANLEY BENNETT, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. LJM FUNDS MANAGEMENT, LTD., TWO ROADS
SHARED TRUST, NORTHERN LIGHTS DISTRIBUTORS, LLC, ANDREW ROGERS,
MARK GERTSEN, MARK GARBIN, NEIL KAUFMAN, ANITA KRUG, JAMES
COLANTINO, ANISH PARVATANENI, and ANTHONY CAINE, Case No. 1:18-
cv-01312 (N.D. Ill., February 21, 2018), is a class action on
behalf of a class consisting of all persons other than the
Defendants, who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of the LJM
Preservation and Growth Fund between February 28, 2015, and
February 7, 2018, seeking to recover damages caused by the
Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to
pursue remedies under the Securities Act of 1933.

Headquartered in Chicago, Illinois, LJM Funds Management, Ltd.,
operates as an investment management firm.  The Company
specializes in volatility strategies aimed to deliver low
correlation to equity markets.

LJM Preservation & Growth Fund is an open-end fund incorporated
in the United States.  The Fund's objective is capital
appreciation.  The Fund invests primarily in long and short call
and put options on Standard & Poor's 500 Index futures contracts
and cash and cash equivalents, including high-quality short-term
debt securities such as U.S. Treasury securities.

Two Roads Shared Trust, a Delaware statutory trust organized on
June 8, 2012, is the registrant.  Two Roads is registered as an
open-end management investment company currently consisting of 13
separate portfolios.

Northern Lights Distributors, LLC, serves as the principal
underwriter and national distributor for the shares of Two Road
pursuant to an Underwriting Agreement with Two Roads.  The
Individual Defendants are directors and officers of the Corporate
Defendants.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Louis Ludwig, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          Louis C. Ludwig
          10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 377-1181
          Facsimile: (312) 377-1184
          E-mail: lcludwig@pomlaw.com

               - and -

          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
          E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
                  ahood@pomlaw.com

               - and -

          Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
          BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC
          60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600
          New York, NY 10165
          Telephone: (212) 697-6484
          E-mail: peretz@bgandg.com


LOAN CARE: Faces "Hyde" Suit in S.D. California
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Loan Care, LLC. The
case is styled as R. Lyman Hyde, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Loan Care, LLC and
Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-00574-
GPC-JMA (S.D. Cal., March 20, 2018).

Loan Care, LLC provides loan servicing solutions that assist the
lending industry achieve optimal asset performance.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Sahar Maleksaeedi, Esq.
   Sahar Malek Law, APC
   424 South Beverly Drive
   Beverly Hills, CA 90212
   Tel: (310) 788-3466
   Fax: (310) 362-0552
   Email: sahar@saharmaleklaw.com


LUTHERAN METROPOLITAN: Dudek Seeks to Recover Wages Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH DUDEK and KENNETH PORTER, On behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. LUTHERAN METROPOLITAN MINISTRY, Case
No. 1:18-cv-00431-DCN (N.D. Ohio, February 22, 2018), seeks to
recover all wages owed to the Plaintiffs and the FLSA Class
Members for alleged unpaid regular and overtime hours worked,
liquidated damages to the fullest extent allowable under the Fair
Labor Standards Act and Ohio Wage Law, all available equitable
relief, including attorneys' fees, and associated litigation
costs.

Lutheran Metropolitan Ministry is an Ohio non-profit
organization, which provides services throughout the greater
Cleveland area, and which maintains its offices in Cleveland,
Ohio.  The Defendant owns and operates a Men's Homeless Shelter
located at 2100 Lakeside Boulevard in Cleveland.  The Defendant
is also engaged in various lines of business in which it provides
food services, laundry services, cleaning services, and other
services to third parties.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Chris P. Wido, Esq.
          THE SPITZ LAW FIRM, LLC
          25200 Chagrin Boulevard, Suite 200
          Beachwood, OH 44122
          Telephone: (216) 291-4744
          Facsimile: (216) 291-5744
          E-mail: chris.wido@spitzlawfirm.com


MDL 2804: City of Joplin May Join Opioid Crisis Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Austin Hyslip, writing for KSN, reports that Joplin city leaders
are to decide on entering a class action lawsuit against opioid
manufacturers at the city council meeting.

The lawsuit will "pursue all civil remedies against those in the
chain of distribution of prescription opiates responsible for the
epidemic plaguing Joplin."

The law firm of Carry, Danis and Lowe will file claim failure to
warn, nuisance, "negligence per se" as well as the claim the
defendants worked in concert with each other.

The legal documents do not specify the amount their seeking.

Another resolution on the agenda grants money for the Joplin
Police Department that would fund DWI enforcement in town.

In total, more than $95,000 would come from the Missouri
Department of Transportation to pay for training as well as
equipment. [GN]


MDL 2804: Carlton County Joins Legal Case Against Drug Companies
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jana Peterson, writing for Duluth News Tribune, reports that
Carlton County is suing to get compensation for all the
additional expenses -- for the sheriff's office and county jail,
the courts and health and human services -- caused by opioid
addiction.

Carlton County commissioners voted unanimously to pursue
litigation against opioid manufacturers, joining a number of
counties from around the state and other cities and counties
across the country. St. Louis and Douglas counties are among
those pursuing legal action over opioids.

There is no fee to Carlton County for joining the lawsuit; if the
lawsuit is successful, the attorney fee would be 25 percent of
the award.

County Attorney Thom Pertler, Esq., described it as a "plus-
plus."

"I think there are no drawbacks legally (to filing a lawsuit),"
he said. "There's no risk to the county but there are potential
benefits."

Pertler will serve as a liaison between Carlton County and the
two partner law firms (Lockridge, Grindal & Naven and Gustafson,
Gluck) that are filing lawsuits on behalf of at least 12 counties
in Minnesota. The lawsuit will look at local impacts of opioid
addiction, Pertler said, from overdoses to criminal activity to
treatment costs.

"All things connected to the opioid epidemic," he added.

Attorneys from the law firms told the county board in January
that the lawsuit alleges national pharmaceutical companies
misrepresented the appropriate use of their highly addictive
opioid pain medications.

Attorney David Asp, Esq. -- dwasp@locklaw.com -- said the drugs
were approved for end-of-life pain management, but companies
aggressively marketed them for chronic pain use, asserting that
they were safe when they were, in fact, highly addictive.

Carlton County had some of the highest opioid prescription rates
statewide from at least 2009 to 2014, hitting a peak in 2012,
when the prescribing rate hit 113.3 per 100 people, more than one
per person.

Prescription numbers are down now, but now "the consequences have
increased," Asp said, noting the increase in the number of people
being treated for addiction, people dying from opioid abuse,
child protection cases resulting from a parent's addiction and
crimes related to people needing money to feed their addictions.
The county is bearing the brunt of a lot of those costs.

Should the case succeed, the goal would be to use any money
gained from the lawsuit to help the county pay its increased
costs and set up a fund to help increase treatment availability
and affordability, Asp told the board.

Although the attorneys were asking to represent Carlton County
individually, cases filed by more than 220 cities and counties
nationwide have been consolidated into a class action lawsuit
currently being considered in Ohio. Carlton County would become
part of that larger lawsuit, attorney Dave Goodwin, Esq. told the
commissioners.

Pertler said he expects the case to take a long time, possibly
years. For now, the county is waiting to sign the contract to
retain the two law firms. [GN]


MEDICAID: Providers Didn't Exhaust Government Appeals
-----------------------------------------------------
The Herald Sun reports that North Carolina's highest court has
decided a lawsuit filed by medical offices that treat state
Medicaid patients over a new billing system they say failed to
pay them can't go to trial.

The medical practices say they weren't getting reimbursed for
work when the "NCTracks" system began in mid-2013. They filed a
class action lawsuit against the state health agency and system
vendor.

But the state Supreme Court ruled March 2 the providers hadn't
exhausted administrative appeals within state government to get
what they believe is due them.

The medical offices didn't believe those appeals would do any
good, but Justice Barbara Jackson wrote no evidence had been
presented backing up that argument. Meanwhile, Jackson says it
appears the providers still have time to seek reimbursement
through administrative channels years later. [GN]


MG CREDIT: Accused by "Ceballo" Suit of Violating FDCPA in Fla.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Ceballo, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. M.G. Credit, Inc., Case No. 0:18-cv-60404-
FAM (S.D. Fla., February 24, 2018), alleges that the Defendant
has dispatched thousands of unlawful collection letters to
Florida consumers, whereby each such letter contains identical
violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

M.G. Credit, Inc., is a Florida law firm, with its principal
place of business located in Austin, Texas.  The Defendant
engages in interstate commerce by regularly using telephone and
mail in a business whose principal purpose is the collection of
debts.  At all times material hereto, the Defendant was acting as
a debt collector in respect to the collection of the Plaintiff's
debts.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
          110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 907-1136
          Facsimile: (855) 529-9540
          E-mail: jibrael@jibraellaw.com


MIMEDX GROUP: Levi & Korsinsky Files Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Levi & Korsinsky, LLP:

To: All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
securities of MiMedx Group Inc. ("MiMedx") (NASDAQ:MDXG) between
March 7, 2013 and February 21, 2018. You are hereby notified that
a securities class action lawsuit has been commenced in the USDC
for the Southern District of New York. To get more information go
to:

http://www.zlk.com/pslra-d/mimedx-group-inc?wire=3

or contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. either via email at
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com or by telephone at (212) 363-7500, toll-
free: (877) 363-5972. There is no cost or obligation to you.

The complaint alleges that throughout the class period Defendants
issued materially false and/or misleading statements and/or
failed to disclose that: (i) MiMedx was engaged in a "channel-
stuffing" scheme designed to inappropriately recognize revenue
that had not yet been realized; (ii) the Company lacked adequate
internal controls over financial reporting; and (iii) that as a
result of the foregoing, MiMedx's publicly disseminated financial
statements were materially false and misleading.

On February 20, 2018, MiMedx announced that it would postpone the
release of its financial results and Form 10-K filing for 2017.
MiMedx stated it had engaged "independent legal and accounting
advisors to conduct an internal investigation into current and
prior-period matters relating to the allegations regarding
certain sales and distribution practices at the Company."
Following this news, shares of MiMedx fell from a close of $14.47
per share on February 16, 2018 to a close of $8.75 on February
20, 2018.

If you suffered a loss in MiMedx you have until April 25, 2018 to
request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your
ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve
as a lead plaintiff.

Levi & Korsinsky is a national firm with offices in New York,
California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm's attorneys
have extensive expertise and experience representing investors in
securities litigation, and have recovered hundreds of millions of
dollars for aggrieved shareholders. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes. [GN]


MISSISSIPPI: Trial Starts in Class Action Over Prison Conditions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Amy, writing for The Associated Press, reports that lawyers
for inmates argued on March 5 that conditions at a Mississippi
prison are unconstitutionally abusive, while the state's lawyers
said they're proud of the prison and that inmates' complaints
don't justify a federal judge's intervention.

Both sides made opening arguments on March 5 in what could be a
six-week trial examining conditions at the privately run East
Mississippi Correctional Facility near Meridian.  U.S. District
Judge William Barbour Jr. will rule in the case, as there's no
jury.

Lawyers for the American Civil Liberties Union and the Southern
Poverty Law Center want Barbour to order improvements at the
prison, run by Utah-based Management and Training Corp., or MTC.
Plaintiffs say medical and mental health care are substandard,
the facility is overly violent, too many inmates are locked in
solitary confinement, and inmates don't even get nutritious food.
Lawyer Elissa Johnson laid those failings at the feet of the
Mississippi Department of Corrections, saying the state is
failing to force MTC and a medical contractor to live up to their
responsibilities.

"It is a bedrock constitutional principle that states must
provide constitutionally adequate care," Ms. Johnson said.

Lawyers plan to put on evidence in seven separate areas where
they said the prison violates the U.S. Constitution's guarantee
against cruel and unusual punishment. She argued that each issue
put inmates at an unacceptable risk of harm.

About 80 percent of the 1,200 inmates at the facility are under
some form of mental health care.  The state has designated the
prison to host mentally ill inmates.  Ms. Johnson said that made
some practices, such as solitary confinement, particularly
inappropriate.

She called the solitary confinement conditions "oppressive."

State lawyers told Judge Barbour that the plaintiffs can't prove
any constitutional violations.  They also say MTC and the new
medical contractor have made improvements.

"It's hard to see how reasonable people can look at the same
facility and come to such opposite conclusions," said
William Siler, a lawyer for the state.

Mr. Siler said that every prison has problems, but added inmates
are to blame for some issues such as damaged cells or contraband
weapons.

"What you see is them trying to say we need to protect the
inmates from themselves," Mr. Siler said.

State lawyer Michael Bentley said that former contractor Health
Assurance, whose co-owner was convicted of bribing former
Corrections Commissioner Christopher Epps, provided poorer health
care than the current contractor.  But Mr. Bentley said what's
important is the current conditions.

"The question before your honor is not what was happening in 2013
or 2014 or 2015," Mr. Bentley said.  "The question is what is
happening now."

Mr. Bentley said plaintiffs had to prove more than isolated
horror stories, but instead show that for all the inmates, prison
officials are refusing treatment, ignoring complaints, or
intentionally providing incorrect care.  He said evidence that
companies aren't complying with their state contract or aren't
meeting professional standards isn't enough.

"You can't hide deliberate indifference in a facility wide class-
action," Mr. Bentley said, urging Judge Barbour to make a planned
tour of the prison on short notice.  "You can't clean it up in a
day, or a week, or a month."

Mr. Siler told Judge Barbour on March 5 that he expects the
entire trial to take as long as six weeks.  More than a dozen
lawyers were present between the plaintiffs and defendants.
Corrections Commissioner Pelicia Hall was absent from court, with
Mr.  Siler saying she had gone to a hospital with symptoms of
appendicitis. [GN]


MURATA MANUFACTURING: Arch Electronics Sues Over Inductors' Price
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ARCH ELECTRONICS, INC., on behalf of itself and others similarly
situated v. MURATA MANUFACTURING CO., LTD.; MURATA ELECTRONICS
NORTH AMERICA, INC.; PANASONIC CORPORATION; PANASONIC CORPORATION
OF NORTH AMERICA; PANASONIC ELECTRONIC DEVICES CO. LTD; PANASONIC
ELECTRONIC DEVICES CORPORATION OF AMERICA; SUMIDA CORPORATION;
SUMIDA ELECTRIC CO., LTD.; SUMIDA AMERICA COMPONENTS, INC.; TAIYO
YUDEN CO., LTD.; TAIYO YUDEN (U.S.A.) INC.; TDK CORPORATION; TDK-
EPC CORPORATION; TDK CORPORATION OF AMERICA; TDK U.S.A.
CORPORATION; and JAPANESE ELECTRONICS AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
INDUSTRIES ASSOCIATION, Case No. 3:18-cv-01128 (N.D. Cal.,
February 21, 2018), alleges violations of the Sherman Act
relating to the prices of inductors.

