CAR_Public/180328.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


             Wednesday, March 28, 2018, Vol. 20, No. 63



                            Headlines


ABM PARKING: 9th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of "Bassett" FCRA Suit
AETERNA ZENTAR: Provides Update on New Jersey Class Action
AETNA INC: Lundin Sues for Breach of Contract
ALLEGIANT AIR: Must Reply to "Doliboa" Dismissal Bid Opposition
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Class Certification Granted in Wage Suit

ARIZONA: Paid $1.8MM in Legal Fees Defending Foster Care Suit
ATLAS FINANCIAL: May 4 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
ATLAS FINANCIAL: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Action
BAYER CORP: Court Narrows Claims in "Johnson" Suit
BAYER CORP: Court Narrows Claims in "Schaffer" Suit

BLYTH ACADEMY: Sued Over Teachers' Independent Contractor Status
BRF SA: Rosen Law Firm Investigates Potential Securities Claims
CALIFORNIA: 6-Month Notice Prior to Filing Termination Bid
CAMERON MITCHELL: Faces "Gary" Suit in N.D. Texas
CASCADIAN THERAPEUTICS: Kim Sues Over Sale to Seattle Genetics

CASEY'S GENERAL: Partial Bid to Dismiss "Mellenthin" Suit Denied
CHUBB GROUP: Faces "Young" Suit in S.D. New York
CORE CIVIC: Faces "Tennyson" Suit in D. Colorado
COREPOWER YOGA: $1.4MM Settlement in "Barnard" Has Final Approval
CRYSTAL ROCK: Rigrodsky & Long Files Securities Class Action

DEPASQUALE VENTURES: Faces "Lazarev" Suit in D. Massachusetts
DIRECTV LLC: Faces "McMichen" Suit in N.D. Georgia
EMERITUS CORPORATION: Rodriguez Files Suit Over Unpaid Wages
EMPIRE SZECHUAN: "De Jesus" Suit Seeks Spread-of-Hours, OT Pay
ENTERPRISE FOODS: Tiger CEO Responds to Listeriosis Outbreak

FACEBOOK INC: Biometric Data Class Action Heads Into Discovery
FANNIE MAY: Judge Dismisses Class Action Over Chocolate Boxes
FLEXPORT INC: Faces "Nam" Suit in California Superior Court
GEICO GENERAL: Faces Randy Rosenberg, D.C. Suit in S.D. Florida
GLADSTONE PORTS: Faces Class Action Over Toxic Dredge Spill

GLADSTONE PORTS: To Vigorously Defend Fishermen's Class Action
GOLUB CORP: Settles Price Chopper OT Class Action for $6.5-Mil.
GOOGLE INC: Settles AdSense Class Action for $11 Million
GRUPO TELVISA: Faces Class Action, May 4 Lead Plaintiff Deadline
GUAM: H-2B Class-Action Certification Briefings Proceed

HARRIS COUNTY, TX: Ct. Won't Add Cole as Plaintiff in "ODonnell"
HOSPITAL FOR SICK: Class Action Certification Motion Dismissed
HOT POT FLUSHING: Faces "Li" Suit in E.D. New York
HTC AMERICA: Faces "Drobnick" Suit in Cal. Superior Court
HUNTER PARKING: Sued for Allegedly Overcharging Customers

HUNTER WARFIELD: Faces "Meyers" Suit in E.D. New York
HYUNDAI MOTORD: BakerHostetler Discusses 9th Cir. Ruling
INTEL CORP: Bernstein Litowitz Files Securities Class Action
JO-ANN STORES: Sent Unsolicited SMS Ads, "Marcheco" Suit Says
JOCKEY INT'L: Faces "Fischler" Suit in E.D. New York

JUST ENERGY: "Evangelista" to Remain in District Court
KINDRED HEALTHCARE: Buskirk Files Suit Over Sale to TPG Capital
KOBE STEEL: Faces Class Action in U.S. Over Substandard Metal
LA BOUCHERIE: Faces Class Action in California Over Food Prices
LA SALLE COUNTY, IL: Judge Tosses Class Action Against SAFE Team

LOBLAWS: Begins Sending $25 Gift Cards to Recompense Customers
MARRIOT HOTEL: Blumenthal Nordrehaug Files Labor Class Action
MASONITE CORP: Employees Seek Approval of $2.5MM Settlement
MASSARO ELECTRIC: "Castillo" Suit Seeks to Recoup Unpaid OT Wages
MDL 2804: Irwin County Vote to Join Opioid Crisis Class Action

MDL 2804: Cities, Counties in Georgia File Opioid Class Action
MDL 2804: Baron & Budd to Represent Alamance Co. in Opioid Case
MDL 2804: Missouri Woman Files Opioid Class Action
MDL 2804: Opioid Epidemic Litigation Ongoing in Ohio
MDL 2084: Opioid Class Action Filed in West Virginia

METROPOLITCAN DISTRICT:  Faces Class Action Over Water Charges
METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION: Faces "West" Suit in E.D. New York
MICHIGAN: Continues to Defend Class Action Over DRFs
MISSISSIPPI: Trial Begins in Prison Mental Health Care Suit
MWD CONSULTING: Faces "Klabbatz" Suit in S.D. Ohio

NATIONAL STORES: "Galvez" Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime
NEOVIA LOGISTICS: Faces "Hicks" Suit in C.D. California
NEWSWEEK LLC: Faces "Sullivan" Suit in S.D. New York
NICK CANON: Crew Members File Class Suit Over Working Conditions
OCERA THERAPEUTICS: June 28 "Clarke" Case Mgmt. Conference

PAYMASTER BUSINESS: Ct. Denies MPay's Bid to Dismiss PS Kids Suit
PELLA CORP: Settles ProLine Class Action, Sept. 14 Hearing Set
PENNSYLVANIA: Denial of Bocelli's Writ of Habeas Bid Upheld
PENSKE AUTOMOTIVE: $2.1MM Wage-and-Hour Settlement Gets Court OK
PJ BERNSTEIN: Faces "Rojas" Suit in S.D. New York

PURDUE PHARMA: Faces "Wood" Suit in N.D. Ohio
PURDUE PHARMA: Thompson and Barney Files Opioid Class Action
QUAKERS HILL: Faces Class Action Over Nursing Home Fire
QUANTUM CORPORATION: "Nabhan" Sues Over Share Price Drop
QUANTUM CORPORATION: "Lazan" Hits Share Drop Over Bad Accounting

RASIER LLC: Faces "Durgin" Suit in N.D. California
RETAIL FOOD: Faces Potential Investor Class Action
RETAIL GROUP: Faces Possible 2nd Shareholder Class Action
RUNNING SPECIALTY: Faces "Lopez" Suit in S.D. New York
SOUTHERN TIRE: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime Wages

SPACIOS: Faces "Alvarado" Suit in S.D. Florida
SUNEDISON SEMICONDUCTOR: "Usenko" ERISA Suit Dismissed
SYNEOS HEALTH: Faces Securities Class Action Over InVentiv Merger
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Beasley Allen Files Data Breach Class Action
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Pennsylvania AG Files Data Breach Suit

UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Introduces New Services Following Class Action
UBS AG: 5th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Securities Class Action
ULTA BEAUTY: May 1 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
UNITED AIRLINES: 10th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of "Martin"
UNITED STATES: Judge Stays Common Ground's Class Action Over CSR

VERDE ENERGY: Faces "Mercado" Suit in N.D. Illinois
VESUVIO'S II PIZZA: Court Reopens "Solais" FLSA Class Suit
ZWICKER & ASSOCIATES: Faces "Lipzkier" Suit in E.D. New York

* CBA Adopts New Protocol for Multijurisdictional Class Actions
* Kavinoky Cook Attorneys Discuss Key Arbitration Developments







                            *********


ABM PARKING: 9th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of "Bassett" FCRA Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge M. Margaret McKeown of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's order granting ABM's
motion to dismiss the case, STEVEN BASSETT, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. ABM PARKING SERVICES, INC., DBA ABM Onsite Services-West, DBA
AMPCO System Parking; ABM ONSITE SERVICES-WEST, INC.; ABM
INDUSTRIES, INC., Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 16-35933 (9th
Cir.).

The legislative backdrop for the case centers on Fair and
Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003 ("FACTA") and Fair
Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA").  The FACTA amended the FCRA to
limit the information printed on receipts.  The statute provides
that any person who willfully fails to comply with [that
requirement] with respect to any consumer is liable to that
consumer for statutory damages of between $100 and $1,000 per
violation or any actual damages sustained by the consumer, costs
and attorney's fees, and potential punitive damages.

Following the passage of FACTA, consumers filed a spate of
lawsuits against merchants who printed receipts showing credit
card expiration dates.  In response, Congress enacted the Credit
and Debit Card Receipt Clarification Act ("Clarification Act").
The Clarification Act reiterated that the FCRA prohibits the
printing of receipts bearing a card's expiration date.

When Bassett paid for parking at an ABM garage in 2016, he was
issued a receipt bearing his credit card expiration date.
Bassett filed a putative class action lawsuit against ABM,
alleging willful violations of the FCRA.  His claimed injury was
exposure to identity theft and credit/debit fraud, because he was
at imminent risk that his property would be stolen and/or misused
by identity thieves.  He did not allege that a second receipt
existed, that his receipt was lost or stolen, or that he was the
victim of identity theft.  Rather, he claimed that the risk of
harm created in printing the expiration date on the receipt was a
sufficiently concrete injury to confer Article III standing.

The district court granted ABM's motion to dismiss the complaint
because Bassett failed to allege a sufficiently concrete injury.
In dismissing the case with prejudice, the court concluded that
Bassett alleged nothing more than a possible risk of identity
theft.  Citing the Supreme Court's watershed decision on
standing, Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, the district court emphasized
that something more is necessary to allege a concrete injury in
fact, because not every procedural violation gives rise to
standing.  Bassett appeals.

Judge McKeown answers a question that would certainly sound
exotic to the nation's founders: whether receiving an overly
revealing credit card receipt -- unseen by others and unused by
identity thieves -- is a sufficient injury to confer Article III
standing.  Like the district court, the Judge concludes that
Bassett failed to allege a concrete injury sufficient to give him
standing.  In doing so, she joins the Second and Seventh Circuits
in affirming dismissal under identical circumstances.

The Judge finds that Bassett's allegations of FCRA procedural
violations also do not entail a degree of risk sufficient to meet
the concreteness requirement.  In assessing violations of
procedural statutory rights, she considers whether the specific
procedural violations alleged, actually harm, or present a
material risk of harm to Bassett's interests.  Bassett did not
allege that another copy of the receipt existed, that his receipt
was lost or stolen, that he was the victim of identity theft, or
even that another person apart from his lawyers viewed the
receipt.  Nor did he allege that any risk of harm is real, not
conjectural or hypothetical, given that he could shred the
offending receipt along with any remaining risk of disclosure.

Judge McKeown holds that when the receipt fell into Bassett's
hands in a parking garage and no identity thief was there to
snatch it, it did not make an injury.

A full-text copy of the Ninth Circuit's Feb. 21, 2018 Opinion is
available at https://is.gd/W2Xo0i from Leagle.com.

Darrell L. Cochran -- darrell@pcvalaw.com -- and Christopher E.
Love -- chris@pcvalaw.com -- Pfau Cochran Vertetis Amala PLLC,
Tacoma, Washington, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Ryan P. McBride -- mcbrider@lanepowell.com -- Abraham K. Lorber -
- lorbera@lanepowell.com -- and Randall P. Beighle --
beighler@lanepowell.com -- Lane Powell PC, Seattle, Washington,
for Defendants-Appellees.


AETERNA ZENTAR: Provides Update on New Jersey Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Aeterna Zentaris Inc. (the "Company" or "Aeterna Zentaris")
(NASDAQ:AEZS) and (TSX:AEZS) on March 5 disclosed that the United
States District Court for the District of New Jersey has granted
a motion for class certification in the previously disclosed
class action lawsuit against the Company and certain of its
current and former officers and directors in connection with
statements made by the defendants between August 30, 2011 and
November 6, 2014, regarding the safety and efficacy of
Macrilen(TM)(macimorelin) and the prospects for the approval of
the Company's new drug application for the product by the FDA.
The Company continues to believe that substantially all of the
costs for its defense will be borne by the insurers who provide
directors' and officers' liability insurance to the Company,
subject to policy limits.

While the Company believes that it has meritorious defenses and
intends to defend this lawsuit vigorously, the Company cannot
currently predict the outcome of this suit or reasonably estimate
any potential loss that may result from this suit.  Accordingly,
the Company has not recorded any liability related to the
lawsuit.  No assurance can be given with respect to the ultimate
outcome of such proceedings, and the Company could incur
substantial unreimbursed legal fees, damages, settlements,
judgments, and other expenses in connection with these
proceedings that may not qualify for coverage under, or may
exceed the limits of, the Company's applicable directors' and
officers' liability insurance and could have a material adverse
impact on the Company's financial condition, results of
operations, liquidity and cash flows.

                  About Aeterna Zentaris Inc.

Aeterna Zentaris Inc. -- http://www.aezsinc.com-- is a specialty
biopharmaceutical company focused on developing and
commercializing, principally through out-licensing arrangements,
Macrilen(TM)(macimorelin), an orally available ghrelin agonist,
to be used in the diagnosis of patients with adult growth hormone
deficiency (AGHD).  On January 17, 2018 Aeterna Zentaris
announced that that it had, through a wholly-owned subsidiary,
entered into a license and assignment agreement with a wholly-
owned subsidiary of Strongbridge Biopharma plc to carry out
development, manufacturing, registration and commercialization of
Macrilen(TM)(macimorelin) in the United States and Canada. On
December 20, 2017, the Company announced that the U.S. Food and
Drug Administration (FDA) granted marketing approval for
Macrilen(TM) (macimorelin).  On November 27, 2017 Aeterna
Zentaris announced that the Marketing Authorization Application
(MAA) for the use of Macrilen(TM) (macimorelin) for the
evaluation of AGHD was accepted by the European Medicines Agency
(EMA) for regulatory review. [GN]


AETNA INC: Lundin Sues for Breach of Contract
---------------------------------------------
Nichol Lundin, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Aetna Inc., Aetna Health and Life
Insurance Company, Aetna Insurance Company Of Connecticut and
Aetna Health Of California Inc., Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-00932
(N.D. Cal., February 13, 2018), seeks equitable relief,
restitution, disgorgement of the revenues wrongfully retained,
actual and compensatory damages, costs of suit and attorneys'
fees and such other and further relief resulting from breach of
implied contract, breach of the duty of good faith and fair
dealing and for violation of California's Unfair Competition Law,
Unfair Business Practices Law.

Aetna allegedly failed to properly review patient files by a
physician and give appropriate coverage to its covered members.

Aetna is a managed health care company that sells traditional,
consumer directed health care and life insurance plans. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Bobby Saadian, Esq.
      Colin M. Jones, Esq.
      WILSHIRE LAW FIRM
      3055 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor
      Los Angeles, CA 90010
      Tel: (213) 381-9988
      Fax: (213) 381-9989


ALLEGIANT AIR: Must Reply to "Doliboa" Dismissal Bid Opposition
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SETH DOLIBOA, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. ALLEGIANT AIR, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 2:17-CV-02779-JCM-GWF (D. Nev.), Judge James
C. Mahan of the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada
extended the deadline for the Defendant to file its reply to the
Plaintiff's Opposition to Motion to Dismiss Class Action
Complaint for Damages for Breach of Contract.

On Jan. 19, 2018, the Defendant filed its Motion to Dismiss Class
Action Complaint for Damages for Breach of Contract.  On Feb. 12,
2018, the Plaintiff filed his Opposition to Motion to Dismiss
Class Action Complaint for Damages for Breach of Contract.

To allow the counsel for the Defendant to adequately familiarize
themselves with the Opposition and prepare an appropriate reply,
the parties stipulated and Judge Mahan approved that the deadline
for the Defendant to file its reply to the Plaintiff's Opposition
to Motion to Dismiss Class Action Complaint for Damages for
Breach of Contract is extended to Feb. 23, 2018.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 21, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/J7DVxC from Leagle.com.

Seth Doliboa, Plaintiff, represented by Francis Joseph Flynn, Jr.
-- francisflynn@gmail.com -- Law Office of Francis J. Flynn, Jr.,
pro hac vice & Michael Kind, Kazerouni Law Group, APC.

Allegiant Air, LLC, Defendant, represented by Jacob D. Bundick --
bundickj@gtlaw.com -- Greenberg Traurig, LLP, Mark E. Ferrario --
ferrariom@gtlaw.com -- Greenberg Traurig & Michael R. Hogue --
hoguem@gtlaw.com -- Greenberg Traurig, LLP.


AMERICAN AIRLINES: Class Certification Granted in Wage Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Charles Toutant, writing for Law.com, reports that baggage
handlers and maintenance workers at American Airlines were
granted certification on March 6 in a class action suit claiming
the company programmed its time clocks to round down and reduce
the amount of time employees are credited with working.

The company's timekeeping system credits workers for the period
of time they are scheduled to work, but the system cuts off pay
for those who put in a longer shift than scheduled, according to
the suit.  The suit claims violations of New Jersey's Wage and
Hour Law on behalf of American employees at Newark Liberty
International Airport.

Chief Judge Jose Linares granted the plaintiffs' motion to
certify three subclasses of American employees who claimed they
were denied full compensation for work performed.  The subclasses
were for those who claimed they were not paid for work performed
before and after their scheduled shifts, while on the clock;
during unpaid meal periods; and before clocking in or after
clocking out.

The suit claims American configured its time clocks to round down
and reduce the amount of time employees are credited with
working, thereby depriving them of wages and overtime they are
entitled to receive.  But the system does not add time to workers
who clock out early.

The suit also accuses American of improperly offering its hourly
employees compensatory time in lieu of payments for overtime, and
requesting that baggage handlers perform off-the-clock work
before clocking in, after clocking out and during uncompensated
meal breaks.

Nine named plaintiffs testified in depositions that American
Airlines employees were required by managers to routinely arrive
early and stay late to finish their work, to compensate for a
shortage of labor, to attend meetings, and to complete training;
that the timekeeping system defaulted to pay employees based only
on their scheduled hours; and the amount of time for which
employees performed work beyond their normal schedules and during
meal periods ranges from one to four hours of uncompensated time
each week.

The named plaintiffs are all paid by the hour at rates ranging
from $11.69 to $41, according to a court filing.

American Airlines, which is headquartered in Fort Worth, Texas,
argued that the plaintiffs' claims cannot be resolved on a
classwide basis because employees who would clock in early or
clock out late spent that time socializing, drinking coffee,
watching television or reading. But Linares said discovery should
address whether American's hourly employees engage in personal
activities during the periods raised by plaintiffs, since some of
the named plaintiffs disputed that assertion in depositions, and
those allegations do not merit denying class certification.

In addition, even though there is some variation among class
members concerning job performance, "the fact remains that the
named plaintiffs allege that American had a company-wide policy
in place at one location, i.e., Newark Liberty International
Airport, to avoid paying its employees for all of the time that
they worked.  The fact that there will be individualized
variations among the members of the putative class as to their
reasons for working through meal breaks, for clocking in early or
clocking out late, or for working off the clock, should not
defeat the certification of this action as a class action,"
Linares said.

Plaintiffs have maintained in court papers that there are at
least 100 class members and that the class members' claims exceed
$5 million in the aggregate.

"We think this is a fantastic result for our guys.  They were
getting shorted anywhere from one to four hours per week," said
Brett Gallaway of McLaughlin & Stern in New York who represents
the class along with Lee Shalov of the same firm.

Mr. Gallaway said the plaintiffs believe American's timekeeping
procedures are employed uniformly nationwide. However, the suit
is brought only on behalf of New Jersey workers because the
federal Fair Labor Standards Act exempts employees of common
carriers such as American Airlines, he said.  But New Jersey's
wage-and-hour laws grant specific protections to airline
employees, said Mr. Gallaway.

According to Mr. Gallaway, American Airlines compensates
employees who are shortchanged by the timekeeping system if they
obtain approval from bosses.  However, in practice, such requests
are often denied, so that employees often fail to make a request,
he said.

Jeffrey Kohn -- jkohn@omm.com -- and Mark Robertson --
mrobertson@omm.com -- of O'Melveny & Myers in New York, who
represent American Airlines, did not respond to a request for
comment about the ruling.  An American Airlines spokesman, Justin
Franco, said the company would not comment. [GN]


ARIZONA: Paid $1.8MM in Legal Fees Defending Foster Care Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mary Jo Pitzl, writing for azcentral, reports that Arizona
taxpayers have paid $1.8 million in legal fees as the state
defends against a class-action lawsuit alleging its foster-care
system is deeply flawed and in need of reform.

The legal bill is far from final: The case, filed in 2015, has
yet to go to a trial.  The spending will continue, at attorney
rates of up to $275 an hour, as the litigation continues to play
out in federal court.

DCS is seeking $3.8 million from the Legislature in the coming
budget year to boost its legal budget.

The $1.8 million spent so far reflects state payments through the
end of 2017 to the four private law firms the state has hired,
according to records The Arizona Republic obtained under the
state's public-records law.

DCS chief touts system improvements
Officials at the state Department of Child Safety and AHCCCS, the
state's Medicaid provider, say it's money well spent.

They argue the claims in the suit, brought by New York-Based
Children's Rights, are untrue and ignore what they say are
improvements to the foster-care system over the last three years.
It is less expensive to fight the suit now than to risk a loss,
or even a settlement, in which the state could be obligated to
pay for court monitoring, DCS Director Greg McKay said.

"Arizona taxpayers will pay the short-term cost of defending
CRI's class action lawsuit, but the alternative is unjustifiable,
far more expensive, and much worse," Mr. McKay wrote in a five-
page letter accompanying the release of the agency's legal fees.

If CRI prevails, Mr. McKay wrote, it likely will seek court
approval to monitor Arizona's foster-care system for years to
ensure it complies with whatever the court would require, further
driving up the cost to taxpayers.

CRI has filed class-action suits against 15 states and the
District of Columbia since 1989.  It has reached settlements in
nine of those cases, lost one and is still in court on the
remaining suits, according to CRI's website.  The agency's
attorneys are monitoring court requirements in many of those
cases, records show.

The case is complex, involving various state agencies and their
actions on child-welfare matters dating to 2014. AHCCCS, which is
charged with providing medical, dental and behavioral-health
services to children in foster care, has produced more than
100,000 pages of documents in the case, with even more coming
from DCS and the state's Department of Health Services, AHCCCS
spokeswoman Heidi Capriotti said.

The case in federal court in Phoenix is on hold as the parties
await a decision from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on
whether the case should be considered a class-action suit.

U.S. District court Judge Roslyn Silver in October granted class-
action certification to the case, prompting an appeal from the
state.  It is unclear when the appeals court will hear the
matter, although it has indicated it will give the matter
priority after both sides have finished filing their briefs.
That should be done by late May.

Whether the case continues as a class-action suit is significant:
If Judge Silver's decision is upheld, and CRI prevails, any
court-ordered changes to the foster-care system will apply not
only to the estimated 15,000 children now in the system, but also
to future foster children.

Case would bring big payout for attorneys, Mr. McKay says
Meanwhile, the attorneys who brought the case on behalf of foster
children say they are effectively working for free.  If they
prevail, they will seek an award of attorney fees.

"No one is paying us for this work, in terms of billing," said
attorney Anne Ronan, with the Arizona Center for Law in the
Public Interest.  "We would only recover (fees) if we were
successful."

The center joined with CRI, as well as the private firm of
Perkins Coie, to press the case.

Mr. McKay noted there is a potentially bigger payout for
attorneys beyond having their fees covered.  CRI has a history of
being appointed as a court monitor, with its costs paid by the
taxpayers.  Saving the state the expense of court monitoring that
could go on for years is a key reason DCS is aggressively
defending the lawsuit, he wrote.

But he also thinks the suit is ill-timed and does not account for
changes to Arizona's foster-care system.  He noted improvements
in the DCS system since he became director in 2015, such as
reducing the average time to find a foster-home placement from 40
hours to seven, and cutting investigators' average caseload to
fewer than 20 per month from 145 cases.

He urged the plaintiffs to drop their lawsuit.

"CRI must either acknowledge that its business decision (to sue
us) was flawed and walk away without a judicial decree or an
attorneys' fees award, or it must press on in the dubious belief
that it is doing good by suing one of the nation's best foster
care systems," he wrote.

CRI and the other attorneys disagree.  In a January filing, the
plaintiffs said their review of the documents DCS provided showed
there are still significant shortcomings.

For example, only 27 percent of 2-year-olds in the system
received required immunizations in the first half of 2017, the
attorneys wrote.  The number and percentage of children in group
homes -- a less-desirable setting than foster homes -- actually
increased from 2014 to 2017, they noted.

Attorney fees through 2017
   -- Cohen Dowd Quigley, representing DCS:  $759,752.
   -- Ellman Weinzweig, representing DCS:  $283,965. Attorney
David Weinzweig left the case in February after Gov. Doug Ducey
appointed him to the state Court of Appeals.
   -- Johnston Law Office, representing AHCCCS: $284,906.
   -- Struck Love Bojanski & Acedo, representing AHCCCS:
$419,799. [GN]


ATLAS FINANCIAL: May 4 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
---------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., on March 6 disclosed that a class
action lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois on behalf of all persons or
entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Atlas Financial
Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ: AFH) securities between March 13, 2017
and March 2, 2018 (the "Class Period").  Investors have until
May 4, 2018 to apply to the Court to be appointed as lead
plaintiff in the lawsuit.

On March 2, 2018, Atlas announced it took a significant loss-
reserve charge in the fourth quarter related to certain claims
from 2015 and prior.  Following this news, the Company's share
price fell $7.70 per share, or over 40%, to close at $11.10 per
share on March 2, 2018.

The complaint alleges that Defendants failed to disclose: (1)
that the Company failed to employ internal controls to ensure
appropriate accounting practices; including, but not limited to,
the calculation of certain loss reserves; (2) that, as a result,
the Company's internal controls over financial reporting were
materially weak; (3) that as a result the Company's financial
statements were inaccurate and misleading, including by
understating certain loss reserves; and, (4) that, as a result of
the foregoing, Defendants' statements about Atlas Financial's
business, operations, and prospects, were false and misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Atlas securities and
suffered a loss, continue to hold shares purchased prior to the
Class Period, have information, would like to learn more about
these claims, or have any questions concerning this announcement
or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please
contact Brandon Walker or Melissa Fortunato by email at
investigations@bespc.com, or telephone at (212) 355-4648, or by
filling out this contact form. There is no cost or obligation to
you.

Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. -- http://www.bespc.com/-- is a
New York-based law firm concentrating in commercial and
securities litigation. For additional information concerning the
Atlas Financial Holdings, Inc. lawsuit, please go to
http://www.bespc.com/atlasfinancial[GN]


ATLAS FINANCIAL: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") on March 5 disclosed that it
has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois, on behalf of persons
and entities that acquired Atlas Financial Holdings, Inc.
("Atlas" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: AFH) securities between March
13, 2017, and March 2, 2018, inclusive (the "Class Period"),
asserting claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

Investors are hereby notified that they have 60 days from March
5, 2018, the date of this notice, to move the Court to serve as
lead plaintiff in this action.

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

On March 2, 2018, the Company's shares fell over 40% value during
intraday trading following news that Atlas Financial took a
significant loss-reserve charge in the fourth quarter.  The loss
reserve related largely to commercial auto claims from 2015 and
prior.

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that, throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects.  Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose: (1) that
the Company failed to employ internal controls to ensure
appropriate accounting practices; including, but not limited to,
the calculation of certain loss reserves; (2) that, as a result,
the Company's internal controls over financial reporting were
materially weak; (3) that as a result the Company's financial
statements were inaccurate and misleading, including by
understating certain loss reserves; and, (4) that, as a result of
the foregoing, Defendants' statements about Atlas Financial's
business, operations, and prospects, were false and misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

Follow us for updates on Twitter: twitter.com/GPM_LLP.

If you purchased Atlas securities during the Class Period, you
may move the Court no later than 60 days from the date of this
notice to ask the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff.  To be
a member of the Class you need not take any action at this time;
you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and
remain an absent member of the Class.  If you wish to learn more
about this action, or if you have any questions concerning this
announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these
matters, please contact Lesley Portnoy, Esquire, of GPM, 1925
Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles California 90067 at
310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by email to
shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our website at
www.glancylaw.com.  If you inquire by email please include your
mailing address, telephone number and number of shares purchased.
[GN]


BAYER CORP: Court Narrows Claims in "Johnson" Suit
--------------------------------------------------
In the case, RACHAEL JOHNSON, et al., Plaintiffs, v. BAYER
CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, Case No. 4:17-CV-02774-JAR (E.D.
Mo.), Judge John A. Ross of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division, (i) granted in
part and denied in part Bayer's Motion to Dismiss; (ii) denied as
moot Bayer's Motion to Sever and the Plaintiffs' Motion to Stay;
and (iv) denied the Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to Conduct
Jurisdictional Discovery and denied the Plaintiffs' Motion to
Remand.

The products liability lawsuit was originally filed in the City
of St. Louis, Missouri on May 31, 2017 by 79 Plaintiffs from 33
different states against Bayer alleging Bayer's Essure product
caused them harm.  On July 14, 2017, Bayer removed the case to
the Court.  On July 21, 2017, Bayer filed a motion to dismiss and
motion to sever.  Shortly thereafter, the Plaintiffs filed a
motion to remand, motion for leave to conduct jurisdictional
discovery, and motion to stay proceedings pending a determination
of the Court's subject matter jurisdiction.  Finally, the
Plaintiffs filed a motion for a hearing on their motions.

The Plaintiffs seek to recover damages for injuries they
allegedly sustained from using Essure, a permanent birth control
device manufactured and sold by Bayer.  They assert claims of
negligence, strict liability, manufacturing defect, fraud, breach
of warranties, violation of consumer protection laws, Missouri
products liability, violation of the Missouri Merchandising
Practices, Act, and punitive damages.  Of the 69 Plaintiffs, only
four allege they are citizens of Missouri or had their implant
procedure in Missouri.

The Bayer Defendants -- which are not Missouri citizens --
removed the case to the Court in part on the basis of diversity
jurisdiction.  The presence of at least some of the 65 non-
Missouri Plaintiffs defeats the Court's diversity jurisdiction.
However, Bayer, relying on the recent U.S. Supreme Court opinion
Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Super Ct. of Cal., argues the Court
lacks personal jurisdiction over the claims of the 65 non-
Missouri Plaintiffs and that those claims should be dismissed or
severed.

In their motion to remand, the Plaintiffs urge the Court to
address subject matter jurisdiction first because the question of
personal jurisdiction will be fact-intensive and require
"extensive" discovery.  In the event the Court decides to address
personal jurisdiction before determining subject matter
jurisdiction, and finds the Plaintiffs' allegations that Bayer
conducted marketing and clinical trials in St. Louis, Missouri,
inadequate to make a prima facie case of personal jurisdiction,
they seek jurisdictional discovery.

The Plaintiffs have not responded to Bayer's motions to dismiss
and to sever because they seek a stay of these proceedings
pending a determination of the Court's subject matter
jurisdiction.  They also request an extension of time to respond
to Bayer's motions until after such jurisdiction is addressed.

The Plaintiffs contend they have established a prima facie case
for personal jurisdiction based on Bayer's regulatory and
marketing activity in Missouri and should be permitted to conduct
discovery to prove the contacts necessary to sustain jurisdiction
in the case.  Judge Ross finds that says even assuming that
discovery would prove exactly what the Plaintiffs contend
happened in Missouri with respect to Essure marketing and
clinical trials, the individual Plaintiffs' claims are too
attenuated from those activities to provide specific, case-linked
personal jurisdiction.

Based on a "straightforward application" of the settled
principles of personal jurisdiction, it is not enough for a
defendant to have general connections with the forum -- there
must be a connection between the forum and the specific claims at
issue.  The Judge finds that the Court does not have jurisdiction
over the non-Missouri Plaintiffs' claims.  Accordingly, he will
dismiss these claims.  The Judge will defer ruling on Bayer's
motion to dismiss and grants the Plaintiffs leave to address the
merits of Bayer's arguments that the claims are preempted by
federal law, and the Plaintiffs fail to plead a plausible claim
for relief.

Because the Judge will grant dismissal of the non-Missouri
Plaintiffs' claims, the remaining Plaintiffs and Bayer are
diverse from one another and the Court has subject matter
jurisdiction.  Therefore, he will deny the Plaintiffs' motion to
remand.

Likewise, he will deny the Plaintiffs' motion to sever and motion
to stay because the Court's ruling renders both moot.  He will
also deny the Plaintiffs' request to conduct jurisdictional
discovery because the facts sought to be discovered by the
Plaintiffs would not result in the Court being able to exercise
personal jurisdiction over the non-Missouri Plaintiffs' claims.

Accordingly, Judge Ross granted in part and denied in part
Bayer's Motion to Dismiss.  He granted the Motion with respect to
personal jurisdiction and held in abeyance with respect to
federal preemption and failure to plead a plausible claim.  The
claims of all non-Missouri Plaintiffs are dismissed for lack of
personal jurisdiction.  The four remaining Missouri Plaintiffs
will have until March 7, 2018 to file response to Bayer's motion
to dismiss.  Any reply will be filed no later than March 14,
2018.

