CAR_Public/180402.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


              Monday, April 2, 2018, Vol. 20, No. 66



                            Headlines


ABM PARKING: 9th Cir. Dismisses FACTA Lawsuit
ACROSS THE NATION: Marous Sues Over Illegal Text Messages
AKORN INC: Faces Shareholder Class Action
ALL COUNTY : German Sues Over Missed Breaks, Unpaid Overtime
ALLIANCEONE RECEIVABLES: Faces "Vandehey" Suit in E.D. Wisconsin

ALLERGAN INC: Ahold USA Anti-trust Suit Transferred to E.D. N.Y.
ALLERGAN INC: Allied Anti-trust Suit Transferred to E.D. N.Y.
ALLERGAN INC: Police Fund Anti-Trust Suit Transferred to NY
ALLERGAN INC: KPH Anti-Trust Suit Transferred to E.D. N.Y.
ALLERGAN INC: Plumbers Fund Anti-Trust Suit Transferred to NY

ALLERGAN INC: Rochester Anti-trust Suit Transferred to E.D. N.Y.
ALPHACRAFT CONSTRUCTION: Workers Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
AMER SPORTS: Faces "Olsen" Suit in E.D. New York
ANSCHUTZ ENTERTAINMENT: Ozzy Osbourne Files Antitrust Suit
ANTHONY'S LUNCH: Faces "Melchor" Suit in E.D. New York

APPLE FEDERAL: Illegally Charged "Jean-Baptiste" Overdraft Fees
ARANA STONE: Denied Overtime Premium, "Lanza" Suit Says
AUDI OF AMERICA: Faces "McBride" Suit in S.D. Florida
BALENCIAGA AMERICA: Faces "Fischler" Suit in S.D. New York
BANK OF AMERICA: Faces Class Action over Funds Transfer Charges

BANK OF THE INTERNET: Judge Tentatively Dismisses Class Action
BIGLARI HOLDINGS: "Hipps" Suit Removed to S.D. Ind.
BIRD ELECTRIC: "Guajardo" Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
BODY SCULPT: "Thompson" Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay
BRENT WALTERS: "Blanton" Labor Suit Transferred to E.D. Tex.

BREW DR: Sued in Illinois for Overstating Probiotic Bacteria
C. TECH COLLECTIONS: Faces "Brown" Suit in E.D. New York
CACH LLC: "Krahn" Action Disputes Collection Letter
CALIFORNIA: Judge Delays Approval of $16.6MM Phone Tax Settlement
CALLIDUS SOFTWARE: Rigrodsky & Long Files Securities Class Action

CARSON SMITHFIELD: Faces "Meyers" Suit in E.D. New York
CARSON SMITHFIELD: Faces "Melton" Suit in E.D. New York
CASEY'S GENERAL STORES: "McColley" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages
CHOICE HOTELS: Sued for Allegedly Manipulating Search Results
COMERICA BANK: Gordon Files Class Action Suit in Calif.

COSTCO WHOLESALE: La Vigne Appeals Dismissal of Suit to 2nd Cir.
CORNERSTONE RESIDENTIAL: "Malossi" Suit Seeks to Recoup Unpaid OT
COTY INC: "Taylor" Product Liability Suit Transferred to Alabama
CSC HOLDINGS: "Zemel" Suit Sues Over SMS Ads Despite Opt-out
CVS HEALTH: Faces Suit Over Unauthorized HIV Data Disclosure

CVS HEALTH: Faces Suit for Discriminatory Business Practices
CYAN INC: Loses Bid to Quash California Securities Class Action
DAIKIN NA: 300 Alabamans Fight Water Contamination Settlement
DELOITTE TOUCHE: Lawyers File Class Action Over Unpaid Benefits
DELTA AIRLINES: Tries to Beat Back Bag Fee Collusion Claim

DENKA PERFORMANCE: Chloroprene Suit Denied Class Action Status
DIGNITY HEALTH: Must Face Class Action Over Pension Plan
DIRECTV LLC: Faces FCRA Class Action in California
DST SYSTEMS: Pratt Suit Seeks to Block Sale to SS&C Technologies
DYNAMIC LEDGER: Class Action Over Initial Coin Offering Ongoing

EDWARD D. JONES: Faces Class Action Over Training Costs
ENAGIC USA: Makaron Asks Ct. to Compel 800Link to File Response
EXPERIAN INFO: Walsh Files Suit Over Erroneous Tax Lien Reports
EXPRESSIVE LIGHTING: Denied Overtime Pay, "Williams" Suit Says
EXXON MOBIL: Faces "Guimary" Suit in C.D. California

FINANCIAL BUSINESS: Johnson Sues Over Student Loan Collection
FITNESS 19: Maggard Sues Over Double Gym Fees Charges
FORT MYERS, FL: Faces "Miller" Suit in M.D. Florida
FP HOLDINGS: Guests Sue Over Illegal Taxes for Internet Use
FRANKLIN INSTITUTE: Faces "Lee" Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania

FUNKO INC: Time to Answer to Securities Violation Claims Extended
GENERAL MILLS: "Hilsley" Mislabeling Suit Removed to S.D. Cal.
GENERAL MOTORS: Settles Arizona Ignition Switch Case for $6.29MM
GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Faces "Thorne" Suit in S.D. New York
GLYNN COUNTY, GA: House Bill 1012 Put on the Back Burner

GOOGLE INC: YouTube Slays Zombie Video Makers' Ad Revenue Suit
GOOGLE LLC: Plaintiffs to Refile Dismissed Nexus 6P Claims
GOOGLE INC: Settles Privacy Class Action Over Street View Cars
GRADY'S PIZZA: Faces "Foster" Suit in E.D. Arkansas
GREENSPOON MARDER: Court Denies Dismissal of "Lapan" FDCPA Suit

HENRY SCHEIN: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
HERSHEY COMPANY: Court Dismisses Class Action Over Candy Box
HH GULFSTREAM: Faces CDS Gulfstream Suit in S.D. Florida
HOME DEPOT: Faces "Sullivan" Suit in S.D. New York
HUNTLEIGH USA: Court Grants Final Approval of $1.5MM Settlement

INTERACTIVECORP: Sued for Deleting Transgender Users' Profiles
INFORMATION RESOURCES: Bid to Transfer "Bakhtiar" Denied
JOBMATCH LLC: Marous Sues Over Illegal Text Messages
JONES & ASSOCIATES: Order Denying Class Cert in "Vuyancih" Upheld
JP MORGAN: Faces "McShannock" Suit in N.D. California

KIMBERLY-CLARK CORP: Court Consolidates "Sebastian," "Haris"
KINDRED HEALTHCARE: "Carter" Claims Shortchanged on Merger Deal
KOBE STEEL: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Data Falsification
KOCH FOODS: Broiler Growers File Anti-trust Suit in N. Carolina
LEMONADE INSURANCE: Faces "Thorne" Suit in S.D. New York

LOUISIANA: Prisoners File Suit Over Inhumane Jail Conditions
MDL 2420: Indirect Purchasers Lose Class Certification Bid
MDL 2591: Settles Farmers' GMO Corn Suit for $1.5 Billion
MDL 2804: Hartford City Agrees to Join Opioid Crisis Class Action
MERCHANTS CREDIT: "Nicholson" Disputes Collection Letter

MINNESOTA: Averts Class Action Over Handling of Abandoned Money
MISSISSIPPI: Hopkins Files Suit v. State Secretary
MOKBAR II: "Kaewjino" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT, Spread-of-Hours Pay
NATIONAL DISTRIBUTION: Perez-Reyes Appeals Ruling to 9th Circuit
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Faces "Ratunil" Suit in N.D. Fla.

NEW YORK: Class Action Against MTA Seeks Safety Reforms
NEW YORK PIZZA: "Hyskaj" Suit Seeks to Recoup Unpaid Wages
NEWBOLD SERVICES: "Guinn" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
NEWTON COUNY, GA: Class Action Mulled Over NABORS Landfill Fee
OHIO: Workers File Class Action Over Payroll System Glitch

ONE MILE HOUSE: De Los Santos Sues Over Unpaid Overtime
OUR NEIGHBORHOOD: Faces "Toribio" Suit in E.D. New York
OVERTON RUSSELL: Faces "Luci" Suit in N.D. New York
PENNSYLVANIA HIGHER: Clancy Sues Over Bad Credit Report
PETER ROFE: Faces Sexual Harassment Class Action

PETROLEO BRASILEIRO: June 4 Securities Settlement Hearing Set
PHILLIPS & COHEN: Bernal Disputes IRS Note on Collection Letter
PHILLIPS & COHEN: Bernal Disputes IRS Note on Collection Letter
PLEASANTON FITNESS: Lecomte Sues Over Illegally Debited Gym Fees
PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL: Faces "Thorne" Suit in S.D. New York

PROFESSIONAL PLACEMENT: Court Grants Final OK of "Safranski" Deal
PROFESSIONAL RECOVERY: Cal. App. Affirms Dismissal of "Lee"
PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Faces "Thorne" Suit in S.D. New York
PURDUE PHARMA: Faces American Resources Suit in S.D. Alabama
RENO, NV: Lemon Valley Flooding Class Action Can Proceed

S & A RETAIL: Faces "Olsen" Suit in S.D. New York
SAGAL FILBERT: "Jackson" Disputes Validity of Collection Letter
SAN REMOS GROUP: Does Not Properly Pay Wages, "Guzman" Suit Says
SANTANDER BANK: Must Face Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
SONIC AUTOMOTIVE: Denial of Class Cert in "Bornstein" Affirmed

SOUTH FLORIDA TILE: "Maradiaga" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Settlement Obtains Preliminary Court Approval
ST. LOUIS, MO: ArchCity Defenders to Challenge "Wanteds" System
STANDARD & POOR'S: SCDO Class Action in Australia Commences
TOYOTA MOTOR: Faces Class Action Over Defective Prius Windshields

TRANS UNION: Judge Inks $8MM Settlement in Credit Reports Case
TRANS1 INC: 4th Cir. Partly Reverses Dismissal of Securities Suit
TRAVELERS INDEMNITY: Blumenthal Nordrehaug Files Class Action
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Averts Antitrust Suit Over Surge-Pricing Model
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Wins Motion to Stay Heller Class Action

UBER TECHNOLOGIES: "Vergara" Suit Brought Before 7th Cir.
ULTA BEAUTY: Brower Piven Files Securities Class Action
UNITED AIRLINES: Wins Case Over 'Lifetime' Benefits
UNITED HEALTHCARE: Faces "Thorne" Suit n S.D. New York
UNITED STATES: Faces Class Action Over Trump's 3rd Travel Ban

UNIVERSITY OF NEW MEXICO: Faces Pay Discrimination Class Action
VALLEY NATIONAL: Faces "Thorne" Suit in S.D. New York
WINES' TIL SOLD: AGs Wants Court to Reject Class Settlement
WISCONSIN: Faces Class Action Over DNA Database Fee
WYNDHAM VACATION: "Pierce" Suit Brought Before 6th Cir.

XCEL HEALTHCARE: "Norris" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
XENIA HOTELS: Faces "Knowles" Suit in Massachusetts
YAHOO INC: Settles Securities Class Action for $80 Million
YOUTUBE: Judge Dismisses Class Action Over Adpocalypse Debacle







                            *********


ABM PARKING: 9th Cir. Dismisses FACTA Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------
Joshua G. Hamilton, Esq. -- joshua.hamilton@lw.com --
Michael Alan Hale, Esq. -- michael.hale@lw.com -- and James N.
Rotstein, Esq. -- james.rotstein@lw.com -- of Latham & Watkins
LLP, in an article for Lexology, wrote that the Ninth Circuit
follows the Second and Seventh Circuits in dismissing consumer
class actions in which named plaintiff alleges no injury other
than statutory damages.

Key Points:

- In Bassett v. ABM Parking Services, Inc., the Ninth Circuit
applies Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins in holding that a named plaintiff
must allege a sufficiently concrete injury.

- While Bassett addresses a claim brought under FACTA, the
decision may have broader implications because plaintiffs
claiming bare procedural violations of other consumer protection
statutes, without more, will have similar difficulty establishing
standing to sue.

- Companies should not view Bassett as amnesty for violating
statutes that provide for statutory damages such as FACTA, and
must remain vigilant in ensuring compliance with statutes.

- Bassett will likely present an obstacle to plaintiffs seeking
class certification because whether or not a particular putative
class member suffered a concrete Article III injury will result
in highly individualized inquiries.

Introduction

On February 21, 2018, the Ninth Circuit issued its decision in
Bassett, addressing whether the disclosure of a customer's credit
card expiration date on a receipt constitutes a sufficiently
concrete injury to confer standing to sue.  The Ninth Circuit,
consistent with the Second and Seventh Circuits' rulings, held
that printing a customer's credit card expiration date on a
receipt, without any other allegation of injury, does not
constitute an injury-in-fact for standing purposes.  The Ninth
Circuit relied on Spokeo, in which the US Supreme Court held that
a plaintiff must establish that an injury-in-fact is concrete and
particularized.  However, the Ninth Circuit's decision has
limited reach, because it likely does not apply to circumstances
in which a customer no longer possesses a receipt, which may
create a material risk of harm.  At this time, the Supreme Court
is unlikely to review Bassett given that all three circuits to
address this identical claim have applied Spokeo in the same
manner, and have reached the same result.

The Bassett decision serves as a constitutional roadblock for
plaintiffs' counsel seeking to sue companies for technical
violations of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act
(FACTA).  In a broader context, Bassett further solidifies that
plaintiffs cannot recover based solely on statutory violations
unless those violations are accompanied by actual harm or a
material risk of harm sufficient to confer standing.  Plaintiffs
claiming bare procedural violations of other statutes, without
more, will have difficulty establishing concrete injury requisite
for standing if Bassett is applied more broadly.

FACTA Background

In 2003, Congress passed FACTA, which amended the Fair Credit
Reporting Act (FCRA). FACTA provided that "no person that accepts
credit cards or debit cards for the transaction of business shall
print more than the last 5 digits of the card number or the
expiration date upon any receipt provided to the cardholder at
the point of the sale or transaction."3 The statute provides
penalties for "willful noncompliance" and for "negligent
noncompliance."  "Any person who willfully fails to comply with
[the FACTA requirement] with respect to any consumer is liable to
that consumer" for actual damages of between US$100 and US$1,000
per violation, costs, reasonable attorney's fees, and,
potentially, punitive damages.  "Any person who is negligent in
failing to comply with [the FACTA requirement] with respect to
any consumer is liable to that consumer" for actual damages and
attorney's fees.

Following the passage of FACTA, enterprising plaintiffs'
attorneys filed numerous lawsuits on behalf of consumers against
merchants who printed receipts that included the expiration date
of the credit or debit card.  In 2008, Congress passed the Credit
and Debit Card Receipt Clarification Act (the Clarification Act)
in response to the onslaught of class action litigation and the
business community's concerns.  The Clarification Act provided
that "any person who printed an expiration date on any receipt
provided to a consumer cardholder at a point of sale or
transaction between December 4, 2004, and June 3, 2008, but
otherwise" did not print more than the last five digits of the
card number, "shall not be in willful noncompliance" with FACTA.
While the Clarification Act thus retroactively shielded companies
from liability for revealing customers' credit card expiration
dates on or before June 3, 2008, it did not grant any reprieve
for companies' "willful noncompliance" after June 3, 2008.

The Ninth Circuit's Decision in Bassett

In Bassett, ABM Parking Services (ABM) committed a technical
violation of FACTA by printing the expiration date of Bassett's
credit card on his parking garage receipt.  Bassett responded by
filing a putative class action lawsuit claiming violations of
FACTA, alleging that he was injured because the disclosure
exposed him to an imminent risk of identity theft.9 Notably,
Bassett "did not allege that a second receipt existed, that his
receipt was lost or stolen,  . . . that he was the victim of
identity theft[,]" or that a third party viewed the receipt.10
The only "sufficiently concrete" injury Bassett could allege in
order to establish Article III standing was the "risk of harm"
that the printing of the expiration date created.11

The Ninth Circuit considered whether Bassett had alleged a
sufficiently concrete injury to give him Article III standing,
but agreed with the district court that Bassett's allegation of
"only a statutory violation and a potential for exposure to
actual injury" does not constitute "a concrete injury sufficient
to give Bassett standing."

In so holding, the Ninth Circuit relied upon the Supreme Court's
decision on standing in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins.13 As an initial
matter, in order to establish standing, a plaintiff "must have
(1) suffered an injury in fact, (2) that is fairly traceable to
the challenged conduct of the defendant, and (3) that is likely
to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision."  As stated
earlier in this Client Alert, Spokeo indicated that a plaintiff
must show that the injury-in-fact is concrete and particularized.
A concrete injury must be "de facto," which means that it "must
actually exist."  In examining a putative class action lawsuit
alleging a different FCRA violation, the Supreme Court emphasized
that the plaintiff "cannot satisfy the demands of Article III by
alleging a bare procedural violation" since "[a] violation of one
of the FCRA's procedural requirements may result in no harm."
On remand, the Ninth Circuit clarified that some statutory
violations alone do establish concrete harm, but only those
statutory provisions established to protect "concrete interests"
and that "actually harm, or present a material risk of harm to,
such interests."  In Bassett, the Ninth Circuit reasoned that it
"is difficult to see how issuing a receipt to only the card owner
and with only the expiration date" could constitute concrete
harm.

After examining historical practice and congressional judgment,
the Ninth Circuit concluded that Bassett's allegation of a bare
procedural violation of FACTA, without more, does not constitute
a concrete injury.  Bassett also argued that his alleged injury
had a historical relationship to privacy-based torts, but the
Ninth Circuit rejected such a relationship because ABM did not
disclose Bassett's information to anyone other than Bassett.  In
examining congressional judgment, the Ninth Circuit reiterated
that Spokeo "rejected [the] conclusion that a FCRA plaintiff need
only invoke a FCRA violation and seek statutory damages to allege
a concrete injury."  An examination of the Clarification Act
suggested that expiration date violations were not concrete
injuries because the Act found that "a disclosed expiration date
by itself poses minimal risk" of identity theft and the Act
created a "temporary safe-harbor period."  Like the Ninth
Circuit, the Seventh and Second Circuits each followed Spokeo and
dismissed identical class action suits for lack of standing
because the plaintiffs did not suffer concrete and particularized
harm.

Implications of the Ninth Circuit's Decision and the Future of
FACTA Lawsuits

While the Ninth Circuit's decision in Bassett (and the decisions
of the Second and Seventh Circuits) provide a procedural shield
from liability against a plaintiff whose factual situation
mirrors that in Bassett, the decision's reach is likely limited
to situations in which an otherwise-compliant company prints an
expiration date on a customer's receipt and no one other than the
customer and his or her lawyers viewed the receipt.  Indeed, the
Ninth Circuit pointed out that "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."23 Under controlling
law in the circuit, consumers who receive a receipt from a
company containing the expiration date of their credit cards will
not be able to sue under FACTA to establish standing.  This will
apply as long as the company does not print more than the last
five digits of the card number, and the receipt was not issued or
exposed to anyone other than the card owner since these consumers
will not be able to establish a concrete injury-in-fact.

For companies to control what happens to a receipt once it has
been issued to a customer is difficult, if not impossible, so
companies must remain vigilant in conducting reviews of issued
receipts to ensure that they comply with FACTA.  What may end up
being a significant individual inquiry is what happened to the
receipt after it was given to the customer.  Ironically, if the
customer still has the receipt and provides a copy as evidence
for the lawsuit, then the receipt has likely never been shown to
anyone else, and he or she would not have standing.  On the flip
side, if the receipt is lost, then the individual may not have
proof of a violation.

The decision will likely have a large impact on the legal
landscape beyond FACTA and the FCRA, since plaintiffs will need
to meet the same burden of establishing concrete injury-in-fact
with respect to bare procedural violations of other consumer
protection statutes in order to establish standing to sue.
Bassett serves as additional authority supporting the proposition
that plaintiffs cannot recover for injuries that are merely
speculative and hypothetical in nature. Even if a company commits
a statutory violation, a plaintiff will still need to establish
actual harm or a material risk of harm in order to survive a
motion to dismiss for lack of standing.

In addition, the Ninth Circuit's decision will likely have an
effect on class certification for procedural violations of
statutes, since the decision will make it more difficult for
plaintiffs to establish the commonality, typicality, and
predominance required for certification, and to accurately
identify an appropriately defined class.24 Individualized
inquiries will likely predominate, since they are necessary to
establish concrete injury by showing that either actual harm
occurred or there was a material risk of harm.

For the FACTA violation at issue in Bassett, these individualized
inquiries would focus on what sort of disclosure of nonconforming
receipts occurred for customers, since disclosure of the
nonconforming receipt to someone other than the customer is
necessary to establish actual harm or a material risk of harm.
[GN]


ACROSS THE NATION: Marous Sues Over Illegal Text Messages
---------------------------------------------------------
Richard Marous, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Across the Nation, Promo, Model
& Staffing, Ltd., Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-80179, (S.D. Fla.,
February 15, 2018), seeks injunctive relief, statutory damages
and any other available legal or equitable remedies under the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Defendant deals in event staffing, promotional models and
experiential marketing across the United States. It sent
recruitment texts to Marous' cellphone without express consent,
notes the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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

AKORN INC: Faces Shareholder Class Action
-----------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that a class claims in a federal
complaint that Akorn Inc.'s executives did not disclose that the
pharmaceutical company's noncompliance with federal data
integrity requirements would jeopardize its acquisition by a
health care firm, causing share prices to drop 38 percent to
$18.65.

Counsel for Plaintiff:

     Matthew T. Heffner, Esq.
     Matthew T. Hurst, Esq.
     HEFFNER HURST
     30 North LaSalle Street, Twelfth Floor
     Chicago, IL 60602
     Telephone: (312) 346-3466
     Fax: (312) 346-2829
     Email: mheffner@heffnerhurst.com
     Email: mhurst@heffnerhurst.com

        -- and --

     Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
     Phillip Kim, Esq.
     THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
     275 Madison Ave, 34th Floor
     New York, NY 10016
     Telephone: (212) 686-1060
     Fax: (212) 202-3827
     Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
     Email: pkim@rosenlegal.com


ALL COUNTY : German Sues Over Missed Breaks, Unpaid Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Rodney L. German and Joshua R. Kroll, on their own behalf and
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. All County Paving,
Inc.,
M&M Asphalt Maintenance, Inc. and Jeffrey Cohen, Defendants, Case
No. 18-cv-80213 (S.D. Fla., February 21, 2018), seeks payment of
all overtime hours, liquidated damages, reasonable attorney's
fees and costs of suit and such further relief under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Defendants are paving contractors providing asphalt paving
services and products for parking lots, driveways, and road for
commercial, residential and retail clients. Plaintiffs were non-
exempt hourly employees performing various construction duties,
working at Defendant's construction sites, retail stores and
outlets, new construction, apartments, community residential
developments, schools and universities, hospitals, and many other
commercial properties. They routinely worked more than forty
hours per week without being paid overtime. Defendants would
allegedly alter time records to reflect fewer hours than what was
actually worked by Plaintiffs and deducted an hour from their
work day for lunch breaks regardless of whether Plaintiffs took a
bona fide meal break and failed to compensate them for travel
time to and from various job sites. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ALLIANCEONE RECEIVABLES: Faces "Vandehey" Suit in E.D. Wisconsin
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Allianceone
Receivables Management, Inc. The case is styled as Jaquelyn A
Vandehey, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Allianceone Receivables Management, Inc., John and
Jane Does Numbers 1 Through 10, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-
00481-WCG (E.D. Wis., March 27, 2018).

AllianceOne Receivables Management, Inc. is a debt collection
agency in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Philip D Stern, Esq.
   Stern Thomasson LLP
   150 Morris Ave-2nd Fl
   Springfield, NJ 07081
   Tel: (973) 379-7500
   Fax: (973) 532-5868
   Email: philip@sternthomasson.com

      - and -

   Andrew T Thomasson, Esq.
   Stern Thomasson LLP
   150 Morris Ave-2nd Fl
   Springfield, NJ 07081
   Tel: (973) 379-7500
   Fax: (973) 532-5868
   Email: andrew@sternthomasson.com


ALLERGAN INC: Ahold USA Anti-trust Suit Transferred to E.D. N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Ahold USA, Inc., on behalf of itself and all
those similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Allergan, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-00012 (E.D. Tex., January 16, 2018),
was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York on
February 14, 2018 under Case No. 1:18-cv-00973.

The Plaintiff accuses Allergan of monopolizing the sale of
cyclosporine ophthalmic emulsion. Ahold bought Restasis,
Allergan's brand of cyclosporine ophthalmic emulsion. Ahold USA,
Inc. is an assignee of McKesson Corporation.

Allergan, Inc. is the holder of approved New Drug Application for
cyclosporine ophthalmic emulsion sold under the Restasis
trademark. [BN]

Ahold is represented by:

      Thomas M. Sobol, Esq.
      David S Nalven, Esq.
      Hannah W. Brennan, Esq.
      Kristen A. Johnson, Esq.
      HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
      55 Cambridge Pkwy., Suite 301
      Cambridge, MA 02142
      Tel: (617) 482-3700
      Fax: (617) 482-3003
      Email: tom@hbsslaw.com
             davidn@hbsslaw.com
             hannahb@hbsslaw.com
             kristenj@hbsslaw.com

             - and -

      Alfred Luke Smith, Esq.
      John Radice, Esq.
      RADICE LAW FIRM PC
      34 Sunset Blvd.
      Long Beach, NJ 08008
      Tel: (267) 570-3000
      Fax: (609) 385-0745
      Email: lsmith@radicelawfirm.com
             jradice@radicelawfirm.com

            - and -

      Elizabeth L DeRieux, Esq.
      Sidney Calvin Capshaw, III
      CAPSHAW DERIEUX LLP
      114 E Commerce Avenue
      Gladewater, TX 75647
      Tel: (903) 233-4816
      Fax: (903) 236-8787
      Email: ederieux@capshawlaw.com
             ccapshaw@capshawlaw.com

Allergan, Inc. is represented by:

      Jack Wesley Hill, Esq.
      WARD, SMITH & HILL, PLLC
      1507 Bill Owens Parkway
      Longview, TX 75604
      Tel: (903) 757-6400
      Fax: (903) 757-2323
      Email: wh@wsfirm.com


ALLERGAN INC: Allied Anti-trust Suit Transferred to E.D. N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Allied Services Division Welfare Fund, on
behalf of itself and all those similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
Allergan, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 17-cv-00775 (E.D. Tex.,
December 15, 2017), was transferred to the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of New York on February 14, 2018 under
Case No. 18-cv-00971.

Allied Services Division Welfare Fund, is a health and welfare
benefit fund involved in the business of providing health
benefits for covered members. It accuses Allergan of maintaining
a monopoly over the sale of cyclosporine ophthalmic emulsion.
Allied bought Restasis, Allergan's brand of cyclosporine
ophthalmic emulsion. Ahold USA, Inc. is an assignee of McKesson
Corporation.

Allergan, Inc. is the holder of approved New Drug Application for
cyclosporine ophthalmic emulsion sold under the Restasis
trademark. [BN]

Allied Services is represented by:

      Lanson Leon Bordelon, Esq.
      THE DUGAN LAW FIRM, APLC
      One Canal Place
      365 Canal Street, Suite 1000
      New Orleans, LA 70130
      Tel: (504) 648-0180
      Fax: (504) 648-0181
      Email: lbordelon@dugan-lawfirm.com

Allergan, Inc. is represented by:

      Jack Wesley Hill, Esq.
      WARD, SMITH & HILL, PLLC
      1507 Bill Owens Parkway
      Longview, TX 75604
      Tel: (903) 757-6400
      Fax: (903) 757-2323
      Email: wh@wsfirm.com


ALLERGAN INC: Police Fund Anti-Trust Suit Transferred to NY
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Fraternal Order of Police, Miami Lodge 20,
Insurance Trust Fund, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Allergan, Inc., Defendant, Case
No. 17-cv-00755, (E.D. Tex., November 27, 2017), was transferred
to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York
on February 14, 2018 under Case No. 1:18-cv-00969.

Plaintiff seeks damages, injunctive relief, and all other relief
available under federal antitrust laws, state antitrust laws, and
state consumer protection laws.

The action accuses Defendants of conspiring to fix, maintain,
and/or stabilize the prices of prescription cyclosporine
emulsion. Plaintiff indirectly purchased, paid, and/or provided
reimbursement for these products made by one or more Defendants
at supracompetitive prices.

Allergan is a $23B diversified global pharmaceutical company into
global generics, dermatology and aesthetics, CNS, eye care,
urology, gastro-intestinal, cystic fibrosis, cardiovascular and
infectious diseases. It is based in Dublin, Ireland, with U.S.
Administrative Headquarters in Parsippany, New Jersey, USA.

Fraternal Order of Police, Miami Lodge 20, Insurance Trust Fund
is a governmental plan established and funded through
contributions from the City of Miami and the plan's members, who
are current and retired sworn officers from the City of Miami
Police Department and their dependents. FOP Miami was established
pursuant to a duly executed Trust Agreement for the purpose of
providing medical, surgical and hospital care or benefits,
including prescription drug benefits, to its members. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Steve Shadowen, Esq.
      D. Sean Nation, Esq.
      Matthew C. Weiner, Esq.
      Frazer Thomas, Esq.
      HILLIARD & SHADOWEN LLP
      2407 S. Congress Ave, Suite E
      122 Austin, TX 78704
      Telephone: (855) 344-3298
      Email: steve@hilliardshadowenlaw.com
             sean@hilliardshadowenlaw.com
             matt@hilliardshadowenlaw.com
             fraz@hilliardshadowenlaw.com

             - and -

      Natalie Finkelman Bennett, Esq.
      Jayne Goldstein, Esq.
      SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLP
      35 East State Street
      Media, PA 19063
      Telephone: (610) 891-9880
      Facsimile: (610) 891-9883
      Email: nfinkelman@sfmslaw.com
             jgoldstein@sfmslaw.com

Allergan, Inc. is represented by:

      Michael Sean Royall, Esq.
      Jason Cimma McKenney, Esq.
      GIBSON DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP - DALLAS
      2100 McKinney Ave., Suite 1100
      Dallas, TX 75201
      Tel: (214) 698-3256
      Fax: (214) 571-2900
      Email: SRoyall@gibsondunn.com
             jmckenney@gibsondunn.com

             - and -

      Jack Wesley Hill, Esq.
      WARD, SMITH & HILL, PLLC
      1507 Bill Owens Parkway
      Longview, TX 75604
      Tel: (903) 757-6400
      Fax: (903) 757-2323
      Email: wh@wsfirm.com

             - and -

      Richard Hale Cunningham, Esq.
      GIBSON DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
      1801 California Street, Suite 4200
      Denver, CO 80202
      Tel: (303) 298-5752
      Fax: (303) 313-2833
      Email: rhcunningham@gibsondunn.com


ALLERGAN INC: KPH Anti-Trust Suit Transferred to E.D. N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned KPH Healthcare Services, Inc., on behalf of
itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Allergan,
Inc., Defendant, Case No. 17-cv-00755, (E.D. Tex., January 17,
2018), was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York on February 14, 2018 under Case No. 1:18-cv-
00974.

Plaintiff seeks damages, injunctive relief, and all other relief
available under federal antitrust laws, state antitrust laws, and
state consumer protection laws.

The action accuse Defendants of conspiring to fix, maintain,
and/or stabilize the prices of prescription cyclosporine
emulsion. Plaintiff indirectly purchased, paid, and/or provided
reimbursement for these products made by one or more Defendants
at supracompetitive prices.

Allergan is a $23B diversified global pharmaceutical company into
global generics, dermatology and aesthetics, CNS, eye care,
urology, gastro-intestinal, cystic fibrosis, cardiovascular and
infectious diseases. It is based in Dublin, Ireland and U.S.
Administrative Headquarters in Parsippany, New Jersey, USA.

KPH operates retail and online pharmacies in the Northeast under
the name Kinney Drugs, Inc. KPH is the assignee of McKesson
Corporation, who directly purchased Restasis. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented pro se.


ALLERGAN INC: Plumbers Fund Anti-Trust Suit Transferred to NY
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Plumbers & Pipefitters Local 178 Health &
Welfare Trust Fund, on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Allergan, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:18-
CV-00011, (E.D. Tex., January 15, 2018), was transferred to the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York on
February 14, 2018 under Case No. 1:18-cv-00972.

Plaintiff seeks damages, injunctive relief, and all other relief
available under federal antitrust laws, state antitrust laws, and
state consumer protection laws.

The action accuse Defendants of conspiring to fix, maintain,
and/or stabilize the prices of prescription cyclosporine
emulsion. Plaintiff indirectly purchased, paid, and/or provided
reimbursement for these products made by one or more Defendants
at supracompetitive prices.