Inductors are electronic components that store energy in the form
of a magnetic field.  Inductors are now found in a wide variety
of electronic equipment, including: (a) smartphones and other
types of consumer electronic equipment; (b) advanced driver
assistance systems used in vehicles; (c) induction motors that
are used in industry to convert electrical energy into mechanical
energy; and (d) various military, naval, and air force equipment
ranging from missile systems to radars and sonars.

According to the complaint, the action is based on a scheme by
the Defendants to fix prices of Inductors (1) that were sold to
or billed to persons or entities in the United States during the
period from at least January 1, 2003 through December 31, 2016
(the "Class Period"), or (2) where, during the Class Period, the
conduct alleged herein had a direct, substantial, or reasonably
foreseeable effect on United States commerce.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Corporate Defendants formed a
cartel to fix and stabilize the prices for Inductors sold or
shipped to the United States and world-wide, just as a similar
cartel existed with respect to capacitors that has been the
subject of extensive criminal guilty pleas secured by the United
States Department of Justice.

The Defendants (except JEITA), directly and/or through its
predecessors and subsidiaries, manufactures, markets, and sells
Inductors in the United States during the Class Period.

Murata Manufacturing Co., Ltd., is a Japanese corporation with
its principal place of business located in Kyoto, Japan.  Murata
Electronics North America, Inc., is a wholly owned subsidiary of
Murata Manufacturing, a Texas corporation with its principal
place of business located in Smyrna, Georgia.

Panasonic Corporation is a Japanese corporation with its
principal place of business located in Osaka, Japan.  Panasonic
Electronic Devices Co. Ltd. ("PED") was a former Japanese
subsidiary of Panasonic Corp. that was a leading manufacturer of
Inductors.  Panasonic Corporation of North America, a wholly
owned subsidiary of Panasonic Corp., is a Delaware corporation
with its principal place of business located in Newark, New
Jersey.

Sumida Electric Co. Ltd. is a Japanese corporation with its
principal place of business located in Tokyo, Japan.  Sumida
America Components Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its
headquarters in Schaumburg, Illinois.

Taiyo Yuden Co., Ltd. is a Japanese corporation with its
principal place of business located in Tokyo, Japan.  Taiyo Yuden
(USA) Inc., an Illinois corporation, is a wholly owned subsidiary
of Taiyo Yuden Co., with its principal place of business located
in Schaumburg, Illinois.

TDK Corporation is a Japanese corporation with its principal
place of business in Tokyo, Japan.  TDK-EPC Corporation is a
Japanese corporation with its principal place of business located
in Tokyo, Japan.

JEITA is a Japanese trade association with its headquarters in
Tokyo, Japan.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael P. Lehmann, Esq.
          Bonny E. Sweeney, Esq.
          Christopher L. Lebsock, Esq.
          Samantha Stein, Esq.
          HAUSFELD LLP
          600 Montgomery Street, Suite 3200
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 633-1908
          Facsimile: (415) 358-4980
          E-mail: mlehmann@hausfeld.com
                  bsweeney@hausfeld.com
                  clebsock@hausfeld.com
                  sstein@hausfeld.com

               - and -

          Joshua H. Grabar, Esq.
          GRABAR LAW OFFICE
          1735 Market Street, Suite 3750
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (267) 507-6085
          E-mail: jgrabar@grabarlaw.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Guido Saveri, Esq.
          R. Alexander Saveri, Esq.
          SAVERI & SAVERI, INC.
          706 Sansome Street
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 217-6810
          E-mail: guido@saveri.com
                  rick@saveri.com


NAR INC: Faces "Scillieri" Suit in D. New Jersey
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against NAR Inc. The case
is styled as Patty Scillieri, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NAR Inc, Savid E Gray
Attorney at Law LLC and John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No.
2:18-cv-03792 (D. N.J., March 20, 2018).

N.A.R., Inc. operates as a professional debt collection agency in
the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   YAAKOV SAKS, Esq.
   Revaz Chachanashvili Law Group, PLLC
   285 Passaic Street
   Hackensack, NJ 07601
   Tel: (201) 282-6500 ext 101
   Fax: (201) 282-6501
   Email: ysaks@rclawgroup.com


NASSAU COUNTY, NY: Davidson Questions Unequal Pay to PCOs & PCOSs
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DANIELLE DAVIDSON, SUSAN CHODKOWSKI, GARY VOLPE, MATTHEW SARTER,
WENDY NEAL, DEBORAH PEDENZIN, ROSANNA LAURO, and all others
similarly situated v. COUNTY OF NASSAU, Case No. CV 18-1182
(E.D.N.Y., February 23, 2018), alleges that the County has failed
to comply with the provisions of the New York State and Federal
Equal Pay Acts, and New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiffs allege that the County is paying the predominantly
female Police Communication Operators and Police Communication
Operator Supervisors substantially less compensation than it did
the predominantly male Fire Communication Technicians and Fire
Communication Technician Supervisors, despite the fact that they
are employed within the same facility and perform virtually
identical duties for the County.

County of Nassau is a municipal corporation duly incorporated
under the laws of the state of New York.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Louis D. Stober, Jr., Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF LOUIS D. STOBER, JR., L.L.C.
          98 Front Street
          Mineola, NY 11501
          Telephone: (516) 742-6546
          Facsimile: (516) 742-8603
          E-mail: lstober@stoberlaw.com


NEW LEXINGTON: Faces "Mosso-Salazar" Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against New Lexington Corp.
The case is styled as Damian Mosso-Salazar, Efrain Urbano and
Liborio Bravo Molina, on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. New Lexington Corp. doing business as: Haandi
Restaurant dba Haandi Restaurant, Artaza Ali and Shabbir Sial,
Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-02505 (S.D. N.Y., March 20, 2018).

Haandi Restaurant is a restaurant offering Northern Indian
cuisine.[BN]

The Plaintiffs appear PRO SE.


NEW YORK & ATLANTIC: Laborers File Suit Over Safety Practices
-------------------------------------------------------------
Alfonso A. Castillo, writing for Newsday, reports that state
lawmakers and community activists are renewing calls for the
Long Island Rail Road to drop its freight rail operator after day
laborers filed a lawsuit alleging they performed dangerous track
work for the company without proper certification or safety gear.

The lawsuit, filed in State Supreme Court, accuses New York &
Atlantic Railway, a subsidiary of Anacostia Rail Holdings, of
directing the laborers -- some of whom were picked up outside a
Home Depot -- to carry out jobs on the LIRR's tracks that "they
were never qualified, trained, certified or licensed to perform."

The tasks included installing and repairing rails and track
switches and re-railing derailed freight trains, all while
denying them proper safety equipment and paying them unfair
wages, according to the lawsuit.

"They're putting their heads and their bodies under trains with
zero training," Kristina Mazzocchi, the Manhattan attorney
representing the plaintiffs, who are seeking class-action status,
said on March 2.  "These workers were not supposed to be there
because they hadn't been qualified. They were not trained to be
on those tracks."

John Cassellini, a spokesman for New York & Atlantic Railway,
known as NYAR, called the allegations "unsubstantiated,
uncorroborated and unsupported," and said the company would file
a formal legal response.

"Safety of our employees, contractors, and guests is paramount to
NYAR, and it is something we take very seriously," Mr. Cassellini
said.  "We take great pride in creating a culture that sets
rigorous standards for safety excellence, fosters an environment
rooted in mutual respect in which we encourage employees and
contractors to identify and raise safety concerns with
management, and offers support in addressing any concerns."

The suit has fueled calls from community activists and some state
elected officials for the LIRR to break ties with NYAR, which has
operated on its tracks since 1997.  The Glendale, Queens-based
freight railroad last year renewed its agreement with the LIRR
for another decade -- even after the Federal Railroad
Administration in 2016 issued a report about unsafe work
practices at NYAR, including a Queens crash in which the
locomotive engineer left the scene.

In a letter to the LIRR in February, Assemb. Catherine Nolan (D-
Ridgewood) and Michael Miller (D-Glendale) and Sen. Joseph P.
Addabbo Jr. (D-Ozone Park) urged the railroad to review the
allegations in the suit, and other claims made by civic groups
about unsafe work practices, and "sever its agreement with NYAR"
if it found the allegations to be true.

LIRR spokesman Aaron Donovan said on March 2 that the railroad
submitted a formal request to the State Department of Labor to
investigate the claims in the lawsuit and has also referred the
matter to the MTA inspector general.  Mr. Donovan said if the
allegations are proven, the railroad would take them into account
in deciding whether to continue its relationship with NYAR.

"We consider the safety of our customers, our employees and the
general public our highest priority," Mr. Donovan said.

The LIRR in October said NYAR had put in place safety upgrades to
address the concerns raised by the federal government in the 2016
report and that it would continue monitoring the freight company
and "act if we feel there has been any reduction of the
improvements they have put in place."

Mary Parisen, co-founder of Civics United for Railroad
Environmental Solutions, a Queens-based freight watchdog group,
said the LIRR's oversight of NYAR's safety practices has been
ineffective and urged the railroad to work to get out of its
contract, even if it means going to court.

"Guess what, folks: That hasn't worked.  They didn't change
anything.  If they changed anything, would we be in this
situation that we're in right now?" Ms. Parisen, of Glendale,
said. "You've got lives at stake here."

At a meeting in February, LIRR president Patrick Nowakowski
called the allegations raised in the lawsuit "news to us."  He
said the LIRR's legal team was reviewing the lawsuit to "learn
more."  [GN]


NEW YORK UNIVERSITY: Sued Over Mismanagement of Retirement Plans
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alex Domb, Kristina Hayhurst and Richard Tran, writing for
Washington Square News, report that NYU has been hit with a
class-action lawsuit over alleged mismanagement of faculty
retirement plans.  The case will be tried in a Manhattan federal
courthouse this coming April and has the opportunity to set
precedent for similar cases pending against other universities.

The lawsuit was initially brought forth in August 2016. The
plaintiffs -- six NYU professors -- accuse NYU of allowing
employees to be charged excessive fees on retirement savings
plans and for providing imprudent investment options on these
funds.  These actions would violate a federal tax law known as
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

The class-action lawsuit was filed against two separate 403(b)
retirement plans -- that of NYU's core campus, known as the
Washington Square package, and that of the NYU School of
Medicine.

The plaintiffs' lead attorney Jerome Schlichter is highly
confident in the plaintiffs' chances.

"We're very much of the opinion that this will be a success for
these employees and retirees," Mr. Schlichter said to WSN.
"We've heard that [they would not prevail] in other similar
cases. We've heard that there would never be a successful case
for excessive fees, and that has not turned out to be the case.
We are expecting to be heard."

NYU spokesperson John Beckman thinks differently.

"Their case is without merit, and their suit has already largely
been dismissed," Beckman said in a statement to WSN. "We will
continue to press for the dismissal of the suit in its entirety."

While a judge has since denied a second lawsuit and other claims
made by plaintiffs, NYU was denied a motion for summary judgment
-- which would have ended the case before a trial -- on Feb. 23.

The trial is poised to be a groundbreaking case in retirement fee
litigation.

"This will be the first [trial] involving employees and retirees
at a university alleging excessive fees and imprudent investments
in the United States," Mr. Schlichter said.

Mr. Schlichter, the managing partner at the law firm Schlichter,
Bogard and Denton, specializes in retirement fee cases, having
previously represented 20 groups of employees and retirees.  Over
the past two decades, the law firm became the first to file cases
alleging excessive fees on retirement packages.

In 2015, Mr. Schlichter successfully argued before the Supreme
Court in Edison v. Tibble on behalf of Edison International
retirement plan beneficiaries, resulting in a unanimous 9-0
decision in favor of the plaintiffs.

More than a dozen prestigious universities have been sued in the
past two years over mismanagement over various aspects of their
employees' retirement plans.  Class-action lawsuits over
retirement funds are pending against Yale University, Columbia
University, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Princeton
University and other institutions.  The most recent lawsuit was
filed against Georgetown University on Feb. 23.

What is a 403(b) retirement plan?

According to the Internal Revenue Service, a 403(b) retirement
plan is a savings account offered to employees of nonprofit
organizations and public education institutions.  When employees
opt for this plan, a small amount of money is taken out of each
paycheck and put into savings or invested.  The biggest benefit
of this plan is that it allows the money taken out to accumulate
without income tax.

This tax-exempt money will continue to accumulate until the time
of withdrawal at retirement.  Once withdrawn, as long as the
participant is over the age of 59-and-a-half, the income tax paid
will be considerably less since most employees receive a much
lower income in retirement.

If withdrawn before that age, the money may be subject to certain
penalties, such as a 10 percent federal tax.  Only employers are
allowed to contribute to an employee's 403(b) account and are
also in charge of choosing the investment options.

Most voluntary pension and health plans are required to meet
minimum standards of protection for individuals under ERISA.
ERISA requires employers to provide plan information to their
employees and gives participants the right to sue for benefits in
the case of a breach in these requirements.

What is NYU accused of?

Plaintiffs accuse NYU of violating ERISA in two primary ways: by
allowing employees to be charged excessive fees on retirement
savings and for providing imprudent investment options on these
funds.

Under ERISA, it is the responsibility of the fiduciaries -- those
managing the retirement funds -- to act solely in the interests
of the plan, its participants and its beneficiaries.  Plaintiffs
argue that fiduciaries supplying each of the two retirement plans
have breached legal duties of loyalty and prudence in their
failure to act solely in the economic interests of the plans'
participants due to unreasonably high administrative fees.

Plaintiffs argue that unreasonably high fees work against
employees' interests and thus violate the law.

NYU is also being accused of having multiple recordkeepers
managing retirement assets, which, according to the plaintiffs,
unnecessarily costs 403(b) beneficiaries.  While the Medical
School fiduciaries consolidated to one recordkeeper in 2012, the
Washington Square fiduciaries have not yet consolidated.

Mr. Schlichter and his team ask that NYU compensate its employees
for past losses as a result of alleged excessive fees and
imprudent investments. Plaintiffs also ask that NYU reform its
retirement plans to prevent unnecessary losses going forward.

The plaintiffs are six NYU professors from the School of
Medicine, the Silver School of Social Work, Steinhardt School of
Culture, Education and Human Development and the Tisch School of
the Arts.  Plaintiffs seek compensation for damages incurred
against all faculty members and retirees -- thousands of current
and former employees -- who have been enrolled in 403(b)
retirement plans during their time at NYU.

By filing this lawsuit, plaintiffs feel like they have already
achieved some of their goals.

"In some respects, I think we have already won," plaintiff and
Medical School Associate Professor Marie Monaco told WSN.  "The
administration has now said that it will make a lot of the
changes that we had asked for in our complaint, and . . .
[multiple faculty councils] passed a resolution recently saying
that they wanted to be consulted with respect to the retirement
funds by NYU's Retirement Plan Committee."

However, Ms. Monaco emphasized that all of the plaintiffs'
demands have yet to be met, and the group will continue to fight
for financial compensation over previous damages.