The Judge (i) denied as moot Bayer's Motion to Sever and the
Plaintiffs' Motion to Stay; and (ii) denied both the Plaintiffs'
Motion for Leave to Conduct Jurisdictional Discovery and the
Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 21, 2018 Memorandum and
Order is available at https://is.gd/wwuaSN from Leagle.com.

Rachael Johnson, Marie Collins, Tonya Patterson, Brandy
Shatswell, Laura Sloan, Liliana Arredondo, Eusebia Denogean,
Elizabeth Duncan, Josephine Gano, Valeria Jakes, Brandi Shriver-
Corona, Lydia Torres, Maria Nunez, Leticia Cisneros, Larissa
Fransua, Katherine Lucero, Norma Urena, Sherree Bolden, Patricisa
Branch, Shanice Cooper, Kinsasha Washington, Brenda Andino,
Shantrea Brown, Jamie Burke, Kimberly Decamp, Stephanie
Fernandez, Normarie Hernandez, Audrey Presson, Kimberlee Wright-
Avery, Stephanie Binion, Cierra Brown, Janell Dillard, Jamie
Harding, Alisha Jones, Annie Lee, Nicole Sewell, Amirah Shaw,
Brandi Bienfang, Viola Milton, Tremorla Gardener, Laura Goodrich,
Michelle Mitchom, Rochelle Shaw, Nicole Biagini, Denita Jones,
Letris Jackson, Christina Linares, Syreeta Smith, Scarlet Araque,
Tina Montie-Prophet, Joy Anna Edge, Jean Fields, Kim Trokey,
Lynette Martinez, Maria Miranda, Rosalis Romero, April Gawarecki,
Erica Alston, Anjeanette Barrett, Tanisha Marshall, Crystal
Mcdowell, Virginia Furmanek, Christine Walk, Roselia Paige,
Marquita Kizart, Elena Robles, Jodi Grende, Victoria Grimmett &
Chelsea Manning-Perry, Plaintiffs, represented by Eric D. Holland
-- eholland@allfela.com -- HOLLAND LAW FIRM LLC, Patrick R. Dowd
-- pdowd@allfela.com -- HOLLAND LAW FIRM LLC & Randall S.
Crompton -- scrompton@allfela.com -- HOLLAND LAW FIRM LLC.

Bayer Corporation, Bayer Healthcare LLC, Bayer Essure Inc.,
formerly known as & Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals Inc,
Defendants, represented by Gerard T. Noce --
gnoce@heplerbroom.com -- HEPLER BROOM & W. Jason Rankin --
jrankin@heplerbroom.com -- HEPLER BROOM.


BAYER CORP: Court Narrows Claims in "Schaffer" Suit
---------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned JACQUELINE SCHAFFER, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
BAYER CORP., et al., Defendants, Case No. 4:17-CV-01973 JAR (E.D.
Mo.), Judge John A. Ross of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division, (i) granted in
part and denied in part Bayer's Motion to Dismiss; (ii) denied
the Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand; (iii) denied as moot Bayer's
Motion to Sever and the Plaintiffs' Motion to Stay; and (iv)
denied the Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to Conduct Jurisdictional
Discovery and the  Plaintiffs' Motion for Hearing.

The products liability lawsuit was originally filed in the City
of St. Louis, Missouri on May 31, 2017 by 79 Plaintiffs from 33
different states against Bayer alleging Bayer's Essure product
caused them harm.  On July 14, 2017, Bayer removed the case to
the Court.  On July 21, 2017, Bayer filed a motion to dismiss and
motion to sever.  Shortly thereafter, the Plaintiffs filed a
motion to remand, motion for leave to conduct jurisdictional
discovery, and motion to stay proceedings pending a determination
of the Court's subject matter jurisdiction.  Finally, the
Plaintiffs filed a motion for a hearing on their motions.

The Plaintiffs seek to recover damages for injuries they
allegedly sustained from using Essure, a permanent birth control
device manufactured and sold by Bayer.  They assert claims of
negligence, strict liability, manufacturing defect, fraud, breach
of warranties, violation of consumer protection laws, Missouri
products liability, violation of the Missouri Merchandising
Practices, Act, and punitive damages.  Of the 79 plaintiffs, only
three allege they are citizens of Missouri or had their implant
procedure in Missouri.

The Bayer Defendants -- which are not Missouri citizens --
removed the case to the Court in part on the basis of diversity
jurisdiction.  The presence of at least some of the 76 non-
Missouri Plaintiffs defeats this Court's diversity jurisdiction.
However, Bayer, relying on the recent U.S. Supreme Court opinion
Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Super Ct. of Cal., argues the Court
lacks personal jurisdiction over the claims of the 65 non-
Missouri Plaintiffs and that those claims should be dismissed or
severed.

In their motion to remand, the Plaintiffs urge the Court to
address subject matter jurisdiction first because the question of
personal jurisdiction will be fact-intensive and require
"extensive" discovery.  In the event the Court decides to address
personal jurisdiction before determining subject matter
jurisdiction, and finds the Plaintiffs' allegations that Bayer
conducted marketing and clinical trials in St. Louis, Missouri,
inadequate to make a prima facie case of personal jurisdiction,
they seek jurisdictional discovery.

The Plaintiffs have not responded to Bayer's motions to dismiss
and to sever because they seek a stay of these proceedings
pending a determination of the Court's subject matter
jurisdiction.  They also request an extension of time to respond
to Bayer's motions until after such jurisdiction is addressed.

The Plaintiffs contend they have established a prima facie case
for personal jurisdiction based on Bayer's regulatory and
marketing activity in Missouri and should be permitted to conduct
discovery to prove the contacts necessary to sustain jurisdiction
in the case.  Judge Ross finds that says even assuming that
discovery would prove exactly what the Plaintiffs contend
happened in Missouri with respect to Essure marketing and
clinical trials, the individual Plaintiffs' claims are too
attenuated from those activities to provide specific, case-linked
personal jurisdiction.

Based on a "straightforward application" of the settled
principles of personal jurisdiction, it is not enough for a
defendant to have general connections with the forum -- there
must be a connection between the forum and the specific claims at
issue.  The Judge finds that the Court does not have jurisdiction
over the non-Missouri Plaintiffs' claims.  Accordingly, he will
dismiss these claims.  The Judge will defer ruling on Bayer's
motion to dismiss and grants the Plaintiffs leave to address the
merits of Bayer's arguments that the claims are preempted by
federal law, and the Plaintiffs fail to plead a plausible claim
for relief.

Because the Judge will grant dismissal of the non-Missouri
Plaintiffs' claims, the remaining Plaintiffs and Bayer are
diverse from one another and the Court has subject matter
jurisdiction.  Therefore, he will deny the Plaintiffs' motion to
remand.

Likewise, he will deny the Plaintiffs' motion to sever and motion
to stay because the Court's ruling renders both moot.  He will
also deny the Plaintiffs' request to conduct jurisdictional
discovery because the facts sought to be discovered by the
Plaintiffs would not result in the Court being able to exercise
personal jurisdiction over the non-Missouri Plaintiffs' claims.
Finally, the Judge will also deny the Plaintiffs' request for a
hearing on the pending motions.  He concludes that the facts
relevant to the jurisdictional issue have been sufficiently
developed such that a hearing would not greatly aid the Court.

Accordingly, Judge Ross granted in part and denied in part
Bayer's Motion to Dismiss.  He granted the Motion with respect to
personal jurisdiction and held in abeyance with respect to
federal preemption and failure to plead a plausible claim.  The
claims of all non-Missouri Plaintiffs are dismissed for lack of
personal jurisdiction.  The three remaining Missouri plaintiffs
will have until March 7, 2018 to file response to Bayer's Motion
to Dismiss.  Any reply will be filed no later than March 14,
2018.

The Judge (i) denied the Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand; (ii)
denied as moot Bayer's Motion to Sever and the Plaintiffs' Motion
to Stay; and (iii) denied both the Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave
to Conduct Jurisdictional Discovery and Motion for Hearing.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 21, 2018 Memorandum and
Order is available at https://is.gd/8pnnzk from Leagle.com.

Jacqueline Schaffer, Rachel Hadley, Ana Lozano, Sheila Simmons,
Audrey Holmes, Victoria Reed, Agnes Strobel, Johanna Crespo,
Melissa Collins, Julie Smith, Debra Sehorn, Serena Pascoe, Sheryl
Wylie, Tynisha Ellison, Carolyn Moss, Kristi Mancini, Opal Lonon,
Amanda Ekstedt, Angela Pappas, Claudia Davila, Lori Preator,
Mirna Hernandez-Oropeza, Maritza Olivo, Lonnette Taylor-Ingram,
Rene Leach, Tressa Shields, Tracy Gerard, Maria Mendoza,
Christina Hunter, Candace Domitrovich, Crystal Lee, Bonnie
Johnson, Trista O'Neal, Terease Schell, Dominique Bradley, Connie
Harris, Annie Perez, Jacqueline Swartz, Jennifer Handly, Erin
Lamica, Christa McCarrick, Tereza Dossantos, Patrice Smith,
Melvia Callahan, Sara Stewart, Heather Germann, Angelique Abdul-
Matin, Tikerra Owens, Natasha Hollins, Melinda Leggett, Desiree
Perez, Keri Barbaritz, Elizabeth Burke, Stephanie Cartee, Heather
Christensen, Carol Dennison, Stephanie Dozier, Kristina Firth-
Speigner, Frances Gathers, Jennifer Gorsche, Valorie Haskins,
Tabitha Herbst, Vivian Holman, Frances Humphrey, Crystal Jowers,
Lotia Kirby, Faye Madrigal, Keyona Manjang, Nicole McNeely,
Keyshauna Miller, Kenya Moore, Melissa Myers, Jennifer
Richardson, Nadia Rucker, Terri Summers, Megan Vandervest,
Jessica Wayne, Betty Williams & Lilybett Martir, Plaintiffs,
represented by Eric D. Holland -- eholland@allfela.com -- HOLLAND
LAW FIRM LLC, Gregory J. Bubalo -- GBubalo@bubalolaw.com --
BUBALO GOODE PLC, Katherine Ann Dunnington --
kbarnes@beckerlaw.com -- BUBALO GOODE PLC, Patrick R. Dowd --
pdowd@allfela.com -- HOLLAND LAW FIRM LLC & Randall S. Crompton -
- scrompton@allfela.com -- HOLLAND LAW FIRM LLC.

Bayer Corporation, Bayer Healthcare LLC, Bayer Essure Inc.,
formerly known as & Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals Inc.,
Defendants, represented by Gerard T. Noce --
gnoce@heplerbroom.com -- HEPLER BROOM & W. Jason Rankin --
jrankin@heplerbroom.com -- HEPLER BROOM.


BLYTH ACADEMY: Sued Over Teachers' Independent Contractor Status
----------------------------------------------------------------
Andrea Gordon, writing for Toronto Star, reports that the phrase
"brilliant teaching" features prominently in recent newspaper ads
for Toronto-based private high school Blyth Academy.

"Our students tell us over and over that the best teaching
they've encountered is here," says promotional material from one
of the school's 14 Ontario campuses.

The company, also known for high school credits it offers in
exotic locations abroad, proclaims that great teachers and small
classes are behind its ranking "as Canada's #1 private high
school in the Huffington Post."

But, according to documents filed in a proposed class action
against Blyth Academy, accolades for those teachers don't
necessarily translate to fair pay, work conditions or job
security.

Karen Walmsley, who taught at Blyth Academy's Yorkville campus
from 2015 to 2017, launched the legal proceedings over what she
described in an interview as "precarious employment," with some
teachers allegedly overworked, underpaid and hired contract to
contract.

"I care about justice for every teacher who works there,"
Ms. Walmsley said in an interview.

At the heart of the claim is the allegation that the school
systematically misclassified teachers by hiring them as
"independent contractors" instead of "employees," leaving them
without protection under the Employment Standards Act, including
the right to earn minimum wage or overtime pay.

Blyth Academy denies all claims in its statement of defence filed
in January and says terms of employment were clearly laid out on
all contracts signed by Ms. Walmsley and other teachers.

It argues that because the school doesn't provide a traditional
academic schedule and offers an array of part-time, full-time,
group and private classes, "it does not have a traditional
academic staff or faculty."

The class action will only proceed if certified in court, and a
hearing date is scheduled for early December.

If certified, it could include "anywhere from 100 to 200 teachers
per year" who have worked at the school since it was founded in
2002, says labour lawyer Stephen Moreau -- smoreau@cavalluzzo.com
-- of Cavalluzzo LLP, a reputable firm with a track record in
employment law.

The proposed lawsuit is claiming $20 million, plus an unspecified
amount for unpaid overtime, vacation and holiday pay.

Ms. Walmsley says she taught up to three courses a day in English
and social sciences, each for two hours and 15 minutes.  She
taught primarily in groups, though sometimes in private or semi-
private classes, and was paid a flat rate of between $2,650 and
$3,200 per 10-week group course and $1,500 for private.  Each
required 110 hours of teaching, Blyth Academy says in its
statement of defence.

But once work outside the classroom was factored in -- including
preparing lesson plans, tests and assignments, marking and
corresponding regularly with parents and students as required by
the school, and providing extra help -- it sometimes amounted to
well beyond a 40-hour work week, says the claim.

"The defendants required or permitted Walmsley to work between
approximately 60 and 80 hours a week," it says.  "As a result of
working said hours Walmsley routinely earned income that was
below or well below the minimum wage."

As an example it cites her first term in the fall of 2015, when
Ms. Walmsley earned $7,000 over 10 weeks and worked "in excess of
80 hours per week," which translates to $8.75 an hour, below the
minimum wage of $11.25 at that time.

But Blyth Academy's statement of defence denies that carrying out
required teaching duties "could have reasonably resulted in
Ms. Walmsley working in excess of the overtime threshold, or a
number of hours such that her remuneration was less than the
applicable minimum wage."

In emailed responses to questions from the Star, Blyth Academy
president Patrick Shaw said because the average class size is
seven students "this greatly reduces the amount of time required
to mark assignments and meet with students outside of class
hours."

As an independent contractor, Ms. Walmsley did not receive
vacation pay or pay for statutory holidays, according to the
statement of claim, filed in October and amended in February to
also include those teaching private classes.

Ms. Walmsley left Blyth Academy in June 2017 before her contract
ended and now teaches elsewhere.  Shaw declined to comment on the
circumstances, citing privacy laws and company policy.

Similar class actions over job classifications have recently been
launched against companies in other industries, ranging from Just
Energy to GoodLife Fitness.

Under Ontario law, a worker is generally considered an employee
if their employer decides what they do, how and where they
complete their work, sets their rate of pay and has the ability
to discipline them.  If the nature of the job meets this test,
the Ministry of Labour -- or the courts -- may find that an
independent contractor is actually an employee, regardless of
their agreement with their employer.

Blyth Academy said in its statement of defence it hires teachers
as both independent contractors and employees and that 45 were
classified as employees in 2017. But it didn't indicate the total
number of teachers hired last year.

Shaw said in an email "the vast majority of our full-time
teachers at our largest schools, including Yorkville in downtown
Toronto, are employees."

The school currently has about 1,200 full-time high school
students in Ontario, who pay annual tuition starting at $13,795.
It also operates schools abroad, offers online credits and part-
time and summer courses in Canada and overseas.

Blyth describes itself as a network of boutiques offering
everything from full-time classes to "a la carte" courses taught
in groups or privately and argues it has a right to hire
independent contractors because of its unique business model and
the fluid nature of its enrolment.

For those reasons, "we have always relied on a mix of full- and
part-time teachers to accommodate our flexible structure," Shaw
said.

The case comes at a time when new teachers face an uphill battle
to land employment in a saturated market after a decade of
teacher surpluses, particularly in urban centres such as Toronto.

Application forms on the website for Blyth's Yorkville campus say
"Blyth Academy attracts thousands of teacher applications every
year, allowing us to be very selective."

Teachers are "the key to the success of our program and
students," it adds.

Working conditions and staff turnover in any school have
implications for students, says Charles Pascal, professor at the
Ontario Institute for Studies in Education at the University of
Toronto.

"When teachers are well supported and well prepared, students
will benefit, and if they aren't, not only will the teachers
suffer, so will the education of the students," Mr. Pascal, a
former deputy minister of education with the province, said in an
interview.

He noted there is a lack of oversight of private high schools in
Ontario, an issue raised in 2013 and 2015 by the province's
auditor general, who noted Ontario has "one of the least
regulated private school sectors in Canada."

Currently the only requirement is that private schools follow
provincial curriculum. "With respect to anything else, buyer
beware," says Mr. Pascal.

The lack of job security was a major reason that teacher Michael
McNeely says he left Blyth after teaching private classes for
four years.

Mr. McNeely, who is deaf-blind and can hear with the assistance
of a cochlear implant, taught one student at a time at several
Blyth Academy sites between 2013 and 2017 after earning his
Master's degree in teaching. He says he earned $1,600 per 10-week
course and taught up to four at a time.

"I loved the students," says Mr. McNeely, 29, who qualifies as a
member of the class action.  "They had an impression on me, and I
think I had an impact on them because I was an educator with a
disability."

But he says he was not given an opportunity to teach group
classes.

"I was always scared about the next contract," says Mr. McNeely,
who's now a first-year law student at York University's Osgoode
Hall Law School and hopes to specialize in disabilities law.

"There was never a guarantee I'd be back. As a person with a
disability, I can't live in that circumstance."

The class action claims Blyth was "unjustly enriched" as a result
of hiring teachers as contractors and that it continues to breach
duties of care and good faith "to properly characterize the
employment relationship" and advise teachers of their rights to
minimum wage, overtime pay, vacation pay and public holiday and
premium pay.

"The defendants were in a position of power over vulnerable
employees and owed them duty of good faith," it says.

But the statement of defence says teachers are aware of the terms
under which they are hired and each "is educated, sophisticated
and fully understood and understands the nature of each contract
he or she entered into."

Ms. Walmsley, 39, has a Master's degree in anthropology and
graduated from teachers' college in the spring of 2015.  By the
time she was hired on contract by Blyth that September, "I needed
to make rent as soon as possible," she said in an interview.

Ms. Walmsley said she didn't understand the implications of the
contract or her classification as an independent contractor.

She said she loved the Blyth students and described a strong
sense of community among them and her fellow teachers, most of
whom were young, new to the profession and dedicated to the kids.

But the threat of burnout loomed because of the job demands,
which included designing courses from scratch, she added.  When
teaching a full course load, she says a typical day would involve
arriving at school at about 8 a.m., teaching until 4 p.m. and
then working until 8 p.m. on marking and prep.

Lawyer Moreau says he has heard from "well over 100" teachers
regarding the proposed class action, which could affect anyone
who has taught a course at Blyth Academy since it was founded in
2002 by Sam Blyth, a former travel company operator.

If successful, the case could be significant in helping define
situations in which it is appropriate for employers to hire
people as contractors instead of employees, he added.

"We have a lot of confidence in the strength of the case
overall." [GN]


BRF SA: Rosen Law Firm Investigates Potential Securities Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on March 6
disclosed that it is investigating potential securities claims on
behalf of shareholders of BRF S.A. (NYSE: BRFS) resulting from
allegations that BRF may have issued materially misleading
business information to the investing public.

On March 5, 2018, Reuters reported that Brazilian federal police
arrested BRF's former chief executive officer on charges that he
and other executives were aware that BRF committed fraud by
trying to avoid food safety checks.  On this news, shares of BRF
fell $1.83 or over 19% to close at $7.59 per share on March 5,
2018.

Rosen Law Firm is preparing a class action lawsuit to recover
losses suffered by BRF investors.  If you purchased shares of BRF
please visit the firm's website at
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1090.htmlto join the class
action.  You may also contact Phillip Kim or Zachary Halper of
Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via email at
pkim@rosenlegal.com or zhalper@rosenlegal.com.

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


CALIFORNIA: 6-Month Notice Prior to Filing Termination Bid
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, RALPH COLEMAN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. EDMUND G.
BROWN, JR., et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:90-cv-0520 KJM DB P
(E.D. Cal.), Judge Kimberly J. Mueller of the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of California required the Defendants to
provide six months' notice prior to filing any motion to
terminate relief in the action.

The Court has entered an order explaining the bench order it
issued at a special status conference on Feb. 14, 2018, requiring
the Defendants to provide six months' notice prior to filing any
motion to terminate relief in the action.

In January 2013, the Defendants filed a motion to terminate the
action.  The motion was supported by two reports prepared by
experts who were hired by the Defendants "in anticipation of
filing" a termination motion.  These defense experts toured the
prisons and spoke to the class members without notice to the
Plaintiffs' counsel.  The Court found the Defendants had violated
California Rules of Professional Conduct 2-100 in having their
experts conduct these ex parte interviews with represented class
members, especially since those interviews were used against the
Plaintiffs in support of the Defendants' Termination Motion.
Moreover, the Defendants' termination motion was denied in
substance in an order that made clear the motion was premature.

On Oct. 10, 2017, the Court ordered the Defendants, within one
year, to take all steps necessary to come into complete
compliance with the staffing ratios in their 2009 Staffing Plan
and the maximum 10% vacancy rate required by the court's June 13,
2002 order.  The order followed years of extensive remedial
efforts undertaken in an effort to address inadequate mental
health staffing levels, described in a Feb. 6, 2017 report on
staffing filed by the Special Master.

In its October 2017 order, the Court did leave room for the
Defendants to raise with the Special Master the issue of whether
full implementation of a new psychiatric medical assistant
("PMA") program might support changing psychiatrist staffing
ratios, though it was and is skeptical that full implementation
of the PMA program will justify increasing the caseload of prison
psychiatrists.

At some point, the Defendants retained consultants to help
evaluate the current staffing plan.  In any event, they took
their consultants on tours of nine prisons in late December 2017
and January 2018.  Neither the Special Master nor the Plaintiffs'
counsel were notified of the tours in advance or in time to raise
and resolve the question of whether the tours should be joint
tours, and neither the Special Master nor the Plaintiffs' counsel
were present during the tours.

In response to the tours the Defendants conducted unilaterally,
the Plaintiffs filed a motion for case management orders and
sanctions.  In relevant part, they seek an order requiring (1)
the Defendants to provide the court and plaintiffs with at least
170 days' notice of any motion to terminate under the PLRA, to
permit discovery to be opened; (2) defense disclosure of expert
witnesses at least 150 days prior to filing any motion to
terminate; (3) the Plaintiffs' disclosure of expert witnesses not
later than 30 days after the Defendants' disclosure; (4) joint
expert tours to be completed at least 45 days before the filing
of any motion to terminate; and (5) exchange of expert reports 45
days after conclusion of any expert tours.

Against this backdrop, the Court held the status conference on
Feb. 14, 2018.  At hearing, the counsel for the Defendants stated
clearly that they're not contemplating bringing any type of
termination motion.  The counsel emphasized the Defendants'
commitment to the problem-solving process in the Special Master's
All-Parties Workgroup and subsets thereof, intention to work on
staffing issues through the All-Parties Workgroup, that the
Defendants do not want to litigate, and that they're not
contemplating any termination motion right now.

At the same time, the Defendants also maintained the position set
forth in their portion of the parties' joint status report, that
their work with the consultants is protected under the Work
Product doctrine.  They also argued that the notice requested by
the Plaintiffs could not be reconciled with the requirements of
the PLRA, and that the Defendants would be prejudiced by such an
order because when they reach a conclusion that the case should
be terminated and that the evidence and the facts are there to
support that, they shouldn't have to wait 260 days for a hearing
after noticing that they're going to bring a motion.

Judge Mueller explains that five years after the Defendants'
first termination motion, the record before the Court shows both
that progress has been made toward full remediation of the Eighth
Amendment violations in the delivery of mental health care to
California's seriously mentally ill prisoners and that additional
work is required before a durable remedy is fully achieved.

In addition, the Court has entered a specific remedial order
requiring compliance with transfer timelines to inpatient care,
and the Defendants have now been in compliance with that order
for the past five months.  Similarly, the Court's Oct. 10, 2017
staffing order is directed at finally and durably obtaining
constitutionally adequate mental health staffing.

The Judge says issues identified in the order are not an
exhaustive list of the remedial efforts that remain before
federal oversight can end.  Nonetheless, the Court is confident
that if the parties maintain and continue a full commitment to
transparency, and the constructive problem-solving supervised by
the Special Master in the All-Parties Workgroup and subgroups,
the end of federal court oversight will indeed arrive in the
foreseeable future.

The order also serves fundamental notions of fairness and equity.
Judge Mueller says the remedial phase of the complex class action
has lasted more than 20 years and involves 34 prisons and two
state hospitals.  Notice to the Plaintiffs that the Defendants
intend to bring a termination motion will allow both the State
and the Plaintiffs to have an adequate record and to prepare
"informed briefing" on which the Court would have to depend to
"decide the merits" of such a motion.

Moreover, the Judge says the Defendants will not be prejudiced by
the order.  Several of the remedial tasks that remain will take
more than six months to accomplish.  Under the circumstances, she
says requiring the Defendants to give notice if those plans
change is not prejudicial.

At this stage, the Court will not set a specific schedule for
expert discovery in the event defendants do file a notice of
intent to file a termination motion. Such a schedule would be
driven by the nature of the termination motion.  For that reason,
the Judge will require the Defendants to notify the Plaintiffs
and the court six months in advance of any planned termination
motion.  In the event such a notice is filed, the Court will then
set a discovery scheduling conference within one week after the
filing of the notice.

In accordance with the above, Judge Mueller ordered that should
the Defendants decide to file a motion to terminate the action
prior to a determination by the Court, or by agreement of the
parties with the Special Master's approval, that a durable remedy
has been achieved, they will file notice of their intention to
file such motion not later than six months prior to filing the
motion.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 21, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/20Qr1f from Leagle.com.

Matthew A Lopes, Jr, Special Master, represented by Matthew A.
Lopes, Jr. -- mlopes@pldolaw.com -- Pannone Lopes Devereaux &
West LLC.

Ralph Coleman, Plaintiff, represented by Cara E. Trapani --
ctrapani@rbgg.com -- Rosen Bien Galvan & Grunfeld LLP, Claudia B.
Center, American Civil Liberties Union, Donald Specter, Prison
Law Office, Ernest Galvan -- egalvan@rbgg.com -- Rosen Bien
Galvan & Grunfeld LLP, Jane E. Kahn -- kahn@rbgg.com -- Rosen
Bien & Galvan, LLP, Jeffrey L. Bornstein -- jbornstein@rbgg.com -
- Rosen Bien Galvan Grunfeld LLP, Jenny Snay Yelin --
jyelin@rbgg.com -- Rosen Bien Galvan & Grunfeld LLP, Krista
Michelle Stone-Manista -- KStone-Manista@rbgg.com -- Rosen Bien
Galvan and Grunfeld, Lisa Adrienne Ells -- lells@rbgg.com --
Rosen Bien Galvan and Grunfeld LLP, Margot Knight Mendelson,
Rosen Bien Galvan & Grunfeld, Michael Bien -- mbien@rbgg.com --
Rosen Bien Galvan & Grunfeld LLP, Thomas Bengt Nolan --
nolan@rbgg.com -- Rosen Bien Galvan & Grunfeld LLP, Jessica L.
Winter -- jwinter@rbgg.com -- Rosen Bien Galvan & Grunfeld LLP &
Michael S. Nunez -- mnunez@rbgg.com -- Rosen Bien Galvan &
Grunfeld.

Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Defendant, represented by Chad A. Stegeman,
California Department of Justice, Christine Marie Ciccotti,
Office of the Attorney General, Danielle Felice O'Bannon,
Department of Justice Office of the Attorney General, Elise Owens
Thorn, CA Department of Justice, Office of the Attorney General,
Jay Craig Russell, Office of the Attorney General, Tyler Vance
Heath, Attorney General's Office for the State of California,
Xavier Becerra, CA Office of the Attorney General, Kevin Allen
Voth, California Department Of Justice Office Of The Attorney
General, Maneesh Sharma, CA Dept of Justice & Damon Grant McClain
, Department of Justice, Office of the Attorney General.

Michael Cohen, Director of the Department of Finance for the
State of California & Scott Kernan, Secretary of the California
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Defendants,
represented by Chad A. Stegeman, California Department of
Justice, Christine Marie Ciccotti, Office of the Attorney
General, Damon Grant McClain , Department of Justice, Office of
the Attorney General, Danielle Felice O'Bannon , Department of
Justice Office of the Attorney General, Elise Owens Thorn, CA
Department of Justice, Office of the Attorney General, Jay Craig
Russell, Office of the Attorney General, Tyler Vance Heath,
Attorney General's Office for the State of California, Xavier
Becerra, CA Office of the Attorney General & Kevin Allen Voth,
California Department Of Justice Office Of The Attorney General.

Pamela Ahlin, Director of the Department of State Hospitals,
Katherine Tebrock, Deputy Director of the Statewide Mental Health
Program & Diana Toche, Undersecretary for Health Care Services of
the CDCR, Defendants, represented by Chad A. Stegeman, California
Department of Justice, Christine Marie Ciccotti, Office of the
Attorney General, Damon Grant McClain, Department of Justice,
Office of the Attorney General, Danielle Felice O'Bannon,
Department of Justice Office of the Attorney General, Elise Owens
Thorn, CA Department of Justice, Office of the Attorney General,
Jay Craig Russell, Office of the Attorney General, Tyler Vance
Heath, Attorney General's Office for the State of California,
Xavier Becerra, CA Office of the Attorney General & Kevin Allen
Voth, California Department Of Justice Office Of The Attorney
General.

Maher Conrad Suarez & Christopher Lipsey, Unknowns, represented
by Kate Martin Falkenstien -- kate.falkenstein@gmail.com --
McKool Smith, P.C.

J. Clark Kelso, Receiver, represented by Martin H. Dodd,
Futterman Dupree Dodd Croley Maier LLP.

California Correctional Peace Officers Association, Intervenor,
represented by David Allen Sanders, California Correctional Peace
Officers Association Legal Department, Donald Paul Bird, II --
Paul@MAJLabor.com -- Messing Adam & Jasmine LLP & Gregg McLean
Adam -- gregg@majlabor.com -- Messing Adam & Jasmine Llp.

Office of the Inspector General, Intervenor, represented by James
Casey Spurling, Office Of The Inspector General & Shaun R.
Spillane, Office Of The Inspector General Dept. of Personnel
Admin.

Elwood Lui, Settlement Referee & Peter Siggins, Settlement
Referee, Neutrals, represented by Peter E. Davids --
pdavids@jonesday.com -- Jones Day.

USA, Neutral, represented by Laura Lee Coon, U.S. Department Of
Justice & Regan Rush, United States Department Of Justice, Civil
Rights Division.


CAMERON MITCHELL: Faces "Gary" Suit in N.D. Texas
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cameron Mitchell
Restaurants LLC. The case is styled as Steven M Gary,
individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Cameron Mitchell Restaurants LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 3:18-cv-00688-G (N.D. Tex., March 22, 2018).

Cameron Mitchell Restaurants, LLC operates restaurants in the
United States. Its menu includes classic cocktails, wines, ales,
lagers, stouts, desserts, steaks, and seafood.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Jenny Diane DeFrancisco, Esq.
   Lemberg Law, LLC
   43 Danbury Road
   3rd Floor
   Wilton, CT 06897
   Tel: (203) 653-2250
   Fax: (203) 653-3424
   Email: jdefrancisco@lemberglaw.com


CASCADIAN THERAPEUTICS: Kim Sues Over Sale to Seattle Genetics
--------------------------------------------------------------
David Kim, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. Cascadian Therapeutics, Inc., Christopher
S. Henney, Robert W. Azelby, Gwen A. Fyfe, Steven P. James, Ted
W. Love, Scott D. Myers and Daniel K. Spiegelman, Defendants,
Case No. 18-cv- 00250, (D. Del., February 13, 2018), seeks to
enjoin Defendants and all persons acting in concert with them
from proceeding with, consummating or closing the acquisition of
Cascadian Therapeutics, Inc. by Seattle Genetics, Inc. through
its wholly-owned subsidiary Valley Acquisition Sub, Inc.,
rescinding it in the event defendants consummate the merger.  The
complaint further seeks rescissory damages, costs of this action,
including reasonable allowance for plaintiff's attorneys' and
experts' fees and such other and further relief under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Seattle will acquire all outstanding shares tendered by Cascadian
stockholders for $10.00 in cash per share of Cascadian's common
stock. Transaction is valued at approximately $614 million.

According to the complaint, Merger documents omitted Cascadian's
financial projections from Cascadian's financial advisor, Perella
Weinberg Partners LP in connection with rendering its fairness
opinion as well as valuation analyses in support the fairness
opinion provided by Perella and Cascadian insiders' potential
conflicts of interest. Cascadian executive officers are eligible
to receive transaction bonuses, subject to the completion of the
Proposed Transaction.

Cascadian is a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company. The
Company focuses on the development of therapeutic products for
the treatment of cancer.

Seattle is a biotechnology company dedicated to cancer treatment
through novel antibody-based therapies. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
      MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
      The Empire State Building
      350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4405
      New York, NY 10118
      Tel: (212) 971-1341
      Fax: (212) 202-7880
      Email: jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com

            - and -

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


CASEY'S GENERAL: Partial Bid to Dismiss "Mellenthin" Suit Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DANIEL MELLENTHIN, EUGENE BARROW, and ACCESS NOW,
INC., individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. CASEY'S GENERAL STORES, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 17-CV-68-NJR-SCW (S.D. Ill.), Judge Nancy J.
Rosenstengel of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Illinois denied the Defendant's partial motion to dismiss the
first amended class action complaint.