Allergan is a $23B diversified global pharmaceutical company into
global generics, dermatology and aesthetics, CNS, eye care,
urology, gastro-intestinal, cystic fibrosis, cardiovascular and
infectious diseases. It is based in Dublin, Ireland and U.S.
Administrative Headquarters in Parsippany, New Jersey, USA.

Plumbers & Pipefitters Local 178 Health & Welfare Trust Fund is a
local union that provides health care and other benefits to its
members who reside in Missouri as well as other locations
throughout the United States, through its not-for-profit trust
fund. Local 178 has purchased and/or provided reimbursement for
some or all of the purchase price of Restasis, other than for re-
sale, at supracompetitive prices. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gregory B. Linkh, Esq.
      GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
      122 East 42nd Street, Suite 2920
      New York, NY 10168
      Tel: (212) 682-5340
      Fax: (212) 884-0988
      Email: glinkh@glancylaw.com

             - and -

      Lee Albert, Esq.
      MAGER & GOLDSTEIN LLP
      One Liberty Place, 21st Floor
      1650 Market Street
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Tel: (215) 640-3280
      Fax: (215) 640-3281

             - and -

      Robert Christopher Bunt, Esq.
      PARKER, BUNT & AINSWORTH, P.C.
      100 East Ferguson, Ste. 1114
      Tyler, TX 75702
      Tel: (903) 531-3535
      Fax: (903) 533-9687
      Email: rcbunt@pbatyler.com


ALLERGAN INC: Rochester Anti-trust Suit Transferred to E.D. N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Rochester Drug Co-Operative, Inc., on behalf
of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
Allergan, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 17-cv-00766, (E.D. Tex.,
December 11, 2017), was transferred to the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of New York on February 14, 2018 under
Case No. 1:18-cv-00970.

Plaintiff seeks to recover threefold damages, interest, costs of
suit and reasonable attorneys' fees resulting from Allergan's
anticompetitive foreclosure of cyclosporine sales in violation of
the Sherman Act.

Restasis or cyclosporine ophthalmic emulsion is a prescription
treatment for dry-eye disease.

Rochester Drug Co-Operative, Inc. is a stock corporation duly
formed and existing under the New York Cooperative Corporations
Law with a principal place of business located at 50 Jet View
Drive, Rochester, New York 14624. Plaintiff purchased Restasis
directly from Defendant.

Allergan is a $23B diversified global pharmaceutical company into
global generics, dermatology and aesthetics, CNS, eye care,
urology, gastro-intestinal, cystic fibrosis, cardiovascular and
infectious diseases. It is based in Dublin, Ireland and U.S.
Administrative Headquarters in Parsippany, New Jersey. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Daniel J. Walker, Esq.
      BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
      2001 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Suite 300
      Washington, DC 20006
      Tel: (202) 559-9745
      Fax: (215) 875-5707
      Email: dwalker@bm.net

             - and -

      David F. Sorensen, Esq.
      Zachary Kaplan, Esq.
      BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
      1622 Locust Street
      Philadelphia, PA 19103-2793
      Tel: (215) 875-3000
      Email: dsorensen@bm.net
             zcaplan@bm.net

             - and -

      Barry Taus, Esq.
      Archana Tamoshunas, Esq.
      Miles Greaves, Esq.
      TAUS, CEBULASH & LANDAU, LLP
      80 Maiden Lane, Suite 1204
      New York, NY 10038
      Tel: (646) 873-7654
      Fax: (212) 931-0703
      Email: btaus@tcllaw.com
             atamoshunas@tcllaw.com
             mgreaves@tcllaw.com

             - and -

      Joseph T. Lukens, Esq.
      HANGLEY ARONCHICK SEGAL & PUDLIN
      One Logan Square
      18th and Cherry Streets
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Tel: (215) 568-6200

Allergan, Inc. is represented by:

      Michael Sean Royall, Esq.
      Jason Cimma McKenney, Esq.
      GIBSON DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP - DALLAS
      2100 McKinney Ave., Suite 1100
      Dallas, TX 75201
      Tel: (214) 698-3256
      Fax: (214) 571-2900
      Email: SRoyall@gibsondunn.com
             jmckenney@gibsondunn.com

             - and -

      Jack Wesley Hill, Esq.
      WARD, SMITH & HILL, PLLC
      1507 Bill Owens Parkway
      Longview, TX 75604
      Tel: (903) 757-6400
      Fax: (903) 757-2323
      Email: wh@wsfirm.com

             - and -

      Richard Hale Cunningham, Esq.
      GIBSON DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
      1801 California Street, Suite 4200
      Denver, CO 80202
      Tel: (303) 298-5752
      Fax: (303) 313-2833
      Email: rhcunningham@gibsondunn.com


ALPHACRAFT CONSTRUCTION: Workers Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mario Llivichuzhca, Ildifoncio Mayancela, Luis Mayancela and Luis
Rodrigo Angamarca, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, vs. Alphacraft Construction Inc.
and Michalakis Theodorou (a/k/a Michael Theodorou, Mike
Theodorou), Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-01017 (E.D. N.Y., February
15, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, minimum wages,
unlawful deductions, and other wages owed pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law.

Defendants is a Queens-based construction contractor and unified
residential general contracting business. Plaintiffs are
construction workers who claim that they were denied wage
notifications, uninterrupted meal periods and spread-of-hours
pay. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Marc A. Rapaport, Esq.
      Meredith R. Miller, Esq.
      RAPAPORT LAW FIRM, PLLC
      One Penn Plaza, Suite 2430
      New York, NY 10119
      Telephone: (212) 382-1600
      Email: mrapaport@rapaportlaw.com


AMER SPORTS: Faces "Olsen" Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Amer Sports Winter
& Outdoor Company. The case is styled as Thomas J Olsen,
individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Amer Sports Winter & Outdoor Company doing
business as: ArcTeryx, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-01813 (E.D.
N.Y., March 26, 2018).

Amer Sports is a sporting goods company with internationally
recognized brands including Salomon, Wilson, Atomic, Arc'teryx,
Mavic, Suunto and Precor.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ANSCHUTZ ENTERTAINMENT: Ozzy Osbourne Files Antitrust Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that Rocker Ozzy Osbourne claims
in a federal class action filed on March 20 that concert promoter
AEG's requirement that acts play both the Staples Center in LA
and London's O2 arena violates competition and antitrust laws.

The case is JOHN MICHAEL "OZZY" OSBOURNE, an individual, on his
own behalf and for all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
ANSCHUTZ ENTERTAINMENT GROUP, INC., a Colorado corporation, AEG
PRESENTS LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, L.A. ARENA
COMPANY, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, ANSCO ARENA
LTD., a U.K. limited company, and JOHN DOE 1 THROUGH 10, whose
true names are unknown, inclusive, Defendants, CASE NO. 2:18-cv-
02310 (C.D. Calif.).

Attorneys for Ozzy Osbourne:

    Daniel M. Wall, Esq.
    Timothy L. O'Mara, Esq.
    Andrew M. Gass, Esq.
    LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
    505 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000
    San Francisco, CA 94111-6538
    Telephone: +1.415.391.0600
     Facsimile: +1.415.395.8095
     Email: dan.wall@lw.com
            tim.o'mara@lw.com
            andrew.gass@lw.com


ANTHONY'S LUNCH: Faces "Melchor" Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Anthony's Lunch
Room LLC. The case is styled as Sergio Melchor and Clara Lorena
Garnica Perez, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Anthony's Lunch Room LLC doing business
as: Kissena Grill and Ralph Mannarino, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-
cv-01847 (E.D. N.Y., March 27, 2018).

The Defendant operates in the restaurant business.[BN]

The Plaintiffs appear PRO SE.


APPLE FEDERAL: Illegally Charged "Jean-Baptiste" Overdraft Fees
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chalet Jean-Baptiste, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Apple Federal Credit Union,
Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-00188 (E.D. Va., February 20, 2018),
seeks monetary damages, restitution and declaratory relief
arising from the illegal assessment and collection of Overdraft
Fees on accounts that were never actually overdrawn, in breach of
contract and in violation of the Electronic Fund Transfers Act.

Apple FCU is a credit union in Virginia where Plaintiff has two
checking accounts. Plaintiff was assessed overdraft Fees in the
amount of $29 each despite the fact that her account always had
sufficient funds to cover the transactions, says the complaint.
[BN]

Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Kristi C. Kelly, Esq.
      Andrew J. Guzzo, Esq.
      Casey S. Nash, Esq.
      KELLY & CRANDALL, PLC
      3925 Chain Bridge Road, Suite 202
      Fairfax, VA 22030
      Tel: (703) 424-7572
      Fax: (703) 591-0167
      Email: kkelly@kellyandcrandall.com
             aguzzo@kellyandcrandall.com
             casey@kellyandcrandall.com

             - and -

      Jeffrey Kaliel, Esq.
      Sophia Gold, Esq.
      KALIEL PLLC
      1875 Connecticut Ave. NW 10th Floor
      Washington, DC 20009
      Tel: (202) 350-4783
      Email: jkaliel@kalielpllc.com
             sgold@kalielpllc.com


ARANA STONE: Denied Overtime Premium, "Lanza" Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------
Arnol Lanza, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Arana Stone, LLC, Cristian J. Arana-
Medina and Marvin G. Banegas-Medina, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-
00066, (E.D. N.C., February 20, 2018), seeks unpaid overtime
compensation, in addition to liquidated damages, attorneys' fees
and costs, prejudgment interest and other damages permitted by
the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the North Carolina Wage
and Hour Act.

Plaintiffs worked as hourly-paid stonemasons, fabricating and
installing granite counter-tops, mantles and tables. They
typically worked approximately 87 hours per week without overtime
for hours in excess of 40 per week. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


AUDI OF AMERICA: Faces "McBride" Suit in S.D. Florida
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Audi of America,
LLC. The case is styled as Michael McBride, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Audi of
America, LLC, Audi Aktiengesellschaft and Volkswagen
Aktiengesellschaft, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-21152-FAM (S.D.
Fla., March 27, 2018).

Audi of America, LLC owns and operates Audi brand car dealerships
in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


BALENCIAGA AMERICA: Faces "Fischler" Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Balenciaga America
Inc. The case is styled as Brian Fischler, individually and on
behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Balenciaga America Inc., Defendant, Case No. 7:18-cv-02633-VB
(S.D. N.Y., March 26, 2018).

Balenciaga America Incorporated was founded in 1988. The
company's line of business includes the wholesale distribution of
women's, children's, and infants' clothing and accessories.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Christopher Howard Lowe, Esq.
   Lipsky Lowe LLP
   630 Third Avenue
   New York, NY 10017-6705
   Tel: (212) 392-4772
   Fax: (212) 444-1030
   Email: chris@lipskylowe.com


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

Attorneys for Plaintiff James Foreman and the Putative Class:

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



BANK OF THE INTERNET: Judge Tentatively Dismisses Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that a federal judge on March 15
tentatively dismissed with prejudice a securities fraud action
against the Bank of the Internet, finding the shareholders hadn't
shown public statements made by bank executives caused their
losses.

The case is IN RE BofI HOLDING, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case
No.: 3:15-cv-02324-GPCKSC (S.D. Calif.).


BIGLARI HOLDINGS: "Hipps" Suit Removed to S.D. Ind.
----------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Joseph Hipps, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Biglari Holdings,
Inc., Sardar Biglari, Philip L. Cooley, Kenneth R. Cooper, James
P. Mastrian, Ruth J. Person, NBHSA Inc., and BH Merger Company,
Defendants, Case No. 29C01-1802-CT-001154, (Ind. Cir., February
7, 2018), was removed to the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Indiana on February 16, 2018 under Case No.
18-cv-00475.

Plaintiff filed a direct claim against Sardar Biglari in his
capacity as controlling shareholder of Biglari Holdings for
breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment. On December 21,
2017, Biglari Holdings adopted a proposal to reorganize and
recapitalize the company in service of various goals including a
"focus on long-term value creation and the pursuit of a
conglomeration strategy." Plaintiff seeks to permanently enjoin a
corporate reorganization and recapitalization unanimously
recommended by the Biglari Board; and claims costs,
disbursements, attorneys' fees, experts' fees and other relief.
[BN]

Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Brad A. Catlin, Esq.
     PRICE WAICUKAUSKI JOVEN & CATLIN, LLC
     301 Massachusetts Avenue
     Indianapolis, IN 46204
     Phone: (317) 633-8787
     Fax: (317) 633-8797
     Email: bcatlin@price-law.com

            - and -

     Eric L. Zagar, Esq.
     J. Daniel Albert, Esq.
     Justin O. Reliford, Esq.
     Christopher M. Windover, Esq.
     KESSLER TOPAZ MELTER & CHECK, LLP
     280 King of Prussia Road
     Radnor, PA 19087
     Tel: (610) 822-2209/0276/0494
          (484) 270-1494
          (484) 270-1444
     Fax: (267) 948-2512
          (610) 667-7056
          (610) 667-7056
     Email: ezagar@ktmc.com
            dalbert@ktmc.com
            jreliford@ktmc.com
            cwindover@ktmc.com

            - and -

     Jeremy Friedman, Esq.
     Spencer Oster, Esq.
     David Tejtel, Esq.
     FRIEDMAN OSTER & TEJTEL PLLC
     240 East 79th Street, Suite A
     New York, NY 10075
     Tel: (305) 444-8226

            - and -

     Peter B. Andrews, Esq.
     Craig J. Springer, Esq.
     ANDREWS & SPRINGER LLC
     3801 Kennett Pike
     Building C, Suite 305
     Wilmington, DE 19807
     Tel: (302) 504-4957
     Fax: (302) 397-2681
     Email: pandrews@andrewsspringer.com
            cspringer@andrewsspringer.com

Defendants are represented by:

     Scott S. Morrisson, Esq.
     William J. Barkimer, Esq.
     12800 N. Meridian Street, Suite 300
     Carmel, IN 46032
     Telephone: (317) 238-6201
     Facsimile: (317) 636-1507
     Email: smorrisson@kdlegal.com
            wbarkimer@kdlegal.com

            - and -

     Christopher J. Clark, Esq.
     Blair Connelly, Esq.
     885 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022-4834
     Telephone: (212) 906-1200
     Facsimile: (212) 751-4864
     Email: blair.connelly@lw.com
            christopher.clark@lw.com

            - and -

     J. Christian Word, Esq.
     Michael E. Bern, Esq.
     555 Eleventh Street, N.W., Suite 1000
     Washington, DC 20004-1304
     Telephone: (202) 637-2200
     Facsimile: (202) 637-2201
     Email: christian.word@lw.com
            michael.bern@lw.com


BIRD ELECTRIC: "Guajardo" Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Guajardo, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Bird Electric Enterprises, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-00025 (W.D. Tex., February 15, 2018),
seeks unpaid back wages due, liquidated damages equal in amount
to the unpaid compensation, taxable costs and allowable expenses
of this action, attorneys' fees, prejudgment and post-judgment
interest, declaratory and injunctive relief and such other and
further relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

Bird is an electrical company that designs, constructs, maintains
and restores electric power infrastructure for the complete
electric supply chain. It provides electrical services across the
Permian Basin, including in Midland County. Guajardo worked as an
electrician for Defendant for two stints of employment.
Electricians typically work six days per week, eight to twelve
hours per day and worked more than forty hours per week. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Daniel A. Verrett, Esq.
      MORELAND LAW FIRM, P.C.
      The Commissioners House at Heritage Square
      2901 Bee Cave Road, Box L
      Austin, TX 78746
      Tel: (512) 782-0567
      Fax: (512) 782-0605
      Email: daniel@morelandlaw.com

             - and -

      Edmond S. Moreland, Jr.
      MORELAND LAW FIRM, P.C.
      700 West Summit Drive
      Wimberley, TX 78676
      Tel: (512) 782-0567
      Fax: (512) 782-0605
      Email: edmond@morelandlaw.com


BODY SCULPT: "Thompson" Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay
------------------------------------------------------------
Maria Carolina Thompson and Kimberly Capuano, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Body
Sculpt International, LLC, TriNet HR Corporation, TriNet HR III,
Inc., Aesthetics Physicians, P.C., Michael J. Garrison and Does
1-18, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. CV18-1001, (E.D. N.Y.,
February 15, 2018), seeks unpaid wages owed and liquidated
damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs and such other and further relief in
accordance with the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Body Sculpt is contracted by Aesthetics Physicians to provide
management and support services necessary and appropriate for the
provision of medical services including elective, cosmetic,
surgical and non-surgical procedures. Plaintiffs worked as
patient care consultants, regularly working more than 40 hours
per week without overtime pay, says the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert E. DeRose, Esq.
      Robi J. Baishnab, Esq.
      BARKAN MEIZLISH HANDELMAN GOODIN DEROSE WENTZ, LLP
      250 E. Broad St., 10th Floor
      Columbus, OH 43215
      Telephone: (614) 221-4221
      Fax: (614) 744-2300
      Email: rderose@barkanmeizlish.com
             rbaishnab@barkanmeizlish.com

             - and -

      James A. DeRoche, Esq.
      Jeffrey D. Johnson, Esq.
      GARSON JOHNSON LLC
      1600 Midland Building
      101 West Prospect Avenue
      Cleveland, OH 44115
      Tel: 216.696.9330
      Email: jderoche@garson.com
             jjohnson@garson.com


BRENT WALTERS: "Blanton" Labor Suit Transferred to E.D. Tex.
------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Samantha Blanton and Ruth Peck, on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Brent
Walters and Clayburn Corporation d/b/a The Walters Agency,
Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-02860, (S.D. Tex., September 25,
2017), was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Texas on
February 14, 2018 under Case No. 1:18-cv-00073.

Clayburn is an insurance agency where Plaintiffs worked as
salespersons. Defendants allegedly did not pay them overtime when
they worked over 40 hours in a week as required under the Fair
Labor Standards Act. [BN]

Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Nitin Sud, Esq.
      SUD LAW P.C.
      4545 Mount Vernon Street
      Houston, TX 77006
      Tel: (832) 623-6420
      Fax: (832) 304-2552
      Email: nsud@sudemploymentlaw.com

Defendants are represented by:

      William R. Stukenberg, Esq.
      JACKSON LEWIS LLP
      1415 Louisiana St., Ste. 3325
      Houston, TX 77002
      Tel: (713) 650-0404
      Fax: (713) 650-0405
      Email: william.stukenberg@jacksonlewis.com

             - and -

      Wyatt David Snider, Esq.
      SNIDER LAW FIRM, PLLC
      3535 Calder, Suite 300
      Beaumont, TX 77706
      Tel: (409) 924-9595
      Fax: (409) 924-0808
      Email: wyatt@sniderlawfirm.com


BREW DR: Sued in Illinois for Overstating Probiotic Bacteria
------------------------------------------------------------
Rachel Graf, writing for Law360, reports that a kombucha maker
was hit with a proposed class action on March 7 in Illinois state
court accusing the company of making its fermented teas with "far
less" than the billions of beneficial probiotic bacteria it
advertises are in each bottle.

Vladislav Bazer alleges Brew Dr. Kombucha LLC advertises that
each bottle of its kombucha drinks has billions of probiotic
bacteria, which can help regulate bodily processes.  Testing,
however, has demonstrated that the products actually have as
little as 50,000 colony forming units. [GN]


C. TECH COLLECTIONS: Faces "Brown" Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against C. Tech
Collections, Inc. The case is styled as Abraham Brown, on behalf
of himself and all other similarly situated consumers, Plaintiff
v. C. Tech Collections, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-01834
(E.D. N.Y., March 26, 2018).

C. Tech Collections, Inc. is a collection agency.[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


CACH LLC: "Krahn" Action Disputes Collection Letter
---------------------------------------------------
Emery Krahn, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
Cach, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-00063 (E.D. Wash., February
20, 2018), seeks damages, declaratory and injunctive relief under
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Cach, LLC, is a collection agency who attempted to collect a debt
from Krahn by serving him with an unfiled Spokane County Superior
Court summons and complaint. However, Defendant did not verify
the account with an original creditor and the original creditor
account number on the verification response was not the same as
the account number listed on the summons, says the complaint.
[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kirk D. Miller, Esq.
      KIRK D. MILLER, P.S.
      421 W. Riverside Avenue, Suite 660
      Spokane, WA 99201
      Tel: (509)413-1494
      Fax: (509)413-1724


CALIFORNIA: Judge Delays Approval of $16.6MM Phone Tax Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Melissa Daniels, writing for Law360, reports that a California
judge on March 6 held off approving the city of Long Beach's
$16.6 million settlement of class action claims it wrongfully
applied a 5 percent tax to tax-exempt telephone services, saying
that although she had no concerns with the amount, she wanted to
see some details tweaked.

Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Maren E. Nelson said that there
were several details in the settlement proposal of the 12-year-
old class action that she wanted to see hammered out before
granting preliminary approval. [GN]


CALLIDUS SOFTWARE: Rigrodsky & Long Files Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. on March 7 disclosed that it has filed a
class action complaint in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California on behalf of holders of
Callidus Software Inc. ("Callidus") (NASDAQ: CALD) common stock
in connection with the proposed acquisition of Callidus by SAP
America, Inc. and its affiliate ("SAP") announced on January 29,
2018 (the "Complaint").  The Complaint, which alleges violations
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against Callidus, its
Board of Directors (the "Board"), and SAP, is captioned Franchi
v. Callidus Software Inc., Case No. 3:18-cv-01443 (N.D. Cal.).

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 January 29, 2018, Callidus entered into an agreement and plan
of merger (the "Merger Agreement") with SAP.  Pursuant to the
terms of the Merger Agreement, shareholders of Callidus will
receive $36.00 in cash for each share of Callidus 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 a
Definitive Proxy Statement (the "Proxy Statement") filed with the
United States Securities and Exchange Commission.  The Complaint
alleges that the Proxy Statement omits material information with
respect to, among other things, Callidus' financial projections,
the analyses performed by Callidus' financial advisor, and
potential conflicts of interest. The Complaint seeks injunctive
and equitable relief and damages on behalf of holders of Callidus
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]


CARSON SMITHFIELD: Faces "Meyers" Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Carson Smithfield,
LLC. The case is styled as Edward S. Meyers, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Carson
Smithfield, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-01865 (E.D. N.Y.,
March 27, 2018).

Carson Smithfield, LLC is a debt collections agency.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


CARSON SMITHFIELD: Faces "Melton" Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Carson Smithfield,
LLC. The case is styled as Eric S. Melton, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Carson
Smithfield, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-01862 (E.D. N.Y.,
March 27, 2018).

Carson Smithfield, LLC is a debt collections agency.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


CASEY'S GENERAL STORES: "McColley" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Joy McColley, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Casey's General Stores, Inc.,
Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-00072 (N.D. Ind., February 16, 2018),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, unpaid wages,
liquidated damages and attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Casey's General Store, Inc. is an Iowa corporation and a
convenience store chain that operates approximately 2000 stores
in the United States. Plaintiff worked for Casey's as exempt-
classified Store Manager at their Griffith, Indiana location.
McColley typically worked 50-60 hours per week. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Scott D. Gilchrist, Esq.
      Richard E. Shevitz, Esq.
      COHEN & MALAD, LLP
      One Indiana Square, Suite 1400
      Indianapolis, IN 46204
      Telephone: (317) 636-6481
      Fax: (317) 636-2593
      Email: rshevitz@cohenandmalad.com
             sgilchrist@cohenandmalad.com

             - and -

      Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq.
      Camar Jones, Esq.
      Logan A. Pardell, 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

             - and -

      Marc S. Hepworth, Esq.
      Charles Gershbaum, Esq.
      David A. Roth, Esq.
      Rebecca S. Predovan, Esq.
      HEPWORTH, GERSHBAUM & ROTH, PLLC
      192 Lexington Avenue, Suite 802
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 545~1199
      Facsimile: (212) 532-3801
      E-mail: mhepworth@hgrlawyers.com
              cgershbaum@hgrlawyers.com
              droth@hgrlawyers.com
              rpredovan@hgrlawyers.com


CHOICE HOTELS: Sued for Allegedly Manipulating Search Results
-------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Reynolds, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
a class of guests claims six hotel chains entered into an illegal
and anticompetitive agreement to eliminate competing hotels from
search engine results and freeze out online travel agencies like
Priceline and Expedia.

On March 19, lead plaintiff Karen Tichy of Clarksville, Virginia,
sued six hotel companies, asking a federal judge in Chicago to
put a stop to a practice that she alleges restrains competition
and hurts consumers.

Ms. Tichy estimates that the scheme to eliminate competitors from
search results damages millions of hotel shoppers and costs them
billions of dollars each year.  She is represented by lead
attorney Steve Berman of Hagens Berman in Seattle.

The hotel chains include Choice Hotels, Hilton, Hyatt,
InterContinental, Marriott and Wyndham.  They own and control
some of the most recognizable hotel and motel brands in the
country, including Comfort Inn, Hampton Inn, DoubleTree, Park
Hyatt, Holiday Inn and Travelodge.

Ms. Tichy says that she booked hotel rooms on Google several
times in the last three years and noticed that when she looked
for Marriott hotels, her search would return results that
eliminated competing brands.

Eventually, she began to book rooms through the Marriott website
and claims she paid more for hotel rooms because more competitive
pricing was not made available to her.

The class-action lawsuit alleges the hotels reached an agreement
in 2015 not to compete with each other for consumers shopping for
hotel rooms online, creating an illegal scheme that prevents
online travel agencies such as Priceline and Expedia from bidding
on their branded keywords.

A search using the keyword "Hilton," for example, would not
return results for Hyatt and vice versa, according to Ms. Tichy.

"The effect of these agreements was to impair competition,
resulting in direct harm to consumers in interfering with the
free flow of information from sellers to buyers, raising the
costs to consumers of finding the most suitable offering,
increasing transaction prices, and raising the price of hotel
rooms sold online by reducing the downward pricing pressure
exerted by [online travel agencies] and each other," the lawsuit
states.

Ms. Tichy's lawyer, Berman, was not available for an interview on
March 20, but he accused the hotel chains of deceptive
advertising in a prepared statement.

"Instead of honest competition, these hotel chains chose to cheat
the system and deceive their customers," Berman said.

The complaint estimates that the practice involves 60 percent of
hotel inventory and affects all consumers who booked hotels from
2015 to 2017.

Ms. Tichy alleges that the chains entered into group boycott and
bid-rigging agreements and unreasonably restrained trade. The
proposed class of consumers seeks damages, costs and an
injunction.

Hyatt spokeswoman Stephanie Lerdall and Hilton spokeswoman Meg
Ryan said they could not comment on pending litigation.

Marriott spokesman Jeff Flaherty said the company is reviewing
the complaint and could not comment further.  The other chains
did not immediately respond to requests for comment on March 20.


COMERICA BANK: Gordon Files Class Action Suit in Calif.
-------------------------------------------------------
Alan Gordon and Marlene Gordon, on behalf of themselves and those
similarly situated Plaintiffs, v. Comerica Bank, and Does 1-10
Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-01298, (C.D. Cal., February 16, 2018),
seeks damages, restitution, and all other relief resulting from
unjust enrichment and violation of the Electronic Funds Transfer
Act, Electronic Communications Privacy Act, California's Unfair
Competition Law and California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act.

Plaintiffs purchased investments from the Woodbridge group of
companies. These companies marketed promissory notes and other
offerings as low-risk, high-yield investments backed by high-
interest real-estate loans to third-party commercial borrowers.
However, most of the allegedly supporting loans were to their own
shell companies. Lacking the revenue to pay returns owed to
Plaintiffs and other investors, Shapiro paid the returns using
new investor money, raising more than $1.22 billion before the
Ponzi-like scheme collapsed. Each Woodbridge bank account was
opened and maintained at Comerica Bank. The latter continued to
harbor Shapiro's fraud even after several state regulatory
agencies ordered him to cease and desist operations. [BN]

Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Jeff S. Westerman, Esq.
      Kenneth A. Remson
      WESTERMAN LAW CORP
      1875 Century Park East, Suite 2200
      Los Angeles, CA 90067
      Tel: (310) 698-7450
      Fax: (310) 775-9777
      Email: jwesterman@jswlegal.com

             - and -

      Steven J. Toll, Esq.
      Times Wang, Esq.
      COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
      1100 New York Ave. NW, Fifth Floor
      Washington, DC 20005
      Tel: (202) 408-4600
      Email: stoll@cohenmilstein.com
             twang@cohenmilstein.com


COSTCO WHOLESALE: La Vigne Appeals Dismissal of Suit to 2nd Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Mary La Vigne, Kristen Hessler and Kathleen Hogan
filed an appeal from the District Court's opinion and order dated
January 10, 2018, dismissing their lawsuit entitled La Vigne, et
al. v. Costco Wholesale Corporation, Case No. 16-cv-7924, in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (White
Plains).

The appellate case is captioned as La Vigne, et al. v. Costco
Wholesale Corporation, Case No. 18-415, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Feb. 7, 2018, the
District Court granted the Defendant's motion to dismiss the
Plaintiff's amended class action complaint.

Plaintiffs La Vigne, Hessler and Hogan filed the proposed class
action against Costco alleging violations of New York,
Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts statutes that prohibit deceptive
marketing practices in the sale of consumer goods.  The
Plaintiffs contend that the Defendant has engaged in deceptive
acts in connection with the marketing and sale of its Kirkland
Signature Premium Chunk Chicken Breast.

The Defendant is a Washington corporation that, together with its
subsidiaries, operates membership warehouses throughout the
country offering a range of branded and private-label products,
including its house brand, Kirkland Signature.  The Company sells
Kirkland Canned Chicken in its membership warehouse stores.

An opened can of Kirkland Canned Chicken reveals chicken covered
by a layer of water.  If the consumer drains the 2/3 of a cup of
water that the can contains, she is left with between seven and
eight ounces of meat, meaning that as much as 44% of the weight
of the can's contents is water.  According to the Amended
Complaint, the consumer receives little benefit from the water in
the can and the Defendant does not intend for consumers to use
the water, as evidenced by the recipes it includes with each bulk
package, which direct consumers to drain the chicken before using
it in a dish.

Put simply, the Plaintiffs allege, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, that the Defendant's conduct
violates the Poultry Products Inspection Act and misleads the
consumers into believing that they are being charged "a
reasonable price to pay for chicken" when they buy cans of
Kirkland Canned Chicken, even though almost half of the contents
of each can is water, and that such conduct constitutes an
unconscionable and deceptive commercial practice in violation of
consumer protection laws in New York, Pennsylvania, and
Massachusetts.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants Mary La Vigne, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, and Kristen Hessler, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, are represented by:

          Matthew Insley-Pruitt, Esq.
          WOLF POPPER LLP
          845 3rd Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 451-9621
          Facsimile: (212) 486-2093
          E-mail: minsley-pruitt@wolfpopper.com

Plaintiff-Appellant Kathleen Hogan, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, are represented by:

          Patricia Avery, Esq.
          WOLF POPPER LLP
          845 3rd Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 759-4600
          Facsimile: (212) 486-2093
          E-mail: pavery@wolfpopper.com

Defendant-Appellee Costco Wholesale Corporation is represented
by:

          Richard P. O'Leary, Esq.
          TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP
          875 3rd Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 704-6138
          E-mail: richard.oleary@troutman.com


CORNERSTONE RESIDENTIAL: "Malossi" Suit Seeks to Recoup Unpaid OT
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Adrian Malossi, and other similarly situated individuals,
Plaintiff(s), v. Cornerstone Residential Management, L.L.C.,
Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-60359, (S.D. Fla., February 15, 2018),
seeks unpaid overtime compensation, as well as an additional
amount as liquidated damages, costs and reasonable attorneys'
fees under the provisions of Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff was employed as a maintenance person, working in excess
of 40 hours per week without overtime compensation. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      R. Martin Saenz, Esq.
      SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC
      20900 NE 30th Avenue, Ste. 800
      Aventura, FL 33180
      Telephone: (305) 503-5131
      Facsimile: (888) 270-5549
      Email: msaenz@saenzanderson.com


COTY INC: "Taylor" Product Liability Suit Transferred to Alabama
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Tara Taylor, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Coty, Inc., The Procter
& Gamble Company, Inc., The Procter & Gamble Manufacturing
Company, Inc., The Procter & Gamble Distributing, L.L.C., Procter
& Gamble Hair Care, L.L.C., Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-01359,
(W.D. La., October 23, 2017), was transferred to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Alabama on February
14, 2018 under Case No. 1:18-cv-00070.

Taylor seeks damages and equitable remedies resulting from unjust
enrichment, fraud, breach of express and implied warranty and
violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and the Louisiana
Civil Code.

Procter and Gamble developed, designed, formulated, manufactured,
packaged, labeled, advertised, marketed, distributed and sold
Clairol hair dye products. Clairol Balsam Color brand was sold to
Coty, Inc. in July, 2015.

Said product line allegedly causes significant hair loss, skin
and scalp irritation, scalp burnings and blistering, severe
dermatitis, eye irritation and tearing, asthma, gastritis, renal
damage and/or failure, vertigo, tremors, convulsions and comas
and eczematoid contact dermatitis.