"What else can be won is some kind of monetary settlement, which
I think would have the effect of NYU taking us seriously in the
future," Ms. Monaco said.  "[Penalizing NYU] would perhaps
encourage it to consult with the faculty in the way that they
were meant to -- through shared governance -- which is something
that has been very lacking over the past several years." [GN]


NORTHERN MARIANAS: Suit Spurs Establishment of New Pension Fund
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cherrie Anne E. Villahermosa, writing for Marianas Variety,
reports that speaker Ralph Demapan has introduced legislation to
re-establish a retirement fund that will "secure the future of
CNMI government employees."

His House Bill 20-157 has been referred to the House Committee on
Ways and Means chaired by Rep. Angel Demapan who is also the
measure's co-author.

The new retirement fund will be known as the Northern Mariana
Islands Pension Fund.  It will be run by a board of trustees
composed of seven members appointed by the governor with the
advice and consent of the Senate.

The board will appoint an administrator who will be the executive
officer to oversee the fund's operation and ensure that all
regulations and rules are enforced.

The bill states that all current government employees are
eligible members of the pension fund, and will be considered
Class III members.

According to the bill, "Any class III member who is at least 65
years of age and who has 10 years of membership service may
retire on a service retirement annuity upon written application
to the board of trustees."

It adds that members "retiring with less than 25 years of
membership service shall receive an annual annuity of 2.5 percent
times the average annual salary times years of membership service
with a maximum of no more than 50 percent of average annual
salary; while members retiring with 25 years or more of
membership service shall receive an annual annuity of 50 percent
times the average salary plus 2.5 percent times the average
annual salary times all membership service in excess of 25 years,
not to exceed 85 percent of average annual salary at the time of
retirement."

The bill states that members are entitled to a normal retirement
not less than $6,000.

The speaker, in an interview on March 2, said he introduced the
bill after he was approached by government employees, asking him
to come up with legislation that would take care of their pension
once they retire from government service.

The speaker said the current voluntary defined-contribution plan
for government employees is not an adequate guarantee of a stable
pension in the future.

"It's time that we secure our hardworking government employees'
future by re-establishing a retirement program. We should have
something in place for our government employees and their
families when they retire.  A new pension fund should take care
of them and their families.  With the increase in our revenues
and because our economy is getting better, I feel it is time to
have something for our government employees."

He said what he is proposing is different from the old Retirement
Fund program which faced insolvency when the government stopped
remitting its contributions due to the economic downturn.  This
resulted in a class action lawsuit in federal court that was
eventually settled.  The settlement included the creation of a
Settlement Fund which aims to "effectuate the terms of the global
settlement approved by Judge Frances Tydingco-Gatewood, District
Court of Guam on Sept. 30, 2013, and to ensure the continuation
of payment of pension benefits to NMI government retirees."

Speaker Demapan said his bill is still in the early stages. "As
the committee deliberates and reviews it, I know it will improve
and undergo a lot of fine-tuning to make it more effective."

The speaker's bill will have no provision for prior-service
credit.  It also has no occupational disability because an
identical benefit is provided under the Workers Compensation
Program. [GN]


NORTHWESTERN MUTUAL: Faces "Thorne" Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Northwestern Mutual
Life Insurance Company. The case is styled as Braulio Thorne, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company, Defendant, Case No.
1:18-cv-02494 (S.D. N.Y., March 20, 2018).

The Northwestern Mutual is an American financial services mutual
organization based in Milwaukee.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


NYC GREEN: Taxi Drivers File Suit Over Unpaid Wages
---------------------------------------------------
Casey Morell and Raymond Osorio, on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. NYC Green
Transportation Group, LLC, Nuride Transportation Group, LLC, Does
Nos. 1-25 and John/Jane Does Nos. 1-10, Defendant, Case No. 18-
cv-00918 (E.D. N.Y., February 12, 2018), seeks unpaid wages,
liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, prejudgment interest
and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards and the New York Labor Law.

Defendants operate a private taxi service throughout New York
City under the names "Go Green" and "La Puma" where Plaintiffs
worked as drivers. Defendants consistently reduce the number of
hours worked that their drivers log when calculating their bi-
weekly paychecks, without providing any explanation for doing so;
make their drivers wait off-the-clock to receive their paychecks;
and denied drivers meal breaks and accurate earnings statements,
says the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Innessa Melamed Huot, Esq.
      Alex J. Hartzband, Esq.
      FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
      685 Third Avenue, 26th Floor
      New York, NY 10017
      Tel: (212) 983-9330
      Fax: (212) 983-9331
      Email: ihuot@faruqilaw.com
             ahartzband@faruqilaw.com


OBALON THERAPEUTICS: Faces "Cook" IPO-Related Suit in California
----------------------------------------------------------------
HAROLD COOK, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. OBALON THERAPEUTICS, INC., ANDREW P. RASDAL, WILLIAM
JOHN PLOVANIC, and NOOSHIN HUSSAINY, Case No. 3:18-cv-00407-CAB-
RBB (S.D. Cal., February 22, 2018), is a federal securities class
action on behalf of a class consisting of all persons other than
Defendants, who purchased or otherwise acquired Obalon
securities:

    (i) pursuant and/or traceable to Obalon's false and
        misleading Registration Statement and Prospectus, issued
        in connection with the Company's initial public offering
        on or about October 5, 2016; and/or

   (ii) on the open market between October 5, 2016 and
        January 23, 2018, both dates inclusive, seeking to
        recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the
        Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of
        1934.

Obalon is incorporated in Delaware, with principal executive
offices located in Carlsbad, California.  The Individual
Defendants are directors and officers of the Company.

Obalon is a medical device company that focuses on developing and
commercializing medical gastric balloons for weight loss therapy.
The Company's initial product offering is the Obalon balloon
system, an FDA-approved swallowable, gas-filled intra-gastric
balloon designed to provide progressive and sustained weight loss
in obese patients.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          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
          E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
                  ahood@pomlaw.com

               - and -

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


OBALON THERAPEUTICS: Robbins Arroyo Files Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights law firm Robbins Arroyo LLP announces that
purchasers of Obalon Therapeutics, Inc. (NasdaqGM: OBLN) have
filed a class action complaint against the company's officers and
directors for alleged violations of the Securities Act of 1933
and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 pursuant to the company's
October 5, 2016 initial public offering ("IPO") and/or between
October 5, 2016 and January 23, 2018. Obalon develops and sells
medical devices to treat obese and overweight people by
facilitating weight loss.

View this information on the law firm's Shareholder Rights Blog:
www.robbinsarroyo.com/obalon-therapeutics-inc-mar-2018

Obalon Accused of Implementing Inadequate Internal Controls Over
Financial Reporting

According to the complaint, on October 5, 2016, Obalon held its
initial public offering, issuing 5,000,000 shares and raising net
proceeds of approximately $67.2 million. Obalon then attested in
its prospectus and other public filings that its financial
statements were prepared in accordance with United States
generally accepted accounting principles. Obalon also emphasized
substantial revenue growth and improvements in its gross margin
in its financial reports throughout the class period. It
therefore came as a surprise when Obalon revealed on January 23,
2018, that a whistleblower contacted KPMG LLP, the company's
independent auditors, to allege that Obalon had improperly
recognized revenue during the company's fourth fiscal quarter of
2017. As a result, Obalon canceled its previously announced
offering of 5,454,545 shares of its common stock at a price of
$5.50 per share and said that its Audit Committee would
investigate the allegations. On this news, Obalon's stock fell
$1.73 to close at $3.46 on January 23, 2018, representing a
nearly 77% decline from its IPO price of $15.00.

Obalon Shareholders Have Legal Options

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

Robbins Arroyo LLP is a nationally recognized leader in
shareholder rights law. The firm represents individual and
institutional investors in shareholder derivative and securities
class action lawsuits, and has helped its clients realize more
than $1 billion of value for themselves and the companies in
which they have invested.

         Leonid Kandinov, Esq.
         Robbins Arroyo LLP
         Tel: (619) 525-3990
         Toll Free (800) 350-6003
         Website: www.robbinsarroyo.com
         Email: LKandinov@robbinsarroyo.com [GN]


OLD DOMINION: "Prieto" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Premiums
----------------------------------------------------------
Lazaro Prieto on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Old Dominion Freight Line, Inc. (ODFL)
Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-20536, (S.D. Fla., February 12, 2018),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages
and reasonable attorney's fees and costs under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

ODFL is a North Carolina corporation that operates a trucking and
freight company with a terminal located at 12500 NW 107th Avenue,
Medley in Miami-Dade County, Florida. Prieto worked as a switcher
for ODFL for three years.  He routinely worked over 40 hours in a
work week with no overtime pay because ODFL misclassified him as
an employee who was subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S.
Department of Transportation and covered by the Motor Carrier Act
rather than an employee who was under the jurisdiction of the
U.S. Department of Labor and covered by the Fair Labor Standards
Act, says the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Leslie W. Langbein, Esq.
      LANGBEIN & LANGBEIN, P.A.
      8181 NW 154th Street, Suite 105
      Miami Lakes, FL 33016
      Tel: (305) 556-3663
      Fax: (305) 556-3647


OMNICARE INC: Faces "Davis" Class Suit for Misclassifying Drivers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL DAVIS, individually and on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. OMNICARE, INC.; HOME CARE PHARMACY,
LLC; D&R PHARMACEUTICAL SERVICES, LLC; THREE FORKS APOTHECARY,
LLC, Case No. 5:18-cv-00142-KKC (E.D. Ky., February 19, 2018),
alleges that the Defendants misclassified drivers as independent
contractors as a part of a fraudulent scheme to avoid their wage
payment obligations under Kentucky's wage and hour laws.

The Plaintiff now files the action to recover from the Defendants
alleged unpaid and underpaid wages, as well as vehicle costs,
unlawful deductions and unpaid taxes pursuant to Kentucky Revised
Statutes 337 and the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Omnicare, Inc., is a for-profit corporation organized in Delaware
with its principal place of business in Ohio.  Omnicare is a
pharmacy that sells and delivers prescription medications and
medical devices to nursing homes, medical facilities, and homes
across the United States.

Home Care Pharmacy, LLC, is a for-profit corporation organized in
Delaware with its principal place of business in Ohio.  D&R
Pharmaceutical Services, LLC, is a for-profit limited liability
company organized in Kentucky with its principal place of
business in Ohio.  Three Forks Apothecary, LLC, is a for-profit
limited liability company organized in Kentucky with its
principal place of business in Ohio.  Home Care, D&R and Three
Forks are wholly-owned subsidiaries of Omnicare, Inc.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michele Henry, Esq.
          CRAIG HENRY PLC
          239 South Fifth Street, Suite 1400
          Louisville, KY 40202
          Telephone: (502) 614-5962
          Facsimile: (502) 614-5968
          E-mail: mhenry@craighenrylaw.com


PENNSYLVANIA: Pa. Cmmw. to Review Charter School's Petition
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania issued an Opinion granting
in part and denying in part Defendants' Preliminary Objections to
a group of brick-and-mortar charter schools' Petition for Review.

Petitioners are a group of brick-and-mortar charter schools
located in Philadelphia that are challenging the charter school
per-pupil subsidy rates for the 2016-17 school year established
by the School District of Philadelphia (District).

The focus of Petitioners' litigation is Section 1725-A of the
Charter School Law (CSL), which requires that a school district
that has any resident student enrolled in a charter school pay
the charter school for each enrolled student.

In their six-count petition for review, Petitioners maintain that
they are entitled to declaratory, mandamus, and injunctive
relief.  Counts 1 and 2 are in the nature of declaratory relief
and do not purport to be against any specific respondents.

In Count 1, Petitioners seek declaratory relief to recognize as
void or invalid PDE's July 2012 Guidelines for Form Completion
PDE-363, Funding for Charter Schools (Guidelines), which PDE
developed for the stated purpose of implementing Section 1725-
A(a) and directed each school district to abide by the procedures
specified therein.

Whether any Claim is Stated Against the Attorney General,
Governor, Secretary, Superintendent and Legislative Respondents

In Count 1, Petitioners aver that PDE, the Secretary, and the
Attorney General are charged with representing the general public
and those charter schools and school districts which have an
interest in the validity of the Guidelines and the proper
construction of Section 1725-A(a) funding formula.

No further allegation regarding the Governor, the Attorney
General, or the Legislative Respondents is stated, let alone any
claim that these parties have failed to fulfill the duties
ascribed to them, that they play any role in the processes at
issue here or that they have taken any action whatsoever with
respect to the funding of charter schools.

Turning next to the Superintendent, the Court observes that
Petitioners' only reference to him is in paragraph 128(c) of the
petition for review, which must be read in conjunction with the
remaining provisions of that paragraph:

     "The threatened and ongoing deprivation by the District to
Petitioners  of per pupil funds to which they are entitled
constitutes official action of the District, though such official
action has not been formally approved into policy by resolution
of the governing School Reform Commission, because it constitutes
the policy, custom, or practice of the District."

The Court conclude that the allegations against the Governor, the
Attorney General, the Superintendent and the Legislative
Respondents are insufficient as a matter of law to support
Petitioners' cause of action. Contrary to Petitioners'
assertions, these parties are not indispensable simply by virtue
of representing the general public, some segment of which may
have an interest in this matter.  Therefore, the demurrers of the
Governor, the Attorney General, the Superintendent and the
Legislative Respondents are sustained.

In Section 1725-A(a)(5) and (6) of the CSL, the legislature
unambiguously identified the Secretary as the party legislatively
prescribed to perform certain functions. For example, Section
1725-A(a)(6) provides, in pertinent part, that within thirty days
after the Secretary makes the deduction described in clause (5),
a district may notify him of the inaccuracy of the deduction. The
Secretary is required to provide the district with an opportunity
to be heard regarding whether the amounts deducted from the
school district were accurate. Although PDE's preliminary
objections assert that these responsibilities are to be carried
out by the Department rather than its Secretary, given the
statutory framework and the issues at hand, we believe both PDE
and the Secretary are proper parties.

Accordingly, this preliminary objection of the Secretary is
denied.

Remaining Preliminary Objections Statutory Remedy

The primary argument raised by the remaining Respondents, PDE,
its Secretary and the District, is that Petitioners have an
available statutory remedy and, therefore, that this Court lacks
jurisdiction to entertain this declaratory judgment action.

In Pennsylvania Independent Oil & Gas Association v. Department
of Environmental Protection, 135 A.3d 1118 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015),
aff'd, 161 A.3d 949 (Pa. 2017), the Court  held that PIOGA's
members were not required to pursue piecemeal litigation in order
to obtain a judicial determination, applying two exceptions to
the doctrine requiring a party to exhaust all adequate and
available administrative remedies before the right to judicial
review arises: (1) the so-called Arsenal Coal exception,11
providing that, where the effect of the challenged regulations
upon the industry regulated is direct and immediate, the hardship
thus presented suffices to establish the justiciability of the
challenge in advance of the enforcement and (2) the inadequacy of
the available statutory remedy exception.