The Plaintiffs seek a permanent injunction requiring: (1) Casey's
to remediate all parking and path of travel access barriers at
its facilities, consistent with the ADA; (2) Casey's to change
its corporate policies and practices so that the parking and path
of travel access barriers at its facilities do not reoccur; and
(3) the Plaintiffs' representatives to monitor Casey's facilities
to ensure that the injunctive relief ordered has been implemented
and will remain in place.  The Plaintiffs bring the suit as a
class action pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2).

Mellenthin specifically alleges that he has visited four Casey's
facilities in Illinois and has experienced unnecessary difficulty
and risk due to excessive slopes in the parking facilities, and a
lack of accessible signage.  On his behalf, investigators
examined 15 other Casey's locations in Idaho and Illinois and
noticed the same barriers to accessibility for wheelchair-bound
patrons similarly situated to Mellenthin.  The Plaintiffs allege
that the systemic access violations by Casey's are illustrative
of the fact that Casey's implements policies and practices that
fail to design, construct, and alter its facilities so that they
are readily accessible and usable, and/or that its maintenance
and operational policies and practices are unable to maintain
accessibility of its facilities.

On Jan. 31, 2018, Barrow filed a stipulation pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) dismissing his action
against the Defendant.  While she acknowledges the plain reading
of the rule, Judge Rosenstengel finds that dismissing Barrow,
rather than ordering amendment of the complaint, is in the
interest of judicial economy in the particular case.

Casey's seeks partial dismissal on several grounds.  First,
Casey's contends that the nationwide class allegations of the
Plaintiffs' complaint must be dismissed because the Plaintiffs
cannot meet their burden of establishing that a nationwide class
is appropriate.  Second, Casey's incorporates an argument made in
its March 23, 2017 motion to dismiss (which was previously denied
as moot), which argued that the Plaintiffs' claims relating to
eight of the 15 stores referenced in the complaint should be
dismissed as barred by a prior consent decree and the principles
of res judicata and collateral estoppel.

The Plaintiffs respond arguing that the motion is premature, as
the majority of cases cited by Casey's were decided at class
certification.  Moreover, they argue that the propriety of their
class allegations should be determined at the class certification
stage.  As to the res judicata and collateral estoppel arguments,
they respond seeking to revive the arguments they made in
response back in April 2017.

Judge Rosenstengel does not find it appropriate to address class
certification at this point in time because the Plaintiffs have
not yet moved for class certification.  Moreover, Casey's has not
established that the case is among the rare few where the
complaint itself demonstrates that the requirements for
maintaining a class action cannot be met.  The Judge will not
consider these arguments relating to the class allegations now at
this preemptive stage, but will appropriately consider them on a
motion for class certification, once they have been properly
developed.

The Judge also finds that the plain language of the amended
consent decree does not appear to include the Plaintiffs as the
class members or at least creates a reasonable doubt as to
whether the Plaintiffs are included in the class.  Moreover,
Casey's has failed to satisfy its burden of establishing that the
Plaintiffs are included in such a class.  The Judge does not find
that the cause of action alleged in the case is subsumed within
the subject matter of the Mikesic action.  Thus, she finds that
the action is not barred by res judicata.

Finally, the Judge finds that Casey's has not met its burden of
demonstrating that these cases involve the same litigants or
parties.  Additionally, the settlement agreement and amended
consent decree limit their scope to releasing "claims," meaning
any and all past and/or present claims, rights, demands, charges,
complaints, actions, or liabilities of any kind, known or
unknown, for damages, injunctive relief, declaratory relief,
attorney's fees, expenses or costs based on Title III of the ADA
relating to Casey's General Stores.  It does not appear from
these documents that there has been an agreed resolution of the
specific issues before the Court.

For the reasons set forth, Judge Rosenstengel denied the
Defendant's partial motion to dismiss.  Pursuant to the
stipulation filed on Jan. 31, 2018, the Judge also dismissed
Eugene Barrow as a Plaintiff in the action.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 21, 2018 Memorandum and
Order is available at https://is.gd/g9fL0A from Leagle.com.

Daniel Mellenthin, Individually and an behalf of all other
similarly situated, Eugene Barrow, Individually and an behalf of
all other similarly situated & Access Now, Inc., Individually and
an behalf of all other similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
represented by Benjamin J. Sweet -- bsweet@carlsonlynch.com --
Carlson Lynch Sweet Kilpela & Carpenter, LLP, pro hac vice, Bryan
A. Fox, Carlson Lynch Sweet Kilpela & Carpenter, LLP, pro hac
vice, Edwin J. Kilpela -- ekilpela@carlsonlynch.com -- Carlson
Lynch Sweet Kilpela & Carpenter, LLP, pro hac vice, Stephanie K.
Goldin -- sgoldin@carlsonlynch.com -- Carlson Lynch Sweet Kilpela
& Carpenter, LLP, pro hac vice & Matthew H. Armstrong, Armstrong
Law Firm LLC.

Casey's General Stores, Inc., Defendant, represented by John F.
Kuenstler -- john.kuenstler@btlaw.com -- Barnes & Thornburg, LLP
& Teresa L. Jakubowski -- teresa.jakubowski@btlaw.com -- Barnes &
Thornburg LLP, pro hac vice.


CHUBB GROUP: Faces "Young" Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Chubb Group
Holdings, Inc. The case is styled as Lawrence Young and on behalf
of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Chubb Group
Holdings, Inc. and Chubb: Insurance Indemnity Company,
Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-02535 (S.D. N.Y., March 21, 2018).

Chubb provides commercial and personal property and casualty
insurance, personal accident and supplemental health insurance,
reinsurance and life insurance.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


CORE CIVIC: Faces "Tennyson" Suit in D. Colorado
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Core Civic. The
case is styled as Audrey L. Tennyson, on behalf of himself and
those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Core Civic formerly known
as: CCA, Michael Miller CCCF Warden, Michael (I) Miller in his
individual capacity, Michelle De Herrera CCCF Chief of Unit
Management, Michelle (I) De Herrera in her individual capacity,
Paul Flores CCCF Unit-Manager and Captain of Units 3 & 5, in his
individual capacity and Phillip Encinias CCCF Unit-3 Correctional
Counselor and Sergeant, in his individual capacity, Defendants,
Case No. 1:18-cv-00680-GPG (D. Colo., March 21, 2018).

CoreCivic, formerly the Corrections Corporation of America, is a
company that owns and manages private prisons and detention
centers and operates others on a concession basis.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


COREPOWER YOGA: $1.4MM Settlement in "Barnard" Has Final Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned SHAUNA BARNARD, Plaintiff, v. COREPOWER
YOGA LLC, Defendant, Case No. 16-cv-03861-HSG (N.D. Cal.), Judge
Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California granted the Plaintiff's motion
for final approval of the parties' proposed settlement, and
granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiff's motion for an
award of attorneys' fees and costs.

On May 3, 2016, the Plaintiff filed this action against the
Defendant in Alameda Superior Court, alleging that the
Defendant's pay and meal and rest break practices violated the
California Labor Code.  According to her, the Defendant did not
pay its California yoga instructors minimum wage or overtime
compensation, and did not compensate them for various other tasks
instructors performed, such as running the reception desk,
completing required trainings, traveling to different studios,
and creating playlists for classes.  Nor did they provide meal
and rest breaks or reimburse them for reasonable businesses
expenses.

On the basis of these facts, the Plaintiff alleges nine causes of
action for failure to: (1) pay minimum and hourly wages; (2)
reimburse necessary business expenses; (3) compensate for all
hours worked; (4) provide meal and rest breaks; (5) pay overtime
compensation; (6) maintain accurate time and payroll records and
provide itemized wage statements; (7) timely pay wages due at
separation of employment; (8) unlawful and unfair business
practices; and the Plaintiff also seeks (9) statutory penalties
under the Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA").

Following extensive formal discovery, and with the assistance of
a private mediator, the parties entered into a settlement
agreement.  The parties filed the motion for preliminary approval
on July 25, 2017.  The Court granted the motion on Sept. 11, 2017
and directed the parties to implement their proposed class notice
plan, including additional information about the deadlines for
filing and objecting to the Plaintiffs' attorneys' fees motion.

On July 25, 2017, the parties submitted a class action settlement
agreement that details the provisions of the proposed settlement.
The key terms of the settlement are as follows:

     a. Class Definition: All individuals who were employed at
any time by the Defendant in California as non-exempt/hourly yoga
instructors, interns, or teachers between April 4, 2015, and
Sept. 11, 2017.  The parties have identified a total of 1,870
class members.

     b. Monetary Relief: The Defendant will establish a gross
settlement fund consisting of $1,400,000.  The parties propose
that civil penalties of $30,000 related to the PAGA claim will be
paid to the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency
("LWDA").  The gross settlement fund accordingly includes Court-
approved attorneys' fees and costs, settlement administration
fees, the LWDA payment, and any additional payment to Plaintiff
as class representative.  The cash payments to the class will be
based on the number of yoga classes each class member taught at a
California studio during the relevant class period.  The parties
have estimated that after the deductions identified above,
individual class members will receive on average $484.96 (the
equivalent of approximately 29 hours of unpaid work), and
$3,766.76 as the highest estimated payment (the equivalent of
approximately 224 hours of unpaid work).

     c. Release: The class will release Defendant from all claims
that arise out of services to Defendant from April 5, 2015, to
Sept. 11, 2017, that are based on the same operative facts as
those in the SAC, including claims for the nine causes of action
stated in the complaint.

     d. Incentive Award: The settlement agreement authorizes
named Plaintiff Shauna Barnard to file a motion for a $10,000
incentive award, subject to court approval.  The Counsel filed
this motion on Oct. 26, 2017.  The Defendant does not oppose this
request.

     f. Attorneys' Fees and Costs: The settlement agreement
authorizes the class counsel to seek attorneys' fees not to
exceed 30% of the gross settlement amount, and for costs not to
exceed $20,0000.  The class counsel filed this motion on Oct. 26,
2017.  The Defendant does not oppose this request.

Judge Gilliam granted the Plaintiff's Motion for Final Approval
of Class Action Settlement, and granted in part and denied in
part the Plaintiff's Motion for class counsel's Attorneys' Fees
and Costs.  He approved the settlement amount of $1,400,000,
including payments of attorneys' fees in the amount of $420,000;
costs in the amount of $19,865.77; claims administration fees in
the amount of $12,878; and an incentive fee for the named
Plaintiff in the amount of $8,000.

The Judge directed the parties and the settlement administrator
to implement this Final Order and the settlement agreement in
accordance with the terms of the settlement agreement.  The
parties are further directed to file a stipulated final judgment
by Feb. 28, 2018.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 21, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/cAQwra from Leagle.com.

Shauna Barnard, Plaintiff, represented by David C. Hawkes --
dhawkes@bkflaw.com -- Blanchard Krasner French & Derek John Emge
-- derek@emgelawfirm.com -- The Emge Firm LLP.

CoorePower Yoga LLC, Defendant, represented by Philippe Alexandre
Lebel -- philippe.lebel@dbr.com -- Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP,
Valerie Dutton Kahn -- valerie_kahn@ca9.uscourts.gov -- Drinker
Biddle Reath LLP, Ramon Andres Miyar -- ramon.miyar@dbr.xom --
Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP & Cheryl D. Orr -- cheryl.orr@dbr.com
-- Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP.


CRYSTAL ROCK: Rigrodsky & Long Files Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., on March 6 disclosed that it has filed a
class action complaint in the United States District Court for
the District of Connecticut on behalf of holders of Crystal Rock
Holdings, Inc. ("Crystal Rock") (NYSE MKT:CRVP) common stock in
connection with the proposed acquisition of Crystal Rock by Cott
Corporation and its affiliate ("Cott") announced on February 12,
2018 (the "Complaint").  The Complaint, which alleges violations
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against Crystal Rock, its
Board of Directors (the "Board"), and Cott is captioned Lombardi
v. Crystal Rock Holdings, Inc., Case No. 3:18-cv-00398 (D.
Conn.).

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions
concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please
contact plaintiff's counsel, Seth D. Rigrodsky or Gina M. Serra
at Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., 300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220,
Wilmington, DE 19801, by telephone at (888) 969-4242, by e-mail
at info@rl-legal.com or at http://rigrodskylong.com/contact-us/.

On February 12, 2018, Crystal Rock entered into an agreement and
plan of merger (the "Merger Agreement") with Cott.  Pursuant to
the terms of the Merger Agreement, shareholders of Crystal Rock
will receive $0.97 in cash for each share of Crystal Rock they
own (the "Proposed Transaction").

Among other things, the Complaint alleges that, in an attempt to
secure shareholder support for the Proposed Transaction,
defendants issued materially incomplete disclosures in
Solicitation/Recommendation Statement (the "Solicitation
Statement") filed with the United States Securities and Exchange
Commission.  The Complaint alleges that the Solicitation
Statement omits material information with respect to, among other
things, Crystal Rock's financial projections, the analyses
performed by Crystal Rock's financial advisor, and the background
of the Proposed Transaction.  The Complaint seeks injunctive and
equitable relief and damages on behalf of holders of Crystal Rock
common stock.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court
no later than May 7, 2018.  A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation.  Any member of the proposed 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.

With offices in Wilmington, Delaware, Garden City, New York, and
San Francisco, California, Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. --
http://www.rigrodskylong.com-- has recovered hundreds of
millions of dollars on behalf of investors and achieved
substantial corporate governance reforms in numerous cases
nationwide, including federal securities fraud actions,
shareholder class actions, and shareholder derivative actions.
[GN]


DEPASQUALE VENTURES: Faces "Lazarev" Suit in D. Massachusetts
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Depasquale
Ventures, LLC. The case is styled as Dmitriy Lazarev, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Depasquale Ventures, LLC doing business as: Mare Oyster Bar,
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-10540-RWZ (D. Mass., March 21, 2018).

Depasquale Ventures is in the Italian restaurants business
located in Boston, Massachusetts.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   C.K. Lee, Esq.
   Lee Litigation Group PLLC
   30 E39th Street, 2nd Flr.
   New York, NY 10016-2555
   Tel: (212) 465-1188
   Email: cklee@leelitigation.com


DIRECTV LLC: Faces "McMichen" Suit in N.D. Georgia
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against DIRECTV, LLC. The
case is styled as John Arndt and Jeremy McMichen, individually
and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals,
Plaintiffs v. DIRECTV, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-01211-AT
(N.D. Ga., March 22, 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:

   David Andrew Bain, Esq.
   Law Offices of David A. Bain, LLC
   1050 Promenade II
   1230 Peachtree Street, NE
   Atlanta, GA 30309
   Tel: (404) 724-9990
   Fax: (404) 724-9986
   Email: dbain@bain-law.com

      - and -

   George A. Hanson, Esq.
   Stueve Siegel Hanson, LLP -MO
   460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
   Kansas City, MO 64112
   Tel: (816) 714-7100
   Email: hanson@stuevesiegel.com


EMERITUS CORPORATION: Rodriguez Files Suit Over Unpaid Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Julietta Rodriguez, Plaintiff, v. Emeritus Corporation, Brookdale
Living Communities, Inc., Brookdale Senior Living, Inc.,
Brookdale Senior Living Communities, Inc. and Does 1-100,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-00341 (E.D. Cal., February
13, 2018), is a class action and individual complaint seeking
general, compensatory, punitive, and statutory damages,
injunctive relief, declaratory relief, restitutionary relief,
civil penalties, costs and attorneys' fees, resulting from
failure to furnish accurate wage statements, unlawful business
practices, failure to provide meal periods, failure to pay
overtime wages, failure to pay wages on separation, sex/gender
discrimination and denial of/interference with pregnancy
disability leave under the Healthy Workplaces Healthy Families
Act of the California Labor Code and Business and Professions
Code.

Rodriguez was employed as a licensed vocational nurse by
Defendants in their Brookdale Stockton senior living community
located at 2150 West Kettleman Lane, Lodi, San Joaquin County,
California. Rodriguez was more than seven months pregnant at the
time she was terminated and claims that her termination was to
get rid of her before having to accommodate anticipated maternity
leave and complaints about wage statements, discrimination and
missed breaks. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert J. Wasserman, Esq.
      William J. Gorham, Esq.
      Nicholas J. Scardigli, Esq.
      JENNY D. BAYSINGER, Esq.
      MAYALL HURLEY P.C.
      2453 Grand Canal Boulevard
      Stockton, CA 95207-8253
      Telephone: (209) 477-3833
      Facsimile: (209) 473-4818
      Email: rwasserman@mayallaw.com
             wgorham@mayallaw.com
             nscardigli@mayallaw.com
             jbaysinger@mayallaw.com


EMPIRE SZECHUAN: "De Jesus" Suit Seeks Spread-of-Hours, OT Pay
--------------------------------------------------------------
Felix De Jesus and John Doe, on behalf of themselves and FLSA
Collective Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs, v. Empire Szechuan Noodle
House Inc. and Julie S. Y. Chen, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-
01281, (S.D. N.Y., February 13, 2018), seeks unpaid overtime,
unpaid minimum wages, liquidated damages, unpaid spread of hours
premium, statutory penalties and attorneys' fees and costs
pursuant to the New York Labor Law and the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

De Jesus was hired by the Defendant as a cook at their restaurant
Empire Szchuan Noodle House Inc. located at 4041 Broadway, New
York, New York 10032. Defendants refused to pay overtime
compensation at the statutory rate of time and one-half for their
hours worked in excess of forty hours per workweek, notes the
complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      C.K. Lee, Esq.
      Anne Seelig, Esq.
      LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
      30 East 39th Street, Second Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Tel: (212) 465-1188
      Fax: (212) 465-1181


ENTERPRISE FOODS: Tiger CEO Responds to Listeriosis Outbreak
------------------------------------------------------------
Rebecca Davis, writing for Daily Maverick, reports that the
world's worst outbreak of listeriosis in history has claimed 180
South African lives and counting.  Now, the time-honoured
national pastime of finger-pointing and blame-shifting has begun.
The Department of Health says an Enterprise Foods factory in
Polokwane is ground zero for the current outbreak.  The CEO of
Enterprise's holding company, Tiger Brands, said on March 5 there
was "no direct link" between their products and the disease --
but the National Institute for Communicable Diseases begs to
differ.  Cosatu, meanwhile, maintains that the Department of
Health must own up to its poor management of the outbreak.

"There is no direct link between any of the deaths and our
products."

That's what Tiger Brands CEO Lawrence MacDougall told journalists
at a press briefing on March 5.  He was responding to the
announcement by Health Minister Aaron Motsoaledi on March 4 that
the source of South Africa's current listeriosis outbreak has
been traced to cold meat products emanating from an Enterprise
Foods factory in Polokwane.

Pressed by journalists, Mr. MacDougall reiterated at least five
times that there was no "concrete link" between Enterprise
products and the 180 deaths thus far from listeriosis.

"Nothing," he stressed at one point.

As a result, Mr. MacDougall said, the company could not take
responsibility for the deaths and would therefore not apologise.

"I can't apologise for something I'm not clear on yet," he said.

When a journalist asked cynically how much time Mr. MacDougall
spent before the press conference preparing his statements with a
lawyer to avoid saying anything which could legally implicate the
company, the CEO replied: "Doing the right thing and saying the
right thing doesn't need prep."

But the National Institute for Communicable Diseases (NICD)
flatly contradicts MacDougall.

"I'm a researcher, scientist and a doctor and I believe in
evidence," the NICD's Dr Juno Thomas told Daily Maverick on
March 5, a few hours after MacDougall's press conference.

"We have conclusive evidence that links the Enterprise Foods
factory in Polokwane with the same outbreak strain that patients
all across the country have presented with."

Dr. Thomas said that the strain of listeriosis which is making
South Africans sicken and die has "exactly the same DNA
footprint" as that identified as being carried by Enterprise
products.

"There is no doubt in my mind that the foods produced at that
factory are the source," Dr. Thomas said.  "As far as scientific
evidence goes, we have proven this."

Mr. MacDougall took care to present Enterprise and its holding
company Tiger Brands as a "consumer conscious organisation",
describing their response to the news that listeria had been
detected in products as one of "speed and urgency".

Though "low levels" of listeria had been detected in only three
products, Mr. MacDougall said -- frankfurters, smoked Russians
and polony -- the company had voluntarily halted operations at
both its Polokwane facility and its Germiston production plant.

"We have acted way ahead of any expectations of the Department of
Health," Mr. MacDougall claimed.

NCID's Thomas warns, however, that the closure of the two
Enterprise factories and the accompanying recall of cold meat
products does not put an automatic end to the crisis.

Many Enterprise meat products have a long shelf life, she points
out, meaning that they could still be sitting in households for
some time.  While the product recall was issued on March 4, there
is no guarantee that its message will reach smaller shops
immediately.

"There will also have been many people who have eaten [these
products] already who may still be incubating the disease,"
Thomas says.

All in all: "We can realistically expect to see cases going on
for a while."

The Department of Health had not responded to Daily Maverick's
request for comment by deadline on March 5, but the ministry now
finds itself in the firing line too.

Trade union federation Cosatu released a statement on March 5
blasting the Department of Health for its handling of the
listeriosis outbreak.

"The department could have done more to rope in other
stakeholders to assist in the awareness campaign", Cosatu
charged.

"These deaths could have been avoided.  This is nothing but a
failure of political leadership.  The ministry and department of
health cannot continue to explain away their failures that have
deadly consequences."

But Professor Leslie London, head of UCT's department of public
health, told Daily Maverick that the Department of Health's
messaging around listeriosis has seemed appropriately "active".

In situations of scientific uncertainty, says London -- as was
the case regarding the listeriosis outbreak before its origins
were traced -- it is often difficult to strike the right balance
in public messaging between averting panic and accurately
conveying the extent of the public health risk.

London says, however, that the number of deaths in this instance
speaks for itself as a major problem.

"It all rings an alarm bell: that if there was another kind of
[public health] outbreak, would we be prepared?"

In a statement released on March 5, the ANC called on the South
African Bureau of Standards to "urgently initiate an
investigation at various identified food production factories".

Mr. MacDougall claimed, however, that government inspectors
looking at the Enterprise facilities declared themselves "very
pleased" with the standards of health and safety.

When asked if Tiger Brands expected to be on the receiving end of
legal action, MacDougall admitted that the company was
"preparing" for this outcome.

Dr Theo Broodryk, head of the University of Stellenbosch law
clinic, told Daily Maverick that the possibility of a class
action lawsuit against the company could not be excluded.

"It is conceivable that a class action could be instituted for
damages relating to personal injuries, including the deaths of
numerous individuals, resulting from the listeriosis outbreak,"
Broodryk said.

Such a case would be rare.  Dr. Broodryk says that the only mass
personal injury class action that has been certified by a South
African court to date was a 2016 case brought by mineworkers who
had contracted silicosis in the course of their employment.

Dr. Broodryk also points out that a class action suit against
Tiger Brands would present some challenges.

"Proving that the consumption of the product caused the illness
or injury, or perhaps even death, may in certain circumstances,
such as where an individual already has a pre-existing illness,
also prove difficult," he says.

If every South African who bought an Enterprise meat product over
the last year tried to join the class action, it "could make the
class definition over-broad and the class action trial
unmanageable".

But in theory, says Dr. Broodryk, class action lawsuits in
situations such as these could help foster a more accountable and
responsible corporate culture in South Africa. This is
particularly the case where the plaintiffs lack the resources to
pursue legal action individually.

It is impossible to ignore one aspect of the listeriosis crisis:
that the meat products responsible for spreading the disease are
favoured mainly by poorer South Africans due to their relatively
low cost.

On March 5, one journalist sought to make this point by asking
the gathered Tiger Brands officials when last they had eaten an
Enterprise meat product.

"I ate viennas, sausages about four days ago," Mr. MacDougall
claimed. [GN]


FACEBOOK INC: Biometric Data Class Action Heads Into Discovery
--------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Kurland, Esq. -- tkurland@pbwt.com -- and Craig Newman,
Esq. -- adavis@brinson-askew.com -- of Patterson Belknap Webb &
Tyler LLP, in an article for JDSupra, wrote that a federal
district judge in California shot down Facebook, Inc.'s second
attempt to dismiss a putative class action alleging that its
facial recognition software violates the Illinois Biometric
Privacy Act (BIPA).  The court found that plaintiffs had standing
to proceed under the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Spokeo, Inc.
v. Robbins because the alleged BIPA violation was sufficient to
give rise to a "concrete injury" for purposes of bringing suit.

Plaintiffs, who are Illinois residents, originally brought three
separate suits in Illinois state and federal courts, arguing that
their statutory rights under BIPA -- a unique state law that
prohibits the use of an individual's biometric data without
consumer notice and consent -- were violated by Facebook's "Tag
Suggestions" feature, which automatically stores profiles of
users' faces and then "tags" them in subsequently uploaded
photographs.  The suits have been consolidated and transferred to
federal court in the Northern District of California where they
are pending under the caption In re Facebook Biometric Info.
Privacy Litigation.

Facebook initially moved to dismiss plaintiffs' suit on the basis
that its terms of service mandated that California law--instead
of BIPA--applied to the claims.  After losing that round in May
2016, Facebook took another stab at dismissal, arguing that
plaintiffs lacked Article III standing because Facebook's use of
their biometric data was essentially harmless.

In his February 26, 2018 Order denying Facebook's renewed motion,
U.S. District Judge James Donato disagreed, finding that under
Spokeo, the Illinois state legislature had the power in enacting
BIPA to create a statutory right, the violation of which was
sufficient to give rise to an injury-in-fact for purposes of
standing: "BIPA vested in Illinois residents the right to control
their biometric information by requiring notice before collection
and giving residents the power to say no by withholding consent.
As the Illinois legislature found, these procedural protections
are particularly crucial in our digital world because technology
now permits the wholesale collection and storage of an
individual's unique biometric identifiers -- identifiers that
cannot be changed if compromised or misused. When an online
service simply disregards the Illinois procedures, as Facebook is
alleged to have done, the right of the individual to maintain her
biometric privacy vanishes into thin air.  . . . Consequently,
the abrogation of the procedural rights mandated by BIPA
necessarily amounts to a concrete injury."

Plaintiffs' suit will now head into discovery.

According to Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP's Kurland and
Newman, "As we have previously blogged, other courts have come
out the opposite way on the issue of BIPA standing.  But Judge
Donato's ruling will no doubt open the door to other plaintiffs
seeking to recover for BIPA violations, particularly as the use
of increasingly-popular facial and voice recognition technology
expands. Indeed, similar suits against Google and Shutterfly are
currently pending."

"Whatever the ultimate outcome of In re Facebook Biometric Info.,
organizations considering deployment of biometric technologies
should be aware of BIPA and its strict notice and consent
requirements. Failure to comply can be costly with fines of up to
$5,000 per improper use of a person's image.

"We will continue to monitor and report on any developments in
this area." [GN]


FANNIE MAY: Judge Dismisses Class Action Over Chocolate Boxes
-------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Holland, writing for Cook County Record, reports that a
federal judge in Chicago has dismissed a class action lawsuit
accusing Fannie May of deceiving customers into buying larger
boxes that contained too little of the candymaker's popular
confectionary creations.

In an opinion issued Feb. 28 in Chicago, Judge Sara L. Ellis
sided with Fannie May against plaintiffs Clarisha Benson and
Lorenzo Smith, who on May 10, 2017, filed a complaint alleging
Fannie May's practice of bumping up the size of boxes without
increasing the amount of candy contained inside deceives
consumers and violates the law.

The complaint relied on Fannie May's use of "slack fill," an
industry term for "the difference between the actual capacity of
a container and the volume of product within it."  While some
slack fill can be needed to reduce damage to the product during
shipping and distribution, the complaint said Fannie May used
excessive amounts in several of its products, allegedly designed
to fool customers into believing they are getting more candy for
their money than the package actually contains.

Mr. Smith, the lawsuit said, "paid $9.99 for the Product on the
reasonable assumption the box was filled to functional capacity.
He would not have paid this sum had he known that the box was
nearly 40 percent empty or had the box been proportioned to its
actual contents."

In arguing for dismissal, Fannie May said the plaintiffs failed
to allege violations of the Food and Drug Cosmetic Act or the
Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practice Act.
Ellis explained a misleading labeling claim under state law must
allege an FDCA violation to avoid pre-emption.  She also detailed
the FDA's slack-fill regulations and the six exceptions to the
rule barring products in opaque packaging -- like Fannie May's
candy -- from using nonfunctional slack fill.

Among the allowable slack fill exceptions are when it is used to
protect contents; if it is required for the machinery that
encloses products; if settling during shipping is unavoidable; if
the packaging has to perform a specific function in preparing or
consuming the food; if the packing is valuable either for reuse
or for decorative or commemorative purposes; or if a minimum
package size is demonstrably essential.

"There are not many previous cases dealing with the slack-fill
regulations, but when faced with similar barebones allegations,
courts across the country have found them insufficient to state a
violation of the regulations," Judge Ellis wrote.

She further explained the plaintiffs didn't offer "concrete
allegations to support their claim that defendants' use of slack
fill did not fall into any of the six exceptions."

Even if they had mounted a plausible allegation, Judge Ellis
continued, they still would have lacked the right to pursue
injunctive relief because they failed to allege "a threat of
future harm that is not conjectural or hypothetical." In other
words, even if Fannie May's packaging was found to be deceptive,
the customers cannot plausibly suggest they would be deceived
again in a future purchase.

The initial complaint also suffered because although the
plaintiffs bought Mint Meltaways and Pixies, they tried to expand
the class allegations to cover people who bought eight other
Fannie May products sold in opaque, seven-ounce packages.
Although they alleged the slack fill on those products ranges
from 38 percent to 59 percent, Ellis noted the other candies all
are different shapes and sizes, scuttling the ability to assert a
claim for goods the plaintiffs themselves did not purchase.

Judge Ellis agreed to dismiss the complaint in its entirety
without prejudice.

The plaintiffs were represented in the action by attorneys James
X. Bormes and Kasif Khowaja, each of Chicago.

Fannie May was defended by attorney David J. Chizewer --
david.chizewer@goldbergkohn.com -- of the firm of Goldberg Kohn
Ltd., of Chicago. [GN]


FLEXPORT INC: Faces "Nam" Suit in California Superior Court
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Flexport, Inc. The
case is styled as Wai Kiu Janice Nam, on behalf of herself, all
others similarly situated, and the general public, Plaintiff v.
Flexport, Inc. a Delaware Corporation, Justin Schafer, an
individual and Does 1 to 100, Inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
CGC18565169 (Cal. Super. Ct., March 22, 2018).

Flexport is a freight forwarding and customs brokerage company
based in San Francisco, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


GEICO GENERAL: Faces Randy Rosenberg, D.C. Suit in S.D. Florida
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Geico General
Insurance Company. The case is styled as Randy Rosenberg, D.C.
P.A. a/a/o Danielle Russell, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated other Danielle Russell, Plaintiff v. Geico
General Insurance Company, Defendant, Case No. 9:18-cv-80363-RLR
(S.D. Fla., March 21, 2018).

GEICO General Insurance Company, Inc. provides personal
automobile insurance products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Edward Herbert Zebersky, Esq.
   Zebersky Payne, LLP
   110 S.E. 6th Street, Suite 2150
   Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
   Tel: (954) 989-6333
   Fax: (954) 989-7781
   Email: ezebersky@zpllp.com

      - and -

   Mark S. Fistos, Esq.
   Zebersky Payne LLP
   110 Southeast 6th Street, Suite 2150
   Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
   Tel: (954) 933-5083
   Fax: (954) 989-7781
   Email: mfistos@zpllp.com

      - and -

   Michael Trent Lewenz, Esq.
   Zebersky Payne LLP
   110 SE 6th Street, Suite 2150
   Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
   Tel: (954) 989-6333
   Email: Mlewenz@zpllp.com

      - and -

   Todd S. Payne, Esq.
   Zebersky & Payne, LLP
   110 SE 6th Street, Suite 2150
   Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
   Tel: (954) 989-6333
   Fax: (954) 989-7781
   Email: tpayne@zpllp.com


GLADSTONE PORTS: Faces Class Action Over Toxic Dredge Spill
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Observer reports that a class action is being brought against
Gladstone Ports Corporation on behalf of commercial fishermen for
losses they say resulted from large-scale contamination from
toxic dredge spill in 2011-12.

The fishermen are claiming losses of more than $100million
following the Western Basin Dredging and Disposal Project in
Gladstone Harbour.

The dredging began in 2011 to prepare for the three Curtis Island
LNG projects.

As part of the port expansion, 46 million cubic metres of capital
dredge sediment was disposed into a bunded reclamation area.

The bund was designed to hold the sediment and prevent it from
escaping into the surrounding waters as it was considered likely
to contain various contaminants that could cause serious harm to
marine and aquatic life.

The proceedings will allege that the bund had significant defects
and did not successfully contain the dredge spoil.

As such it's claimed that toxic dredge leached out of the bund
and into the surrounding waters.

It's also alleged that toxic dredge spoil had a catastrophic
effect on marine life resulting in less fish and seafood and a
reduced quality in seafood causing significant commercial loss to
the claimants.

The class action is being funded by Litigation Capital
Management.

CEO Patrick Moloney said the fishermen had suffered losses in
excess of $100million as a result of large-scale contamination
and the class action presented a chance for them to be
compensated for the losses.

It's the fourth time a similar class action has been brought
against GPC.  None of the previous actions have been successful.

The most recent was in May last year when 200 people in the
seafood and tourism industry were signed.

At the time, GPC chief executive Peter O'Sullivan said any
attempt at a class action would be a waste of time, a misuse of
the court's time, resources and people's money.