Plaintiff is represented by:

Matthew B. Moreland, Esq.
      BECNEL LAW FIRM, LLC
      425 West Airline Highway, Suite B
      LaPlace, LA 70068
      Tel: (985) 536-1186
      Email: mmoreland@becnellaw.com

Defendants are represented by:

      Brian M. LeCompte, Esq.
      MCGLINCHEY STAFFORD (NO)
      601 Poydras Ste 1200
      New Orleans, LA 70130
      Tel: (504) 586-1200
      Fax: (504) 596-2856
      Email: blecompte@mcglinchey.com


CSC HOLDINGS: "Zemel" Suit Sues Over SMS Ads Despite Opt-out
------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Zemel, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. CSC Holdings, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
18-cv-02340, (S.D. Fla., February 16, 2018), seeks injunctive
relief, statutory damages and any other available legal or
equitable remedies under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Plaintiff began receiving unsolicited text messages to his
wireless phone from the short code 608-91, a number owned by CSC
Holdings. These unsolicited text messages placed to Zemel's
wireless telephone were placed via an "automatic telephone
dialing system." Despite having an "opt-out" option, CSC
continued to send these messages after replying "STOP." [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Ari Marcus, Esq.
     MARCUS & ZELMAN, LLC
     1500 Allaire Avenue, Suite 101
     Ocean, NJ 07712
     Tel: (732) 695-3282
     Fax: (732) 298-6256
     Email: Ari@MarcusZelman.com


CVS HEALTH: Faces Suit Over Unauthorized HIV Data Disclosure
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that CVS, its subsidiary
Caremark and financial services company Fiserv were hit with a
class action accusing them of unauthorized disclosure for sending
letters to HIV-positive people listing their HIV status above
their names and addresses.

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

     Terry L. Kilgore, Esq.
     1113 Northridge Oval, Bldg.13
     Brooklyn, OH 44144-3262
     Telephone: (614) 648-6009
     Fax: (216) 600-5494
     Email: tksquire13@gmail.com

        -- and --

     Joe R. Whatley, Esq.
     Edith M. Kallas, Esq.
     WHATLEY KALLAS LLP
     1180 Avenue of the Americas, 20th Floor
     New York, NY 10036
     Telephone: (212) 447-7060
     Fax: (800) 922-4851
     Email: jwhatley@whatleykallas.com
            ekallas@whatleykallas.com


CVS HEALTH: Faces Suit for Discriminatory Business Practices
------------------------------------------------------------
John Doe One, John Doe Two, John Doe Three and John Doe Four, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. CVS Health Corporation, CVS Pharmacy, Inc.,
Caremark RX, L.L.C., Caremark, L.L.C., Caremark California
Specialty Pharmacy, L.L.C., National Railroad Passenger
Corporation d/b/a AMTRAK and Does 1-10, inclusive, Defendants,
Case No. 18-cv-01280 (N.D. Cal., February 16, 2018), seeks
redress for violations of the Anti-Discrimination Provisions of
Affordable Care Act; a claim for benefits due under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act; claims for failure to provide
Full and Fair Review, violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act, violation of the California Business &
Professions Code and violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act of
the California Civil Code.

Defendants are alleged of discriminatory business practices
targeting those persons whose prescription drug benefit is
administered by CVS Caremark and who are prescribed specialty
medications for the treatment or prevention of HIV/AIDS.
Enrollees in said health plans controlled by CVS are required to
obtain their HIV/AIDS medications from Caremark Specialty
Pharmacy (CSP), a wholly-owned subsidiary of CVS. CSP only
delivers such medications by mail order or mails them to a CVS
Pharmacy as a drop shipment location purely for pickup, thus
threatening their privacy. Should they get them otherwise, they
must either pay more out-of-pocket or pay full-price with no
insurance benefits.

Plaintiffs also seek damages, restitution and disgorgement based
on out-of-pocket expenses as a result of the Program.

Defendants collectively are in the business of administering
pharmacy benefits for health plans and filling specialty
prescription requests.

National Railroad Passenger Corporation (d/b/a AMTRAK) is the
self-insured plan sponsor for one of the unnamed Plaintiffs. [BN]

Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Edith M. Kallas, Esq.
      WHATLEY KALLAS, LLP
      1180 Avenue of the Americas, 20th Floor
      New York, NY 10036
      Tel: (212) 447-7060
      Fax: (800) 922-4851
      Emails: ekallas@whatleykallas.com

             - and -

      Alan M. Mansfield, Esq.
      WHATLEY KALLAS, LLP
      355 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 2450
      Los Angeles, CA 90071
      Tel: (310) 684-2504
      Fax: (855) 274-1888
      Email: amansfield@whatleykallas.com

            - and -

      Harvey Rosenfield, Esq.
      Jerry Flanagan, Esq.
      Laura Antonini, Esq.
      2701 Ocean Park Blvd., Suite 112
      Santa Monica, CA 90405
      Tel: (310) 392-0522
      Fax: (310) 392-8874
      Emails: harvey@consumerwatchdog.org
              jerry@consumerwatchdog.org


CYAN INC: Loses Bid to Quash California Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Barbara Leonard, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that telecommunications company Cyan failed on March 20 to have
the U.S. Supreme Court quash a securities class action it faces
in California.

The unanimous ruling tackles a law called the Securities
Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998, which Congress passed
to patch loopholes in its last stab at ending class-action
abuses, the 1995 Private Securities Litigation Reform Act.

Critical to the failure of the 1995 Reform Act was that some of
its provisions applied only when a suit was brought in federal
court.  Artful plaintiffs soon began bringing their class actions
under state law to avoid the Reform Act's obstacles.

The 1998 law, abbreviated in the March 20 ruling as the SLUSA,
meanwhile gave state and federal courts concurrent jurisdiction
to all claims seeking enforcement of the Securities Act of 1993
-- the first law passed in the wake of the 1929 stock market
crash, which created private rights of action.

Still the SLUSA contains exceptions, namely that a case cannot be
removed to a federal court unless the state court where the case
was filed "would not adequately enforce" another provision that
bars sizable class actions founded on state law and allege
dishonest practices respecting the purchase or sale of a
nationally traded security.

The investors who sued Cyan meanwhile brought their case in
California Superior Court, insisting that nothing about the SLUSA
blocked them from alleging only 1993 Act claims in state courts.

Cyan took its appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court last year after
striking out at every level of the state court case.

The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the ruling against it as well on
March 20.

"The statute says what it says -- or perhaps better put here,
does not say what it does not say," Justice Elena Kagan wrote for
the court.  "State-court jurisdiction over 1933 Act claims thus
continues undisturbed."

Judge Kagan emphasized that accepting Cyan's construction of the
SLUSA "would prevent state courts from deciding any 1933 Act
class suits seeking damages for more than 50 plaintiffs,"
including those where the security is not traded on a national
stock exchange.

Such securities "are 'primarily of state concern,' and SLUSA
'maintains state legal authority' to address them," Judge Kagan
wrote.

"Except that under Cyan's view, SLUSA would not," the 24-page
ruling continues.  "Instead, the law would strip state courts of
jurisdiction over suits about securities raising no particular
national interest.  That result is out of line with SLUSA's
overall scope."

If Cyan's reading were correct, Judge Kagan added, Congress
intended through the SLUSA to completely unravel state-court
jurisdiction that had otherwise been in place for 65 years.

"To think Cyan right, we would have to believe that Congress
upended that entrenched practice not by any direct means, but
instead by way of a conforming amendment," Judge Kagan wrote.

Quoting the 2001 decision Director of Revenue of Mo. v. CoBank
ACB, however, Judge Kagan said that "Congress does not make
'radical -- but entirely implicit -- change[s]' through
'technical and conforming amendments.'"

"Or to use the more general (and snappier) formulation of that
rule," Judge Kagan continued, "relevant to all 'ancillary
provisions,' Congress does not 'hide elephants in mouseholes.'"

The case is CYAN, INC., ET AL. v. BEAVER COUNTY EMPLOYEES
RETIREMENT FUND ET AL., No. 15-1439 (U.S.).


DAIKIN NA: 300 Alabamans Fight Water Contamination Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Eva Fedderly, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
unhappy with the $5 million that Daikin NA will pay to settle
contaminated-water claims, 300 Alabamans pushed the 11th Circuit
on March 8 to make the fluorochemical company pay for future
damages.

"Daikin operates plants right there on the back side of the
Tennessee River . . .as far as I know it's still releasing
chemicals today," said Will Lattimore, an attorney at Gathings
Law who represents customers of the West Morgan East Lawrence
Water Authority.

"The people who don't have cancer yet suffer mental anguish," Mr.
Lattimore added. "This is an inherently individual injury."

Mr. Lattimore's clients brought their appeal to the federal
appeals court in Atlanta last year after a federal judge approved
Daikin's settlement.

U.S. Circuit Judge Charles Wilson, one of three jurists on the
panel, grilled Lattimore on his argument.

"The District Court said the settlement was fair, reasonable and
adequate," Judge Wilson said.  "Clients are getting clean water
now and some damages.  The District Court said this was a
reasonable compromise . . . you have to prove there was an error
of judgment."

Judge Wilson noted that the class has a new filtration system in
place, clean water, and has been compensated for the time when
the affected people couldn't drink the water in Decatur because
it was contaminated.

Representing the West Morgan East Water Authority, meanwhile,
attorney Lee Patterson, defended the trial court's approval of
the settlement.

"This settlement in no way releases any personal injury claims,"
said Mr. Patterson, of the firm Friedman, Dazzio, Zulanas, and
Bowling in Birmingham.

"With respect to mental anguish, under Alabama law, there is no
right to recover under fear of future injury," Mr. Patterson
added.

Mr. Patterson also noted that related claims against 3M remain
pending.  "We have 30 million pages of documents in relation to
this case, we've done four sampling events at the river, two
trips to Minnesota to depose 3M employees," Mr. Patterson said.
"In no way has the litigation ended."

Representing the industrial company, attorney Robert Shaughnessy
said that there is no need to redo the settlement for anguish
claims since the settlement already includes "an express carveout
for future injuries that have a whole range of remedies."

Mr. Shaughnessy also argued that Daikin was responsible only for
5 percent of the water chemicals in the contaminated water.

Judge Wilson pressed Mr. Lattimore's co-counsel, Lloyd Gathings,
on rebuttal about the relief they are seeking.

"Is the class saying Daikin needs to cough up more than $5
million?" Judge Wilson asked.

"They didn't give us any recovery for mental anguish and didn't
give us the procedural protection of an opt-out," Mr. Gathings
argued.  "We did not get the procedural protections we need."

Mr. Gathings emphasized the stakes at issue in an interview after
the hearing.  "What they've been going through," Mr. Gathings
said of his clients, "is they wonder what day they'll be
diagnosed with the cancer from this.  They're always living on
the edge of deceit about whether or not they'll be the next one
who comes down with cancer. And they will have to undergo that
for a number of years."

Mr. Gathings said he felt the court was "definitely leaning"
toward his clients, but it's "hard to tell from an argument."

"We were pleased the way the argument went," Mr. Gathings said.
"What we're looking for is procedural protections for our
clients.  If they think it's an unfair settlement, then we can
opt them out and let them deal with their individual cases."

Mr. Shaughnessy did not respond to request for comment.


DELOITTE TOUCHE: Lawyers File Class Action Over Unpaid Benefits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Julius Melnitzer, writing for Ottawa Citizen, reports that the
strategy driving an employment class action between Deloitte and
more than 400 lawyers is masking an issue fundamental to the
future of the legal profession.

On its face, the case is about whether Deloitte misclassified the
lawyers as independent contractors rather than employees and so
wrongfully deprived them of statutory overtime, vacation and
holiday pay.

Deloitte has taken the position that the lawyers weren't
providing legal services.  That suits the class just fine,
because individuals providing legal services don't enjoy the
protection of Ontario's employment standards legislation, on
which they found their lawsuit.

At first blush, then, Deloitte's position seems an odd strategy,
because it deprives the firm of the argument that the lawyers
weren't entitled to the benefits they claim in the first place.

But there's a back story here: admitting that the class performed
legal services would almost certainly have exposed Deloitte to
charges that the firm was involved in the unauthorized provision
of legal services.  Currently, only firms owned by lawyers can
provide such services.

"Deloitte's position is probably based on conflicts and
regulatory issues," said Andrew Monkhouse --
andrew@monkhouselaw.com -- managing partner of Monkhouse Law, who
is co-counsel for the class with Samuel Marr --
smarr@lmklawyers.com -- of Landy Marr Kats LLP.  "The issue of
whether Deloitte was providing legal services won't come up
directly in the case, but it is hanging over everything."

Ironically, perhaps, the Law Society of Ontario (LSO) appears to
have provided the impetus for Deloitte's position.

In 2014, the LSO (previously the Law Society of Upper Canada)
dismissed a complaint by lawyer Shireen Sondhi, who described
herself as an "independent contractor" engaged by Deloitte to
perform document review services that included tasks properly
performed only by lawyers.  These tasks included determining the
relevance of documents, determining whether documents were
privileged and the category of privilege the documents attracted,
and highlighting documents that were "hot" in the sense of having
the potential to significantly impact the success or failure of a
case.

There's little doubt that the allegedly offending services were
in fact legal services.  The website of LawPRO, the errors and
omissions insurer owned by LSO, lists these services as examples
of tasks requiring legal skills and judgment.

Still, the LSO dismissed Mr. Sondhi's complaint.  In a 2014
decision, investigation counsel Jessica Caplan concluded that the
legal judgment involved in Deloitte's services was provided by an
"Instructing Lawyer, who determines the parameters of the
document review search."  Presumably, the "Instructing Lawyer"
was not associated with Deloitte.

All that the "independent contractors" did, Ms. Caplan added, was
review and compile documents that met the described criteria.

There is, however, reason to question the decision as, at best,
allowing form to trump substance.

In a recent article in LawPRO Magazine, Dan Pinnington, vice-
president, Claims Prevention and Stakeholder Relations at the
insurer, writes that the profession's "status quo" is "mostly
ignoring legal services providers."  He goes on to say that this
option is "easier and less expensive" than prosecution "but it
isn't in the best interest of the legal consumer."

This may be as true for the business consumer as the retail
consumer. In a 2015 case involving an attempt by CIBC to claim $3
billion in business income deductions, Chief Justice Eugene
Rossiter of the Tax Court of Canada refused to allow the bank to
claim litigation privilege over 670 documents that had allegedly
been misclassified by the third party (not a law firm) to whom
CIBC had outsourced its document review.

"(The bank) had plenty of opportunity to do (the document review)
properly; it chose a certain way of doing it, and it cannot now,
many months later, ask for a mulligan," Chief Justice Rossiter
wrote.

Otherwise, the issue of third-party provision of document review
and other legal-like services has been so confused that in
September 2015, a lawyer employed by a document review company,
who spoke on condition of anonymity, self-reported to the LSO
because the lawyer was concerned that the company was engaging in
the unauthorized provision of legal services.  LSO dropped the
investigation on the grounds that the regulator was at the time
considering allowing alternative business structures (ABS), which
would have permitted non-lawyers to own entities providing legal
services.

Ultimately, the LSO decided against approving ABS, but no clear
policy has emerged.

Susan Tonkin, communications advisor, Media Relations and
Communications, responding by email to Legal Post inquiries, said
only that "If there are allegations and evidence of a breach of
the Law Society's Act, Rules or By-Laws, the Law Society will
investigate." [GN]


DELTA AIRLINES: Tries to Beat Back Bag Fee Collusion Claim
----------------------------------------------------------
Aimee Sachs, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that
attorneys for Delta Air Lines and Air Tran Airways argued before
the 11th Circuit on March 7 that there is no evidence they
colluded to institute a first-checked baggage fee and that a
lower court ruling in their favor should be upheld.

Martin Siegel, a New Jersey resident, filed a class action
against the two airlines in 2009, claiming they conspired to
impose a $15 first-check bag fee in violation of the Sherman
Antitrust Act.

In his complaint, Siegel said the airlines "would benefit in the
form of hundreds of millions of dollars a year in increased
revenue, if they both agreed to charge the same first bag fee at
the same time, so that neither would risk losing sales to the
other and both would profit."

On March 6, Seigel's attorney, Kevin Ross, Esq. said allowing a
lower court's grant of summary judgment to the airlines "will set
up a template for lawful price fixing."

But Senior U.S. Circuit Judge Joel Dubina suggested that before
worrying about the potential impact of allowing the lower court
ruling to stand, attorneys for the class needed to convince the
court a conspiracy had in fact happened.

"We have evidence that AirTran told investors they would not act
independently," Ross said in reply.

Delta merged with Northwest Airlines in April 2008, and announced
it would implement a first-checked bag fee seven months later.
AirTran imposed a similar fee the very next day.

But Delta attorney Randall Allen, Esq. --
randall.allen@alston.com -- of Alston & Bird LLP in Atlanta, said
there is no evidence that AirTran's plan factored at all into
Delta's decision-making process regarding the bag fee.

And AirTran attorney Alden Atkins, Esq. -- aatkins@velaw.com --
of Vinson & Elkins LLP in Washington, D.C., went a step further,
accusing attorneys for the class of trying to persuade the three-
judge panel to establish a new legal standard by which to judge
business decisions.

Atkins said Delta made bag fee decision in connection with its
then just-completed merger with Northwest.

"The facts are pretty straightforward on this point," Atkins
said. "What we know is two companies were making independent
decisions."

The panel gave no indication when they will hand down their
decision.


DENKA PERFORMANCE: Chloroprene Suit Denied Class Action Status
--------------------------------------------------------------
Della Hasselle, writing for The New Orleans Advocate, reports
that saying that plaintiffs' attorneys missed a key deadline, a
federal judge in New Orleans ruled that a lawsuit seeking damages
from Denka Performance Elastomer for releasing dangerous levels
of chloroprene into the air in St. John the Baptist Parish will
not be certified as a class action.

U.S. District Judge Martin Feldman is also considering a motion
by the company's attorneys to dismiss the suit altogether.

Judge Feldman's ruling means that even if the lawsuit goes
forward, the legal proceedings likely won't have as far-reaching
implications for St. John residents as some had hoped.

Lawyers for the St. John residents could still appeal to the 5th
Circuit Court of Appeals.  But without a reversal by the appeals
court, the lawsuit would be limited to 13 residents who filed it
in July.

The plaintiffs include Robert Taylor II, the leader of an
activist group called Concerned Citizens of St. John, and St.
John the Baptist Parish Councilman Larry Sorapuru.

Chloroprene -- a chemical used to create the synthetic rubber
neoprene -- has been produced at the LaPlace plant for many
years. Neoprene is used to make products like wetsuits, sports
shoes and medical braces.

Denka bought the plant in 2015 from E.I. du Pont de Nemours and
Co., a company also named in the suit.

Controversy began after 2010, when the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency reclassified chloroprene as a "likely
carcinogen."  Agency scientists said exposure above 0.2
micrograms per cubic meter of air puts people at increased risk
of getting cancer.

In December 2016, the EPA released its National Air Toxic
Assessment, which found that emissions from the plant cause the
highest potential risk of cancer from airborne pollutants of any
place in the country.

Spikes in emissions have reached up to 765 times the risk-based
threshold, according to data collected by the EPA.  The most
recent numbers, in February, showed spikes of 166 times that
number.  Some measurements, however, show little to no
chloroprene.

The lawsuit asks that Judge Feldman order the plant to stop or
reduce production until emissions no longer exceed the EPA's
risk-based standard, said Eberhard Garrison, an attorney for the
residents.

The residents are not seeking damages for physical injuries but
are for various other issues, including lost property value and
"emotional distress" resulting from "release of excessive
concentrations" of the chemical.

The suit says residents have a "justified fear of development of
cancer due to chloroprene exposure."

Denka's attorneys, however, have asked the judge to throw out the
suit. Lawyer Justin Marocco said the residents failed to show
that the chemical has caused them "irreparable injury" or that
any alleged injury they have suffered outweighs the damage an
injunction would cause the chemical plant.

Forcing the plant to dramatically reduce or halt production
"could ultimately result in the shuttering of the ... facility,"
Mr. Marocco said.

State regulators, in the meantime, say the long-term effects of
chloroprene exposure are still not well understood.

Initially filed in state 40th Judicial District Court, the suit
requested that it be extended to cover anyone who has lived,
worked or attended school within a defined boundary surrounding
the facility from 2011 to the present.  It was up to the court to
determine if the petition met the criteria to become a class
action.

When the case was kicked over to federal court, Judge Feldman was
tasked with determining class-action status.  However, in late
February, he ruled that the case no longer qualified for that
because the residents' lawyers had missed a key 91-day deadline
for the request.

The lawsuit was moved from state to federal court on Aug. 9,
which is when Judge Feldman and the company's lawyers said the
clock started ticking for a class action request.  That would
have put the deadline at Nov. 8.  The residents' lawyers didn't
apply until Jan. 9.

However, Mr. Garrison and his colleagues said the deadline should
have been moved back to February because Denka's lawyers had
filed a later motion amending their initial request to have the
case transferred to federal court.

Judge Feldman, who ruled that the case should stay in federal
court, disagreed.  He denied the request for an extension and
then upheld that ruling in February.

"Even viewed through the 'less stringent' lens . . . the
plaintiffs fail to persuade the court to reconsider its
determination that their request to extend the deadline within
which to seek class certification was untimely and unsupported by
good cause," Judge Feldman wrote.

Lawyers for the plaintiffs and for Denka declined to comment.
[GN]


DIGNITY HEALTH: Must Face Class Action Over Pension Plan
--------------------------------------------------------
Helen Christophi, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that a federal judge on March 22 indicated he would keep alive a
five-year-old proposed class action accusing a hospital system
with ties to the Catholic Church of exploiting a religious
exemption in federal law to underfund its employees' pensions by
$1.5 billion.

U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar said he needed clearer rules to
decide if Dignity Health's retirement plan qualifies as a "church
plan" exempt from funding requirements under the Employee
Retirement Security Act to dismiss the case, concluding that
Dignity had failed to provide any.

"It's an area where I have to tread very cautiously," Judge Tigar
said, "because you can't find yourself in a situation where
you're asking, 'How religious are you?'"

Former Dignity Health billing coordinator Starla Rollins sued
Dignity in 2013, claiming the hospital system was underfunding
its pension plan in violation of ERISA.

The 1974 law established minimum funding and vesting requirements
and fiduciary responsibilities for plan administrators.  But
church plans are exempt from the requirements, sparking court
challenges by employees wary of losing their pension benefits if
the plans go broke.

Ms. Rollins and her newly-added co-plaintiff Patricia Wilson, a
registered nurse at a Dignity affiliate in Arizona, claim
Dignity's plan in 2016 held assets sufficient to fund only 72
percent of accrued benefits, siphoning money from more than
101,000 current and former Dignity employees.

"If Dignity does not honor its promises to adequately fund the
promised pension benefits, plaintiffs and the other class members
will retire with far less income than they expected and will have
been deprived of the opportunity to make up for that lost pension
income," the plaintiffs state in their amended November 2017
complaint.

To qualify for ERISA's church-plan exemption when Ms. Rollins
first sued in 2013, a retirement plan had to have been
established and maintained by a church. Rollins argued Dignity's
plan didn't qualify for the exemption because Dignity isn't a
church.

Dignity countered that it is affiliated with the Sisters of Mercy
and other Catholic women's orders, the product of a 1986 merger
of 10 hospitals run by two California-based Sisters of Mercy
congregations.  Dignity now runs 39 hospitals in California,
Arizona and Nevada.

The Ninth Circuit ruled for Ms. Rollins in 2016, holding that
Dignity's retirement plan doesn't qualify for ERISA's church-plan
exemption because it was not established by a church.  Agreeing
with other circuits, it held that a church plan must be
established by a church and maintained either by a church or a
church-affiliated "principal-purpose organization," an
organization whose principal purpose is providing benefits to
church employees.

But last June, the Supreme Court held in Advocate Health Care
Network v. Stapleton that religious hospitals can also establish
church plans, and that the plans are exempt so long as they're
maintained by a principal-purpose organization.  Dignity Health
participated in that litigation.

With the question of whether Dignity can establish a church plan
out of the way, the Dignity case now turns on whether Dignity is
associated with a church, and whether the internal retirement
committee that administers Dignity's pension plan is a principal-
purpose organization that also maintains it.

The plaintiffs contend that the committee doesn't maintain
Dignity's plan because it doesn't have the power to modify or
terminate the plan.  They argue Dignity maintains the plan, that
Dignity isn't affiliated with the Catholic Church, and that its
principal purpose is providing health care, not retirement
benefits.

Even if Dignity's committee maintained the plan, they add, the
plan wouldn't qualify for the exemption because the committee is
an internal Dignity entity, not a separate organization.

"If Congress wanted hospitals to have church plans, it would not
have adopted the principal-purpose organization language," said
plaintiffs' attorney Matthew Gerend -- mgerend@kellerrohrback.com
-- of Keller Rohrback in Seattle.

He added that the archbishop of San Francisco and the Diocese of
Phoenix have both stated that Dignity is a secular corporation.

Dignity insists nothing in Advocate established that a
maintaining organization must have modification or termination
powers; that its internal committee is a separate organization
because it has voting members who assemble to maintain the plan,
and that it has a "set of common bonds" with the Catholic Church.

"In our particular case, we have a company whose mission quite
literally is the healing ministry of Jesus," said Harvey Rochman
-- hrochman@manatt.com -- Dignity's lawyer with Manatt, Phelps &
Phillips in Los Angeles.

Although Judge Tigar signaled that he will allow the case to
proceed, he suggested he will toss the plaintiffs' state
alternative unjust enrichment claim.  The plaintiffs are also
suing on state alternative contract and fiduciary duty claims.


DIRECTV LLC: Faces FCRA Class Action in California
--------------------------------------------------
Meagan Mihalko, Esq. -- meagan.mihalko@troutman.com -- Timothy
St. George, Esq. -- tim.st.george@troutman.com -- Alan D.
Wingfield, Esq. -- alan.wingfield@troutman.com -- and David N.
Anthony, Esq. -- david.anthony@troutman.com -- of Troutman
Sanders LLP, in an article for Mondaq, wrote that DirecTV was on
the receiving end of a proposed class action in the Central
District of California alleging the direct broadcast satellite
service provider violates the Fair Credit Reporting Act and
California state law by pulling credit reports on consumers
without a permissible purpose.

The complaint, filed by consumer Jon Wulf Amadeus Adler, claims
DirecTV LLC and a number of affiliates "routinely and
systematically" run "hard" credit checks on consumers who have
had no interactions with the company and who have not consented
to the inquiries. Adler claims these impermissible hard credit
pulls are visible to potential creditors and have negatively
affected his and the putative class members' credit scores.

Adler alleges in his complaint that "Defendants, without
permission, conducted hard credit pulls ... on Plaintiff and
Proposed Class Members' credit histories, without any
authorization, prior relationship or interactions initiated by
Plaintiff or Proposed Class Members, which necessarily adversely
affected their credit scores." Adler claims that he "and Proposed
Class Members did not even know about the hard pulls until
viewing their own credit reports."

The FCRA allows for a "soft pull" of a consumer credit report
under certain specified purposes -- including when a creditor
plans to extend a firm offer of credit. Soft pulls are only
visible to the consumer and do not alter a consumer's credit
score. Hard pulls, on the other end, typically occur when a
lender with whom a consumer has applied for credit reviews a
credit report. Hard pulls can impact consumer credit scores and
can be seen by others.

Adler alleges violations under both the FCRA and California's
Consumer Credit Report Agencies Act and California's Unfair
Competition Law. He seeks to represent a proposed class of
individuals who were subject to a hard credit pull by DirecTV
without their permission within the five years prior to the
filing of the complaint. The suit seeks statutory and punitive
damages, injunctive relief, civil penalties, interest, and
attorneys' fees and costs.

The claims against DirecTV are similar to other cases we have
previously reported on, including Patel v. Comcast Corporation
and Heaton v. Social Finance, Inc., the latter of which resulted
in a $2.4 million class settlement.

The Troutman Sanders' Consumer Financial Services Law Monitor
blog offers timely updates regarding the financial services
industry to inform you of recent changes in the law, upcoming
regulatory deadlines and significant judicial opinions that may
impact your business. [GN]


DST SYSTEMS: Pratt Suit Seeks to Block Sale to SS&C Technologies
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dennis Pratt, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. DST Systems, Inc., Stephen C. Hooley,
Joseph C. Antonellis, Jerome H. Bailey, Lynn Dorsey Bleil, Lowell
L. Bryan, Gary D. Forsee, Charles Haldeman, Jr. and Samuel G.
Liss, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-00133 (W.D. Mo, February 21,
2018), seeks to preliminarily and permanently enjoin Defendants
and all persons acting in concert with them from proceeding with,
consummating, or closing the acquisition of DST Systems, Inc. by
SS&C Technologies Holdings, Inc. and Diamond Merger Sub, Inc.
The suit also seeks rescissory or other damages in the event
Defendants consummate the said merger, costs of this action,
including reasonable allowance for attorneys' and experts' fees
and such other and further relief under the Securities and
Exchange Act.

Shareholders of DST will receive $84.00 per share in cash.

The complaint says the proxy statement omitted material
information regarding DST's financial projections and the
financial analyses performed by its financial advisor, BofA
Merrill Lynch, and failed to disclose the line items used to
calculate total EBITDA, Adjusted EPS, and Adjusted Net Income and
a reconciliation of all non-GAAP to GAAP metrics. The disclosure
of projected financial information is material because it
provides stockholders with a basis to project the future
financial performance of a company, and allows stockholders to
better understand the financial analyses performed by the
company's financial advisor in support of its fairness opinion,
the complaint adds.

DST is a provider of specialized technology, strategic advisory
and business operations outsourcing to the financial and
healthcare industries. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      James J. Rosemergy, Esq.
      CAREY DANIS & LOWE
      8235 Forsyth, Suite 1100
      St. Louis, MO 63105
      Telephone: (314) 725-7700
      Facsimile: (314)721-0905
      Email: jrosemergy@careydanis.com

             - and -

      RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
      300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220
      Wilmington, DE 19801
      Telephone: (302) 295-5310
      Facsimile: (302) 654-7530

             - and -

      RM LAW, P.C.
      1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 300
      Berwyn, PA 19312
      Telephone: (484) 324-6800
      Facsimile: (484) 631-1305


DYNAMIC LEDGER: Class Action Over Initial Coin Offering Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hugo Miller and Jennifer Bennett, writing for Bloomberg News,
report that all is not well in Crypto Valley.

One of the highest profile digital-currency projects in
Switzerland, a country that's been among the most enthusiastic
advocates for cryptocurrencies, is under fire from both outsiders
and insiders over allegations of false marketing and
mismanagement, prompting its president to resign.

Now the Tezos Foundation, which raised $232 million in an initial
coin offering, is engaged in the most American of pursuits: a
round of lawsuits.

The non-profit's fundraising touted an all-new model for the
blockchain technology that underpins cryptocurrencies. A group of
investors are claiming in a California court that the
entrepreneurs behind the offering misleadingly marketed the
purchase of "Tezzie" tokens as part of a charitable contribution,
which would leave investors with nothing if the project
collapses.

Switzerland ranks second just behind the U.S. in capital raised
in ICOs, with most of the transactions done by foreigners
flocking to Switzerland, according to a 2017 report by venture
capital firm Atomico.  This case has broad implications for
Switzerland's future as a launching pad for ICOs.

"Will the judge accept the narrative that this was just like
contributing to public radio and all you get is a tote bag, or
was it an investment where everyone expected a return," says
Stephen Palley, a lawyer who runs the cryptocurrency practice at
the firm of Anderson Kill in Washington.  "The structure was
misused and the age of token entrepreneurs going to Switzerland
to set up Swiss foundations is probably over."

Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Jay Clayton said that
ICOs will face fresh scrutiny as the market is probably full of
fraud. The SEC has issued a clutch of subpoenas to ICO operators
as part of a broad crackdown.

All About Bitcoin, Blockchain and Their Crypto World: QuickTake

The Tezos lawsuit "should give Swiss or other foreign
entrepreneurs and enthusiasts pause if they are thinking about
trying to raise funds for a U.S. operation or from U.S. investors
using an ICO structure that doesn't comply with the registration
requirements of the Securities Act," says Joel Fleming, a Boston
lawyer who represents some of the plaintiffs.

At a hearing on March 15 in San Francisco, the investors are
expected to consolidate their putative class-action lawsuits.
The legal action comes on top of a separate dispute between
Tezos's co-founders, a Franco-American couple named Kathleen and
Arthur Breitman, and South African Johann Gevers, one of the
pioneers behind Zug's push to make itself a cryptocurrency hub.
The Breitmans have accused Gevers of mismanagement and conflicts
of interest.

$1 Billion?
The stakes for the Tezos project have risen to more than $1
billion, the plaintiffs allege, as the value of the ether and
Bitcoin tokens which were used to invest in the ICO in July has
surged.  Bitcoin fell 1.4 percent to $10,636 at 7 a.m. in
New York, according to a composite of prices compiled by
Bloomberg. The leading cryptocurrency has fallen 25 percent this
year after climbing more than 15-fold in 2017.

Late last year, the Swiss regulator that oversees foundations
examined Tezos and demanded it add a board member to reinforce
the foundation's independence.  On Feb. 22, Gevers stepped down
as president of the Tezos Foundation and five days later, an
entirely new board was appointed.

Oliver Bussmann, who worked with Mr. Gevers to establish Crypto
Valley, acknowledged that the Tezos dispute has had a negative
impact.  But he said he's glad that with a new board and Gevers's
resignation, Tezos appears to have "solved their deadlocked
situation and can move forward."

Mr. Gevers acknowledged a LinkedIn request but didn't respond to
a request for comment.  On Jan. 19, he sent a flurry of tweets on
the topics.

Interference, Obstruction
"After months of incapacitating interference, obstruction, and
attacks, the Tezos Foundation has regained the ability to act,"
he wrote.  "In a high-trust environment, the impossible becomes
possible. In a low-trust environment, even the possible becomes
impossible."

U.S. District Judge Richard Seeborg on Feb. 1 stayed any action
in the planned class-action until the Supreme Court decides on
whether state courts can handle such a case.  Lawyer Brian Klein,
who represents the Breitmans' investment firm Dynamic Ledger
Solutions, declined to comment to Bloomberg Law on the case
against his client but said "we are pleased the judge issued the
stay and recognized that this case belongs in federal court."

The looming lawsuit comes as Swiss financial regulator Finma
tries to temper some of the government's enthusiasm for
cryptocurrencies.  While Swiss Economy Minister Johann Schneider-
Ammann has visited Zug to support Crypto Valley, Finma issued
guidelines in February to remind investors money-laundering rules
will be applied to Swiss ICOs.  The regulator has organized
roundtable discussions with investors on how these guidelines
will affect ICOs in Zug and Geneva on March 14 and 21 that are
already fully booked.

Last September, Finma shut down cryptocurrency provider E-Coin
for accepting deposits without a banking license, and then began
investigations into several ICOs over possible fraud.

Mr. Bussmann, who now runs a cryptocurrency advisory firm in Zug,
says the guidelines will dissuade rogue entrepreneurs and also
provide more certainty for legitimate investors.

"They have to protect investors but they cannot shut out venture
capital," Mr. Bussmann said.  "Switzerland has not always had
great access to venture capital, and ICOs give them access to
that."

'Notorious Haven'
The plaintiffs in California have a blunter assessment of Zug. In
their lawsuit, they tar the city as a shady place to start a
business.

"Zug is a notorious haven for white-collar miscreants," reads the
complaint, citing the past example of Marc Rich, a commodities
trader eventually pardoned by Bill Clinton.  "The defendants
admitted that they chose to use a foundation in Zug to conduct
the ICO and collect investor funds because they perceived
Switzerland's regulatory oversight to be weaker than that of the
U.S."

The case is Baker vs. Dynamic Ledger Sols., Inc. Northern
District of California -- 17-cv-06850-RS, 2/1/18 [GN]


EDWARD D. JONES: Faces Class Action Over Training Costs
-------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that a class of financial
advisor trainees claims Edward D. Jones & Co. forced them to
agree to repay substantial training costs if they leave within
three years, gave them little or no meaningful training, and used
their supposed debt to deny them wages.

Counsel for Plaintiffs:

     Linda D. Friedman, Esq.
     Suzanne E. Bish, Esq.
     George S. Robot, Esq.
     STOWELL & FRIEDMAN, LTD.
     303 W. Madison St., Suite 2600
     Chicago, IL 60606
     Tel: (312) 431-0888
     Email: Lfriedman@sfltd.com
            sbish@sftld.com
            grobot@sfltd.com


ENAGIC USA: Makaron Asks Ct. to Compel 800Link to File Response
---------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiff in the case captioned Edward Makaron, individually,
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
Enagic USA, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 18-mc-00008, (S.D. Ill.,
February 21, 2018), moves the court for entry of an order
compelling non-party 800Link Inc. to provide responses to his
November 10, 2017 subpoena.

Defendant made use of 800Link's call forwarding and voicemail
system to make automated calls to potential customers, including
Makaron. Plaintiff asserts that such calls were made without his
consent in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      David B. Levin, Esq.
      Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman, P.C.
      111 West Jackson Blvd., Suite 1700
      Chicago, IL 60604
      Phone: (312) 212-4355
      Fax: (866) 633-0228
      Email: dlevin@toddflaw.com

Enagic USA is represented by:

      Dwight M. Francis, Esq.
      GARDERE WYNNE SEWELL LLP
      2021 McKinney Ave., Suite 1600
      Dallas, TX 75201
      Tel: (214) 999-4264
      Fax: (214) 999-3264
      Email: dfrancis@gardere.com

             - and -

      Fred Puglisi, Esq.
      SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER AND HAMPTON LLP
      333 S. Hope St., 43rd Floor
      Los Angeles CA 90071
      Tel: (310) 228-3733
      Fax: (310) 228-3933
      Email: fpuglisi@sheppardmullin.com


EXPERIAN INFO: Walsh Files Suit Over Erroneous Tax Lien Reports
---------------------------------------------------------------
Edward J. Walsh, Jr., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Experian Information Solutions,
Inc., Defendant, Case No. 17-cv- 00246 (M.D. Fla., February 20,
2018) seeks actual, statutory and punitive damages, pre-judgment
and post-judgment interest, attorney's fees and costs and such
other relief under the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

Defendant is a consumer reporting agency that sells
consumer/credit reports to consumers and/or institutions.
Experian allegedly reported Walsh's tax lien inaccurately,
reporting the same lien twice as two separate entries. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Janet R. Varnell, Esq.
     Brian W. Warwick, Esq.
     David K. Lietz, Esq.
     VARNELL AND WARWICK PA
     P.O. Box 1870
     Lady Lake FL 32158
     Tel: (352) 753-8600
     Email: jvarnell@varnellandwarwick.com
            bwarwick@varnellandwarwick.com
            dlietz@varnellandwarwick.com

            - and -


      Leonard A. Bennett, Esq.
      Craig C. Marchiando, Esq.
      Elizabeth W. Hanes, Esq.
      Matthew James Erausquin
      CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      763 J. Clyde Morris Blvd., Ste. 1-A
      Newport News, VA 23601
      Telephone: (757) 930-3660
      Facsimile: (757) 930-3662
      Email: lenbennett@clalegal.com
             craig@clalegal.com
             elizabeth@clalegal.com
             matt@clalegal.com

             - and -

      Kristy Cahoon Kelly, Esq.
      Andrew J. Guzzo, Esq.
      Casey S. Nash, Esq.
      KELLY & CRANDALL, PLC
      3925 Chain Bridge Rd., Suite 202
      Fairfax, VA 22030
      Tel: (703) 424-7576
      Fax: (703) 591-9285
      Email: kkelly@kellyandcrandall.com
             aguzzo@kellyandcrandall.com
             casey@kellyandcrandall.com

             - and -

      E. Michelle Drake, Esq.
      John Albanese, Esq.
      BERGER AND MONTAGUE
      43 SE Main Street, Suite 505
      Minneapolis, MN 55414
      Tel: (612) 594-5999
      Email: emdrake@bm.net
             jalbanese@bm.net


EXPRESSIVE LIGHTING: Denied Overtime Pay, "Williams" Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Williams, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Expressive Lighting Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-01096, (E.D. N.Y., February 20, 2018),
seeks maximum liquidated damages for late overtime wages and non-
payment of minimum wages, recovery of compensation for not
receiving notices and statements including not being paid on a
weekly basis, costs and attorneys' fees pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act, New York Minimum Wage Act and New York Labor
Law.

Defendant is engaged in the business of selling lighting fixtures
and related items to a wide variety of businesses and individuals
from New York and New Jersey where Williams was employed as a
warehouse worker. He worked approximately 45-50 hours a week
without overtime pay, says the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


EXXON MOBIL: Faces "Guimary" Suit in C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Exxon Mobil
Corporation. The case is styled as Gabriel Guimary, an
individual, for himself and those similarly situated, Plaintiff,
v. Exxon Mobil Corporation, a New Jersey corporation
doing business in California, Defendant/Movant, DOES 1 through
100, Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-02430 (C.D. Cal., March 26,
2018).

Exxon Mobil Corporation is an American multinational oil and gas
corporation headquartered in Irving, Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


FINANCIAL BUSINESS: Johnson Sues Over Student Loan Collection
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tamika L. Johnson an individual, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Financial Business and
Consumer Solutions, Inc. (FBCS), Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-00498,
(D. Md., February 16, 2018), seeks statutory damages, reasonable
attorney's fees and costs and such other and further relief for
violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

In 2006, Johnson obtained a student loan to finance her education
that was subsequently assigned to National Collegiate Student
Loan Trust. The latter retained FBCS for the purpose of
collecting said student loan. On or about December 5, 2017, FBCS
sent Ms. Johnson a collection letter despite that the loan was
charged off several years prior to filing the instant action, and
was not enforceable by judicial means as a result of the
expiration of the applicable statute of limitations; beyond the
three-year statute of limitations in Maryland, says the
complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kathleen P. Hyland, Esq.
      HYLAND LAW FIRM, LLC
      16 E. Lombard Street, Suite 400
      Baltimore, MD 21202
      Tel: (410) 777-5396
      Fax: (410) 777-8237
      Email: kat@lawhyland.com

             - and -

      Robert W. Murphy, Esq.
      MURPHY LAW
      1212 S.E. 2nd Avenue
      Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33316
      Tel: (954) 763-8660
      Fax: (954) 763-8607
      Email: rwmurphy@lawfirmmurphy.com
             rphyu@aol.com


FITNESS 19: Maggard Sues Over Double Gym Fees Charges
-----------------------------------------------------
Brent Maggard, on behalf of themselves and others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. Fitness 19 LLC and Does 1-10, inclusive
and each of them, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-00263, (C.D. Cal.,
February 15, 2018), seeks damages, restitution, and all other
relief resulting from unjust enrichment and violation of the
Electronic Funds Transfer Act, Electronic Communications Privacy
Act, California's Unfair Competition Law and California's
Consumer Legal Remedies Act.

On or about early 2016, Plaintiff signed up for a membership with
the Fitness 19 Gym in Huntington Beach and entered into an auto-
debit plan. Unbeknownst to Plaintiff, however, Defendant both
opened a new account for Plaintiff and reactivated his old
account and began billing him monthly for both plans. Maggard
discovered that Fitness 19 was illegally automatically debiting
him for $15 and $24 per month separately in May 2017.

Fitness 19 LLC, is a provider of gym services and memberships to
gym facilities. [BN]

Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


FORT MYERS, FL: Faces "Miller" Suit in M.D. Florida
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The City of Fort
Myers, a municipality. The case is styled as Deretha Miller,
Luetricia Freeman Becker, Ralph Henry and Noemy Rodriguez,
individually, and on behalf of a class of persons similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. The City of Fort Myers, a municipality,
Randall P. Henderson, Jr. in his official capacity as City of
Fort Myers Mayor and Saeed Kazemi in his official capacity as
City of Fort Myers Manager, Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-00195-
SPC-CM (M.D. Fla., March 23, 2018).

Fort Myers or Ft. Myers, is the county seat and commercial center
of Lee County, Florida, United States.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

   Gary A. Davis, Esq.
   Davis Whitlock, PC
   PO Box 649
   Hot Springs, NC 28743
   Tel: (828) 622-0044
   Fax: (828) 622-7610
   Email: gadavis@enviroattorney.com

      - and -

   Ralf Gunars Brookes, Esq.
   Law Office of Ralf Brookes
   1217 E Cape Coral Pkwy, Suite 107
   Cape Coral, FL 33904
   Tel: (239) 910-5464
   Fax: (239) 541-2774
   Email: Ralf@RalfBrookesAttorney.com


FP HOLDINGS: Guests Sue Over Illegal Taxes for Internet Use
-----------------------------------------------------------
Priscilla Hernandez, Abigail Robinson and Tiffani Washington, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. FP Holdings, LP, (d/b/a Palms Casino Resort),
Fiesta Parentco, LLC, Station Casinos, LLC, NP Palace, LLC (d/b/a
Palace Station Hotel & Casino) and Red Rock Resorts, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-00321, (D. Nev., February 21, 2018),
seeks damages and restitution for the total amount of taxes
Defendants unlawfully charged and collected on the portion of the
Resort Fees that constitutes charges for Internet access pursuant
to the Internet Tax Freedom Act.

The complaint says Defendants charge overnight guests a
mandatory, per-night resort fee which includes daily access for
two guests each day to the fitness center at the property, daily
in-room Internet access for two devices, and all local phone
calls. When charging a Resort Fee that included Internet access,
Defendants applied the Clark County Combined Transient Lodging
Tax to the entire amount of the Resort Fee, which includes the
portion of the Resort Fee that constitutes charges for Internet
access.

Hernandez and Robinson stayed at Palms Casino Resort, while
Washington stayed at Palace Station Hotel & Casino. They all
claim that charges for Internet access where included in the
Resort Fees that they paid. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Don Springmeyer, Esq.
      Bradley Schrager, Esq.
      WOLF, RIFKIN, SHAPIRO, SCHULMAN & RABKIN, LLP
      3556 E. Russell Road, 2nd Floor
      Las Vegas, NV 89120-2234
      Tel: (702) 341-5200
      Fax: (702) 341-5300
      Email: dspringmeyer@wrslawyers.com
             bschrager@wrslawyers.com

             - and -

      Patrick Madden, Esq.
      BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
      1622 Locust Street
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Tel: (215) 875-3000
      Fax: (215) 875-4604
      Email: pmadden@bm.net

             - and -

      Stuart McCluer, Esq.
      MCCULLEY MCCLUER PLLC
      1022 Carolina Blvd., Ste. 300
      Charleston, SC 29451
      Tel: (855) 467-0451
      Fax: (662) 368-1506
      Email: smccluer@mcculleymccluer.com


FRANKLIN INSTITUTE: Faces "Lee" Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Franklin
Institute. The case is styled as Chien-Hui Lee, on behalf of
herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. The Franklin
Institute, Defendant, Case No. 5:18-cv-01266-JLS (E.D. Penn.,
March 26, 2018).

The Franklin Institute is a science museum and the center of
science education and research in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   C. K. LEE, Esq.
   LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
   30 EAST 39TH STREET
   SECOND FLOOR
   NEW YORK, NY 10016
   Tel: (212) 465-1188
   Email: cklee@leelitigation.com


FUNKO INC: Time to Answer to Securities Violation Claims Extended
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington, Seattle, issued an Order Extending Time to Answer,
Move or Otherwise Respond Pending Remand Proceedings in the case
captioned ROBERT LOWINGER, Individually and Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. FUNKO, INC; BRIAN MARIOTTI;
RUSSELL NICKEL; KEN BROTMAN; GINO DELLOMO; CHARLES DENSON; DIANE
IRVINE; ADAM KRIGER; RICHARD MCNALLY; GOLDMAN, SACHS & CO.; J.P.
MORGAN SECURITIES LLC; MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH
INCORPORATED; PIPER JAFFRAY & CO.; JEFFERIES LLC; STIFFEL,
NICOLAUS & COMPANY, INCORPORATED; BMO CAPITAL MARKETS CORP.;
SUNTRUST ROBINSON HUMPHREY, INC.; and JOHN DOES 1 THROUGH 25,
Defendants, No. C18-201 RSM (W.D. Wash.).

Plaintiff Robert Lowinger and Defendants agreed to extend the
time by which Defendants must answer, move, or otherwise respond
to the Complaint alleges only violations of Sections 11,
12(a)(2), and 15 of the federal Securities Act of 1933, 15 U.S.C.
Section 77a, et seq.

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

Robert Lowinger, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Elizabeth Ann
Leland bleland@kellerrohrback.com, KELLER ROHRBACK, Juli E.
Farris, jfarris@kellerrohrback.com KELLER ROHRBACK &T. David
Copley -- dcopley@kellerrohrback.com -- KELLER ROHRBACK.

Funko, Inc, Brian Mariotti, Russell Nickel, Ken Brotman, Gino
Dellomo, Charles Denson, Diane Irvine, Adam Kriger & Richard
McNally, Defendants, represented by Benjamin Naftalis --
benjamin.naftalis@lw.com -- LATHAM & WATKINS, pro hac vice, Kevin
M. McDonough, kevin.mcdonough@lw.com LATHAM & WATKINS, pro hac
vice & Stephen C. Willey -- swilley@sbwllp.com -- SAVITT BRUCE &
WILLEY LLP.


GENERAL MILLS: "Hilsley" Mislabeling Suit Removed to S.D. Cal.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Crystal Hilsley, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. General Mills, Inc.,
General Mills Sales, Inc., Mccann-Erickson USA, Inc., Saatchi &
Saatchi North America, Inc., Warner Bros. Entertainment, Inc.,
Universal City Studios LLC, Viacom International Inc., Lucasfilm
Ltd., LLC, Sanrio Company Ltd., Defendants, Defendants, Case No.
37-2017-00046914 (Cal. Super., December 5, 2017), was removed to
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District Of California
on February 21, 2018.

Complaint alleges violations of the California Consumer Legal
Remedies Act, California Unfair Competition Law, California
Business and Professions Code, California False Advertising Law
as well as for breach of express and implied warranty arising out
of General Mills' alleged mislabeling of twelve varieties of
Fruit Flavored Snacks that bear images licensed to General Mills.
[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      David Elliot, Esq.
      THE ELLIOT LAW FIRM
      3200 Fourth Avenue, Suite 207
      San Diego, CA 92103
      Tel: (619) 468-4865
      Email: davidelliot@elliotlawfirm.com

Defendants are represented by:

      David T. Biderman, Esq.
      PERKINS COIE LLP
      1888 Century Park E., Suite 1700
      Los Angeles, CA 90067-1721
      Telephone: (310) 788-9900
      Facsimile: (310) 843-1284
      Email: DBiderman@perkinscoie.com

             - and -

      Charles Sipos, Esq.
      Lauren Watts Staniar, Esq.
      PERKINS COIE LLP
      1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900
      Seattle, WA 98101
      Telephone: (206) 359-8000
      Facsimile: (206) 359-9000
      Email: csipos@perkinscoie.com
             lstaniar@perkinscoie.com


GENERAL MOTORS: Settles Arizona Ignition Switch Case for $6.29MM
----------------------------------------------------------------
Eric D. Lawrence, writing for Detroit Free Press, reports that a
settlement in one of General Motors' ignition-switch defect
lawsuits will net consumers in Arizona up to almost $6.29
million.

Arizona took a different path than other states, including
Michigan, in reaching a settlement that directs that payments
will go to affected consumers, according to a news release on
March 7 from the office of Arizona Attorney General Mark
Brnovich.

As part of a $120 million settlement announced in October with 49
states and the District of Columbia, Michigan was to receive $4.3
million, with that money going to the state's general fund.  If
Arizona had taken part in that settlement, the state would have
received about $2 million, the release said.

"Consumers should always come first in consumer fraud and class
action lawsuits," Mr. Brnovich said in the release.  "When I took
office (in 2015), I couldn't believe consumer payments weren't
the focus of the state's lawsuit against GM.  I wasn't going to
settle until Arizona consumers received compensation."

The release noted that Mr. Brnovich amended the state's 2014
lawsuit, which "alleged GM concealed defects, engaged in false
advertising, and created a corporate culture that devalued
vehicle safety," to include a claim for consumer payments.

"Under the proposed settlement, approximately 33,000 Arizona
consumers who purchased certain GM vehicles between July 2009 and
July 2014, and did not resell those cars before the recalls were
announced, would be entitled to payments," according to the
release.  Payments will be at least $200, and consumers who
participate will need to sign a release form sent by a claims
administrator.

GM issued a statement after the settlement was announced:

"GM has reached a constructive settlement with the state of
Arizona to finally resolve claims filed by the Attorney General
regarding vehicles in that state that were subject to recalls in
2014, including the ignition switch recall.  Since 2014, GM has
taken important steps to help ensure the safety of its vehicles,
including a new organizational structure dedicated to global
vehicle safety and a robust Speak Up for Safety program."

The ignition switch defect, which could cause vehicles to stall,
was a massive scandal for GM, leaving at least 124 people dead
and 275 injured in small cars such as the Chevrolet Cobalt and
Saturn Ion made by the old GM.  The Detroit automaker recalled
more than 2.7 million vehicles in 2014. Penalties and fines for
the company topped $2.5 billion, and litigation involving
hundreds of plaintiffs remains unresolved.

The Arizona settlement, which also requires GM to pay $1 million
to the state as well as other costs, will still need court
approval.  The case is in Arizona Superior Court. [GN]


GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Faces "Thorne" Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Genworth Financial,
Inc. The case is styled as Braulio Thorne, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Genworth
Financial, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-02671-VSB (S.D.
N.Y., March 26, 2018).

Genworth Financial, Inc. provides insurance and homeownership
solutions in the United States and internationally. It operates
through five segments: U.S. Mortgage Insurance, Canada Mortgage
Insurance, Australia Mortgage Insurance, U.S. Life Insurance, and
Runoff.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


GLYNN COUNTY, GA: House Bill 1012 Put on the Back Burner
--------------------------------------------------------
Taylor Cooper, writing for The Brunswick News, reports that
a bill in the General Assembly intended to prevent taxpayers from
requesting refunds of property taxes on behalf of a class of
other taxpayers in a similar situation has been put on the back
burner.

House Bill 1012 would have also prevented a group from bringing a
class "action or suit for a refund," against a county or
municipality on behalf of others in a similar situation.

State Rep. Don Hogan, R-St. Simons Island, introduced the bill in
response to an informal request from Glynn County Commissioners.

The county is involved in a class-action lawsuit, which alleges
that thousands of county residents were overcharged on their
property taxes due a misapplication of the Scarlett Williams
homestead exemption.  Jay Roberts, attorney for the plaintiffs,
estimates the allegedly overpaid property taxes total around $15-
17 million.

A Cobb County Superior Court judge came down on the county's side
last year, but the Georgia Court of Appeals sided with the
plaintiffs in January.  Both the county and the taxpayers
litigating the case asked the Georgia Supreme Court to hear the
case.

"I don't think it will even get a hearing in the committee it's
assigned to," Mr. Hogan said of his bill.

In the Georgia General Assembly, a bill is filed and then
assigned to a committee for review.  The committee makes a
recommendation and can send it to the House Rules Committee,
which decides which bills will be heard by the House of
Representatives.

"Chances are it wouldn't make it through the rules committee if
it did get there," Mr. Hogan said.

Mr. Hogan said the lack of support was likely due to the type of
lawsuit involved.

"It's a shame that (the plaintiffs) had to do this.  To me, the
mistake was made by the former tax commissioner, and as the legal
authority, it falls on the county commission to make that right,"
Mr. Hogan said.

County officials have also said if the county loses the case,
Glynn County Schools would also be on the hook for refunds as
well.  Because the school board collects more property taxes than
the county, it would likely have to pay a larger portion of the
refund that the county would.

"I really feel for the county commission, and the situation
they're in," Mr. Hogan said.  "They're trying to do what they
think is best for the county. It amounts to the taxpayers suing
taxpayers."

The conversation that sprung up around the proposed legislation
has been beneficial, Mr. Hogan said, and he's glad he was able to
discuss it with people on both sides of the issue.

"I'm glad that I did what I did, and I think it's brought out a
lot of discussion in the community," Mr. Hogan said.

The state already has such a law protecting it from class-action
lawsuits, and Hogan has previously said this bill would extend
that protection to Georgia's counties.

He doesn't have any plans to bring it back up at the moment, and
will likely invest more time in the issue after the current state
legislative session is over. [GN]


GOOGLE INC: YouTube Slays Zombie Video Makers' Ad Revenue Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Iovino, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports
that Google on March 7 decapitated a zombie video maker's class
action seeking millions of dollars in lost ad revenue from
YouTube.

U.S. District Judge Edward Chen dismissed the case with
prejudice, finding YouTube's contract with content providers
gives it absolute power over advertising for web videos.

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

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

The abrupt change came in March 2017, when YouTube started facing
criticism and losing advertisers for pairings ads with racist and
violent content, including neo-Nazi and Islamic State group
support videos. That's when YouTube unveiled a "secret" rating
system that allowed advertisers to pull ads from certain
categories of content.

The plaintiffs say they earned about $10,000 in monthly ad
revenue before the "Adpocalypse." Afterwards, the amount earned
from 1 million video views sunk from $1,000 to $2,000 to
approximately $150, according to the complaint.

Zombie Go Boom said YouTube broke promises it made in its partner
contract to only pull ads from videos that violate its content
guidelines.  But YouTube said that same agreement also gives it
broad discretion over advertising placement decisions.

YouTube's partner program states: "YouTube is not obligated to
display any advertisements alongside your videos and may
determine the type and format of ads available on the YouTube
Service."

The plaintiffs argued the agreement was so unfair and lopsided it
should be deemed invalid by the court under the unconscionability
doctrine.

Chen rejected that argument, finding that because content
providers reap benefits from the contract, including 55 percent
of video ad revenues, the agreement can't be deemed
unconscionable.

"YouTube allowed Zombie to post videos on its forum free of
charge in exchange for getting a license to its content," Chen
wrote in his 15-page ruling. "The ability to post videos, even
without advertising revenues, can be valuable to content
providers in reaching a wide audience."

The fact that Zombie Go Boom's videos did not violate YouTube's
content guidelines in no way hinders the company's power to pull
ads for other reasons, Chen concluded.

"Nothing in the Partner Program Policies suggests that violation
of the policies is the only reason why YouTube is not obligated
to display advertisements; it is simply one reason," Chen wrote.

Chen dismissed the case with prejudice and issued judgment in
favor of Google.

Attorneys for both sides did not immediately return emails and
phone calls seeking comment March 7 afternoon.

Zombie Go Boom is represented by Todd Friedman, Esq. of Woodland
Hills, California. Google is represented by Anthony Weibell, Esq.
-- aweibell@wsgr.com -- of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati in
Palo Alto.

The case is JAMES SWEET, et al., Plaintiffs, v. GOOGLE INC., et
al., Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-03953-EMC (N.D. Calif.).


GOOGLE LLC: Plaintiffs to Refile Dismissed Nexus 6P Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Golightly, writing for Android Headlines, reports that
there's been a new development in an ongoing class-action lawsuit
against Huawei and Google, stemming from an investigation last
year with regard to the Nexus 6P handset.  Specifically, Judge
Beth Labson Freeman, presiding over the case for the U.S.
District Court of Northern California San Jose Division, issued a
ruling to deny motions from the defendants to dismiss the case.
Furthermore, Freeman moved to dismiss the two companies' claims
that the cases don't warrant a class-action suit.  That means
that both companies' cases will be proceeding.  However, motions
were granted in terms of the companies' request to dismiss some
of the claims of the suit, which include some fraud or fraud-
based, warranty, and unjust enrichment claims.  That's likely to
prove a major victory for the both Google and Huawei but the two
will still face other claims falling under similar categories.

For those who may not recall, this lawsuit started in April of
last year after users of the Google-branded, Huawei-built Nexus
6P began to notice several big problems with the devices.
Primarily, complaints came down to early shutoff of devices
despite having plenty of battery remaining and boot looping
problems.  Users went on to claim that Google and Huawei were
unresponsive to the issues.  Similar problems had led to suits
against other companies but it wasn't immediately clear whether a
class-action lawsuit would follow.  It now does appear that will
happen.  Filed in the above-mentioned court under Case No. 17-cv-
02185-BLF, the two companies are set to face a different group of
claims.  Google will be facing claims based on a state consumer
protection statute, while Huawei is looking at express and
implied warranty claims.  Huawei, as the manufacturer, is facing
additional claims under the federal Magnusson-Moss statute and
California Unfair Competition Law.

Unfortunately, even the dismissed claims could be amended and
brought back.  In fact, although there's no guarantee that they
won't simply be dismissed again, the plaintiffs in the case have
indicated that is their plan.  They will be refiling the
dismissed claims on June 8.  The stretch of time involved here is
not unusual for cases involving large companies with robust law
teams.  However, it does mean that this case will likely drag on
without any resolution and there's a high likelihood that it
won't be over by the end of this year. [GN]


GOOGLE INC: Settles Privacy Class Action Over Street View Cars
--------------------------------------------------------------
Wendy Davis, writing for MediaPost, reports that Google has
tentatively agreed to settle an 8-year-old privacy battle over
the collection of data by its Street View cars, according to
court papers filed on March 6.

Details of the settlement, which has not yet been finalized,
haven't been revealed.  If accepted by U.S. District Court Judge
Charles Breyer in San Francisco, the settlement will resolve a
class-action lawsuit stemming from revelations that the company's
Street View cars collected a host of data -- including URLs,
passwords and emails -- sent over unencrypted Wi-Fi networks.

News about Google's data gathering sparked investigations into
the company, both in the U.S. and abroad.  In 2013, Google agreed
to pay $7 million to settle with more than 30 state attorneys
general who were investigating the so-called "Wi-Spy" debacle.
The company also was fined $25,000 in 2012 by the Federal
Communications Commission for failing to cooperate with that
agency's probe.

In addition, revelations about the data gathering sparked a
class-action suit by consumers who alleged the company violated
the federal wiretap law.  Google apologized for the interceptions
and said it intended to destroy the data, but also argued that
the company didn't violate any laws.  The company argued that the
class-action should be dismissed on the grounds that the federal
wiretap law only prohibits interceptions from Wi-Fi networks that
are protected by passwords.

Google based its argument on a section of the law that allows the
interception of "radio communications" that are "readily
accessible to the general public."  The company contended that
transmissions sent through open networks are accessible to the
public at large, and therefore not subject to the prohibition.

In 2013, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected Google's
argument, ruling that Wi-Fi transmissions are not "readily
accessible" to the public, because most people aren't able to
decode data transmitted over Wi-Fi.  Google unsuccessfully
attempted to appeal that ruling to the Supreme Court. [GN]


GRADY'S PIZZA: Faces "Foster" Suit in E.D. Arkansas
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Grady's Pizza &
Subs Inc. The case is styled as Ashley Foster and Erica Morgan,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. Grady's Pizza & Subs Inc doing business as: Grady's
Restaurant, Defendant/Debtor, Case No. 4:18-cv-00217-KGB (E.D.
Ark., March 26, 2018).

Grady's Restaurant serves pizzas, sandwiches and fresh breads ni
Central Arkansas.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

   Allison Elizabeth Ann Koile, Esq.
   Sanford Law Firm
   Post Office Box 39
   Russellville, AR 72811
   Tel: (479) 880-0088
   Fax: (888) 787-2040
   Email: allison@sanfordlawfirm.com

      - and -

    Chris Sanford, Esq.
   Joshua Sanford, Esq.
   Sanford Law Firm
   One Financial Center
   650 South Shackleford, Suite 411
   Little Rock, AR 72211
   Tel: (501) 221-0088
   Fax: (888) 787-2040
   Email: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com


GREENSPOON MARDER: Court Denies Dismissal of "Lapan" FDCPA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Vermont
issued as Order denying Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the case
captioned KARENA LAPAN, individually and on behalf of all other
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. GREENSPOON MARDER P.A.,
Defendant, Case No. 5:17-cv-130 (D. Vt.).

Plaintiff Karena Lapan (Lapan) alleges that Defendant Greenspoon
Marder P.A. (Greenspoon), a law firm incorporated in Florida,
violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) in the
course of pursuing a non-judicial foreclosure on a Las Vegas
timeshare by disclosing the details of a claimed debt to third
parties. Lapan also alleges that Greenspoon's conduct violated
the Vermont Consumer Fraud Act.

Lapan claims that Greenspoon's mailing of the unredacted list of
individuals in default to all of the timeshare owners on the list
violated the FDCPA in two ways. First, it amounted to
communication with a third party in connection with the
collection of a debt, in violation of 15 U.S.C. Ssection
1692c(b).

Greenspoon has moved to dismiss, arguing that this court lacks
personal jurisdiction and that the Complaint fails to state a
claim upon which relief can be granted.

Decisions holding nonjudicial foreclosures not to be debt
collection have frequently done so on the basis of the
unavailability of a deficiency judgment.  But the fact that the
creditor's recovery is limited to the sale value of the
collateral does not change the fundamental nature of the
foreclosure process, which takes something of value from a debtor
and uses it to satisfy a debt.

The notice of default sent to Lapan in this case stated that "in
the event that your obligation is not brought current within 35
days ELT shall accelerate all sums due under the Note and shall
proceed with the sale of the Property."  The court is satisfied
that this language, construed in the light most favorable to
Lapan's claims, did amount to an attempt to collect a debt.
There is no meaningful distinction between a demand for repayment
and a statement of the consequences for failure to make
repayment.  The expected effect on the recipient's behavior is
the same.  The court takes guidance from Romea v. Heiberger &
Assocs., 163 F.3d 111, 116 (2d Cir. 1998), where the Second
Circuit held that an eviction notice for failure to pay timely
rent was an attempt to collect a debt within the meaning of the
FDCPA.

In that case, the court rejected the notion that a notice
required by statute prior to the initiation of a possessory
proceeding could not also be an attempt to collect a debt. Romea
is not precisely on point, because the language of the eviction
notices included the phrase you are required to pay and was thus
closer to an explicit demand for payment, but this is not a fatal
distinction, and Romea's reasoning remains instructive.
Furthermore, even in the complete absence of any language seeking
repayment, the essential character of this type of communication
would remain that of an attempt to collect a debt by
dispossessing an individual of something of value in satisfaction
of that debt.
The court concludes that Greenspoon's conduct as alleged in the
complaint was undertaken in connection with the collection of a
debt and was thus subject to the FDCPA.

Greenspoon asserts that the facts alleged in the Complaint fail
to establish a sufficient basis for personal jurisdiction over
Greenspoon.

Here, the Complaint alleges that Greenspoon mailed the default
and sale notices to Lapan at her address in Vermont, and to all
of the other 27 alleged debtors at their respective addresses in
other states. This was a single mass mailing undertaken in
service of a single purpose, and the court is not persuaded that
its individual component letters should be considered in the
isolated, piecemeal fashion that Greenspoon urges. The same plan
or design that led Greenspoon to mail the notice of default and
the notice of sale to Lapan into Vermont also resulted in the
delivery of similar letters addressed to the other debtors, which
Lapan alleges resulted in her damages. The court concludes that
Greenspoon's conduct was sufficient to constitute minimum
contacts for the assertion of specific jurisdiction in Vermont.

The motion to dismiss is denied in all respects.

A full-text copy of the District Court's February 22, 2018
Decision is available at https://tinyurl.com/yc9cgv52 from
Leagle.com.

Karena LaPan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew B. Delaney, Esq.,
Martin & Associates, PC, 100 N. Main Street, Suite 2, P.O. Box
607, Barre, VT 05641 & Peter A. Holland, Esq., The Holland Law
Firm, P.C., pro hac vice.

Greenspoon Marder P.A., Defendant, represented by Justin B.
Barnard, Esq., Dinse, Knapp & McAndrew, P.C. & Karen McAndrew,
Esq., Dinse, Knapp & McAndrew, P.C..


HENRY SCHEIN: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on March 7
disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of Henry Schein, Inc. (NASDAQ: HSIC)
from March 7, 2013 through February 12, 2018, both dates
inclusive ("Class Period").  The lawsuit seeks to recover damages
for Henry Schein investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the Henry Schein class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1291.htmlor call Phillip Kim,
Esq. or Zachary Halper, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email
pkim@rosenlegal.com or zhalper@rosenlegal.com for information on
the class action.

NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A
CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU
RETAIN ONE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO
NOTHING AT THIS POINT. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE.

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) Henry Schein was engaging in unethical, anti-
competitive behavior through agreements with Benco Dental Supply
Company and Patterson Companies, Inc., in violation of United
States antitrust laws; (2) Henry Schein engaged in such behavior,
in part, to help maintain profitability in a consolidating health
care industry; (3) these violations of U.S. antitrust laws would
result in heightened scrutiny by the federal government and a
lawsuit filed by the Federal Trade Commission ("FTC"); (4) Henry
Schein failed to maintain adequate internal controls; and (5) as
a result, defendants' statements about Henry Schein's business,
operations and prospects were materially false and misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. When the
true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that
investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. 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. If
you wish to join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1291.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]


HERSHEY COMPANY: Court Dismisses Class Action Over Candy Box
------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Mehan, writing for The Kansas City Star, reports that are
people like Robert Bratton fighting to protect your rights, or
are they and their attorneys making a mockery of Missouri's
consumer protection law?

After buying roughly 600 boxes of Whoppers and Reese's Pieces
over the course of a decade, Mr. Bratton sued the candy
manufacturers, claiming he was entitled to cash damages because
more candy could fit inside the box.  Anyone who bought either
candy over the past five years was included as a member of
Mr. Bratton's class action, which sought millions from candy
manufacturers.

Initially, a federal court ruled that the lawsuit could proceed,
but it ultimately dismissed Mr. Bratton's lawsuit against the
Hershey Company, as The Kansas City Star recently reported.  The
common-sense ruling found Mr. Bratton was not deceived and had
experienced no injury, as his purchasing the candy over and over
again showed.

One might think courts regularly throw out these types of
ridiculous lawsuits, but the Bratton case's dismissal is
surprisingly the exception, not the rule.  In fact, a case he
filed making similar allegations against Tootsie Roll Industries
over the number of Junior Mints that can fit in a box -- filed
the same day by the same law firm -- remains pending in a
Missouri state court in Cole County.

A small group of attorneys, such as Mr. Bratton's lawyers,
misuses a law intended to protect consumers from deceptive
practices.  They have employed the Missouri Merchandising
Protection Act, or MMPA, to create their own profitable lawsuit
industry by filing scores of lawsuits alleging deception that
doesn't exist.

These lawsuits take minutes to generate: Cut and paste from the
last complaint, insert another product, snap a photo and file.
Some firms use the same plaintiff over and over as they file new
lawsuits against different businesses.

Hundreds of these types of MMPA class actions have been filed in
Missouri courts in recent years. Food and beverage companies are
a popular target.  For example, lawsuits have alleged that jelly
bean packages hide the fact that they contain sugar, or that
common food ingredients are not "natural."

It's not just food.  A wide range of businesses -- including
restaurants, retailers and manufacturers of cosmetics, cleaning
and pet products -- are being attacked.

Most suits mysteriously disappear from court dockets within a few
months of being filed as "voluntarily dismissed with prejudice."
This means the business owner likely made the choice to settle
the case instead of incurring the time and expense of fighting in
court.  The lawyers win, and consumers -- on whose behalf these
cases are purportedly filed -- typically get nothing.

"Indulgent amendments and lenient interpretations have encouraged
enterprising litigants and lawyers to bring claims, resulting in
a dramatic increase in consumer protection litigation" wrote
Joanna Shepherd of Emory University School of Law in a study she
authored.  Whereas the number of consumer protection decisions
increased by an average of 188 percent in the U.S. from 2000 to
2009, the number of Missouri decisions under the MMPA increased
by an astonishing 678 percent in that same period.

Fortunately, a bill pending before the General Assembly would end
this racket.  Senate Bill 832 would ensure that the MMPA
continues to help consumers who have legitimate claims, while
reducing the opportunity for no-injury, attorney-generated
litigation.  It would evaluate lawsuits from the perspective of a
reasonable consumer.  When consumers are not actually harmed,
there would be no award.  Also, attorneys' fees in these class
actions could no longer dwarf the benefits provided to consumers.

The bill has been passed by a committee and awaits debate by the
full Senate.  A similar bill, House Bill 2089, was reviewed by
the House Litigation Reform Committee.

It is time to return the MMPA to its intended purpose and end the
deception that grants lawyers sweet, multi-million dollar
windfalls under the guise of representing consumers.

Dan Mehan is president and CEO of the Missouri Chamber of
Commerce and Industry. [GN]


HH GULFSTREAM: Faces CDS Gulfstream Suit in S.D. Florida
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against HH Gulfstream LLC.
The case is styled as CDS Gulfstream LLC, individually and as a
class on behalf of other similarly situated individuals and
business entities that were induced by Andrew Greenbaum and Steve
Michael into investing monies in entities for real estate
investments from and after March 27, 2014, Plaintiff v. Andrew
Greenbaum also known as: AviGreenbaum, Steve Michael
also known as: Steven Michael, HH Gulfstream LLC and Hudson
Holdings LLC, Defendants, Case No. 9:18-cv-80386-DMM (S.D. Fla.,
March 26, 2018).

The Defendants operate as a property development and real estate
management group.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Gary Scott Rosen, Esq.
   ROSEN LAW LLC
   500 Village Square Crossing, Suite 101
   Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
   Tel: (561) 899-9999
   Fax: (561) 584-6434
   Email: grosen@rosenlawllc.com

      - and -

   Joseph G Sconzo, Esq.
   Law Office of Joseph G. Sconzo
   250 South Central Boulevard, Suite 201
   Jupiter, FL 33458
   Tel: (561) 781-3000
   Email: josephgsconzolaw@gmail.com

      - and -

   Stuart N. Kaplan, Esq.
   Kaplan & Parker, LLP
   3399 PGA Blvd, Suite 150
   Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
   Tel: (561) 296-7900
   Fax: (561) 296-7919
   Email: skaplan@kaplanparkerlaw.com


HOME DEPOT: Faces "Sullivan" Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Home Depot Product
Authority, LLC. The case is styled as Phillip Sullivan, Jr., on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Home Depot Product Authority, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-
02698 (S.D. N.Y., March 27, 2018).

Home Depot Services LLC provides home improvement and decoration
services.[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


HUNTLEIGH USA: Court Grants Final Approval of $1.5MM Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington, Seattle, issued an Order granting Final Approval of
Class Settlement in the case captioned ALIN MUSE, an individual,
Plaintiff, v. HUNTLEIGH USA CORPORATION, a foreign corporation;
RICHARD SPORN, an individual; DIANE GALFORD, an individual,
Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-00357-RSL (W.D. Wash.).

The Court finally and unconditionally certifies the Class defined
below:

     All employees of the Defendant who are alleged to have been
either Hospitality Workers or Transportation Workers and who
worked one or more hours within the City of SeaTac at any time
during the time period from January 1, 2014, to February 14,
2016, and who were paid less than the prevailing minimum wage
prescribed by City of SeaTac Ordinance 7.45.050, i.e., a base
rate of $15.00 per hour in 2014 and $15.24 in 2015 and 2016.

The Settlement Agreement, which requires Huntleigh to pay
$1,150,000 as consideration to Class Members, was the result of
arm's length negotiations between Huntleigh and Class Counsel.
The Settlement Agreement is fair and reasonable.

A full-text copy of the District Court's February 22, 2018 Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/y9y4rlz7 from Leagle.com.

Alin Muse, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel R. Whitmore, Duncan
Calvert Turner, BADGLEY MULLINS TURNER PLLC & Mark A. Trivett,
BADGLEY MULLINS TURNER PLLC, 19929 Ballinger Way NE, Suite 200.
Seattle, WA 9815

Huntleigh USA Corporation, a foreign corporation, Defendant,
represented by John B. Renick -- renick@mcmahonberger.com --
MCMAHON BERGER, pro hac vice, Kenneth J. Diamond --
ken@winterbauerdiamond.com --  WINTERBAUER & DIAMOND, Stephen B.
Maule --  maule@mcmahonberger.com -- MCMAHON BERGER, pro hac vice
& Vanessa B. Chambers -- vanessa@winterbauerdiamond.com --
WINTERBAUER & DIAMOND.

Richard Sporn & Diane Galford, Defendants, represented by Kenneth
J. Diamond, WINTERBAUER & DIAMOND.


INTERACTIVECORP: Sued for Deleting Transgender Users' Profiles
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that dating app Tinder, a/k/a
IAC/Interactivecorp, has a long history of deleting the profiles
of transgender users, according to a class action filed on March
14 by a trans women who says Tinder dumped her.

Lead Trial Attorney for Plaintiff Olsen Daines:

     Michael Fuller, Esq.
     US Bancorp Tower
     111 SW 5th Ave., Suite 3150
     Portland, OR 97204
     Direct: 503-743-7000
     Email: michael@underdoglawyer.com

Of Attorneys for Plaintiff:

     Kelly Jones, Esq.
     The Law Office of Kelly Jones
     Phone: 503-847-4329
     Email: kellydonovanjones@gmail.com

Of Attorneys for Plaintiff:

     Mark Geragos, Esq.
     Ben Meiselas, Esq.
     Lori Feldman, Esq.
     Geragos & Geragos
     Historic Engine Co. No. 28
     644 South Figueroa Street
     Los Angeles, CA
     Phone: 213-625-3900
     Email: geragos@geragos.com


INFORMATION RESOURCES: Bid to Transfer "Bakhtiar" Denied
--------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California issued an Order denying Defendant Information
Resources, Inc.'s Motion to Transfer Venue of the case captioned
IRAM BAKHTIAR, Plaintiff, v. INFORMATION RESOURCES, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 17-cv-04559-JST (N.D. Cal.).

Bakhtiar alleges that she and the other putative class members
are non-exempt employees under state and federal wage and hour
laws. She alleges that she and the other putative class members
should have been classified as non-exempt employees and received
overtime pay consistent with the requirements of those laws.

For the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of
justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any
other district where it might have been brought.

Transfer is only appropriate if the action could have been
brought in Northern District of Illinois. A district court is one
in which an action could have been brought originally if (1) it
has subject matter jurisdiction; (2) defendants would have been
subject to personal jurisdiction; and (3) venue would have been
proper.
Here, IRI argues, and Bakhtiar does not dispute, that this action
could originally have been brought in the Northern District of
Illinois. Proper venue and personal jurisdiction exist in the
Northern District of Illinois because IRI maintains its corporate
headquarters in Chicago, Illinois.

Accordingly, the Court finds that this case could have been
brought in the Northern District of Illinois.

Bakhtiar has chosen the Northern District of California as the
forum for her lawsuit.

IRI argues that the relevant acts supporting Bakhtiar's theories
of liability occurred predominantly in Chicago because the
"Chicago headquarters is where IRI's primary executive,
administrative, financial, legal, human resources, and management
functions are conducted and the high level officers direct,
control, and coordinate the corporation's activities.

Convenience of the non-party witnesses, convenience to parties,
and ease of access to evidence are relevant factors in
considering a motion to transfer.

IRI argues that a subpoena may be necessary to compel the
testimony of former or subordinate employees.  However, IRI does
not identify any such former or subordinate employees. In fact,
its core argument is that the case should be transferred to
Chicago because the Chicago headquarters is where primary
executive, administrative, financial, legal, human resources, and
management functions are conducted and where IRI's senior level
officers direct, control and coordinate the corporation's
activities.

Therefore, IRI's convenience tips only slightly favor of
transfer.

While federal courts in the Northern District of Illinois are
fully capable of applying California law, this Court is more
familiar with California law. This factor tips slightly in favor
of transfer. Both districts are congested with a similar caseload
and both districts have a local interest in the controversy so
these factors are neutral.

Considering the weight given to Bakhtiar's choice of forum and
the diminished weight given to the convenience of IRI, as well as
the slight weight given to this Court's familiarity with
California law, the Court finds the IRI has not demonstrated that
the balance of convenience and interests of justice factors
clearly favor transfer.

The motion to transfer is denied.

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

Iram Bakhtiar, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Bryan Jeffrey
Schwartz -- bryan@bryanschwartzlaw.com -- Bryan Schwartz Law &
Logan McMillan Starr -- logan@bryanschwartzlaw.com -- Bryan
Schwartz Law.

Information Resources, Inc., Defendant, represented by Robert
Irving Lockwood, Jackson Lewis P.C., Janelle Jad Sahouria,
Jackson Lewis P.C. & Mitchell F. Boomer, Jackson Lewis P.C., 50
California Street 9th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-4615


JOBMATCH LLC: Marous Sues Over Illegal Text Messages
----------------------------------------------------
Richard Marous, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Jobmatch, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 18-cv-80186, (S.D. Fla., February 16, 2018), seeks injunctive
relief, statutory damages and any other available legal or
equitable remedies under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Defendant deals in event staffing, promotional models and
experiential marketing across the United States. It sent
recruitment texts to Marous' cellphone without express consent.
[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


JONES & ASSOCIATES: Order Denying Class Cert in "Vuyancih" Upheld
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga County,
issued an Opinion affirming the Trial Court's Decision denying
Plaintiffs' Amended Motion to Certify Class Action in the case
captioned JOHN VUYANCIH, ET AL., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. JONES
& ASSOCIATES LAW GROUP, L.L.C., ET AL., Defendants-Appellees, No.
105727 (Ohio App.).

Plaintiffs-appellants appeal the trial court's decision denying
their amended motion to certify a class action.

The proposed class filed suit against defendants-appellees
alleging violations of the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act
(CSPA). The proposed class alleged that the Jones Group sent
solicitation letters to homeowners who were named defendants in
foreclosure actions in Ohio courts and made false and deceptive
statements related to their foreclosures.

The trial court denied the amended motion to certify a class
action, finding that the proposed class failed to certify the
prior notice requirement necessary to maintain a class action
under R.C. 1345.09(B).

The proposed class argued that consent judgments could provide
evidence of prior notice for the purposes of R.C. 1345.09(B), and
urges this court to find that consent and default judgments may
provide prior notice to a party that its conduct violated the
CSPA.

The Jones Group argued, and the trial court agreed, that consent
judgments cannot form the basis of prior notice under R.C.
1345.09(B).

Consent judgments do not support notice because they are not the
court's reasoning but instead represent the reasoning of the
parties themselves. Ice v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.,N.D.Ohio No.
1:14CV744, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 131336, 9 (Sept. 29, 2015).
Gascho; Robins v. Global Fitness Holdings, L.L.C., 838 F.Supp.2d
631, 649 (N.D.Ohio 2012), rejecting a party's reliance on consent
judgments meeting the requirement for prior notice); Kline v.
Mtge. Elec. Sec. Sys., S.D.Ohio No. 3:08CV408, 2010 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 143391 (Dec. 30, 2010).

The cases cited by the proposed class that purport to show notice
were decided by consent judgment, default judgment, and a
decision on a motion for summary judgment alleging violations of
federal law. We agree with the sound reasoning of the federal
court in Pattie and Ice that consent or default judgments do not
suffice as notice under R.C. 1345.09(B) -- these judgments have
no analysis of any kind that put a defendant on notice that its
specific conduct was deceptive or unconscionable under the CSPA.

The Court further find that the decision in Stiltner, Mansfield
M.C. No. 07-CVH-3952, does not provide notice under R.C.
1345.09(B) because that case, while decided via judgment, alleged
violations of the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
(FDCPA), not the CSPA.

The Court need not determine whether a violation of the FDCPA is
sufficient to put an entity on notice of the prohibition against
a specific act or practice under the CSPA, although we are
doubtful that it suffices. In this case, there is simply not
enough information provided in the record to determine that the
same violation occurred. In Stiltner, the plaintiff received a
letter from a non-lawyer advising the plaintiff that foreclosure
was imminent and listed a bank that was not a party to the
foreclosure. The plaintiff filed a complaint alleging a violation
of the FDCPA.

In its opinion granting summary judgment, the court did not cite
the specific section of the FDCPA upon which it relied to
conclude that a violation of the FDCPA had occurred. Moreover,
the proposed class does not cite to, let alone rely on, Stiltner
in its appellate brief. Absent more, this court declines to find
that a violation similar to that in Stiltner is also expressly
prohibited by the CSPA and thus provided sufficient notice to the
Jones Group under R.C. 1345.09(B).

The sole assignment of error is overruled. Judgment affirmed.

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

Marc E. Dann, William C. Behrens, Brian D. Flick, Emily White,
The Dann Law Firm Co., L.P.A., P.O. Box 6031040, Cleveland, Ohio
44103, Attorneys for Appellants.

David H. Boehm, Lavin Boehm, L.L.C., 3091 Mayfield Road, Suite
212, Cleveland, Ohio 44118;William A. Peseski, 46 Public Square,
Suite 230, Medina, Ohio 44256, Attorneys for Appellees, for Jones
& Associates Law Group, L.L.C.

Sean T. Lavin, Lavin Boehm, L.L.C., 3091 Mayfield Road, Suite
212, Cleveland, Ohio 44118, Attorneys for Appellees, for Ken
Jones.


JP MORGAN: Faces "McShannock" Suit in N.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against JP Morgan Chase
Bank N.A. The case is styled as Susan McShannock as Executrix of
the Estate of Patricia Blaskower, on behalf of the Estate of
Patricia Blaskower and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff
v. JP Morgan Chase Bank N.A. doing business as: Chase Bank,
Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-01873-MEJ (N.D. Cal., March 27,
2018).

JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association provides various
banking and other financial services to corporate, institutional,
and governmental clients in the United States and
internationally.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Harold Mitchell Jaffe, Esq.
   3521 Grand Avenue
   Oakland, CA 94610
   Tel: (510) 452-2610
   Fax: (510) 452-9125
   Email: Jaffe510@aol.com


KIMBERLY-CLARK CORP: Court Consolidates "Sebastian," "Haris"
------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
California issued an Order granting Joint Motion for
Consolidation of Related Cases captioned BRITTANY SEBASTIAN and
ASHLEY LYNNE POPOWITZ, individually, on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. KIMBERLY-CLARK
CORPORATION; KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC.; and KIMBERLY-CLARK
GLOBAL SALES, LLC, Defendants. NASREEN HARIS, individually, on
behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
KIMBERLY-CLARK CORPORATION; KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC.; and
KIMBERLY-CLARK GLOBAL SALES, LLC, Defendants, Case Nos. 3:17-CV-
00442-WQH-JMA, 3:18-CV-00046-WQH-JMA (S.D. Cal.)

On March 29, 2017, Plaintiffs Brittany Sebastian and Ashley Lynne
Popowitz filed their First Amended Complaint in case number 3:17-
CV-00442-WQH-JMA.

On December 8, 2017, a related action, Haris v. Kimberly-Clark
Worldwide, Inc., et al., Case No. 4:17-CV-07016-KAW, was filed in
the Northern District of California.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a) governs consolidation, and
states, [i]f actions before the court involve a common question
of law or fact, the court may: (1) join for hearing or trial any
or all matters at issue in the actions; (2) consolidate the
actions; or (3) issue any other orders to avoid unnecessary cost
or delay.
The Court determines that consolidation of the Sebastian and
Haris cases is appropriate. The cases involve the same questions
of law and fact and consolidation will reduce delay and confusion
without prejudicing the parties. Consolidation of the cases will
allow the Court to hear all dispositive motions in conjunction,
expediting their resolution.

The Joint Motion to Consolidate 3:17-CV-00442-WQH-JMA is granted.

A full-text copy of the District Court's February 22, 2018 Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/y7tmk7q8 from Leagle.com.

Brittany Sebastian, individually, on behalf of herself and others
similarly situated & Ashley Lynne Popowitz, individually, on
behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
represented by Michael Thomas Fraser --
mfraser@thefraserlawfirm.net  -- The Fraser Law Firm, P.C., Naomi
B. Spector -- nspector@kamberlaw.com -- KamberLaw LLP &
Christopher Decker Moon -- cmoon@kamberlaw.com -- KamberLaw LLP.

Nasreen Haris, individually, on behalf of herself and others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Naomi B. Spector,
KamberLaw LLP & Reuben D. Nathan, Nathan & Associates, APC.

Kimberly-Clark Corporation, Kimberly-Clark Worldwide, Inc. &
Kimberly-Clark Global Sales, LLC, Defendants, represented by
Theodore Joseph Boutrous, Jr. -- tboutrous@gibsondunn.com --
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Timothy William Loose --
tloose@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Andrew S.
Tulumello -- atulumello@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson Dunn & Crutcher
LLP & Theane E. Kapur -- tkapur@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson Dunn &
Crutcher.


KINDRED HEALTHCARE: "Carter" Claims Shortchanged on Merger Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Debra Carter, 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-00254 (D. Del., February 14, 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
Plaintiff 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.

Carter 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, she adds.

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:

      Nadeem Faruqi, Esq.
      James M. Wilson, Jr., Esq.
      FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
      685 Third Ave., 26th Fl.
      New Yor006B, NY 10017
      Telephone: (212) 983-9330
      Email: nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com
             jwilson@faruqilaw.com

             - and -

      Michael Van Gorder, Esq.
      FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
      20 Montchanin Road, Suite 145
      Wilmington, DE 19807
      Tel: (302) 482-3182
      Email: mvangorder@faruqilaw.com


KOBE STEEL: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Data Falsification
--------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that
Kobe Steel falsified data and failed to perform quality checks
for steel, aluminum and copper used in Toyota automobiles for
more than a decade, a federal class action claims.

Here are the defendants: Kobe Steel Ltd.; Kobe Steel USA Inc.;
Kobe Steel International (USA) Inc.; Kobe Aluminum Automotive
Products LLC; Shinsho Corporation; Shinsho American Corporation;
Toyota Motor Corporation; Toyota Motor Sales USA Inc.; Toyota
Motor Engineering & Manufacturing North America Inc.

Counsel for Plaintiff:

     Jack Fitzgerald, Esq.
     Trevor M. Flynn, Esq.
     Melanie Persinger, Esq.
     THE LAW OFFICE OF JACK FITZGERALD, PC
     Hillcrest Professional Building
     3636 Fourth Avenue, Suite 202
     San Diego, CA 92103
     Phone: (619) 692-3840
     Fax: (619) 362-9555
     Email: jack@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com
            trevor@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com
            melanie@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com


KOCH FOODS: Broiler Growers File Anti-trust Suit in N. Carolina
---------------------------------------------------------------
Haff Poultry, Inc., Nancy Butler, Johnny Upchurch, Jonathan
Walters, Myles B. Weaver, Melissa Weaver, and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Koch Foods, Inc., Koch Meat
Co, Inc., d/b/a Koch Poultry Co., Sanderson Farms, Inc.,
Sanderson Farms, Inc. (Food Division), Sanderson Farms, Inc.
(Processing Division) and, Sanderson Farms, Inc. (Production
Division), Defendants.], Case No. 18-cv-00066, (E.D. N.C.,
February 21, 2018), seeks treble damages under Section 1 of the
Sherman Antitrust Act and Section 202 of the Packers and
Stockyards Act.

Defendants are vertically-integrated poultry companies who
operate broiler processing plants while Plaintiffs are broiler
growers. Defendants are accused of fixing, maintaining, and/or
stabilizing grower compensation below competitive levels and
illegally agreed to share detailed data on grower compensation
with one another with the purpose and effect of artificially
depressing their compensation below competitive levels, thereby
suppressing competition for broiler grow-out services. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Larry S. McDevitt, Esq.
      David M. Wilkerson, Esq.
      THE VAN WINKLE LAW FIRM
      11 N. Market Street
      Asheville, NC 28801
      Tel: (828) 258-2991
      Fax: (828) 257-2767
      Email: lmcdevitt@vwlawfirm.com
             dwilkerson@vwlawfirm.com

             - and -

      Michael D. Hausfeld, Esq.
      James J. Pizzirusso, Esq.
      Melinda R. Coolidge, Esq.
      Samantha S. Derksen, Esq.
      HAUSFELD LLP
      1700 K Street, NW
      Washington, DC 20006
      Tel: (202) 540-7200
      Fax: (202) 540-7201
      Email: mhausfeld@hausfeld.com
             jpizzirusso@hausfeld.com
             mcoolidge@hausfeld.com
             sderksen@hausfeld.com

             - and -

      Gary I. Smith, Jr., Esq.
      HAUSFELD LLP
      325 Chestnut St., Suite 325
      Philadelphia, PA 19106
      Tel: (215) 985-3270
      Fax: (215) 985-3271
      Email: gsmith@hausfeld.com

             - and -

      Eric L. Cramer, Esq.
      Patrick F. Madden, Esq.
      Christina Black, Esq.
      BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
      1622 Locust Street
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Tel: (215) 875-3000
      Fax: (215) 875-4604
      Email: ecramer@bm.net
             pmadden@bm.net
             cblack@bm.net

             - and -

      Daniel J. Walker, Esq.
      BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
      2001 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 300
      Washington, DC 20006
      Telephone: (202) 559-9745
      Email: dwalker@bm.net

             - and -

      Vincent J. Esades, Esq.
      HEINS MILLS &OLSON, PLC
      310 Clifton Avenue
      Minneapolis, MN 55403
      Tele: (612) 338-4605
      Fax: (612) 338-4692
      Email: vesades@heinsmills.com

             - and -

      Warren T. Burns, Esq.
      BURNS CHAREST LLP
      500 North Akard, Suite 2810
      Dallas, TX 75201
      Tel: (469) 904-4551
      Email: wburns@burnscharest.com

             - and -

      Gregory Davis, Esq.
      DAVIS & TALIAFERRO, LLC
      7031 Halcyon Park Drive
      Montgomery, AL 36117
      Tel: (334) 832-9080
      Fax: (334) 409-7001
      Email: gldavis@knology.net

             - and -

      Charles D. Gabriel, Esq.
      CHALMERS, BURCH & ADAMS, LLC
      North Fulton Satellite Office
      5755 North Point Parkway, Suite 251
      Alpharetta, GA 30022
      Tel: (678) 735-5903
      Fax: (678) 735-5905
      Email: cdgabriel@cpblawgroup.com

             - and -

      Harlan Hentges, Esq.
      HENTGES & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
      102 Thatcher Street
      Edmond, OK 73034
      Tel: (405) 340-6554
      Fax: (405) 340-6562

             - and -

      John C. Whitfield, Esq.
      Caroline Taylor, Esq.
      WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON LLP
      19 North Main Street
      Madisonville, KY 42431
      Tel: (270) 821-0656
      Tel: john@wbmllp.com
           caroline@wbmllp.com

           - and -

      Gary E. Mason, Esq.
      Jennifer S. Goldstein, Esq.
      WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON LLP
      5101 Wisconsin Ave., NW, Ste. 305
      Washington, DC 20036
      Tel: (202) 429-2290
      Fax: (202) 429-2294
      Email: gmason@wbmllp.com
             jgoldstein@wbmllp.com

             - and -

      J. Dudley Butler, Esq.
      BUTLER FARM & RANGE LAW GROUP, PLLC
      499-A Breakwater Dr.
      Benton, MS 39039
      Tel: (662) 673-0091
      Fax: (662) 673-0091
      Email: jdb@farmandranchlaw.com

             - and -

      Daniel M. Cohen, Esq.
      CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
      4725 Wisconsin Ave., NW, Suite 200
      Washington, DC 20016
      Tel: (202) 789-3960
      Fax: (202) 789-1813
      Email: Danielc@cuneolaw.com

             - and -

      David S. Muraskin, Esq.
      PUBLIC JUSTICE, PC
      1620 L St. NW, Suite 630
      Washington, DC 20036
      Tel: (202) 861-5245
      Fax: (202) 232-7203
      Email: dmuraskin@publicjustice.net

             - and -

      M. David Riggs, Esq.
      Donald M. Bingham, Esq.
      RIGGS ABNEY NEAL TURPEN ORBISON & LEWIS
      502 W. Sixth St.
      Tulsa, OK 74119
      Tel: (918) 699-8914
      Fax: (918) 587-9708
      Email: driggs@riggsabney.com
             don_bingham@riggsabney.com

             - and -

      Hollis Salzman, Esq.
      Kellie Lerner, Esq.
      ROBINS KAPLAN LLP
      99 Park Avenue, Suite 3600
      New York, NY 10022
      Telephone: (212) 980-7400
      Facsimile: (212) 980-7499
      Email: HSalzman@RobinsKaplan.com
             KLerner@RobinsKaplan.com

             - and -

      Aaron Sheanin, Esq.
      ROBINS KAPLAN LLP
      2440 W. El Camino Real, Suite 100
      Mountain View, CA 94040
      Telephone: (650) 784-4040
      Facsimile: (650) 784-4041
      Email: ASheanin@RobinsKaplan.com

             - and -

      M. Stephen Dampier, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF M. STEPHEN DAMPIER, P.C.
      55 N. Section St.
      P.O. Box 161
      Fairhope, AL 36532
      Telephone: (251) 929-0900
      Facsimile: (251) 929-0800
      Email: dampier.steve@gmail.com


LEMONADE INSURANCE: Faces "Thorne" Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lemonade Insurance
Agency, LLC. The case is styled as Braulio Thorne, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Lemonade
Insurance Agency, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-02725 (S.D.
N.Y., March 27, 2018).

Lemonade Insurance Company is a licensed insurance carrier,
offering homeowners and renters insurance powered by artificial
intelligence and behavioral economics.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


LOUISIANA: Prisoners File Suit Over Inhumane Jail Conditions
------------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Tellis and Bruce Charles, on behalf of themselves and all
other similarly situated prisoners at David Wade Correctional
Center, Plaintiffs, v. James M. Leblanc, Secretary of the
Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections, Jerry
Goodwin, Warden of David Wade Correctional Center, Col. Lonnie
Nail, Doctor Gregory Seal, Assistant Warden Deborah Dauzat, Steve
Hayden, Aerial Robinson, Johnie Adkins and the Louisiana
Department of Public Safety and Corrections, Defendants, Case No.
18-cv-00161, (M.D. La., February 20, 2018), seeks to declare that
Defendants' policies and practices of automatically confining all
death-sentenced prisoners in indefinite solitary confinement with
no opportunity for review violates the Eighth and Fourteenth
Amendments of the United States Constitution.  The Plaintiffs
further seek permanent injunctive relief and promulgation of a
meaningful, individualized housing placement procedure for death-
sentenced prisoners that is based on validated risk assessment
instruments and each prisoner's individual circumstances.

Tellis and Charles now suffer mental illness as a result of
incarceration and bring this action under Title II of the
Americans with Disabilities Act.

Plaintiffs have been in solitary confinement on David Wade
Correctional Center, subjected to indefinite isolation, devoid of
mental stimulation, with only limited and sporadic human
interaction, confined for twenty-two hours a day in a small cell,
illuminated by artificial light 24 hours a day, interfering with
normal sleep. Prisoners are allowed to go outside to exercise in
a small enclosure for no more than two hours with thrice-weekly
showers, occasional trips to the library and sporadic,
exclusively non-contact, visits from clergy or family members.
[BN]

Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Jonathan C. Trunnell, Esq.
      Sarah H. Voigt, Esq.
      Melanie Bray, Esq.
      Ronald K. Lospennato, Esq.
      ADVOCACY CENTER
      8325 Oak Street
      New Orleans, LA 70118
      Tel: (504) 708-1460
      Fax: (504) 507-1956
      Email: jtrunnell@advocacyla.org

             - and -

      Katie M. Schwartzmann, Esq.
      RODERICK & SOLANGE MACARTHUR JUSTICE CENTER
      4400 S. Carrollton Ave.
      New Orleans, LA 70119
      Tel: (504) 620-2259
      Fax: (504) 208-3133
      Email: katie.schwartzmann@macarthurjustice.org


MDL 2420: Indirect Purchasers Lose Class Certification Bid
----------------------------------------------------------
Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a
federal judge refused on March 5 to certify a class of indirect
purchasers in long-running litigation over the alleged price-
fixing conspiracy of lithium ion batteries.

The case is In Re: Lithium Ion Batteries Antitrust Litigation,
Case No.: 13-MD-2420 YGR (N.D. Calif.).


MDL 2591: Settles Farmers' GMO Corn Suit for $1.5 Billion
---------------------------------------------------------
Nick McCann, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
tens of thousands of farmers, grain facilities and ethanol plants
reached a $1.5 billion settlement on March 12 with agriculture
giant Syngenta over claims related to the company's genetically
engineered corn.

In recent years, the Swiss company has faced a number of state
and federal lawsuits involving its genetically modified corn --
in particular, a product called MIR162, also known as Agrisure
Viptera.

Farmers in three 2014 class actions claimed that by releasing the
variety before it was approved for export to China, Syngenta
"destroyed the export of U.S. corn to China and caused depressed
prices for all domestic corn."

Other companies and farmers who do not even use genetically
modified corn claim they were harmed by Syngenta's "widespread
contamination of the U.S. corn and corn seed supply with MIR162,
which will continue to foreclose the U.S. export market to China
in future years and will continue to lead to lower corn prices
per bushel in the U.S. market, as a result."

Viptera was released in 2009, and was engineered to protect corn
plants against insects like the corn borer and corn rootworm.  A
second-generation version called Agrisure Duracade was
distributed in 2014.

Syngenta has claimed that it was market forces, not China's
failure to approve the corn, that led to the drop in corn prices.

The plaintiffs in an Iowa class action claimed the release of
Viptera led to an 85 percent drop in Chinese imports of U.S.
corn.

Syngenta and the various plaintiffs entered into a $1.5 billion
settlement agreement that was formally filed on March 12 in
Kansas federal court.

The agreement still needs to be approved by a judge, but Syngenta
has already agreed to create a fund to pay farmers and other
agricultural workers who contracted to price corn or its
byproducts after a certain date in 2013.

The settlement also establishes subclasses of corn producers,
grain handlers and ethanol producers.

Attorneys representing the corn producers called the decision "an
equitable result for all involved."

"America's corn farmers and related businesses were hurt
economically and this settlement will provide fair compensation
for their damages," they said in a statement.

A Syngenta spokesman reportedly said that the settlement
agreement does not constitute an admission about the merits of
the allegations.

The case is IN RE SYNGENTA AG MIR162 CORN LITIGATION, Master File
No. 2:14-MD-02591-JWL-JPO, MDL No. 2591 (D. Ks.).

Co-Lead, Litigation Class and Liaison Counsel for Plaintiffs and
Proposed Settlement Class Counsel and Subclass Counsel for the
Non-Viptera/Duracade Purchaser Subclass (Subclass 1):

     Patrick J. Stueve, Esq.
     STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
     460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
     Kansas City, MO 64112
     Telephone: (816)714-7100
     Facsimile: (816) 714-7101
     Email: stueve@stuevesiegel.com

Member of Plaintiffs' Settlement Negotiation Committee and
Proposed Settlement Class Counsel and Subclass Counsel for the
Non-Viptera/Duracade Purchaser Subclass (Subclass 1):

     Christopher A. Seeger, Esq.
     SEEGER WEISS LLP
     55 Challenger Road
     Ridgefield Park, NJ 07660
     Telephone: (212)584-0700
     Email: cseeger@seegerweiss.com

Minnesota Co-Lead Litigation Class Counsel, Member of Plaintiffs'
Settlement Negotiation Committee and Proposed Settlement Class
Counsel and Subclass Counsel for the Non-Viptera/Duracade
Purchaser Subclass (Subclass 1)

     Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq.
     GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
     120 S. 6th St.
     Minneapolis, MN 55402
     Telephone: (612) 333-8844
     Facsimile: (612) 339-6622
     Email: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com

Co-Lead and Litigation Class Counsel:

     Don M. Downing, Esq.
     GRAY, RITTER & GRAHAM, P.C.
     701 Market Street, Suite 800
     St. Louis, MO 63101
     Telephone: (314)200-4737
     Facsimile: (314) 241-4140
     Email: ddowning@grgpc.com

     Scott A. Powell, Esq.
     HARE WYNN NEWELL & NEWTON
     2025 3rd Ave. North, Suite 800
     Birmingham, Alabama 35203
     Telephone: (205)328-5330
     Facsimile: (205) 324-2165
     Email: scott@hwnn.com
            bvines@hwn.com

     William B. Chaney, Esq.
     GRAY REED & McGRAW, P.C.
     1601 Elm Street, Suite 4600
     Dallas, Texas 75201
     Telephone: (214)954-4135
     Facsimile: (214) 953-1332
     Email: wchainey@grayreed.com

Proposed Subclass Counsel for the Viptera/Duracade Purchaser
Subclass (Subclass 2):

     Lynn R. Johnson, Esq.
     SHAMBERG JOHNSON AND BERGMAN
     2600 Grand Blvd., Suite 500
     Kansas City, MO 64108
     Telephone: (816) 474-0004
     Facsimile: (816) 474-0003
     Email: ljohnson@sjblaw.com

Proposed Subclass Counsel for the Grain Handling Facility
Subclass (Subclass 3):

     Kenneth A. Wexler, Esq.
     WEXLER WALLACE LLP
     55 W. Monroe Street, Suite 3300
     Chicago, IL 60603
     Telephone: (816)589-6270
     Facsimile: (312) 346-2222
     Email: kaw@wexlerwallace.com

Proposed Subclass Counsel for the Ethanol Production Facility
Subclass (Subclass 4):

     James E. Cecchi, Esq.
     CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.
     5 Becker Farm Rd.
     Roseland, NJ 07068
     Telephone: (973)994-1700
     Facsimile: (973) 994-1744
     Email: JCecchi@carellabyrne.com


MDL 2804: Hartford City Agrees to Join Opioid Crisis Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Pat Hughes, writing for News-Times, reports that members of the
Hartford City Common Council agreed to join in a class action
lawsuit against drug makers and distributors of opioids.

At the recommendation of Council President Bill Hess, the council
asked the City Attorney James Forcum take the necessary steps to
include the city in the lawsuit that is being pursued by the
Indianapolis law firm of Cohen & Malad, LLP.

Cohen & Malad has been working on similar efforts with other
government entities in the state of Indiana.  According to
Mr. Hess, if the suit is successful, the law firm would retain 30
percent of any award, leaving 70 percent to the other parties
involved.

Mr. Hess told the council that the city could utilize any monies
resulting from the lawsuit to purchase Narcan or other supplies
needed in the fight against the opioid drug abuse.

There is no cost to the city for joining in on the class action
lawsuit.

The Indianapolis law firm has filed complaints on behalf of more
than 13 local governments across Indiana against more than 20
pharmaceutical companies seeking compensation for the nation's
opioid epidemic. [GN]


MERCHANTS CREDIT: "Nicholson" Disputes Collection Letter
--------------------------------------------------------
Keisha Nicholson, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Merchants Credit Guide Co., and
John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-00680 (E.D. Pa.,
February 15, 2018), seeks actual and statutory damages, costs and
attorneys' fees, declaratory and injunctive relief under the Fair
Debt Collections Practices Act (FDCPA).

Merchants Credit, a collection agency, sought to recover a debt
incurred by Nicholson to Montgomery Ward via a collection letter.
The letter lists Montgomery Ward as "Our Client" but nowhere does
the letter clearly identify who the current creditor is as is
required by the FDCPA, says the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Antranig Garibian, Esq.
      GARIBIAN LAW OFFICES
      1800 JFK Blvd., Suite 300
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Tel: (215) 326-9179
      Email: ag@garibianlaw.com


MINNESOTA: Averts Class Action Over Handling of Abandoned Money
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Collins, writing for Minnesota Public Radio, reports that the
Minnesota Supreme Court has put a stop to a lawsuit against
Minnesota's system for handling money that is abandoned.

In their lawsuit, four people allege the Department of Commerce
doesn't do enough to unite people with their unclaimed money, and
that the state doesn't pay interest on the money it keeps that is
later returned to owners.  Under the state's law, only the
principal has to be returned once the money's owner is found.

Timothy Hall, one of the people filing the class action suit,
learned that under $100 a former employer was holding for him,
was lost to the state after four years.  Mary Wingfield failed to
respond to a bank's request to contact it regarding the account,
and the $138,000 was sent to the state, which eventually found
Ms. Wingfield and returned the money, but not any interest.

The amount of unclaimed money has increased in recent years --
$750 million in 2016, for example -- as banks have been more
diligent in filing reports of money that's missing its owners.
And more recent legislation changed the number of years that must
elapse before money and accounts are declared "dormant" from 20
to three.  Wages can be forfeited after just one year.

Any abandoned property is required to be sold with the proceeds
going to the state's general revenue fund.

That violates due process under the Fifth Amendment, the suit
claimed.  The state said it doesn't "because it is the owner's
inaction -- not State action -- that caused the holder to turn
the unclaimed property over to the state."

More than a year ago, the Minnesota Court of Appeals quashed the
suit, ruling the state hadn't taken the money; the owners had
abandoned it.

Writing for the majority, Minnesota Supreme Court chief justice
Lorie Gildea mostly upheld the Court of Appeals, and rejected the
argument that Minnesota should pay interest on money it gets from
abandoned accounts.

"To require that the state pay interest to these owners of
unclaimed property would reward their inattention and provide an
inappropriate windfall," she said.

But she said Ms. Wingfield is a different story because her money
was in an interest-bearing account.

"The right to earn interest was part of Wingfield's unclaimed
property, and she therefore has the right to receive that
interest from the State if she is to be made whole. In other
words, Wingfield, unlike Hall, Undlin, and Herron, has suffered
an actual loss of interest that she reasonably expected her
principal to earn," Justice Gildea said.

Ms. Wingfield's situation, however, opened the door for the court
to examine whether Minnesota's plan for reuniting people with
their abandoned money -- basically, the website missingmoney.com
-- is robust enough.

Judge Gildea closed the door quickly, saying the fact the state
has a law that outlines what happens when money is abandoned is
sufficient notice to people about what will happen if they don't
tend to their money.

"The process to claim the property through the site is simple; it
requires that the owner fill out a form on the MissingMoney.com
website and the State then contacts the owner to validate
identity and return the property.  The Commissioner also engages
in other forms of public outreach including events at the Mall of
America and State Fair, sends email alerts to lawmakers, and uses
a database to find owners due unusually large sums.  We conclude
that the numerous types of notice provided by statute including
publication, mailed notice by the holder, the ability to inspect
public records, and the general notice provided by the statute
itself, combine to provide sufficient notice to satisfy the
requirements of due process."

The court sent the case back to the District Court to pave the
way for Ms. Wingfield to get her interest. [GN]


MISSISSIPPI: Hopkins Files Suit v. State Secretary
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Secretary of State
Delbert Hosemann. The case is styled as Dennis Hopkins, Herman
Parker, Jr., Walter Wayne Kuhn, Jr., Byron Demond Coleman, Jon
O'Neal and Earnest Willhite, individually and on behalf of a
class of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Secretary
of State Delbert Hosemann in his official capacity, Defendant,
Case No. 3:18-cv-00188-CWR-LRA (S.D. Miss., March 27, 2018).

Delbert Hosemann Jr. is the incumbent Secretary of State of
Mississippi, serving since 2008.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Jody E. Owens, II, Esq.
   SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER - Jackson
   111 East Capitol Street, Suite 280
   Jackson, MS 39201
   Tel: (601) 948-8882
   Fax: (601) 948-8885
   Email: jody.owens@splcenter.org

MOKBAR II: "Kaewjino" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT, Spread-of-Hours Pay
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tatpong Kaewjino, Jonatan Moreno and Devpaul Dharamraj,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. Mokbar II, LLC, Mokbar LLC., Esther Choi, Jessica
Park, Robert Koda and Jonathan Kavourakis, Defendants, Case No.
18-cv-01558 (S.D. N.Y., February 21, 2018), seeks to recover,
unpaid "spread-of-hours" and overtime wages, unpaid minimum
wages, liquidated damages and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and New York Labor Law.

Defendants own, operate, and/or control a Korean restaurant
located at 212 Flatbush Ave., Brooklyn, NY 11217 under the name
"Mokbar" where Plaintiffs were employed by defendants as a
cashier, server and cook. Plaintiffs worked for Defendants in
excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate overtime
compensation for the hours they worked. Defendants also failed to
maintain accurate recordkeeping of their hours worked. Plaintiffs
also were not paid the required "spread of hours" pay for any day
in which they had to work over 10 hours per day. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


NATIONAL DISTRIBUTION: Perez-Reyes Appeals Ruling to 9th Circuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Juan Manuel Perez-Reyes and Myra Perez-Reyes filed an
appeal from a court ruling in their lawsuit titled Juan Perez-
Reyes, et al. v. National Distribution Centers, LLC, et al., Case
No. 5:17-cv-02434-JGB-SP, in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California, Riverside.

The nature of suit is stated as civil rights - jobs.

The appellate case is captioned as Juan Perez-Reyes, et al. v.
National Distribution Centers, LLC, et al., Case No. 18-55250, in
the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:

   -- Appellants Juan Manuel Perez-Reyes and Myra Perez-Reyes'
      opening brief is due on April 25, 2018;

   -- Appellees Does and National Distribution Centers, LLC's
      answering brief is due on May 25, 2018; and

   -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after
      service of the answering brief.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellant JUAN MANUEL PEREZ-REYES and MYRA PEREZ-
REYES, as individuals and on behalf of all similarly situated
employees, are represented by:

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

Defendant-Appellee NATIONAL DISTRIBUTION CENTERS, LLC, is
represented by:

          Joshua J. Cliffe, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
          333 Bush Street, 34th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 433-1940
          E-mail: Jcliffe@littler.com

               - and -

          Britney Torres, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
          500 Capitol Mall, Suite 2000
          Sacramento, CA 95814
          Telephone: (916) 830-7252
          E-mail: btorres@littler.com


NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Faces "Ratunil" Suit in N.D. Fla.
------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer D. Ratunil and Charles W. Griffiths, each individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Nationstar
Mortgage LLC, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-00054 (N.D. Fla.,
February 20, 2018), seeks damages and injunctive relief for
violation of the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act.

Ratunil is stationed at the Offut Air Force Base in Nebraska
while Griffiths is a retiree from the U.S. Army. Both took out
real estate mortgage loans while they were in service and accuse
Nationstar of charging interest in excess of 6%, the cap set by
the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      D. Ross McCoy, Esq.
      HAND ARENDALL HARRISON SALE
      Post Office Drawer 1579
      Panama City FL 72811
      Tel: (850) 769-3434
      Fax: (850) 769-6121
      Email: rmccloy@hsmclaw.com
             lbenjamin@@hsmclaw.com
             bmatos@hsmclaw.com

             - and -

      Sean F. Rommel, Esq.
      James C. Wyly, Esq.
      WYLY ROMMEL PLLC
      4004 Texas Blvd.
      Texarkana, TX 75503
      Tel: (903) 334-8646
      Fax: (903) 334-8645
      Email: srommel@wylyrommel.com
             jwyly@ wylyrommel.com

             - and -

      M. Chad Trammel, Esq.
      TRAMMEL PIAZZALAW FIRM PLLC
      418 North State Line Ave.
      Texarkana, AR
      Tel: (870) 779-1860
      Fax: (870) 779-1861

             - and -

      John S. Odom, Esq.
      JONES AND ODOM LLP
      2124 Fairfield Ave.
      Shreveport, LA 71104
      Tel: (318) 221-1600
      Fax: (318) 425-1256
      Email: john.odom@jodplaw.com


NEW YORK: Class Action Against MTA Seeks Safety Reforms
-------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Ottaway, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that recounting nearly a dozen cases of tragedy on New York
City's subway tracks, one woman who had a close call brought a
federal class action on March 21 demanding safety reforms.

Lead plaintiff Mary West suffered only superficial injuries when
her leg got caught last year between a uptown 1 train and the
platform at the West 23rd Street station, but her 36-page
complaint is brimming with disturbing photographs of other
commuters who did not fare as well.

One shows the harrowing image of an oncoming train barreling
toward Ki Suk Han as the 58-year-old tried to climb off the
tracks onto which he was pushed by a homeless person.

Han's death "sparked public debate about subway safety, although
this coverage did not spur Defendants to undertake the necessary
safety measures," the complaint states, filed in Brooklyn by the
Lee Litigation Group.

Alleging three counts of negligence, strict products liability
and breach of warranty, lead plaintiff Ms. West says guardrails
are the only solution.

There is even evidence that the Metropolitan Transportation
Authority and the New York City Transit Authority have discussed
handrails and gates internally, according to the complaint, but
still little has been done beyond awareness campaigns.

"They also have the financial means to construct them but simply
choose not to," the complaint continues.

Though the agencies declined to comment on pending litigation,
they emphasized in a statement that safety is their "No. 1
priority."  A line item in the MTA's 2018 budget projects a cost
of $31.4 million to install a pilot platform screen door at a
subway station in the East Village. The projected completion date
is March 2020.

In her complaint meanwhile, Ms. West notes that the city turned
down an offer from a company called Crown Infrastructure to put
up platform doors for free if it could keep all the advertising
revenue from whatever appeared on the doors.

"Defendant's public service announcements are no substitute for
actual safety features," said the complaint.  "Defendant's
messages do not prevent injuries and death, yet defendant simply
repeats its messaging with updated injury and death totals."

While New York City's subway system dates back to 1904, versions
of the safety barriers described in the complaint, known as
Platform Screen Doors (PSD), exist in subway stations in many
Asian and European cities including Tokyo, Beijing, Copenhagen,
Paris, and Chennai, India.

Lead plaintiff West notes that her injury occurred at the station
right beside her apartment on West 23rd Street.

While boarding a train in May 2017 on her way to a writing group
meeting, West accidentally stepped into the gap between the train
and the platform.  Though she was helped to safety by other
passengers, photographs included in the complaint show that
Ms. West suffered bruising, cuts and swelling on the leg.

Implying that even the subway safety matters for even the most
seasoned riders, the complaint notes that Ms. West, who turns 66
this year, has been using the subway for "nearly her entire
life."

"A PSD system would be a much-needed addition to the subway
platform safety, at the West 23rd Street station [where her
accident occurred] and all the other 471 MTA stations," the
complaint states.

Ms. West's attorney C.K. Lee has not returned a phone call.


NEW YORK PIZZA: "Hyskaj" Suit Seeks to Recoup Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
Bujar Hyskaj, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. New York New York Pizza, LLC, a
Florida Limited Liability Company and Mamudi Ferit, individually,
and Arber Novaku, individually, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-00397
(M.D. Fla., February 15, 2018), seeks to recover, unpaid overtime
wages, unpaid minimum wages, liquidated damages and attorneys'
fees and costs pursuant to the Florida Minimum Wage Act, the Fair
Labor Standards Act of 1938 and Florida common and statutory law.

New York New York Pizza operates as "NY Pizzeria," a restaurant
in the Tampa Bay area. Hyskaj worked the kitchen for NY Pizzeria
from November 27, 2014 to October 23, 2017. He worked more than
40 hours a week but was paid only hourly wages with no overtime.
[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Spiro T. Komninos, Esq.
      KOMNINOS LAW FIRM, P.A.
      4124 West Linebaugh Ave.
      Tampa, FL 33624
      Tel: (813) 251-3444
      Fax: (813) 251-3445
      Email: spirolaw@hotmail.com
      Website: www.klawfirmtampa.com


NEWBOLD SERVICES: "Guinn" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Guinn and Ashleigh Witt, Each Individually and on Behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated v. Newbold Services, LLC and IH
Services, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-00133 (E.D. Ark.,
February 16, 2018), seeks to recover monetary damages, liquidated
damages, prejudgment interest, and costs, including reasonable
attorneys' fees, as a result of Defendants' failure to pay
overtime wages as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act and
the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act.

Defendants provide facility management, janitorial and cleaning
services within the State of Arkansas where Guinn and Witt were
employed as an assistant account manager and housekeeper. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lydia Hicks Hamlet, Esq.
      Sanford Law Firm
      Post Office Box 39
      Russellville, AR 72811
      Tel: (479) 880-0088
      Fax: (888) 787-2040
      lydia@sanfordlawfirm.com


NEWTON COUNY, GA: Class Action Mulled Over NABORS Landfill Fee
--------------------------------------------------------------
Harrison Daily Times reports that Newton County property owners
showed up at the Monday, March 5, quorum court meeting to ask why
an $18 fee has been attached to their property taxes.  They
wanted to take down names of those responsible and called on the
quorum court to take legal action on the grounds that the
taxpayers didn't vote for what they feel is an illegal tax.

The fee is being collected to pay back bond holders for the now
closed NABORS landfill purchase.  The fee is being collected in
2018 on 2017 real property taxes, barring a legal challenge of
the court-ordered fee.

The subject was raised by County Judge Warren Campbell at the
February quorum court meeting when he explained to justices of
the peace that the Ozark Mountain Solid Waste District voted in
2005 to buy the NABORS landfill issuing more than $12 million in
bonds for the purchase.  It's located in northern Baxter County
near the Three Brothers community.  Numerous problems arose and
revenue at the landfill declined.  The landfill was closed in
2012 and the solid waste district defaulted on bond payments, the
first time a public entity had done so.

Judge Campbell acknowledged that there are many questions about
the fee.  He said he would have someone more familiar with the
matter come to the March quorum court meeting to help clarify the
situation and answer questions quorum court members might have.

David Ethredge, prosecuting attorney for the 14th Judicial
Circuit, attended the March 5 quorum court meeting though he
emphasized that he was not a party to the action. He said he had
read the court's order and would try to answer questions from the
JPs or those attending the meeting.

In the way of background, the solid waste district filed for
bankruptcy protection, but the court ruled the district wasn't
eligible for bankruptcy because it could have been charging all
citizens and businesses in the six-county area for the
availability of trash service whether they used it or not.

Newton County decided not to use the landfill years ago and
instead transfers solid waste to a facility in another state.

Bond holders sued the district and a receiver was appointed to
collect money owed them. A court accepted the receiver's report
and ordered that each residential unit and commercial business
pay $18 a year on property taxes until bond holders are paid off,
about 19 years, or until all claims surrounding the landfill are
satisfied.

The Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality has since taken
over permanently closing the landfill, using the $2.4 million the
solid waste district had in financial assurances.  The cost of
closing the landfill has been estimated to go as high as $20
million.

Special legislation passed in 2014 allows ADEQ to use post-
closure funds to close the landfill, but it also allows ADEQ to
seek remuneration from solid waste district members after the
landfill is permanently closed.

So, ADEQ will also be paid back through the collection of those
fees on real estate.  Bond holders might be paid off in about 19
years, but ADEQ's collection will go on after that.

The court order states that county tax collectors must collect
the $18 fee before property taxes. So, if a tax payer refuses to
pay the fee it will in essence mean that he/she will actually be
$18 delinquent on tax payment.

JPs said that property owners should not be assessed the fee,
which they view as a tax, for something they didn't use.

One remedy might be through a property owner class action
lawsuit.  The district would have to reimburse taxpayers if such
a suit proved successful, but that debt would simply be stacked
up atop all the other money owed by a district that generates
little revenue.  Even if such a suit were filed, the service fee
would be collected anyway unless the court granted potential
plaintiffs a temporary restraining order blocking the fee. [GN]


OHIO: Workers File Class Action Over Payroll System Glitch
----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that a class of Ohio government
workers claims they were denied overtime pay for the last three
years because of a "systemic and widespread failure" in Cuyahoga
County's payroll system.

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

     David J. Steiner, Esq.
     Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq.
     THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC
     920 Rockefeller Building
     614 W. Superior Avenue
     Cleveland, OH 44113
     Phone: 216-696-5000
     Facsimile: 216-696-7005
     Email: anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com
            david@lazzarolawfirm.com


ONE MILE HOUSE: De Los Santos Sues Over Unpaid Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------
Albino Galvez De Los Santos and Palemon Mejia Guzman,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. One Mile House Inc., Martin P. Whelan, Mark
Whelan, Michael Winsch, Daniel C. Dwyer, Gerard Leary and
Benjamin Heitner, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-01457 (S.D. N.Y.,
February 16, 2018), seeks to recover, unpaid "spread-of-hours"
and overtime wages, unpaid minimum wages, liquidated damages and
attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act of 1938 and New York Labor Law.

Defendants own, operate, and/or control a bar located at 10
Delancey St, New York, NY 10002 under the name "One Mile House"
where Plaintiffs were employed by defendants as a dishwasher,
porter and cook. The complaint says Plaintiffs worked for
Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate
overtime compensation for the hours they worked. Defendants also
failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of their hours worked.
Moreover, Plaintiffs weren't paid the required "spread of hours"
pay for any day in which they had to work over 10 hours per day.
[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


OUR NEIGHBORHOOD: Faces "Toribio" Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Our Neighborhood
Spanish Restaurant Corp. The case is styled as Felix Toribio,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Modesto Abreu and Our Neighborhood Spanish
Restaurant Corp., Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-01827 (E.D. N.Y.,
March 26, 2018).

The Defendants are engaged in the restaurant business.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


OVERTON RUSSELL: Faces "Luci" Suit in N.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Overton, Russell,
Doerr and Donovan, LLP. The case is styled as Patrick Luci, on
behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Overton, Russell, Doerr and Donovan, LLP, Thomas R. McCormick,
Brian S. Strohl and Linda L. Donovan, Defendants, Case No. 6:18-
cv-00360-DNH-ATB (N.D. N.Y., March 23, 2018).

Overton, Russell, Doerr & Donovan, LLP provides online payment
services. The Company offers medical and commercial payment
collection services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Anthony J. Pietrafesa, Esq.
   Law Office of Anthony J. Pietrafesa
   721 University Building
   120 East Washington Street
   Syracuse, NY 13202
   Tel: (518) 218-0851
   Fax: (518) 514-1241
   Email: ajp@ajp1law.com

      - and -

   Daniel A. Schlanger, Esq.
   Schlanger Law Group LLP
   9 East 40th Street, Suite 1300
   New York, NY 10016
   Tel: (212) 500-6114
   Fax: (646) 612-7996
   Email: dschlanger@consumerprotection.net


PENNSYLVANIA HIGHER: Clancy Sues Over Bad Credit Report
-------------------------------------------------------
Carol Clancy, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance
Agency (PHEAA), Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-00753 (E.D. Pa.,
February 21, 2018), seeks monetary and punitive damages,
restitution, prejudgment interest and any other relief resulting
from breach of contract, unjust enrichment, fraud, breach of
fiduciary duty, negligent representation and violation of the
Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law.

Clancy borrowed federal student loans to pay for her
undergraduate education with FedLoan being her loan servicer. The
complaint says Clancy has made timely payments since her loans
were transferred to Defendant PHEAA each and every month as she
has been on a direct deposit program, yet despite these timely
payments, her loan has not been placed in good standing and her
credit report reflects a much lower value than it should.

PHEAA is tasked with funding student loans and grants and a
primary servicer of federal student loans. [BN]

Plaintiffs are represented by:

Marc H. Edelson, Esq.
      Liberato P. Verderame, Esq.
      EDESON AND ASSOCIATES LLC
      3 Terry Drive, Suite 205
      Newtown, PA 18940
      Tel: (215) 867-2399
      Fax: (267) 685-0676
      Email: mcdelson@edelson-law.com
             lverderame@edelson-law.com

             - and -

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

             - and -

      Paul J. Scarlato, Esq.
      Brian Penny, Esq.
      GOLDMAN SCARLATO & PENNY, RC.
      8 Tower Bridge, Suite 1025
      161 Washington Street
      Conshohocken, PA 19428
      Tel: (484) 342-0700
      Fax: (484) 580-8747
      Email: scarlato@lawgsp.com
             penny@lawgsp.com


PETER ROFE: Faces Sexual Harassment Class Action
------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that a Dutch artist hoping to
advance her career by undergoing voiceover training claims in a
class action that Peter Rofe, a reputable voice coach, groped her
"under the pretext that the sexual acts were part of a scene,
even though it was not."

Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


PETROLEO BRASILEIRO: June 4 Securities Settlement Hearing Set
-------------------------------------------------------------
If You Previously Purchased or Otherwise Acquired Certain
Petrobras Securities, You Could Get a Cash Payment from a Class
Action Settlement

The following statement is being issued by Pomerantz LLP
regarding In re Petrobras Securities Litigation.

Important Legal Notice from the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York

Two proposed settlements have been reached in a securities class
action lawsuit brought by investors against Petroleo Brasileiro
S.A. ("Petrobras") and certain of its affiliates, underwriters,
external auditors, and current and former directors and officers.
The Settlements include certain securities issued by Petrobras.
Petrobras, the Underwriter Defendants, and PricewaterhouseCoopers
Auditores Independentes ("PwC Brazil") deny any and all
allegations of wrongdoing, and the District Court has not decided
who is right.

If you requested exclusion in response to the previously mailed
notice of pendency of class action dated May 9, 2016, you are
included in this Settlement, and you must request exclusion again
if you do not want to be included in the Settlement Class.

Am I included in the proposed Settlements? You are encouraged to
visit the website www.PetrobrasSecuritiesLitigation.com to see if
you are included in the Settlement Class.  The Settlement Class
includes all Persons who:

(a) during the time Period between January 22, 2010 and July 28,
2015, inclusive (the "Class Period"), purchased or otherwise
acquired Petrobras Securities, including debt securities issued
by PifCo and/or PGF, on the New York Stock Exchange or pursuant
to other Covered Transactions; and/or

(b) purchased or otherwise acquired debt securities issued by
Petrobras, PifCo, and/or PGF, in Covered Transactions, directly
in, pursuant and/or traceable to a May 13, 2013 public offering
registered in the United States and/or a March 10, 2014 public
offering registered in the United States before Petrobras made
generally available to its security holders an earnings statement
covering a period of at least twelve months beginning after the
effective date of the offerings (August 11, 2014 in the case of
the May 13, 2013 public offering and May 15, 2015 in the case of
the March 10, 2014 public offering).

For purposes of the Settlements, "Covered Transaction" means any
transaction that satisfies any of the following criteria:

(i) any transaction in a Petrobras Security listed for trading on
the New York Stock Exchange ("NYSE");

(ii) any transaction in a Petrobras Security that cleared or
settled through the Depository Trust Company's book-entry system;
or

(iii) any transaction in a Petrobras Security to which the United
States securities laws apply, including as applicable pursuant to
the Supreme Court's decision in Morrison v. National Australia
Bank, 561 U.S. 247 (2010).

The full definition of the Settlement Class, as well as full
lists of Petrobras Securities eligible to satisfy criteria (i),
(ii), and (iii) are available at:
www.PetrobrasSecuritiesLitigation.com.

What do the Settlements provide? Petrobras, the Underwriter
Defendants, and PwC Brazil have agreed to Settlements with a
combined value of US$3 billion (US$3,000,000,000.00).  The
proposed settlement could provide for a cash payment depending
upon: which securities you purchased or acquired; the number of
eligible securities that you purchased or acquired; and when you
purchased or acquired the eligible securities.

How can I get a Payment? You must submit a Proof of Claim to
receive payment postmarked or submitted by June 9, 2018.  Visit
the website and file a Proof of Claim online, or download one and
file by mail.

What are my other options? If you do not want to be legally bound
by the Settlement, you must exclude yourself by submitting a
written Request for Exclusion Form so that it is received no
later than April 27, 2018.  If you do not exclude yourself, you
will release any claims you may have against Petrobras, the
Underwriter Defendants, and PwC Brazil and certain other Released
Parties.  You may object to the Settlement by submitting a
written objection so that it is received no later than May 11,
2018.  You cannot both exclude yourself from, and object to, the
Settlement. The longer Notice available on the website listed
below explains how to exclude yourself or object.  The court will
hold a Settlement Hearing on June 4, 2018 to consider whether to
finally approve the Settlement and a request for attorneys' fees
of up to 9.5% of the total Settlement Amount, which is
$285,000,000.00, and a compensatory award of up to $400,000 for
the Class Representatives.  You may appear at the Settlement
Hearing, either by yourself or through an attorney hired by you,
but you do not have to.  For more information, including the
relief, eligibility, and release of claims, call 1-855-907-3218
or visit www.PetrobrasSecuritiesLitigation.com
[GN]


PHILLIPS & COHEN: Bernal Disputes IRS Note on Collection Letter
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Leticia Bernal, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Phillips & Cohen Associates,
Ltd. and John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-00023, (W.D.
Tex., February 14, 2018), seeks damages and declaratory and
injunctive relief under the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act.

Bernal incurred a debt to Merrick Bank Corporation that defaulted
and Phillips & Cohen was assigned to collect it. Plaintiff
received a collection letter that falsely invoked an Internal
Revenue Service regulation for the settlement amount that was
intended to threaten Bernal into paying. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Yaakov Saks, Esq.
     RC LAW GROUP, PLLC
     285 Passaic Street
     Hackensack, NJ 07601
     Tel: (201) 282-6500 Ext. 101
     Fax: (201) 282-6501
     Email: ysaks@rclawgroup.com


PHILLIPS & COHEN: Bernal Disputes IRS Note on Collection Letter
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Leticia Bernal, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Phillips & Cohen Associates,
Ltd. and John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-00023, (W.D.
Tex., February 14, 2018), seeks damages and declaratory and
injunctive relief under the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act.

Bernal incurred a debt to Merrick Bank Corporation that defaulted
and Phillips & Cohen was assigned to collect it. Plaintiff
received a collection letter that falsely invoked an Internal
Revenue Service regulation for the settlement amount that was
intended to threaten Bernal into paying. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Yaakov Saks, Esq.
     RC LAW GROUP, PLLC
     285 Passaic Street
     Hackensack, NJ 07601
     Tel: (201) 282-6500 Ext. 101
     Fax: (201) 282-6501
     Email: ysaks@rclawgroup.com


PLEASANTON FITNESS: Lecomte Sues Over Illegally Debited Gym Fees
----------------------------------------------------------------
Brandi Lecomte, on behalf of themselves and others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. Pleasanton Fitness LLC, Defendants, Case
No. 18-cv-00977, (N.D. Cal., February 15, 2018), seeks damages,
restitution, and all other relief resulting from unjust
enrichment and violation of the Electronic Funds Transfer Act,
Electronic Communications Privacy Act, California's Unfair
Competition Law and California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act.

Lecomte was automatically debited $35 by Defendant for "Club
Dues" despite not being a member of one of their gyms and never
executed any membership agreement or authorization. Pleasanton
did not obtain authorization to deduct funds from Plaintiff's
account on a regular basis, says the complaint.

Pleasanton Fitness LLC, is a provider of gym services and
memberships to gym facilities. [BN]

Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL: Faces "Thorne" Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Principal Financial
Services, Inc. The case is styled as Braulio Thorne, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Principal
Financial Services, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-02724 (S.D.
N.Y., March 27, 2018).

The Principal Financial Group is a global financial investment
management leader headquartered in Des Moines, Iowa.  Principal
Financial Services, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of Principal
Financial Group Inc.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PROFESSIONAL PLACEMENT: Court Grants Final OK of "Safranski" Deal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Wisconsin, Green Bay Division, issued an Order and Judgment
granting Parties' request for final approval of the Class
Settlement Agreement in the case captioned KATHY L. SAFRANSKI, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff,
v. PROFESSIONAL PLACEMENT SERVICES, LLC; a Wisconsin Limited
Liability Company; and, JOHN AND JANE DOES NUMBERS 1 THROUGH 25,
Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00129-WCG (E.D. Wis.).

Upon consideration of the Parties' request for final approval of
the Class Settlement Agreement (Agreement) between Plaintiff and
Defendant, the Court finds the Settlement fair, reasonable, and
adequate and, accordingly, finally approves the Agreement
submitted by the Parties, including the Release and payments by
PPS.

Upon the Effective Date, PPS will make the following payments:

   (a) PPS will create a class settlement fund of $9,000.00,
which Class Counsel through the Settlement Administrator will
distribute pro rata (up to $50.00) among those Class Members who
did not exclude themselves and who returned a claim form
(Claimants). Claimants will receive their share of the Class
Recovery by check, which shall become void sixty (60) days from
the date of issuance. Any checks that have not been cashed by the
void date, along with any unclaimed funds remaining in the Class
Recovery will be donated as a cy pres award to Legal Action of
Wisconsin and earmarked for assisting Wisconsin residents with
consumer issues.

   (b) PPS shall pay Plaintiff $2,000.00.

   (c) PPS shall pay Class Counsel $48,000.00 for their
attorneys' fees and costs incurred in the based upon their
requested hourly rates and expenses incurred. Class Counsel will
not request additional fees or costs from PPS or the Class
Members.

A full-text copy of the District Court's February 22, 2018 Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/yanscaw4 from Leagle.com.

Kathy L Safranski, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew T. Thomasson,
Stern Thomasson LLP, Philip D. Stern, Stern Thomasson LLP &
Heather B. Jones, Stern Thomasson LLP, 150 Morris Avenue 2nd
Floor Springfield, NJ 07081.

Professional Placement Services LLC, Defendant, represented by
Christopher J. Smith, Sager & Colwin Law Office SC, 201 S Marr St
Fond Du Lac, WI, 54935-4410.


PROFESSIONAL RECOVERY: Cal. App. Affirms Dismissal of "Lee"
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of California, First District, Division
Four, issued an Opinion affirming the judgment of the Trial Court
granting Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment in the case
captioned FREIDA LEE, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. PROFESSIONAL
RECOVERY SYSTEMS, INC., et al., Defendants and Respondents, No.
A142730 (Cal. App.).

Plaintiff Freida Lee brought this action alleging defendants
engaged in unfair debt collection practices by twice reporting
the same debt, monies owed to the East Bay Municipal Utilities
District (EBMUD), on her credit report and failing to note on the
report that she disputed the debt. Shortly before trial, she
moved to amend her complaint to add class action allegations and
additional causes of action, and the trial court denied the
motion.

The trial court denied the motion for leave to amend the
complaint, noting that the case had been pending for more than
two years; trial had already been continued twice; discovery was
closed and defendants' summary judgment motion had been
scheduled; the amendment would change the entire complexion of
this case by adding new causes of action and converting the
matter to a class action; and the amendment would cause further
delay, reopening of discovery, class certification proceedings,
and a new round of challenges to the pleadings and dispositive
motions. The court also found unconvincing plaintiff's
explanation for the delay in seeking leave to amend.

The court granted summary adjudication as to plaintiff's first
cause of action for violation of the Debt Collection Practices
Act on the ground it was pre-empted by federal law and ordered
that cause of action dismissed. The court denied summary
adjudication as to the second cause of action for violation of
the Credit Reporting Agencies Act. At plaintiff's request, the
complaint was then dismissed without prejudice.

The Trial Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion in Denying Leave to
Amend the Complaint

Plaintiff contends the trial court abused its discretion in
denying her leave to amend the complaint to add class action
allegations and new causes of action.

Plaintiff contends she only learned of the basis for the class
allegations when defendants brought their motion for summary
judgment, supported by the evidence that there were errors in the
transfer of information when PRS's system was converted to KBR's
system. The trial court could reasonably conclude plaintiff did
not adequately explain why she was unable to learn the bases for
her new allegations during the more than two years the action was
pending. On this record, plaintiff has not shown a manifest or
gross abuse of discretion in denying leave to amend her
complaint.

Section 1788.17 Is Pre-empted and Does Not Apply

The trial court granted summary adjudication of the first cause
of action, for violation of the Debt Collection Practices Act, on
the ground it was pre-empted by federal law, specifically, the
Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA)

Plaintiff contends this was error.

It appears plaintiff has not proven a claim under section
1788.17. Defendants presented evidence that they worked on
collecting plaintiff's debt for a period of about six weeks
beginning in July 2008, when the debt was referred to PRS; that
they did not take any further steps to collect on the account
after August 28, 2008; and that the debt was first reported to
the credit agencies in October 2008. Plaintiff neither disputed
nor objected to that evidence. Plaintiff neither alleges nor
argues that defendants were engaged in debt collection activities
or efforts at any time during the period in question.

In opposition to defendants' motion plaintiff herself contended,
the only pertinent facts of this case is that KBR obtained a bill
assigned by EBMUD for collection, but so completely bungled its
merger with the collector that originally held the debt that it
managed to be credit reported by two entity names it uses to
collect debts simultaneously. It also failed to note plaintiff's
dispute of the entry on her credit, as is its obligation.
Plaintiff did not and does not contend the erroneous credit
reporting was in connection with the collection of any debt and
there is no evidence that defendants were collecting or
attempting to collect a consumer debt when furnishing the reports
to the credit agencies.

The judgment is affirmed.

A full-text copy of Cal. App.'s February 22, 2018 Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ycwwsmeb from Leagle.com.


PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Faces "Thorne" Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Prudential
Financial, Inc. The case is styled as Braulio Thorne, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Prudential Financial, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-02719
(S.D. N.Y., March 27, 2018).

Prudential Financial, Inc., through its subsidiaries, provides
insurance, investment management, and other financial products
and services in the United States and internationally. It
operates through U.S. Individual Solutions, U.S.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PURDUE PHARMA: Faces American Resources Suit in S.D. Alabama
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Purdue Pharma L.P.
The case is styled as American Resources Insurance Company, Inc.,
on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff
v. Purdue Pharma L.P., Purdue Pharma, Inc., The Purdue Frederick
Company, Inc., Abbott Laboratories, Abbott Laboratories, Inc.,
Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., Actavis South Atlantic LLC,
Cephalon, Inc., Johnson & Johnson, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,
Ortho-McNeil-Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Janssen
Pharmaceutica, Inc. other Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Endo Health
Solutions, Inc., Endo Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Qualitest
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. other Par Pharmaceutical, Inc., Allergan
PLC formerly known as: Actavis PLC, Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
other Actavis, Inc., Watson Laboratories, Inc., Actavis, LLC,
Actavis Pharma, Inc. formerly known as: Watson Pharma, Inc.,
Mallinckrodt PLC, Mallinckrodt LLC, Mallinckrodt Brand
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Par Pharmaceutical, Inc., West-Ward
Pharmaceuticals Corp., KVK-Tech, Inc., Rhodes Pharmaceuticals
L.P., UCB, Inc., Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc., Alvogen
Inc., Aurolife Pharma LLC, Specgx LLC, Lupin Pharmaceuticals,
Inc., Tris Pharma, Inc., Amneal Pharmaceuticals, LLC, Amneal
Pharmaceuticals of New York, LLC, Impax Laboratories, Inc., Impax
Generics, Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., McKesson Corporation,
Cardinal Health, Inc. and Amerisourcebergen Drug Corporation,
Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-00145 (S.D. Ala., March 27, 2018).

The Defendants operate in the pharmaceuticals industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   David Anthony Busby, Esq.
   Daniell, Upton, Perry & Morris
   30421 Highway 181
   Daphne, AL 36526
   Tel: (251) 625-0046
   Fax: (251) 625-0464
   Email: dab@dupm.com


RENO, NV: Lemon Valley Flooding Class Action Can Proceed
--------------------------------------------------------
KOLO reports that a Washoe District Court judge has approved
allowing Lemmon Valley residents suing the city of Reno to get
class action status.

The plaintiffs say the city of Reno ignored a 2007 water study
that showed any increase in water in the North Valleys would mean
an increase in waste water and storm run-off.  The study said
water would end up in Silver Lake and Swan Lake.

The suit charges the city continued to allow development in the
area and pumped water from Silver Lake to Swan Lake.  The suit
charges the city wanted to protect businesses near Silver Lake at
the expense of Lemmon Valley.

Washoe District Court Judge Barry Breslow made the ruling.
Eligible residents will be notified by mail. [GN]


S & A RETAIL: Faces "Olsen" Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against S & A Retail, Inc.
The case is styled as Thomas J. Olsen, individually and on behalf
of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. S & A
Retail, Inc. doing business as: Geox and S & A Distribution, Inc.
doing business as: Geox, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-02631 (S.D.
N.Y., March 26, 2018).

S&A Retail Inc. owns and operates footwear stores.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Christopher Howard Lowe, Esq.
   Lipsky Lowe LLP
   630 Third Avenue
   New York, NY 10017-6705
   Tel: (212) 392-4772
   Fax: (212) 444-1030
   Email: chris@lipskylowe.com


SAGAL FILBERT: "Jackson" Disputes Validity of Collection Letter
---------------------------------------------------------------
Crystal Jackson, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Stuart L. Sagal and Sagal,
Filbert, Quasney & Betten, P.A., Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-
00495, (D. Md., February 16, 2018), seeks statutory damages,
reasonable attorney's fees and costs and such other and further
relief for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Crystal and Tavon Jackson lived in a complex known as "Windsor
Forest" which was managed by The Maryland Management Company. The
whole apartment block was infested with mice and cockroaches and
Maryland Management did not address the issue. Ms. Jackson gave
60 days advance notice, and then moved out. In 2014, well past
the 3 year statute of limitations, Defendants sued Crystal
Jackson for owed rent, late fees and court costs. However, said
letter claimed that Ms. Jackson owed attorney's fees before any
court had found them to be due, threatened suit if she did not
pay all amounts demanded, threatened the debt would be
automatically increased if suit was filed and that she would be
forced to attend trial if suit were filed, notes the complaint.
[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Peter A. Holland, Esq.
      Emanwel J. Turnbull, Esq.
      THE HOLLAND LAW FIRM, P.C.
      P.O. Box 6268
      Annapolis, MD 21401
      Tel: (410) 280-6133
      Fax: (410) 280-8650
      Email: peter@hollandlawfirm.com
             eturnbull@hollandlawfirm.com

             - and -

      Scott C. Borison, Esq.
      LEGG LAW FIRM, LLP
      38 S. Paca St. #116, Suite B
      Baltimore, MD 21201
      Tel: (301) 620-1016
      Fax: (301) 620-1018
      Email: Borison@legglaw.com


SAN REMOS GROUP: Does Not Properly Pay Wages, "Guzman" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cesar Gonzalez Guzman, Jonathan Hernandez, Michael Rodriguez, And
Samuel Lopez Montalvo, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. San Remos Group One, LLC
(d/b/a San Remo Cafe), Val City Lounge LLC (d/b/a San Remo Cafe),
Benjamin Kotler, Valeriy Evdokimov, Edward M Bilowich and Ilias
Sarras, Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-01446, (S.D. N.Y., February
16, 2018), seeks unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the New York Labor Law,
"spread of hours" and overtime wage orders of the New York
Commissioner of Labor, including applicable liquidated damages,
interest, attorneys' fees and costs.

Defendants operate a restaurant located at 201 Lafayette Street,
New York, NY 10012 under the name "San Remo Cafe" owned by
Benjamin Kotler, Valeriy Evdokimov, Edward M Bilowich and Ilias
Sarras, where Plaintiffs were employed as busboys, barbacks and
bartender. They worked in excess of 40 hours per week, without
receiving the applicable minimum wage or appropriate overtime
compensation for the hours over 40 per week, say the Plaintiffs.
They also accuse the Defendants of failing to maintain accurate
recordkeeping of hours, failing to pay the applicable minimum
wage, and failing to pay the required "spread-of-hours" pay for
any day in which Plaintiffs had to work over 10 hours a day.

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SANTANDER BANK: Must Face Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Wichert, writing for Law360, reports that a New Jersey
federal judge on March 6 rejected Santander Bank NA's bid to toss
a putative collective and class action alleging it coerced branch
operations managers into not reporting extra hours worked despite
their being entitled to overtime pay, saying the lawsuit
sufficiently pled a claim for class certification.

U.S. District Judge Peter G. Sheridan denied a motion filed by
the bank and two staff members to dismiss the lawsuit from
onetime branch operations manager Crystal Sanchez, finding that
the motion is premature.

The case is SANCHEZ v. SANTANDER BANK, N.A. et al, Case No. 3:17-
cv-05775.  The case is assigned to Judge Peter G. Sheridan.  The
case was filed August 4, 2017. [GN]


SONIC AUTOMOTIVE: Denial of Class Cert in "Bornstein" Affirmed
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of California, Fourth District, Division
Three, issued an Opinion affirming the Trial Court's Order
denying Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification in the case
captioned AARON BORNSTEIN, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. SONIC
AUTOMOTIVE, INC., et al., Defendants and Respondents, No. G053839
(Cal. App.).

Plaintiff Aaron Bornstein appeals from the trial court's order
denying his motion to certify a class action.

The complaint alleged that Bornstein was employed by, and Hall
was a customer of, the dealership, and that at all relevant times
herein, Sonic implemented, established, controlled, permitted
and/or participated in the illegal tapping, recording or
eavesdropping on telephone calls by and between the dealership,
Sonics' California dealerships, their customers and employees.

The complaint further alleged as part of their business in
selling and leasing automobiles to California consumers,
defendants have engaged in illegal and unlawful conduct
including, without limitation, eavesdropping on, recording and/or
wiretapping telephone calls and otherwise making unauthorized
connections to telephone calls in violation of California Penal
Code sections 631 and 632.

The trial court, in a detailed and thorough written order, denied
Bornstein's motion to certify a class action as to his claim on
three separate and independent grounds. The court decided that
Bornstein failed to meet his burden of showing the
ascertainability of his proposed class, that common issues
predominate over individual issues, and the superiority of class
action treatment of his claim.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss this appeal on the ground
this court lacked jurisdiction because the appeal was not taken
from an appealable order. This court denied the motion, finding
the death knell exception to the one final judgment" rule
applied.

Trial courts have discretion in granting or denying motions for
class certification because they are well situated to evaluate
the efficiencies and practicalities of permitting a class action.

The Court will affirm an order denying class certification if any
of the trial court's stated reasons is valid and sufficient to
justify the order, and is supported by substantial evidence The
Court must reverse an order denying class certification if the
trial court used improper criteria or made erroneous legal
assumptions, even if substantial evidence supported the order.
Trial court's decision that rests on an error of law is an abuse
of discretion.

Here, the trial court concluded, in part: "The proposed class is
not ascertainable. There is no reasonable method to identify
class members. Any such effort would be unreasonable both in
terms of time and expense. There is no evidence that any records
still exist to permit the parties or court to determine 'without
unreasonable expense or time' when incoming toll-free telephone
calls were received during the relevant time period, whether
those calls were monitored/recorded, and which putative class
members engaged in those conversations."

The only telephone conversations that could have been
monitored/recorded were incoming calls through dealership toll-
free lines provided by the Callbright system. Only those
employees who engaged in 'Callbright' telephone conversations
initiated through toll-free incoming calls could be class
members.  Defendants monitored those incoming toll-free calls by
logging into the Callbright system and listening to them.
Incoming calls through local area codes to the dealership could
not be monitored or recorded.  Plaintiff initially suggested that
'at least 6,950 employees' participated in incoming calls on
toll-free lines.

Defendants argued this estimate is grossly inaccurate as it
represents the total number of employees who worked at Long Beach
BMW or at other Sonic subsidiary dealerships in California.
Exhibit 25 (the list of 6,900+ employees at all the Sonic
dealerships in California for a plus-ten year period) supports
Defendants' position on this point. In any event, Plaintiff
seemed to concede this number is over-inclusive.

The trial court also denied the motion for class certification on
the separate and independent ground that individual issues would
predominate over common issues in determining the element of
consent an element that is critical to proving a violation of
section 631. The court did not abuse its discretion in reaching
this conclusion.

The court correctly observed that while a companywide practice
can support a finding of commonality for class certification, a
companywide policy or practice, alone, does not guarantee class
certification. The court also concluded, however, that the
absence of a uniform companywide policy to inform did not, in the
court's view, conclusively establish a uniform companywide policy
not to inform.

The court cited evidence that defendants did not have a uniform
or companywide policy against informing employees that their
calls might be monitored and/or recorded. The court also cited
evidence that a number of Sonic employees/putative class members
expressly or impliedly consented to the monitoring/recording.
Bornstein does not dispute the evidence cited in the court's
order.

In his opening brief, Bornstein does not address the trial
court's statement that he has failed to suggest how
individualized issues might be managed fairly and efficiently in
a class action context. Instead, he argues, without analysis,
that Sonic's centralized practices 'make class certification
appropriate, a class action would also serve to redress Sonic's
alleged wrongdoing and the public policy which led to the
enactment of Penal Code section 631, and the corporate policies
and practices established by Sonic's headquarters are subject to
common proof and it would not be efficient to require repetitious
litigation.

The trial court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that
Bornstein failed to show how his invasion of privacy claim based
on a violation of section 631 would be best resolved through a
class action.

The order is affirmed.

A full-text copy of the Cal. App.'s February 22, 2018 Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y9xgk4u8 from Leagle.com.

Carroll, Kelly, Trotter, Franzen, McKenna & Peabody, Michael J.
Trotter  mjtrotter@cktfmlaw.com and David P. Pruett --
mjtrotter@cktfmlaw.com -- for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Arent Fox, Victor P. Danhi, George N. Koumbis --
george.koumbis@arentfox.com -- and Bradley M. Tanner --
bradley.tanner@arentfox.com -- for Defendants and Respondents.


SOUTH FLORIDA TILE: "Maradiaga" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pablo De Jesus Isaula Maradiaga, and all others similarly
situated under 29 U.S.C. 216(b), Plaintiff, vs. South Florida
Tile Delivery & Installation, Corp, Yony Alonso, Defendants, Case
No. 18-cv-20673, (S.D. Fla., February 21, 2018), requests double
damages and reasonable attorney fees pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act for all overtime wages still owing along with court
costs, interest and any other relief.

Plaintiff worked for Defendants as a delivery helper from on or
about August 20, 2003 through on or about February 5, 2018. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      J.H. Zidell, Esq.
      J.H. ZIDELL, P.A.
      300 71st Street, Suite 605
      Miami Beach, FL 33141
      Tel: (305) 865-6766
      Fax: (305) 865-7167
      Email: zabogado@aol.com


SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Settlement Obtains Preliminary Court Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Mitchell, writing for Journal Tribune, reports that the
class action lawsuit against Delta Air Lines, American Airlines
and United Airlines (Big Three) with plaintiffs alleging illegal
collusion to restrict capacity for the express purpose of
fleecing consumers and boosting record-setting profits took an
important turn earlier this year.

A US Federal judge granted preliminary approval of Southwest
Airlines' settlement with plaintiffs in return for paying $15
million and pledging to cooperate against the Big Three.

This so-called "Icebreaker" settlement is reason for consumers to
cheer.  It could well pave the way for the class action
plaintiffs to prove that the Big Three "colluded to limit
capacity on their respective airlines in a conspiracy to fix,
raise, maintain, and/or stabilize prices for air passenger
transportation services in the United States" in violation of the
Sherman Antitrust Act.  The settlement could also provide
unintended visibility to global coordination among airlines to
conspire against the interests of consumers.

The scope of Southwest's promised cooperation is broad, and
therefore, likely to be extremely worrisome to the Big Three.

Is it far-fetched that this class action lawsuit might prove to
be just the tip of the iceberg of the Big Three colluding to
increase record-setting profits by jointly working in
coordination to stifle competition? Not at all! In fact, January
marks the three-year anniversary of the Big Three's political
campaign against Open Skies and the important consumer-friendly
choice provided by Emirates Airline, Etihad Airways and Qatar
Airways (Gulf Carriers).

Even though it is blatantly obvious that this political campaign
against Open Skies is nothing more than a coordinated, joint
anti-competitive initiative masquerading under the guise of a
policy debate, the Big Three claim that they are not motivated by
enhancing their already historic profits.  Rather, they portray
themselves as champions of American workers motivated solely by
an altruistic sense of national and moral responsibility to
protect US jobs.

The Big Three know well that an Achilles' heel of their
fictitious "we are the champion of US jobs" narrative is the
stubborn and indisputable fact that Gulf Carriers, not the Big
Three, are loyal customers of US built wide-body aircraft and
their orders are a vital engine for creating and supporting
hundreds of thousands of US aerospace manufacturing jobs. So,
feeling vulnerable that their jobs-concern faƔade is cracking,
the Big Three turned once again to their expert advisor Rob
Britton to develop the most compelling rebuttal possible.

Let's hope that Southwest's Icebreaker settlement and pledge of
cooperation is as illuminating and helpful to the plaintiffs as
its appropriately broad scope suggests.  With the Big Three and
Southwest controlling some 80 percent of the US domestic market,
consumers are counting on it.  Importantly, the unintended
outcomes for the Big Three flowing from this settlement could
include more clear visibility to consumer-harmful coordination
among them and their partners in the US-Europe market.

Along with their European antitrust immunized alliance and joint
venture partners, the Big Three control over 80 percent of the
seats in the US-Europe market.  Immunization allows those market
participants to engage in commercial activities that would
otherwise be illegal.  The Big Three and their European airline
partners, along with their labor groups, have run a coordinated,
scorched-earth campaign against the Gulf Carriers and Norwegian
Air International in Washington and Brussels.

This historically unprecedented dominance in the domestic US and
transatlantic markets makes tacit and explicit coordination among
market participants a super grave risk for consumers.  To be
fair, when granting antitrust immunity to these airline partners,
regulators could not have possibly anticipated how a downstream
force-multiplier effect from US airline industry consolidation
could produce such massive airline economic, political and market
power to be used to frustrate new airline entry and harm
consumers.

As evidenced by initiating a fourth year of the political
campaign against Gulf Carrier new entry, the Big Three will not
likely stop aggregating and coordinating their economic and
political power in an effort to eliminate competition, maintain
monopoly market positions and benefit from supra premium prices
in thousands of US city-pair markets.  As such, the Trump
Administration needs to forcefully reject the embarrassing, un-
American and thinly veiled neo-mercantilism embodied within the
Big Three's political campaign.

Finally, regulators and legislators on both sides of the Atlantic
need to revisit the assumed public-interest efficacy of airline
antitrust immunity.  Brussels, in particular, needs to take heed
of the many damaging consumer impacts of recent massive US
airline industry consolidation before that preverbal egg is
forever scrambled in Europe.

Mr. Mitchell is the founder of the Business Travel Coalition and
OpenSkies.travel. [GN]



ST. LOUIS, MO: ArchCity Defenders to Challenge "Wanteds" System
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Karins, writing for The St. Louis American, reports that
the first oral arguments in a case against St. Louis County's
system of "wanteds" took place on February 28, and the
constitutional challenge by ArchCity Defenders, co-counsel Paul,
Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP and the Center for
Constitutional Rights (CCR) will proceed to the next step.

The system of "wanteds," also known as "wanteds for questioning,"
in St. Louis County allows police officers to enter information
about an individual they want to question in relation to a crime
into a database.  This can be seen by all other county police
officers, who can then arrest the wanted individual, hold them
for 24 hours and question them -- without obtaining a warrant
from a judge.

ArchCity and the CCR, two legal advocacy organizations, are
challenging the system as violating several principle of the U.S.
Constitution, including the Fourth Amendment right to protection
against unreasonable search and seizure, the Fifth Amendment
right to remain silent under police questioning, and the
Fourteenth Amendment's protection against being deprived of
liberty without due process of law.

The fundamental legal question is whether police officers can
determine that a person should be held for questioning without
seeking a warrant from the judicial branch.

"Wanteds are used for serious state-level crimes and minor code
violations alike, including traffic offenses," the CCR said on
its website.  "In some cases, wanteds seem to be issued merely
because officers want to take custody of an individual for
questioning.  It is unclear how long a wanted may stay in the
system -- potentially months or even years."

The case, known as Furlow v. Belmar, names the St. Louis County
Police Department and Police Chief Jon Belmar as defendants,
along with several individual arresting officers.  The defendants
are Dwayne Furlow, Ralph Torres and Howard Liner, three people
who were arrested and then released under the wanteds system.
The attorneys with CCR and ArchCity hope to proceed with the case
as a class-action lawsuit on behalf of everyone arrested because
of a wanted. They are seeking actual and punitive damages.

In court on February 28, both sides sought an immediate judgment
in their favor.  Blake Strode, the executive director of ArchCity
Defenders and one of the attorneys in the case, said it was
"undisputed" in the case that the plaintiffs were held and
questioned without judicial oversight.

Mr. Strode said that if the court would issue an immediate order
that the wanteds system was unconstitutional, the plaintiffs'
attorneys would be willing to set aside the question of whether
there was probable cause to arrest their three clients.

"The entire debate regarding probable cause, I think, is actually
quite beside the point," Strode said.

Mr. Strode argued that St. Louis County is abusing a Missouri law
that allows suspects to be held for 24 hours before charges are
filed.  He argued that it is always unconstitutional to question
a suspect in custody without at any point seeking a warrant.

St. Louis County Counselor Michael Hughes said the CCR and
ArchCity were misinterpreting the cases they cited as precedent
and that the wanteds procedure was permissible as long as the
officers had probable cause.

"Everyone said, without exception, that they always had probable
cause," Mr. Hughes said.  "There's no underlying unconstitutional
conduct by any of the named officers."

In most jurisdictions, the norm is to obtain an arrest warrant
before the arrest in most circumstances; exceptions might include
arresting a suspect who is dangerous or fleeing a crime scene, or
arrests that take place over a weekend or holiday when no judges
are available.

In St. Louis County, Mr. Strode argued, the wanteds have replaced
that system as the default.

"Police are allowed to arrest without a warrant as an exception
to the warrant rule," Mr. Strode said.  "What they're not allowed
to do is have a system of warrantless arrests."

One of the plaintiffs in the case, Ralph Torres, was arrested in
his garage at his home, in front of his eight-year-old son.
Several weeks had gone by since a wanted was issued for Torres'
arrest.

In all the cases being considered, the arresting officers did not
know what crime the individual was suspected of committing, or
why the officer who issued the wanted believed there was probable
cause.

"They were purely acting on the probable cause of other officers'
determination, which is not permitted by the Fourth Amendment,"
Mr. Strode said.

The plaintiffs' attorneys also argued that the case should be
allowed to proceed as a class action lawsuit because everyone who
has been arrested because a wanted was issued for them shared the
same underlying legal grievance.

Mr. Hughes said each case is simply too unique and too complex to
make a determination about all suspects as a class.

The judge in the case, John Ross, asked each side of the case to
write a legal brief on the class action question within the next
30 days, at which point he will make a determination of how the
case should proceed. [GN]


STANDARD & POOR'S: SCDO Class Action in Australia Commences
-----------------------------------------------------------
Australian Financial Review reports that a $250 million class
action against Standard & Poor's ratings of risky financial
products during the GFC was set to begin on March 8 in the
Federal Court of Australia and could pave the way for a wave of
more claims.

This latest class action on behalf of local councils and other
investors includes four claims and 13 separate products.  It
covers synthetic collaterised debt obligations (SCDO) products
between 2005 and 2007 rated by S&P.  It is unusual in that it is
likely to be heard in court.

Last year, the Federal Court granted leave to investors in the
class action to pursue a "tort of deceit claim" against S&P over
the way it rated investments, arguing S&P intentionally tweaked
its ratings methodology to rate products more highly. If
successful, the tort of deceit claim means that class actions can
be pursued until 2023.

"It's a significant case because it will determine what date
noteholders could reasonably discover any deceit by Standard &
Poor's in representing the rating of the product," said Squire
Patton Boggs partner Amanda Banton, who is representing the
investors.

"If the date [of the deceit being uncovered] is as late as last
year, it potentially opens the way for more class actions in
relation to the losses of the financial products of including
corporate CDOS and RMBS CDOs."

Synthetic CDOs typically take exposure to the debt of about 100
companies -- or residential mortgage backed securities (RMBs) --
by purchasing insurance through the credit default swaps market.
The premiums are then passed on to investors. But if a set number
of companies default on their debt, the entire investment is
declared worthless.

Duty of care
The global credit crisis and its aftermath led to many defaults
of companies referenced by CDOs held by councils and other
investors, with Australian councils and charity foundations
losing hundreds of millions of dollars.

In addition to Standard & Poor's, ANZ is also being sued. The
action cites ANZ's responsibilities as an AFSL licence holder,
its duty of care and duties under the Code of Banking Practice.

Some of Squire Patton Boggs' previous actions were funded by IFM
Bentham, but this one will be funded by Singaporean funder
Litigation Capital Partners.  Clifford Chance is representing
S&P. Eight weeks has been set aside to hear the case.

In 2016, S&P settled a multimillion-dollar class action brought
by around 90 councils, churches and charities who invested in the
products; delivering litigation funder IMF Bentham an almost $50
million profit boost.

Class actions are increasing, though the vast majority settle out
of court.

The Australian Law Reform Commission is conducting a federal
inquiry into litigation funding, spurred by the increased
incidence of class actions.  A discussion paper is due by the end
of May. [GN]


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


TRANS UNION: Judge Inks $8MM Settlement in Credit Reports Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that a federal judge on March 11
signed off on the $8 million settlement of a lawsuit accusing
credit-reporting agency Transunion of disseminating credit
reports with serious errors that included, in the lead
plaintiff's case, notes describing him as a terrorist with a
criminal record.

The case is AMIT PATEL, Plaintiff, v. TRANS UNION, LLC, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 14-cv-00522-LB (N.D. Calif.).


TRANS1 INC: 4th Cir. Partly Reverses Dismissal of Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit, issued an
Opinion affirming in part and reversing in part the District
Court's dismissal of the securities fraud class action filed by
lead plaintiff Phillip J. Singer on behalf of Trans1 Inc.
shareholders.

These appeals arise from the dismissal of a securities fraud
class action complaint in the Eastern District of North Carolina.

Lead plaintiff Phillip J. Singer (Complaint), TranS1 and the
Officers (Company) conjured up and carried out a scheme that
enabled surgeons to utilize the System and secure fraudulent
reimbursements from various health insurers and government-funded
healthcare programs. The scheme resulted in federal False Claims
Act proceedings against TranS1 in the District of Maryland and a
fraud investigation conducted by the Department of Health and
Human Services (DHHS).

On the theory that the Company had concealed the fraudulent
reimbursement scheme from the market by way of false and
misleading statements and omissions  and that TranS1's stock
price dropped precipitously when the scheme was finally revealed
this class action was initiated pursuant to, inter alia, section
10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act.

In dismissing the Complaint with prejudice, the district court
concluded that, although the Complaint alleges the loss causation
element of the section 10(b) claim, it does not sufficiently
plead the material misrepresentation element or the scienter
element of that claim.

By his appeal (No. 15-2579), Singer seeks reinstatement of the
Complaint, contesting the court's rulings on the
misrepresentation and scienter elements.

TranS1 and the Officers have cross-appealed (No. 16-1019),
asserting that the court erred in rejecting their challenge to
the loss causation element.

In this securities fraud class action, the putative class
includes those investors in TranS1 who purchased common stock in
which the Complaint alleges that the Company's fraudulent
reimbursement scheme was concealed from the market. Each of the
Officers was, in one capacity or another, involved in the
management of TranS1 during the relevant time frame.

The Complaint explains that a healthcare provider submitting a
reimbursement claim for a surgery is obliged to use Current
Procedural Terminology codes (CPT codes) promulgated by the
American Medical Association (AMA).

The Fourth Circuit first considers Singer's appeal (No. 15-2579),
which implicates the Officers Order and the Final Order. If the
Fourth Circuit were to affirm the district court's rulings in
those Orders, the Company's cross-appeal would be moot, as it
merely provides an alternative reason for dismissal of the
Complaint.

The Complaint advances two separate claims. First, it alleges
that TranS1 and the Officers violated section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act, as well as its companion regulatory
provision in SEC Rule 10b-5.  Second, the Complaint alleges
separate violations of section 20(a) against the Officers.

In his appeal, Singer challenges the district court's rulings  in
the Officers Order and the Final Order that the Complaint fails
to allege the material misrepresentation and scienter elements of
the section 10(b) claim.

Under the Complaint, by choosing to inform the market that it was
training surgeons on how to obtain reimbursements for the System
in the wake of the AMA's Category III coding requirement, the
Company was obliged to further disclose its fraudulent
reimbursement scheme, its instructions to surgeons to unlawfully
code the System under Category I. Otherwise, the Officers'
statements about the Company's training efforts were utterly
misleading. The same is true of the Officers' statements that the
Category III code was causing only limited losses; by not
disclosing the Company's fraudulent reimbursement scheme and
improper use of Category I codes, the Officers misled the market
about the actual source of TranS1's continuing revenues. As such,
the Complaint alleges that the Company possessed and breached a
duty to disclose the fraudulent reimbursement scheme.

In concluding that those warnings failed to cure the
corporation's non-disclosure of ongoing and serious pollution
violations, the Meyer, Meyer, 761 F.3d at 251, court explained:
"A generic warning of a risk will not suffice when undisclosed
facts on the ground would substantially affect a reasonable
investor's calculations of probability. One cannot, for example,
disclose in a securities offering a business's peculiar risk of
fire, the installation of a comprehensive sprinkler system to
reduce fire danger, and omit the fact that the system has been
found to be inoperable, without misleading investors."

The Fourth Circuit agrees with the Second Circuit's cogent
analysis. Despite the general warnings in TranS1's Form 10-Ks,
the Officers' statements about the Company's reimbursement
practices may be deemed materially misleading premised on the
omission of the fraudulent reimbursement scheme.

At bottom, the Complaint is sufficient to establish that, by
choosing to speak about its reimbursement practices, the Company
possessed a duty to disclose its alleged illegal conduct. The
Company violated that duty and acted deceptively by way of false
statements and statements that were misleading because they
omitted the fraudulent reimbursement scheme. Furthermore, the
facts of that scheme were material, in that a reasonable investor
would have considered the scheme important in deciding whether to
buy or sell TranS1 stock, and would have viewed the total mix of
information made available to be significantly altered by the
scheme's disclosure.

The Fourth Circuit is therefore satisfied that the Complaint
adequately alleges the material misrepresentation element of the
section 10(b) claim.

Turning to the issue of scienter, the Company argues that the
Complaint also insufficiently pleads that element of the section
10(b) claim. In order to allege the scienter element, a plaintiff
must demonstrate that the defendant acted with 'a mental state
embracing intent to deceive, manipulate, or defraud.

By alleging that the fraudulent reimbursement scheme was known to
the Officers, clearly illegal, and fundamental to TranS1's
financial success, the Complaint establishes that the Officers'
failure to disclose the scheme presented a danger of misleading
Singer and other investors a danger that was also known to the
Officers, or so obvious that the Officers must have been aware of
it. That is, the Complaint gives rise to a strong inference that
TranS1 and the Officers intended to deceive the market, or at the
very least acted recklessly, when they made false and misleading
statements about the Company's reimbursement practices that
omitted the fraudulent reimbursement scheme.

In these circumstances, the Fourth Circuit is satisfied that the
Complaint adequately pleads the scienter element of the section
10(b) claim against both TranS1 and the Officers. Consequently,
in Singer's appeal, the Fourth Circuit vacates the district
court's rulings in the Officers Order and the Final Order that
the Complaint fails to allege the scienter element, along with
the court's rulings in those same Orders that the Complaint is
insufficient as to the material misrepresentation element of the
section 10(b) claim.

The appeals cases are PHILLIP J. SINGER, Individually and on
behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff-
Appellant, and JOEL CAPLIN, Individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. KENNETH REALI; JOSEPH P.
SLATTERY; RICHARD RANDALL; MICHAEL LUETKEMEYER; TRANS1, INC.,
Defendants-Appellees. PHILLIP J. SINGER, Individually and on
behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff-
Appellee, and JOEL CAPLIN, Individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. KENNETH REALI; JOSEPH P.
SLATTERY; RICHARD RANDALL; MICHAEL LUETKEMEYER; TRANS1, INC.,
Defendants-Appellants, Nos. 15-2579, 16-1019 (4th Cir.).

A full-text copy of the Fourth Circuit's February 22, 2018
Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/y8jkvnd5 from
Leagle.com.

ARGUED: Jeremy Alan Lieberman -- jalieberman@pomlaw.com --
POMERANTZ LLP, New York, New York, for Appellant/Cross-Appellee.

Stephen L. Ram -- sram@sycr.com -- Aaron C. Humes --
ahumes@sycr.com -STRADLING YOCCA CARLSON & RAUTH, P.C., Newport
Beach, California, for Appellees/Cross-Appellants.

ON BRIEF: Michele S. Carino -- mcarino@pomlaw.com -- POMERANTZ
LLP, New York, New York, for Appellant/Cross-Appellee.

John F. Cannon -- jcannon@sycr.com -STRADLING YOCCA CARLSON &
RAUTH, P.C., Newport Beach, California; Jonathan D. Sasser  -
tsasser@carybankruptcy.com -- Thomas H. Segars --
tom.segars@elliswinters.com -- Kelly Margolis Daggerv -
leslie.packer@elliswinters.com -- ELLIS & WINTERS LLP, Raleigh,
North Carolina, for Appellees/Cross-Appellants.


TRAVELERS INDEMNITY: Blumenthal Nordrehaug Files Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Los Angeles employment law lawyers at Blumenthal Nordrehaug
Bhowmik De Blouw LLP, on March 7 disclosed that they filed a
class action complaint alleging that The Travelers Indemnity
Company failed to provide their California employees with meal
and rest periods as required by California law.  The Travelers
Indemnity Company class action lawsuit, Case No. BC695351, is
currently pending in the Los Angeles County Superior Court for
the State of California.

According to the lawsuit filed in the Los Angeles County Superior
Court, The Travelers Indemnity Company allegedly failed to
provide their employees with meal and rest breaks because
allegedly The Travelers Indemnity Company did not have a policy
to provide their hourly employees thirty (30) minute
uninterrupted meal breaks prior to their fifth (5th) hour of
work. California labor laws require an employer to provide an
employee required to perform work for more than five (5) hours
during a shift with, a thirty (30) minute uninterrupted meal
break prior to the end of the employee's fifth (5th) hour of
work.

Additionally, the complaint further alleges The Travelers
Indemnity Company committed acts of unfair competition in
violation of the California Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. &
Prof. Code Secs. 17200, et seq. (the "UCL"), by engaging in a
company-wide policy and procedure which failed to accurately
calculate and record all missed meal and rest periods by
PLAINTIFF and other CALIFORNIA CLASS Members.  As a result of
DEFENDANT's intentional disregard of the obligation to meet this
burden, DEFENDANT allegedly 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.

If you would like to know more about the The Travelers Indemnity
Company lawsuit, please contact Attorney Nicholas J. De Blouw
today by calling (858) 952-0354.

Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP 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
California Labor Code and Fair Labor Standards Act.  If you need
help in collecting unpaid overtime wages, unpaid commissions,
being wrongfully terminated from work, and other employment law
claims, contact one of their attorneys today. [GN]


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Averts Antitrust Suit Over Surge-Pricing Model
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Adam Klasfeld, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
dismissing an antitrust lawsuit challenging Uber's surge-pricing
model, a New York federal judge said he had no choice but to
enforce arbitration clauses that he called "legal and factual
fictions."

Uber has spent more than two years fighting an antitrust lawsuit
by Connecticut resident Spencer Meyer, who sued the ride-share
company and its then-CEO Travis Kalanick in late 2015.

Mr. Meyer hobbled his lawsuit from the start by agreeing to
Uber's terms of service, which included a clause agreeing to
settle all disputes before an arbitration panel rather than a
court of law.

In August 2016, U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff found that such
clauses illegally deprived consumers of their constitutional
rights to a jury trial, but he was overruled in 2017 by the
Second Circuit.

Judge Rakoff reluctantly followed the Second Circuit's
instructions on March 5.

"One might have thought that such waivers were unenforceable on
their face," he wrote in a 21-page opinion and order.  "The right
to trial by jury, in civil as well as criminal cases, is a
central feature, not only of the federal Constitution, but also
of the constitutions of virtually every state. The right reflects
the deep-seated view of the American people that the community is
the best judge of justice.  But this, it appears, is not the view
of the judiciary."

An Uber spokesperson said the company was "pleased with the
decision."

But Judge Rakoff complained that the classical view of contracts
as a "meeting of the minds" has become a "figment of the
imagination, or nostalgia, at least so far as national retail
markets are concerned."

"Increasingly, consumers purchasing a product were forced, as a
condition of their purchase, to agree to a form contract drafted
by the seller, replete with one-sided legalistically worded
provisions that the consumer had to accept if she wished to make
the purchase," Judge Rakoff wrote.

"Such one-sided, take-it-or-leave-it form contracts were utilized
by sellers in even otherwise competitive markets, because sellers
saw no material competitive advantage in eliminating or
negotiating any of these terms. Most consumers, for their part,
did not even bother to read these small-print forms -- not that
most consumers would have been able to understand most of them if
they had read them."

Mr. Meyer's attorney Ankur Kapoor, with Constantine Cannon,
declined to comment.


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Wins Motion to Stay Heller Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
The Lawyer's Daily reports that Uber developed computer software
applications (apps) for GPS-enabled smartphones.  The apps
transformed the transportation business, most particularly the
taxi and limousine business and the restaurant delivery business.
The plaintiff Heller was a resident of Ontario.  He entered into
several contracts with Uber and, using the Uber apps, he
delivered food from restaurants to consumers.  He brought a
proposed class action on behalf of Uber drivers and alleged that
he and his fellow putative class members were employees of Uber
and entitled to the benefits of Ontario's Employment Standards
Act. Heller was seeking, among other things, a declaration that
Uber had violated the Employment Standards Act.  If the action
was certified as a class action, he was seeking $400 million in
damages for the class.  The agreements between Heller and Uber
included an agreement to arbitrate disputes. Heller took the
position that since his proposed class action was about an
alleged employment relationship, it could not be stayed because
that issue was outside the jurisdiction of the arbitrator to
decide.  Uber took the position that, in accordance with the
Competence-Competence Principle, it was for the arbitrator to
decide whether he or she had jurisdiction, save for limited
circumstances, none of which applied to the case at bar.

Motion by the defendants, Uber Technologies et al (Uber), to stay
the plaintiff Heller's action in favour of arbitration in the
Netherlands.

HELD: Motion allowed. The International Commercial Arbitration
Act was the applicable statute.  The issue of whether employment
claims were arbitrable was an issue subject to the Competence-
Competence Principle.  It was a complex issue of mixed fact and
law to be determined in the first instance by the arbitrator. It
was not a simple matter of statutory interpretation to be
resolved by the court.  Furthermore, none of the exceptions to a
stay and referral to arbitration applied.  While there was an
inequality of bargaining power, Uber did not take advantage of
Heller and did not extract an improvident agreement by inserting
an arbitration provision.

The case is styled Heller v. Uber Technologies Inc., [2018] O.J.
No. 502 [GN]


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: "Vergara" Suit Brought Before 7th Cir.
---------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Maria Vergara, Sandeep Pal, Jennifer Reilly,
Justin Bartolet, James Lathrop, individually and on behalf of a
class of similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs/Appellee v.
Uber Technologies, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, Defendant, Kerry
A. Sweeney, Defendant/Appellant, Case No. 18-1659, was brought
before the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
on March 26, 2018.

Uber Technologies Inc. is a peer-to-peer ridesharing, food
delivery, and transportation network company headquartered in San
Francisco, California, with operations in 633 cities
worldwide.[BN]

The Plaintiffs/Appellees are represented by:

   Hassan A. Zavareei, Esq.
   TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
   1828 L Street, N.W.
   Washington, DC 20036
   Tel: 202-973-0900

The Appellant/Defendant is represented by:

   Kerry A. Sweeney, Esq.
   1223 20th Street
   Santa Monica, CA 90404
   Tel: 424-299-0832

      - and -

   Adam J. Hunt, Esq.
   MORRISON & FOERSTER
   250 w. 55th Street
   New York, NY 10019


ULTA BEAUTY: Brower Piven Files Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
The securities litigation law firm of Brower Piven, A
Professional Corporation, on March 7 disclosed that a class
action lawsuit has been commenced in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of
purchasers of Ulta Beauty, Inc. (Nasdaq:ULTA) ("Ulta" or the
"Company") securities during the period between March 30, 2016,
and February 23, 2018, inclusive (the "Class Period").  Investors
who wish to become proactively involved in the litigation have
until May 1, 2018 to seek appointment as lead plaintiff.

If you wish to choose counsel to represent you and the class, you
must apply to be appointed lead plaintiff and be selected by the
Court.  The lead plaintiff will direct the litigation and
participate in important decisions including whether to accept a
settlement for the class in the action.  The lead plaintiff will
be selected from among applicants claiming the largest loss from
investment in Ulta securities during the Class Period.  Members
of the class will be represented by the lead plaintiff and
counsel chosen by the lead plaintiff.  No class has yet been
certified in the above action.

The complaint accuses the defendants of violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by virtue of the defendants'
failure to disclose during the Class Period that 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.

According to the complaint, following February 9, 2018 reports
that a consumer class action lawsuit had been filed against Ulta
alleging that the Company engaged in the widespread repacking of
returned cosmetics and re-shelving them, and a February 23, 2018
report by CBS news of statements that Ulta store managers
frequently pressured the Company's employees to clean and resell
used products, the value of Ulta shares declined significantly.

If you have suffered a loss in excess of $100,000 from investment
in Ulta securities purchased on or after March 30, 2016 and held
through the revelation of negative information during and/or at
the end of the Class Period and would like to learn more about
this lawsuit and your ability to participate as a lead plaintiff,
without cost or obligation to you, please contact Brower Piven
either by email at hoffman@browerpiven.com or by telephone at
(410) 415-6616.

Attorneys at Brower Piven have extensive experience in litigating
securities and other class action cases and have been advocating
for the rights of shareholders since the 1980s.  If you choose to
retain counsel, you may retain Brower Piven without financial
obligation or cost to you, or you may retain other counsel of
your choice.  You need take no action at this time to be a member
of the class. [GN]


UNITED AIRLINES: Wins Case Over 'Lifetime' Benefits
---------------------------------------------------
Jeff D. Gorman, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that
United Airlines prevailed in a federal class action from a
customer who claimed he was wrongfully denied his lifetime
"Silver Wings" benefits.

Howard Neft of Scottsdale, Arizona accused United of breach of
contract in January 2016. He asked for a refund of his $225
membership fee.

Neft said he purchased a lifetime membership in United's Silver
Wings Plus senior discount program in 2000, but United stopped
offering the program seven years later.

On March 5, U.S. District Judge Robert Dow Jr. granted summary
judgment to United.

The airline started Silver Wings Plus in 1986 for travelers 55
and older. Members got discounts on hotels, car rentals and
cruises through United's travel partners. They also received
flight discounts and bonus miles from United, and reduced fares
in certain zones of the United States.

United worked with a company called Relationship Management
Partners, which sent membership cards and brochures to the Silver
Wings Plus members.

United stopped working with RMP at the end of 2002 and stopped
offering Silver Wings Plus memberships in 2007. Neff received
17,000 bonus miles through Silver Wings Plus.

But Judge Dow noted that the membership fee could be refunded
only within the first 90 days of enrollment.

Another item in United's Terms and Conditions stated: "Silver
Wings Plus and its partners reserve the right to substitute or
withdraw any offers or to limit their availability at any time."

Neff said that he "basically forgot about" the Silver Wings Plus
program between 2007 and 2016.

Dow wrote: "There were seven flights that plaintiff booked
between January 1, 2007 and 2012 where a zoned fare was
available, the zoned fare was cheaper than the fare that
plaintiff paid, and the booking met zoned fare requirements.
However, all of those flights were booked during the time when
plaintiff had 'forgotten' about the program, and plaintiff
concedes that he did not try to book a zoned fare for any of
those flights."

Neff argued that United breached its contract by failing to offer
him access to the zoned fares, which airline continues to sell
today.

But Dow cited a flight Neff booked between Phoenix and Chicago as
the only one he tried to purchase as a zoned fare.

"Plaintiff presents no evidence that United did, in fact, offer
zoned airfare between Phoenix and Chicago for the date he wished
to travel, a date that he did not specifically recall," Dow
wrote.

"Such evidence would be essential to his claim that he was not
allowed to access a zoned fare that United purported to make
available to Silver Wings customers, given his concession that
United has a right to withdraw and limit any offers and therefore
does not have a contractual obligation to offer zoned airfare
generally or on any particular routes."


UNITED HEALTHCARE: Faces "Thorne" Suit n S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against United Healthcare
Services, Inc. The case is styled as Braulio Thorne, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. United
Healthcare Services, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-02676
(S.D. N.Y., March 26, 2018).

United HealthCare Services, Inc. provides health benefit programs
for individuals and families, employers, military service
members, retirees.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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



UNITED STATES: Faces Class Action Over Trump's 3rd Travel Ban
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that President Donald Trump's
third travel ban has ruined lives and kept citizens of Muslim-
majority nations from visiting their loved ones in the United
States, dozens claim in a class action filed on March 13.

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

     Shabnam Lotfi, Esq.
     Veronica Sustic, Esq.
     LOTFI LEGAL, LLC
     22 East Mifflin Street, Suite 302
     Madison, WI 53703
     Telephone: (608) 259-6226
     Facsimile: (208) 977-9974
     Email: shabnam@lofilegal.com
            veronica@lotfilegal.com

     Mark D. Rosenbaum, Esq.
     Judy London, Esq.
     PUBLIC COUNSEL
     610 South Ardmore Avenue
     Los Angeles, CA 90005
     Telephone: (213) 385-2977
     Facsimile: (213) 385-9089
     Email: mrosenbaum@publiccounsel.org
            jlondon@publiccounsel.org

     Luis Cortes Romero, Esq.
     Alma David, Esq.
     IMMIGRANT ADVOCACY & LITIGATION CENTER, PLLC
     19309 68th Avenue S., Suite R102
     Kent, WA 98032
     Telephone: (253) 872-4730
     Facsimile: (253) 237-1591
     Email: lcortes@ia-lc.com
            adavid@ia-lc.com


UNIVERSITY OF NEW MEXICO: Faces Pay Discrimination Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
professors say in a class action that the University of New
Mexico pays women less than similarly situated men, in Bernalillo
County Court.

Attorney for Plaintiffs:

     David L. Plotsky, Esq.
     PLOTSKY & DOUGHERTY, P.C.
     122 Girard Blvd. SE
     Albuquerque, NM 87106
     Telephone: (505) 268-0095
     Facsimile: (505) 266-9585
     Email: plotsky@gmail.com


VALLEY NATIONAL: Faces "Thorne" Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Valley National
Bank. The case is styled as Braulio Thorne, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Valley National
Bank, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-02726 (S.D. N.Y., March 27,
2018).

Valley National Bank is a banking institution.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


WINES' TIL SOLD: AGs Wants Court to Reject Class Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------
Mark Iandolo, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that Arizona
Attorney General Mark Brnovich announced Feb. 26 that he is
leading a bipartisan coalition of 19 state attorneys general in
urging a federal district court in New Jersey to reject a
proposed class action settlement in the WTSO.com (Wines 'Til Sold
Out) case.

The proposed settlement in the case involves victimized consumers
receiving a coupon that comes with highly restrictive clauses
while the attorneys earn $1.7 million.  Mr. Brnovich filed a
legal brief in the case, his ninth legal brief regarding class
action settlements he deems unfair.

"As attorney general, I am focused on making sure consumers are
fairly compensated in class action lawsuits," Mr. Brnovich said
in a statement.  "Settlements focused on diverting money to
special interests must be vigorously opposed.  We will continue
to file legal briefs opposing unfair class action settlements as
long as lawyers continue to profit off of the backs of
consumers."

Joining Mr. Brnovich in the coalition are the attorneys general
of Alabama, Arkansas, Idaho, Indiana, Louisiana, Michigan,
Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma,
Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Washington and
Wyoming. [GN]


WISCONSIN: Faces Class Action Over DNA Database Fee
---------------------------------------------------
Journal Sentinel reports that a lawsuit that could cost taxpayers
millions of dollars says the state forced more than 10,000
offenders to pay an unconstitutional fee to maintain a DNA
database.

State officials three years ago acknowledged collecting the $200
fee from certain offenders was unconstitutional but have not
taken steps to reimburse them.

The lawsuit, filed in federal court in Milwaukee, centers on a
2013 law that greatly expanded the collection of DNA from
criminals.  The new law required DNA to be collected from anyone
convicted of a misdemeanor or felony, rather than just those who
committed certain felonies.

The law did not kick in at once. It required anyone convicted
after Jan. 1, 2014, to pay the $200 fee, but the new types of
offenders did not have to provide DNA samples unless they were
convicted after April 1, 2015.

The law was structured that way so the state would have money on
hand to handle the increased number of DNA samples it needed to
analyze.

The lawsuit was brought by three people who committed
misdemeanors before Jan. 1, 2014, and were convicted during the
15-month period that the DNA fee was being levied but samples
were not being collected.

Their attorneys, John Bradley and Ben Elson, are seeking to make
the case a class-action lawsuit that would allow them to
represent more than 10,000 others who were collectively ordered
to pay more than $2 million.

"As applied to the plaintiffs and class members, this was a
classic ex post facto punishment in violation of Article I,
Section 10 of the United States Constitution because the law
increased the penalty for an offense after the offense has been
committed," Messrs. Bradley and Elson wrote in their lawsuit.

The lawsuit was brought against Attorney General Brad Schimel;
former Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen, the architect of key
parts of the law; two former heads of the state court system; and
14 current and former chief judges.

The officials knew money was being taken illegally but did
nothing to stop it, the lawsuit alleges.

The lawsuit relies in part on a May 2015 unanimous state Court of
Appeals decision that found the fee was unconstitutional when
levied against someone like those bringing the new lawsuit --
criminals who were charged the fee but not required to give a DNA
sample.

In that case, Garett Elward was convicted in Ozaukee County of
fourth-offense drunken driving after being arrested in July 2013.

"The state received money for nothing," Chief Appeals Judge
Richard Brown wrote for the court.  "This served only to punish
Elward without pursuing any type of regulatory goal. Therefore,
the surcharge as applied to Elward was a fine, not a fee, and
violated the Constitution's ex post facto clause."

Even before the court issued its decision, Ozaukee County
District Attorney Adam Gerol filed a brief acknowledging "the DNA
surcharge violates the ex post facto clause when applied to
defendants like Elward."

More than three years after the state admitted it was
unconstitutional to collect the fee from these types of
offenders, "Schimel continues to keep the illegally obtained
money instead of returning it to the people it was wrongfully
taken from," according to the lawsuit.


The lawsuit contends Mr. Gerol made the filing acknowledging the
fee was unconstitutional in some instances in concert with
Mr. Schimel's Department of Justice, but Mr. Schimel spokesman
Johnny Koremenos denied that on March 7.

Mr. Koremenos said DOJ attorneys had not yet fully reviewed the
lawsuit and could not answer other questions.

A week and a half after the law took effect, chief judges from
around the state met with the director of state courts and
acknowledged concerns over the law being applied retroactively.
They noted that judges in Milwaukee and Chippewa counties weren't
charging the fee for people who committed crimes before the law
took effect but decided as a group that they would charge it
based on the conviction date, not the offense date, according to
the lawsuit.

Bringing the lawsuit are Jacob Fish of West Allis, who was
convicted of possessing drug paraphernalia; Tomick Copeland of
Milwaukee, who was convicted of battery; and Taylor Claybrook of
Racine, who was convicted of retail theft.

Mr. Claybrook was later jailed for failing to pay the DNA fee and
other fines. The lawsuit contends two of the 10 days he spent in
jail were because he hadn't paid an unconstitutional fee. [GN]

Courthouse News Service reported that attorneys for plaintiffs
are:

     John H. Bradley, Esq.
     STRANG BRADLEY, LLC
     33 E. Main St., Ste. 400
     Madison, WI 53703
     Tel: (608) 535-1550
     Email: John@StrangBradley.com

     Ben H. Elson, Esq.
     G. Flint Taylor, Esq.
     People's Law Office
     1180 N. Milwaukee Ave.
     Chicago IL 60642
     Telephone: (773) 235-0070
     Email: ben.elson79@gmail.com
            flint.taylor10@gmail.com


WYNDHAM VACATION: "Pierce" Suit Brought Before 6th Cir.
-------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Jesse Pierce and Michael Pierce, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs/Appellees Cross/Appellants v. WYNDHAM Vacation
Resorts, Inc. and WYNDHAM Vacation Ownership, Inc.,
Defendants/Appellants Cross/Appellees, Case No. 18-5298 was
brought before the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth
Circuit on March 26, 2018.

Wyndham Vacation Resorts, Inc. operates a chain of resorts in the
United States.[BN]

The Plaintiffs/Appellees Cross/Appellants are represented by:

   Martin D. Holmes, Esq.
   Dickinson Wright
   424 Church Street, Suite 1401
   Nashville, TN 37219
   Tel: 615-244-6538
        615-244-6538

The Defendants/Appellants Cross/Appellees are represented by:

   Colby Shannon Morgan, Jr., Esq.
   Jackson Lewis
   999 Shady Grove Road, Suite 110
   Memphis, TN 38120
   Tel: 901-462-2603


XCEL HEALTHCARE: "Norris" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
Tihara Norris, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Xcel Healthcare Providers Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-00400, (N.D. Ohio, February 20, 2018),
seeks unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages,
attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act and
the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act.

Defendant is a home health care business where Norris was
employed as a home health aide between July 2014 and October
2016. She claims to have worked more than 40 hours per week, but
Defendant failed to pay them overtime compensation. [BN]

Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Chastity L. Christy, Esq.
      Lori M. Griffin, Esq.
      Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq.
      THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC
      920 Rockefeller Building
      614 W. Superior Avenue
      Cleveland, OH 44113
      Phone: (216) 696-5000
      Facsimile: (216) 696-7005
      Email: anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com
             chastity@lazzarolawfirm.com
             lori@lazzarolawfirm.com


XENIA HOTELS: Faces "Knowles" Suit in Massachusetts
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Xenia Hotels &
Resorts, Inc. The case is styled as Carlton Knowles, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Xenia
Hotels & Resorts, Inc. doing business as: Hotel Commonwealth,
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-10559 (D. Mass., March 23, 2018).

Xenia Hotels & Resorts is an Orlando, Florida-based publicly
traded company. It owns 46 full service hotels in 19 states and
the District of Columbia.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


YAHOO INC: Settles Securities Class Action for $80 Million
----------------------------------------------------------
Dena M. Castricone, Esq. -- dcastricone@murthalaw.com -- of
Murtha Cullina, Esq., in an article for The National Law Review,
wrote that Yahoo agreed to pay shareholders $80 million to settle
a federal securities class action suit, as detailed in the
parties' March 2, 2018 proposed settlement agreement filed with
the court.  In that suit, the shareholders claimed that Yahoo
failed to disclose a number of data breaches affecting more than
3 billion users, which caused Yahoo's stock prices to fall.  One
of the named plaintiffs is not participating in the settlement.
This was one of the first federal securities lawsuits arising out
of a data breach.  Several others have followed.  If the court
approves the settlement, it will be the first recovery in a
shareholder lawsuit based on a data breach and certainly will
encourage other such suits in the future. [GN]


YOUTUBE: Judge Dismisses Class Action Over Adpocalypse Debacle
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Hancock, writing for Law.com, reports that a federal judge on
March 7 dismissed a proposed class action against YouTube over
the so-called "Adpocalypse" debacle, ruling that its contract
with content providers gave YouTube leeway to decide how
advertisements are shown.

The lawsuit was filed last October by the producers of the
"Zombie Go Boom" YouTube channel, described by its creators as "a
live-action zombie series that is essentially a combination of
'Mythbusters' and 'The Walking Dead.'" It sought to represent a
class of other filmmakers who were financially impacted by
YouTube's ad changes.

Represented by attorneys at the Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman
in Los Angeles, the "Zombie Go Boom" producers alleged that their
ad revenue dropped dramatically -- from about $300 to $500 per
day to $20 to $40 per day -- after YouTube altered its AdSense
algorithm.

Those changes were made after The Wall Street Journal reported in
March of last year that YouTube, which is owned by Google,
displayed ads on objectionable content such as videos supporting
neo-Nazi causes and ISIS. But the plaintiffs alleged the changes
didn't work, and instead pulled ads from content that did not
breach YouTube guidelines while still displaying them next to
other videos that did.

U.S. District Judge Edward Chen of the Northern District of
California, in an order granting YouTube's motion to dismiss the
case with prejudice, agreed with the company that its standard
agreement with content providers gives YouTube full discretion
about whether to display ads next to posted videos at all.

Chen also rejected arguments by the plaintiffs that those
provisions in the contract should be declared invalid because
they make the agreement "illusory" and breach the "implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing" under California law.

"While the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing may be
applied where contract terms are silent," Chen wrote, "its
application to contradict an express term of a contract is
narrowly circumscribed."

The judge's order goes in-depth into case law touching on when
the covenant can override a contract's terms. But he ultimately
concludes that in YouTube's case, doing so is not warranted
because video producers still gain benefits under other
provisions.

"Regardless of how YouTube exercised its discretionary power in
determining whether to display advertisements under the partner
program terms," Chen wrote, "the agreement . . . between Zombie
and YouTube was supported by adequate independent consideration."

"In particular, YouTube allowed Zombie to post videos on its
forum free of charge in exchange for getting a license to its
content," he added.

Lawyers for the plaintiffs did not immediately answer emails
seeking comment on Judge Chen's ruling on March 7.

Google, which is represented by Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati,
also did not immediately respond to a request for comment. [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  * * *