In the present case, the Court conclude that PDE exceeded its
authority in developing and applying Guidelines, for the stated
purpose of implementing Section 1725-A(a) of the CSL, that are in
flagrant derogation of that statutory provision and further by
instructing every school district in the Commonwealth to adhere
to those Guidelines. PDE's institution and application of
guidelines that are patently inconsistent with the CSL is
analogous to DEP's well permitting process in PIOGA. Similarly,
The Court decline to require charter schools from all over the
Commonwealth to engage in inefficient piecemeal litigation in
order to obtain a judicial determination reviewing guidelines
that are per se invalid.
Accordingly, the preliminary objections pertaining to failure to
exhaust administrative remedies are hereby overruled.

A full-text copy of the Commonwealth Court's February 22, 2018
Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/ybqlj3y6  from
Leagle.com.

The case is captioned First Philadelphia Preparatory Charter
School, Tacony Academy Charter School, Memphis Street Academy
Charter School at J.P. Jones, Lindley Academy Charter School at
Birney, f/k/a General David B. Birney Charter School, A String
Theory Charter School, f/k/a Philadelphia Performing Arts Charter
School, Philadelphia Charter School for Arts and Sciences at H.R.
Edmunds, Architecture and Design Charter High School d/b/a
Charter High School for Architecture and Design, Petitioners, v.
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Education, Pedro
Rivera Secretary of Education of the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania, School District of Philadelphia, William Hite,
Superintendent of the School District of Philadelphia, Tom Wolf,
Governor of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Josh Shapiro,
Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Joseph
Scarnati, III, President Pro Tempore of the Senate of
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Jay Costa, Minority Leader of the
Senate of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Mike Turzai, Speaker
of the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania and Frank Durmody, Minority Leader of the House of
Representatives of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Respondents,
No. 159 M.D. 2017 (Pa. Cmmw.).

Michael Yanoff -- myanoff@fsalaw.com -- Friedman Schuman P.C.,
for Petitioner, The Philadelphia Charter School for Arts and
Sciences.

Michael Yanoff, Friedman Schuman P.C., for Petitioner, The
Architecture and Design Charter High School.

Michael Yanoff, Friedman Schuman P.C., for Petitioner, Tacony
Academy Charter School.

Michael Yanoff, Friedman Schuman PC, for Petitioner, Philadelphia
Performing Arts: A String Theory Charter School.

Michael Yanoff, Friedman Schuman P.C., for Petitioner,
Philadelphia Performing Arts Charter School.

Michael Yanoff, Friedman Schuman P.C., for Petitioner,
Philadelphia Charter School for Arts and Sciences at H.R.
Edmunds.

Michael Yanoff, Friedman Schuman P.C., for Petitioner, Memphis
Street Academy Charter School at J.P. Jones.

Michael Yanoff, Friedman Schuman P.C., for Petitioner, Memphis
Street Academy Charter School.

Michael Yanoff, Friedman Schuman P.C., for Petitioner, Lindley
Academy Charter School at Birney.

Michael Yanoff, Friedman Schuman P.C., for Petitioner, General
David B. Birney Charter School.

Miles H. Shore, PHILADELPHIA SCHOOL DISTRICT, for Respondent, The
School District of Philadelphia.

Paul Joseph Cianci, Levin Legal Group P.C., 1800 Byberry Rd Ste
1301, Huntingdon Valley, PA 19006, for Respondent, The School
District of Philadelphia.

Allison S. Petersen, Levin Legal Group, P.C., 1800 Byberry Rd Ste
1301 Levin Legal Group Pc, Huntingdon Valley, PA 19006, for
Respondent, The School District of Philadelphia.

Roberto Tomas Datorre, 333 Market St, Fl 9, Harrisburg, PA 17126-
0001, Pennsylvania Department of Education, for Respondent, Pedro
Rivera.

Elizabeth A. Maguschak -- emaguschak@mwn.com -- Pennsylvania
Department of Education, for Respondent, Pedro Rivera.

Roberto Tomas Datorre, Pennsylvania Department of Education, for
Respondent, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of
Education.
Elizabeth A. Maguschak, Pennsylvania Department of Education, for
Respondent, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of
Education.


PIZZA BAKER: Fails to Refund Drivers' Delivery Costs, Clark Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ronald Clark, On behalf of himself and those similarly situated
v. Pizza Baker, Inc.; Precision Pizza LLC; Domino's Pizza, Inc.;
Domino's Pizza, LLC; Domino's Pizza Franchising, LLC; Christopher
Baker, and Lisa M. Burkett, Case No. 2:18-cv-00157-ALM-CMV (S.D.
Ohio, February 23, 2018), alleges that the Defendants repeatedly
and willfully violated the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Ohio
Constitution, and the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act, by
failing to adequately reimburse delivery drivers for their
delivery-related expenses, and making unlawful deductions from
delivery drivers' wages for the cost of uniforms.

Pizza Baker, Inc. and Precision Pizza LLC are Domino's
franchisees.  The Plaintiff worked at the Domino's located at 738
Wheeling Avenue in Cambridge, Ohio from January 14, 2014, to
February 8, 2018.

Pizza Baker, Inc., is a domestic corporation registered to do
business in Ohio.  Christopher Baker is the president of Pizza
Baker, Inc.  Pizza Baker, Inc. owns and operates multiple
Domino's stores in the Cambridge, Ohio area and surrounding
areas.

Precision Pizza LLC is a limited liability company registered to
do business in Ohio.  The president and secretary of Precision
Pizza LLC is Lisa Burkett.  Precision Pizza LLC owns and operates
multiple Domino's Pizza stores in Zanesville, Ohio, and the
surrounding area.

Domino's Pizza, Inc., is a foreign corporation organized under
the laws of the state of Delaware, with its principal place of
business in Michigan.  Domino's Pizza, LLC, is a foreign limited
liability company organized under the laws of the state of
Michigan.  Domino's Pizza, LLC is a wholly owned subsidiary of
Domino's Pizza, Inc.

Domino's Pizza Franchising, LLC, is a foreign limited liability
company organized under the laws of the state of Delaware, with
its principal place of business in Michigan.  Domino's Pizza
Franchising, LLC is a wholly owned subsidiary of Domino's Pizza,
Inc.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew Biller, Esq.
          Andrew Kimble, Esq.
          MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO, LLC
          3825 Edwards Road, Suite 650
          Telephone: (513) 651-3700
          Facsimile: (513) 665-0219
          E-mail: abiller@msdlegal.com
                  akimble@msdlegal.com


SAFEWAY CONSTRUCTION: Sued for Denying OT Pay, Wage Notices
-----------------------------------------------------------
Alejandro Entsakua, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Safeway Construction Enterprises Inc.,
Pennat Inc., Steve Cestaro and Raymond Cestaro, Defendants, Case
No. 18-cv-00895, (E.D. N.Y., February 9, 2018), seeks redress for
violations of the wage and overtime provisions of the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938 and New York Labor Law.

Defendants operate a site development and utilities construction
company based in Maspeth, New York, dealing in underground
installation, replacement and repair services relating to gas,
water, steam, electrical conduit and telecommunications
transmissions. Entsakua began working for Defendants as a laborer
in February 2004. Plaintiff was normally assigned to work six
days a week, averaging 45-54 hours a week. Safeway also failed to
provide Plaintiff with the wage notices. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      David Harrison, Esq.
      HARRISON, HARRISON & ASSOCIATES
      110 State Highway 35, 2nd Floor
      Red Bank, NJ 07701
      Tel: (718) 799-9111
      Fax: (718) 799-9171
      Email: nycotlaw@gmail.com


SELIP & STYLIANOU: Faces "Natela" Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Selip & Stylianou
LLP. The case is styled as Iobidze Natela, on behalf of herself
and all other similarly situated consumers, Plaintiff v. Selip &
Stylianou LLP, Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-01731-ADS-AYS (E.D.
N.Y., March 20, 2018).

Selip & Stylianou, LLP operates as a law firm. The Firm provides
creditor's rights litigation and consulting services. Selip &
Stylianou serves clients in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Igor B Litvak, Esq.
   The Law Office of Igor Litvak
   1701 Avenue P
   Brooklyn, NY 11229
   Tel: (646) 796-4905
   Fax: (718) 408-9570
   Email: igorblitvak@gmail.com


SEQWATER: Expert in Class Action Defends Analysis of 2011 Floods
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sam McKeith, writing for Central Telegraph, reports that an
American hydrologist, has defended his analysis of the 2011
floods, saying his simulation of the devastating event was based
on "careful" real-time modelling.

The NSW Supreme Court is in its third month of hearing evidence
in a class action on behalf of more than 6000 flood victims
impacted in the catastrophic weather event in January 2011 that
destroyed businesses and inundated homes across the state.

A critical issue in the case is whether flood engineers, in
making dam releases, erred in not taking enough account of
weather forecasts and failed to properly follow manuals, causing
unnecessary flooding downstream from Wivenhoe and Somerset dams.

Class action law firm Maurice Blackburn is running the high-
profile trial for the lead plaintiff against the Queensland Bulk
Water Authority trading as Seqwater.

On March 5, hydrology expert Ronald Christensen, a chief witness
for the plaintiff, defended his modelling of actions the flood
engineers took during the ordeal, insisting it was based on data
available at the time and did not incorporate any future
knowledge.

"Every time I made a decision as to what release to make I used
the information that was directly available to the flood
operations engineers and I was careful to make sure that each
decision was based on what they would have known and would seen
at the time," he told the court in Sydney.

"That's what each decision was based upon, what we would know at
a particular time."

The trial has previously heard plaintiff claims that the
engineers failed to exercise common sense and were "blinkered" in
their management of the crisis, while Seqwater has argued those
in charge exercised professional judgment.

Dr Christensen rejected suggestions his modelling relied on
information flood engineers would not have had access to in real
time.

"That's incorrect," he told the court.

"A reasonably confident flood operations engineer could project
that forward and say 'If I open one more sluice that's probably
all I'm going to need to do'."

The US-based expert also criticised dam engineers for failing to
record some water level data during the crisis, saying this meant
relying on "estimating" and "guesswork" to determine gauge
readings.

"If the flood operations engineers had stayed in operations, and
if they were doing their duty they would have had that data, they
would have had the gauge boards every hour."

The floods, which caused hundreds of millions of dollars in
damage in Brisbane and the state's southeast, has already been
the subject of a 2012 commission of inquiry.

The trial continues before Justice Robert Beech-Jones. [GN]


SIDETRACKS NYC: Sued by Chimborazo for Not Properly Paying Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
MARCO CHIMBORAZO, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. SIDETRACKS NYC LLC (D/B/A SIDETRACKS), SIDETRACKS LLC
(D/B/A SIDETRACKS), DAVID LYNCH, and BERNARD G. REILLY, Case No.
1:18-cv-01136 (E.D.N.Y., February 22, 2018), alleges that the
Plaintiff worked for the Defendants in excess of 40 hours per
week, without appropriate minimum wage, overtime, and spread of
hours compensation for the hours that he worked.

Sidetracks NYC LLC, doing business as Sidetracks, is a domestic
corporation organized and existing under the laws of the state of
New York.  Sidetracks LLC, doing business as Sidetracks, is a
domestic corporation organized and existing under the laws of the
state of New York.  The Individual Defendants possess operational
control over the Defendant Corporations, possess ownership
interests in Defendant Corporations, and control significant
functions of Defendant Corporations.

The Defendants own, operate, or control a restaurant and lounge,
located at 45-08 Queens Blvd., in Sunnyside, New York, under the
name "Sidetracks."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SINGLETON DIGGERS: Underpaid Contract Workers File Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ian Kirkwood, writing for Newcastle Herald, reports that the law
firm committed to a class action over alleged under-payment of
casual mineworkers at the Mount Arthur coal mine was set to hold
public meetings in Singleton to drum up support for its claim.

The meetings at Singleton Diggers Club were scheduled for 6pm on
March 6, and noon on March 7.

The class action flows from a campaign -- highlighted by Fairfax
Media -- by a group of former contract workers at Mount Arthur,
led by former Chandler Macleod employee Simon Turner, who have
contested their treatment at the hands of Chandler's and mine
owner BHP.

A corporate restructure had resulted in the Chamberlains team
starting a new business, Adero Law, to run the class actions.

Lead partner Rory Markham said the "town hall style" meetings
were to allow anyone interested to quizz him about any aspect of
the class action, which alleges contractors have been wrongfully
employed as casuals.

Mr Markham said Adero was confident the case would be filed by
the end of March.

As Fairfax Media has reported, Mr Markham and his legal advisers
believe that thousands of contract mine employees have been
underpaid because various enterprise agreements have purported to
have people employed as casuals, when the award that all
enterprise agreements must not be in conflict with states that
full-time and part-time employment are the only types of
employment available in the industry.

In a letter to mineworkers participating in the claim, Adero said
that "our counsel in Sydney, Mr Terrence Lynch SC, agrees with
our position that you were incorrectly classified as 'casual'
when you were in fact a full-time or part-time worker".

"His advice confirms our view that you have a strong claim for
underpayments in relation to shortfalls in entitlements as a
result of that misclassification," the letter says.

"This is supported by the advice of an independent assessor, who
has similarly reviewed the claims against Chandler Macleod and
[another contractor] TESA on behalf of our litigation funder,
Augusta."

Despite Adero's confidence in its case, the mining companies and
contractors being targeted in the action say they have adhered
strictly to the law in employing and paying the workers at Mount
Arthur. [GN]


SPECTRUM BIOTECHNOLOGIES: Breaux Seeks to Recover OT Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
RUSSELL BREAUX, individually and On behalf of all those similarly
situated v. SPECTRUM BIOTECHNOLOGIES, LLC, Case No. 4:18-cv-00514
(S.D. Tex., February 20, 2018), seeks to recover alleged unpaid
overtime wages and other damages from Spectrum under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Spectrum is a "wastewater troubleshooting company" that assists
companies with "wasterwater challenges and solids separation."
Spectrum provides services throughout the United States,
including in Texas.  To provide services to many of its
customers, Spectrum contracts with certain companies to provide
it with employees to perform the necessary work.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
          Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
          Jennifer M. Solak, Esq.
          JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
          Houston, TX 77005
          Telephone: (713) 352-1100
          Facsimile: (713) 352-3300
          E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
                  adunlap@mybackwages.com
                  jsolak@mybackwages.com

               - and -

          Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
          BRUCKNER BURCH, P.L.L.C.
          8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 877-8788
          Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
          E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com


SUNOCO GP: Claybrook Seeks OT Pay, Hits Retaliatory Remarks
-----------------------------------------------------------
Shara Claybrook, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Sunoco GP LLC, a subsidiary of Sunoco LP;
M. Kate Fitzpatrick and Cheryl A. Smith, Defendants, Case No. 18-
cv-00029, (E.D. Tenn., February 9, 2018), seeks unpaid wages for
work performed for which they did not receive any compensation,
as well as overtime work for which they did not receive overtime
premium pay, liquidated damages, claims for defamation,
intentional interference with a business relationship,
intentional interference with employment relationships and
retaliatory discharge under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Claybrook worked for Defendant Sunoco as a Human Resources Field
Recruiter. Plaintiff routinely worked more than 40 hours per week
without any compensation, straight time or overtime. Sunoco has
allegedly failed to maintain accurate and sufficient time records
required by law.