In 2012 GPC offered compensation to commercial fishermen impacted
by a three-week closure of the port.

It also established a $1.5million fund for the development and
rehabilitation of the local seafood industry.

Mr O'Sullivan said the fund was "fair and reasonable" and paid
three times the amount of the largest commercial catches for a
two-year period in each of the four impact zones.

Gladstone Ports Corporation was not able to provide a comment by
deadline last night. [GN]


GLADSTONE PORTS: To Vigorously Defend Fishermen's Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Observer reports that a class Action filed by commercial
fishermen in the Supreme Court of Queensland will be "vigorously
defended" by Gladstone Ports Corporation, which says the claim is
without merit.

It is the fourth class action filed against GPS regarding the
Western Basin Dredging and Disposal Project in Gladstone Harbour
in 2011-12.

The fishers claim that large-scale contamination from toxic
dredge spoil resulted in losses of $100 million.

This latest claim, funded by Litigation Capital Management, was
lodged five years after the project's completion.

CEO Patrick Moloney said the class action was a chance for
fishermen to be compensated the losses.

Fishermen's class action against GPC: GPC CEO Peter O'Sullivan
said the $100million class action would be vigorously defended.
GPC chief executive, Peter O'Sullivan said the project was
controlled by more than 600 conditions from both the State and
Federal Governments.

"GPC developed a fair and reasonable compensation scheme, paying
three times the amount of the largest commercial catches for a
two-year period in each of the four impact zones," Mr O'Sullivan
said.

"GPC also established a separate compensation package to enable
the promotion of the Gladstone Seafood Industry."

Mr O'Sullivan said numerous reports and independent reviews had
all determined that the dredging project did not negatively
impact on the health of the Gladstone Harbour.

"The multi-million dollar environmental monitoring program
undertaken by GPC for the WBDDP was the largest of its kind ever
undertaken for a dredging program, and included independent
monitoring across 47 sites in the Gladstone harbour," he said.

GPC has engaged the services of King & Wood Mallesons to act on
its behalf.

The three previous class actions were unsuccessful. [GN]


GOLUB CORP: Settles Price Chopper OT Class Action for $6.5-Mil.
---------------------------------------------------------------
John Cropley, writing for The Daily Gazette, reports that a judge
has approved a settlement in a long-running class action lawsuit
filed by employees who didn't receive overtime pay at Price
Chopper and Market 32 supermarkets.

The supermarkets' parent company, Schenectady-based Golub Corp.,
will pay $6.5 million to the plaintiffs and their attorneys.

The case was filed in July 2014 in federal court in Massachusetts
by a North Adams woman who claimed that the company unlawfully
classified her and other department managers as team leaders
exempt from federal overtime protections.  Four other people
joined as named plaintiffs, and the class of similarly affected
but unnamed Golub employees was expected to number at least in
the hundreds.

The parties twice attempted to resolve the lawsuit through
mediation.  The first effort failed in May 2016 but the second
succeeded in April 2017.

It took several months longer to finalize the settlement. U.S.
District Court Judge Mark G. Mastroianni signed the order on
March 2 and it was issued on March 5.

Neither side would provide any details on March 6.

"The parties were able to reach a mutually acceptable resolution
of this matter," said Kevin M. Kinne, one of the plaintiffs'
attorneys.

"The parties were able to reach a mutually acceptable resolution
of this matter and Price Chopper denies any wrongdoing," Golub
Corp. spokeswoman Mona Golub said.

Some details are available in court paperwork, though:

The five named plaintiffs -- Shelly J. Davine, James E. Williams,
Jacob E. Ogden, Beth A. Farrar and Philip Cardinale -- will get
$10,000 each, a larger sum in recognition of their efforts on
behalf of the class of affected Golub Corp. employees.

The final list of employees and ex-employees who make up the
class consisted of 311 people who opted in and 1,144 putative
class members.

At the deadline, 834 claim forms had been filed with the claims
administrator.

The amount of the payment will vary widely depending whether the
employee opted in or was just a putative class member; how many
weeks they worked; and where they worked, because Connecticut,
Massachusetts, New York and Pennsylvania each have different
statutes of limitation and, in some cases, multiply penalties.

The plaintiffs' attorneys estimated that putative class members
would receive approximately 42 percent of their unpaid overtime
and opt-in plaintiffs approximately 80 percent of their unpaid
overtime.

One class member objected to the settlement, one opted out and
one tried to opt out but made a paperwork error; the claims
administrator also received a handful of claims after the
deadline, six of which were allowed because of circumstances
deemed valid.

The plaintiffs' attorneys, Outten & Golden LLP of New York City
and Cohen Kinne Valicenti & Cook LLP of Pittsfield will get a
third of the total award, $2.17 million; they said they performed
over 6,000 hours of work which, at normal rates, would have
billed at $2.36 million.

Fees for expenses of $75,000 for the plaintiff's attorneys and
$28,032 for the claims administrator also were approved. [GN]


GOOGLE INC: Settles AdSense Class Action for $11 Million
--------------------------------------------------------
Wendy Davis, writing for MediaPost, reports that Google has
agreed to pay $11 million to settle a class-action by publishers
who accused Google of wrongly withholding ad revenue.

The proposed settlement stems from a 2014 class-action complaint
brought by small web site operators, including Free Range Content
and Coconut Island Software, who said their accounts were wrongly
disabled by Google over alleged policy violations.  The
publishers -- who said they had not engaged in click fraud or
other activity prohibited by Google -- alleged that Google owed
them revenue when they were thrown out of AdSense.

Google said in court papers that it agreed to settle the
allegations because continuing with the litigation "would be
burdensome and expensive."  The company denies wrongdoing.

The deal calls for Google to reimburse some publishers between
30% and 100% of the money they were owed when their accounts were
terminated.  The settlement agreement comes almost two years
after Google lost a key battle in the lawsuit.  The company had
argued that the case should be dismissed because its contract
with publishers said the relationship could be terminated at any
time.  The publishers countered that those contracts were too
unfair to be enforceable.

U.S. District Court Judge Beth Labson Freeman sided with the
publishers in May of 2016, ruling that they could proceed with
their lawsuit.  "Taking the allegations are true, the
[agreements] are one-sided because they let Google withhold funds
for up to two months regardless of the severity of the purported
breach and even if the funds are earned through valid activity,
notwithstanding Google's supposed ability to distinguish between
valid and invalid ad serves," she wrote.

Judge Freeman will hold a hearing on the deal in April. [GN]


GRUPO TELVISA: Faces Class Action, May 4 Lead Plaintiff Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on March 5 disclosed that a class action lawsuit
has been filed against Grupo Televisa S.A.B. ("Televisa" or the
"Company") (NYSE:TV) and certain of its officers.  The class
action, filed in United States District Court, Southern District
of New York, and docketed under 18-cv-1979, is on behalf of a
class consisting of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired
Televisa American Depositary Receipts ("ADRs") between April 11,
2013 and January 25, 2018, both dates inclusive (the "Class
Period"), seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants'
violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder,
against the Company and certain of its top officials.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Televisa ADRs between
April 11, 2013 and January 25, 2018, both dates inclusive, you
have until May 4, 2018, to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead
Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the Complaint can be obtained
at www.pomerantzlaw.com.  To discuss this action, contact Robert
S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or
888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 9980. Those who inquire by e-mail
are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone
number, and the number of shares purchased.

Grupo Televisa S.A.B. operates media and entertainment businesses
in the Spanish speaking world. The Company has interests in
television production and broadcasting, programming, direct-to-
home satellite services, publishing and publishing distribution,
cable television, radio production, show business, feature films
and Internet portals.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period,
Defendants made materially false and misleading statements
regarding the Company's business, operational and compliance
policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Televisa
executives engaged in an unlawful bribery scheme involving
Federation Internationale de Football Association ("FIFA")
executives; (ii) discovery of the foregoing conduct would likely
subject the Company to heightened regulatory scrutiny; (iii) the
Company lacked effective internal controls over financial
reporting; and (iv) as a result of the foregoing, Televisa's ADRs
traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period,
and class members suffered significant losses and damages.

On November 14, 2017, at the corruption trial of three former
executives of FIFA, Alejandro Burzaco, a former Chief Executive
Officer of the sports-marketing company Torneos y Competencias
S.A., testified that Televisa and other media companies had paid
multi-million dollar bribes to FIFA executives in order to secure
lucrative, multi-year broadcasting rights for soccer tournaments.

On this news, Televisa's ADRs price fell $0.48, or 2.4%, to close
at $19.50 on November 14, 2017.

On January 26, 2018, Televisa announced that "the Company's
management, in consultation with the Audit Committee of the
Company's board and after discussions with
PricewaterhouseCoopers, S.C., the Company's independent
registered public accounting firm, has concluded that certain
material weaknesses in the Company's internal control over
financial reporting existed as of December 31, 2016."
Specifically, Televisa advised investors that "[t]he material
weaknesses in the Company's internal control over financial
reporting related to (i) the design and maintenance of effective
controls over certain information technology controls which
support systems that are relevant to the provisioning, updating
and deleting of users' access to those systems, the periodic
review of users' access to these systems, developers' access to
certain of these systems and appropriate segregation of duties;
(ii) the design and maintenance of effective controls over
segregation of duties within the accounting system, including
certain individuals with the ability to gain access to prepare
and post journal entries across substantially all key accounts of
the Company without an independent review performed by someone
other than the preparer; and (iii) ineffective controls with
respect to the accounting for certain revenue and related
accounts receivable in our cable companies and content division."

On this news, Televisa's ADRs fell $0.29, or 1.38%, to close at
$20.66 on January 26, 2018.

With offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, and Paris, The
Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- concentrates its
practice in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust
class litigation.  Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz,
known as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm
pioneered the field of securities class actions.  Today, more
than 80 years later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the
tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims
of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate
misconduct. [GN]


GUAM: H-2B Class-Action Certification Briefings Proceed
-------------------------------------------------------
Haidee V Eugenio, writing for Pacific Daily News, reports that a
federal court has resumed the process of determining whether to
certify a 2016 lawsuit the Guam Contractors Association and
nearly a dozen businesses filed against the federal government
for denying nearly all H-2B visa petitions for Guam as a class-
action case.

If the court certifies it as a class-action lawsuit, businesses
not named as plaintiffs in the case could apply for skilled
foreign worker visas for Guam.

Other motions in the H-2B lawsuit have been resolved, but not the
contractors' class-action certification motion.

Temporary victory for businesses in H-2B lawsuit

U.S. District Court Chief Judge Frances Tydingo-Gatewood on
March 5 ordered the federal government to respond to the
contractors' motion to certify the lawsuit as a class action by 3
p.m. March 12.  The contractors' reply, if any, is due by 3 p.m.
March 19, the judge ordered.

"The dispositive motions have now been resolved and the court, in
the interest if moving this case along, will order the parties to
resume and complete the briefing of the class certification
question," Tydingco-Gatewood said in her March 5 order.

Guam used to have more than 1,000 H-2B workers at any one point,
but the number dwindled to about 35 as of January.  The loss of
the foreign labor force has limited the ability of local
contractors to take on new jobs and has driven up the cost of
construction on the island.

In a Jan. 24 preliminary injunction, Tydingco-Gatewood prohibited
the federal government from continuing its practice of denying
nearly every request by Guam businesses for the use of temporary
skilled foreign labor.  The judge's order said the federal
government cannot rely on "peakload" or "one-time occurrence"
conditions as reasons to deny any past or future petitions for H-
2B worker visas.

Military projects
The latest National Defense Authorization Act, meanwhile, has
allowed Guam contractors for military projects to bring in as
many as 4,000 H-2B workers every year. U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration Services, in a Feb. 15 policy memo, said it's now
accepting H-2B petitions, but only for workers that will be
required after April 11, 2018.

The military plans to relocate about 5,000 Marines from Okinawa
and elsewhere to a new base that will be built in Dededo.

A provision in the defense budget provides labor relief only for
businesses working on military projects. [GN]


HARRIS COUNTY, TX: Ct. Won't Add Cole as Plaintiff in "ODonnell"
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MARANDA LYNN ODONNELL, et al., On behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS, et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. H-16-
1414 (S.D. Tex.), Judge Lee H. Rosenthal of the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division,
denied Devin Paul Cole's motion seeking: (1) to be added to the
consolidated class of the Plaintiffs; (2) a hearing and briefing
so that the Plaintiffs' counsel can advise the Plaintiffs of
their federal due-process and equal-protection rights to sue the
defendants for money damages; (3) $100,000 in damages each for
Miranda Lynn ODonnell, Loetha Shanta McGruder, Robert Ryan Ford,
and himself; (4) leave to amend the class-action complaint; and
(5) judgment in favor of the Plaintiffs after they amend the
complaint.

Mr. Cole states that he refuses to consent or agree to a
settlement awarding less than $100,000 for each of the Plaintiff.

Judge Rosenthal finds that Cole's request is precluded on several
grounds.  First, he is not a member of the class of misdemeanor
arrestees on whose behalf the case is being litigated.  Second,
to the extent that, during the pendency of the class action, Cole
is arrested and held on misdemeanor charges in Harris County, his
interests are adequately represented by able class counsel.
Finally, his motion seeks considerable changes in the scope of
and grounds for relief, after lengthy and vigorous motions,
briefs, evidence, and arguments have resulted in trial and
appellate court rulings defining both.

The Judge concludes that Cole's motion lacks any basis in the
record or in the law.  Accordingly, he denied Cole's motion.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 21, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/NMliKv from Leagle.com.

Maranda Lynn ODonnell, Plaintiff, represented by Alec
Karakatsanis -- alec@equaljusticeunderlaw.org -- Civil Rights
Corps, Krisina Janaye Zuniga, Susman Godfrey LLP, Lexie Giselle
White -- lwhite@susmangodfrey.com -- Susman Godfrey LLP, Neal S.
Manne -- nmanne@susmangodfrey.com -- Susman Godfrey LLP,
Alejandra C. Salinas -- ASalinas@susmangodfrey.com -- Susman
Godfrey LLP, Elizabeth Anne Rossi --
erossi@equaljusticeunderlawl.org -- Civil Rights Corps, Michael
Gervais -- mgervais@susmangodfrey.com -- Susman Godfrey L.L.P. &
Susanne Ashley Pringle -- springle@fairdefense.org -- Texas Fair
Defense Project.

Loetha Shanta McGruder & Robert Ryan Ford, Consol Plaintiffs,
represented by Krisina Janaye Zuniga, Susman Godfrey LLP, Neal S.
Manne, Susman Godfrey LLP, Susanne Ashley Pringle, Texas Fair
Defense Project, Alec Karakatsanis, Civil Rights Corps, Alejandra
C. Salinas, Susman Godfrey LLP, Elizabeth Anne Rossi, Civil
Rights Corps & Lexie Giselle White, Susman Godfrey LLP.

Harris County, Texas, Defendant, represented by James G.
Munisteri -- jmunisteri@gardere.com -- Gardere Wynne Sewell LLP,
Katharine Davenport David -- kdavid@gardere.com -- Melissa Lynn
Spinks, Harris County Attorney's Office & Michael A. Stafford --
mstafford@gardere.com -- Gardere Wynne Sewell LLP.

Eric Stewart Hagstette, Joseph Licata III, Ronald Nicholas,
Blanca Estela Villagomez & Jill Wallace, Defendants, represented
by Katharine Davenport David & Michael A. Stafford, Gardere Wynne
Sewell LLP.

Paula Goodhart, Bill Harmon, Natalie C. Fleming, John Clinton,
Margaret Harris, Pam Derbyshire, Jay Karahan, Dan Spjut, Judge
Diane Bull, Judge Robin Brown & Donald Smyth, Defendants,
represented by Charles J. Cooper -- ccooper@cooperkirk.com --
Cooper & Kirk PLLC, Michael W. Kirk -- mkirk@cooperkirk.com --
Cooper Kirk, Corinne Stone -- cstone@winston.com -- Winston and
Strawn LLP, John R. Keville -- jkeville@winston.com -- Winston
Strawn, Robert Lawrence Green, III -- rlgreen@winston.com --
Winston and Strawn LLP, Sheryl Anne Falk -- sfalk@winston.com --
Winston Strawn LLP & William C. Marra, Cooper & Kirk, PLLC.

Larry Standley, Judge Analia Wilkerson & Jean Hughes, Defendants,
represented by Charles J. Cooper, Cooper & Kirk PLLC, Michael W.
Kirk, Cooper Kirk, Corinne Stone, Winston and Strawn LLP, John R.
Keville, Winston Strawn, Robert Lawrence Green, III, Winston and
Strawn LLP & Sheryl Anne Falk, Winston Strawn LLP.

Judge Mike Fields, Defendant, represented by Bruce Stephen
Powers, Office of the Harris County Attorney.

Ed (Sheriff) Gonzalez, Defendant, represented by Victoria Lynn
Jimenez, Harris County Attorney's Office.

Darrell William Jordan, Defendant, represented by George Allan
Van Fleet, G. Allan Van Fleet, P.C.

Carolyn Campbell, Defendant, represented by Kenneth Wayne Good --
keng@tyler.net -- Law Office of Ken W Good PLLD.

John McCluskey, Movant, represented by Kenneth Wayne Good, Law
Office of Ken W Good PLLD.

Kim Ogg, Amicus, represented by Kimbra Kathryn Ogg, Harris County
District Attorney's Office.


HOSPITAL FOR SICK: Class Action Certification Motion Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Law Times reports that hospital operated drug testing laboratory
between 2005 and 2015 and during that time-tested hair of 18,463
individuals to screen for presence of drugs and alcohol.  Of
18,463 individuals tested, total of 10,004 were reported as
having positive result and 6,958 of reported positives were
individuals referred from child protection agencies.  Proposed
representative plaintiff was one of individuals tested and,
following positive test results, her child remained in foster
care for approximately two years.  Proposed class action was
commenced.  Proposed representative plaintiff brought motion for
certification of proposed class action.  Motion dismissed.  Major
deficiency in proposed class action was its failure to satisfy
preferable procedure criterion.  Procedural and substantive
access to justice would invariably require individual issues
trials for class members with significant enough injury to
justify expense of complex individual trials about liability.
Individual issues trials were not amenable to any summary
determination as contemplated by s. 25 of Class Proceedings Act,
1992.  Common issues would not sufficiently advance claims of
class members and combining common issues trial with individual
issues trials made proceedings unmanageable and disadvantageous
in comparison to alternative of individual actions.  Class action
was not preferable procedure for access to procedural justice.
Given problems confronting substantive access to justice and
problems of efficiency and productivity, and given what little
would be accomplished by common issues trial, more efficient and
expeditious way to adjudicate claims would be to proceed directly
by way of individual actions.

Green v. The Hospital for Sick Children (2017), 2017 CarswellOnt
16865, 2017 ONSC 6545, Perell J. (Ont. S.C.J.). [GN]


HOT POT FLUSHING: Faces "Li" Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hot Pot Flushing
LLC. The case is styled as Jianbo Li, Xiaoyan He and Huanyi Lei,
individually and on behalf of all other employees similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. Hot Pot Flushing LLC, d/b/a Little Sheep
Mongolian Hot Pot, or Little Sheep, Hot Pot Manhattan 1 LLC,
d/b/a Little Sheep Mongolian Hot Pot, or Little Sheep, Michael
Pui Leung Luk, Guiyou Wang, Peter Yang, "John" Zhang (First Name
Unknown) and Jane Doe (Legal Name Unknown), a/k/a Vicky,
Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-01776 (E.D. N.Y., March 22, 2018).

Little Sheep is a restaurant chain with a mission to introduce
Mongolian culture and food in North America.[BN]

The Plaintiffs appear PRO SE.


HTC AMERICA: Faces "Drobnick" Suit in Cal. Superior Court
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against HTC America Inc.
The case is styled as Bryan Drobnick and Robert Holman,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. HTC America Inc. and HTC Corporation, Defendants,
Case No. CGC18565124 (Cal. Super. Ct., March 21, 2018).

HTC America, Inc. manufactures and sells mobile devices based on
the Android, Windows Mobile, and Windows Phone operating
systems.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Adam Joshua Gutride, Esq.
   Gutride Safier LLP
   100 Pine St Ste 1250
   San Francisco, CA 94111
   Tel: (415) 639-9090
   Fax: (415) 449-6469
   Email: adam@gutridesafier.com


HUNTER PARKING: Sued for Allegedly Overcharging Customers
---------------------------------------------------------
Louie Torres, writing for Cook County Record, reports that a
couple has filed a class action lawsuit against Hunter Parking
Inc. for allegedly overcharging them for parking.

Michelle Gilbert and Aidan Gilbert filed a complaint on Feb. 15
in Cook County Circuit Court, alleging the defendant charged them
more than the specified rate listed for parking.

According to the complaint, the plaintiffs allege they were
charged $15 on Jan. 6 for allegedly parking less than one hour.

The plaintiffs seek judgment against the defendant for actual
damages, court costs and any further relief this court grants.
They are represented by Daniel A. Edelman -- dedelman@edcombs.com
-- Cathleen M. Combs -- ccombs@edcombs.com -- James O. Latturner
-- jlatturner@edcombs.com -- and Tara L. Goodwin --
tgoodwin@edcombs.com -- of Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin
LLC in Chicago.

Cook County Circuit Court case number 2018CH02044 [GN]


HUNTER WARFIELD: Faces "Meyers" Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hunter Warfield.
The case is styled as Nicole Meyers, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Hunter Warfield,
Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-01764 (E.D. N.Y., March 22, 2018).

Hunter Warfield provides revenue recovery and risk mitigating
services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
   Sanders Law, PLLC
   100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
   Garden City, NY 11530
   Tel: (516) 203-7600
   Fax: (516) 281-7601
   Email: csanders@sanderslawpllc.com


HYUNDAI MOTORD: BakerHostetler Discusses 9th Cir. Ruling
--------------------------------------------------------
Melonia Bennett, Esq., of BakerHostetler, in an article for
JDSupra, wrote that in February, the Ninth Circuit vacated the
certification of a nationwide class for settlement in the In re
Hyundai & Kia Fuel Economy Litigation, No. 15-56014, 881 F.3d 679
(9th Cir. Jan. 23, 2018).  The Ninth Circuit concluded that the
district court abused its discretion because it failed to
"conduct a rigorous analysis to determine whether the party
seeking certification has met the prerequisites of Rule 23,"
specifically, whether variations in state law undermined the
predominance requirement. Id. at 690. Parties involved in class
actions, whether on a contested or a settlement basis, should
carefully scrutinize Hyundai & Kia Fuel.

This case was originally brought in California state court.  In
January 2012, plaintiffs filed a putative nationwide class action
in state court in Los Angeles County. See Espinosa v. Hyundai
Motor Am., No. BC 476445 (Cal. Super. Ct. filed Jan. 6, 2012).
These consumers sought relief pursuant to California consumer
protection law and common law on the grounds that Hyundai and Kia
had falsely advertised their vehicles' fuel efficiencies.

Hyundai and Kia removed the case to federal court pursuant to the
Class Action Fairness Act, where it was then consolidated with
actions filed across the country, including in Virginia, by an
MDL panel.  Hyundai and Kia first opposed class certification,
arguing that the variations in state consumer protection laws
precluded a finding of predominance under Rule 23(b)(3).  The
parties later reached a settlement on a nationwide basis,
agreeing that the district court should certify a nationwide
class of all current and former owners and lessees of Hyundai and
Kia vehicles within the relevant time frame.

But a group of Virginia consumers opposed class certification and
sought remand of their action to the Western District of
Virginia, arguing that California's choice-of-law rules did not
allow certification of the class and that the California district
court granted class certification without ever addressing
variations in state law to ensure that the class met all the
prerequisites of Rule 23.

A group of consumers appealed to the Ninth Circuit, which vacated
and remanded the settlement class to the California district
court.  The Ninth Circuit noted that a "rigorous analysis" is
required and a party seeking to maintain a class action must
affirmatively demonstrate his compliance with Rule 23. Id. at
690, 705 (quoting Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, 569 U.S. 27, 33
(2013)).  The Court stated that the burden is on the plaintiff
seeking class certification to demonstrate that all the
requirements of Rule 23 have been met.

The Ninth Circuit conducted a review of Mazza v. American Honda
Motor Co. to determine the steps required for an analysis of
whether California law may be used on a nationwide basis. 666
F.3d 581, 590 (9th Cir. 2012). In applying Mazza to the Hyundai &
Kia Fuel settlement, the Ninth Circuit held that the district
court should have considered the variations in state consumer
protection laws.  These variations "will require adjudication
under the laws of multiple states," and plaintiffs had failed to
show that common questions would predominate over individual
issues. In re Hyundai & Kia Fuel Econ. Litig., 881 F.3d at 693
(internal citations omitted).  The Ninth Circuit remanded, and
explained that a nationwide class may still be certified, but
only after a "rigorous" Rule 23 analysis. Id. at 705.

This decision was not unanimous. The strong dissenting opinion
argued that the majority's predominance analysis applied the
incorrect burden of proof under California law for the choice-of-
law analysis by requiring the proponent to prove that California
law should be applied to all class members' claims, rather than
requiring the proponent of foreign law to carry the burden. The
dissent argued that this violated the Erie doctrine and
conflicted with California law. Id. at 711-13.

The parties in the Ninth Circuit and elsewhere will now need to
consider Mazza and Hyundai & Kia Fuel and how they affect
proposed nationwide settlement classes.  In particular, parties
looking to certify classes, even on a settlement basis, should
examine whether variations in state law for a cause of action may
undermine certification, and examine whether settlement under
other causes of action, which may be more uniform, is more
amenable to certification. [GN]


INTEL CORP: Bernstein Litowitz Files Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP ("BLB&G") on March 6
disclosed that it has filed a securities class action lawsuit on
behalf of Louisiana Sheriffs' Pension & Relief Fund ("Louisiana
Sheriffs") against Intel Corporation ("Intel" or the "Company")
(NASDAQ: INTC) and certain of its senior executives.  The action,
which is captioned Louisiana Sheriffs' Pension & Relief Fund v.
Intel Corporation, No. 5:18-cv-01460 (N.D. Cal.) (the "Louisiana
Sheriffs Action"), asserts claims under the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 on behalf of investors in Intel stock during the
period of October 27, 2017 to January 4, 2018, inclusive (the
"Class Period").

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, Intel
misrepresented the security and performance of the Company's
processors.  Throughout the Class Period, defendants falsely told
investors that the Company's chips were based on a secure
architecture and outperformed its competitors' products.  In
truth, Intel's chips were subject to major security
vulnerabilities that allowed hackers to access users' most
sensitive personal information, and fixing the flaws will
significantly impair the chips' performance.  When the truth
regarding Intel's processors was revealed, the price of the
Company's stock declined approximately 5%.

If you wish to serve as Lead Plaintiff for the Class, you must
file a motion with the Court no later than 60 days from the date
that notice of pendency of an action asserting substantially the
same claims as the Louisiana Sheriffs Action was published.  On
January 10, 2018, counsel for plaintiff Elvis Alvira published
notice of the pendency of an action asserting substantially the
same claims as the Louisiana Sheriffs Action.  See Alvira v.
Intel Corporation, No. 2:18-cv-00223-FMO-RAO (C.D. Cal. filed
Jan. 10, 2018) (the "Alvira Action").  Accordingly, the deadline
for filing a motion for appointment as Lead Plaintiff is
March 12, 2018.  Any member of the proposed Class may move the
Court to serve as Lead Plaintiff through counsel of their choice,
or may choose to do nothing and remain a member of the proposed
Class.

The Alvira Action and another action filed by plaintiff Meerain
Ali, Ali v. Intel Corporation, No. 4:18-cv-00507-YGR (N.D. Cal.
filed Jan. 23, 2018), assert securities fraud claims on behalf
Intel investors beginning on July 27, 2017.  Investors that
purchased Intel stock between July 27, 2017 and October 27, 2017
could not have incurred any losses on those shares as a result of
Intel's alleged fraud because the price at which those shares
were purchased was lower than the price of Intel stock after the
disclosure of the alleged fraud.  Accordingly, the proper date to
start to assert securities fraud claims on behalf of Intel
investors is October 27, 2017, the first day that investors could
have incurred losses on their purchases of Intel stock as a
result of Intel's alleged misconduct.

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions
concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please
contact Avi Josefson of BLB&G at 212-554-1493, or via e-mail at
avi@blbglaw.com.

Founded in 1983, BLB&G -- http://www.blbglaw.com-- specializes
in securities fraud, corporate governance, shareholders' rights,
employment discrimination, and civil rights litigation, among
other practice areas, BLB&G prosecutes class and private actions
on behalf of institutional and individual clients worldwide.
[GN]


JO-ANN STORES: Sent Unsolicited SMS Ads, "Marcheco" Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
Xiomara Marcheco, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Jo-Ann Stores, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 18-cv-20564, (S.D. Fla., February 13, 2018), seeks
statutory damages and any other available legal or equitable
remedy under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

On or about December 6, 2017, Defendant, using an automated text-
messaging platform, sent discount promos to Marcheco's cellular
telephone.

Jo-Ann Stores, Inc. -- http://www.joann.com/-- is a specialty
retailer of crafts and fabrics based in Hudson, Ohio. It operates
the retail chains Jo-Ann Fabrics and Jo-Ann Etc. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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

JOCKEY INT'L: Faces "Fischler" Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Jockey
International, Inc. The case is styled as Brian Fischler,
individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Jockey International, Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 1:18-cv-01752 (E.D. N.Y., March 21, 2018).

Jockey International, Inc. is a manufacturer, distributor and
retailer of underwear, sleepwear for men, women, and
children.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


JUST ENERGY: "Evangelista" to Remain in District Court
------------------------------------------------------
Judge Cormac J. Carney of the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California, Southern Division, denied the Plaintiff's
motion to remand the case captioned DANIEL EVANGELISTA,
Plaintiff, v. JUST ENERGY MARKETING CORP., ET AL., Defendants,
Case No. SACV 17-02270-CJC (SSx) (C.D. Cal.) to Orange County
Superior Court.

Evangelista filed the action on Nov. 21, 2017, in Orange County
Superior Court alleging various violations of the California
labor law and asserting seven claims on behalf of a putative
class against Just Energy Marketing Corp. ("JEMC"), Just Energy
Solutions Inc. ("JES"), Just Energy Limited ("JEL"), Just Energy
Group Inc. ("JEG"), and various Doe Defendants.

The Plaintiff alleges on information and belief that both JES and
JEL are affiliated with Defendant JEMC as subsidiaries of the
Defendant JEG that conduct business in the same manner in all
respects material to the action and that coordinate their
businesses such that they are not independent business
enterprises.  His allegations collectively refer to all four
named Defendants as "Just Energy," and his allegations do not
differentiate between the actions of any named party.

Just Energy hired the Plaintiff on July 25, 2017, to sell natural
gas and electricity to residential customers as a door-to-door
salesman employee.  The Plaintiff alleges various violations of
the California Labor Code occurred during his employment, such as
failure to pay overtime wages, failure to provide meal and rest
breaks, and failure to reimburse employees for necessary
expenditures.  He alleges that he was retaliated against for
reporting the unethical conduct of his supervisor, and chose to
resign on Oct. 11, 2017, after experiencing the alleged
retaliation.

The seven causes of action on behalf of the class: failure to pay
all wages due (e.g., overtime wages), failure to timely pay wages
due at termination, failure to provide meal periods, failure to
provide rest periods, knowing and intentional failure to comply
with itemized employee wage statement provisions, failure to
reimburse employees for necessary expenditures, and violation of
the Unfair Competition Law.

The Plaintiff brings these seven causes of action on behalf of a
proposed class of all persons who performed door-to-door sales
work for Just Energy during the four years preceding the date the
action was filed.  He also alleges two causes of action solely on
his own behalf: retaliation and constructive discharge in
violation of public policy.

Before the Court is the Plaintiff's motion to remand the action
to Orange County Superior Court.  The parties dispute only two
requirements of the local controversy exception in the case:
whether the conduct of JES, the only local Defendant, formed a
"significant basis" for the claims asserted under 28 U.S.C.
Section 1332(d)(4)(A)(i)(II)(bb), and whether multiple class
actions have been filed against the Defendants alleging similar
factual allegations under 28 U.S.C. Section 1332 (d)(4)(A)(ii).

Judge Carney has determined that JES' conduct does not provide a
significant basis for the Plaintiff's claims.  Based on the
allegations of the Complaint, the Plaintiff has not sufficiently
pled that JES's conduct provides a "significant basis" for the
alleged conduct for which he seeks relief.

The Judge also finds that the case appears to be a local
controversy based on the Defendants' alleged violations of the
California Labor Code on behalf of California-based salespeople,
who are employees, unlike JEMC's salespeople classified as
independent contractors elsewhere in the country.  The Plaintiff
has met his burden to prove there was no class action that meets
the requirements of Subsection 1332(d)(4)(A)(ii).

Finally, as to the Plaintiff's request leave to amend should the
Court finds that his allegations are insufficient to meet the
local controversy exception to CAFA, the Judge holds that because
the Court may analyze only the allegations in the complaint, and
the Plaintiff's state court complaint may not address CAFA-
specific issues, the Plaintiff should be permitted to amend his
allegations to satisfy the local controversy exception.

As he has found that the Plaintiff did not satisfy his burden to
prove that JES' conduct provided a "significant basis" for his
claims, the Judge will grant the Plaintiff 14 days' leave to
amend to file a First Amended Complaint to address this issue.
He advised the Plaintiff to consider the Defendants' arguments
that JES is a "sham" Defendant should he amend his Complaint.

For these reasons, Judge Cormac denied the Plaintiff's motion to
remand.  He granted the Plaintiff 14 days' leave to amend to add
allegations to address the CAFA-specific issues discussed.  He
denied without prejudice the JEG's pending motion to dismiss as
moot.  JEG may refile its motion to dismiss if the action is not
remanded subsequent to the Plaintiff's filing of an amended
Complaint.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 21, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/X7JuJb from Leagle.com.

Daniel Evangelista, Plaintiff, represented by Asha Dhillon --
adhillon@jonesbell.com -- Jones Bell Abbott Fleming and
Fitzgerald LLP, Francisco Cabada -- cisco@cabadahameed.com --
Cabada and Hameed LLP, Sayema Javed Hameed --
sayema@cabadahameed.com -- Cabada and Hameed LLP & William M.
Turner -- wmturner@jonesbell.com -- Jones Bell Abbott Fleming &
Fitzgerald.

Just Energy Marketing Corp., a Delaware corporation, Just Energy
Solutions, Inc., a California corporation, Just Energy Limited, a
Delaware corporation & Just Energy Group Inc., a Canadian
corporation, Defendants, represented by Edward H. Chyun --
echyun@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson PC, pro hac vice, Timothy
S. Anderson -- tanderson@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson PC, pro
hac vice & Rachael Sarah Lavi -- rlavi@littler.com -- Littler
Mendelson PC.


KINDRED HEALTHCARE: Buskirk Files Suit Over Sale to TPG Capital
---------------------------------------------------------------
Karen Buskirk, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Kindred Healthcare, Inc., Phyllis R.
Yale, Benjamin A. Breier, Paul J. Diaz, Sharad Mansukani, Joel
Ackerman, Jonathan D. Blum, Heyward R. Donigan, Richard Goodman,
Christopher T. Hjelm, Fred J. Kleisner and Lynn Simon,
Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-00092 (W.D. Ky., February 13, 2018),
seeks to enjoin Defendants and all persons acting in concert with
them from proceeding with, consummating or closing the
acquisition of Kindred Healthcare, Inc. by a consortium of TPG
Capital, Welsh, Carson, Anderson & Stowe and Humana Inc., and
rescinding it in the event defendants consummate the merger.  The
lawsuit further seeks rescissory damages, costs of this action,
including reasonable allowance for plaintiff's attorneys' and
experts' fees and such other and further relief under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Kindred Healthcare, Inc. will be acquired for $9.00 per share, or
approximately $4.1 billion in cash.

Buskirk claims that the merger consideration is not reflective of
Kindred's intrinsic value and will short-change existing
shareholders. Kindred is positioned for significant stock price
appreciation, has ample liquidity, no near-term debt maturities,
and is expected to generate around $175 million of core free cash
flow in 2018, says the complaint.

Kindred is a health care services company that operates home
health, hospice and community care businesses, long-term acute
care hospitals, inpatient rehabilitation facilities and a
contract rehabilitation services business. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Kenneth A. Bohnert, Esq.
     Edward Busch, Esq.
     Scott Johnson, Esq.
     CONLIFFE, SANDMAN & SULLIVAN
     2000 Waterfront Plaza
     325 West Main Street, Suite 2000
     Louisville, KY 40202
     Tel: (502) 587-7711
     Fax: (502) 587-7756
     Email: kbohnert@cssattorneys.com
            ebusch@cssattorneys.com
            sjohnson@cssattorneys.com

            - and -

     Carl L. Stine, Esq.
     Robert S. Plosky, Esq.
     WOLF POPPER LLP
     845 Third Avenue
     New York, NY 10022
     Tel: (212) 759-4600
     Fax: (212) 486-2093
     Email: cstine@wolfpopper.com
            rplosky@wolfpopper.com


KOBE STEEL: Faces Class Action in U.S. Over Substandard Metal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tina Bellon and Yuka Obayashi, writing for Reuters, report that
U.S. consumers have filed a lawsuit against Kobe Steel Ltd
(5406.T) and Toyota Motor Corp (7203.T) accusing the companies of
violating consumer protection laws and engaging in fraud by
concealing the use of substandard metal components in vehicles.

The proposed class-action lawsuit represents the first U.S.
consumer complaint filed against Kobe Steel over data fraud, and
highlights the legal risks the company faces even after Chief
Executive Officer Hiroya Kawasaki announced on March 6 he would
quit to draw a line under the scandal.

The 112-year-old company, which supplies steel and aluminum parts
to manufacturers of cars, planes and trains around the world,
admitted last year to supplying products with falsified
specifications to around 500 customers, throwing global supply
chains into turmoil.

Kobe, Japan's third-largest steelmaker, said on March 6 that the
data fraud had gone on for nearly five decades, and that it found
new cases of impropriety, widening the number of affected clients
to 605, including 222 overseas.  The company said Kawasaki would
quit on April 1.

The U.S. lawsuit, filed on March 5 in federal court in San
Francisco, was brought by two California residents who seek to
represent a nationwide class of consumers who bought allegedly
defective Toyota vehicles.

According to the complaint, Toyota's Prius, Camry, Land Cruiser
and Lexus vehicles have all been manufactured with "sub-standard"
steel, aluminum and copper.

The plaintiffs allege that Toyota and Kobe Steel both violated
federal and state consumer protection laws by claiming that the
vehicles complied with U.S. quality standards.

"We have not grasped the whole content of the case and we are now
looking into the matter," a Kobe Steel spokesman said on March 7.

Toyota declined to comment on the lawsuit.

In a special order in November, the U.S. National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration asked 29 automakers, including Toyota, to
disclose any safety issues for any of their vehicles or engines
containing products supplied by Kobe Steel.

The regulator did not immediately respond to a request for
comment on what data it had received in response and whether
there was any evidence of faulty materials in Toyota cars.

The March 6 40-page lawsuit outlines the ways in which the
companies allegedly concealed poor metal quality.  It demands
compensatory and punitive damages of an unspecified amount.

According to the complaint, at least six Toyota car models sold
or leased to U.S. consumers were manufactured with substandard
metal from Kobe Steel.  Plaintiffs said the metal could impact
vehicle safety and performance.

Toyota had the duty to disclose any defective vehicle components
because it has consistently marketed its automobiles as safe,
functional and reliable, the lawsuit says.

Kobe and Toyota had superior knowledge and access to the facts,
the lawsuit alleged, giving rise to fraud by concealment claims.

Four individuals in Canada who bought cars that use Kobe's
products have already brought class-action lawsuits seeking
unspecified damages against Kobe and its subsidiaries.

Kobe is also undergoing a separate U.S. Justice Department probe.

A company executive said on March 6 that it is fully cooperating
with the U.S. probe, but it was hard to predict how it would
develop. [GN]


LA BOUCHERIE: Faces Class Action in California Over Food Prices
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jenie Mallari-Torres, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a
consumer alleges a Los Angeles restaurant sells items that are
advertised as being less expensive than what it actually charges
consumers.

Bryant Storey filed a complaint individually and on behalf of all
other members of the general public similarly situated on Oct. 5
in the Superior Court of California County of Los Angeles against
La Boucherie on 71 and Does 1-100 alleging violation of the
Unfair Competition Law

According to the complaint, the plaintiff dined at the
defendants' restaurant in September 2017 and was charged more for
the food he ordered than what the price was listed on the menu.

The plaintiffs hold La Boucherie on 71 and Does 1-100 responsible
because the defendants allegedly misrepresented and falsely
advertised to plaintiff and other similarly situated that its
items were the price represented on the menu and then without
drawing attention to their action prices attempted to sneak them
into the bill at a higher price," the suit states.

The plaintiffs request a trial by jury and seek judgment against
defendant; certify the suit as a class action; appoint class
representative; actual, punitive and statutory damages;
attorney's fees; costs; interest; and other relief to which
plaintiffs may be justly entitled.  He is represented by Todd M.
Friedman and Adrian R. Bacon of Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman
in Woodland Hills, California.

The defendant removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California on Feb. 16.

U.S. District Court for the Central District of California case
number 2:18-cv-01301 [GN]


LA SALLE COUNTY, IL: Judge Tosses Class Action Against SAFE Team
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Collins, writing for NewsTribune, reports that a federal
judge has thrown out what was shaping up to be a class action
lawsuit against the SAFE Team -- though the people who've sued
may get another shot in a lower court.

Last summer, two motorists detained by the La Salle County
State's Attorney Felony Enforcement Team filed a federal lawsuit
against the unit and indicated they intended to form a class,
meaning upwards of 1,000 people halted could be invited to join
in the lawsuit.

On March 5, however, a federal judge dealt the plaintiffs a major
setback.  U.S. District Judge Amy St. Eve granted La Salle County
and various officers attached to the SAFE Team a motion to
dismiss, primarily on the grounds the statute of limitations ran
out.

Four of the plaintiffs' counts were dismissed with prejudice,
meaning they cannot re-file.  Two counts could be re-filed, but
only in state court where a class action isn't possible.

Jack Boehm, one of the plaintiffs' attorneys, said he and his co-
counsel still were digesting St. Eve's ruling and had not yet
settled on a course of action.

"We're still conferring to see what direction we'll take,"
Mr. Boehm said.

At first blush, the March 5 ruling appears to be good news for
taxpayers.  La Salle County is wrestling with a series of post-
conviction cases that could result in a ballooning tab of
judgments and reimbursement to the SAFE detainees.  The March 5
dismissal, however, could temper the burgeoning payout and limit
taxpayer liability.

"We are obviously pleased with the ruling and feel it is
correct," said La Salle County state's attorney Karen Donnelly,
whose office worked closely with federal counsel.  "This will
have a positive effect on the county and its taxpayers from a
liability perspective, and it spells trouble for other SAFE-
related plaintiffs who have cases that are in the pipeline.

"I need to emphasize this ruling does not say that SAFE was
properly formed and operated, only that the plaintiffs were late
in attempting to seek whatever remedy might have been available
to them."

One of the defendants named was Brian Towne, former La Salle
County state's attorney and founder of the SAFE Team.  Mr. Towne
said he was "very pleased" with St. Eve's ruling.

"I sincerely hope other drug traffickers and their lawyers will
review this and it will have a chilling effect on their thoughts
of litigation," Mr. Towne said.

Judge St. Eve ruled, in part, that lead plaintiff Alyssa Larson
(who was stopped but never charged with a crime) simply filed her
lawsuit too late.

The disputed traffic stop happened in autumn 2012 and Ms. Larson
knew or should have known then, the judge ruled, that the
officers lacked probable cause or justification for the traffic
stop.  Instead, the statute of limitations ran out.

"To avoid that straightforward conclusion, Ms. Larson contends
that she did not know and could not have known of her claims
until June 2015, when the appellate court issued Ringland (the
Supreme Court ruling that ruled the SAFE Team illegal)," Judge
St. Eve said.

The judge went a step further, rejecting Larson's argument that
the SAFE Team's operation, legal or not, automatically violated
Ms. Larson's constitutional rights.

"Whether those alleged constitutional injuries are actionable
does not depend on whether SAFE officers were patrolling
Interstate 80 legally under state law at the time," Judge St. Eve
wrote. [GN]


LOBLAWS: Begins Sending $25 Gift Cards to Recompense Customers
--------------------------------------------------------------
Russell Wangersky, writing for The Compass, reports that there's
a lot of bread in bread.

Loblaws has started sending the $25 gift cards it promised to
partially recompense customers for the company's role in fixing
the price of store-bought bread.  Not unexpectedly, the media has
been covering the happy and not-so-happy recipients of the cards.

People who applied for the cards had to agree the $25 would be
deducted from any settlement they might receive in any future
class action law suit.

Meanwhile, behind the scenes, the legal struggles over what's
bound to be a very lucrative class action lawsuit got going in
Ontario's Superior Court of Justice.

Two large law firms went to court in what's called a carriage
motion to see which one of them would get to represent Ontarians
in the case.

The case pitted Strosberg Sasso Sutts LLP on one side against the
team of Sotos LLP and Siskinds LLP on the other. (A third legal
player, the Merchant Law Group, has started a series of similar
actions in western provinces.)

"Litigation is war, and the weak go to the wall," Harvey T.
Strosberg is quoted as saying on the Strosberg website.

The site also says, "Since 1993, Strosberg Sasso Sutts LLP has
been a pioneer and leader . . . We continue to be involved in
many of the most important and precedent setting class actions in
Canada."

Sotos? Well, their website is just as bullish: "Sotos LLP is a
recognized leader in class action litigation in Canada. We take
on complex and challenging class actions across all industries,
and prosecute them to conclusion."

Their partners in their action, Siskinds? Well, here you go:
"Individuals can be powerless against large corporations. . . .
Siskinds leverages the power of many, evening the playing field
and obtaining results for our clients."

You get the picture.

But back to the carriage motion.

Strosberg argued they were the rabbits, first out of the gate by
launching a legal action a few short days after the Competition
Bureau issued a news release saying there was an investigation
into the price-fixing.

Sotos? They argued they were the more practical tortoise.

"Sotos took a more cautious approach than Strosberg," the judge
hearing the motion wrote.  "It is Sotos' view that by waiting
before jumping into the litigation arena, they avoided the
potential for serious embarrassment and serious costs for (their
clients)."

In the judge's words, "Both firms concede that Strosberg was
earlier off the mark in pursuing the case.  Strosberg sees itself
as more energetic and effective as class counsel; Sotos sees
Strosberg's early lead as a sign of a rash flight into the
unknown."

The rabbit won this round.  Strosberg will represent the Ontario
class action members.

It's a lot of fight for bread -- but there's a lot involved.

If I'm reading the $100-million settlement right, a recent sexual
harassment class action against the RCMP will see the law firms
involved receive as much as $27 million.

"I'm not saying the lawyers involved aren't going to do their
absolute best to help their clients' cause.  What I am saying is
those firms aren't charities, and that their work on behalf of
their clients is billable time," Mr. Wangersky says.

"I remember one recent case, also in Ontario, where a class
action went sideways and was settled for a $250,000 payment. Of
that money, $5,000 went to the individual who was the named party
in the case, $165,000 went to the lawyers, and $80,000 to the
Investors' Protection Clinic at the Osgoode Hall Law School."

"There's dough in class action lawsuits, even ones over bread.
But who gets the biggest single slice? Usually the law firms."
[GN]


MARRIOT HOTEL: Blumenthal Nordrehaug Files Labor Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Los Angeles employment law lawyers at Blumenthal Nordrehaug
Bhowmik De Blouw LLP filed a class action lawsuit alleging that
Marriott Hotel Services, Inc., failed to provide their Loss
Prevention Officers with meal and rest periods in accordance with
the California Labor Code.  Marriott Hotel Services, Inc.,
operates and franchises hotels and corporate housing properties,
as well as timeshare, fractional ownership, and whole ownership
properties.  The Marriott Hotel Services, Inc., lawsuit, Case No.
BC695412 is currently pending in the Los Angeles County Superior
Court for the State of California.

According to the class action complaint the company allegedly
failed to provide all the legally required off-duty meal breaks
to their employees as required by the applicable Wage Order and
Labor Code.  The Complaint seeks penalties relating to alleged
missed meal breaks because allegedly Marriott Hotel Services,
Inc., did not have a policy to provide their employees with
thirty (30) minute uninterrupted meal breaks prior to their fifth
(5th) hour of work.

Furthermore, the complaint alleges the company committed acts of
unfair competition in violation of the California Unfair
Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Secs. 17200, et seq. The
complaint directly states, "DEFENDANT failed to properly
calculate and/or pay all required compensation for work performed
by the members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS and violated the
California Labor Code and regulations promulgated thereunder as
herein alleged."

If you think your company is violating the California Labor Code
and would like to know if you qualify to make a claim, please
contact Attorney Nicholas J. De Blouw today by calling (858) 952-
0354.

Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw is an employment law firm
with offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los
Angeles, Riverside and Chicago that dedicates its practice to
helping employees, investors and consumers fight back against
unfair business practices, including violations of the Labor Code
and Fair Labor Standards Act. [GN]


MASONITE CORP: Employees Seek Approval of $2.5MM Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dorothy Atkins, writing for Law360, reports that Masonite Corp.
employees asked a California federal judge on March 5 to sign off
on a $2.5 million settlement resolving class allegations that the
door manufacturer violated state labor statutes by shorting
workers on pay and denying them breaks.

Under the deal, the class attorneys would receive 35 percent of
the $2.53 million settlement fund for fees, which amounts to
$883,750, plus $55,646 for costs and expenses.  That leaves the
836 class members approximately $1.5 million, according to court
documents.

The case is Derrick Byrd v. Masonite Corporation et al, Case No.
5:16-cv-00035.  The case is assigned to Judge Jesus G. Bernal.
The case was filed January 6, 2016. [GN]


MASSARO ELECTRIC: "Castillo" Suit Seeks to Recoup Unpaid OT Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Justo Castillo, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Massaro Electric Corp. and John Massaro,
Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-00936, (E.D. N.Y., February 13, 2018),
seeks overtime compensation, liquidated damages, prejudgment
interest, attorneys' fees, costs and other compensation pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Laws.

Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as an hourly-paid
electrician whose duties included, but were not limited to,
installing, maintaining, and troubleshooting electrical wiring
systems. Castillo often skipped lunch because he had required
duties to complete for the day and that required working through
lunch. [BN]

Massaro Electric Corp. is a domestic business corporation located
at 879 Nassau Road, Uniondale, NY 11553.

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MDL 2804: Irwin County Vote to Join Opioid Crisis Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Wallace, writing for WALB, reports that on March 5, the Irwin
County Commission voted unanimously to join a large class-action
lawsuit against pharmaceutical manufacturers of painkillers.

Irwin County Commission Attorney Warren Mixon said commissioners
voted unanimously to join the national class action lawsuit
against big drug companies and healthcare suppliers.

A number of municipalities and counties across Georgia are
joining in the litigation, saying they want big pharma to pay for
the scourge that the opioid epidemic has led to in Georgia.

Mr. Mixon said Irwin County commissioners said joining the
lawsuit would cost nothing and could lead to some financial gain
for the county. [GN]


MDL 2804: Cities, Counties in Georgia File Opioid Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Coosa Valley News reports that the City of Rome, Floyd County,
Chattooga County, Whitfield County and the City of Cartersville
has filed a class action lawsuit, on behalf of all cities and
counties in Georgia, to eliminate the hazard to public health and
safety caused by the opioid epidemic and to recoup monies that
have been spent, or will be spent, because of false, deceptive,
and unfair marketing and/or unlawful diversion of prescription
opioids by manufacturers and distributors.

There are over 250 cases now filed nationwide against the
manufacturers and distributors.  All, or nearly all of the opioid
lawsuits, have been consolidated and are now pending before Judge
Dan Polster, a U.S. District Court judge in Cleveland, Ohio, in a
Multidistrict Litigation proceeding.  The class action filed by
the City of Rome, et al. is pending before Judge Harold Murphy,
the U.S. District Court judge for the Rome Division.  It is
anticipated that the case will be consolidated and transferred to
Judge Poster to be included in the Ohio MDL for pre-trial
proceedings.

The Rome opioid class action brings together two former
adversaries in the Tri-State Crematory MDL, which was also before
Judge Murphy.  In that multidistrict litigation proceeding, Andy
Davis of Brinson, Askew, Berry, and Robert Smalley of McCamy,
Phillips, each served as liaison and lead counsel for the
plaintiffs and defendants, respectively--Davis representing the
defendant funeral homes and Smalley representing the plaintiff
class of families who brought the suit.

Messrs. Davis and Smalley are joined by three other highly
experienced class-action and trial lawyers, John Crongeyer, Bill
Bird and Bob Finnell.  Mr. Crongeyer, along with Mr. Davis,
served as class counsel in a class action brought on behalf of
all cities and counties in Georgia against the online travel
companies for unpaid hotel motel taxes.  Messrs. Congreyer and
Finnell brought similar class actions against online travel
companies on behalf of cities, counties and states in other
states outside of Georgia. [GN]


MDL 2804: Baron & Budd to Represent Alamance Co. in Opioid Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
Isaac Groves, writing for Times-News, reports that the Alamance
County Board of Commissioners voted 4-1 to hire a firm to
represent the county in potential legal action against the
manufacturers and distributors of prescription opioids, but not
without charges of conflict of interest.

"I know it's not a legal conflict of interest, but it's a moral
conflict of interest in my opinion," Commissioner Tim Sutton said
at the meeting Monday, March 5, to Chair Amy Galey, who once
worked part time for a firm connected to this suit.

While class-action lawsuits to recoup the costs of the opioid
crisis to communities have not been well received by the courts,
Ohio Federal Judge Dan Polster has been positive about local
government lawsuits and says there could be a resolution this
year.

After a discussion in open session, the board chose Dallas-based
Baron & Budd, a large firm with a long history of class-action
suits, which has a local representative in Yanceyville lawyer
George Daniel of Daniel-Thomas Attorneys at Law.

Ms. Galey started the discussion, as she has since Daniel's first
presentation to the board in January, disclosing that she worked
for Daniel-Thomas until summer 2015, had no intention of going
back, and had consulted with County Attorney Clyde Albright, who
said she didn't have a conflict.

"I have no direct financial benefit, and I have a duty to vote,
and I will vote," Ms. Galey said.

Ms. Galey told the Times-News she was a part-time lawyer with the
firm from 2010 to 2015 and considered Daniel a friend, though
they spent little time together outside work.

When asked, Mr. Albright recommended hiring the Paynter Law Firm
in Hillsborough after it sent a proposal holding its fee to 10
percent of what the county wins in a settlement before trial
proceedings start, 20 percent if settled after trial preparation
starts, and 30 percent if the settlement comes during trial or
within 90 days of the start of trial.

"I would say the only thing in our control right now would be the
fee paid," Albright said, adding that Paynter's offer "would give
you the best return."

Mr. Sutton moved to hire Paynter, which failed 3-2 with Galey and
commissioners Eddie Boswell and Bob Byrd voting "no."

Michael Fuller with the Baron and Budd group told the board the
firm reduced its cap on fees and expenses charged to the county
wins from 50 to 35 percent, "guaranteeing the county a 65 percent
recovery of anything we bring in," Mr. Fuller said.

The firm already represents almost 350 local governments across
the country, Mr. Fuller said, including 25 in North Carolina,
among which it would spread the costs for things like expert
testimony.

The third firm, Crueger Dickinson, would not cap its costs,
sticking to its 25 percent fee, Albright said.

Ms. Galey said Paynter's offer was an effort to break into a
potentially profitable suit, while the other firms were already
major players.

"I think it's reasonable to say we're getting a discount on price
because they don't have much to offer," Ms. Galey said.

She also said Mr. Daniel's local connections made Baron & Budd
more attractive.

"I think that it's also important that we have a person with the
Budd firm that knows the difference between Eli Whitney and Snow
Camp -- he knows how to spell Saxapahaw," Ms. Galey said.  "He
has a heart for our people."

Mr. Sutton said he expected Ms. Galey to support Baron & Budd
after a phone conversation they had over the weekend.

"Your first sentence was, 'It's obvious who I'm going to vote
for,'" Sutton said, "because you used to work for him . . . in my
opinion."

"No sir," Ms. Galey said.  "You are entitled to your opinion."

After the meeting, Ms. Galey said she often talks to the other
commissioners before meetings to see what they think about issues
coming before the board. [GN]


MDL 2804: Missouri Woman Files Opioid Class Action
--------------------------------------------------
HarrisMartin reports that a Missouri woman has filed a putative
class action against various manufacturers and distributors of
prescription opioids, alleging her adopted child was born with an
opioid addiction caused by the defendants' negligent marketing of
the drugs, which the birth mother abused during her pregnancy.

In a March 3 complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Missouri, the plaintiff says the defendant
drug makers and distributors "intentionally and negligently
created conditions in which vast amounts of opioids have flowed
freely," causing a dramatic rise in the number of newborns born
with opioid addiction. [GN]


MDL 2804: Opioid Epidemic Litigation Ongoing in Ohio
----------------------------------------------------
B.E. Mintz, writing for Huffington Post, reports that facing a
national opioid crisis showing few signs of abating, victims of
the epidemic and government officials have increasingly sought to
bring direct legal action against opioid manufacturers.  An
ongoing federal lawsuit in Ohio has grabbed national headlines,
but a small parish filing in Louisiana made possible in part by
the state's unique civil code could have long-term consequences
for the drug producers in the state and beyond.

Four years ago, Tyler M. Roach and his wife were injured when
their car was rear-ended. Roach's wife was prescribed and became
addicted to opioid-based painkillers due to her injuries,
according to their attorney Scott Bickford.

Their child, born during this period, was diagnosed at birth with
Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome, or NAS, Bickford said.  According
to a court filing, the newborn spent several painful days
detoxing in a Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (NICU) and will likely
suffer from developmental issues for the remainder of her life.

Babies exposed to opioids in utero can develop an addiction to
the drug, according to National Institutes of Health research.  A
diagnosis after birth of NAS often includes immediate withdrawal
symptoms -- such as excessive crying, heavy sweating, diarrhea,
tremors, convulsions, seizures, vomiting, difficulty sleeping,
loss of appetite and pain as soon as 24 hours to 10 days after
birth.

But newer studies suggest that NAS can also have long-term side
effects, including Attention Deficit Disorder, cognitive
deficits, growth delays, depression, behavioral problems, life-
long infertility and an inability to function independently.

Facing the reality of their own child's battle with NAS, the
Roaches in late fall reached out to a local lawyer recommended by
friends.  On Feb. 26, their new legal team filed a class action
petition listing Tyler Roach "natural tutor for Baby K.E.R." as
the lead plaintiff.  The filing details allegedly fraudulent
activity by a local pharmacy as well as the drug manufacturers
and distributors. Unspecified damages are requested.

If the litigants are successful, pharmaceutical companies will be
forced to contend with a second front -- on top of the
consolidated, federal suit out of Ohio -- that could cost them
hundreds of billions of dollars in additional damages.
The Roaches are hardly alone in having a child with an NAS
diagnosis: Experts estimate that anywhere from one to just under
six out of every 1000 births every year involves a woman who took
prescription opioids during pregnancy, according to Kanwaljeet
J.S. "Sunny" Anand, a professor of pediatrics who specializes in
pain medicine at Stanford University's School of Medicine and who
is participating in the lawsuit.

"On average, one infant with NAS is hospitalized every hour in
the U.S.," he said.

With so many other infants and young children also affected, the
potential size of this class action lawsuit is enormous. In a
Feb. 27 press conference about the case, Bickford invited all
Louisiana children suffering from NAS to join the class suit.

If the litigants are successful, pharmaceutical companies will be
forced to contend with a second front -- on top of the
consolidated, federal suit out of Ohio -- that could cost them
hundreds of billions of dollars in additional damages.

Not surprisingly, the defendants don't think that there is much
merit to either case.

"The misuse and abuse of prescription opioids is a complex public
health challenge that requires a collaborative and systemic
response that engages all stakeholders," said John Parker, a
spokesman for Healthcare Distribution Alliance, a national trade
association representing wholesale distributors including
McKesson, Cardinal Health and AmerisourceBergen. "Given our role,
the idea that distributors are responsible for the number of
opioid prescriptions written defies common sense and lacks
understanding of how the pharmaceutical supply chain actually
works and is regulated."

But that's not the position of the Drug Enforcement
Administration, which has held that distributors are responsible
for the number of opioid prescriptions and fined members of the
trade group almost $200 million for questionable distribution in
the last three months alone.

The Mega Lawsuit In Ohio
Over the past two years, more than 350 lawsuits have been filed
against corporations that manufacture, distribute and retail
opioids.  Early on, the plaintiffs were individuals. But criminal
investigations, like the DOJ's case that yielded record fines of
mega-distributor McKesson, provided hard facts necessary to
support civil actions. Soon, public awareness and pressure on
elected officials meant that whole states like Oklahoma and South
Carolina, along with large cities like Seattle and Chicago, filed
their own grievances.

That's a lot of different lawyers trying to subpoena the same
documents and depose the same witnesses.  So to prevent that
bureaucratic pileup, the courts chose to pause all of the various
proceedings and consolidate the individual suits into one giant
lawsuit known as a Multidistrict Litigation (MDL).

"If nothing else, the MDL creates one center for handling all of
the documents and exchange of information," said Johnny Denenea,
an attorney with expertise on MDL. The consolidation will create
a single discovery process, determine which "test cases" will be
tried first and provide infrastructure for the division of any
settlement.

The MDL landed in the first jurisdiction to file -- Cleveland,
Ohio -- and in the courtroom of U.S. District Judge Daniel
Polster, a 20-year veteran of the bench with a track record of
brokering settlements, including a 2016 dispute about protests at
the Republican National Convention and a 1999 conflict over
ownership of the San Francisco 49ers.

Judge Polster is attempting to bring mediation to the MDL.  In
most situations, an elaborate tango begins at the start of a
case, Mr. Denenea explained.  The opposing counsels will
typically file a series of motions and counter-motions aimed at
prolonging the process with the hopes of draining the other
party's war chest.  Attorneys will exploit any potential
loopholes that could result in a summary judgment.

However, in what Mr. Denenea described as a highly irregular
move, Judge Polster on Jan. 9 forbade both sides from moving
forward with such legal maneuvers.  Instead, Judge Polster
ordered all parties involved to attend a summit with the aim to
"educate the Court and each other on supply-chain dynamics and
other issues relevant to resolving this MDL, and to pursue
further settlement discussions."  Then, sensing that some parties
might prefer the court of public opinion, Judge Polster issued a
gag order on Feb. 7.

"This is an unusual case," he later told Bloomberg News.  "The
problem is urgent, life-threatening and ongoing.  I took this
step because I thought it would be the most effective path."

That's where the Louisiana suit comes in.  By filing the
complaint in rural St. Tammany Parish (population around 250,000)
and naming citizens of the state of Louisiana as plaintiffs, the
case is so far able to stay out of the aggregated-mega suit --
and the gag order.

That's because Louisiana operates under a unique legal system
that still heavily relies upon portions of the Code Napoleon, the
French civil code created by Napoleon Bonaparte that governed the
state during its colonial days as a French territory. Under that
colonial civil code, plaintiffs who file in the state have the
right to a trial with a jury who are also subject to the code.

The plaintiffs hope that the state's unique laws, as well as the
infant distinction, will keep the case out of Judge Polster's
court, but ultimately that decision rests solely with the
powerful federal judge.

The Louisiana lawsuit begins with a seven page historic
explanation of the Louisiana Civil Code, and entire sections of
the text are even written in French.  Additionally, several
subsections detail the history of the Louisiana Bar and
"Twinning" agreements between the Supreme Court of Louisiana and
the Court of Cassation -- France's high court.  The lengthy
civics lesson in the suit is intended to keep the litigation in
state -- and out of Judge Polster's attempt at arbitration.

The team representing the Roach family is known for extracting
money from corporations that ends up going into state coffers.
Jack Harang, noted for a $1.06 billion environmental pollution
judgement against Exxon Mobil, and Warren Perrin, famed for
soliciting an apology from Queen Elizabeth II for the expulsion
of Acadians from Nova Scotia, are among the lawyers filing.

The plaintiffs believe that keeping the matter in the state will
keep any potential settlement in the pockets of the victims.  The
local jurisdiction will also result in a larger cut of any
reimbursed legal fees for the lawyers.

A state-level judgement in the plaintiffs' favor could total
billions of dollars and set an important precedent.  Mr. Denenea
explained that when cases like these are lumped into a federal
MDL, damages are distributed very differently. The bulk of the
funds from such settlements typically land with state
governments.  Theoretically, this revenue would be used to fund
medicare for victims as well as treatment and prevention
campaigns.  But the Louisiana litigants believe that smaller
entities, like municipalities, are better equipped to administer
these programs.

It is high time that the medical and legal communities stand up
to demand comprehensive treatment and care for the most needy and
vulnerable citizens of our great country.

The theory is well supported by experts in the field. "Within the
public health sector, we often say, 'Public health starts
locally,'" said Olivia Carter-Pokras, a professor at the
University of Maryland's School of Public Health. "If you want to
make a change, you must begin at the bottom."

To that end, the parties behind the class action suit described
themselves as a "legal-medical partnership."  While a victory
would present a windfall in legal fees, the plaintiffs'
representatives are publicly focused on creating solutions to the
opioid crisis.

The lawyers have attended dozens of meetings with public health
professionals, victims and doctors over the last three months.
Mr. Denenea described plans for detoxification programs and
public health services with a focus on protracted, long-term
care.

"The damages could be driven by police costs and bail costs, but
the solution is public health," he said.

Overwhelming consensus opinion among legal experts is that
opioids cases filed against pharmaceutical giants are standing on
very solid ground. But it's still not clear how long these cases
could take, or in what jurisdictions they will ultimately end up.

What is clear is that a new chapter is beginning for a large, yet
neglected group of victims.

"It is high time that the medical and legal communities stand up
to demand comprehensive treatment and care for the most needy and
vulnerable citizens of our great country," said Mr. Anand, the
professor of pediatrics participating in the suit. [GN]


MDL 2084: Opioid Class Action Filed in West Virginia
----------------------------------------------------
Kyla Asbury, writing for West Virginia Record, reports that
a class action lawsuit has been filed against Purdue Pharma for
babies who were born with Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome, a
condition suffered by babies of mothers addicted to opioids.

Purdue Pharma L.P.; Purdue Pharma Inc.; the Purdue Frederick
Company Inc.; McKesson Corporation; Cardinal Health Inc.;
AmerisourceBergen Corporation; Teva Pharmaceutical Industries
Ltd.; Teva Pharmaceuticals USA Inc.; Cephalon Inc.; Johnson &
Johnson; Janssen Pharmaceuticals Inc.; Ortho-McNeil-Janssen
Pharmaceuticals Inc.; Janssen Pharmaceuticals Inc.; Endo Health
Solutions Inc.; Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc.; Allergan PLC; Watson
Pharmaceuticals Inc.; Watson Laboratories Inc.; Actavis LLC; and
Actavis Pharma Inc. were all named as defendants in the suit.

Walter Salmons and Virginia Salmons filed the lawsuit on behalf
of W.D., a minor child, and all others similarly situated,
according to the suit, which was filed March 2 in U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of West Virginia.

"Like thousands of children born every year, minor W.D. was born
addicted to opioids," the complaint states.  "Prenatal exposure
to opioids causing severe withdrawal symptoms and lasting
developmental impacts."

The plaintiffs claim W.D. was born four months ago and the first
days of his life were spent in excruciating pain as doctors
weaned the infant from opioid addiction.

W.D. will require years of treatment and counseling to deal with
the effects of prenatal exposure, according to the suit.

"Minor W.D. and his mother are victims of the opioid crisis that
has ravaged West Virginia, causing immense suffering to those
born addicted to opioids and great expense to those forced to
deal with the aftermath," the complaint states.

The plaintiffs claim at birth, W.D. was diagnosed with Neonatal
Abstinence Syndrome and was forced to endure a painful start to
his life; crying excessively, arching his back, refusing to feed
and shaking.

NAS is a clinical diagnosis, and "a consequence of the abrupt
discontinuation of chronic fetal exposure to substances that were
used or abused by the mother during pregnancy."

"Minor W.D.'s mother began her addiction before 2016, before
minor W.D.'s gestation, she had had a prescription for the opioid
medication and she also obtained opioids via the diversionary
market," the complaint states.

W.D.'s mother consumed opioids manufactured and/or distributed by
the defendants, according to the suit.

"Minor W.D.'s experience is part of an opioid epidemic sweeping
through the United States, including West Virginia that has
caused thousands of infants great suffering and continuing
developmental issues," the complaint states.  "This epidemic is
the largest health care crisis in U.S. history."

The plaintiffs claim they are bringing the class action to
eliminate the hazard to public health and safety caused by the
opioid epidemic and to abate the nuisance caused by the
defendants' false, negligent and unfair marketing and/or unlawful
diversion of prescription opioids.

"Plaintiffs further seek the equitable relief of medical
monitoring to provide this class of infants the monitoring of
developmental issues that will almost inevitably appear as they
grow older and equitable relief in the form of funding for
services and treatment," the complaint states.

The incidence of NAS in newborns born to opioid-dependent women
is between 70 and 95 percent, according to the suit.

The plaintiffs claim the NAS epidemic and its consequences could
have been, and should have been, prevented by the defendants who
control the U.S. drug distribution industry and the defendants
who manufacture the prescription opioids.

"These Defendants have profited greatly by allowing West Virginia
to become flooded with prescription opioids," the complaint
states.  "The drug distribution industry is supposed to serve as
a 'check' in the drug delivery system, by securing and monitoring
opioids at every step of the stream of commerce, protecting them
from theft and misuse, and refusing to fulfill suspicious or
unusual orders by downstream pharmacies, doctors, clinics or
patients."

The defendants woefully failed in this duty, instead consciously
ignoring known or knowable problems and data in their supply
chains, according to the suit.

The plaintiffs claim the defendants intentionally and negligently
created conditions in which vast amounts of opioids have flowed
freely from drug manufacturers to innocent patients who became
addicted, to opioid abusers and even to illicit drug dealers--
with distributors regularly fulfilling suspicious orders from
pharmacies and clinics, who were economically incentivized to
ignore "red flags" at the point of sale and before dispensing the
pills.

"Defendants' wrongful conduct has allowed billions of opioid
pills to be diverted from legitimate channels of distribution
into the illicit black market in quantities that have fueled the
opioid epidemic in West Virginia," the complaint states.  "This
is characterized as 'opioid diversion.'"

The plaintiffs claim acting against their common law and
statutory duties, the defendants have created an environment in
which opioid diversion is rampant.

As a result, unknowing patients and unauthorized opioid users
have ready access to illicit sources of diverted opioids,
according to the suit.

The plaintiffs are seeking compensatory and punitive damages, as
well as medical monitoring and a fund that would be released to
the children when they turned 18.  The plaintiffs are represented
by Kevin W. Thompson and David R. Barney Jr. of Thompson Barney.

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia
case number: 2:18-cv-00385 [GN]


METROPOLITCAN DISTRICT:  Faces Class Action Over Water Charges
--------------------------------------------------------------
Edmund H. Mahony and Mikaela Porter, writing for Courtant.com,
report that water customers in four suburban Hartford towns are
pressing a class-action suit against the Metropolitan District in
an effort to recover $10 million or more the regional water and
sewer authority collected through charges that two courts have
characterized as illegal.

The suit filed on March 6 in state Superior Court seeks to
represent a class of 9,000 water customers in East Granby,
Farmington, Glastonbury and South Windsor, who claim they have
been overbilled more than $1,000 each through a succession of
surcharges between 2006 and 2014.

Any financial judgment against the Metropolitan District, or MDC
will depend on factors such as how interest is calculated, how
many years of surcharges are considered and whether the MDC is
found to have unjustly enriched itself at the expense of
customers in towns with no representation on the commission
board.

The 9,000 customers use MDC water, but the four towns in which
they live are not member towns of the commission.  The MDC has
said in the past it is entitled to impose surcharges in nonmember
towns because, unlike member towns, they do not contribute to the
upkeep of the regional water and sewer infrastructure.

MDC attorney R. Bartley Halloran could not be reached and a
commission spokesman declined to discuss the suit.

Water users in the nonmember towns have paid surcharges for
decades.  But they complained loudly in 2012 and 2013 when the
surcharges soared.  Figures reported in the suit, filed by the
class-action firm Izard, Kindall & Raabe in West Hartford, show
successive surcharges between 2006 and 2014 of $41.40, $43.92,
$49.56, $46.44, $47.52, $52.68, $158.16, $423.00, and $198.96.

After the complaints, the MDC reduced the surcharge and the state
legislature, which created the regional water and sewer authority
and controls its operations by statute, enacted a law to limit
surcharges on nonmembers.  The legislature also gave the
nonmember towns seats on the MDC board.

Glastonbury sued over the charges.  The MDC contended the
legislature's actions made the suit moot, but the commission lost
the argument and, eventually the case.

The state Supreme Court ruled that the MDC lacked the authority
to levy the surcharges.

"Based on the Connecticut Supreme Court's ruling, the MDC charged
consumers many millions of dollars and it had no right to do so,"
Attorney Craig Raabe, who filed the suit, said.  "This action is
intended to recover that money for the consumers."

The court affirmed a decision by Superior Court Judge Susan Peck
that created an opportunity for nonmember water users to recover
overcharges.

"There is no question that if the surcharges are unlawful," Peck
wrote, "then the plaintiff can demonstrate damages for those
years the surcharges were imposed." [GN]


METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION: Faces "West" Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Metropolitan
Transportation Authority. The case is styled as Mary West, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Metropolitan Transportation Authority and New York City Transit
Authority, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-01743 (E.D. N.Y., March
21, 2018).

Metropolitan Transportation Authority is the agency that operates
public transportation for the County of Los Angeles.[BN]


MICHIGAN: Continues to Defend Class Action Over DRFs
----------------------------------------------------
Sarah Cwiek, writing for Michigan Radio, reports that Gov. Snyder
signed legislation ending the state's much-hated Driver
Responsibility Fees (DRFs).

Those were extra fees tacked on to different driving offenses
that ranged from $100-$500 per year for people with 7-15 points
on their driving record, plus stand alone fines of $150-$1000 per
year for anyone convicted of "Category 2" offenses (everything
from driving on a suspended license to drunk driving).  Failure
to pay got your license suspended.

These fees, passed in 2003 under former Gov. Granholm to fill a
budget hole, proved crushing for many. More than 300,000 people
statewide collectively owed around $600 million.  In Detroit
alone, around 70,000 people owed more than $100 million.
Hundreds of thousands of people had their licenses suspended
because they were unable to pay the fees, leaving many trapped in
a cycle of debt and unable to legally drive -- in some cases, to
the very employment opportunities that could have put them in a
position to pay the fees, along with the additional $125 license
reinstatement fee that applied only to DRFs.

Despite generating somewhere in the neighborhood of $100 million
a year for the state's general fund, DRFs had become so uniformly
unpopular and widely-acknowledged as bad policy that the state
legislature pressured Gov. Snyder to accelerate an initial phase-
out set for 2019.  But the wrap-up is a little complicated. Here
are five key things to know:

   -- The DRF program officially ends October 1, 2018.  This is
the day the state will officially cease issuing new DRFs and
attempting to collect outstanding ones.  This means that if you
owe DRFs, those fees are automatically wiped out, and you can
have your license reinstated by the Michigan Secretary of State.

   -- Relief comes earlier if you're on a payment plan.  If you
entered into a state payment plan to pay off the balance of your
DRFs before Feb. 1, 2018, your fines are cleared and you do not
need to pay off the balance.  You are eligible to get your
license reinstated right now at no further cost.

   -- $125 DRF reinstatement fee is canceled . . .  for now.
Whether you're on a payment plan and your fees have already been
wiped out, or you're waiting for them to be wiped clean on
October 1, you won't have to pay that separate $125 license
reinstatement fee the state charged on top of the DRFs. However,
that provision sunsets at the end of 2018.

   -- If your license has been suspended four or more years. Of
course there's at least one catch we know of so far: If your
license has been suspended for four or more years because of
DRFs, you need to take a written driving test and road test
before getting your license reinstated.

An important note -- this all applies solely to DRFs.  All of
those fees, including any unpaid balances, will be wiped out as
of October 1.  However, anyone who had additional unpaid fees
related to underlying driving infractions still has to pay those
off (including separate license reinstatement fees, if
applicable).

The Michigan Secretary of State is still rolling out the process
for people hit with DRFs getting their driving privileges back.
See http://www.michigan.gov/driverresponsibilityfor more
information.

The end of DRFs closes a big chapter in an ongoing battle over
Michigan's traffic laws, which many see as unfairly punitive and
harmful to the poor.  One ongoing federal court case, Fowler v.
Johnson, challenges whether the state can suspend licenses at all
over unpaid fines and fees resulting from traffic tickets or
other driving offenses (though DRFs fell into separate category).
The Michigan Secretary of State's office says it received some
590,000 requests from the state's district courts to suspend
licenses over unpaid traffic tickets from September 2016-
September 2017.

In December, a judge ruled that practice violated due process
rights of people who are truly unable to pay, unless Michigan
courts provide those people with a true opportunity to prove that
inability before suspending their license.  In other words,
courts must hold so-called "ability-to-pay hearings," where a
judge determines if someone isn't paying because they're
negligent or refusing to -- or whether they are truly unable to
pay. In the latter case, the court says the state must order
alternative means for a person to compensate the state without
having their driving privileges suspended.

The state is challenging the judge's ruling in that lawsuit in
the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals.  Right now, that order is
on hold while the court decides whether plaintiffs in the case
have standing to challenge the state driving rules at all.  The
state is also challenging the plaintiffs' effort to have the
lawsuit certified as a class-action case. [GN]


MISSISSIPPI: Trial Begins in Prison Mental Health Care Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a trial is beginning in a case
where prisoners are suing the state of Mississippi over
conditions at a privately-run prison.

The class-action lawsuit scheduled to begin on March 5 in Jackson
alleges abuses at East Mississippi Correctional Facility near
Meridian.

Lawyers for the American Civil Liberties Union and the Southern
Poverty Law Center want a federal judge to order improvements at
the prison, run by Utah-based Management and Training Corp.

They say mentally ill inmates aren't getting adequate treatment,
that medical care is substandard, that the facility over-relies
on solitary confinement, and that inmates don't even get enough
food.

Issa Arnita, a spokesman for Management & Training Corp., says
the facility is safe, secure and clean, and says the company
improved the 1,500-bed prison since the company took over in
2012. [GN]


MWD CONSULTING: Faces "Klabbatz" Suit in S.D. Ohio
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against MWD Consulting,
Inc. The case is styled as Andrea Klabbatz, Jordan Willis, Heidi
Eagle and Kaitlyn Vorbroker, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MWD Consulting, Inc.,
OPOC.us, AccelWELL, Inc., Centric HC, Inc., Edward D.A. Sommer,
individually and Tobias Sommer, individually, Defendants, Case
No. 2:18-cv-00242-ALM-CMV (S.D. Ohio, March 22, 2018).

The Defendants operate as a company that aims to improve lives
through innovation in research, education, and service. The
Company offers services in areas of consulting, cost containment,
and risk management.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

   Steven Charles Babin , Jr., Esq.
   Chapin Legal Group LLC
   580 South High Street, Suite 330
   Columbus, OH 43215
   Tel: (614) 221-9100
   Fax: (614) 221-9272
   Email: sbabin@chapinlegal.com

      - and -

   Lance Chapin, Esq.
   Chapin Legal Group, LLC
   580 South High Street, Suite 330
   Columbus, OH 43215
   Tel: (614) 221-9100
   Email: lchapin@chapinlegal.com


NATIONAL STORES: "Galvez" Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------
Manuel Galvez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. National Stores, Inc. and Southern Island
Stores, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-10278, (D. Mass.,
February 13, 2018), seeks overtime compensation, liquidated
damages, prejudgment interest, attorneys' fees, costs and other
compensation pursuant under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

National Stores, Inc. operates retail stores in Massachusetts
under the name "National Stores" or "Fallas." Southern Island
Stores, LLC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of National Stores, Inc.
Galvez worked for National Stores as an assistant store manager
from approximately September 2015 to approximately April 2016 in
their Malden, Massachusetts. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Hillary Schwab, Esq.
      Brant Casavant, Esq.
      FAIR WORK, P.C.
      192 South Street, Suite 450
      Boston, MA 02111
      Tel. (617) 607-3261
      Fax. (617) 488-2261
      Email: hillary@fairworklaw.com
             brant@fairworklaw.com

             - and -

      Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq.
      SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
      1515 S. Federal Highway, Suite 404
      Boca Raton, FL 33432
      Telephone: (561) 447-8888
      Email: gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com

             - and -

      Michael J. Palitz, Esq.
      SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
      830 3rd Avenue, 5th Floor
      New York, NY 10022
      Telephone: (800) 616-4000
      Email: mpalitz@shavitzlaw.com


NEOVIA LOGISTICS: Faces "Hicks" Suit in C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Neovia Logistics
Distribution, LP. The case is styled as Hillary Hicks, on behalf
of herself, all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the
general public, Plaintiff v. Neovia Logistics Distribution, LP,
Neovia Logistics Services, LLC and Doe Defendants 1-100,
Defendants, Case No. 5:18-cv-00609 (C.D. Cal., March 22, 2018).

Neovia Logistics Services, LLC provides industrial contract
logistics services to aerospace and defense, automotive,
chemicals and petrochemicals, retail and consumer durables,
energy, industrial and mining, oil and gas, and technology
industries worldwide.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


NEWSWEEK LLC: Faces "Sullivan" Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Newsweek LLC. The
case is styled as Phillip Sullivan Jr., on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Newsweek LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-02563 (S.D. N.Y., March 22, 2018).

Newsweek LLC publishes digital news, analysis, and
information.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


NICK CANON: Crew Members File Class Suit Over Working Conditions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dailymail.com reports that Nick Cannon has been named in a class
action lawsuit from crew members who worked on his forthcoming
film She Ball who say that he never paid them for overtime and
didn't provide adequate breaks and meals for them.

The 37-year-old entertainer, according to TMZ, did not pay the
full money promised to 100 people working on the movie, and was
tardy in paying crew members, according to court docs.

The latter group included those who were set dressers, location
managers, drivers, camera and lighting crews, the suit stated.

In January, a group of eight crew members sent Cannon a letter
with the aforementioned claims, noting that they did not get any
money for the movie, the outlet reported.

Cannon is the director, writer and producer on the film, which
tells the tale of a women's basketball team and a community
leader named Avery Watts.

He told TMZ in January that he wasn't directly responsible for
the alleged working conditions, but was in a position to take the
heat as the big name attached to the project.

"That's production stuff . . . they always blame the biggest
name, but they'll work it out," he said as he made his way
through an airport terminal.

Other notable names in the cast are singer Chris Brown, Cedric
the Entertainer and Risky Business star Rebecca De Mornay.
Professional athletes to be featured in the sports film include
Melody Rae Kandil, Jaliyah Manuel, and Tammy Brawner, a one-time
member of the Harlem Globetrotters, Variety reported.

"I'm very excited for this film," he said to the outlet in a
statement in December.  "It's something powerful for the culture,
uplifting for the community, and the film's main objective is to
empower women!"

She Ball is slated to hit theaters this year. [GN]


OCERA THERAPEUTICS: June 28 "Clarke" Case Mgmt. Conference
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SAMUEL P. CLARKE, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. OCERA THERAPEUTICS,
INC., ECKARD WEBER, LINDA S. GRAIS, WENDELL WIERENGA, ANNE M.
VANLENT, STEVEN P. JAMES, NINA KJELLSON, WILLARD DERE,
MALLINCKRODT PLC, MAK LLC, and MEH ACQUISITION CO., Defendants,
Case No. 3:17-cv-06687-RS (N.D. Cal.), Judge Richard Seeborg of
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
has entered an order continuing initial case management
conference ("CMC") and setting pleading and briefing schedule.

The case was filed on Nov. 20, 2017, by Clarke, a stockholder of
Ocera, alleging violation of Sections 14(e), 14(d)(4), and
Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and related
regulations with respect to disclosures in a Schedule 14D-9
Solicitation/Recommendation Statement soliciting stockholder
approval of a merger with Mallinckrodt PLC through its
subsidiaries.

After the merger closed, on Feb. 5, 2018, the Plaintiff moved to
be appointed as the co-lead Plaintiff with Plaintiff William
Paulus for the putative class and for appointment of his
attorneys as lead counsel pursuant to the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act ("PSLRA").

The initial CMC for the Action was set for Feb. 22, 2018, and
later continued to March 1, 2018.  The Plaintiff intends to file
an amended complaint if the appointed lead Plaintiff and the
Defendants expect they will likely move to dismiss the amended
complaint and there is no need to answer or respond to the
current complaint.

The parties believe that because the PSLRA stays all discovery,
including initial disclosures, pending the disposition of motions
to dismiss in securities actions such as this one, it is
appropriate to defer the initial case management statement,
initial CMC, and the completion of initial disclosures until the
lead Plaintiff has filed a consolidated amended complaint, the
Defendants have had the opportunity to file any motion to
dismiss, and the Court has ruled on the Defendants' anticipated
motion to dismiss.

Because the case will not be at issue until after the Defendants'
motion to dismiss is fully briefed and decided -- and even then
only if the pleading is sustained -- the parties agree and
respectfully submit that a continuance of the initial CMC for at
least 120 days would be reasonable and propose a continuance from
March 1, 2018 to June 28, 2018.

The Defendants' response should be held in abeyance and they need
not move, plead, or otherwise respond to the complaint in the
Action until an operative complaint is designated.  The Plaintiff
will file an amended complaint no later than 30 days following
the Court's entry of an order granting the motion for appointment
as the lead Plaintiff.  The Defendants will move, plead, or
otherwise respond to the amended complaint no later than 45 days
after it is filed.

If the Defendants move to dismiss the operative complaint, any
opposition papers will be filed no later than 45 days thereafter.
If opposition papers are filed, the Defendants will file any
reply papers no later than 30 days thereafter.

Judge Seeborg approved the parties' Stipulation.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 21, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/UpP6r5 from Leagle.com.

Samuel P. Clarke, Plaintiff, represented by Rosemary M. Rivas --
rrivas@zlk.com -- Levi & Korsinsky LLP.

Ocera Therapeutics, Inc., Eckard Weber, Linda Grais, Wendell
Wierenga, Anne Vanlent, Steven James, Nina Kjellson & Willard
Dere, Defendants, represented by Michael T. Jones --
mjones@goodwinlaw.com -- Goodwin Procter LLP.


PAYMASTER BUSINESS: Ct. Denies MPay's Bid to Dismiss PS Kids Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, PS KIDS LLC, individually and on behalf of all other
similarly situated persons and entities, Plaintiffs, v. PAYMASTER
BUSINESS SERVICES, INC; PAYMASTER BUSINESS SOLUTIONS, INC.;
PAYMASTER PAYROLL SERVICES, INC.; BRAD FERGUSON; and MPAY INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 4:17CV02374 AGF (E.D. Mo.), Judge Audrey G.
Fleissig of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Missouri, Eastern Division, granted MPay's motion to dismiss the
four Missouri Defendants, denied MPay's motion dismiss it for
lack of personal jurisdiction, and denied PS Kids's motion to
remand the case to the state court.

The Plaintiff filed the action in Missouri state court on July
24, 2017, against five Defendants: (1) Paymaster Business
Services, Inc.,  a Missouri company that ceased operations in
2013; (2) Paymaster Business Solutions, Inc., a former Missouri
company that was administratively dissolved in 2011; (3)
Paymaster Payroll Services, Inc., a former Missouri company that
was administratively dissolved in 2011; (4) Brad Ferguson, a
Missouri resident currently incarcerated in a federal prison, who
at all relevant times was an employee and agent of the three
above-named "Paymaster Defendants"; and (5) MPay, a citizen of
Massachusetts and Virginia.

The Plaintiff alleges in its complaint that during 2013, the
Paymaster Defendants provided payroll services to it and other
businesses, and misappropriated their funds rather than paying
the funds to taxing authorities on the businesses' behalf.  It
alleges that MPay, through its contractual and agency
relationship with the Paymaster Defendants, contracted for and
conducted payroll processing services for the Plaintiff and the
putative class members, which are entities located in Missouri.

The Plaintiff states the Court has personal jurisdiction over
MPay because MPay purposely directed its activities toward the
State of Missouri generally by offering its goods and services
systemically throughout Missouri.  It further asserts that MPay
is subject to personal jurisdiction in Missouri because it
committed torts in Missouri; specifically, MPay continued to
provide services payroll processing services even after being
told that the Paymaster Defendants were misappropriating client
payroll funds and were going out of business.

The complaint asserts state law claims of negligence against the
Paymaster Defendants (Count I), misrepresentation against the
Paymaster Defendants and Ferguson (Count II), breach of contract
against the Paymaster Defendants (Count III), negligent
misrepresentation and negligence against MPay, Inc. (Counts IV
and V), and conversion against the Paymaster Defendants and
Ferguson (Count VII).

The Plaintiff stated in the complaint that the compensatory and
punitive damages sought by the putative class, which consisted of
"dozens of persons or entities," would not exceed $5,000,000.
Its negligence claim against MPay is premised on the theory that
the Paymaster Defendants' clients, such as the Plaintiff, were
third-party beneficiaries of the software licensing agreement
between MPay and the Paymaster Defendants, and that MPay was
negligent in failing to stop the Paymaster Defendants'
misappropriation of their clients' money, which the Plaintiff
alleges MPay had a right, duty, and obligation to do under the
licensing agreement.

It is undisputed that on Jan. 24, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an
action in Missouri state court against all five Defendants based
on the same conduct sued upon here.  MPay filed a crossclaim
against the Missouri Defendants, as well as a motion for summary
judgment.  The Plaintiff obtained an order of default against the
Missouri Defendants, but did not proceed to seek default judgment
against them; rather, on June 13, 2017, shortly before trial
against MPay, and before the trial court ruled on MPay's motion
for summary judgment, the Plaintiff filed a notice of dismissal
dismissing its claims against MPay without prejudice.  The trial
court ordered such dismissal on June 14, 2017.

The Plaintiff filed the present action in state court on July 24,
2017, this time as a class action.  It states in its complaint
that it is a Missouri company and MPay does not refute this.
MPay removed the action on Sept. 7, 2017, invoking the Court's
diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(a), and
the Court's jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act
("CAFA").

On the same day that it removed the action from state court, MPay
filed a Motion to Dismiss and to Remove for Improper and
Pretensive Joinder directed to the Missouri Defendants (the
Paymaster Defendants and Ferguson).  MPay argues that it is
evident from the Plaintiff's past litigation history against
these same Defendants in state court, that the Plaintiff has no
real intention of prosecuting the present action against them,
and joined them here solely to defeat diversity jurisdiction.  In
this motion to dismiss, MPay did not mention personal
jurisdiction.

On Sept. 14, 2017, MPay filed (1) a motion to dismiss the
complaint, or in the alternative, a stay, pending the Plaintiff's
payment of the costs assessed in the first state action; (2) a
motion to dismiss the complaint against MPay for lack of personal
jurisdiction; and (3) a general entry of appearance by two
attorneys on behalf of MPay.

In addition to responding to MPay's motion to dismiss the
Missouri Defendants, the Plaintiff filed a motion to remand the
case to state court.  In support of that motion, as well as in
response to MPay's motion to dismiss, it argues that the
complaint states a claim against the Missouri Defendants,
something MPay does not contest, and the fact that it voluntarily
dismissed the claims against them without prejudice, rather than
pursuing a default judgment against them, in the previous state
lawsuit is of no consequence.

On Sept. 28, 2017, MPay filed a notice stating it has now
received payment of the costs from the first state action and was
withdrawing its motion to dismiss or for a stay pending such
payment.  The docket sheet in the present case indicates that
three of the four Missouri Defendants were served on Oct. 6,
2017, and that the fourth was never served.

By Order dated Nov. 30, 2017, the Magistrate Judge initially
assigned to the case noted that the three Missouri Defendants
that were served had failed to respond to the complaint.  Nor
have they done so to date.  The Plaintiff has not moved for entry
of default or for default judgment against them.  Meanwhile, on
Sept. 20, 2017, and Nov. 8, 2017, two more attorneys entered
their appearances as co-counsel on behalf of MPay, in neither
instance mentioning personal jurisdiction.

Judge Fleissig explains that three factors lead her to conclude
that the Plaintiff had no real intention of prosecuting the
action against the Missouri Defendants and joined them as the
Defendants solely to defeat the Court's diversity jurisdiction:
the Plaintiff did not proceed to turn the order of default into a
default judgment in the state action; it has not moved for entry
of default against the three Missouri Defendants who have been
served, and failed to serve the fourth Missouri Defendant, in the
current case; and the Missouri Defendants appear to be judgment
proof.  The Judge will, therefore, grant MPay's motion to dismiss
the Missouri Defendants (without prejudice) and deny the
Plaintiff's motion to remand the case to state court.

The Judge also concludes that MPay waived its right to challenge
the Court's personal jurisdiction.  Under Rule 12(h)(4), MPay's
failure to raise a personal jurisdiction defense in its motion to
dismiss the diversity-destroying the Defendants waived its right
to assert the defense thereafter.  Moreover, all of MPay's co-
council's appearances, without indicating that they were limited
or special appearances, waived MPay's right to challenge personal
jurisdiction.  While a defendant may make a limited or special
appearance for purposes of contesting personal jurisdiction, the
Judge finds this was not done here.

Accordingly, Judge Fleissig granted the motion of MPay to dismiss
Defendants Paymaster Business Services, Inc.; Paymaster Business
Solutions, Inc.; Paymaster Payroll Services, Inc.; and Brad
Ferguson.  Said dismissals being without prejudice.  The Judge
denied both the Plaintiff's motion to remand and MPay's motion to
dismiss the complaint as to it for lack of personal jurisdiction.
A Rule 16 scheduling conference will be set by separate order.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 21, 2018 Memorandum and
Order is available at https://is.gd/3pEMIi from Leagle.com.

PS Kids, LLC, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated persons and entities, Plaintiff, represented by Michael
B. Hunter -- MHunter@wvslaw.com -- WILLIAMS AND VENKER, LLC.

MPay Inc., Defendant, represented by T. Michael Ward --
mward@bjpc.com -- BROWN AND JAMES, P.C., Teresa M. Young --
tyoung@bjpc.com -- BROWN AND JAMES, P.C., Kelly M. Brunie --
kbrunie@bjpc.com -- BROWN AND JAMES, P.C. & Todd A. Lubben --
tlubben@bjpc.com -- BROWN AND JAMES, P.C..


PELLA CORP: Settles ProLine Class Action, Sept. 14 Hearing Set
--------------------------------------------------------------
Clifford Law Offices on March 6 disclosed that a settlement has
been reached with Pella Corporation and Pella Windows and Doors,
Inc. ("Defendants").  The settlement covers water intrusion
damage to qualifying windows and property.

You are included in the Settlement if you are a current or former
owner of a structure in the United States containing Pella
ProLine(R) brand aluminum clad wood casement, awning, and/or
transom windows (including 250 and 450 Series) manufactured by
Pella Corporation between 1991 and 2009 ("Settlement Class
Members").

Pella will dedicate $25.75 million for a Settlement Fund.  The
Settlement Fund will be used to pay settlement administration
costs and make up to $25,000 service award payments to each of
the Class Representatives, before making payments to Settlement
Class Members who file a valid Claim Form for an Eligible Damage.
Payments for Eligible Damage will vary based on the window's date
of sale, damage and repair costs, and if and when the damage
occurred, among other things.  The Settlement Fund will also be
used for warranty and ProLine Service Enhancement Program
benefits.

You must complete and submit a valid Claim Form by June 20, 2018
to get a settlement payment. You may also choose to do nothing,
or exclude yourself from the settlement, or object to it by
June 20, 2018.

The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois,
located at 219 South Dearborn Street, Courtroom 1241, Chicago,
Illinois 60604, will hold a hearing in this case (Eubank, et al.
v. Pella Corporation et al., Case No. 06-cv-4481) on
September 14, 2018.  At this hearing, the Court will decide
whether to approve: the Settlement; all counsels' requests for
attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses of up to $9 million; and up
to $25,000 each as a service award to the Class Representatives.
You may appear at the hearing, but you do not have to.  You may
also hire your own attorney, at your own expense, to appear or
speak for you at the hearing.

More information can be found in the Detailed Notice and
Settlement Agreement, which are available at
www.pellawindowsettlement.com

You may also call 1-866-658-6764. [GN]


PENNSYLVANIA: Denial of Bocelli's Writ of Habeas Bid Upheld
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, v.
CHRISTOPHER BOCELLI, Appellant, Case No. 2476 EDA 2017 (Pa.
Super.), Judge Alice B. Dubow of the Superior Court of
Pennsylvania affirmed the trial court's order dismissing
Bocelli's pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and his pro
se Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus.

On July 19, 1991, a jury convicted the Appellant of Murder in the
First Degree, Robbery, Aggravated Assault, and Criminal
Conspiracy.  On Feb. 8, 1995, the trial court sentenced him to
life imprisonment without parole on the First-Degree Murder
conviction and concurrent sentences on the remaining convictions
that did not merge for purposes of sentencing.  The Court
affirmed the Judgment of Sentence on Oct. 19, 1995, and the
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania denied the Appellant's petition for
allowance of appeal on June 17, 1996.  Thus, the Appellant's
Judgment of Sentence became final on Sept. 16, 1996, when the 90-
day period for filing a petition for writ of certiorari with the
U.S. States Supreme Court expired.

The Appellant filed his first Post Conviction Relief Act ("PCRA")
Petition pro se on March 26, 2001.  The court appointed counsel,
and ultimately Appellant's counsel filed a Turner/Finley Letter.
The court dismissed the Petition after a hearing on Dec. 28,
2005, and granted the counsel's request to withdraw.  The
Appellant appealed and on March 26, 2007, the Court found that
the trial court failed to follow the dictates of Turner/Finley
and remanded the case for further proceedings.  On remand, the
counsel filed a no-merit letter pursuant to Turner/Finley and a
petition to withdraw.

Following a hearing, on Jan. 18, 2011, the trial court issued a
notice of intent to dismiss the PCRA petition and, on March 25,
2011, the trial court dismissed the petition and granted the
counsel's petition to withdraw.

During the pendency of the PCRA proceedings, and following the
conclusion of the proceedings, the Appellant filed a multitude of
petitions, applications, and appeals, in the trial court, the
Court, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, and the Commonwealth
Court of Pennsylvania, all of which the courts denied.

On Nov. 6, 2014, the Appellant filed a Petition for Writ of
Habeas Corpus, followed again by a multitude of filings.  On
April 15, 2015, the trial court denied and dismissed the
Appellant's pending petitions, motions, and applications.
Following the denial of his Motion for Reconsideration, the
Appellant appealed to the Court on May 8, 2015.  The Court
affirmed, and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied allowance of
appeal.

Following the filing of the Notice of Appeal, the Appellant again
filed additional applications and petitions, including a July 8,
2015 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus.  The trial court denied
this Petition.  He appealed, and the Court dismissed the appeal
on Nov. 24, 2015, for failure to file a brief.

On June 16, 2016, the Appellant filed the instant pro se Petition
for Writ of Habeas Corpus, and an Amended pro se Petition for
Writ of Habeas Corpus on Aug. 22, 2016.  On Dec. 15, 2016, the
trial court denied the Petitions for lack of jurisdiction. This
timely appeal followed.

The Appellant provided the following Statement of the Questions
Presented:

     I. Whether the residual clause of 18 Pa.C.S. Section 2502(a)
violates constitutional protections for doctrine of vagueness by
failing to provide appropriate notice requirements and
arbitrarily creating a class of people who have been subject to
conduct violations which the law does not make criminal within
its scheme.

     II. Whether the failure to possess a final enactment date in
Legislative Act 1974, March 26, No. 46 constitutes a procedural
defect, which renders such act void for never having been
properly passed under the void ab initio doctrine.

     III. Whether the Amendment at 42 Pa.C.S. Section
9764(c.1)(3), and judicial enlargement of same, confers a
substantive right on the DOC to retroactively enforce detention
through use of court commitment forms (DC-300B) received prior to
statute's final enactment date violating, laws of retroactivity;
Pa. Constitution; and subsumes improper procedures claim of
judicially created life imprisonment, absent court order,
constitutes illegal detention that exceeds any legislatively
imposed maximum limit authorized by statute.

     IV. Whether the Appellant's indefinite detention in the DOC
based upon usage of department forms, DC-300B, court commitment
forms dated June 23, 1989 and April 30, 1990, constitutes the law
of the case.

Judge Dubow finds that although he titled his Petition and
Amended Petition as a Writ of Habeas Corpus, the Appellant's
first two issues fundamentally challenge the legality of his
sentence.  These challenges are cognizable under the PCRA.

Because the Appellant's challenge to the legality of his sentence
is properly reviewed under the PCRA, Judge Dubow affirmed the
trial court's denial of relief.  The Judge holds that the
Appellant's Petition is untimely and the Court is, thus, without
jurisdiction to review the merits of the issues raised.  In
addition, in light of the Court's disposition, the Appellant's
pro se Application for Relief, filed Dec. 22, 2017, is denied.
She also denied the Appellant's Motion for Certification of Class
Action denied.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 21, 2018 Memorandum is
available at https://is.gd/b5v6X1 from Leagle.com.

Christopher Bocelli, for Appellant, Pro Se.

Nicholas J. Casenta, Jr., Chester County District Attorney's
Office, for Appellee, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.


PENSKE AUTOMOTIVE: $2.1MM Wage-and-Hour Settlement Gets Court OK
----------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Freedman, writing for Crain's Detroit Business, reports that
an estimated 1,750 employees of Penske Automotive Group Inc.
dealerships in California will share $2.1 million from a court-
approved settlement of a wage-and-hour class-action lawsuit.

Judge Brian Walsh of Santa Clara County Superior Court
preliminarily approved a settlement of the suit filed by Davis
Zirpolo, a former salesman at Audi Stevens Creek in San Jose,
against the Bloomfield Hills-based auto retailer.

The beneficiaries of the settlement will receive an average of
$1,205 each.  They worked in vehicle sales, finance and
insurance, and parts departments, according to the Feb. 23
decision.

Judge Walsh scheduled a July 6 hearing on final approval of the
settlement, which totals $3.2 million.  That includes almost $1.1
million -- one-third of the total -- in lawyer fees and $25,000
for the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency.

The nation's second-largest new-vehicle retailer, whose website
lists 30 new- and used-vehicle stores in California, faced a
potential maximum liability of $20.58 million in damages based on
an expert's analysis of the claims, Walsh said.

The case, filed on July 24, 2017, on behalf of the dealership
group's commissioned employees, accused the company of not paying
minimum and overtime wages and not providing the off-duty meal
and rest periods that California law requires.

It also alleged that the company wrongfully required the
employees to report to their jobs without getting at least half
of their scheduled day's work and that it failed to reimburse
them for required expenses.  In addition, there were claims of
failing to provide accurate itemized wage statements and unfair
competition.

"These policies were dictated by the Penske Automotive Group as
the parent company and applied to all of the class members,"
Walsh wrote in his decision.

The settlement followed mediation.

The settlement covers employees who worked for the group between
July 1, 2013, and Dec. 31, 2017, and who received commissions or
draws against commissions.  They include vehicle, fleet and
Internet salespeople; closers; assistant sales managers; finance
salespeople; parts and parts counter salespeople; and rental
salespeople.

Walsh cited the number of employees affected in finding that a
class-action settlement is appropriate because "it would be
inefficient to hear and decide the same issues separately and
repeatedly" for each individual and would be "cost-prohibitive"
for each employee to file a separate lawsuit.

Calls to Penske Automotive Group and to the plaintiff's lawyers
for comment were not immediately returned. [GN]


PJ BERNSTEIN: Faces "Rojas" Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against PJ Bernstein Deli
Corp. The case is styled as Manuel Rojas, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PJ Bernstein Deli
Corp. d/b/a PJ Bernstein, Alex Slobosky and Leonid Vaynberg,
Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-02569 (S.D. N.Y., March 22, 2018).

PJ Bernstein is a deli with counter seating, dishing up classic
eats like pastrami sandwiches & chopped liver.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


PURDUE PHARMA: Faces "Wood" Suit in N.D. Ohio
---------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Purdue Pharma LP.
The case is styled as Rachel Wood, individually and as next
friend and adopted mother of Baby O.W. on behalf of the
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Purdue
Pharma L P, Purdue Pharma Inc., The Purdue Frederick Company,
Inc., McKesson Corporation, Cardinal Health Inc.,
AmeriSourceBergen Corporation, Teva Pharmaceutical Industries
Ltd., Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., Cephalon, Inc., Johnson &
Johnson, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Ortho-Mcneil-Janssen
Pharmaceuticals Inc. also known as: Janssen Pharmaceuticals,
Inc., Janssen Pharmaceutica Inc. also known as: Janssen
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Endo Health Solutions, Inc., Endo
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Allergan PLC now known as Actavis Plc,
Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc. now known as Actavis Inc, Watson
Laboratories Inc., Actavis LLC and Actavis Pharma, Inc. formerly
known as: Watson Pharma, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 1:18-op-
45264-DAP (N.D. Ohio, March 22, 2018).

Purdue Pharma L.P. is a privately held pharmaceutical company
owned principally by parties and descendants of Mortimer and
Raymond Sackler.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Anthony D. Gray, Esq.
   Johnson Gray, LLC
   319 North 4th Street, Suite 212
   St. Louis, MO 63102
   Tel: (314) 385-9500
   Fax: (314) 594-2052
   Email: agray@johnsongraylaw.com


PURDUE PHARMA: Thompson and Barney Files Opioid Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Kara Leigh Lofton, writing for WV Public, reports that a
Charleston-based law firm has filed a class action suit against
21 medical companies, including the opioid manufacturer Purdue
Pharma to sue for damages incurred by prenatal exposure to
opioids

The suit was filed by the firm Thompson and Barney. Kevin
Thompson said the intent is to create a fund for babies born with
neonatal abstinence syndrome, meaning infants born dependent to
opioids.

"In this case the equitable relief would be a medical monitoring
fund," Mr. Thompson said.

Mr. Thompson said a medical monitoring fund would allow for
children to be tested for possible neurological, developmental
and behavioral disorders and would fund treatment should it be
needed. Rather than placing the burden on families and insurance
companies, he said, manufacturers and distributors need to foot
the bill.

"From a nationwide basis they have some statutory duties to watch
the market and see when there is unusual activity going on,"
Mr.  Thompson said.  "The million and millions and millions of
pills that went into tiny Kermit and Williamson -- the
distributers should have stopped it, they should have
investigated it, they shouldn't have just smiled and sent more
pills and made money."

The suit would also create a damages fund that would be released
to the children when they turned 18.  That money could be used
for education, transportation or further medical care as needed.
[GN]


QUAKERS HILL: Faces Class Action Over Nursing Home Fire
-------------------------------------------------------
The Australian Associated Press reports that Roger Dean was hired
as a nurse at a NSW aged-care home without any reference checks
two months before 14 elderly residents died in a fire he
deliberately lit.

Family members of the elderly victims say he should never have
been hired and are now taking legal action against his employer,
Quakers Hill Nursing Home, for failing to investigate his
employment history and allowing him to be in charge of residents.

Dean was jailed for life over the 2011 blaze after being found
guilty of 11 counts of murder.

His employment record included being investigated for workplace
misconduct and being suspended from a former job because he was
affected by drugs at work.

In 2007 Dean resigned from St George Hospital after he was
believed to have maliciously damaged a supervisor's car by
screwing bolts into the tyres and throwing paint on it.
Advertisement

At Quakers Hill he was suspected of abusing prescription drugs
and taking more than 230 tablets from the nursing home and -
after learning police were poised to investigate - he set the
facility on fire.

Dean used a cigarette lighter to ignite a fire in two beds, and
during the ensuing chaos took two drug register books which he
later tore up.

He initially appeared on TV talking up his efforts to evacuate
residents but was subsequently charged with murder.

Nine relatives of victims launched the class action against Opal
Aged Care, the owners of the Quakers Hill home, in the NSW
Supreme Court.

In the statement of claim, Quakers Hill is accused of being
negligent in relation to employing Dean, and also by failing to
have any or any adequate, sprinkler system in place.

Dean is also being sued for negligence, over setting fire to the
premises and failing to notify Quakers Hill of his history,
mental health problems and drug dependence.

The court documents indicate Dean had disclosed to a former
employer that he had bipolar disorder and had been seeing a
psychologist for a major depressive disorder.

Donna Austin, whose mother Alma Smith died in the blaze, said the
nursing home should be held accountable.

"Putting my mum into a nursing home was one of the toughest
decisions of my life," she said in a statement on March 6.
"It's now a decision I live to regret every single day.
"These people had a duty of care to protect my mother. They are
responsible for the grief we now carry every day of our lives."

A coroner's inquest found that Dean's employer did not conduct
reference checks before hiring him. [GN]


QUANTUM CORPORATION: "Nabhan" Sues Over Share Price Drop
--------------------------------------------------------
Alexander E. Nabhan, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Quantum Corporation, Fuad
Ahmad, Jon W. Gacek and Adalio T. Sanchez, Defendants, Case No.
18-cv-00925 (N.D. Cal., February 13, 2018), seeks compensatory
damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, costs and
expenses in this litigation, including reasonable attorneys' fees
and experts' fees and other costs and disbursements and such
other relief under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

On February 8, 2018, before trading had opened, Quantum disclosed
that it had received a subpoena from the SEC on January 11, 2018
regarding its accounting practices and internal controls related
to revenue recognition for transactions commencing April 1, 2016,
prompting an internal investigation by Quantum's audit committee,
which remains ongoing. As a result, the Company further announced
that it would postpone the release of its fiscal third quarter
2018 results and earnings call.

On this news, Quantum's share price plunged 29.9% to close at
$3.90 on February 8, 2018, causing millions of dollars in losses
to investors, including the Plaintiff. Lazan claims to have paid
artificially inflated prices for the Company's common stock.

Quantum sells scale-out tiered storage, archive and data
protection solutions for capturing, sharing, managing and
preserving digital assets in physical and virtual environments,
storage file systems, nearline storage systems, backup,
deduplication appliances, tape libraries and cloud services. [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


QUANTUM CORPORATION: "Lazan" Hits Share Drop Over Bad Accounting
----------------------------------------------------------------
Steven Lazan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Quantum Corporation, Fuad Ahmad, Jon W.
Gacek and Adalio T. Sanchez, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-00923
(N.D. Cal., February 13, 2018), seeks compensatory damages, pre-
judgment and post-judgment interest, costs and expenses in this
litigation, including reasonable attorneys' fees and experts'
fees and other costs and disbursements and such other relief
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

On February 8, 2018, before trading had opened, Quantum disclosed
that it had received a subpoena from the SEC on January 11, 2018
regarding its accounting practices and internal controls related
to revenue recognition for transactions commencing April 1, 2016,
prompting an internal investigation by Quantum's audit committee,
which remains ongoing. As a result, the Company further announced
that it would postpone the release of its fiscal third quarter
2018 results and earnings call.

On this news, Quantum's share price plunged 29.9% to close at
$3.90 on February 8, 2018, causing millions of dollars in losses
to investors, including the Plaintiff. Lazan claims to have paid
artificially inflated prices for the Company's common stock.

Quantum sells scale-out tiered storage, archive and data
protection solutions for capturing, sharing, managing and
preserving digital assets in physical and virtual environments,
storage file systems, nearline storage systems, backup,
deduplication appliances, tape libraries and cloud services. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joel Fleming, Esq.
      Jake Walker, Esq.
      BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
      155 Federal Street, Suite 400
      Boston, MA 02110
      Tel: 617-398-5600
      Fax: 617-507-6020
      Email: Joel@blockesq.com
             Jake@blockesq.com

            - and -

     Whitney Erin Street, Esq.
     BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
     520 Third Street, Suite 108
     Oakland, CA 94109
     Tel: (415) 968-8999
     Email: whitney@blockesq.com


RASIER LLC: Faces "Durgin" Suit in N.D. California
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rasier, LLC. The
case is styled as Brittany Durgin, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Rasier, LLC, Rasier-
CA, LLC and Uber Technologies, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 3:18-
cv-01785-MEJ (N.D. Cal., March 22, 2018).

Rasier LLC is a wholly owned subsidiary of Uber Technologies. It
was founded back in 2013 by Travis Kalanick and Uber as a
subsidiary TNC to collect the income from ridesharing, leaving
Uber to be a holding company that manages corporate issues as
well as research and development.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Patrice L. Bishop, Esq.
   Stull, Stull & Brody
   9430 West Olympic Boulevard
   Suite 400
   Beverly Hills, CA 90212
   Tel: (310) 209-2468
   Email: service@ssbla.com


RETAIL FOOD: Faces Potential Investor Class Action
--------------------------------------------------
Sarah Danckert, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald, reports
that troubled franchisor Retail Food Group is facing a potential
class action over accusations it misled investors about how
changes to its business model would affect store owners.

Maurice Blackburn has begun investigating a class action against
the owner of the Gloria Jeans and Donut King chains on behalf of
shareholders.  A separate class action is being investigated by
law firm Bannisters.

The news came as RFG's shares tumbled for the second day in a row
on March 6 after Fairfax Media revealed the company had a secret
deal with a former executive to manage stores.

Maurice Blackburn principal Ben Slade said the class action
investigation would cover any shareholders who bought shares
between June 2, 2015 and February 28 this year and focus on
alleged continuous disclosure breaches by the company.

"The theory that we have is that from as early as an announcement
made on June 2, 2015, the company knew then or at least ought to
have understood that its business model, in regard to its
dealings with franchisees, was exploitative," Mr Slade said.
Advertisement

"There were a number of actions taken by the company, or had been
taken by that date, that would almost certainly have a long-term
negative impact on franchisees and that is information that
should have been disclosed to the market as it was material to
the share price."

Mr Slade said Maurice Blackburn would be looking at changes RFG
made to its profit-sharing arrangements with franchisees,
marketing fund contributions and training fees as well as other
elements of the RFG business.

A spokeswoman for RFG said: "In the event a class action did
proceed at some future point, RFG would defend it vigorously,"
she said.

RFG's shares tumbled on March 6 after Fairfax Media reported that
the listed franchising giant had not told shareholders about a
deal between itself and a company run by Alicia Atkinson, RFG's
former bakery cafe director and the partner of RFG's former
longstanding managing director, Tony Alford.

RFG's shares closed down 12 per cent, or 15.5 cents lower, at
$1.14 on March 6.

It was the second straight day of deep share falls for the
company, which resumed trading on March 5 after a two-day trading
halt sparked by a dispute with its auditors. Its shares fell 37
per cent to $1.30 on March 5.

RFG, which also owns the Brumby's Bakeries, Crust Pizza and Pizza
Capers brands, said it would close between 160 and 200 stores
after a horror first half of 2018 that was marred by a $138
million write-down on the value of its brands.
As a result of the write-down, RFG booked a $87.8 million loss
for the half -- its first loss since listing on the Australian
Securities Exchange in 2006 -- and revealed that its bankers had
put new strict rules on the company.

There were a number of actions taken by the company ... that
would almost certainly have a long-term negative impact on
franchisees.

Maurice Blackburn principal Ben Slade
The deal between RFG and Ms Atkinson's Exit 57 Investments was
laid bare after the private company collapsed in February. The
company has a $2.8 million tax debt that it disputes and says
it's owed $1.6 million by an RFG subsidiary, which is disputed by
the franchising giant.

Under the deal between Exit 57 and RFG, Exit 57 would temporarily
manage stores, including some that had been abandoned by
franchisees. The deal was struck in 2014 and was wound up in 2015
and 2016. Mr Alford stepped down as managing director in 2016. He
was still a director at the company until July 2017. Ms Atkinson
left the company in 2017.

Ms Atkinson has never been a director sitting on the RFG board
and Fairfax Media is not alleging Ms Atkinson or Mr Alford were
involved in the decision to award Exit 57 Investments the
management deal. Nor is it alleged they were involved in any
decision to not inform shareholders about the deal.
RFG's annual reports for the past five years make no mention of
Exit 57.  The arrangement is not listed in the company's related-
party dealings.

In regards to the deal, RFG's spokeswoman said: "As an ASX listed
company, we take our reporting obligations extremely seriously
and believe we have complied with those obligations at all
times." [GN]


RETAIL GROUP: Faces Possible 2nd Shareholder Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Ben Hall, writing for Business News Australia, reports that
troubled franchisor Retail Food Group (ASX: RFG) is facing a
possible second class action over allegations its share price
suffered because of its "exploitative and unsustainable"
franchise model along with claims it failed to inform the market
of its "true state of affairs."

Maurice Blackburn says it has begun investigations into the
possible class action on behalf of shareholders who bought shares
from June 2, 2015, until the company entered a trading halt on
February 28, 2018.

Retail Food Group is also facing the potential for a class action
by Bannisters following a damning report from Fairfax Media which
alleged it operated a business model that had sent hundreds of
franchisees within its network to the wall financially and that
there was widespread underpayment of staff by store owners.

"The proposed shareholder class action relates to a string of
damning revelations about the company that were exposed from
December 2017 to 3 March 2018," Maurice Blackburn says.

"The information, including revelations of an exploitative and
unsustainable franchise model, saw the company's share price go
from well over $4 to under $1.30 when the company came out of the
trading halt it entered on February 28, 2018.

"More than $550 million has been wiped from the company's market
capitalisation.  Publicly available information suggests that RFG
adopted an exploitative business model as early as June 2015 yet
it failed inform the market of its true state of affairs.

"This is information the market should have been made aware of in
order to fairly price the stock."

RFG has said it will defend any class action should it proceed.

On March 5 and March 6, shares in RFG were savaged by investors
with the price dropping 37 per cent and 12 per cent respectively
after it resumed trading after a two day trading halt.

RFG went into the trading halt because of a dispute with its
auditors and, as a result, its disastrous half yearly results
were delayed until Friday, March 2.

The half year report revealed a net loss after tax of $87.8
million, compared to $32.7 million profit in the previous half
year and $138 million in writedowns on the value of its brands.

RFG, which operates food franchises such as Donut King, Gloria
Jean's Coffee and Pizza Capers, Crust Pizza and Michel's
Patisserie, cited "challenging trading conditions" while
acknowledging its own "disappointing performance" as it outlined
its business-wide review to turn the company around.

As part of the business-wide review, RFG says it will close
between 160 and 200 outlets as the company negotiates rent
decreases on its "unsustainable" stores.

The company says it is also aware that it needs to improve the
support it provides to its franchisees. [GN]


RUNNING SPECIALTY: Faces "Lopez" Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Running
Specialty Group, LLC. The case is styled as Victor Lopez and on
behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. The
Running Specialty Group, LLC and The Running Specialty Group
Acquisitions, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-02530 (S.D. N.Y.,
March 21, 2018).

The Running Specialty Group, LLC retails clothes, shoes, and gear
for men, women, and kids.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Bradly Gurion Marks, Esq.
   The Marks Law Firm PC
   175 Varick Street 3rd Floor
   New York, NY 10014
   Tel: (646) 770-3775
   Fax: (646) 867-2639
   Email: bmarkslaw@gmail.com


SOUTHERN TIRE: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
David Yates, writing for SE Texas Record, reports that one of the
largest commercial tire dealers in North America is facing a
class action lawsuit for allegedly not paying sales
representatives overtime.

Individually and on behalf of all similarly situated employees,
Michael Ferrel filed suit against Southern Tire Mart on March 5
in the U.S. District Court for Southern Texas, Houston Division.

Mr. Ferrel brought the suit under the Fair Labor Standards Act in
hopes of recovering overtime wages from the company.

From Oct. 1, 2016, to Jan. 30 he was employed by Southern Tire
Mart, regularly working between 49 to 53 hours a week, but was
only paid a salary compensating him for a 40-hour workweek,
according to the lawsuit.

"Defendant classified Plaintiff as exempt from the FLSA's
overtime-pay requirements," the suit states.  "Defendant did not
pay Plaintiff 1.5 times his regular rate of pay for each hour he
worked over 40 each week during his employment with Defendant."

Mr. Ferrel asserts the company owes him 1.5 times his regular
rate of pay for each hour he worked over 40 each week during his
employment.

He seeks to certify a collective action of all sales
representatives who were not paid time-and-a-half for overtime
hours.

With around 74 locations across the country, Southern Tire Mart
employs more than 150 counter sales representatives, according to
the lawsuit.

Mr. Ferrel is represented by Houston attorney Dennis Clifford.

Case No. 4:18-cv-00688 [GN]


SPACIOS: Faces "Alvarado" Suit in S.D. Florida
----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Spacios, A Design
Group Inc. The case is styled as Vidal Antonio Alvarado and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Spacios, A Design Group
Inc. and Daniel Lopez, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-21081-CMA
(S.D. Fla., March 21, 2018).

Spacios Design Group, Inc. engages in the manufacture of non
upholstered wood household furniture and related products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented:

   Jamie H. Zidell, Esq.
   300 71st Street, Suite 605
   Miami Beach, FL 33141
   Tel: (305) 865-6766
   Fax: 865-7167
   Email: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM


SUNEDISON SEMICONDUCTOR: "Usenko" ERISA Suit Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------
Judge Audrey G. Fleissig of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division, granted the
Defendants' motion to dismiss with prejudice the case captioned
ALEXANDER Y. USENKO, derivatively on behalf of the SunEdison
Semiconductor Ltd. Retirement Savings Plan, Plaintiff, v.
SUNEDISON SEMICONDUCTOR LLC, THE INVESTMENT COMMITTEE OF THE
SUNEDISON SEMICONDUCTOR RETIREMENT SAVINGS PLAN, HEMANT KAPADIA,
PENNY CUTRELL, STEVE EDENS, KAREN STEINER, CHENG YANG, and BEN
LLORICO, Defendants, Case No. 4:17-cv-02227-AGF (E.D. Mo.).

The action is brought under the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), claiming breach of fiduciary
duties by Defendants, the fiduciaries of an ERISA-governed
retirement savings plan ("Plan") sponsored by Defendant SunEdison
Semiconductor, LLC ("Semi"), for permitting Semi employees to
continue to hold the stock of Semi's former parent company,
SunEdison, Inc. ("SUNE"), as a retirement investment option.
Plaintiff Usenko filed the action derivatively on behalf of the
Plan and, in the alternative, as a putative class action.

Semi was previously a subsidiary of SUNE but became an
independent entity in 2014, following an initial public offering.
According to the amended complaint, the Defendants breached their
fiduciary duties when they ignored public information regarding
the instability of SUNE and permitted Semi employees to retain
SUNE stock during the "Relevant Period," defined as July 20,
2015, to April 21, 2016, while the price of that stock collapsed.
The Plaintiff argues that the Plan suffered losses that would
have been avoided, in whole or in part, had Defendants complied
with their fiduciary duties.

The Plaintiff's amended complaint contains a single count,
alleging the following breaches of fiduciary duty against all
Defendants: (1) allowing employees to continue holding the stock
of SUNE throughout the Relevant Period notwithstanding that,
based on public information regarding the instability of SUNE,
Defendants knew or should have known that the stock was no longer
a prudent investment; (2) failing to properly monitor the
propriety of the Plan's investment in the SUNE stock throughout
the Relevant Period; and (3) breaching their co-fiduciary
obligations by knowingly participating in each other's breaches
as described.

The matter is now before the Court on the motion of Defendants
Semi and the Investment Committee of the Plan to dismiss with
prejudice the amended complaint, in which the individual
Defendants Kapadia, Edens, Yang, and Llorico have joined.

In their motion to dismiss, the Defendants argue that the
Plaintiff's claims are foreclosed by the United Supreme Court's
decision in Fifth Third Bancorp v. Dudenhoeffer, and its progeny.
They contend that the amended complaint does not cite any special
circumstances affecting the reliability of the market price.
They further argue that the Plaintiff cannot evade Dudenhoeffer
by characterizing his claim as one based on excessive risk of the
SUNE stock or failure to adequately monitor the Plan's
investments.  Finally, the Defendants contend that Plaintiff's
claim for co-fiduciary breach should be dismissed as it is purely
derivative of the Plaintiff's deficient claim for breach of
fiduciary duty.

On Dec. 20, 2017, the Defendants filed a notice of supplemental
authority, notifying the Court of Yates v. Nichols, a recent
federal district court decision rejecting the arguments the
Plaintiff raises, including that Dudenhoeffer applies only to
employer securities.

Judge Fleissig agrees with the Defendants that Dudenhoeffer
forecloses the Plaintiff's claims.  She agrees with those federal
courts that have found that Dudenhoeffer forecloses breach of
prudence claims based on public information irrespective of
whether such claims are characterized as based on alleged
overvaluation or alleged riskiness of a stock.  And she agrees
with the Defendants that the Plaintiff's primary claim is that
the Defendants made imprudent decisions, not that the Defendants
abandoned their decision-making duties, and neither Dudenhoeffer
nor Tibble permits ERISA claims to withstand challenge based on
such threadbare allegations that the Defendants did not monitor a
plan's investments.

The Judge will dismiss the co-fiduciary breach claims because the
Plaintiff does not dispute that his co-fiduciary breach claims
are merely derivative of his breach of fiduciary duty claims.
Because she has already permitted the Plaintiff to amend his
complaint once, and because the Plaintiff has not explained the
basis for his amendment or shown that such amendment would not be
futile, the Judge will deny the Plaintiff's request for leave to
amend.

Finally, Judge Fleissig notes that the Plaintiff has requested
oral argument on the motion to dismiss.  But in light of the
extensive briefing permitted by the Court, including the
opportunities to submit and respond to supplemental authorities,
as well as ample case law governing the relevant issues, she
believes that oral argument is unnecessary.

Accordingly, the Judge granted the Defendants' motions to dismiss
with prejudice.  She dismissed with prejudice the Plaintiff's
claims against Defendants Cutrell and Steiner for lack of timely
service.  All claims against all parties having been resolved,
the Judge will enter a separate Order of Dismissal.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 21, 2018 Memorandum and
Order is available at https://is.gd/lFMfFQ from Leagle.com.

Alexander Y Usenko, Derivatively on Behalf of the SunEdison
Semiconductor Ltd. Retirement Savings Plan, Plaintiff,
represented by Daniella Quitt -- dquitt@hfesq.com -- HARWOOD
FEFFER, LLP, pro hac vice, Don R. Lolli --
dlolli@DysartTaylor.com -- DYSART AND TAYLOR, Gregory Michael
Egleston -- gegleston@gme-law.com -- GAINEY AND MCKENNA, pro hac
vice, Robert I. Harwood -- rharwood@hfesq.com -- HARWOOD FEFFER,
LLP & Thomas J. McKenna -- tjmckenna@gme-law.com -- GAINEY AND
MCKENNA, pro hac vice.

SunEdison Semiconductor LLC & The Investment Committee of the
SunEdison Semiconductor Retirement Savings Plan, Defendants,
represented by Charles N. Insler -- cinsler@heplerbroom.com --
HEPLER BROOM, Glenn E. Davis -- gdavis@heplerbroom.com -- HEPLER
BROOM, Mark Bruce Blocker -- MBLOCKER@SIDLEY.COM -- SIDLEY AUSTIN
LLP, Christopher Kenneth Meyer -- CMEYER@SIDLEY.COM -- SIDLEY
AUSTIN LLP & Sarah A. Hemmendinger -- SHEMMENDINGER@SIDLEY.COM --
SIDLEY AUSTIN, LLP.

Hemant Kapadia, Steve Edens, Cheng Yang & Ben Llorico,
Defendants, represented by Mark Bruce Blocker, SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP,
Christopher Kenneth Meyer, SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP & Sarah A.
Hemmendinger, SIDLEY AUSTIN, LLP.


SYNEOS HEALTH: Faces Securities Class Action Over InVentiv Merger
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights law firm Robbins Arroyo LLP on March 6
disclosed that purchasers of Syneos Health, Inc. (NasdaqGS: SYNH)
have filed a class action complaint against the company's
officers and directors for alleged violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 between May 10, 2017 and November 8, 2017.
Syneos, formerly known as INC Research Holdings, Inc. ("INC"), is
an integrated biopharmaceutical solutions company in North
America, Europe, the Middle East, Africa, the Asia-Pacific, and
Latin America.

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

Syneos Accused of Misleading Investors About its Merger

According to the complaint, on May 10, 2017, INC announced that
it was acquiring inVentiv Health, Inc., stating that the merger
marks a "significant milestone" for INC and that it would expand
the company's global scale.  That same day, INC announced
purportedly strong business metrics and financial prospects that
supported INC's guidance increase. However, the merger did not
provide the benefit that INC officials represented because
inVentiv was underperforming.  On November 9, 2017, INC reported
Q3 2017 results that fell far below investors' expectations,
including a net loss from operations of $88.9 million, compared
to income from operations of $39.4 million for Q3 2016. INC
attributed the poor results to previously undisclosed "continued
customer and regulatory delays" at inVentiv and lower new drug
approval activity during 2016.  On this news, INC's stock fell
$16.35 per share, or over 28%, to close at $41.15 per share on
November 9, 2017.

Syneos 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 -- http://www.robbinsarroyo.com-- is a
shareholder rights law firm.  The firm represents individual and
institutional investors in shareholder derivative and securities
class action lawsuits. [GN]


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Beasley Allen Files Data Breach Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Becca J. G. Godwin, writing for The Atlanta Journal-Constitution,
reports that an Atlanta law office has filed a class-action
lawsuit against Uber over the 2016 data breach that compromised
the personal information of roughly 57 million consumers.

The lawsuit -- filed in U.S. District Court in Atlanta by
Beasley, Allen, Crow, Methvin, Portis & Miles -- faults Uber for
a "colossal data security breach as well as a deliberate and
systematic cover-up scheme to hide the extent and nature of the
breach from regulators" and customers.

Uber publicly acknowledged in November 2017 that it paid hackers
at least $100,000 to conceal the October 2016 computer break-in,
the Beasley Allen lawsuit said.  The breach took place before
Dara Khosrowshahi took over as CEO from embattled co-founder
Travis Kalanick.

The lawsuit says plaintiff James Wood, of DeKalb County, has used
the Uber ridesharing app to hail rides throughout the metro
Atlanta area.  Mr. Woods and the class members had their
"personal information exposed to sophisticated cyber-criminals
who trade such information on an international black market," the
March 1 complaint says.

Uber declined to comment on the lawsuit, spokeswoman Evangeline
George said. [GN]


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Pennsylvania AG Files Data Breach Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Louise Matsakis, writing for Wired.com, reports that Uber faces
more potential legal consequences for waiting to make public a
major hack until more than a year after it happened.  The
Pennsylvania attorney general filed a lawsuit against Uber on
March 5 for violating the state's data breach notification law,
which says hacks should be disclosed within a "reasonable" time
frame.  Uber didn't merely keep quiet about the massive breach;
it reportedly paid a $100,000 ransom to the perpetrators in
exchange for their silence. And while experts say Uber will
likely settle the case, it may be just the latest in a cascade of
similar lawsuits.

The stolen Uber data included the names and driver's license
information of around 600,000 drivers -- including at least
13,500 from Pennsylvania -- as well as data belonging to 25
million users in the US.  It impacted more than 57 million people
in total. "Uber violated Pennsylvania law by failing to put our
residents on timely notice of this massive data breach," Josh
Shapiro, the states's attorney general, said in a statement.
"Instead of notifying impacted consumers of the breach within a
reasonable amount of time, Uber hid the incident for over a year
and actually paid the hackers to delete the data and stay quiet."
Under Pennsylvania's data breach notice law, the attorney general
may seek fines up to $1,000 for each violation, leading to a
maximum penalty of $13.5 million for Uber.

Pennsylvania's joins a growing line of lawsuits against the ride-
share company.  Washington state and cities including Los Angeles
and Chicago filed suits when the breach was first made public by
the company's new CEO, Dara Khosrowshahi, in November.  Two
class-action lawsuits were also filed in California days after
the breach was first disclosed.  Attorneys general from New York,
Missouri, and Connecticut have also said they would look into the
breach.  Forty-eight states (excluding South Dakota and Alabama)
currently have laws on the books regulating how and when a data
breach must be disclosed.

"Since starting on this job three months ago, I've spoken with
various state and federal regulators in connection with the data
breach pledging Uber's cooperation, and I personally reached out
to Attorney General Shapiro and his team in the same spirit a few
weeks ago.  While I was surprised by Pennsylvania's complaint
this morning, I look forward to continuing the dialogue we've
started as Uber seeks to resolve this matter," Tony West, Uber's
chief legal officer, said in a statement.  "We make no excuses
for the previous failure to disclose the data breach.  While we
do not in any way minimize what occurred, it's crucial to note
that the information compromised did not include any sensitive
consumer information such as credit card numbers or social
security numbers, which present a higher risk of harm than
driver's license numbers. I've been upfront about the fact that
Uber expects to be held accountable; our only ask is that Uber be
treated fairly and that any penalty reasonably fit the facts."

The Pennsylvania lawsuit is also the first to cite a Senate
hearing in February where John Flynn, Uber's chief information
security officer, testified in front of the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation about the hack.  Uber
initially said the payment it made to the hackers responsible for
the breach was not a ransom, but simply a payout under its
existing bug bounty program, a system many tech companies deploy
to reward security researchers for bringing vulnerabilities to
their attention. But during the hearing, Mr. Flynn acknowledged
that the agreement made with the perpetrators -- as well as the
$100,000 payment -- were not typical for its bug bounty program,
which usually compensates researchers only a couple thousand
dollars.

"The fact that this was a multistep malicious intrusion, a
downloading of data, and extortionate demands means this wasn't
consistent with the way that [the bug bounty] program normally
operates," Mr. Flynn testified.  He also said that Uber "made a
misstep not reporting to law enforcement."

William McGeveran, a professor at University of Minnesota Law
School who specializes in data privacy law, said it's possible
Uber will settle with Pennsylvania for a fraction of the total
$13.5 million fine, and take on commitments to ensure a similar
breach doesn't happen in the future.  "In these settlements, many
times regulators care more about fixing the problem than about
being punitive," Mr. McGeveran says.  But more suits could follow
from other states, especially because Flynn's statements before
the Senate committee provide state prosecutors with more evidence
to work with.

"Given the alleged facts in this case, it wouldn't surprise me at
all to see more lawsuits," says Woodrow Hartzog, a law and
computer science professor at Northeastern University who studies
privacy and data protection issues.  "Oftentimes you will have
state attorneys general who might even work together if that
appears to be the best course of action. They'll probably be
using the facts in this case as an example of how not to respond
to a data breach."

Uber has also already faced disciplinary action from federal
regulators twice, once for a separate hack in 2014 that exposed
the information of 100,000 drivers, and once for misleading
drivers about how much money they could make.  The FTC said in
November that it was also evaluating the "serious issues" raised
by the 2016 breach.

Uber has yet to pay any fines to the federal government, and
won't have to if it makes good on its promises to protect its
drivers' and customers' privacy.  The agreement between the FTC
and Uber lasts 20 years.  If the FTC decides that the 2016 breach
is considered a violation of that agreement, the ride-hailing
company could face expensive consequences.  In 2012 for example,
the FTC fined Google $22.5 million for violating its 2011
settlement.

For now, no federal law exists requiring companies disclose a
data breach within a certain time frame. But since nearly every
state has a data breach law, Uber could still face a patchwork of
further lawsuits.  Some lawmakers are also pushing for federal
legislation.  In December, Democratic senator Bill Nelson
introduced the Data Security and Breach Notification Act, which
would require companies to report breaches within a month, or
face up to five years in prison.

Federal laws punishing companies for failing to notify about a
breach wouldn't necessarily improve protections for consumers,
however.  "I would be skeptical of the claims that a unified data
security protection law are going to provide clarity and better
data protection at the same time," says Mr. Hartzog, who has
testified before Congress about data breach legislation.  "A
movement to have a single unified standard among the United
States would be seen as an opportunity to water down those
requirements."

State laws also give attorneys general the chance to act if they
perceive the Federal Trade Commission to be not aggressive
enough.  "I think we're going to see more activity by state
attorneys general in privacy and security cases because it's not
clear how much the FTC is going to do under its current
management compared to previous," says Mr. McGeveran.  "These
states have a better argument because they have specific
requirements that you notify about a breach."

Besides, it's not hard for a major corporation like Uber to
juggle multiple state regulations at once, especially because the
ones governing breach disclosure mandate the same things.  "Many
of them are quite similar in their requirements, many of them
have the same deference to industry standards," Mr. Hartzog says.
It's far harder to navigate, say, every state's regulations on
taxis. [GN]


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Introduces New Services Following Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Fitzgerald Rodriguez, writing for San Francisco Examiner,
reports that only days after Bay Area disability rights groups
sued Uber over an alleged lack of wheelchair-accessible vehicles,
both the ride-hail giant and its competitor, Lyft, announced
health care-oriented transportation options.

The companies touted the new services as especially convenient
for seniors, though they often include people with disabilities
and those who need wheelchair access.

The two services -- Uber Health and Lyft's partnership with
Allscripts, one of the top five electronic health records
companies in the country -- are focused on delivering
transportation options to patients with hospital or doctor's
appointments, according to announcements from the companies.

Yet, neither company addressed wheelchair-accessible vehicles in
their announcements.

"I think this is ridiculous," said Jessica Lehman, executive
director of nonprofit Senior & Disability Action.  Uber and Lyft,
she said, have shown "a total lack of interest in serving people
with disabilities, particularly mobility disability, and a lack
of commitment to following the Americans with Disabilities Act."

Senior & Disability Action was not party to the disability class-
action suit, which was filed on March 6 by Disability Rights
Advocates in Alameda County Superior Court.

Uber Health would provide a "dashboard" for health care
professionals to order rides for patients going to and from
appointments up to 30 days in advance, according to an Uber blog
post on March 1.  The company also touted compliance with the
Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, a health
care data privacy law, as well as access for patients without
smartphones.

Lyft's partnership with Allscripts will allow Lyft requests for
patients from physicians and hospitals using the Allscripts
health records system, which the company touts as buttressing its
existing efforts with Blue Cross Blue Shield, Ascension, Sutter,
CareLinx and Circulation health care organizations.

Those services now are largely provided by public institutions,
like paratransit vans and publicly subsidized paratransit taxi
cabs, which are wheelchair accessible.

Uber and Lyft do not have widely available wheelchair accessible
fleets, disability advocates allege.

When pressed, a Lyft spokesperson said on background that
discussions are ongoing on how the company can expand to provide
wheelchair-accessible vehicles.

Uber did not immediately respond to request for comment.

Since 2012, trips taken by wheelchair users on wheelchair-
accessible taxicabs have gone from as many as 1,300 monthly to as
low as 500 on a monthly basis in 2018, according to data provided
by the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency.

The trips didn't decline because fewer wheelchair users requested
taxis, the SFMTA said, but because there aren't enough
wheelchair-equipped cabs in The City to provide the needed trips
as the taxi industry has diminished.

"We work hard to make sure that people with disabilities, who
can't take Muni due to those disabilities, have a viable public
transit option," said Paul Rose, an SFMTA spokesperson.  "Service
that targets seniors and others who are making healthcare trips
should be able to provide access for those who use wheelchairs,
which is one of the reasons why The City's paratransit service
has been an invaluable asset to those who use it."

Supervisor Aaron Peskin, who serves as chair of the San Francisco
County Transportation Authority Board, said he may request a
hearing into Uber and Lyft's reach into the health care sector in
The City.

"It is no surprise that Uber and Lyft are finally, years later,
trying to address their discriminatory practices after they just
got sued for not complying with the [Americans with Disabilities
Act]. This is a little too little, too late," he said.

Mr. Peskin added, the SFCTA "has been all over every aspect of
the disruptive transportation economy.   This will be no
exception." [GN]


UBS AG: 5th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Shearman & Sterling LLP, in an article for JDSupra, reported that
on February 26, 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for the
Fifth Circuit affirmed in a per curiam unpublished decision the
dismissal of a putative securities class action against UBS AG
and certain affiliated entities.  Giancarlo, et al. v. UBS
Financial Services Inc., et al., No. 16-20663 (5th Cir. Feb. 26,
2018).  Plaintiffs -- former clients of a defendant UBS affiliate
who invested in former energy giant Enron using the UBS affiliate
as their broker -- alleged that defendants violated Section 10(b)
of the Securities Exchange Act by failing to disclose information
purportedly revealing problems with Enron's accounting, leading
to alleged losses when Enron's precarious financial position was
uncovered in November 2001.  The United States District Court for
the Southern District of Texas dismissed plaintiffs' claims,
finding that plaintiffs failed to plead facts demonstrating that
defendants' separate corporate status should be disregarded, and
thus had failed to adequately plead their "single, fully
integrated entity" theory of liability.  The District Court
further found that plaintiffs had failed to identify specific
brokers or allege facts demonstrating that each broker had an
intent to deceive, manipulate, or defraud.  The Fifth Circuit
agreed, holding that plaintiffs had failed to meet the heightened
specificity requirements for pleading securities fraud under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b), noting that plaintiffs had
not adequately alleged that defendants had knowledge of Enron's
practices, nor a duty to disclose such information to plaintiffs.

In affirming the district court's decision, the Fifth Circuit
first considered whether plaintiffs adequately alleged that the
defendants -- related but distinct corporate entities --
constituted a joint venture, which might permit the Court to
aggregate the defendants' knowledge for the purpose of assessing
the sufficiency of alleged knowledge and intent to deceive.  In
part based on statements in SEC filings referring to defendants
as an "integrated investment services firm" and calling UBS an
"integrated group," plaintiffs argued that each defendant's
actions could be attributed to a single broad UBS entity because
the UBS affiliated entities formed a "de facto joint venture."
Applying Delaware law, the Court found that despite defendants'
"vague corporate platitudes about their integration as a firm,"
the allegations were insufficient to establish a joint venture.
The Court noted that none of plaintiffs' allegations alluded to
profit sharing or loss sharing or supported any other theory
permitting aggregation of defendants' knowledge, which are
relevant factors considered under Delaware law.

The Fifth Circuit then considered whether defendants were in
possession of and had a duty to disclose allegedly material,
nonpublic information about Enron's financial statements.  The
Court emphasized that while plaintiffs made allegations
concerning "UBS's knowledge," that broad invocation of a combined
entity was insufficiently particular to meet the heightened
pleading requirements to state a securities fraud claim.  The
Court then addressed and rejected each of plaintiffs' purported
sources of a duty to disclose on behalf of UBS.  First, the Court
considered whether applicable self-regulatory organization rules
imposed a duty of disclosure on any of the defendants, and noted
that the only rule raised in plaintiffs' allegations was a
National Association of Securities Dealers rule requiring members
to communicate based on "fair dealing and good faith."  The Court
noted that the rule does not impose a duty of disclosure in the
absence of a communication, and that plaintiffs had not alleged
with specificity that any person at any defendant who
communicated with plaintiffs had material, nonpublic information
concerning Enron.  Thus, the Court held that, even if a defendant
entity had a duty of disclosure under the rule, plaintiffs had
not shown with sufficient particularity that defendants violated
that rule.

Plaintiffs also cited the United States Supreme Court's decision
in Affiliated Ute Citizens of Utah v. U.S., 406 U.S. 128 (1972),
for the proposition that defendants' "special relationship" with
plaintiffs gave rise to a fiduciary-like duty of disclosure.  The
Court, however, found that the relationship between plaintiffs
and defendants was unlike the relationship at issue in Affiliated
Ute because other market makers and underwriters were trading in
Enron securities and plaintiffs were not required to deal with
any of the defendants.  The Court also rejected plaintiffs'
contention that their retail relationship with defendants gave
rise to a duty of disclosure, noting that even if it did,
plaintiffs still had not demonstrated that the entity with which
they communicated had any material, non-public knowledge to
disclose.  Accordingly, the Court found that the district court
had properly dismissed plaintiffs' amended complaint for failure
to state a claim.

Finally, the Court turned to whether the district court had
properly dismissed plaintiffs' first amended complaint without
granting leave to file a second amended complaint.  Plaintiffs
argued that the district court abused its discretion by denying
leave to amend, and further argued that plaintiffs had failed to
timely amend their complaint because they were waiting to receive
additional information from the testimony of Enron's CFO and
UBS's expert witness.  The Fifth Circuit rejected plaintiffs'
explanations, finding that they did not explain plaintiffs'
years-long delay in filing leave to amend even after obtaining
that information, and that plaintiffs had not demonstrated that
additional allegations could cure the deficiencies in the amended
complaint.

This decision underscores the heightened pleading standards that
plaintiffs must meet to establish a securities fraud claim, and
the specificity requirements for pleading scienter in cases with
multiple defendants that are separate but related entities.
Where plaintiffs do not specify which individuals or entities
were responsible for particular alleged material misstatements or
omissions in support of a securities fraud claim, courts may
dismiss those actions for failure to state a claim. [GN]


ULTA BEAUTY: May 1 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
-----------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC on March 5 notified investors
that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Ulta Beauty,
Inc. ("Ulta" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: ULTA) and certain of its
officers, on behalf of shareholders who purchased Ulta securities
during the period between March 30, 2016, and February 23, 2018,
both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). Such investors are
encouraged to join this case by visiting the firm's site:
http://www.bgandg.com/ulta.

This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for
alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period,
defendants made materially false and misleading statements and/or
failed to disclose that: (1) the Company was engaged in the
widespread practice of repackaging returned cosmetics and re-
shelving them alongside unblemished products to sell at full
retail price; and (2) that as a result of the foregoing, Ulta's
public statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times.

On February 9, 2018, post-market, 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.  On this news, Ulta's share price fell $9.07, or 4.15%, to
close at $209.48 on February 12, 2018, the following trading day.
On February 16, 2018, the law firm representing the plaintiff in
the foregoing lawsuit issued a press release further publicizing
the pendency of the lawsuit.  On this news, Ulta's share price
fell $2.87, or 1.41%, over the following two trading days,
closing at $201.13 on February 20, 2018.  Then, 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.  Following publication of the CBS News
article, Ulta's share price dropped $8.18 per share or 3.94%, to
close at $198.93 on February 26, 2018.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the firm's site:
http://www.bgandg.com/ultaor you may contact Peretz Bronstein,
Esq. or his Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you
suffered a loss in Ulta you have until May 1, 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.

Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC -- https://www.bgandg.com --
is a corporate litigation boutique.  Its primary expertise is the
aggressive pursuit of litigation claims on behalf of our clients.
In addition to representing institutions and other investor
plaintiffs in class action security litigation, the firm's
expertise includes general corporate and commercial litigation,
as well as securities arbitration. [GN]


UNITED AIRLINES: 10th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of "Martin"
--------------------------------------------------------
In the case, FRANCINE MARTIN; JEFFREY A. MARTIN, and all other
similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. UNITED AIRLINES,
INC., Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 17-6112 (10th Cir.), Judge
Harris L. Hartz of the U.S. Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit
affirmed the district court's judgment dismissing the Plaintiffs'
First Amended Class Action Petition with prejudice.

Plaintiffs Francine and Jeffrey Martin brought a putative class
action against United Airlines for not fully refunding the price
of nonrefundable airline tickets they had purchased.  Their First
Amended Class Action Petition, the operative complaint in the
case, alleges that they're Oklahoma residents who purchased
several nonrefundable tickets from United.  When they were not
able to take the trips and canceled their bookings, United did
not refund the value of the tickets.  United did allow them to
use what they had paid for the fare (but not the extra charges
for better seats) to book substitute flights, but only on
condition that they book the new flights within one year, pay an
additional "change fee" for each new flight, and call United to
book their flights.

The Plaintiffs were able to book one substitute flight for Mr.
Martin on these terms.  But an attempt to book other flights
failed when Mr. Martin became frustrated with the English
proficiency of the airline's customer-service representatives and
could not obtain an extension of the one-year deadline either
online or by email.

The Plaintiffs filed a complaint in Oklahoma state court,
alleging four claims under Oklahoma law: (1) breach of contract
by "failure of consideration"; (2) breach of contract by failure
to fulfill "reasonable expectations"; (3) recovery of money
wrongfully kept by United; and (4) tortious breach of the implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

Following removal to federal court under the Class Action
Fairness Act, United moved to dismiss the complaint with
prejudice on two grounds.  First, it contended that the claims
were preempted by the  Airline Deregulation Act of 1978 ("ADA"),
which states that a State may not enact or enforce a law,
regulation, or other provision having the force and effect of law
related to a price, route, or service of an air carrier.  Second,
it contended that the complaint failed to state a claim under
Oklahoma law.

The district court said that it was undisputed that the
Plaintiffs' claims related to United's prices and services.  And
it held that insofar as the Plaintiffs' theories of relief
attempted to impose state-law standards to which the parties had
not agreed, they were preempted.  It then held that the remaining
claims failed on the merits.  It therefore dismissed the
complaint with prejudice.

On appeal the Plaintiffs concede that their fourth claim (a tort
claim, rather than a contract claim, based on an alleged breach
of the covenant of good faith) is preempted by the ADA.  And
although their reply brief contends that they have not conceded
preemption of their third claim (recovery of money wrongfully
kept by United), they have waived any challenge to the dismissal
of that claim because their opening brief presents no argument on
the issue.  Thus, only their two breach-of-contract claims
remain.

Although the parties' briefs devote most of their attention to
the preemption issue, Judge Hartz holds he needs not address it
because the claims pursued by the Plaintiffs on appeal are not
supported by Oklahoma law.  United did nothing more than enforce
an enforceable contract.  He says the Plaintiffs acknowledge on
appeal that one of the issues before them is whether their claims
fail on their merits.  And the Judge can readily hold, at least
on the arguments made by the Plaintiffs on appeal that the
preserved claims fail under Oklahoma law.  Accordingly, he
affirmed.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 21, 2018 Order and Judgment
is available at https://is.gd/rhOska from Leagle.com.


UNITED STATES: Judge Stays Common Ground's Class Action Over CSR
----------------------------------------------------------------
Katie Keith, writing for Health Affairs, reports that the federal
government recently filed a motion to oppose a request for class
certification made by the Common Ground Healthcare Cooperative.
Common Ground is believed to be the first and only insurer to try
to establish a class action lawsuit over failure to make CSR
payments.  In November 2017, Common Ground had amended its class
action lawsuit on risk corridor payments to additionally contest
the government's failure to make CSR payments.

After asking for additional time to consider whether the CSRs
claim should be certified as a class action, the government now
opposes this move.  The government argues that Common Ground has
not demonstrated that a class action is superior to other methods
for litigating its CSR claims and that there is no need for a
class action because the court can jointly consider CSR claims
brought by different insurers.  They also argue that insurers
could face "individualized questions" because many will not have
been injured by CSR nonpayment in 2018 -- many insurers raised
their premiums to recoup or offset the loss of CSRs, resulting in
increased premium tax credit payments from the government.
Alternatively, the government asks the court to defer ruling on
the certification issue.

Regardless of class certification, Judge Margaret Sweeney of the
Court of Federal Claims has already issued a stay in Common
Ground's litigation -- both its risk corridors and CSR claim --
until the Federal Circuit issues a decision in one or both of its
two pending risk corridors cases.  These cases, Land of Lincoln
and Moda Health Plan, were heard by the Federal Circuit in
January 2018.  Another CSR case brought by Maine Community Health
Options was also stayed pending the outcomes of the risk
corridors cases, and the government recently made a similar
request to stay another CSR lawsuit filed by L.A. Health Care
Plan in early February 2018.  L.A. Health Care Plan has opposed
the motion to stay the litigation. [GN]


VERDE ENERGY: Faces "Mercado" Suit in N.D. Illinois
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Verde Energy USA,
Inc. The case is styled as Tracey Mercado, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Verde
Energy USA, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-02068 (N.D. Ill.,
March 21, 2018).

Verde Energy USA, Inc. provides electricity supply services in
Connecticut, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Ohio,
Pennsylvania, and Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Gregory F Coleman, Esq.
   Greg Coleman Law PC
   800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100
   Knoxville, TN 37929
   Tel: (865) 247-0080
   Email: greg@gregcolemanlaw.com

      - and -

   Edward A. Wallace, Esq.
   Wexler Wallace LLP
   55 West Monroe, Suite 3300
   Chicago, IL 60603
   Tel: (312) 346-2222
   Email: eaw@wexlerwallace.com

      - and -

   Richard Lane Miller, II, Esq.
   Wexler Wallace LLP
   55 W Monroe, Suite 3300
   Chicago, IL 60602
   Tel: (312) 330-0021
   Email: rlm@wexlerwallace.com


VESUVIO'S II PIZZA: Court Reopens "Solais" FLSA Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MIRIAM MARTINEZ SOLAIS, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. GIOVANNI SCOTTI
D'ABBUSCO and VESUVIO'S II PIZZA & GRILL, INC., Defendants, Case
No. 1:15CV227 (M.D. N.C.), Judge Loretta C. Biggs of the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina granted
the Plaintiff's Motion to Reopen Case, and denied both her Motion
to Substitute and Join Defendants and Motion for Equitable
Tolling.

Martinez Solais initiated the action on March 13, 2015, as a
putative collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA"), and a putative class action under the North Carolina
Wage and Hour Act ("NCWHA"), against the Defendants.  In her
Complaint, the Plaintiff alleges that her claims arise from past
employment as a non-exempt cook at Vesuvio's II Pizza & Grill in
Roxboro, North Carolina, owned by D'Abbusco.  According to her
the Defendants violated the statutory rights of her, and those
similarly situated, under the FLSA and NCWHA, which resulted in
damages to her in the form of unpaid minimum and overtime wages.
On March 14, 2016, the Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional
Certification of a class was granted pursuant to FLSA.

On April 22, 2016, the Defendants filed a Suggestion of
Bankruptcy, which notified the Court that each Defendant had
filed a voluntary petition in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the
Middle District of North Carolina under Chapter 7 of the
Bankruptcy Code.  The filing of these petitions operated as an
automatic stay of the present action.

On June 16, 2016, the Court entered an Order recognizing that the
instant litigation has been stayed pending disposition of the
proceedings in a Bankruptcy Court which may become dispositive of
the litigation.  Further, it ordered the clerk of Court to
terminate the action administratively in his records as to the
Defendants and stated that any party will have the right to
reopen the case for any purpose on motion and notice to all
parties, without prejudice to the rights of any of the parties,
at any time prior to the 90th day after the final termination of
the Bankruptcy proceedings.

The Bankruptcy Court entered an order granting a discharge to
Defendant D'Abbusco on Aug. 25, 2016.  In Vesuvio's bankruptcy
proceedings, the Plaintiff filed a proof of claim based on the
same alleged unpaid wages giving rise to the present suit.  She
accordingly attached a copy of her Complaint from the action to
her proof of claim in Vesuvio's bankruptcy proceedings.  On April
8, 2017, the trustee administering Vesuvio's estate filed a Final
Account in the Bankruptcy Court, which certifies that the estate
was fully administered, and further reflects that the trustee
distributed $1,881.42 to the Plaintiff on the basis of her proof
of claim.

On May 15, 2017, the Bankruptcy Court entered a Final Decree,
which provides in pertinent part that the Trustee has reduced the
property and effects of the estate to cash; that the Trustee has
made distribution and has rendered a full and complete account
thereof.  It ordered that the account of the Trustee be, and is
approved and allowed, and that said estate be, and is closed.

On May 24, 2017, the Plaintiff filed the three motions presently
before the Court.  She moves to substitute as Party-Defendants La
Piazza Italian Restaurant & Bar, LLC, and its co-owner, Jeffrey
Davis, for the currently named Defendants in the action, pursuant
to Rule 25(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.  Further,
she moves to join Christina D'Abbusco as a Defendant, pursuant to
Rules 15(a) and 20(a).  In addition, the Plaintiff, in her brief,
states that if her request for substitution is denied, then the
Court should grant her, in the alternative to proceeding under
Rule 25, leave to amend her Complaint, pursuant to Rules 15(a)
and 20(a), to join La Piazza and Mr. Davis as the Defendants.

Judge Biggs concludes that res judicata precludes the Plaintiff
from proceeding with the litigation against La Piazza, Mr. Davis,
and Vesuvio's.  She also concludes that allowing the Plaintiff's
motion to amend her Complaint to add Mrs. D'Abbusco as a
Defendant would be futile.  Thus, the Judge denied on the basis
of futility the Plaintiff's motion to amend to add La Piazza, Mr.
Davis, and Mrs. D'Abbusco.

Further, she states that Defendant D'Abbusco's discharge in
bankruptcy precludes the Plaintiff from litigating her claims
against him.  For these reasons, the Judge dismisses the
Plaintiff's claims against the currently named Defendants,
Vesuvio's and D'Abbusco.  She denied as moot the Plaintiff's
Motion for Equitable Tolling and her Motion to Substitute and
Join Parties.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 21, 2018 Memorandum Opinion
and Order is available at https://is.gd/df1Zyx from Leagle.com.

MIRIAM MARTINEZ SOLAIS, Plaintiff, represented by ADAM T KLEIN --
atk@outtengolden.com -- OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP, SALLY J. ABRAHAMSON
-- sabrahamson@outtengolden.com -- OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP &GILDA A.
HERNANDEZ -- ghernandez@gildahernandezlaw.com -- LAW OFFICES OF
GILDA A. HERNANDEZ, PLLC.

GIOVANNI SCOTTI DABBUSCO, VESUVIO'S II PIZZA & GRILL, INC,
Defendants, represented by DENISE SMITH CLINE --
denise@dsclinelaw.com -- LAW OFFICE OF DENISE SMITH CLINE.


ZWICKER & ASSOCIATES: Faces "Lipzkier" Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Zwicker &
Associates, P.C. The case is styled as Yisroel Lipskier, on
behalf of himself and all other similarly situated consumers,
Plaintiff v. Zwicker & Associates, P.C., Defendant, Case No.
1:18-cv-01777 (E.D. N.Y., March 22, 2018).

Zwicker & Associates, P.C. is a law firm whose primary business
function is debt collection.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq.
   Adam J. Fishbein, P.C.
   735 Central Avenue
   Woodmere, NY 11598
   Tel: (516) 668-6945
   Email: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com


* CBA Adopts New Protocol for Multijurisdictional Class Actions
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sylvie Rodriguez, Esq. -- srodrigue@torys.com -- and Marie-Eve
Gingras, Esq. -- mgingras@torys.com -- of Torys LLP, in an
article for Mondaq, wrote that the Canadian Bar Association (CBA)
adopted the new Canadian Judicial Protocol for the Management of
MultiJurisdictional Class Actions and the Provision of Class
Action Notice (2018 Judicial Protocol) as best practices at its
annual meeting on February 15 and the Class action division,
MontrÇal division, is in the process of restructuring itself.

What You Need To Know

   -- Although the 2018 Judicial Protocol is not mandatory, the
coordinating judge of the Class Action Division, MontrÇal
Division, spoke in favor of its adoption.  In addition, the
parties may make a request for its application.  Finally, it
could eventually be incorporated into the rules of practice.

   -- The 2018 Judicial Protocol aims to minimize confusion and
maximize communication between judges and lawyers involved in
similar class actions in different jurisdictions.

   -- If you have a class action case at the pre-authorization
stage in the MontrÇal Division, a new judge may be assigned to
your case if your judge is not part of the Group of 10.

   -- If you have a class action case at the post-authorization
stage in the MontrÇal Division, a new judge may be assigned to
your case if your judge is part of the Group of 10.

The Details
The 2018 Judicial Protocol was developed by the CBA National Task
Force on Class Actions under the chairmanship of Torys partner
Sylvie Rodrigue.  The CBA Task Force also developed the 2011
Judicial Protocol, which dealt with the procedure for approving
multjurisdictional class action settlements and the issuance of
notices.  The Task Force began meeting again in 2016 to add best
practices for the management of multijurisdictional class actions
in cases where there is no settlement.

The 2018 Judicial Protocol, developed after consultation with the
Bar and members of the judiciary, and taking into account
applicable class action legislation across Canada, completes the
2011 protocol.  However, it is up to each court to adopt it or
not.

The new best practices set forth in the 2018 Judicial Protocol
include:

   -- Disclosure requirements for plaintiff's counsel: Prior to
the first case management conference in an action, plaintiff's
counsel shall post the pleadings of their action on the CBA Class
Action Database, advise the Court of any other parallel action of
which they are aware and of the status of such action, and
provide this list to the Court and the other counsel. Plaintiff's
counsel must keep this information up to date and keep the Court
and other counsel informed of any changes.

   -- A process for exchanging information between judges and
counsel in the different jurisdictions: the 2018 Judicial
Protocol provides that the parties may consent that the judges in
the different jurisdictions speak to each other. In the absence
of such consent, a judge may convene a hearing in this regard and
render a decision after receiving the parties' submissions.

   -- The opportunity to hold a joint case management hearing.

  -- Other disclosure requirements: Judges, upon request, and
counsel in the other actions must receive a copy of applications
for suspension, applications to dismiss based on the existence of
other actions and applications for authorization (certification)
which include class members in other actions.  Counsel receiving
copies of such applications may seek leave to make
representations at the hearing.

In addition, the Class Action Division, MontrÇal Division is in
the process of restructuring.  At present, the coordinating judge
of the Division assigns applications for leave to authorize a
class action (certification application) to one of the Group of
73 judges of the Division.  Class actions are under the
management of the assigned judge throughout their existence
(i.e., at pre-authorization stage and after authorization if
authorization granted).  The Group of 73 judges usually have four
or five files each. The main changes that are contemplated, and
expected to take effect as of the fall of 2018, are:

   -- The Group of 73 will be divided as follows:
Group of 10: in charge of the files before a judgment on the
authorization is rendered (they will have 15 or 16 files each on
average).

   -- Group of 63: in charge of the files after a judgment
authorizing a class action has been rendered (one or two files
each).

   -- The Group of 10 judges will have two or three days per
month dedicated to their class action files.

Unless exception, the judges of the Group of 63 must give away
the cases they manage where the judgment on authorization has not
been rendered and the judges of the Group of 10 must give away
the cases they manage where a judgment of authorization has been
rendered. [GN]


* Kavinoky Cook Attorneys Discuss Key Arbitration Developments
--------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Griffin, Esq. -- rgriffin@kavinokycook.com -- and Aaron
Rubin, Esq. -- arubin@kavinokycook.com -- of Kavinoky Cook LLP,
in an article for Buffalo Business First, discuss four important
arbitration developments in 2017.

Here they are:

Secrecy is out for sexual harassment claims.

Health care providers expand use of compulsory arbitration.

Class action waivers survive.

The U.S. Supreme Court to decide class action waivers in
employment arbitration agreements.

Sexual harassment

The New York Times reported on Dec. 19 (P. B1) that one of the
world's biggest software makers, Microsoft, had decided not to
enforce arbitration of sexual harassment claims.  This was no
doubt prompted by recent legislation introduced by Sens. Kirsten
Gillibrand, D-NY, and Lindsay Graham, R-SC, that would make
forced arbitration in harassment cases unenforceable under
federal laws.

Among the reasons given by Brad Smith, Microsoft's president, for
not enforcing arbitration clauses is: "The silencing of people's
voices has clearly had an impact perpetuating sexual harassment."

Equifax is another company that withdrew its requirement for
arbitration in certain circumstances.  The original website that
the company set up required consumers to agree to terms that
included an arbitration clause precluding joining class actions.
After considerable protests on social media, Equifax allowed
consumers to exclude these items from arbitration.

Health care givers expand use of arbitration clauses

A good friend recently went to a provider for treatment of back
pain. Before his treatment, he was required to sign a detailed
document: "Arbitration Agreement: It is understood that any
dispute as to medical malpractice . . .  will be determined by
submission to arbitration as provided by State and Federal Law".

The therapist advised that his malpractice carrier required
patients to sign this agreement.

Providers expanding use of compulsory arbitration in health care
cases have a tailwind from each branch of the federal government.
In June, the Trump administration acted to reverse an Obama-era
rule from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid that banned pre-
dispute arbitration clauses in nursing homes.

Earlier in May, the Supreme Court's decision in Kindred Nursing
Centers v. Clark, 137 S.Ct. 142.1 (2017) invalidated a state rule
that required a power of attorney to provide a clear statement
granting the agent authority to bind a principal to arbitration,
holding the rule violated the Federal Arbitration Act by singling
out arbitration for disfavored treatment.

Class action waivers survive

A major source of disputes relative to arbitration clauses is
that most not only require arbitration, but prohibit the consumer
from participating in any class action or class arbitration.

Thus, if a customer of a finance company claims to be overcharged
for $645 of unauthorized fees over two years, not only must the
customer arbitrate the claim but the customer cannot join with
others in a class action to economically be able to prosecute the
customer's claim.  Thus, many have to throw in the towel and
forego a recovery of the unauthorized fees.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), in its efforts
to protect consumers and debtors, early in 2017 adopted a rule
which did not ban arbitration, but prohibited financial firms
from including a ban on class arbitrations.  However, the U.S.
Senate passed a resolution in October 2017 that nullified the
CFPB's prohibition.

Richard Cordray, the CFPB director who resigned in November 2017,
explained the importance of class arbitration in a New York Times
op-ed of Aug. 22, 2017.

It is true that the average payouts are higher in individual
suits.

But that is because very few people go through arbitration, and
they generally do so only when thousands of dollars are at stake,
whereas the typical group lawsuit seeks to recover small amounts
for many people.

Almost nobody spends time or money fighting a small fee on their
own.  As one judge noted, "Only a lunatic or a fanatic sues for
$30." When a bank charges illegal fees to millions of customers
and then blocks them from suing together, a result is not
millions of individual claims but zero.

So the bank gets to pocket millions in ill-gotten gains.

Supreme Court to decide class action waivers in employment
arbitration agreements

On Oct. 2, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in the
Murphy Oil case.  The basic issue is whether employer-imposed
arbitration agreements that bar individual employees from
pursuing work-related claims on a collective basis in any form
violate 29 U.S.C. 158 (A)(1) because they limit the employees'
right under the National Labor Relations Act to engage in
"concerted activities" for "mutual aid or protection", 29 U.S.C.
157, and are therefore unenforceable under the saving clause of
the Federal Arbitration Act 9 U.S.C. 2.

A decision is expected within the next few months.

Thus, arbitration has not only been a "hot issue" during 2017, we
predict that the temperature may rise in 2018 as legislatures,
courts, patients, employees, debtors and creditors battle out
various issues.  [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  * * *