Claybrook accuses Defendants of derailing her future employment
opportunities by making derogatory remarks against her. [BN]

      Donna J. Mikel, Esq.
      BURNETTE, DOBSON & PINCHAK
      711 Cherry Street
      Chattanooga, TN 37402
      Phone: (423) 266-2121
      Fax: (423) 266-3324
      Email: dmikel@bdplawfirm.com


SUNPRO SOLAR: Made Illegal Unsolicited Calls, Antonio Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
AARON ANTONIO, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. SUNPRO SOLAR, LLC, Case No. 1:18-cv-00422 (N.D. Ohio,
February 21, 2018), alleges that the Defendant has violated
federal law by using automatic telephone dialing systems to place
unsolicited calls to the telephones of consumers nationwide
without the consent of the telephone's owner.

Under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, the Plaintiff seeks
to stop the Defendant from placing the unsolicited calls and to
obtain redress for all persons injured by this conduct.

SunPro Solar, LLC, is a Limited Liability Company with its
principal place of business located in Mandeville, Louisiana.
SunPro is one of the leading providers of rooftop solar for the
Gulf Coast and Southeast regions.  SunPro designs, installs, and
maintains the solar panels on residential and commercial
properties.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Patrick J. Perotti, Esq.
          Nicole T. Fiorelli, Esq.
          Frank A. Bartela, Esq.
          DWORKEN & BERNSTEIN CO., L.P.A.
          60 South Park Place
          Painesville, OH 44077
          Telephone: (440) 352-3391
          Facsimile: (440) 352-3469
          E-mail: pperotti@dworkenlaw.com
                  nfiorelli@dworkenlaw.com
                  fbartela@dworkenlaw.com


SUNSET NURSING: "Jones" Action Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Valarie Jones, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Sunset Nursing Home, Inc. and Guindal A.
Smith, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-00036 (S.D. Tex., February 9,
2018), seeks unpaid overtime, liquidated damages and attorney's
fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Sunset Nursing Home, Inc. provides in health care services where
Jones worked as a certified nurse's assistant. Defendants paid
her, and other employees, a flat hourly rate without overtime.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Clayton D. Craighead, Esq.
      THE CRAIGHEAD LAW FIRM, PLLC
      440 Louisiana, Suite 900
      Houston, TX 77002
      Tel: (832) 798-1184
      Fax: (832) 553-7261
      Email: clayton.craighead@thetxlawfirm.com


SYNERGY PHARMA: Faruqi & Faruqi Files Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a national securities law firm, on March 3
disclosed that it has filed a federal securities class action
complaint against Synergy Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ('Synergy' or the
'Company') (NASDAQ:) and certain of its officers.  The deadline
to seek the role of lead plaintiff in the class action is April
10, 2018.

The lawsuit expanding the class period has been filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York on behalf of
all those who purchased Synergy securities listed on the NASDAQ
or domestically in the United States between November 10, 2016
and November 12, 2017, inclusive (the 'Class Period').  The case,
Rose v. Synergy Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., No. 2:18-cv-1344
was filed on March 2, 2018.

The lawsuit focuses on whether the Company and its executives
violated federal securities laws by failing to disclose that: (1)
TRULANCE, a treatment for adults with chronic idiopathic
constipation, does not have a side-effect profile superior to its
competitors, specifically with regard to the side effect of
diarrhea, and (2) Synergy was unable to meet certain undisclosed
loan agreement conditions requiring the Company to have $128
million in cash or cash equivalents by January 31, 2018 to obtain
$100 million ('CRG Loan') in financing for TRULANCE without
issuing shares and diluting shareholders.

Specifically, throughout the Class Period, the Company and its
executives promoted TRULANCE's side-effect profile as superior to
its competitors, specifically with regard to the side effect of
diarrhea.

Furthermore, on September 5, 2017, Synergy announced that it had
closed on a $300 million debt financing structured as senior
secured loans from CRG LP, a healthcare focused investment firm,
and its lender syndicate.  During a subsequent conference call to
discuss the Company's results for the second quarter of 2017 held
on September 7, 2017, Synergy executives claimed that the loan
would provide the Company 'with financial flexibility to continue
to execute on the launch of TRULANCE and achieve our key business
priorities' and would not result in a dilutive effect.

However, on November 9, 2017, the Company revealed that growth in
TRULANCE prescriptions had nearly flat-lined and that individual
prescribers were writing fewer TRULANCE prescriptions, which was
a direct result of the undisclosed fact that TRULANCE's side-
effect profile with respect to diarrhea was not superior to its
competitors.

After the announcement, Synergy's share price fell from $2.97 per
share on November 9, 2017 to a closing price of $2.72 on November
10, 2017 -- a $0.25 or an 8.4% drop.

Then, on November 13, 2017, the Company announced an offering of
common stock and warrants that corrected the Company's previous
misstatements and omissions that the CRG Loan would allow for
TRULANCE commercialization without shareholder dilution.

After the announcement of the offering, Synergy's share price
fell from $2.72 per share on November 10, 2017 to a closing price
of $2.44 on November 13, 2017 -- a $0.28 or a 10.3% drop.

If you invested in Synergy stock or options between November 10,
2016 and November 12, 2017 and would like to discuss your legal
rights, you can contact us by calling Richard Gonnello toll free
at 877-247-4292 or at 212-983-9330

CONTACT:

         FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
         685 Third Avenue, 26th Floor
         New York, NY 10017
         Attn: Richard Gonnello, Esq.
         Telephone: (877) 247-4292 or (212) 983-9330

The court-appointed lead plaintiff is the investor with the
largest financial interest in the relief sought by the class who
is adequate and typical of class members who directs and oversees
the litigation on behalf of the putative class.  Any member of
the putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff
through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and
remain an absent class member. Your ability to share in any
recovery is not affected by the decision to serve as a lead
plaintiff or not.

Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP also encourages anyone with information
regarding Synergy's conduct to contact the firm, including
whistleblowers, former employees, shareholders and others. [GN]


TOWN SPORTS: "Balde" Suit Seeks to Recoup Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mamadou Balde, Individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Town Sports International, LLC, Case No.
1:18-cv-01467 (S.D.N.Y., February 19, 2018), alleges that
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Plaintiff and other
similarly situated employees of the Defendant are entitled to (i)
unpaid wages for working more than 40 hours in a week and not
being paid an overtime rate of at least 1.5 times the regular
rate for each and all such hours over 40 in a week, and (ii)
maximum liquidated damages and attorneys' fees.

Town Sports International, LLC, is a New York for-profit Limited
liability company with several locations, including in New York
City.  The Defendant was engaged in the business of operating
fitness and sports clubs.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ULTA BEAUTY: Stockholder Chandler Files Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Fashion Law reports that not even a month after Ulta was hit
with a damning lawsuit for allegedly repackaging and passing off
used makeup as new, the beauty retailer has been slapped with
another multi-million dollar lawsuit.  Barbara Chandler, an Ulta
stock holder, filed suit against Ulta, its CEO Mary N. Dillon and
CFO Scott Settersten, alleging that they violated federal
securities laws by "knowingly or recklessly" providing false
information about the company's "business, operational and
compliance policies" in its "SEC filings, press releases, and
other materials" in connection with its deceptive and
"unsanitary" sale of used beauty products.

According to Ms. Chandler's complaint, which was filed in federal
court in Illinois on March 2, Ulta "made public
misrepresentations or failed to disclose material facts,"
including that it was engaged in "the widespread practice of
repackaging returned cosmetics and re-shelving them alongside
unblemished products to sell at full retail price."  This
behavior, Chandler argues, is in violation of the defendants'
duty to "disseminate timely, accurate, and truthful information
with respect to [its] businesses, operations, future financial
condition and future prospects."

As a result of these alleged "misrepresentations and omissions,"
including Ulta's representation that its return merchandise
policy "does not permit the resale of used, damaged or expired
products," Ulta and its executives "induce[d] reasonable
investors to misjudge the value of the company's [stock]." But
that is not all.  Chandler claims that these "wrongful acts and
omissions" are directly related to a media frenzy that ensued
over its reselling of used products and the drop in Ulta's stock
price that followed from widespread media reports.

The complaint states, "On February 9, 2018, at market close,
media outlets reported that a consumer class action lawsuit had
been filed against Ulta, alleging that the company engaged in the
'widespread and surreptitious' practice of repacking returned
cosmetics and re-shelving them alongside unblemished products to
sell at full price." As a result of this news, "Ulta's share
price fell $9.07, or 4.15 percent, to close at $209.48 on
February 12, 2018, the following trading day."

Exactly two weeks later, "On February 23, 2018, CBS News
published a story on its website entitled 'Former Ulta Beauty
employee says she felt pressured to resell used products,'
reporting on statements, initially made on Twitter by at least
one former Ulta employee, to the effect that Ulta store managers
frequently pressured the Company's employees to clean and resell
used products." This news, per Chandler, caused Ulta's share
price to fall "$8.18 or 3.94 percent, to close at $198.93 on
February 26, 2018."

As a result of "the [swift] decline in the market value of the
company's securities, [Chandler] and [the other potential
plaintiff in this lawsuit] have suffered significant losses and
damages," which were caused by the behavior of the defendants,
who "because of their positions with the company, and their
access to material information available to them but not to the
public, they knew that the adverse facts [regarding the company's
return policy] had not been disclosed to and were being concealed
from the public, and that the positive representations being made
were then materially false and misleading."  Ouch.

Ms. Chandler's lawsuit, given its proposed class action status,
will give other Ulta stock holders the opportunity to join the
suit and share in the damages that she is seeking, should Judge
Robert M. Dow, Jr. agree to approve the larger class of
plaintiffs.  That class of "similarly situated" individuals --
potentially "hundreds or thousands" of individuals -- includes
"all those who purchased or otherwise acquired Ulta securities
during the class period [i.e., between March 30, 2016 and
February 23, 2018]; and were damaged upon the revelation of the
alleged corrective disclosures."

According to a rep for Ulta, "We are aware of the lawsuit but to
date we have not been served.  We deny the lawsuit's allegations
and intend to defend against this matter vigorously. As with
pending legal matters, we are unable to offer additional
comment."

The case is Chandler v. Ulta Beauty, Inc. et al., 1:18-cv-01577
(N.D. Ill.). [GN]


ULTA BEAUTY: Kahn Swick Files Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC, and KSF partner, former Attorney General
of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors that they
have until May 1, 2018 to file lead plaintiff applications in a
securities class action lawsuit against Ulta Beauty, Inc.
(NasdaqGS:ULTA), if they purchased the Company's securities
between March 30, 2016, and February 23, 2018, inclusive (the
"Class Period").  This action is pending in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

What You May Do

If you purchased securities of Ulta and would like to discuss
your legal rights and how this case might affect you and your
right to recover for your economic loss, you may, without
obligation or cost to you, contact KSF Managing Partner Lewis
Kahn toll-free at 1-877-515-1850 or via email
(lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com), or visit
https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nasdaqgs-ulta/ to learn more. If
you wish to serve as a lead plaintiff in this class action, you
must petition the Court by May 1, 2018.

About the Lawsuit

Ulta and certain of its executives are charged with failing to
disclose material information during the Class Period, violating
federal securities laws.

On February 9, 2018, media reports revealed a consumer class
action lawsuit filed against Ulta based on a wide-ranging scheme
of and that "dozens of other current and former Ulta employees
from retail locations all over the country confirmed that
substantially similar practices also occurred at the Ulta stores
where they worked."  Then, on February 23, 2018, further media
reports recounted statements from a former Ulta employee of being
pressured by store managers to resell used products.

On this news, the price of Ulta's shares plummeted.

About Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC

KSF, whose partners include the former Louisiana Attorney General
Charles C. Foti, Jr., is a law firm focused on securities,
antitrust and consumer class actions, along with merger &
acquisition and breach of fiduciary litigation against publicly
traded companies on behalf of shareholders. The firm has offices
in New York, California and Louisiana.

To learn more about KSF, you may visit www.ksfcounsel.com.

         Contact:
         Lewis Kahn, Esq.
         Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC
         Managing Partner
         Tel: 1-877-515-1850
         206 Covington St.
         Madisonville, LA 70447
         Email: lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com [GN]


UNITED STATES: Asian Americans Advancing Justice Files Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sam Levin, writing for The Guardian, reports that five-month-old
Chari Nguyen banged on the thick plexiglass window and cried. On
the other end, her father, Dy, opened his arms and tried to calm
her, repeating "Come to daddy" and "Daddy loves you".

The 31-year-old father pressed his hands to the visitation room
window at Stewart detention center, in a remote part of Georgia,
getting as close as he could to his baby, who could barely hear
his voice.

"She wants him to hold her, and all they can do is touch each
other through the glass," recalled Tammy Nguyen, Chari's mother,
who drove three hours that day in November to visit her
incarcerated husband. "I keep trying to put Chari's hand to where
his hand was so he could feel connected to her."

Four months later, Dy remains jailed with no end in sight. He is
one of thousands of Vietnamese Americans now at risk of
deportation as Donald Trump's administration aggressively
immigrant  that had .

Asian Americans Advancing Justice, a group representing Dy in
court, has filed a class-action lawsuit against the US government
challenging the continuing detention of Vietnamese refugees who
fled war, violence, communist "re-education camps" and other
forms of political persecution and are now threatened with
removal to a country many of them barely know.

In March 2017, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (Ice) reversed
a longstanding practice and began subjecting Vietnamese refugees
to lengthy periods of detention under the threat of deportation,
despite an agreement between the US and Vietnam that shields this
population, the suit said.

"The change in policy has been so abrupt and has really pulled
the rug out from under a lot of these communities," said Phi
Nguyen, litigation director at Advancing Justice-Atlanta. "These
are people who really left everything behind, really risked their
lives to come over here. They did it because they wanted freedom,
and they wanted to be treated right by their government."

The lawsuit has shone a harsh light on the government's attack on
an immigrant group that has received little attention as Ice has
ramped up raids and escalated deportation efforts that were
already expansive under Barack Obama.

Under a humanitarian agreement between the two countries,
Vietnamese American refugees cannot be deported back to Vietnam
if they entered the US before 1995, the year the two governments
established diplomatic relations. Before Trump, that meant when
the refugees, who became lawful permanent residents, faced
deportation orders due to criminal convictions, Ice would not
remove them or detain them indefinitely -- it would instead
release them under orders of supervision, the suit said.

The class-action suit seeks to represent all Vietnamese nationals
who arrived pre-1995, are facing deportation and have been
detained by Ice for more than 90 days. Attorneys are aware of
nearly 40 refugees in that category, and about half of them have
been detained for more than six months, the complaint said.

An Ice spokesman, Brendan Raedy, declined to comment on the
lawsuit but told the Guardian that more than 8,600 Vietnamese
nationals were currently subject to a "final" deportation order,
and that more than 7,800 of them had criminal convictions.

"You cannot treat people like this," said Lisa Dotson, sister of
Hoang Trinh, a 41-year-old plaintiff who entered the US as a
refugee at the age of four in 1980 and has been detained since
last summer. "Tearing families apart and taking away members of
the family, especially a father, it's very hard. This doesn't do
any good for anybody."

Trinh, whose family built a neighborhood bakery in California
after fleeing Vietnam, is married with two teenage children and
has no family in Vietnam. He is facing deportation due to a drug
charge for which he served one year in prison, according to the
suit.

Trinh has told his sister and attorney that he has been locked in
a small cell for 23 hours a day, which has taken a toll on him:
"You're going to end up crazy if you stay there long enough,"
said Dotson, 39, adding: "He's missed a lot of big milestones. He
missed his daughter's graduation from high school."

It was terrifying to think about what would happen if he were
ultimately deported, the sister said: "I don't know how the
government in Vietnam would treat people like him."

Dy Nguyen, who was working as a technician installing security
systems when he was detained, fled Vietnam when he was three
years old. His wife, Tammy, said three Ice agents had showed up
to their Georgia home in November and initially made it seem as
if they were taking him in for a minor paperwork issue.

The officers asked Tammy to get her husband a pair of socks and
other belongings and told Dy, who was holding his daughter, to
hand the baby to his wife, she recalled. Tammy said she was
shaking as she held Chari while Ice took her husband away.

Dy is facing detention and deportation due to a 2010 burglary
conviction. Tammy noted that he has already served his time and
has since turned his life around -- becoming active in church and
youth groups and giving talks about his criminal past to help
others learn from his mistake.

"Everybody deserves a second chance," said Tammy, a 31-year-old
medical assistant who came to the US from Vietnam when she was
seven years old. "He's a completely different man."

She said she could not fathom a life for them in Vietnam:
"Honestly, I think it would be a death sentence if he gets
deported. We would have no way of living our lives."

Raedy, the Ice spokesman, did not respond to questions about the
specific cases, but he noted that Ice deported 71 Vietnamese
nationals in 2017, double the number deported in 2016.

Ice has transferred Dy to a detention center even further away
from his wife and daughter, who can no longer visit him in
person. Now, they do video calls, which have become increasingly
common in US jails and prisons.

Chari crawls to the computer when she hears her father's voice
and bangs on the keyboard: "She gets very excited every time she
sees her dad."

She doesn't cry like she did inside the detention center. Chari,
now nine months old, has gotten used to seeing her father on a
screen. [GN]


VOLKSWAGEN AG: U.S. Judge Dismisses Bondholder Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------
David Shepardson, writing for Reuters, reports that a U.S. judge
late March 2 dismissed a lawsuit filed by institutional investors
who purchased bonds from Volkswagen AG's U.S. unit and claimed
the automaker had made false and misleading statements before its
massive diesel emissions scandal became public.

Investors bought $8.3 billion in dollar-denominated bonds
Volkswagen Group of America Finance LLC sold in 2014 and 2015. A
group of those investors sued the company after it admitted in
September 2015 to secretly installing software to evade emissions
rules for at least six years that led to the ouster of its chief
executive, damaged the company's reputation and prompted massive
bills.

U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer in San Francisco dismissed the
class-action suit against VW, its U.S. unit and former chief
executive Martin Winterkorn. Breyer had ruled in July the case
could go forward but reconsidered his decision after VW lawyers
raised a new ruling by a federal appeals court in a case
involving Barclays.

The investors alleged damages into the hundreds of millions of
dollars after the bonds' value dropped. Breyer gave the investors
30 days to file an amended complaint, but he said they will face
a "heavy burden" to demonstrate they meet legal requirements.

The lead plaintiff in the action is the Puerto Rico Government
Employees and Judiciary Retirement Systems Administration.

Volkswagen spokeswoman Jeannine Ginivan said March 3 the company
"welcomes the court's decision to dismiss the entire action as
fundamentally flawed."

In total, VW has agreed to spend more than $25 billion in the
United States to address claims from owners, environmental
regulators, states and dealers and offered to buy back about
500,000 polluting U.S. vehicles.

VW faces other suits.

Investors from around the world are seeking 9 billion euros ($11
billion) in damages from Volkswagen, which they say did not
inform shareholders quickly enough over its use of illegal
software to cheat U.S. tests on diesel engine emissions.

About 1,600 lawsuits have been lodged at a regional court in
Braunschweig near VW's Wolfsburg headquarters, seeking damages
over the sharp fall in VW shares that followed its emissions
admission.

Volkswagen told the German court it had no duty to disclose the
possible financial damage of its manipulations prior to September
2015, when it issued an ad-hoc statement that the illegal
software could be in around 11 million cars worldwide.

Led by investment management firm Deka, the plaintiff's side
includes another 2,000 individuals who have raised claims without
suing VW, Reuters reported.

Public hearings of the case at the Braunschweig court are due to
start in early September. [GN]


VOLKSWAGEN AG: Hearing Begins in Australia Emissions Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
9News reports that minutes before a judge began hearing a car
emissions Australian class-action, driver Robyn Richardson
declared "this is the day rubber hits the road for Volkswagen,
Audi and Skoda".

"They will be exposed.  They will be held to account for one of
the gravest of environmental and consumer wrongs that we have
experienced, not just in this country but globally," she told
reporters on March 5 outside the Federal Court in Sydney.

Ms Richardson is the lead litigant in the Audi class action case,
which is being heard alongside similar proceedings against
Volkswagen and Skoda, as well as an action brought by the
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC).

They claim the companies engaged in misleading and deceptive
conduct and made false and misleading representations by saying
the effected vehicles complied with the applicable Australian
Vehicle Emissions Standards.

The actions follow revelations in 2015 that Volkswagen, Audi and
Skoda had fitted their cars with software that could detect test
conditions and cut its emissions accordingly to improve results.

The VW diesel emission scandal has affected 11 million cars
worldwide.

Maurice Blackburn Lawyers, which is leading three class actions
against each of the German parent companies of Volkswagen, Audi
and Skoda and Australian affiliates, contend that the 100,000-odd
vehicles they sold in Australia contained the "defeat" device
software.

Ms Richardson said she chose to buy Audi because the company
communicated that its vehicles "were less harmful" but she was
"utterly deceived".

Maurice Blackburn lawyer Jason Geisker told reporters the first
stage in the trial was for Justice Lindsay Foster to rule on
preliminary issues including whether the installed technology is
a prohibited "defeat device" under Australian law.

He said VW admitted it programmed cars to operate in two ways.

"The cars sensed whether they were being tested.  The cars knew
if they were being tested and would operate in low emission
mode."

But at other times they would operate in high-performance and
high-emission mode.

"We say that was simply cheating on the tests and we say that
broke Australian law," Mr Geisker said.

"They admit (the two ways) but say they have not broken any
Australian law and they say consumers are not entitled to any
remedy."

The companies spent nearly $30 billion compensating customers in
the US and Canada, but continued to deny everything in Australia,
he said.

Jeremy Kirk SC, representing the ACCC, told the court that
software to defeat diesel emissions testing regulations was
designed or installed in cars by the German parent companies of
Volkswagen and Audi companies in Australia to deceive customers
here and worldwide.

The companies deny the allegations.

Outside court, VW owner Richard Cantor said the manufacturers had
been "caught with their hand in the cookie jar and won't admit
it".

"They need to be shown they can't get away with something like
this," he said.

"There needs to be some punitive recourse."

The first part of the hearing is expected to last two weeks.
[GN]


VOLKSWAGEN AG: Denies Claims in Australian Emissions Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Radio Australia reports that Australians caught up in one of the
biggest scandals in motoring history headed to the Federal Court
on March 5 as the joint class action against global carmaker
Volkswagen gets underway.

It's been three years since it was uncovered VW had fitted its
cars with "defeat device" software that could detect test
conditions and reduce its emissions accordingly to improve
results.

The German car giant has since admitted cheating emissions tests
in the US.

The worldwide fallout from the diesel-emissions scandal has led
to the resignation of VW executives, seen others sentenced to
jail, and resulted in billions of dollars in fines and
settlements.

Australian motorists are now pushing for what could be billions
of dollars in compensation, with more than 90,000 VW, Audi and
Skoda vehicles fitted with the "cheat device".

Volkswagen has compensated customers in Canada and the United
States, but the Australian wing of the company insists it has no
case to answer here and hasn't offered compensation to Australian
drivers.

'It's about right and wrong. It's about deceit'
Alistair Dalton was a diehard VW driver but is now taking on the
carmaker as the lead Australian claimant.

His first car was an old Volkswagen Beetle, and he upgraded to a
VW Passat and a Golf in 2011.

"We bought them based on reliability, based on respect for the
brand, and also the fact that the vehicles were an efficient mode
of transport," he said.

"We were led to believe they were going to be better for the
environment at the time."

Mr Dalton said he was not motivated by money, and had no qualms
about taking on a multi-billion-dollar global company.

"It's about right and wrong. It's about deceit.  I bought a
product of a certain value, that I was told it does something,
and now I know it doesn't do that," he said.

"It's not David versus Goliath. There are lots of Davids.  I
think all the facts will speak for themselves."

Will Australian motorists get answers?
The joint class actions in the Federal Court will run against VW
and its sister companies, Audi and Skoda, and includes the
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission's (ACCC)
accusations VW and Audi engaged in misleading and deceptive
conduct.

Law firm Maurice Blackburn alleges as many as 100,000 VW, Audi
and Skoda owners have suffered a financial loss.

They argue the car companies misled customers by selling affected
diesel vehicles as environmentally friendly cars, knowing the
defeat devices altered the emission test results.

Put simply, it's argued customers paid for something they never
got.

It is also argued the cars, powered by EA189 1.6- or 2.0-litre
diesel engines, wouldn't have been registered in Australia had
the true emissions of the vehicles been known.

The ACCC further alleges the installation of the defeat devices
in VW and Audi vehicles affects the performance, fuel economy,
durability of parts, while also increasing noise and vibrations.

The legal case has been split in two and the first stage,
commencing March 5, will concentrate on a point of law.

The second half of the case is scheduled to run in September 2019
and will concentrate on why the defeat device was used, and
whether the device and the subsequent fix affects performance.

Volkswagen Australia insists it has no case to answer
So far, 18,000 motorists have signed up to the legal action --
but all owners of affected models would benefit if the case was
successful, apart from a few thousand people who opted out of the
case.

Volkswagen has paid $24 billion in damages, fines and
compensation to US motorists affected by the diesel-emission
scandal, along with a further $2.4 billion payout in Canada.

In Australia, no compensation has been forthcoming and the
carmaker argues it has no case to answer under Australian law.

"Volkswagen has long maintained there is no foundation for the
current lawsuits in Australia because the vehicles fully
satisfied the emission standards to which they were originally
certified," Volkswagen Australia said in a statement.

"The vehicles continue to satisfy European and Australian
emission standards following the application of the update to the
engine control software." [GN]


WASHINGTON: SSOSA Evaluations Not Exempt Under PRA
--------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of Washington, En Banc, issued an Opinion
reversing the Court of Appeals' judgment affirming the trial
court's summary judgment in favor of respondents in the case
captioned JOHN DOE G, JOHN DOE I, and JOHN DOE J, as individuals
and on behalf of others similarly situated, Respondents, v.
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, STATE OF WASHINGTON, and DONNA ZINK, a
married woman, Petitioners, No. 94203-0 (Wash.).

Pro se petitioner Donna Zink and the Washington Department of
Corrections (DOC) seek reversal of a published Court of Appeals
decision, which affirmed the trial court's summary judgment
ruling in favor of the respondents, John Does G, I, and J (John
Does). This case presents two issues: (1) whether special sex
offender sentencing alternative (SSOSA) evaluations are exempt
from disclosure under the Public Records Act (PRA), chapter 42.56
RCW, because they contain "health care information," and (2)
whether pseudonymous litigation was proper in this action.

Zink sent a PRA request to the DOC for all SSOSA evaluations
held, maintained, in the possession of or owned  by the DOC since
1990. The DOC responded to Zink, intending to release the Special
Sex Offender Sentencing Alternative (SSOSA) evaluations on an
installment basis. The DOC explained that it would review the
SSOSA evaluations and make appropriate redactions as required
under the PRA before disclosure.

Washington classifies sex offenders as either level I, II, or III
based upon the risk the offender poses to the community at large.
The John Does are a class all of whom underwent SSOSA evaluations
comprised of two former level I sex offenders who have been
relieved of the duty to register, and one current and compliant
level I sex offender. In response to Zink's PRA request, the John
Does filed an action seeking to enjoin the DOC from releasing the
SSOSA evaluations of level I sex offenders.

The trial court found that SSOSA evaluations were exempt from
disclosure under RCW 70.02.250 and 71.05.445, granting the John
Does' motion for summary judgment and issuing a permanent
injunction against the DOC. The permanent injunction prevented
the DOC from releasing the SSOSA evaluations of level I sex
offenders.
Standard of Review

SSOSA Overview

If eligible, an offender who requested a SSOSA must undergo an
evaluation to aid the court in determining whether the offender
is amenable to treatment, and to assess the offender's relative
risk to the community. A SSOSA evaluation must, at a minimum,
include (i) The offender's version of the facts and the official
version of the facts; (ii) The offender's offense history; (iii)
An assessment of problems in addition to alleged deviant
behaviors;
(iv) The offender's social and employment situation; and (v)
Other evaluation measures used.

In deciding whether an offender is amenable to treatment, the
sentencing court does not limit itself to medical inquiries.
Rather, an offender would not be amenable to treatment if the
record establishes that (1) no treatment programs are available;
(2) the defendant is ineligible for treatment at all available
facilities due, for instance, to prior unsuccessful treatment;
(3) the defendant refuses to cooperate with necessary evaluations
to determine the usefulness of treatment; or (4) no facility is
sufficiently secure to house the defendant during treatment.

A sentencing court is permitted to take any of these factors into
account before deciding whether to grant a SSOSA to a specific
offender. If the offender is unamenable to treatment, the court
may decline to grant a SSOSA sentence, and the offender may never
receive medical treatment as the result of a SSOSA evaluation.

While a SSOSA evaluation requires a proposed treatment plan, that
alone is not sufficient to render it health care information. The
treatment plan required by the SSOSA statute is not a traditional
medical treatment plan. While the treatment plan must include
some proposals regarding medical treatment, it must also include
recommendations for specific behavioral prohibitions,
requirements and restrictions on living conditions, lifestyle
requirements, and monitoring by family members and others that
are necessary to the treatment process and community safety.

The Court conclude that SSOSA evaluations are forensic
examinations made for the purpose of aiding a court in sentencing
a sex offender. Accordingly, the Court holds that SSOSA
evaluations are not exempt from PRA disclosure, as they do not
contain health care information, nor do they fall within any
other specific exemption.

The Court reverses the Court of Appeals and hold that SSOSA
evaluations are not exempt under the PRA because they do not
contain "health care information."

A full-text copy of the state Supreme Court's February 22, 2018
Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/y84ae2uj  from
Leagle.com.

Timothy John Feulner, Office of the Attorney General, 1125
Washington St Se, Po Box 40116, Olympia, WA, 98504-0116.

Haley Christine Beach, Washington Attorney General's Office, 1125
Washington St Se, Olympia, WA, 98504-0116.

Department of Corrections A.G. Office, Attorney at Law, Po Box
40116, Olympia, WA, 98504-0116.

Donna Zink (Appearing Pro Se), P.o. Box 263, Mesa, WA, 99343,
Counsel for Petitioner(s).

Benjamin Blystad Gould -- bgould@KellerRohrback.com -Keller
Rohrback LLP, 1201 3rd Ave Ste 3200, Seattle, WA, 98101-3276.
Prachi Vipinchandra Dave, Attorney at Law, 901 5th Ave Ste 630,
Seattle, WA, 98164-2086, Counsel for Respondent(s).

Amy Irene Muth, Law Office of Amy Muth, PLLC, 1111 3rd Ave Ste
2220, Seattle, WA, 98101-3213, Amicus Curiae on behalf of
Washington Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.


WOLVERINE WORLDWIDE: Naffziger Couple Joins 90+ in Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Daily Mail reports that Ashlee and Doug Naffziger struggled to
get pregnant, then Ashlee had a miscarriage.

When she got pregnant again, she suffered from preeclampsia which
causes blood pressure to soar.

She finally gave birth to Hunter at 36 weeks,  but she wasn't
allowed to hold him right away.  He had to have open heart
surgery first.

In all, Hunter had 41 procedures before he died.  He was just
over six weeks old.

Now Ashlee and Doug have filed suit against Wolverine Worldwide
and 3M alleging that waste from the Wolverine plant in Rockford,
Michigan contaminated the drinking water in Ashlee's neighborhood
which led to her problems conceiving and carrying a child, and
ultimately to Hunter's death.

The Naffzigers are among 90 families suing the manufacturer --
who's brands include Keds and Saucony -- and 3M which makes
Scotchgard.

The cases revolve around chemicals known as per-and
polyflouralkyl substances -- or PFAS -- which Wolverine allegedly
dumped in Kent County Michigan.  The chemicals then seeped into
wells and contaminated the drinking water, according to the
lawsuits.

One, a class action suit filed in December, 'alleges that PFAS
exposure has been associated with serious health problems, such
as increased risk of cancer, thyroid disease, high cholesterol,
ulcerative colitis, immunological abnormalities, and
developmental and reproductive effects.'

The class action suit drew the attention of renowned
environmental activist Erin Brokovich, who visited the area in
December and urged families to get involved because there is
'strength in numbers'.

For their part, Wolverine posted An Open Letter to Erin Brokovich
on their website, detailing the work the company has done since
PFAs were first reported in 2016, including supplying bottled
water to families and paying 'for the installation of more than
300 custom, whole house filters for individual residents.'

The company also offered to pay for anyone else who wanted whole
house filters installed.

3M denies any responsibility, saying in a statement that  '3M
never manufactured or disposed of PFC-containing materials in
Michigan. Under Michigan law, we believe 3M has no liability for
any damages allegedly caused by Wolverine's manufacturing and
waste disposal practices.'

Wolverine says that it is working with authorities and 'our goal
continues to be providing the residents of our hometown the
confidence they deserve in their water.'

The statement continues:  '[Our] actions include providing water
to residents as they wait for test results, paying for more than
1,500 groundwater tests, installing over 70 monitoring wells, and
installing more than 500 whole-home filters -- the vast majority
of which are in homes with non-detects for PFOA/PFAS or with
levels well below the Michigan criteria and federal advisories of
70 ppt for PFOA/PFOS.'

Meanwhile, the Naffzigers just want to make sure that their son
Hunter isn't forgotten.

In a long interview with M Live about their decision to file the
suit, Ashlee said:  'I want it known that we're not doing this
for a settlement.

'It's about bringing awareness to what's going on. At the end of
the day even if we don't win our case, we're still going to honor
our son in any way possible.'

Hunter is three years old this month. The Naffzigers have another
son Grayson, who is 9 months old and healthy. [GN]


XPO LOGISTICS: Drivers Sue Over Contractor Classification
---------------------------------------------------------
Transport Topics News reports that a suit filed against XPO
Logistics Cartage centered on its classification process for
drivers at the Ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles added a new
wrinkle to existing suits on the subject by requesting a
permanent injunction against the firm for the practice.

Previous suits alleged that the company is misclassifying its
drivers at the ports as contractors instead of employees and
depriving them of certain wages and benefits. XPO has
consistently defended the contractor business model, while
settling some cases and appealing adverse rulings.

For instance, the company in 2016 settled a suit and agreed to
pay $2.7 million to 520 drivers who alleged misclassification,
through the agreement did not ban the firm from classifying the
port drivers as contractors.

In May 2017, a federal judge upheld a California Labor
Commissioner's ruling in favor of five port and rail truck
drivers who charged they had been misclassified by XPO as
independent contractors. The drivers were awarded $958,660, but
XPO has appealed and the case is pending.

This new suit follows a similar pattern. In it, three XPO
Logistics Cartage drivers seek to be reclassified as employees
instead of contractors, claiming they are dependent on XPO for
work and must follow its rules. The drivers seek restitution for
unpaid wages and several fees they had to pay to operate, along
with workers' compensation and insurance costs deducted from
their pay.

The suit seeks class action status to represent as many as
another 150 drivers and asks for a permanent injunction against
XPO's driver classification practices.

"By continuing to flaunt labor law, XPO is a 'recidivist'
violator that must be stopped," said Julie Gutman Dickinson, Esq.
-- jgutmandickinson@bushgottlieb.com --an attorney for the
drivers.

The Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach are ranked first and
second, respectively, in the annual volume of cargo that moves
through their gates. Combined, the two account for more than 25%
of all container cargo in the U.S.

XPO declined to discuss the suit but in a statement said, "We
know the vast majority of port drivers value their independence
as contractors. We continue to believe in this industry model."

XPO ranks No. 1 on the Transport Topics list of the Top 50
largest logistics companies in the U.S. and Canada, and No. 3 on
the TT list of the Top 100 largest for-hire carriers in North
America.

The suit was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court by
plaintiff's attorneys Bush Gottlieb and the law offices of C. Joe
Sayas Jr., both based in Glendale, Calif. [GN]


YOUTUBE: Faces Hiring Discrimination Class Action
-------------------------------------------------
Michael F. Haverluck, writing for OneNewsNow.com, reports that a
former YouTube human resources employee is suing Google for
allegedly putting a freeze on hiring any white or Asian males
seeking technical roles with the company last year -- in an
effort geared to "improve" its "diversity" rankings.

After working at Google for 9 years -- with the last four spent
as a recruiter for YouTube -- Arne Wilberg is claiming that the
quotas set up by Google in order to hire only minorities and
exclude white and Asian males constituted an illegal practice of
discrimination.

"The lawsuit . . . alleges the division of Alphabet Inc.'s Google
set quotas for hiring minorities," the Wall Street Journal
reported.  "Last spring, YouTube recruiters were allegedly
instructed to cancel interviews [with those who were not
minorities or females]."

New hires were expected to meet specific demographic criteria at
Google, the lawsuit states.

"[Google has a policy of] systematically discriminating in favor
[of] job applicants who are Hispanic, African American or female,
and against Caucasian and Asian men," the complaint reads,
according to the Telegraph.

Not owning up

Google has prepared its legal team to defend itself entirely
against the lawsuit.

"We have a clear policy to hire candidates based on their merit,
not their identity," a Google spokesperson stated, according to
Breitbart News.  "At the same time, we unapologetically try to
find a diverse pool of qualified candidates for open roles, as
this helps us hire the best people, improve our culture, and
build better products."

Yet this account appears to contradict the policies that other
employees with the world's largest search engine insist Google
has put into practice for some time -- hiring strategies that
corroborate Wilbert's "witch hunt" allegations.

"Witch hunts are a well-known cultural problem at Google," one
Google employee told Breitbart in August.  "The company is
currently facing a Federal complaint filed by the National Labor
Relations Board in April for interfering with employees' legal
right to discuss 'workplace diversity and social justice
initiatives.' The complaint alleges that Senior Vice President
Urs Holzle and numerous managers in his organization actively
stoked up witch hunts in 2015 and 2016 intended to muzzle low-
level employees who raised concerns about the company's
practices."

Mr. Wilberg's complaint argues that Google discriminated against
him for being a white male and eventually fired him for bringing
this to the company's attention -- noting that the tech giant
violated antidiscrimination laws during the termination process.

"Wilberg claims that he made multiple complaints to managers
about YouTube's hiring process and escalated these complaints to
superiors at Google before being fired last November,"
Breitbart's Lucas Nolan reported.  "Wilberg's lawsuit alleges
that in the first quarter of 2016, YouTube recruiters were told
that they were expected to hire five new employees each. Each of
these new employees allegedly must have been from an
underrepresented group, and recruiters used what was known as a
'diversity tracker' to keep a count of the number of minorities
hired."

Because Mr. Wilberg would not comply with YouTube's diversity
hiring agenda, his performance reviews reportedly became worse
and worse, but Google appears to have been busy lately covering
up its discriminatory practices.

"He alleges that YouTube attempted to hide their blatant hiring
bias and that he was told in a meeting in January 2016 that the
company had to 'clean up' its diversity hiring practices,"
Mr. Nolan added.  "Managers then reportedly deleted all emails
about diversity goals in an attempt to hide them from any further
scrutiny [and] the lawsuit alleges that sometime in mid-2017,
managers were instructed to stop tracking the number of employees
they hired from minority groups and told them to drop all hiring
bias based on diversity quotas."

Not alone

Mr. Wilberg is far from alone regarding his account of what goes
on at the information giant, as former Google employee James
Damore -- who authored the famous viewpoint diversity memo --
corroborates many of Mr. Wilberg's claims.

"Damore and his lawyer, Harmeet Dhillon, have brought a case
against Google, alleging that Damore -- amongst other employees -
- was fired for questioning the company's liberal groupthink,"
Mr. Nolan noted.

Mr. Dhillon explained what has been going on at Google and gave
some details about the lawsuit during an interview earlier this
year, which also exposed the California-based company's anti-
Trump and pro-LGBT agendas.

"Well, the lawsuit is punitive class-action, so we're seeking
class status," Mr. Dhillon told Breitbart News Tonight in
January.  "The two named plaintiffs are James Damore, who you
mentioned and another fired software engineer David Gudeman, both
of them are conservatives, both of them are white men.  Both of
them complained in the workplace about the quota system that
Google has in place for hiring people and the incessant social
justice warrior mentality that forces everybody at Google to toe
the line with regard to hating on people who supported the
President, or refusing to acknowledge people's right to believe
that there are two genders instead of multiple genders."

Mr. Damore said that instead of going through a talent search to
strengthen Google's team, he was instructed to do a demographics
check.

"There's a lot of ways in which they pressure people to 'increase
the diversity of their team,'" Mr. Damore told Canadian
psychologist Jordan B. Peterson in an August interview, according
to Hotair.com "And you know there's no way to do that besides
actually choosing someone based on their race or gender."

White male purge for morality's sake

The lawsuit provides further detail about Google's crusade to
engineer a workforce weighted with women and minorities.

"The TGIF meeting on March 30, 2017, was entitled 'Women's
History Month,' and Google brought in two presenters for this
get-together: Ruth Porat, the Chief Financial Officer of Google,
and Eileen Naughton, the Human Resources Director of Google," the
lawsuit states, according to Hotair.com.  "During the March 30,
2017, TGIF meeting, either Porat or Naughton pointed out and
shamed individual departments at Google in which women comprised
less than 50 percent of the workforce.  Alternatively, they
applauded and praised departments, such as the sales department,
where women comprised more than 50 percent of the workforce."

Google allegedly justified this practice on moral grounds.

"During the event, Porat and Naughton also discussed that when
looking at groups of people for promotions or for leadership
opportunities on new projects, Google would be taking into
account gender and ethnic demographics," the lawsuit continues.
"They then mentioned that Google's racial and gender preferences
in hiring were not up for debate, because this was morally and
economically the best thing to do for Google."

Yet Google still vehemently insists that former employees are
making these accounts up.

"Google denies using any quotas in hiring -- which would be
illegal -- and I have no doubt they have an army of lawyers who
will 'vigorously defend' that stance in court," Hotair.com's John
Sexton explained.  "Still, it's interesting that people working
for different segments of Google seem to be reporting the same
kind of intentional discrimination aimed at creating racial and
gender equity."

No-bro culture

Facing a lawsuit claiming that it has a "bro culture"
discriminating against women, Google and other technology
companies have allegedly been vigorously trying to shift the
demographics of their workforces by purging white males.

"Google, which files regular diversity reports on its employees
in the U.S., says 69 percent of are male and 56 percent are
white, against 35 percent Asian and 2 percent black," the
Telegraph divulged. "In high-tech roles, the gap is greater, with
80 percent of roles filled by men."

Besides the problem of what D amore called Google's "politically
correct monoculture," the company is facing new challenges.

"Last month Loretta Lee, a former Google engineer, sued the
company claiming it had done little to address a culture of
sexual harassment," the Telegraph's James Titcomb announced.
[GN]


ZEPRA: Settles Class Action Over Pork Scandal for $700,000
----------------------------------------------------------
Roni Kashmin, writing for Haaretz, reports that a compromise was
reached over the last year in a class action lawsuit alleging Tel
Aviv fusion restaurant Zepra served customers pork when they
ordered veal, leaving the eatery responsible for the payment of
2.4 million shekels ($700,000) in free food for diners over the
course of four months.  The class action suit was filed against
the upscale restaurant five years ago, for serving pork that was
labeled as veal in four of its menu items.  As with many legal
proceedings, particularly class action suits, several years went
by in which lab tests revealed that pork had been used, posing as
veal.  Last January the Tel Aviv District Court accepted a
request to deal with the file as a class action suit.  The
appellant, attorney Nataly Swery, was allowed to represent any
customer who had ordered beef but received pork instead.

The claim relied on a kitchen worker who had worked at Zepra
between 2007 and 2012.  He testified that in May 2012 he noticed,
and was told by restaurant managers, that the menu items labeled
as veal contained pork.

The restaurant and its chef Avi Konforti argued that the claims,
and the appelants' determination that the reason for using pork
was that it was cheaper, were false.  Revenues from these menu
items were low compared to the restaurant's total revenues, they
added, and that attempts to save money at the expense of
customers could have been made using legal and simpler methods.

They argued further that using pork for beef is not easy to hide
considering the taste, color and texture of pork meat is
completely different than veal.  The restaurant also argued that
two lab tests on two of the items in question were insufficient
for providing substantial evidence.  The tests were not linked to
the specific items ordered, they claimed.  Zepra also argued that
the kitchen worker's testimony was only hearsay, since he had no
way of knowing what meat was being used in different menu items
since he was not involved in cutting or preparing the meat.  He
was only relying on something he heard from the kitchen manager.
The restaurant provided an affidavit by that manager stating that
the kitchen worker's claim was false.  This made it at least a
hearsay claim, argued the restaurant.

Over the last year the court approved a compromise settlement,
according to which the appellant had proved her claim.  Despite
the restaurant's rejection of this claim the two sides agreed on
a compromise which was approved by the court on January 4, after
almost five years of legal proceedings.

In practice, the restaurant will provide its customers several
benefits, at no cost and at all hours within 30 days from the
date the compromise agreement was approved.  These will change
every four months and will amount to 2.4 million shekels
($700,000).

During the first four months every diner will get a starter
called a "Hanoi crispy roll", made of crumbly cassava-rice,
minced tender chicken meat, skinny Kungjak noodles and fresh
spices (value: 36 shekels).  In the second four month period the
restaurant will offer chai masala (value: 25 shekels).  During
the third four-month period the restaurant will offer every diner
a glass of digestive wine (Sweet umeshu, valued at 36 shekels).

The awarding of these benefits will cease as soon as their
cumulative value reaches the 2.4 million shekels specified in the
compromise.  Diners won't be limited in the number of benefits
they are entitled to in each period.  Anyone showing up three
times a week will get the benefit every time.

The two sides agreed that the appellants' attorney would be paid
450,000 shekels ($130,000) in fees and that the appellant would
receive 150,000 shekels.

The restaurant's response: "Zepra denied and continues to deny
claims made against it despite the compromise agreement, since no
final decision was taken in the matter."

"The restaurant has always operated under the highest
professional standards, wishing to provide its customers a
culinary experience that is unique and precise.  Although Zepra
feels that its conduct was without blemish and that this would
have come to light if the legal process had continued to its end,
it was willing to compromise in order to end the affair and cut
the expenses involved so that resources could be devoted to the
cause the restaurant was established for, namely making people
happy with unique food transcending borders and cultures, in a
pleasant setting which has been receiving international
recognition for twelve years." [GN]


ZUCCA TRATTORIA: Fails to Pay Minimum Wage and OT, "Barrios" Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
IZAEL BARRIOS, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. ZUCCA TRATTORIA INC. (D/B/A TAQUERIA MEZA), BKUK
CORP. (D/B/A BKUK GROUP), BESIM KUKAJ, GINO GIANNUZZI, and ALBANO
LACI, Case No. 1:18-cv-01466 (S.D.N.Y., February 19, 2018),
alleges that the Plaintiff worked for the Defendants in excess of
40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage, overtime,
and spread of hours compensation for the hours that he worked.

Zucca Trattoria Inc., doing business as Taqueria Meza, is a
domestic corporation organized and existing under the laws of the
state of New York.  Bkuk Corp., doing business as BKUK Group, is
a domestic corporation organized and existing under the laws of
the state of New York.  The Individual Defendants serve or served
as owners, managers, principals, or agents of the Defendant
Corporations.

The Defendants owned, operated, or controlled a Mexican
restaurant, located at 95 7th Avenue South, in New York City,
under the name "Taqueria Meza."  The restaurant is located in the
Greenwich Village section of Manhattan in New York City.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


* Bill to Prohibit Individual Arbitration for Data Breach Victims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Heather Kuldell, Joseph Marks and Jack Corrigan, writing for
NextGov, report that lawmakers were scheduled to vote March 6, on
a bill that would boost the buying authority of the Federal
Communications Commission chief information officer.

The FCC CIO Parity Act is tucked into Ray Baum's Act, legislation
that would reauthorize the FCC for the first time in 15 years and
contains several measures to improve communications
infrastructure and internet access.

The FCC Parity Act would grant the CIO "a significant role" in
planning, budgeting and hiring processes related to IT at the
agency.  These powers would be similar to what the Federal
Information Technology Acquisition Reform Act grants to CIOs at
CFO Act agencies.

"Aligned with Sen. Moran's past priorities included in FITARA,
the senator feels strongly that federal agencies are increasingly
reliant upon IT in their day-to-day operations.  As agencies plan
for budgets, it only makes sense for the expertise of the CIO to
be included in these critical operational decisions," a spokesman
for Sen. Jerry Moran, R-Kan., told Nextgov.  Sen. Moran and Sen.
Tom Udall, D-N.M., introduced the Senate version of the bill back
in December.  The duo previously pushed the Modernizing
Government Technology Act, which not only passed but is now
taking agency proposals for funds.

"The FCC is charged with regulating close to a sixth of our
economy, but their information technology systems are severely
out of date -- leaving sensitive industry material vulnerable to
increasingly dangerous cyberattacks," Udall told Nextgov.  "The
inclusion of this provision will empower the FCC CIO and give the
CIO the authority necessary to modernize and take the necessary
steps to protect sensitive data."

Another notable bill tucked into the package is the MOBILE NOW
Act introduced by Sens. John Thune, R-S.D., and Bill Nelson, D-
Fla., directing the FCC to make more spectrum available to the
private sector for fixed and mobile wireless broadband
development.

Credit Over-Extended

House Energy and Commerce Committee leaders requested a briefing
with the company investigating the Equifax data breach, Mandiant,
after news the credit score giant identified 2.4 million
additional victims.

"This latest announcement from Equifax is deeply concerning, and
raises even more questions about the company's total failure in
safeguarding consumers' information and providing adequate tools
for protection post-breach," committee Chairman Greg Walden, R-
Ore., and Rep. Bob Latta, R-Ohio, who chairs the committee's
consumer protection panel, said in a statement.

Senate Commerce Chairman John Thune, R-S.D., also said his
committee would be reaching out to Equifax for additional
information.

Speaking of Equifax

Rep. Ted Lieu, D-Calif., introduced two bills on March 1 aimed at
protecting consumers from the next major credit reporting agency
data breach.

The first bill, the Protecting Consumer Information Act, would
direct the Federal Trade Commission to study whether current law
mandates sufficient cybersecurity protections for credit ratings
agency and to promulgate new regulations if the current ones are
insufficient.

The second bill, the Ending Forced Arbitration for Victims of
Data Breaches Act, would prohibit companies from forcing data
breach victims to all go through individual arbitration before
launching a class action lawsuit.

Forging Ahead on FOSTA

A controversial bill aimed at curbing online sex-trafficking
passed the House on March 6 despite pushback from tech-savvy
lawmakers and industry groups.  The Allow States and Victims to
Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act would allow states and victims
to sue websites that are "knowingly assisting, supporting or
facilitating a violation" of federal anti-sex trafficking laws,
but the tech community argues the bill could open companies to
frivolous lawsuits.

Though early amendments to FOSTA brought many original opponents
on board, tech groups renewed their criticism after lawmakers
revised the bill's final text to more closely mirror its Senate
counterpart, which takes a stiffer position against online
platforms.  The Senate is expected to vote on FOSTA the week of
March 12, and the measure is widely expected to pass.

Overdoing the Oversight

The Senate Homeland Security Committee is working on a Homeland
Security Department reauthorization bill that will pare back the
roughly 100 congressional committees and subcommittees that
department staff must report to, Chairman Ron Johnson, R-Wisc.,
said on Feb. 28.

Those crisscrossing oversight lines were left unaddressed in the
House version of the reauthorization bill, which passed that
chamber in July.  Mr. Johnson has suggested forming a
congressional commission to study the problem.

The Senate bill will also likely include language strengthening
the department's election cybersecurity mission, senators said.

Let's Make This Thing Official

Also on Feb. 28, House Homeland Security Chairman Michael McCaul,
R-Texas, introduced a bill giving legislative backing to the work
of Homeland Security's cyber incident response teams. The
Homeland Security Committee was scheduled to mark up the bill
March 7.

Senate Pushes Cyber Cooperation With Ukraine

Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, introduced legislation on March 6
urging the State Department to help Ukraine secure its digital
networks against Russian cyberattacks and to reduce the nation's
reliance on Russian internet infrastructure. The bill merely
states the "sense of Congress" and does not mandate any State
Department action. A similar bill passed the House Feb. 7.

Ukraine has suffered numerous digital attacks since the 2014
Russian annexation of Crimea that are widely believed to have
been launched by the Russian government.  Among those was a 2015
attack that severely disrupted electricity across the nation. It
was likely the first widely successful cyberattack against an
electric grid.

Quit Concealing Climate Change

The Congressional Safe Climate Caucus penned a letter to
President Trump condemning the White House push to reduce public
access to federal climate change information.  The 26 lawmakers
said they are "alarmed" by the administration's "systematic
effort" to remove web pages and language related to climate
change from federal sites.  They accused the administration of
violating the Federal Records Act -- which requires agencies to
collect, retain and preserve records -- and pushed the White
House to "consider the fact that human-caused global climate
change is one of the greatest existential threats to the future
of our planet" in its future online practices. [GN]


* Class Actions Not Reason for Scarcity of IPOs
-----------------------------------------------
Financial Times reports that what could be more American than
investing in the stock market? Perhaps suing a public company
when its stock price falls.  The new administration at the US
Securities and Exchange Commission -- led by former superstar
corporate lawyer Jay Clayton -- wants to revive the initial
public offering market.  But it is far from clear that litigation
is what holds it back.

One plank of the SEC's push has been to lighten regulation it
considers excessively burdensome.  Perhaps the most contentious
idea some on the commission have floated, albeit softly, is so-
called "mandatory arbitration" bylaws.  These would prevent
shareholders from filing class action lawsuits, forcing disputes
into arbitration instead.

A few years ago, private equity group Carlyle tried to insert
such a provision into its bylaws, only to be stopped by the SEC.
But in his debut speech, newly installed SEC commissioner Robert
Jackson forcefully challenged the idea that ending shareholder
class actions would benefit the US securities market.  Mr
Jackson, a Democrat nominee, pointed out that shareholder
lawsuits supplement the SEC's own enforcement activity, which is
constrained by the scale of its budget.

His remarks came on the day that Facebook settled claims for
$US35m that it had misled investors about its IPO.  Federal
securities litigation is at an all-time high, with 432 securities
class actions filed last year.  However, that surge is
misleading. The state of Delaware, where many companies are
registered, has cracked down hard on frivolous corporate
litigation.  As a result, attorneys have turned to the federal
courts for mergers and acquisitions challenges, mostly
unsuccessfully.

The SEC's push to revive the IPO market is in parts misguided.
Companies are remaining private for longer because they can:
private capital is ample.  At the same time, public market
investors have become choosier.  Class actions are not the reason
IPOs are scarce.  To the extent they underpin investor
confidence, they actually support the market. [GN]


* South Africa Needs Formal Rules to Regulate Class Actions
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Conversations reports that what do Ford, AngloGold Ashanti,
Gold Fields and Tiger Brands have in common? They are just a few
of the well-known companies in South Africa facing class actions:
lawsuits filed on behalf of a group.

The international retail group Steinhoff could soon join the
list.  South African shareholders and the Dutch Investors
Association plan to launch a lawsuit against Steinhoff following
allegations of accounting fraud.

Class actions against businesses like these can improve access to
justice because they reduce the expense of litigation.  It's much
more expensive for individuals to pursue a case on their own, so
many claims are never judged and claimants don't get justice.
Class actions also deter antisocial behaviour by companies.

South Africa is seeing a growing body of class actions.  The
country's constitution clearly provides for it and a practical
way of going about it is starting to emerge.

A number of cases brought before the courts have started to build
a framework to guide class actions.

But there is still a gap.  There are still no laws passed by
parliament or rules set by courts to regulate the procedure.  The
recent doctoral study of Theo Broodryk, Senior Lecturer and
Manager of the Law Clinic, Stellenbosch University, aimed to
develop a statutory structure that could help fill this gap.

Examples from other countries
South Africa may be able to learn from the examples of other
jurisdictions, such as the US and Ontario, Canada, that have
developed statutory frameworks to guide class actions.

Apart from being widely regarded as the leaders in the field of
class action litigation, these countries share key commonalities
with South Africa's justice system.  Their civil procedures are
of English common law origin in terms of which the law is largely
derived from judicial precedent, compared to civil law systems
where codified statutes predominate.  They also have an adversary
system of litigation, which is characterised by party control and
a passive and aloof judge.

One of the biggest challenges with these class action
jurisdictions is that they are being increasingly invaded by
frivolous claims and settlements driven by lawyers who see the
class action spaces as a moneymaking machine.  They overload the
system with cases that serve their hunger for fees first -- and
the rights of the class action members become secondary.

The US and Canada have put in place measures to counter frivolous
settlements.  These include giving courts pre-screening powers
and a discretion to pre-approve or reject settlements.

South Africa may need to go the settlement pre-screening route to
avoid this problem.  Deputy Judge President Phineas Mojapelo, in
the recent silicosis litigation, hinted at this when he said that
settlements concluded after certification, in other words after
the court approves the institution of a class action so that it
can proceed to trial, should be subject to court approval.

It seems that South Africa will follow suit, notwithstanding the
absence of legislation regulating the mechanism.

Reasons for clarity
One of the objectives of class actions is achieving judicial
economy -- in other words joining together a number of lawsuits
that would otherwise have been brought separately.  Judicial
economy in this context also means that the class action would
contribute to the efficient use of the courts' resources and the
consistency of judgments rendered by it.

In South Africa, it has been left to the courts to develop the
procedural framework for class action.  This makes for an ad hoc
approach which is not ideal.  A haphazard approach could lead to
legal uncertainty or judicial inconsistency.

This is because a class action could be necessary to achieve one
or all of three things:

   -- access to justice;
   -- judicial economy; and
   -- changes in behaviour.

South African courts need to know which of these apply to each
case.

But the primary consideration should be class members' right to
have access justice.  Where poor claimants are unable to litigate
individually through joinder (a single trial where the right to
relief of the persons joined depends upon the determination of
substantially the same question of law or fact), a court should
allow the matter to proceed as a class action.  This ensures that
the claimants' financial and social circumstances don't prevent
them from getting justice.

The primary difficulties associated with joinder is that it is a
cumbersome and costly process.  And where individual claimants
are poor, uneducated and lack access to resources, or where the
class is large, joinder may in fact be inappropriate.  A court
ordering joinder in these circumstances could potentially
undermine the rationale of providing access to justice.

It's also important for courts to consider how they will manage a
class action.  This is because they are more complex than other
kinds of litigation and require greater administration and
management.  If proceedings become unmanageable, the action may
have to be stopped.  So, courts should consider whether claims
are large enough to be pursued separately, and the importance of
the common issues in relation to the claims as a whole.

In the final analysis, all these matters would be better handled
by a statutory framework.

A call to action
Despite various problems, inconsistencies and contradictions
around class actions, South Africa's courts have done well to
start developing a framework.  They have given substance to what
could have been an illusory mechanism for resolving disputes.

But the class action law is currently in a state of flux as it
tries to shape and position itself within the country's civil
justice system.  South Africa needs comprehensive legislation and
court rules regulating class actions suits to better serve the
principle of access to the justice system. [GN]

                            *********


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

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

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

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

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

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



                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *