CAR_Public/180403.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


              Tuesday, April 3, 2018, Vol. 20, No. 67



                            Headlines


A&J II FLORAL: "Franco" Suit Seeks to Recover OT Pay Under FLSA
ABALUX INC: Eleventh Circuit Appeal Filed in "Collar" Class Suit
ADEX CORPORATION: "Bryant" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
ADT CORPORATION: "Abellard" Suit Alleges TCPA Violations
AKORN INC: Gainey McKenna & Egleston Files Class Action

AKORN INC: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action
AKORN INC: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Class Action
ALBERTSON'S LLC: "Dorfman" Suit Alleges TCPA Breach
ALL ABOUT CARE: "Broyles" Suit Seeks to Recoup Unpaid OT Wages
ALLTRAN FINANCIAL: "Choi" Suit Alleges FDCPA Violations

AMERICAN CORADIUS: "Stewart" Suit Seeks Damages under FDCPA
AMERICAN MEDICAL: Accused by "Friedman" Suit of Violating FDCPA
ATLAS FINANCIAL: RM LAW Discloses Securities Class Action
AUTOZONE INC: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Doland" Class Suit
AVEO PHARMA: $15MM Class Settlement in Securities Suit

BANK OF AMERICA: "Chen" Suit Asserts Fraud, Seeks Damages
BANK OF CHINA: "Duncan" Suit Alleges ADA Violation
BARCLAYS PLC: Four Sup. Ct. Petitions for Writ Filed in "Strougo"
BENEFIT COSMETICS: "Crosson" Suit Alleges ADA Violation
BLUESTONE COAL: Judge Allows Class Action Suit in WARN Case

BOONNAK TONE: Accused by "Lopez" Suit of Not Paying Proper Wages
CAR SPA COLLECTION: "Bedoya" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
CAVALRY SPV: "Pituk" Disputes Attorney Fees in Collection Suit
CINCINNATI BELL: "Johnson" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Premiums
COINBASE INC: "Berk" Suit Alleges UCL Violation

COMPREHENSIVE HEALTHCARE: "Blair" Suit Alleges FLSA Violations
CORA REALTY: "Barrios" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
COUNTY OF ERIE, NY: Bid to Amend Complaint in "Pritchard" Denied
COVELLI ENTERPRISES: "Romano" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Premiums
CRANE CO: Attorneys Argue Over Standard for Expert Testimony

CREDITGUARD OF AMERICA: "Bank" Suit Alleges TCPA Violation
D & D THAI: "Librado" Suit Alleges FLSA Violations
DAL GLOBAL: Elston, et al. Seeks OT Pay for Off-the-Clock Work
DC INTERNATIONAL: "Aaron" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
DCG PARTNERS LLC: Kline Sues Over Auto-dialed Telemarketing Call

DELI INC: "Jimenez" Suit Alleges FLSA and NYLL Violations
DIRECTV LLC: "Amadeus Adler" Suit Alleges FCRA Violations
DIVINE OPPORTUNITIES: Fails to Pay OT to Caregivers, Osemeke Says
ENCORE CAPITAL: "Elston" Suit Seeks Damages under FDCPA
FAF INC: "Blodgett" Suit Alleges FLSA Violations

FANNIE MAY: Judges Not Eating Up Class-Action Food Lawsuits
FIRST BANCORP: Sued by Hansen for Back Overtime Pay Under FLSA
FIRST FINANCIAL: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Do" Class Suit
FIVE STAR QUALITY: Wins Bid to File Writ in "Lefevre" on April 20
FLOWERS FOODS: "Wiatrek" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages, Damages

GACO WESTERN: Faces "Feamster" Suit Over Failure of Spray Foam
GOLD'S GYM: "Frank" Suit Alleges TCPA Violation
GULF COAST PAVERS: "Gonzalez" Suit Seeks to Recover OT Under FLSA
HARVEY WEINSTEIN: Insurers Won't Cover Sexual Assault Suits
HEARST COMMUNICATIONS: DeJesus Sues Over Deaf-Inaccessible Site

HENRY SCHEIN: Bragar Eagel Files Securities Class Action
HENRY SCHEIN: RM LAW Files Securities Class Action
HOLMAN DISTRIBUTION: Fails to Pay Overtime Under FLSA, Faulk Says
HUDSON SEAFOOD: "Carlock" Suit Seeks Damages under FLSA
HYUNDAI MOTORS: Lawyers Ask 9th Cir. for En Banc Review

IBA PROTON: "Murray" Suit Seeks to Recover OT Pay Under FLSA
INTEL CORPORATION: Aneca Federal Suit Alleges UCL Violations
JTH TAX: Accused by Broward Psychology Suit of Violating TCPA
KEY TECHNOLOGY: Franchi Files Securities Suit in E.D. Wash.
KINDRED HEALTHCARE: "Brumfield" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT

LIFE TIME FITNESS: Eighth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Lusk" Suit
LOANDEPOT.COM LLC: Napoles Files Suit for Invasion of Privacy
LOS ANGELES, CA: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Ray" FLSA Suit
LUMILEDS LLC: "Chaudhri" Suit Alleges Consumer Fraud
MCCARTHY BURGESS: "Jacobs" Disputes Collection Letter

MDL 2599: Road Tested Suit Transferred to S.D. Fla.
MDL 2613: Court Orders Revision of Class Definition
MIDLAND FUNDING: Sued for Collecting Time Barred Debt v. Miller
MIMEDX GROUP: April 25 Lead Plaintiff Deadline
MIMEDX GROUP: Klein Law Firm Files Securities Class Action

N.A.R. INC: "Brooks" Suit Alleges FDCPA Violation
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Faces "Michelo" Class Suit in New York
NATIONAL CREDITORS: Accused by "Reizes" Suit of Violating FDCPA
NEW YORK, NY: Mitchell Appeals Judgment and Opinion to 2nd Cir.
NEW YORK, USA: West Appeals W.D.N.Y. Judgment to Second Circuit

NEW YORK & COMPANY: "Becker" Suit Alleges TCPA Violation
NEXTEP FUNDING: Fails to Give TILA & CLA Disclosures, Danger Says
NQ MOBILE: "Chen" Suit Alleges Exchange Act Violations
OTB ACQUISITION: "Esry" Suit Seeks Unpaid Minimum Wages
OUTFIELD BREW: "Beal" Suit Alleges TCPA Violation

PALM BEACH: "Jackson" Sues Over Illegal Auto-dialed Calls
PAY-O-MATIC CHECK: "Buchanan" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
PLAINS ALL AMERICAN: Seeks 9th Cir. Review of Ruling in "Andrews"
PLAZA HOTEL: Sued by Hanson Over Illegal Fees for Internet Access
POLLACK & ROSEN: Demand Letter Violates FDCPA, "Doane" Suit Says

PROGRESSIVE SELECT: UR Health Appeals Ruling to Eleventh Circuit
RACHAEL RAY: "Burbon" Suit Alleges ADA Violation
RED LOBSTER: Fails to Pay Overtime Under FLSA, "Gardner" Claims
RIOT BLOCKCHAIN: "Roys" Suit Hits Share Price Drop
RIOT BLOCKCHAIN: "Greenawalt" Sues Over Share Price Drop

SAINT-GOBAIN PERFORMANCE: Removes "Albert-Brown" Suit to D.N.H.
SAINT-GOBAIN PERFORMANCE: Removes "Dowling" Class Suit to D.N.H.
SHANGHAI ORIGINAL: Denied Staff OT Pay, Paytubs, Says "Lin" Suit
SHIMA LIMOUSINE: "Beavers" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
SIGNICAST LLC: "Friedemann" Sues Over Unpaid Overtime

SILVERSTAR DELIVERY: "Smith" Suit Alleges FLSA Violations
SMITH AUTO: Ferguson Seeks to Recover Minimum and Overtime Wages
SQUAW VALLEY: Court Extends Time to Respond to "Pinto" Suit
SWIFT TECHNICAL: "Binning" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
SYSTEMS & SERVICES: "Chavez" Suit Seeks Damages under FDCPA

TITLEMAX INC: "Sistrunk" Settlement Has Final Approval
TOUCH OF CUBAN: "Castaneda" Suit Alleges FLSA Violations
TOWERS WATSON: "Fort Myers" Suit Alleges Breach of Fiduciary Duty
UNITED FOOD: 6th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of "Ohlendorf"
UNITED PARCEL: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Holl" Class Suit

UNITED SERVICES: Vaughn Appeals Ruling to Kansas Supreme Court
UNITED STATES: Appeals Amended Order in "Vidal" Suit to 2nd Cir.
UNITED STATES: Class Action Over DACA Program Pending
UNITED STATES: ACLU Sues Against ICE Over Asylum-Seeking Families
VENICE HMA: "Briggs" Suit Seeks Damages under FLSA

VENKY'S FOOD: Accused by "Sanchez" of Not Paying Minimum Wages
VITA-MIX CORP: Pittman Appeals Decision in "Gooding" to 9th Cir.
WAGEWORKS INC: Barrack, Rodos Files Securities Class Action
WELLS FARGO: April 16 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
WESTERN DENTAL: Mack Files Suit Over TCPA Violation

WHITEROC DRYWALL: "Herrera" Suit Seeks to Recoup Unpaid OT Wages
WILLIAMSBURG GARDEN: "Ernandez" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
WINN MANAGEMENT: Court OKs $250K Class Settlement in "Goodwin"
YEREIM OF SPRING VALLEY: "Lorenzana" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages

* Alston & Bird Attorneys Discuss Recent Class Action Rulings
* DOJ Probe May Spark Generic Drug Price Fixing Class Actions
* Gig Economy Renews Debate Whether Contractors Are Misclassified
* Polsinelli Attorneys Say Token Issuers May Face Class Actions







                            *********


A&J II FLORAL: "Franco" Suit Seeks to Recover OT Pay Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
MIGUEL FRANCO and MELISSA ESCALANTE on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated v. ADRIAN BENITEZ, JOSE RAMIREZ, A&J II
FLORAL CORPORATION d/b/a METRO FLORAL DECORATORS, METRO FLORAL
WHOLESALE CORP. d/b/a METRO FLORAL DECORATORS, ABC CORP. d/b/a
METRO FLORAL DECORATORS, Case No. 2:18-cv-01343 (E.D.N.Y., March
2, 2018), alleges that the Plaintiffs are entitled to, under the
Fair Labor Standards Act, unpaid wages for overtime work
performed, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, interest, and all
costs and disbursements associated with the action.

A&J II Floral Corporation, doing business as Metro Floral
Decorators, is a New York Corporation whose principal place of
business is located in Great Neck, New York.  Metro Floral
Wholesale Corp., doing business as Metro Floral Decorators, is a
New York Corporation whose principal place of business is located
Great Neck.  ABC Corp., doing business as Metro Floral
Decorators, is a New York Corporation whose principal place of
business is located Great Neck.  The Individual Defendants are
officers, owners, shareholders, agents, managers or employees of
the Defendant Corporations.

Metro Floral Decorators is a florist that specializes in modern,
artistic floral designs for weddings, engagements, bar/bat
mitzvahs, parties and special occasions.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Marcus Monteiro, Esq.
          MONTEIRO & FISHMAN LLP
          91 N. Franklin Street, Suite 108
          Hempstead, NY 11550
          Telephone: (516) 280-4600
          Facsimile: (516) 280-4530
          E-mail: mmonteiro@mflawny.com


ABALUX INC: Eleventh Circuit Appeal Filed in "Collar" Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Jesus Lazaro Collar filed an appeal from a court ruling
in the lawsuit titled Jesus Collar v. Abalux, Inc., et al., Case
No. 1:16-cv-20872-JAL, in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
is brought against the Defendants for alleged failure to pay
overtime wages in excess of 40 hours worked weekly in violation
of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Abalux Inc. is a printing press enterprise.

The appellate case is captioned as Jesus Collar v. Abalux, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 18-10676, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Eleventh Circuit.

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

   -- The appellant's brief is due on or before April 2, 2018;

   -- The appendix is due no later than 7 days from the filing of
      the appellant's brief; and

   -- Awaiting Appellee's Certificate of Interested Persons was
      due March 20, 2018, as to Appellees Abalux, Inc. and Juan
D.
      Cabral.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant JESUS LAZARO COLLAR, and all others similarly
situated under 29 U.S.C. 216(b), is represented by:

          Jamie H. Zidell, Esq.
          Stephen Michael Fox, Jr., Esq.
          Rivkah F. Jaff, Esq.
          Karl David Kelly, Esq.
          Alejandro Guillermo Martinez-Maldonado, Esq.
          Natalie Ann Staroschak, Esq.
          J.H. ZIDELL, PA
          300 71st St., Suite 605
          Miami Beach, FL 33141
          Telephone: (305) 865-6766
          Facsimile: (305) 865-7167
          E-mail: zabogado@aol.com
                  stephen.fox.esq@gmail.com
                  Rivkah.Jaff@gmail.com
                  david.kelly38@rocketmail.com
                  martinez.zidelllaw@gmail.com
                  nstar.zidellpa@gmail.com

Defendants-Appellees ABALUX, INC., and JUAN D. CABRAL are
represented by:

          Leslie W. Langbein, Esq.
          LANGBEIN & LANGBEIN, PA
          8181 Nw 154th St., Suite 105
          Miami Lakes, FL 33016-5861
          Telephone: (305) 556-3663
          E-mail: langbeinpa@bellsouth.net


ADEX CORPORATION: "Bryant" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Bryant, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Adex Corporation, Inc., Case No. 1:18-cv-01282 (S.D.
N.Y., February 13, 2018), is brought against the Defendant for
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, which requires non
exempt employees to be compensated for all hours in excess of
forty in a workweek at one and one-half times their regular rates
of pay.

Plaintiff Thomas Bryant is an individual residing in Volusia
County, Florida. Plaintiff worked for Defendant as a Field
Technician from approximately November 2015 to February 2017.

Defendant Adex provides telecommunication equipment installation
and integration to cellular telephone companies throughout the
United States.  [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Don J. Foty, Esq.
      KENNEDY HODGES, LLP
      4409 Montrose Blvd., Ste 200
      Houston, TX 77006
      Tel: (713) 523-0001
      Fax: (713) 523-1116
      E-mail: DFoty@kennedyhodges.com


ADT CORPORATION: "Abellard" Suit Alleges TCPA Violations
--------------------------------------------------------
David Abellard, Jr., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. The ADT Corporation, Case No. 18-cv-60293
(S.D. Fla., February 9, 2018), is brought against the Defendant
for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Plaintiff David Abellard, Jr. is a natural person who, at all
times relevant to this action, was a resident of Broward County,
Florida.

Defendant The ADT Corporation provides residential and small
businesses electronic security, fire protection, and other alarm
monitoring services in 35 countries. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
      SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
      14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 400
      Miami, FL 33132
      Tel: (305) 479-2299
      Fax: (786) 623-0915
      E-mail: efilings@shamisgentile.com

          - and -

      Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq.
      HIRALDO P.A.
      401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Ste 1400
      Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
      Tel: (954) 400-4713
      E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com


AKORN INC: Gainey McKenna & Egleston Files Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Gainey McKenna & Egleston disclosed that a class action lawsuit
has been filed against Akorn, Inc. ("Akorn" or the "Company")
(NASDAQ:AKRX) in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois on behalf of a class consisting of
investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Akorn securities on
the open market from March 1, 2017 and February 26, 2018,
inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to recover compensable
damages caused by Defendants' violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

The Complaint alleges that on February 26, 2018, Fresenius SE &
Co. KGaA -- which had been expected to close on an acquisition of
Akorn in the coming weeks -- announced that it is "conducting an
independent investigation, using external experts, into alleged
breaches of FDA data integrity requirements relating to product
development at Akorn, Inc."  This news caused the Company's stock
to dropped nearly 40%.

The Complaint also alleges that Defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that (1) the
Company's failure to comply with FDA data integrity requirements
would jeopardize Fresenius's acquisition of the Company; (2) the
Company lacked effective internal controls over financial
reporting; and (3) as a result, the Company's financial
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.  When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit
claims that investors suffered damages.

Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares during the
Class Period should contact the Firm prior to the May 7, 2018
lead plaintiff motion deadline.  A lead plaintiff is a
representative party acting on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation.  If you wish to discuss your rights or
interests regarding this class action, please contact Thomas J.
McKenna, Esq. or Gregory M. Egleston, Esq. of Gainey McKenna &
Egleston at (212) 983-1300, or via e-mail at tjmckenna@gme-
law.com or gegleston@gme-law.com. [GN]


AKORN INC: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action
------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been
filed against Akorn, Inc., and certain of its officers.  The
class action, filed in United States District Court, for the
District of Illinois, Eastern Division, is on behalf of a class
consisting of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired
Akorn's securities between March 1, 2017 through February 26,
2018, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to
recover damages caused by defendants' violations of the federal
securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934  and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, against the Company and certain of its
top officials.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Akorn securities between
March 1, 2017, and February 26, 2018, both dates inclusive, you
have until May 7, 2018, to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead
Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the Complaint can be obtained
at www.pomerantzlaw.com.   To discuss this action, contact Robert
S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or
888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 9980. Those who inquire by e-mail
are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone
number, and the number of shares purchased.

Akorn, Inc. is a niche pharmaceutical company that develops,
manufactures, and markets generic and branded prescription
pharmaceuticals. The Company manufactures sterile and non-sterile
dosage forms, including ophthalmics, injectables, oral liquids,
topicals, inhalants, and nasal sprays. Akorn markets its products
to pharmacies, physicians, hospitals, and government agencies.

In April 2017, Fresenius Kabi, a division of Fresenius SE & Co.
KGaA (collectively, "Fresenius"), and Akorn announced that
Fresenius had agreed to acquire Akorn for approximately $4.3
billion.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period,
Defendants made materially false and misleading statements
regarding the Company's business, operational and compliance
policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Akorn's failure to
comply with FDA data integrity requirements would jeopardize
Fresenius' acquisition of Akorn; (ii) the Company lacked
effective internal controls over financial reporting; and (iii)
as a result of the foregoing, Akorn shares traded at artificially
inflated prices during the Class Period, and class members
suffered significant losses and damages.

On February 26, 2018, post-market, Fresenius announced that it is
conducting an independent investigation, using external experts,
into alleged breaches of U.S. Food and Drug Administration data
integrity requirements relating to product development at Akorn.
Fresenisus stated that "[t]he consummation of the transaction may
be affected if the closing conditions under the merger agreement
are not met."

On this news, the Company's shares fell $11.63 per share or over
38% to close at $18.65 per share on February 27, 2018, damaging
investors.

The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los
Angeles, and Paris, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms
in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class
litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as
the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered
the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 80 years
later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he
established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities
fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The
Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on
behalf of class members. See www.pomerantzlaw.com.

         Robert S. Willoughby, Esq.
         Pomerantz LLP
         Tel.No.: 888-476-6529 Ext. 9980
         Email: rswilloughby@pomlaw.com [GN]


AKORN INC: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Block & Leviton LLP, a securities litigation firm representing
investors nationwide, announces that a class action has been
filed against Akorn, Inc. ("Akorn" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:
AKRX) and certain of its officers for violations of the federal
securities laws.

If you purchased Akorn shares between March 1, 2017 and February
26, 2018 (the "Class Period") and wish to serve as a lead
plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than May 7, 2018.

As a member of the class, you may seek to file a motion to serve
as a lead plaintiff or take no action and remain an absent class
member. If you wish to become involved in the litigation or have
questions about your legal rights, you are encouraged to contact
attorney Bradley Vettraino at (617) 398-5600, by email at
rel="nofollow">bradley@blockesq.com, or by visiting
www.blockesq.com/akorn.

On February 26, 2018, after the close of trading, Fresenius SE &
Co. KGaA -- which had been expected to close on an acquisition of
Akorn in the coming weeks -- announced that it is "is conducting
an independent investigation, using external experts, into
alleged breaches of FDA data integrity requirements relating to
product development at Akorn, Inc." This news caused Akorn's
stock to plunge nearly 40%, causing tens of millions of dollars
in losses to investors.

On this news, the Company's stock fell more than 39% to close at
$8.75 on February 20, 2018, causing tens of millions of dollars
in losses to investors.

The complaint, filed in U.S. Federal court for the Northern
District of Illinois, captioned Joshi Living Trust v. Akorn,
Inc., et al. No. 1:18-cv-01713, alleges that throughout the Class
Period, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or
failed to disclose that (1) Akorn's failure to comply with FDA
data integrity requirements would jeopardize Fresenius's
acquisition of Akorn; (2) Akorn lacked effective internal
controls over financial reporting; and (3) as a result, Akorn's
financial statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the
lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

Confidentiality to whistleblowers or others with information
relevant to this investigation is assured.

Block & Leviton LLP is a Boston-based law firm representing
investors nationwide. The firm's lawyers have collectively been
prosecuting securities cases on behalf of individual and
institutional investors for over 50 years, and have recovered
billions of dollars on their behalf. Block & Leviton's
investigations into corporate wrongdoing were recently covered by
the New York Times.

This notice may constitute attorney advertising.

         Bradley J. Vettraino, Esq.
         Block & Leviton LLP
         155 Federal Street, Suite 400
         Boston, MA 02110
         Tel.No.: (617) 398-5600
         Email: bradley@blockesq.com [GN]


ALBERTSON'S LLC: "Dorfman" Suit Alleges TCPA Breach
---------------------------------------------------
Robert Dorfman, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Albertson's, LLC dba Sav-on Pharmacy, Case No. 1:18-
cv-00094 (D. Idaho, February 27, 2018), is brought against the
Defendant for violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Plaintiff Robert Dorfman resides in San Diego County, California,
and is a citizen of California.

Defendant Albertson's, LLC operates retail grocery stores named
Albertsons, and pharmacies inside Albertsons named "Sav-on
Pharmacy." Defendant distributes, markets, and sells
pharmaceutical and retail consumer products throughout the United
States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gabriel McCarthy, Esq.
      MCCARTHY LAW, PLLC
      802 W. Bannock St., Ste 201
      Tel: (208) 343-8888
      Fax: (208) 342-4200
      E-mail: gabe@gabrielmccarthy.com


ALL ABOUT CARE: "Broyles" Suit Seeks to Recoup Unpaid OT Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kenyana Broyles, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Auston J. Cartwright and All About Care
Services, Inc., Case No. 3:18-cv-00135 (M.D. Tenn., February 9,
2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated
damages, interest and attorney's fees and costs pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff Kenyana Broyles is an adult resident of the State of
Tennessee. Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as home
manager.

The Defendants own and operate a non-medical in home care
service. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Nina Parsley, Esq.
      MICHAEL D. PONCE & ASSOCIATES
      1000 Jackson Road, Suite 225
      Goodlettsville, TN 37072
      Tel: (615) 851-1776
      E-mail: nina@poncelaw.com


ALLTRAN FINANCIAL: "Choi" Suit Alleges FDCPA Violations
-------------------------------------------------------
Soojeong Choi, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Alltran Financial, LP, Case No. 1:18-cv-01251 (E.D.
N.Y., February 27, 2018), is brought against the Defendant for
violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Plaintiff Soojeong Choi is an individual who is a citizen of the
State of New York residing in Queens County, New York.

Defendant Alltran Financial, LP, is a Texas Limited Partnership
with a principal place of business in Harris County, Texas.
Defendant is a debt collector. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


AMERICAN CORADIUS: "Stewart" Suit Seeks Damages under FDCPA
-----------------------------------------------------------
Amy L. Stewart, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. American Coradius International, LLC and
John Does 1-25, Case No. 6:18-cv-00042 (W.D. Tex., February 12,
2018), seeks damages and declaratory and injunctive relief under
the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act.

Plaintiff is a resident of the State of Texas, County of
Somervell, residing at 1960 Texas Drive, Glen Rose, TX 76043.

The Defendant is a debt collector with an office at 2420 Sweet
Home Rd. Suite 150, Amherst, NY 14228. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


AMERICAN MEDICAL: Accused by "Friedman" Suit of Violating FDCPA
---------------------------------------------------------------
JOSHUA FRIEDMAN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. AMERICAN MEDICAL COLLECTION AGENCY, INC., A/K/A AMCA,
Case No. 3:18-cv-02951-MAS-TJB (D.N.J., February 28, 2018), is
brought to seek redress for the Defendant's alleged illegal
practices, in connection with the collection of a debt allegedly
owed by the Plaintiff in violation of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

The Defendant is a collection agency with its corporate
headquarters located in Elmsford, New York.  The Defendant is a
company that uses the mail, telephone, and facsimile and
regularly engages in business the principal purpose of which is
to attempt to collect debts alleged to be due another.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Salim Katach, Esq.
          VARACALLI & HAMRA, LLP
          32 Broadway, Suite 1818
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (646) 590-0571
          Facsimile: (646) 619-4012
          E-mail: Skatach@vhllp.com


ATLAS FINANCIAL: RM LAW Discloses Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
RM LAW, P.C., disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been
filed on behalf of all persons or entities that purchased Atlas
Financial Holdings, Inc. securities between March 13, 2017, and
March 2, 2018, inclusive.

Atlas shareholders may, no later than May 4, 2018, move the Court
for appointment as a lead plaintiff of the Class.  If you
purchased shares of Atlas and would like to learn more about
these claims or if you wish to discuss these matters and have any
questions concerning this announcement or your rights, contact
Richard A. Maniskas, Esquire toll-free at (844) 291-9299.

Atlas Financial Holdings Inc. is a specialty commercial
transportation insurer of taxi cabs, limousines, paratransit and
other transport businesses around the United States.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period,
Defendants made materially false and misleading statements
regarding the Company's business, operational and compliance
policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the Company failed
to employ internal controls to ensure appropriate accounting
practices, including, but not limited to, the calculation of
certain loss reserves; (ii) the Company's internal controls over
financial reporting were materially weak; (iii) the Company's
financial statements were inaccurate and misleading, including by
understating certain loss reserves; and (iv) that as a result of
the foregoing, Atlas' business, operations, and prospects, were
false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

On March 1, 2018, post-market, the Company issued a press release
entitled "Atlas Financial Holdings Announces Preliminary 2017
Fourth Quarter and Year End Financial Results," announcing a
large increase in its reserves.

On this news, the Company's share price fell $7.70, or 40.96%, to
close at $11.10 per share on March 2, 2018, on unusually heavy
trading volume.

If you are a member of the class, you may, no later than May 4,
2018, request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff of the
class.  A lead plaintiff is a representative party that acts on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation.  In
order to be appointed lead plaintiff, the Court must determine
that the class member's claim is typical of the claims of other
class members, and that the class member will adequately
represent the class.  Under certain circumstances, one or more
class members may together serve as "lead plaintiff."  Your
ability to share in any recovery is not, however, affected by the
decision whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff.  You may
retain RM LAW, P.C. or other counsel of your choice, to serve as
your counsel in this action.

For more information regarding this, please contact RM LAW, P.C.
(Richard A. Maniskas, Esquire) toll-free at (844) 291-9299 or by
email at rm@maniskas.com  For more information about class action
cases in general or to learn more about RM LAW, P.C.

RM LAW, P.C. is a national shareholder litigation firm.  RM LAW,
P.C. is devoted to protecting the interests of individual and
institutional investors in shareholder actions in state and
federal courts nationwide.

         Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
         RM LAW, P.C.
         1055 Westlakes Dr., Ste. 300
         Berwyn, PA 19312
         Tel.No.: 484-324-6800, 844-291-9299
         Email: rm@maniskas.com [GN]


AUTOZONE INC: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Doland" Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Marsha Doland filed an appeal from a court ruling in
the lawsuit entitled Marsha Doland v. Autozone Inc., et al., Case
No. 8:09-cv-01138-AG-MLG, in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California, Santa Ana.

The nature of suit is stated as other contract actions.

The appellate case is captioned as Marsha Doland v. Autozone
Inc., et al., Case No. 18-55273, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

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

   -- Transcript was to be ordered by March 28, 2018;

   -- Transcript is due on April 27, 2018;

   -- Appellant Marsha Doland's opening brief is due on June 6,
      2018;

   -- Appellees Autozone Inc. and Does' answering brief is due on
      July 6, 2018; and

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

Plaintiff-Appellant MARSHA DOLAND, successor in interest to
William Doland; individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated and on behalf of the general public, is
represented by:

          Richard Edward Quintilone, II, Esq.
          QUINTILONE & ASSOCIATES
          22974 El Toro Road
          Lake Forest, CA 92630
          Telephone: (949) 458-9675
          Facsimile: (949) 458-9679
          E-mail: req@quintlaw.com

Defendant-Appellee AUTOZONE INC is represented by:

          Michael E. Brewer, Esq.
          Gregory G. Iskander, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
          1255 Treat Boulevard
          Walnut Creek, CA 94597
          Telephone: (925) 932-2468
          Facsimile: (925) 946-9809
          E-mail: mbrewer@littler.com
                  giskander@littler.com


AVEO PHARMA: $15MM Class Settlement in Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS


)


In re AVEO Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Securities

)


Litigation

)



)

No. 1:13-cv-11157-DJC


)



)


This document relates to: All Actions

)

CLASS ACTION


)



)

Hon. Denise J. Casper


)


NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION

PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS ENTIRETY.  YOUR
RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY PROCEEDINGS IN THIS ACTION.

TO: ALL PERSONS OR ENTITIES WHO PURCHASED OR ACQUIRED SHARES OF
AVEO PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. ("AVEO") BETWEEN MAY 16, 2012 AND MAY
1, 2013, BOTH DATES INCLUSIVE ("THE CLASS PERIOD").

Excluded from the Class are (1) Defendants and their immediate
families, (2) any entity in which Defendants have or had a
controlling interest, (3) current and former officers, directors
and employees of AVEO, and (4) the legal representatives, heirs,
successors, or assigns of any excluded party.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the United
States District Court, District of Massachusetts (the "Court") of
a proposed Settlement in In re AVEO Securities Litigation, No.
1:13-cv-11157 (the "Action").  If approved by the Court, the
Settlement will provide for $15 million cash and 2 million
warrants to be issued after final approval of this Settlement,
with a one-year term and a $3.00 strike price.  Plaintiffs
estimate there were approximately 24.03 million shares of AVEO
common stock traded during the Class Period that may have been
damaged.  If all of those shares were damaged, the estimated
average recovery will have an economic value of approximately
$0.7501 per share, before deduction of Court approved fees and
expenses and costs of notice and claims administration, based on
Plaintiffs' estimated value of the warrant component of the
Settlement at $1.5213 per warrant (as of January 31, 2018).  The
actual amount disbursed to members of the Class who participate
in the Settlement may be more or less than this figure.

A hearing will be held before Honorable Denise J. Casper on May
30, 2018, at 2:30 p.m., in Courtroom 11 of the United States
District Court for the District of Massachusetts, John Joseph
Moakley U.S. Courthouse, 1 Courthouse Way, Suite 2300, Boston,
Massachusetts 02210, to determine: (1) whether the proposed
Settlement of the Class's claims against the Defendants for
$15,000,000.00 cash and 2 million Settlement Warrants should be
approved as fair, reasonable and adequate; (2) whether the
proposed Plan of Allocation is fair, just, reasonable, and
adequate; (3) whether the Court should permanently enjoin the
assertion of any claims that arise from or relate to the subject
matter of the Action; (4) whether the Action should be dismissed
with prejudice against the Defendants as set forth in the
Stipulation of Settlement filed with the Court; (5) whether the
application by Class Counsel for an award of attorneys' fees and
expenses should be approved; and (6) whether the Class
Plaintiffs' application for reimbursement of costs and expenses
should be granted.

If you purchased AVEO common stock during the Class Period, your
rights may be affected by the Settlement of this Action.  If you
have not received a detailed Notice of Pendency and Settlement of
Class Action (the "Notice") and a copy of the Proof of Claim and
Release form, you may obtain copies by writing to the Settlement
Administrator at AVEO Securities Litigation, Settlement
Administrator, PO Box 5110, Portland, OR 97208-5110, or by phone
at (855) 367-5403, or by email at
info@AVEOSecuritiesLitigation.com, or by visiting
www.AVEOSecuritiesLitigation.com.

If you are a member of the Class, in order to share from the
distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must timely submit a
Proof of Claim to the Settlement Administrator's address provided
above and postmarked on or before May 29, 2018.  If you are a
member of the Class and do not submit a proper Proof of Claim,
you will not share in the distribution of the Net Settlement
Fund, but you will be bound by any judgment or orders entered by
the Court.

If you want to exclude yourself from the Class, you must submit a
request for exclusion to the Settlement Administrator at the
address above postmarked on or before May 16, 2018, in the manner
and form detailed in the Notice.  If you properly exclude
yourself from the Class, you will not be bound by any judgment or
orders entered by the Court in the Action, and you will not be
eligible to share in the proceeds of the Settlement.

If you have any objection to the proposed Settlement, the
adequacy of representation provided by Class Plaintiffs and/or
Class Counsel, the proposed Plan of Allocation of the Net
Settlement Fund, the Final Order and Judgment contemplated by the
Stipulation, the application for attorneys' fees not to exceed
30% of the Settlement Amount, and reimbursement of expenses not
to exceed $400,000, and/or the application of a Compensatory
Award, not to exceed $5,000 each, for the time and expenses
incurred by Class Plaintiffs, or if you otherwise wish to be
heard with respect to any of the foregoing, you may appear in
person or by attorney at the Final Approval Hearing. Notice of
objection or appearance must be filed in the manner detailed in
the Notice with the Clerk of the Court and delivered to Class
Counsel and Defendants' Counsel, such that it is received by each
party no later than May 16, 2018, in accordance with the
instructions set forth in the Notice.

All members of the Class who do not request exclusion therefrom,
in the manner provided in the Notice, will be represented by
Class Counsel in connection with the Settlement, but may, if they
so desire, also enter an appearance through counsel of their own
choice at their own expense.

INQUIRIES SHOULD NOT BE DIRECTED TO THE COURT, THE CLERK'S
OFFICE, THE DEFENDANTS, OR DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL.  Any questions
should be directed to:

Settlement Administrator
AVEO Securities Litigation
c/o Epiq
Settlement Administrator
PO Box 5110
Portland, OR 97208-5110
(855) 367-5403
info@AVEOSecuritiesLitigation.com
www.AVEOSecuritiesLitigation.com

         Joshua B. Silverman, Esq.
         Class Counsel
         Pomerantz LLP
         10 South LaSalle Street, Suite 3505
         Chicago, IL 60603
         Tel.No.: (312) 377-1181
         Email: jbsilverman@pomlaw.com

Dated: February 28, 2018

By Order of the Court


United States District Court
District of Massachusetts [GN]


BANK OF AMERICA: "Chen" Suit Asserts Fraud, Seeks Damages
---------------------------------------------------------
Zuolin Chen, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Bank of America Corporation, Case No. 3:18-cv-00074
(W.D. N.C., February 12, 2018), seeks to recover damages and/or
refunds from the Defendant for fraudulent inducement, breach of
the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, violations of
consumer protection laws, unjust enrichment, and conversion.

Plaintiff Zuolin Chen is a citizen of Texas and resides in Katy,
Texas.

Defendant Bank of America Corporation is a banking institution
with a principal place of business at Bank of America Corporate
Center, 100 N. Tryon Street, Charlotte, North Carolina 28255.
Upon information and belief, Bank of America, N.A., is an
affiliate and subsidiary of Defendant Bank of America
Corporation. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Daniel K. Bryson, Esq.
      Patrick M. Wallace, Esq.
      WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON LLP
      900 W. Morgan Street
      Raleigh, NC 27603
      Tel: (919) 600-5000
      Fax: (919) 600-5035
      E-mail: dan@wbmllp.com
              pat@wbmllp.com


BANK OF CHINA: "Duncan" Suit Alleges ADA Violation
--------------------------------------------------
Eugene Duncan, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Bank of China, Case No. 1:18-cv-00963 (E.D. N.Y.,
February 13, 2018), is brought against the Defendant for
violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Plaintiff brings this civil rights action against the Defendant
for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its
website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by
Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people.

Plaintiff Eugene Duncan, at all relevant times, is a resident of
Queens, New York. Plaintiff is a blind, visually-impaired
handicapped person and a member of member of a protected class of
individuals under the ADA.

The defendant Bank of China is and was at all relevant times a
New York FDIC Insured Banking Corporation doing business in New
York.  [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
      JOSEPH H. MIZRAHI LAW P.C.
      300 Cadman Plaza West, 12 Fl.
      Brooklyn, NY 11201
      Tel: (917) 299-6612
      Fax: (718) 425-8954
      E-mail:  Joseph@Jmizrahilaw.com

          - and -

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


BARCLAYS PLC: Four Sup. Ct. Petitions for Writ Filed in "Strougo"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Four petitions for a writ of certiorari were separately filed on
February 26, 2018, in the lawsuit entitled Barclays PLC, et al.,
Petitioners v. Joseph Waggoner, et al., Case No. 17-1209, in the
Supreme Court of United States.

Responses to the Petitions were due on March 30, 2018.

The lower court case is styled JOSEPH WAGGONER, MOHIT SAHNI,
BARBARA STROUGO, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiffs-Appellees v. BARCLAYS PLC, ROBERT
DIAMOND, ANTONY JENKINS, BARCLAYS CAPITAL INC., WILLIAM WHITE,
Defendants-Appellants, CHRIS LUCAS, TUSHAR MORZARIA, Defendants,
Case No. 16-1912-cv, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Second
Circuit issued an Opinion affirming the District Court's Order
granting Class Certification in the case titled Joseph Waggoner,
et al. v. Barclays PLC, et al., Case No. 14-cv-5797 (S.D.N.Y.).

Barclays PLC, its American subsidiary Barclays Capital Inc., and
three senior officers of those companies appeal from an order of
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York granting a motion for class certification filed by the
Plaintiffs-Appellees, three individuals who purchased Barclays'
American Depository Shares (Barclays' ADS) during the class
period. The Plaintiffs brought this suit alleging violations of
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the
Securities and Exchange Commission's Rule 10b-5.[BN]

Defendants-Petitioners Barclays PLC, et al., are represented by:

          Jeffrey Thomas Scott, Esq.
          SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP
          125 Broad Street
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 558-3082
          E-mail: scottj@sullcrom.com


BENEFIT COSMETICS: "Crosson" Suit Alleges ADA Violation
-------------------------------------------------------
Aretha Crosson, on behalf of himself and all other persons
similarly situated v. Benefit Cosmetics, LLC, Case No. 1:18-cv-
01287 (E.D. N.Y., February 28, 2018), is brought against the
Defendant for violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Plaintiff brings this civil rights action against Benefit for
their failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their
website to be fully accessible to and independently usable
by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons.

Plaintiff Aretha Crosson is a resident of Kings County, State of
New York. Plaintiff is legally blind and a member of a protected
class under the ADA.

Defendant Benefit Cosmetics, LLC owns and operates Benefit
Stores, which is a place of public accommodation. Benefit Stores
are located in New York State. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Dan Shaked, Esq.
      SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
      44 Court St., Suite 1217
      Brooklyn, NY 11201
      Tel: (917) 373-9128
      E-mail: ShakedLawGroup@Gmail.com


BLUESTONE COAL: Judge Allows Class Action Suit in WARN Case
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Farris, writing for The Register-Herald, reports that a
federal judge has certified a class action lawsuit in the third
of four cases filed by a Beckley attorney against Bluestone Coal
Corporation.

The suit, certified by U.S. District Court Judge Irene Berger,
and filed by Sam Petsonk of Mountain State Justice, alleges that
miners at Burke Mountain Strip Mine in Wyoming County were laid
off from full-time employment without a 60-day notice required by
the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) by
Bluestone Coal Corporation, Bluestone Industries Inc. or Mechel
Bluestone from Dec. 27, 2011, through March 26, 2012.

Berger set a trial date for April 30.

The suit alleges that miners from the three companies were
verbally laid off without prior notice from their jobs at Burke
Mountain Strip Mine.

Designed to protect workers' rights, the WARN Act requires
employers to give workers two months' notice prior to a layoff.
If the employer fails to do so, the WARN Act provides a legal
pathway for workers to recoup damages.

"The WARN Act is intended to give workers fair notice before
their lives are disrupted by the loss of a job," Petsonk said.
"Essentially, you're entitled under the WARN Act to have two
months of advance notice.

"If the company fails to give you advance notice, you're entitled
to sue to recover two months of wages so you can have the same
sort of economic situation you would've had."

Petsonk added, "We believe there are about 105 people who are
covered by the class action, as it was defined. That number may
change as we learn more about the site and the layoffs."

Fifty miners allege to have been laid off in violation of the
WARN Act from the Burke Mountain Strip Mine near the southern
border of Wyoming County around December 2011.

To bring a suit under the WARN Act, at least 50 people and 33
percent of the workers must be laid off.

Petsonk said his firm is currently locating additional miners who
worked at Burke Mountain Strip Mine at Keystone between those
dates.

"The certification of a class action does not mean that the
plaintiffs have won," he explained. "But it does mean that the
defendants will have to pay the penalties to the entire class if
we do prevail at the trial."

The town of Keystone is eligible to seek $30,000 in damages,
under the WARN Act, said Petsonk.

The legal penalty in the Burke Mountain case is equal to two
months of wages for each laid-off worker and the payment to the
local unit of government.

"We will be working with the Bluestone companies to secure the
last known addresses and telephone numbers for all eligible
miners," said Petsonk. "However, because the layoffs occurred so
long ago, miners who were laid off during that period at Burke
Mountain may call our office in Beckley to ensure that we have
current information for including them in the class action."

Union and non-union miners were impacted by the layoff, said
Petsonk.

Petsonk is accepting contact information from miners who were
laid off anywhere on Burke Mountain, including Jobs 32, 34, 39
and the preparation plants known as Keystone and K2.

Miners who were laid off at Burke Mountain in October 2012
(including at Pay Car Mining) may also contact him.

Mountain State Justice has secured tentative settlements in two
previous cases against the Bluestone companies involving the
Double Bonus Mine No. 65 and the Coal Mountain Surface Mine.

Berger must approve those settlements.

Petsonk has filed a fourth WARN Act case against the Bluestone
companies, as of March 9.

Mechel Bluestone is owned by Gov. Jim Justice.

Justice sold Mechel Bluestone in 2009 to Russia's OAO Mechel for
a combination of cash and Mechel stock valued at $568 million. He
purchased the mines back for $5 million in February 2015,
reopening some mine locations and creating around 150 jobs. [GN]


BOONNAK TONE: Accused by "Lopez" Suit of Not Paying Proper Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
BERNABE ABELINO ESCALANTE LOPEZ, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated v. BOONNAK TONE, INC. (D/B/A DER KRUNG)
and ORATHIP BOONNAK (A.K.A. ORATHIP RANRONSONGKRAM), Case No.
1:18-cv-01739 (S.D.N.Y., February 26, 2018), alleges that the
Plaintiff worked for the Defendants in excess of 40 hours per
week, without appropriate minimum wage, overtime, and spread of
hours compensation for the hours that he worked.

Boonnak Tone, Inc., doing business as Der Krung, is a domestic
corporation organized and existing under the laws of the state of
New York.  Orathip Boonnak, also known as Orathip Ranronsongkram,
is an owner, officer and/or agent of the Defendant Corporation.

The Defendants own, operate, or control a Thai restaurant,
located at 860 9th Avenue, in New York City, under the name "Der
Krung."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CAR SPA COLLECTION: "Bedoya" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
--------------------------------------------------------
Heber Bedoya, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated
v. Car Spa Collection, LLC, Anthony Hajjar, and Nadia Zahr, Case
No. 1:18-cv-20755 (S.D. Fla., February 27, 2018), seeks to
recover unpaid overtime wages and liquidated damages under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff Heber Bedoya worked for Defendants as a non-exempt auto
detailer from January 1, 2008 through August 16, 2017.

Defendants own and operate a car spa in Coral Gables, Miami-Dade
County, Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Andrew R. Frisch, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN, P. A.
      600 Pine Island Road, Suite 400
      Plantation, FL 33324
      Fax: (954) 327-3013
      E-mail: AFrisch@forthepeople.com


CAVALRY SPV: "Pituk" Disputes Attorney Fees in Collection Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Saifon Pituk, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
Cavalry SPV I, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company,
Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-00065, (E.D. Wash., February 22, 2018),
seek damages, declaratory, and injunctive relief in violation of
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Cavalry is a debt collection agency who attempted to collect a
debt from Pituk by serving him with an unfiled Spokane County
Superior Court summons and complaint. However, Defendant's
complaint contained a request for attorney's fees which Pituk
contested to be in violation of Revised Code of Washington
4.84.080. [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
      Email: kmiller@millerlawspokane.com


CINCINNATI BELL: "Johnson" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Premiums
--------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Johnson, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated
individuals, Plaintiffs, v. Cincinnati Bell, Inc. Cincinnati Bell
Telephone Company, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-00138, (S.D.
Ohio, February 23, 2018), seeks overtime wages, liquidated
damages, prejudgment interest, attorneys' fees, costs and other
compensation pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, Ohio's
Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act and the Ohio Prompt Pay Act.

Defendants are in the business of providing integrated
communications solutions, including local and long distance
voice, data, high-speed Internet and video entertainment services
to residential and business customers throughout Ohio, Kentucky
and Indiana. Johnson was employed by Defendants as an Outbound
Sales Representative out of their Consumer Sales Department from
approximately December 2015 to approximately May 2016. He
regularly worked in excess of 40-45 hours per workweek selling
Bell's products, namely home phone, long distance, internet,
wireless and video products through outbound dialing and earn
commission from sales. He claims that commission payments should
have been included in their regular rates of pay before any and
all overtime multipliers were applied. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Robert E. DeRose, Esq.
     Molly K. Tefend, 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: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com
            mtefend@barkanmeizlish.com

             - and -

     Ryan K. Hymore, Esq.
     MANGANO LAW OFFICES CO., L.P.A.
     3805 Edwards Road, Suite 550
     Cincinnati, OH 45209
     Tel: (513) 255-5888
     Fax: (216) 397-5845
     Email: rkhymore@bmanganolaw.com


COINBASE INC: "Berk" Suit Alleges UCL Violation
-----------------------------------------------
Jeffrey Berk, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Coinbase, Inc. dba Global Digital Asset Exchange,
Brian Armstrong and David Farmer, Case No. 4:18-cv-01364 (N.D.
Calif., March 1, 2018), is brought against the Defendants for
violation of California's Unfair Competition Law and negligence.

This is a class action on behalf of all Coinbase customers who
placed purchase, sale or trade orders with Coinbase or the GDAX
in connection with Coinbase's launch of BCH during the period of
December 19, 2017 through and including December 21, 2017 and who
suffered monetary loss as a result of Defendants' wrongdoing.
Excluded from the Class are Defendants, any entity owned or
controlled by them, and any officer, director, employee or agent
of any of the Defendants, and any heirs, assigns, or family
members of any individual defendant.

Plaintiff Jeffrey Berk is a citizen of Arizona. On December 19,
2017, at 5 p.m. PST, Plaintiff attempted to purchase BCH within
five minutes of Coinbase announcing that it was going to support
BCH. Plaintiff's orders were not executed until 1:06 p.m.
December 20, at which time, Plaintiff learned that his order was
executed and that he had purchased BCH at the inflated price of
$4,200.98 per BCH. Plaintiff's order was executed at prices 100%
greater than the price at the time that he submitted his buy
order.

Bitcoin is a digital currency that was created as a response to
the 2008 financial crisis and is the first decentralized digital
currency that works without a bank or central authority, but
rather on a peer to peer basis.

Defendant Coinbase maintains its principal place of business in
San Francisco, California and is incorporated in Delaware. It is
one of the most powerful digital currency exchanges in the world,
buying and selling Bitcoin, BCH, Litecoin, and Ethereum.
The Individual Defendants are directors of the company. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert S. Green, Esq.
      James Robert Noblin, Esq.
      GREEN & NOBLIN, P.C.
      2200 Larkspur Landing Circle, Suite 101
      Larkspur, CA 94939
      Tel: (415) 477-6700
      Fax: (415) 477-6710
      E-mail: gnecf@classcounsel.com

          - and -

      Lynda Grant, Esq.
      THEGRANTLAWFIRM, PLLC
      521 Fifth Avenue, 17th Floor
      New York, NY 10175
      Tel: (212) 292-4441
      Fax: (212) 292-4442
      E-mail: lgrant@grantfirm.com


COMPREHENSIVE HEALTHCARE: "Blair" Suit Alleges FLSA Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
Erik Blair, on behalf of himself and similarly situated employees
v. Comprehensive Healthcare Management Services, LLC, Case No.
2:18-cv-00254 (W.D. Pa., February 28, 2018), is brought against
the Defendant for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act of
1938 and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act.

Plaintiff Erik Blair is a resident of 34 Observatory Street,
Manor, PA 15665. Plaintiff Blair worked for Defendant
Comprehensive Healthcare Management Services at its Cheswick
Rehabilitation and Wellness Center as a Registered Nurse from in
or about September 2017 through January 23, 2018.

Defendant Comprehensive Healthcare Management Services, LLC, is a
company operating long-term-care facilities and providing
rehabilitation and nursing care throughout Pennsylvania and the
United States. Defendant maintains its headquarters at 147 Reist
Street, Williamsville, NY 14221. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph H. Chivers, Esq.
      First & Market Building
      Suite 650, 100 First Avenue
      Pittsburgh, PA 15222
      Tel: (412) 227-0763
      Fax: (412) 774-1994
      E-mail: jchivers@employmentrightsgroup.com


CORA REALTY: "Barrios" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
---------------------------------------------------------
Hernando Barrios, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. Cora Realty Co., LLC, Chestnut Holdings of New York,
Inc., Manuel Philips, Jonathan Wiener, and Ben Rieder, Case No.
1:18-cv-01331 (S.D. N.Y., February 14, 2018), seeks to recover
all unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime premium, liquidated
damages, and attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

On or about February 14, 2017 Plaintiff, Hernando Barrios, was
hired by Defendant Manuel Philips to work as a superintendent at
Defendants' residential property located at 3165 Decatur Avenue,
Bronx, NY 10467.  Plaintiff worked for Defendants until on or
about September 1, 2017.

Defendants operate a property management business that owns and
operates in excess of one hundred residential rental properties
located in New York City. Defendants' properties are operated
collectively as a single integrated enterprise commonly owned and
controlled by Defendants. Defendants share a single corporate
leadership, including CEO Jonathan Wiener and senior corporate
officer Ben Rieder.

The Individual Defendants are each principals and senior
executive officers of the Corporate Defendants named herein and
are each employers as to Plaintiff. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


COUNTY OF ERIE, NY: Bid to Amend Complaint in "Pritchard" Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of New
York issued a Decision and Order denying Plaintiffs' Motion to
Amend Complaint in the cases captioned ADAM PRITCHARD and EDWARD
ROBINSON, Plaintiffs, v. THE COUNTY OF ERIE; PATRICK M. GALLIVAN,
both individually and in his official capacity as the Sheriff of
the County of Erie; TIMOTHY HOWARD, both individually and as the
Undersheriff of the County of Erie; DONALD J. LIVINGSTON, both
individually and as Acting Superintendent of the Erie County
Correctional Facility; ROBERT HUGGINS, both individually and as
Deputy Superintendent of the Erie County Correctional Facility;
and H. McCARTHY GIBSON, both individually and as Superintendent
of the Erie County Holding Center, Defendants, DEDRICK WILLIAMS,
MARQUESSA PAGE, and CAMILE SMITH, individually and on behalf of a
certified class of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. THE
COUNTY OF NIAGARA; THOMAS BEILEIN, both individually and in his
official capacity as Sheriff of the County of Niagara; SAMUEL
MUSCARELLA, both individually and as Undersheriff of the County
of Niagara; and JOHN SAXTON, both individually and as Major in
the Niagara County Sherriff's Office, Defendants, Nos. 04-CV-534-
A, 06-CV-291-A (W.D.N.Y.).

The Plaintiffs in both cases allege that Erie County and Niagara
County, together with the individual Defendants high-ranking
officials in each County's Sheriff's Office maintain policies
requiring that all new detainees at the ECHC, the ECCF, and the
NCJ be strip searched, regardless of the crime with which the
detainee has been charged, and regardless of whether reasonable
suspicion exists to believe the detainee has contraband on his or
her person.

The Plaintiffs' claims in both cases are significantly impacted
by the Supreme Court's decision in Florence v. Board of Chosen
Freeholders of the County of Burlington, 566 U.S. 318 (2012),
which was decided during the pendency of these cases.

The Erie Plaintiffs first move to amend their complaint to add
(1) a Fourth Amendment claim based on an alleged group strip
search policy; and (2) a claim under the New York State
Constitution. The Erie Defendants oppose this motion.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) provides that, as
applicable here, a party may amend its pleading only with the
court's leave. The court should freely give leave when justice so
requires. It is well settled that this is a permissive standard,
intended to promote the strong preference for resolving disputes
on the merits.

The Erie Defendants argue that leave to amend should be denied
because (1) the proposed new claims would be futile; (2) the Erie
Plaintiffs waited too long to seek leave to amend; and (3) the
Erie Defendants would suffer substantial prejudice if leave to
amend were granted.

The Court denies the Erie Plaintiffs' motion to amend because the
Plaintiffs waited too long to file the motion, and because the
Erie Defendants would be unduly prejudiced by the proposed eve-
of-judgment amendment. A court plainly has discretion to deny
leave to amend where the motion is made after an inordinate
delay, no satisfactory explanation is offered for the delay, and
the amendment would prejudice the defendant.

This case was filed in 2004. The Erie Defendants represent and
the Erie Plaintiffs do not dispute that all of the thirty-three
depositions in this case were completed by December 2006.
The Erie Defendants assert quite reasonably that group-search
claims were never a focus of discovery, and that, at this late
stage, all but one of the named individual defendants are either
retired or have moved on to other endeavors. Moreover, there is
obvious prejudice in asking witnesses to recall events that
occurred, at the most recent, nearly fourteen years ago.

According to the Court, the Erie Plaintiffs attempt to downplay
this prejudice, pointing to evidence from discovery suggesting
that at least some detainees were subjected to group strip
searches. But even if this is true, it does not mitigate the
prejudice to the Erie Defendants. The Fourth Amendment question
in this case requires a balancing of the need for the particular
search against the invasion of personal rights that the search
entails.

The Fourth Amendment question is, therefore, very fact dependent,
and no matter the theory of liability, it cannot be answered
solely on the basis of testimony from the individual Plaintiffs
or other class members. To take one example, the Erie Defendants
may have focused their discovery on different issues if they
anticipated having to argue that group strip searches and
individual strip searches were reasonable under the Fourth
Amendment.

Given the Erie Plaintiffs' delay in seeking to add group-search
and state-law claims, the Erie Defendants have shown sufficient
prejudice such that the Plaintiffs' motion to amend should be
denied.

Thus, the Erie Plaintiffs' motion to amend is denied.

A full-text copy of the District Court's February 22, 2018
Decision and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yaxyqtg5
from Leagle.com.

Adam Pritchard, Edward Robinson & Julenne Tucker, both
individually and on behalf of a class of others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Bruce E. Menken, Beranbaum
Menken Ben-Asher & Bierman LLP, 3 New York Plaza. New York, NY
10004 and. 32nd Floor. 80 Pine Street. New York, New York 10005,
David G. Jay -- davidgjay@verizon.net -- Elmer R. Keach, III --
bobkeach@keachlawfirm.com -- Law Offices of Elmer Robert Keach,
III, PC & Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Migliaccio & Rathod, 412 H St.
NE, Suite 302. Washington, DC 20002.

The County of Erie, Patrick M. Gallivan, both individually and in
his official capcity as Sheriff of the County of Erie, Timothy.
Howard, both individually and as Undersheriff of the County of
Erie, Donald J. Livingston, both individually and as Acting
Suprintendent of the Erie County Correctional Facility & Robert
Huggins, both individually and as Deputy Superintendent of the
Erie County Correctional Facility, Defendants, represented by
Frank T. Gaglione, Frank T. Gaglione, P.C., Michelle M. Parker,
Erie County Department of Law, James Paul Domagalski --
jdomagalski@barclaydamon.com -- Barclay Damon, LLP, Nicholas John
DiCesare -- ndicesare@barclaydamon.com -Barclay Damon, LLP &
Thomas F. Kirkpatrick, Jr., Erie County Department of Law.

H. McCarthy Gibson, both individually and as Superintendent of
the Erie County Holding Center, Defendant, represented by Thomas
C. D'Agostino, 17 Court Street Suite 600. Buffalo NY, 14202,
Jonathan Schapp -- jschapp@goldbergsegalla.com -- Goldberg
Segalla LLP & Nicholas John DiCesare --
ndicesare@barclaydamon.com -- Barclay Damon, LLP.


COVELLI ENTERPRISES: "Romano" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Premiums
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Chelsea Romano, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Covelli Enterprises, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-00434, (N.D. Ohio, February 22, 2018),
seeks overtime wages, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest,
attorneys' fees, costs and other compensation pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Covelli is a franchisee of Panera Bread and owns and operates
more than 260 Panera Bread bakery-cafes in Ohio, Pennsylvania,
West Virginia, Kentucky, Florida, and Ontario, Canada where
Romano worked as an Assistant Manager from approximately
September 2014 to August 2016 in their Johnstown, PA location.
Romano regularly worked more than 40 hours per week without
proper overtime premiums for hours she worked in excess of 40
hours in a workweek, says the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Drew Legando, Esq.
      Jack Landskroner, Esq.
      LANDSKRONER GRIECO MERRIMAN LLC
      1360 West 9th Street, Suite 200
      Cleveland, OH 44113
      Tel: (216) 522-9000
      Fax: (216) 522-9007
      Email: drew@lgmlegal.com
             jack@lgmlegal.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 -

      Justin M. Swartz, Esq.
      OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
      3 Park Avenue, 29th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Tel: (212) 245-1000
      Fax: (212) 977-4005
      Email: jms@outtengolden.com

            - and -

      Sally Abrahamson, Esq.
      Lucy Bansal, Esq.
      601 Massachusetts Ave NW, Suite 200W
      Washington, DC 20001
      Tel: (202) 847-4400
      Email: sabrahamson@outtengolden.com
             lbansal@outtengolden.com


CRANE CO: Attorneys Argue Over Standard for Expert Testimony
------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad presents Critical Mass, Law.com's new briefing on
class actions and mass torts.

All eyes are on Florida, where the state's highest court is
reviewing evidence standards, weighing whether it should shift
from Frye to Daubert in evaluating expert testimony.  The U.S.
Justice Department asked the U.S. Supreme Court to reject a
petition to review cy pres -- no matter how "regrettable" the
payments may be.  And AG Jeff Sessions' announcement that the
feds would take legal action against opioid companies came after
a months-long court fight involving the DOJ's position on Drug
Enforcement Agency records.

Will Florida Forsake Frye?
Evidentiary standards aren't the most fascinating topics. But
they often make or break a case.

That's why all eyes are on Florida, where the state's Supreme
Court is reviewing whether to change the evidentiary rules to
move on from the Frye to the Daubert standard when looking at the
admission of expert testimony.  The case was set to go before the
Florida Supreme Court on March 6.

A little background: In 2013, the Florida legislature enacted the
Daubertstandard, but the Supreme Court declined to adopt it until
the right case come along.  Enter DeLisle v. Crane, where an
appeals court reversed an $8 million mesothelioma verdict after
finding the judge should have excluded expert testimony under
Daubert.

Plaintiffs' attorney Jim Ferraro of the Ferraro Law Firm is
expected to argue against Richard Doran -- rdoran@ausley.com --
of Ausley McMullen who is representing defendant Crane Co., and
Elliot Scherker -- scherkere@gtlaw.com -- of Greenberg Traurig
who is appearing for R.J. Reynolds.  So what's at stake?
"Plaintiffs lawyers argue that they would have a harder time
getting expert testimony accepted under Daubert, which might mean
they take fewer clients or at the very least, lose more cases,"
Celia told me.  "Defense attorneys argue Daubert levels the
playing field for corporations so they aren't facing giant
verdicts that stem from what they argue is junk science.  Defense
lawyers also say Florida keeping Frye means plaintiffs can venue-
shop, since so much of the rest of the country uses Daubert, and
that affects defendants adversely, too."

DOJ on Cy Pres: 'Regrettable,' Not Reviewable
The Justice Department asked the U.S. Supreme Court to reject a
petition to review cy pres funds, despite previously calling the
controversial payments "regrettable."

Law.com's Marcia Coyle wrote in this story about the DOJ's brief
opposing a petition to review a settlement between the U.S.
government and Native American farmers and ranchers that included
$380 million to third party nonprofits.

Why is the DOJ opposing this? Because U.S. Attorney General Jeff
Sessions announced a new policy in June that generally prohibits
government attorneys from engaging in settlements that involve cy
pres payments.  In the brief opposing review, SG Noel Francisco
said the Justice Department's new policy "will prevent the
recurrence of circumstances like those that led to the modified
cy pres provision here, in turn eliminating any need for this
court's guidance . . . "

But wait: The DOJ's Rachel Brand also indicated that the feds
would be reviewing more class action settlements.  That begs the
question: Does that mean cy pres won't be under the DOJ's
microscope? Not exactly, said Joseph Sellers of Cohen Milstein,
class counsel in the case before the Supreme Court.  He told me
there's "an important distinction."

"Certainly, there are rules, there are statutes, in fact
governing what may constitute permissible use of government
funds," he said.  But that doesn't prevent the government from
intervening in a cy pres case.  "There are no statutory
constraints on the terms that private parties may enter into."

DOJ Fought Before Deal on DEA's Opioid Data
Timing is everything.  In the months leading up to U.S. Attorney
General Jeff Sessions' announcement of a Justice Department task
force to prepare for potential involvement in opioid litigation,
DOJ lawyers were trying to prevent a DEA drug distribution
database from being disclosed.

Backstory: In October, when Trump formally declared the opioid
crisis a public health emergency, government lawyers opposed a
subpoena for the database.  But before that got any further, the
MDL panel sent all the opioid cases to U.S. District Judge Dan
Polster, who ordered both sides to come up with an agreement on
the data.

Now what happens? After much back-and-forth, the DOJ said on
March 5 it had reached a deal.  But it had one hitch: The data
had to remain confidential.

Who Got the Work?
Southern California Edison has turned to John Hueston --
jhueston@hueston.com -- of Hueston Hennigan to respond to what
are now 20 lawsuits filed on behalf of dozens of individuals who
died, were injured or had property damages from a massive
wildfire and mudslides that ravaged Southern California in
December and January.  In February, plaintiffs lawyers at Lieff
Cabraser and Capello Noel moved to create a Judicial Council
Coordinated Proceeding (JCCP) of the litigation.  Mr.  Hueston,
the former federal prosecutor in the Enron trial, represented
IMDb in its summary judgment win last month.

Here's more you need to know:

Taking Aim at Uber: Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro
has sued Uber for violating the state's Breach of Personal
Information Notification Act when it failed to disclose its 2016
data breach -- a $13.5 million mistake, Mr. Shapiro's office
said.  In a statement, Uber's chief legal officer, Tony West,
said he was surprised.  Then added this not-so-conciliatory
tidbit: "While we do not in any way minimize what occurred, it's
crucial to note that the information compromised did not include
any sensitive consumer information such as credit card numbers or
Social Security numbers, which present a higher risk of harm than
driver's license numbers."

No Contingency: The U.S. Supreme Court declined to review a case
challenging New Hampshire's hiring of outside counsel in it
opioid case.  According to Law.com's story, opioid manufacturer
Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc. (repped by Arnold & Porter's Lisa
Blatt) had challenged the state's retention of Cohen Milstein on
a contingency fee basis.  One side note: The firm's lead
attorney, Linda Singer, left last year for Motley Rice, which is
now handling New Hampshire's case.

Money Malaise: Cryptocurrency exchange Coinbase was hit with a
class action that could be the first in federal court to allege
insider trading claims over its announcement that it would handle
Bitcoin Cash transactions.

But that's not Coinbase's only legal problem. Another class
action, brought under California's Unclaimed Property Law,
alleges that Coinbase kept unclaimed crystocurrency.  The
complaint (acknowledges that Coinbase sent class members an
email, and even included a link to create an account to redeem
it.

"But until 2017, most people never heard of a 'bitcoin' or
cryptocurrency, so most of these emails were disregarded," the
complaint says. [GN]


CREDITGUARD OF AMERICA: "Bank" Suit Alleges TCPA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------
Todd C. Bank, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. CreditGuard of America, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:18-
cv-01311 (E.D. N.Y., March 1, 2018), is brought against the
Defendants for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act.

Plaintiff Todd C. Bank is a resident of the Eastern District of
New York.

Defendant, CreditGuard of America, Inc., is a corporation
organized and existing under the laws of Florida, and has a
principal place of business at 791 Park of Commerce Boulevard,
Suite 500, Boca Raton, Florida 33487. CGA claimed that it is a
non-profit credit-counseling and debt-management company.

Defendant Freedom Debt Relief, LLC is a limited-liability company
organized and existing under the laws of Delaware, and has a
principal place of business at 1875South Grant Street, Suite 400,
San Mateo, California 94402.

Defendant Freedom Financial Network, LLC is a limited-liability
company organized and existing under the laws of Delaware, and
has a principal place of business at 1875South Grant Street,
Suite 400, San Mateo, California 94402.

Defendant Freedom Financial Network Funding, LLC is a limited-
liability company organized and existing under the laws of
Delaware, and has a principal place of business at1875 South
Grant Street, Suite 400, San Mateo, California 94402. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Todd C. Bank, Esq.
      TODD C. BANK ATTORNEY AT LAW, P.C.
      119-40 Union Turnpike, Fourth Floor
      Kew Gardens, NY 11415
      Tel: (718) 520-7125


D & D THAI: "Librado" Suit Alleges FLSA Violations
--------------------------------------------------
Honorio Candia Librado, Joel Garcia Valente, and Jose Luis
Basurto Milan, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. D & D Thai Restaurant Corp. dba Land Thai Kitchen and
Davi Noi Bank, Case No. 1:18-cv-01214 (S.D. N.Y., February 12,
2018), is brought against the Defendants for violations of the
Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

Plaintiffs were employed as delivery workers, a busboy, a food
preparer and a cook at the restaurant located at 450 Amsterdam
Avenue, New York, New York 10024.

Defendants own, operate, or control a Thai restaurant, located at
New York under the name "Land Thai Kitchen". [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Michael Faillace, Esq.
      MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
      New York, NY 10165
      Tel: (212) 317-1200
      Fax: (212) 317-1620


DAL GLOBAL: Elston, et al. Seeks OT Pay for Off-the-Clock Work
--------------------------------------------------------------
William Elston, Malaysia Burgess and Nancy Chavez, individually,
and on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated current
and former employees, Plaintiffs, v. DAL Global Services, LLC.,
Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-00035 (E.D. Tenn., February 23, 2018),
seeks unpaid overtime compensation, unpaid agreed upon wages,
liquidated damages, costs, attorneys' fees, declaratory and/or
injunctive relief and/or any such other relief pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

DAL Global Services, LLC, owns, operates and provides ramp and
passenger handling services and other aviation-related services,
to Delta Airlines as well as to other airlines at some 80
airports throughout the United States. Elston worked as a ramp
agent while Burgess and Chavez were employed as passenger
services agents. They claim that they were not compensated for
off-the-clock worked rendered. [BN]

Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Gordon E. Jackson, Esq.
      James L. Holt, Jr., Esq.
      J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
      Paula R. Jackson, Esq.
      JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER & HOLT
      262 German Oak Drive
      Memphis, TN 38018
      Tel: (901) 754-8001
      Fax: (901) 759-1745
      Email: gjackson@jsyc.com
             jholt@jsyc.com
             rbryant@jsyc.com
             pjackson@jsyc.com


DC INTERNATIONAL: "Aaron" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
William Aaron, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. DC International, Inc., Case No. 3:18-cv-00044 (S.D.
Tex., February 14, 2018), seeks to recover all unpaid wages and
other damages owed under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff William Aaron worked for Defendant as a dispatcher from
October of 2012 to January of 2016. Plaintiff worked for
Defendant on oil rigs in the continental shelf of the US in the
Gulf of Mexico.

Defendant provides logistics and rig inspection services for the
oil and gas industry.   [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Don J. Foty, Esq.
      KENNEDY HODGES, LLP
      4409 Montrose Blvd., Ste 200
      Houston, TX 77006
      Tel: (713) 523-0001
      Fax: (713) 523-1116
      E-mail: DFoty@kennedyhodges.com


DCG PARTNERS LLC: Kline Sues Over Auto-dialed Telemarketing Call
----------------------------------------------------------------
Robert D. Kline, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. DCG Partners LLC (d/b/a Debtrid.com and
Consumer Law Relief, LLC), Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-80228 (S.D.
Fla., February 23, 2018), seeks to recover damages arising from
DCG Partners' harassing consumers with automated and prerecorded
telemarketing calls in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

Debtrid markets a credit counseling service to consumers through
telemarketing calls and via its website. On or about November 7,
2017, Plaintiff received an unsolicited call to his cellular
telephone number with several seconds of dead air before being
connected with a live agent, apparently the call was made via an
auto-dialer. Kline provided no consent to receive this call. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

       Seth M. Lehrman, Esq.
       EDWARDS POTTINGER, LLC
       425 North Andrews Ave., Suite 2
       Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
       Telephone: (954) 524-2820
       Facsimile: (954) 524-2822
       Email: seth@epllc.com

              - and -

Benjamin F. Johns, Esq.
      Andrew W. Ferich, Esq.
      CHIMICLES & TIKELLIS LLP
      One Haverford Centre
      361 West Lancaster Avenue
      Haverford, PA 19041
      Phone: (610) 642-8500
      Fax: (610) 649-3633
      Email: bfj@chimicles.com
             awf@chimicles.com


DELI INC: "Jimenez" Suit Alleges FLSA and NYLL Violations
---------------------------------------------------------
Iginio Arellanes Jimenez and Santiago Mendez Barrera,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Deli
Inc. dba PJ Berstein Deli, Restaurant Services NYC LLC. dba PJ
Berstein Deli, PJ's Delikatesan LLC (dba PJ Berstein Deli), Alex
Slobodski, Leonid Vaynberg, and Steven Slobodski, Case No. 1:18-
cv-01868 (S.D. N.Y., March 1, 2018), is brought against the
Defendants for unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the New York Labor Law.

Plaintiff Arellanes was employed as a delivery worker, and
Plaintiff Mendez was employed as a line cook at the deli located
at 1215 3rd Ave., New York, New York 10021.

Defendants own, operate, or control a deli, located at 1215 3rd
Ave., New York, New York 10021 under the name "PJ Berstein Deli."
[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Michael Faillace, Esq.
      MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
      New York, NY 10165
      Tel: (212) 317-1200
      Fax: (212) 317-1620


DIRECTV LLC: "Amadeus Adler" Suit Alleges FCRA Violations
---------------------------------------------------------
Jon Wulf Amadeus Adler aka Juan Ramirez, on behalf of himself and
others similarly situated v. DirecTV, LLC et al., Case No. 2:18-
cv-01665 (C.D. Calif., February 28, 2018), is brought against the
Defendants for violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

This is a class action brought under the federal Fair Credit and
Reporting Act, the California Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies
Act, and the California Unfair Competition Law against the
Defendants for routinely and systematically pulling hard credit
reports on consumers without a permissible purpose and under
false pretenses.

Plaintiff Jon Wulf Amadeus Adler is a resident of Los Angeles
County, California and is a consumer.

Defendants operate the largest direct-to-home digital-TV service
in the U.S. providing cable and other pay television services to
consumers. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


DIVINE OPPORTUNITIES: Fails to Pay OT to Caregivers, Osemeke Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Marie Osemeke, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated v. Divine Opportunities, LLC, and Tiffany Plot, Case No.
4:18-cv-00169-A (N.D. Tex., February 27, 2018), alleges that the
Defendants violate the Fair Labor Standards Act by not paying
hourly paid caregivers overtime pay for hours worked in excess of
40 per workweek.

Divine Opportunities, LLC, is a Texas limited liability company.
Tiffany Plot is the owner of DO.  The Company operates a Home
Instead Senior Care franchise and is a home care agency or other
third-party employer.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Chris R. Miltenberger, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF CHRIS R. MILTENBERGER, PLLC
          1340 N. White Chapel, Suite 100
          Southlake, TX 76092-4322
          Telephone: (817) 416-5060
          Facsimile: (817) 416-5062
          E-mail: chris@crmlawpractice.com


ENCORE CAPITAL: "Elston" Suit Seeks Damages under FDCPA
-------------------------------------------------------
Rachel Elston, and all others similarly situated v. Encore
Capital Group, Inc.; Midland Funding, LLC; Midland Credit
Management, Inc., Case No. 2:18-cv-00071 (E.D. Wash., February
27, 2018), seeks damages pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

Plaintiff Rachel Elston is a natural person and a resident of the
State of Washington.

Defendants Encore Capital, Midland Funding and MCMI share the
same headquarters address of 3111 Camino Del Rio N. San Diego, CA
92108. Defendants are debt collectors. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brian Cameron, Esq.
      CAMERON SUTHERLAND, PLLC
      421 W. Riverside Ave., Ste. 660
      Spokane, WA 99201
      Tel: (509) 315-4507
      Fax: (509) 315-4585


FAF INC: "Blodgett" Suit Alleges FLSA Violations
------------------------------------------------
Fredrick Blodgett, dba Big FS LLC, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. FAF, Inc., dba Forward Air
Transportation Services, Inc., and Does 1-25, Case No. 2:18-cv-
00015 (E.D. Tenn., February 12, 2018), is brought against the
Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Forward Air has engaged in a
pattern and practice of taking advantage of its truck drivers by
misclassifying them as independent contractors. In doing so,
Forward Air improperly shifts the costs of doing business to its
truck drivers, while completely controlling the means and manner
by which the truck drivers perform their job duties.

Plaintiff Fredrick Blodgett worked for Defendant as an "owner-
operator" and/or "lease-purchaser" from approximately July 2015
to October 2017 and was classified by Defendant as an independent
contractor.

Defendant FAF, Inc. dba Forward Air Transportation Services,
Inc., is a truckload carrier formed in the State of Tennessee
with its principal place of business at 1915 Snapps Ferry Rd.,
Building N, Greeneville, Tennessee 37745. Defendant Forward Air
primarily serves the air cargo industry by receiving air cargo
and transporting it to the terminal closest to the destination.
Defendant Forward Air operates throughout the United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gregory F. Coleman, Esq.
      Lisa A. White, Esq.
      Mark E. Silvey, Esq.
      GREG COLEMAN LAW PC
      800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100
      Knoxville, TN 37929
      Tel: (865) 247-0080
      Fax: (865) 522-0049
      E-mail: greg@gregcolemanlaw.com
              lisa@gregcolemanlaw.com
              mark@gregcolemanlaw.com


FANNIE MAY: Judges Not Eating Up Class-Action Food Lawsuits
-----------------------------------------------------------
Baylen Linnekin, writing for Reason, reports that a federal court
in Chicago dismissed a class-action lawsuit against local candy
maker Fannie May. The suit alleged Fannie May had sold boxes of
candies that just weren't full enough, and that the candy maker
had underfilled the larger boxes "to trick potential consumers
into believing they were receiving more candy than they really
were."

The plaintiffs, Judge Sara Ellis of the District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois wrote in her decision dismissing
the case, "were saddened to discover upon opening their boxes of
Mint Meltaways and Pixies that the boxes were not brimming with
delectable goodies. Rather, the boxes were filled merely two-
thirds of the way to their brims, leaving [the plaintiffs]
twenty-four-cubic-inches or more short of satisfaction."

Anyone who's ever opened a bag of chips to find far more oddly
chip-scented air than actual chips has experienced the shortness
of satisfaction of which Judge Ellis writes. The phenomenon even
has a name: "slack fill."

"Slack-fill is the difference between the actual capacity of a
container and the volume of product contained therein," FDA rules
state.

According to those same rules, slack fill constitutes misbranding
-- fraudulent labeling -- when consumers can't see all of a
container's contents and the slack fill exists for no permissible
functional reason -- such as protecting a container's contents
or, in the case of a food such as chips, if the product settles
after production.

Even if the two plaintiffs in the Fannie May case were somehow
misled by the company's slack fill, why in heaven's name would
this constitute a class-action lawsuit -- a suit brought by a
members of a class of consumers on behalf of all those consumers
-- rather than just a lawsuit filed on behalf of one or more of
named plaintiffs?

Lawyers -- greedy lawyers -- is the easy answer. A lawyer who
brings suit on behalf of one client who bought an $10 box of
candy can likely expect to earn very little from the litigation's
outcome. But turn that client into the face of a class of, say, a
million consumers who each may have bought an $10 box of candy,
and suddenly the stakes (and the lawyer's potential payoff) rise
dramatically.

That may be all there is to this and other recent slack-fill
suits. But slack-fill lawsuits like these are just the tip of the
iceberg in a sea of class-action litigation. They're also an
example of this fact: Class-action lawsuits against food
companies are booming.

A recent Institute for Legal Reform report, which takes a dim
view of class-action food litigation, indicates class-action
lawsuits targeting food marketing have grown exponentially --
from a mere twenty in 2008 to more than 400 active cases in 2016.

Two other recent Illinois class-action food lawsuits illustrate
this fact. One, which I wrote about last fall, pertains to
whether or not packages of Starburst, made by Chicago's Wrigley,
misstate the number of calories in one of the candies.

The other (and more notorious) case concerns whether sandwich
maker Subway's footlong subs are really one foot long. The issue
first arose in 2013, when an Australian teen snapped a photo of
his Subway sandwich next to a ruler, showing the sub came in
closer to eleven inches. Soon, an aggrieved Subway customer sued
the company, alleging the "footlong" claims had defrauded them.

The class-action lawsuit against Subway seemed doomed from the
start. As I wrote in 2013, "dictionaries define the word
'footlong' not as 'exactly 12.00 inches' but, rather, as
'approximately one foot in length.'" In my estimation, a
reasonable consumer would agree that eleven inches or thirteen
inches is approximately one foot. Case closed, right?

But Subway had already issued what may be the dumbest press
release in history. "Our commitment remains steadfast to ensure
that every SUBWAY Footlong sandwich is 12 inches at each location
worldwide," it reads in part.

So much seeking shelter in the definition of "footlong." Subway
ultimately settled the case, though a judge threw out the
settlement last year, labeling it "'utterly worthless' to the
average Subway customer" and "'no better than a racket' because
only the lawyers benefit."

Judges have indeed been skeptical of most class-action food
lawsuits.

"Federal judges in Chicago recently have been taking a skeptical
view of class-action lawsuits over allegedly misleading food
claims," noted a Chicago Tribune article on the Starburst
lawsuit.

Amid the backdrop of lawsuits, I'll sit on a panel on class-
action food litigation at a Loyola Law School conference in
Chicago. The symposium, Class Action Effectiveness as a Consumer
Protection Tool, is sponsored by the Loyola Consumer Law Review.
My panel -- where I'll join Loyola Prof. Jim Morsch, who teaches
a course there on class actions -- focuses on class-action
litigation against food producers and sellers.

As someone who believes there are far too many frivolous lawsuits
filed against food companies, I welcome judges' skepticism. That
said, not all class-action lawsuits against food companies are
frivolous. Some indeed have merit. But which ones? And how should
courts decide? That's something I plan to unpack in my remarks,
and flesh out in more detail in my Loyola Consumer Law Review
article in the fall. [GN]


FIRST BANCORP: Sued by Hansen for Back Overtime Pay Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
TERESA HANSEN, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated
v. FIRST BANCORP OF DURANGO, INC. dba THE FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF
DURANGO, and WAYNE CARSBURG, Case No. 1:18-cv-00526 (D. Colo.,
March 2, 2018), is a collective action under the Fair Labor
Standards Act for:

   (a) back overtime pay;

   (b) liquidated damages;

   (c) injunctive and affirmative relief requiring that the
       Defendant designate "opt-in" Plaintiffs (who are still
       currently employed by Defendant) as "non-exempt" for
       purposes of federal wage and hour laws;

   (d) punitive damages and compensatory damages; and

   (e) attorney fees.

Headquartered in Inverness, Illinois, First Bancorp of Durango,
Inc., doing business as First National Bank of Durango, is a
banking institution that falls under the national bank charter
class with the FDIC and is regulated by the Office of the
Comptroller of Currency.  FNBD is a financial institution that,
among other things, sells financial products to customers
including mortgage loan products.

FNDB operates a Mortgage Lending Office through its mortgage
division at its principal place of business in Durango.  Wayne
Carsburg is FNBD's Executive Vice President and Chief Loan
Officer, and served as the Plaintiff's supervisor at all relevant
times.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Eleni K. Albrechta, Esq.
          David T. Albrechta, Esq.
          ALBRECHTA & ALBRECHTA, LLC
          530 Main Avenue, Suite D03
          Durango, CO 81301
          Telephone: (970) 422-3288
          E-mail: david@albrechtalaw.com
                  eleni@albrechtalaw.com

               - and -

          Tod J. Thompson, Esq.
          TOD J. THOMPSON, ATTORNEY AT LAW
          810 Sycamore Street
          Cincinnati, OH 45202
          Telephone: (513) 322-4348
          E-mail: tod@thompsonlaw.com

               - and -

          Joseph F. Albrechta, Esq.
          John A. Coble, Esq.
          ALBRECHTA & COBLE, LTD.
          2228 Hayes Avenue, Suite A
          Fremont, OH 43420
          Telephone: (419) 332-9999
          E-mail: jalbrechta@lawyer-ac.com
                  jcoble@lawyer-ac.com


FIRST FINANCIAL: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Do" Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Kevin Do, Lue Lee, Tata Insixiengmay-Tran and Polly
Luangaphay filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit
styled as Kevin Do, et al. v. First Financial Security, Inc.,
Case No. 2:14-cv-07608-SVW-AJW, in the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California, Los Angeles.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Hon.
Stephen V. Wilson entered an order in the lawsuit:

   1. denying Plaintiffs' motion for class certification without
      prejudice; and

   2. granting Defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of subject-
      matter jurisdiction without prejudice.

The Court said, "The Plaintiffs have not alleged any facts
regarding the amount of their individual breach of contract
damages, let alone facts demonstrating that the amount in
controversy exceeds $75,000.  In fact, the TAC asserts only that
they have each been harmed in an amount calculable by First
Financial."  Based on First Financial's records, the total
amounts attributable to the individual Plaintiffs for the period
May 10, 2014 to September 1, 2017 are far less than $75,000:
Plaintiff Kevin Do - $17,707; Plaintiff Tata Insixiengmay - Tran
- $21,653; and Plaintiff Polly Luangaphay - $59,701.  The
Plaintiffs also cannot aggregate their claims to allege a
controversy exceeding $75,000.

The appellate case is captioned as Kevin Do, et al. v. First
Financial Security, Inc., Case No. 18-55251, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

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

   -- Transcript was to be ordered by March 26, 2018;

   -- Transcript is due on April 24, 2018;

   -- Appellants Kevin Do, Tata Insixiengmay-Tran, Lue Lee and
      Polly Luangaphay's opening brief is due on June 4, 2018;

   -- Appellee First Financial Security, Inc.'s answering brief
      is due on July 3, 2018; and

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

Plaintiffs-Appellants KEVIN DO, LUE LEE, TATA INSIXIENGMAY-TRAN
and POLLY LUANGAPHAY, on behalf of themselves and all similarly
situated, are represented by:

          Jon Evan Drucker, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JON E. DRUCKER
          8306 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 638
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Telephone: (323) 931-6363
          Facsimile: (310) 861-5480
          E-mail: jdrucker@lawyers.com

Defendant-Appellee FIRST FINANCIAL SECURITY, INC., is represented
by:

          Clifford Scott Davidson, Esq.
          Kristen Grace Hilton, Esq.
          SUSSMAN SHANK LLP
          1000 S.W. Broadway
          Portland, OR 97205
          Telephone: (503) 227-1111
          Facsimile: (503) 248-0130
          E-mail: cdavidson@sussmanshank.com
                  khilton@sussmanshank.com


FIVE STAR QUALITY: Wins Bid to File Writ in "Lefevre" on April 20
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Justice Anthony Kennedy extended the time to file a petition for
a writ of certiorari until April 20, 2018, in the lawsuit
captioned Five Star Quality Care, Inc., Applicant v. Lourdes
Lefevre, Case No. 17A906, in the Supreme Court of the United
States.

Five Star Quality Care, Inc., appeals to the Supreme Court the
affirmation of the arbitration order in the lawsuit styled
LOURDES LEFEVRE, as an individual and on behalf of all employees
similarly situated v. FIVE STAR QUALITY CARE, INC., a Maryland
Corporation, Case No. 5:15-cv-01305-VAP (SPx), in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California.

Five Star appeals the District Court's order denying its motion
to compel arbitration of Lourdes Lefevre's representative claims
under California's Private Attorney General Act.  The Ninth
Circuit affirmed that the order.  The appellate case is titled
LOURDES LEFEVRE, as an individual and on behalf of all employees
similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellee v. FIVE STAR QUALITY CARE,
INC., a Maryland Corporation, Defendant-Appellant, Case No. 16-
55059, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit.[BN]

Defendant-Petitioner Five Star Quality Care, Inc., is represented
by:

          Clifford M. Sloan, Esq.
          SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP
          1440 New York Avenue NW
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 371-7040
          Facsimile: (202) 661-8340
          E-mail: cliff.sloan@skadden.com


FLOWERS FOODS: "Wiatrek" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages, Damages
------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Wiatrek, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Flowers Foods, Inc., Flowers
Baking Co. of New Orleans, LLC and Flowers Baking Co. of Baton
Rouge, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-00118 (S.D. Miss., February 23,
2018), seeks unpaid wages at overtime rates, penalties,
liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, reasonable attorneys'
fees and costs and such other and further legal and equitable
relief under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendants distribute bakery and snack food products to retail
customers using a centralized network of communication,
distribution and warehousing facilities. Plaintiffs work as
distributors for the Defendants, delivering products to
customers, distributors, stocking the products on store shelves
and assembling promotional displays. They were allegedly
misclassified as independent contractors thus denied the rights,
obligations, privileges and benefits owed to them as employees.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      George B. Ready, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF GEORGE B. READY
      175 East Commerce St.
      P.O. Box 127
      Hernando, MS 38632
      Tel: (662) 429-7088
      Email: GBReady@georgegreadyatty.com

            - and -

      Stephen Shields, Esq.
      James L. Holt, Jr., Esq.
      JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER & HOLT
      262 German Oak Drive
      Memphis, TN 38018
      Tel: (901) 754-8001
      Fax: (901) 759-1745
      Email: sshields@@jsyc.com
             jholt@jsyc.com

             - and -

      Michael L. Weinman, Esq.
      WEINMAN THOMAS LAW FIRM
      112 S. Liberty Street, Suite 321
      P.O. Box 266
      Jackson, TN 38302
      Tel: (731) 423-5565
      Email: mike@weinmanthomas.com


GACO WESTERN: Faces "Feamster" Suit Over Failure of Spray Foam
--------------------------------------------------------------
SCOTT FEAMSTER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. GACO WESTERN, LLC, d/b/a GACO WESTERN, a Limited
Liability Company, and DOES 1 - 100, Case No. 4:18-cv-01327 (N.D.
Cal., February 28, 2018), arises from an alleged complete failure
of Gaco Western's spray foam.

In November 2015, Plaintiff Scott Feamster purchased Gaco
Western's spray foam (commonly known as "SPF") and had it
installed in his Atherton, California home, located in the county
of San Mateo.  On April 21, 2016, the foam installer confirmed
that the Gaco Western foam had continued to shrink and had not
bonded.  On May 12 or 13, 2016, representatives from Gaco Western
indicated that the cause of the failed foam was a defect in the
product -- a formulation error that was present in an entire
batch of foam.

Gaco Western LLC, doing business as Gaco Western, is a limited
liability company with administrative offices located in Seattle,
Washington, and with research and development offices, and
manufacturing, located in Waukesha, Wisconsin.  The true names
and capacities of the Doe Defendants are unknown to the Plaintiff
at this time.

Gaco Western, an international manufacturer of residential and
commercial waterproofing and insulating products, describes
itself as a "recognized leader in innovative silicon roofing
systems," and "insulation solutions for a variety of commercial,
industrial, and residential applications [] Gaco Western closed
cell spray foam insulation makes complete sense from the moment
it bonds to a home."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Sheri L. Kelly, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF SHERI L. KELLY
          31 E. Julian St.
          San Jose, CA 95112
          Telephone: (408) 287-7712
          Facsimile: (408) 583-4249
          E-mail: slk@sherikellylaw.com


GOLD'S GYM: "Frank" Suit Alleges TCPA Violation
-----------------------------------------------
Rachel Frank and Danielle Cowette, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated v. Gold's Gym of Aikens, South
Carolina et al., Case No. 0:18-cv-00447 (D. Minn., February 15,
2018), is brought against the Defendants for violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

In an attempt to solicit business, Gold's Gyms routinely contacts
potential gym members through text messages with automatic
telephone dialing equipment. However, Gold's Gyms regularly sends
these text messages to cellular telephone numbers, without
consent, in violation of the TCPA.

Plaintiff Rachel Frank is, and at all times mentioned herein was,
a resident of Saint Paul, County of Ramsey, State of Minnesota.

Plaintiff Danielle Cowette is, and at all times mentioned herein
was, a resident of Minnetonka, County of Hennepin, State of
Minnesota.

Defendants Gold's Gym International, Inc. is an American chain of
international co-ed fitness centers originally started by Joe
Gold in Venice Beach, California. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Thomas J. Lyons, Jr., Esq.
      CONSUMER JUSTICE CENTER P.A.
      367 Commerce Court
      Vadnais Heights, MN 55127
      Tel: (651) 770-9707
      E-mail: tommy@consumerjusticecenter.com


GULF COAST PAVERS: "Gonzalez" Suit Seeks to Recover OT Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
GUSTAVO GONZALEZ, Individually and on Behalf of All Similarly
Situated Individuals v. GULF COAST PAVERS, INC., Case No. 4:18-
cv-00653 (S.D. Tex., March 1, 2018), arises under the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938 brought to recover unpaid overtime
compensation, liquidated damages, and attorney's fees owed to the
Plaintiff and all other similarly situated employees.

Gulf Coast Pavers, Inc., is a Texas corporation and an "employer"
as defined by the FLSA.  Founded in 2003, Gulf Coast Pavers
specializes in the design and installation of interlocking
pavers, permeable paver systems, roof deck paver systems,
retaining walls and synthetic turf.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Josef F. Buenker, Esq.
          THE BUENKER LAW FIRM
          2060 North Loop West, Suite 215
          Houston, TX 77018
          Telephone: (713) 868-3388
          Facsimile: (713) 683-9940
          E-mail: jbuenker@buenkerlaw.com

               - and -

          Vijay Pattisapu, Esq.
          THE BUENKER LAW FIRM
          2060 North Loop West, Suite 215
          Houston, TX 77018
          Telephone: (713) 868-3388
          Facsimile: (713) 683-9940
          E-mail: vijay@buenkerlaw.com


HARVEY WEINSTEIN: Insurers Won't Cover Sexual Assault Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------
Federal Insurance Company, Chubb Indemnity Insurance Company,
Vigilant Insurance Company, Pacific Indemnity Company, and Great
Northern Insurance Company v. Harvey Weinstein, Case No.
650952/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty., February 28, 2018),
seeks a declaratory judgment that certain insurance policies it
issued to Harvey Weinstein do not provide coverage for defense or
indemnity for these 11 sexual assault and sexual harassment
lawsuits filed against him:

    1. People of the State of New York v. The Weinstein Company
       LLC, The Weinstein Company Holdings LLC, Harvey Weinstein
       and Robert Weinstein, Supreme Court of the State of New
       York, New York County;

    2. Louisette Geiss, et al. (Class Action) v. Harvey
       Weinstein, The Weinstein Company Holdings, LLC, et al.,
       United States District Court for the Southern District of
       New York, Case. No. 17 CV 0954;

    3. Kadian Noble v. Harvey Weinstein, The Weinstein Company,
       LLC, et al., United States District Court for the Southern
       District of New York, Case No. 17 CV 9260;

    4. Sandeep Rehal v. Harvey Weinstein, The Weinstein Company
       LLC, et al, United States District Court for the Southern
       District of New York, Case No. 18 CV 674;

    5. Alexandra Canosa v. The Weinstein Company Holdings, LLC,
       Harvey Weinstein, et al., Supreme Court of the State of
       New York, County of New York, Index No. 161254/2017;

    6. ABC v. Harvey Weinstein, and The Weinstein Company, LLC,
       et al., High Court of Justice (England),
       Case No. HQ17-P-04249;

    7. Gregory Ackers v. Harvey Weinstein and The Weinstein
       Company LLC, Superior Court of the State of California,
       for the County of Los Angeles, Case No. BC681850;

    8. Jane Doe v. Harvey Weinstein, et al., Ontario (Canada),
       Case No. CV 17-585459;

    9. Jane Doe I v. Harvey Weinstein, The Weinstein Company
       Holdings, LLC, et al., Superior Court of the State of
       California, for the County of Los Angeles,
       Case No BC683411;

   10. Jane Doe II (Class Action) v. Harvey Weinstein, The
       Weinstein Company Holdings, LLC, et al. United States
       District Court for the Central District of California,
       Case No. 17 CV 08323; and

   11. Huett v. The Weinstein Company, LLC, Superior Court of the
       State of California, for the County of Los Angeles,
       Case No. BC680869.

The Plaintiffs contend that the allegations of the Underlying
Lawsuits are that Mr. Weinstein and multiple "complicit"
individuals and companies conspired to lure women into vulnerable
situations, under the guise of career advancement, so that he
could rape, sexually assault or harass them, and then later
silence any accusations of wrongdoing.

Harvey Weinstein, a resident of New York, is the co-founder, and
was the co-Chairman and co-CEO of The Weinstein Company Inc. from
its inception in or about 2005 until his termination in October
2017.  TWC operates as a multimedia production and distribution
company.  TWC offers film and television production services and
operates as a subsidiary of The Weinstein Company Holdings
LLC.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Paul R. Koepff, Esq.
          Harris R. Wiener, Esq.
          CLYDE & CO US LLP
          The Chrysler Building
          405 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10174
          Telephone: (212) 710-3900
          Facsimile: (212) 326-2000
          E-mail: paul.koepff@clydeco.us
                  harris.wiener@clydeco.us

               - and -

          Edward P. Gibbons, Esq.
          Joyce F. Noyes, Esq.
          WALKER WILCOX MATOUSEK LLP
          One North Franklin Street, Suite 3200
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 244-6700
          E-mail: egibbons@wwmlawyers.com
                  jnoyes@wwmlawyers.com


HEARST COMMUNICATIONS: DeJesus Sues Over Deaf-Inaccessible Site
---------------------------------------------------------------
ANA JESSICA DEJESUS, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. HEARST COMMUNICATIONS, INC., Case No. 1:18-
cv-01850 (S.D.N.Y., March 1, 2018), accuses the Defendant of
failing to design, construct, and own or operate a Web site that
is fully accessible to, and independently usable by, deaf and
hard of hearing people.

Hearst is an American for-profit corporation organized under the
laws of and registered in the state of New York to do business.
The New York City-based Company runs the Web site
https://www.cosmopolitan.com/, which provides beauty guides, love
advice, fashion information, and videos.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          C.K. Lee, Esq.
          Anne Seelig, Esq.
          LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
          30 East 39th Street, Second Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 465-1188
          Facsimile: (212) 465-1181
          E-mail: cklee@leelitigation.com


HENRY SCHEIN: Bragar Eagel Files Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., announces that a class action
lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York on behalf of all persons or entities who
purchased or otherwise acquired Henry Schein, Inc. (NASDAQ: HSIC)
securities between March 7, 2013 and February 12, 2018 (the
"Class Period"). Investors have until May 7, 2018 to apply to the
Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit.

On February 12, 2018, it was reported that the U.S. Federal Trade
Commission had filed a complaint against the three largest U.S.
dental supply companies, saying they had broken antitrust law.
According to the complaint, Benco Dental Supply, Henry Schein
Inc., and Patterson Companies conspired to refuse to serve or
give discounts to dental buying groups.

Following these disclosures, the stock price of Henry Schein fell
$4.79, or over 6.6% to close at $67.39 per share on February 13,
2018.

The complaint alleges that defendants 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.

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

Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a New York-based law firm
concentrating in commercial and securities litigation. For
additional information concerning the Henry Schein, Inc. lawsuit,
please go to http://www.bespc.com/henryschein.For additional
information about Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., please go to
www.bespc.com.

         Contacts
         Brandon Walker, Esq.
         Melissa Fortunato, Esq.
         Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
         Email: walker@bespc.com
                fortunato@bespc.com [GN]


HENRY SCHEIN: RM LAW Files Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------
RM LAW, P.C., announces that a class action lawsuit has been
filed on behalf of all persons or entities that purchased Henry
Schein, Inc. ("Henry Schein") (NASDAQ: HSIC) publicly traded
securities between March 7, 2013 and February 12, 2018, inclusive
(the "Class Period").

Henry Schein shareholders may, no later than May 7, 2018, move
the Court for appointment as a lead plaintiff of the Class.  If
you purchased shares of Henry Schein and would like to learn more
about these claims or if you wish to discuss these matters and
have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights,
contact Richard A. Maniskas, Esquire toll-free at (844) 291-9299.

The complaint alleges that Henry Schein and certain of its senior
executive officers made false and misleading statements and/or
failed to disclose to investors 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 U.S. 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
FTC; (4) Henry Schein failed to maintain adequate internal
controls; and (5) as a result of the foregoing, the 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.

On February 12, 2018, the Federal Trade Commission ("FTC") issued
a press release entitled "FTC Sues Dental Products Distributors
for Alleged Conspiracy Not to Provide Discounts to a Customer
Segment."  Therein, the FTC disclosed that it had filed a
complaint against Henry Schein, and certain other dental supply
companies, alleging "that they violated U.S. antitrust laws by
conspiring to refuse to provide discounts to or otherwise serve
buying groups representing dental practitioners."

Following this news, shares of Henry Schein's common stock fell
$4.79 per share, or over 6.6%, to close on February 13, 2018 at
$67.39, on heavy trading volume.

If you are a member of the class, you may, no later than May 7,
2018, request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff of the
class.  A lead plaintiff is a representative party that acts on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation.  In
order to be appointed lead plaintiff, the Court must determine
that the class member's claim is typical of the claims of other
class members, and that the class member will adequately
represent the class.  Under certain circumstances, one or more
class members may together serve as "lead plaintiff."  Your
ability to share in any recovery is not, however, affected by the
decision whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff.  You may
retain RM LAW, P.C. or other counsel of your choice, to serve as
your counsel in this action.

For more information regarding this, please contact RM LAW, P.C.
(Richard A. Maniskas, Esquire) toll-free at (844) 291-9299 or by
email at rm@maniskas.com For more information about class action
cases in general or to learn more about RM LAW, P.C. please visit
our website.

RM LAW, P.C. is a national shareholder litigation firm.  RM LAW,
P.C. is devoted to protecting the interests of individual and
institutional investors in shareholder actions in state and
federal courts nationwide.

         CONTACT:
         Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
         Tel: 484-324-6800
                  844-291-9299
         E-mail: rm@maniskas.com [GN]


HOLMAN DISTRIBUTION: Fails to Pay Overtime Under FLSA, Faulk Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SHAUN FAULK, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. HOLMAN DISTRIBUTION CENTER OF WASHINGTON, INC., Case
No. 4:18-cv-00161-BRW (E.D. Ark., March 1, 2018), is brought
under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Arkansas Minimum Wage
Act over the Defendant's alleged failure to pay the Plaintiff and
other warehouse employees lawful overtime compensation for hours
worked in excess of 40 hours per week.

Holman Distribution is a for-profit, foreign corporation,
providing Third Party Logistics (3PL) and Supply Chain Management
services with base operations in the Seattle area of the Pacific
Northwest, with public warehouse facilities in Seattle, and
contract warehousing and manufacturing logistics operations
across the United States.  The Defendant's principal address is
22430 75th Avenue South, in Kent, Washington.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


HUDSON SEAFOOD: "Carlock" Suit Seeks Damages under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------
Lydia Carlock and Nicolas Fabrizio, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated v. Hudson Seafood Corporation dba
Hudson's Seafood House on the Docks and John Does 1-10, Case No.
9:18-cv-00590 (D. S.C., March 1, 2018), seeks actual damages,
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and for other
relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

Plaintiff Lydia Carlock was employed by Hudson's from August of
2016 through March of 2017 as a server.

Plaintiff Nicolas Fabrizio was employed by Hudson's from August
of 2013 through July of 2017 in various positions including
bartender and server.

Hudson's is a South Carolina corporation maintaining offices and
agents in the county of Beaufort, state of South Carolina.
Hudson's is an employer of individuals and operates a restaurant
in Beaufort County doing business as Hudson's Seafood House on
the Docks.  [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Bruce E. Miller, Esq.
      Elisabeth A. Germain, Esq.
      BRUCE E. MILLER, P.A.
      147 Wappoo Creek Drive, Suite 603
      Charleston, SC  29412
      Tel: (843) 579-7373
      Fax: (843) 614-6417
      E-mail: bmiller@brucemillerlaw.com
              bgermain@brucemillerlaw.com


HYUNDAI MOTORS: Lawyers Ask 9th Cir. for En Banc Review
-------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The Recorder, reports that lawyers
on both sides of a high-profile case against Hyundai, citing a
circuit split, have asked an en banc appeals panel to upend a
ruling that they say threatens the future of nationwide class
action settlements.

In dual petitions for rehearing filed before the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, plaintiffs attorneys and lawyers
for defendants Hyundai Motor America and Kia Motors America Inc.
both argued that an en banc panel should review a Jan. 23
decision that conflicts with the Third Circuit, and its own
precedent. The 2-1 decision, which decertified the nationwide
class in their settlement, also is contrary to the U.S. Supreme
Court's 1997 decision in Amchem Products v. Windsor, they wrote.

"Class action litigation resembling this case is commonplace
throughout the nation, and the panel majority decision will have
broad, negative effects on the way class action litigation is
conducted -- to the extent that it does not render nationwide
class treatment unfeasible altogether," wrote Hyundai attorney
Shon Morgan, Esq. -- shonmorgan@quinnemanuel.com -- and James
Azadian, Esq. -- JAzadian@enterprisecounsel.com -- who represents
Kia. "Whatever one thinks of the class action device, the
voluntary, fair and efficient resolution of such actions through
nationwide settlements benefits all stakeholders: class members,
defendants, as well as state and federal judicial systems. The
panel majority's decision severely jeopardizes these salutary
outcomes."

The ruling in In re Hyundai and Kia Fuel Economy Litigation
involved a settlement of Hyundai consumers who had sued over
misstatements about fuel standards. In a dissent, Ninth Circuit
Judge Jacqueline Nguyen said the majority's opinion "deals a
major blow" to nationwide class actions.

But the majority found the district judge had failed to conduct
an analysis over whether consumer laws in several states were so
different from one another as to defeat the common claims of
class members. Federal Rule 23 of Civil Procedure allows class
actions to be maintained if a judge "finds that the questions of
law or fact common to class members predominate over any
questions affecting only individual members."

But being forced to analyze variances in state laws as part of a
so-called predominance analysis is not simple or appropriate for
class action settlements, wrote plaintiffs attorney Steve Berman,
Esq. -- steve@hbsslaw.com -- of Seattle's Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro.

"Requiring the parties to engage in detailed choice-of-law and/or
multi-state consumer-law analysis as a prerequisite to
certification of a nationwide settlement class increases both the
burden on the district courts and the expense and uncertainty of
nationwide settlements -- and makes such settlements less
likely," he wrote.

On March 9, the Ninth Circuit ordered lawyers for objectors, who
challenged the settlement on appeal, to file a response within 21
days. Objector attorneys James Feinman, Esq. of Lynchburg,
Virginia, and George Cochran, Esq. of Streetsboro, Ohio, who
argued in the case, did not respond to requests for comment.

The ruling already has been cited in class action settlements
involving Remington rifles and data breaches at Target and
Anthem.

"The panel majority decision already portends profound impact on
class litigation nationwide, threatening to undermine carefully
crafted settlement agreements," defense lawyers wrote.

Morgan, chairman of the national class action practice group at
Los Angeles-based Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, and Azadian,
West Coast leader of Dykema Gossett's appellate practice, both
declined to comment.

Both sides cited the numerous barriers that the ruling would
create in attempting to settle nationwide class actions.

Berman said it was "wasteful make-work for litigants" and would
"generate extra paperwork." It also could force plaintiffs
lawyers to join "additional class representatives for whom
service payments would be sought."

Lawyers for Hyundai and Kia said the ruling "imposes a new and
unworkable requirement on district courts" that will
"significantly distort class-action litigation and settlements
going forward."

Both sides focused on the Ninth Circuit's own opinion in Hanlon
v. Chrysler, which came out in 1998. That panel found that the
"idiosyncratic differences between state consumer protection laws
are not sufficiently substantive to predominate over the shared
claims."

Berman called Hyundai "a significant departure from precedent"
given that lawyers have relied on Hanlon for more than 20 years.

Neither petition focused much on the Ninth Circuit's 2012
decision in Mazza v. American Honda Motor, on which the Hyundai
majority had relied. In that case, the Ninth Circuit de-certified
a nationwide class under California law after finding that each
of the 44 states involved had a "strong interest in applying its
own consumer protection laws." But that ruling involved a
certification motion, not approval of a settlement. Such an
analysis is common in class certification arguments but,
according to some lawyers, much less so at the settlement stage,
when everyone wants to resolve the litigation.

The Hyundai panel also cited the Supreme Court's finding in
Amchem that both sides of a class action settlement must make
sure to give "undiluted, even heightened, attention" to Rule 23's
requirements in order to protect the rights of absent class
members.

Both petitions insisted that Hyundai misinterpreted the Supreme
Court decision.

And both said Hyundai conflicted with the Third Circuit's en banc
decision in Sullivan v. DB Investments in 2011. Defense lawyers
also cited the Seventh Circuit's 2001 ruling in In re Mexico
Money Transfer Litigation.

Those circuits "treat differences in state law as generally
immaterial in the context of a settlement class and thus
insufficient to defeat predominance," defense lawyers wrote.

The burden to analyze conflicts among state laws, they wrote, is
on objectors, who can raise those issues before the approval of a
settlement -- not on plaintiffs and defendants, or even judges,
as the Hyundai decision appeared to suggest.

"That has never been the law in this circuit (or in any other),"
defense lawyers wrote. [GN]


IBA PROTON: "Murray" Suit Seeks to Recover OT Pay Under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------
DENNIS MURRAY, individually, and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. IBA PROTON THERAPY, INC., Case No. 5:18-cv-10681-JCO-
MKM (E.D. Mich., February 27, 2018), seeks to recover overtime
compensation and other relief relating to alleged violations of
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

IBA Proton Therapy, Inc., is a Delaware corporation with its
principal U.S. place of business located in Reston, Virginia.
The Company is a global company with its international
headquarters in Belgium that operates in three areas relating to
healthcare with a focus on oncology: proton therapy, dosimetry,
partical accelerators.  The Company operates throughout the world
and is a leader in developing proton therapy: a cutting-edge
cancer treatment.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Charles R. Ash IV, Esq.
          SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
          One Towne Square, 17th Floor
          Southfield, MI 48076
          Telephone: (248) 355-0300
          E-mail: crash@sommerspc.com

               - and -

          Jason T. Brown, Esq.
          Nicholas Conlon, Esq.
          JTB LAW GROUP, LLC
          155 2nd Street, Suite 4
          Jersey City, NJ 07302
          Telephone: (877) 561-0000
          E-mail: jtb@jtblawgroup.com
                  nicholasconlon@jtblawgroup.com


INTEL CORPORATION: Aneca Federal Suit Alleges UCL Violations
------------------------------------------------------------
Aneca Federal Credit Union, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Intel Corporation, Case No. 3:18-cv-
00258 (D. Ore., February 9, 2018), is brought against the
Defendant for violations of the Unfair Competition Law and the
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.

Plaintiff Aneca Federal Credit Union is a federally chartered
credit union located in Shreveport, Louisiana. In 2015, Plaintiff
purchased 15 Dell Optiplex computers, each of which was equipped
with an Intel Core i5 CPU, which is affected by a defect.

Defendant Intel Corporation is an American semiconductor company
with headquarters at 2200 Mission College Boulevard, Santa Clara,
California. At all relevant times, Intel was engaged in
designing, manufacturing, distributing, and selling electronic
computer components, including the defectively designed CPUs at
issue. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jennifer S. Wagner, Esq.
      Gary M. Berne, Esq.
      Steve D. Larson, Esq.
      Jennifer S. Wagner, Esq.
      STOLL STOLL BERNE LOKTING
      & SHLACHTER P.C.
      209 SW Oak Street, Suite 500
      Portland, OR 97204
      Tel: (503) 227-1600
      E-mail: gberne@stollberne.com
              slarson@stollberne.com
              jwagner@stollberne.com


JTH TAX: Accused by Broward Psychology Suit of Violating TCPA
-------------------------------------------------------------
BROWARD PSYCHOLOGY P.A., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. JTH TAX, INC. d/b/a LIBERTY TAX SERVICE, a
Delaware corporation, Case No. 0:18-cv-60412-DPG (S.D. Fla.,
February 26, 2018), arises from Liberty Tax's knowing and willful
transmission of fax advertisements without recipients' consent,
in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Broward Psychology P.A. is a Florida professional association
with its principal place of business in Hollywood, Florida.

JTH Tax, Inc., doing business as Liberty Tax Service, is a
Delaware corporation with its principal place of business located
in Virginia Beach, Virginia.  Liberty Tax is a company that
provides tax preparation services nationwide, including through
its network of franchisees.  Liberty Tax directs, markets, and
provides its tax preparation services throughout the State of
Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


KEY TECHNOLOGY: Franchi Files Securities Suit in E.D. Wash.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Adam Franchi, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Key Technology, Inc., Richard Lawrence, Robert M.
Averick, John J. Ehren, John E. Pelo, Michael L. Shannon, Charles
H. Stonecipher, Donald A. Washburn, Paul J. Wolf, Duravant LLC,
and Cascade Merger Sub, Inc., Case No. 4:18-cv-05027 (E.D. Wash.,
February 15, 2018), is brought against the Defendants for
violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

This action stems from a proposed transaction announced on
January 25, 2018, pursuant to which Key Technology, Inc. will be
acquired by Duravant LLC and its wholly-owned subsidiary, Cascade
Merger Sub, Inc.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Solicitation Statement filed by
Defendants on February 8, 2018, omits material information with
respect to the Proposed Transaction, which renders the
Solicitation Statement false and misleading.

Plaintiff Adam Franchi owns Key Technology common stock.

Defendant Key Technology develops and manufactures automated
digital sorting systems and integrates them with its advanced
material handling technologies to provide complete solutions for
processors of food and other processed products.

The Individual Defendants are officers of Key Technology. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Roger Townsend, Esq.
      BRESKIN JOHNSON & TOWNSEND, PLLC
      1000 Second Avenue, Suite 3670
      Seattle, WA 98104
      Tel: (206) 652-8660
      Fax: (206) 652-8290
      E-mail: rtownsend@bjtlegal.com


KINDRED HEALTHCARE: "Brumfield" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
---------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Brumfield, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Kindred Healthcare, Inc. and Kindred Healthcare
Operating, Inc. dba Kindred at Home, Case No. 2:18-cv-00591 (D.
S.C., March 1, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime pay under
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff Amanda Brumfield worked for Kindred as a home health
Licensed Practical Nurse from approximately August 2017 to
November 2017 out of its Tyler, Texas office. Prior to August
2017, Plaintiff worked as a hospice LPN for Kindred beginning in
May 2014 out of its Athens, Texas office.

Defendant Kindred Healthcare, Inc. is a healthcare services
company that through its subsidiaries operates a home health,
hospice and community care business, TC hospitals, IRFs, and a
contract rehabilitation services business across the United
States.

Defendant Kindred Healthcare Operating, Inc. is a Delaware
corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of Defendant Kindred
Healthcare, Inc. Defendant Kindred Healthcare Operating, Inc.
also has its principal place of business is located at 680 South
Fourth Street, Louisville, Kentucky 40202. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      William N. Nettles, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF BILL NETTLES
      2008 Lincoln Street
      Columbia, SC 29201
      Tel: (803) 814-2826
      Fax: (888) 745-1381
      E-mail: bill@billnettleslaw.com


LIFE TIME FITNESS: Eighth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Lusk" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Matthew Lusk and St. Clair Employees' Retirement
System filed an appeal from a court ruling in their lawsuit
titled Matthew Lusk, et al. v. Life Time Fitness, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 0:15-cv-01911-JRT, in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Minnesota.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Mr. Lusk, a
shareholder of Defendant Life Time Fitness, Inc., filed a case on
April 10, 2015, against Life Time and its Board of Directors,
challenging the proposed sale of Life Time to a consortium of
investors led by Leonard Green & Partners, L.P.  He alleged that
the sale price of $72.10 per share was unfair and that the proxy
materials regarding the shareholder vote approving the sale were
materially misleading, in violation of federal securities laws.

The appellate case is captioned as Matthew Lusk; St. Clair
Employees' Retirement System, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. Life Time
Fitness, Inc.; Bahram Akradi; Giles H. Bateman; Jack W. Eugster;
Guy C. Jackson; John K. Lloyd; Martha A. Morfitt; John B.
Richards; Joseph S. Vassalluzzo; Leonard Green & Partners, L.P.;
TPG Capital, L.P.; LKN Partners, Defendants-Appellees, Case No.
18-1444, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth
Circuit.[BN]

The Plaintiffs-Appellants are represented by:

          Jeffrey Craig Block, Esq.
          Jason M. Leviton, Esq.
          Jacob A. Walker, Esq.
          BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
          155 Federal Street, Suite 400
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617) 398-5600
          E-mail: jeff@blockesq.com
                  jason@blockesq.com
                  jake@blockesq.com

               - and -

          Garrett D. Blanchfield Jr., Esq.
          Brant D. Penney, Esq.
          REINHARDT WENDORF & BLANCHFIELD
          W-1050 First National Bank Building
          332 Minnesota Street
          St. Paul, MN 55101
          Telephone: (651) 287-2100
          E-mail: g.blanchfield@rwblawfirm.com
                  b.penney@rwblawfirm.com

               - and -

          James M. Ficaro, Esq.
          THE WEISER LAW FIRM, INC.
          22 Cassatt Avenue
          Berwyn, PA 19312
          Telephone: (610) 225-0206
          E-mail: jmf@weiserlawfirm.com

               - and -

          David T. Wissbroecker, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          655 W. Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101-0000
          Telephone: (619) 231-1058
          Facsimile: (619) 231-7423
          E-mail: DWissbroecker@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Stuart Andrew Davidson, Esq.
          Christopher C. Gold, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          120 E. Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500
          Boca Raton, FL 33432-4809
          Telephone: (561) 750-3000
          Facsimile: (561) 750-3364
          E-mail: SDavidson@rgrdlaw.com
                  cgold@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Carl F. Engstrom, Esq.
          Kai Heinrich Richter, Esq.
          NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
          4600 IDS Center
          80 S. Eighth Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402-0000
          Telephone: (612) 256-3233
          Facsimile: (612) 338-4878
          E-mail: cengstrom@nka.com
                  krichter@nka.com

Defendants-Appellees Leonard Green & Partners, L.P., and TPG
Capital, L.P., are represented by:

          Carrie Baker Anderson, Esq.
          Ellie J. Barragry, Esq.
          Bret A. Puls, Esq.
          FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP
          Campbell Mithun Tower, Suite 2000
          222 South Ninth St.
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 607-7000
          Facsimile: (612) 607-7100
          E-mail: cbanderson@foxrothschild.com
                  ebarragry@foxrothschild.com
                  bpuls@foxrothschild.com

               - and -

          Martin J. Crisp, Esq.
          ROPES & GRAY LLP
          1211 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 212-596-90
          Telephone: (212) 596-9193
          E-mail: Martin.Crisp@ropesgray.com

               - and -

          Christopher G. Green, Esq.
          ROPES & GRAY LLP
          Prudential Tower
          800 Boylston Street
          Boston, MA 02199-3600
          Telephone: (617) 951-7878
          E-mail: Christopher.Green@ropesgray.com

Defendant-Appellee Leonard Green & Partners, L.P., is represented
by:

          Michele D. Johnson, Esq.
          LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
          650 Town Center Drive, 20th Floor
          Costa Mesa, CA 92627
          Telephone: (7140 540-1235
          E-mail: michele.johnson@lw.com

Defendant-Appellee Bahram Akradi is represented by:

          Caitlin L.D. Hull, Esq.
          James K. Nichols, Esq.
          Lincoln S. Loehrke, Esq.
          Thomas Paul Swigert, Esq.
          DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP
          50 S. Sixth Street, Suite 1500
          Minneapolis, MN 55402-1498
          Telephone: (612) 492-6773
          Facsimile: (612) 677-3299
          E-mail: hull.caitlin@dorsey.com
                  nichols.james@dorsey.com
                  loehrke.lincoln@dorsey.com
                  swigert.tom@dorsey.com

Defendants-Appellees Life Time Fitness, Inc., Giles H. Bateman,
Jack W. Eugster, Guy C. Jackson, John K. Lloyd, Martha A.
Morfitt, John B. Richards and Joseph S. Vassalluzzo are
represented by:

          Matthew Brian Kilby, Esq.
          Justin P. Krypel, Esq.
          Lauren W. Linderman, Esq.
          Wendy J. Wildung, Esq.
          FAEGRE BAKER DANIELS LLP
          2200 Wells Fargo Center
          90 S. Seventh Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402-3901
          Telephone: (612) 766-7550
          Facsimile: (612) 766-1600
          E-mail: matthew.kilby@FaegreBD.com
                  justin.krypel@faegrebd.com
                  lauren.linderman@FaegreBD.com
                  wendy.wildung@FaegreBD.com

               - and -

          Cicely Rosemary Miltich, Esq.
          FAEGRE BAKER DANIELS LLP
          311 S. Wacker Drive, Suite 4400
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 212-6500
          Facsimile: (312) 212-6501
          E-mail: cicely.miltich@faegrebd.com

Defendant-Appellee LKN Partners is represented by:

          Matthew Solum, Esq.
          Ross L. Weiner, Esq.
          KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
          601 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 446-4688
          Facsimile: (212) 446-4900
          E-mail: matthew.solum@kirkland.com
                  ross.weiner@kirkland.com

               - and -

          Frank A. Taylor, Esq.
          BRIGGS AND MORGAN, PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION
          2200 IDS Center
          80 S. Eighth Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402-0000
          Telephone: (612) 977-8445
          Facsimile: (612) 977-8650
          E-mail: ftaylor@briggs.com


LOANDEPOT.COM LLC: Napoles Files Suit for Invasion of Privacy
-------------------------------------------------------------
MIGUEL NAPOLES, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. LOANDEPOT.COM, LLC, and DOES 1 through 10,
inclusive, and each of them, Case No. 2:18-cv-01578 (C.D. Cal.,
February 27, 2018), accuses the Defendants of negligently,
knowingly, and willfully contacting the Plaintiff on his cellular
telephone in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act,
thereby, invading his privacy and causing him to incur
unnecessary and unwanted expenses.

LOANDEPOT.COM, LLC is a marketer and seller of loans and related
products.  The Company focuses on originating, financing, and
selling of mortgage loans secured by residential real estate.
The Company is based in Foothill Ranch, California, and operates
as a subsidiary of Loandepot Holdings, LLC.  The true names and
capacities of the Doe Defendants are currently unknown.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


LOS ANGELES, CA: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Ray" FLSA Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Trina Ray and Sasha Walker filed an appeal from a
court ruling in their lawsuit entitled Trina Ray, et al. v. Los
Angeles County Department, Case No. 2:17-cv-04239-PA-SK, in the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Los
Angeles.

The appellate case is captioned as Trina Ray, et al. v. Los
Angeles County Department, Case No. 18-55276, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the
Plaintiffs have also filed a Ninth Circuit appeal.  That
appellate case is styled as Trina Ray, et al. v. LOS ANGELES
COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SOCIAL SERVICES, Case No. 17-80250.

The County of Los Angeles had also previously filed an appeal
from a court ruling in the lawsuit.  That appellate case is
captioned as Trina Ray v. County of Los Angeles, Case No. 17-
56581.

The lawsuit is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act
on behalf of those employed by the Defendants as homecare
workers, home care providers, or in other similar job titles,
through the In-Home Supportive Services program and in the County
of Los Angeles.

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

   -- Appellants Trina Ray and Sasha Walker's opening brief is
      due on May 2, 2018;

   -- Appellee Los Angeles County Department of Public Social
      Services' answering brief is due on June 4, 2018; and

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

Plaintiffs-Appellants TRINA RAY and SASHA WALKER, individually,
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented
by:

          Philip Bohrer, Esq.
          BOHRER BRADY, LLC
          8712 Jefferson Highway, Suite B
          Baton Rouge, LA 70809
          Telephone: (225) 925-5297
          Facsimile: (225) 231-7000
          E-mail: phil@bohrerlaw.com

               - and -

          Paige Fishman, Esq.
          NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
          4600 IDS Center
          80 South Eighth Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 256-3200
          Facsimile: (612) 338-4878
          E-mail: pfishman@nka.com

               - and -

          Matthew C. Helland, Esq.
          NICHOLS KASTER, LLP
          235 Montgomery Street, Suite 810
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 277-7235
          Facsimile: (415) 277-7238
          E-mail: helland@nka.com

Plaintiff-Appellant TRINA RAY is represented by:

          Daniel S. Brome, Esq.
          Nichols Kaster, LLP
          235 Montgomery Street, Suite 810
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 277-7235
          Facsimile: (415) 277-7238
          E-mail: dbrome@nka.com

Defendant-Appellee LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SOCIAL
SERVICES, Erroneously Sued as County of Los Angeles, is
represented by:

          Jennifer Mira Hashmall, Esq.
          MILLER BARONDESS, LLP
          1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1000
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Personal: 310-552-4400
          Telephone: (310) 552-4400
          Facsimile: (310) 552-8400
          E-mail: mhashmall@millerbarondess.com

               - and -

          Jeffery White, Esq.
          SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP
          300 South Grand Avenue
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 687-5191


LUMILEDS LLC: "Chaudhri" Suit Alleges Consumer Fraud
----------------------------------------------------
Imran Chaudhri, individually and on behalf of those similarly
situated v. Lumileds, LLC, Case No. 2:18-cv-02167 (D.N.J.,
February 15, 2018), is brought against the Defendant for
violation of State Consumer Protection Statutes and the New
Jersey Consumer Fraud Act.

Plaintiff Imran Chaudhri resides at 32 Revere Rd.,
Piscataway, N.J. 08854. Plaintiff purchased a twin package of
Philips X-tremeVision 9003 headlamps from authorized retailer,
Pep Boys.

Defendant Lumileds is a lighting company globally developing,
manufacturing, and distributing LEDs, light bulbs, and related
products for automotive lighting, general lighting, and specialty
lighting. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Thomas Paciorkowski, Esq.
      EICHEN CRUTCHLOW ZASLOW, LLP
      40 Ethel Road
      Edison, NJ 08817
      Tel: (732) 777-0100
      E-mail: tom@paciorkowski.net


MCCARTHY BURGESS: "Jacobs" Disputes Collection Letter
-----------------------------------------------------
Christopher Jacobs, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. McCarthy, Burgess & Wolff, Inc.
and John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-00021 (D. Del.,
February 23, 2018), seeks damages and declaratory and injunctive
relief under the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act.

McCarthy, Burgess & Wolff, Inc. is a debt collection agency with
address at 26000 Cannon Road, Cleveland, Ohio 44146. It attempted
to collect an obligation allegedly incurred by Jacobs to Verizon
via a collection letter that offered a settlement amount that was
not a reduced offer of settlement, but merely payment in full and
contained an expiring offer, whereby Jacobs only has fourteen
days to accept, a tactic to coerce a rushed payment from
Defendant. [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


MDL 2599: Road Tested Suit Transferred to S.D. Fla.
---------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Road Tested Parts, Inc., d/b/a
Weaverparts.Com, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Honda Motor Co., Ltd., American
Honda Motor Co., Inc., Honda R&D Co., Ltd, Honda of America Mfg.,
Inc., Bayerische Motoren Werke Ag, Bmw of North America, LLC, BMW
Manufacturing Co., LLC, Ford Motor Company, Toyota Motor
Corporation, Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. and Toyota Motor
Engineering & Manufacturing North America, Inc., Mazda Motor
Corporation, Mazda Motor of America, Inc., Mitsubishi Motors
Corp., Mitsubishi Motors North America, Inc., Nissan Motor Co.,
Ltd., Nissan North America, Inc., Fuji Heavy Industries, Ltd.,
Subaru of America, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-00021 (M.D.
Ga., February 22, 2018), was transferred to the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Florida, and assigned Case No.
1:18-cv-20879.

The case was consolidated in MDL Case Number 1:15-md-02599-FAM.

Suits were consolidated in IN RE: TAKATA AIRBAG PRODUCTS
LIABILITY LITIGATION, MDL No. 2599, Master File No. 15-2599-MD-
MORENO, No. 14-24009-CV-MORENO (S.D. Fla.) on the allegations of
economic loss and personal injury related to airbags manufactured
by defendants Takata Corporation and TK Holdings and equipped in
vehicles manufactured by defendants Honda, BMW, Ford, Mazda,
Mitsubishi, Nissan, Subaru, and Toyota.

Road Tested Parts, Inc. seeks compensatory, exemplary, and
punitive remedies and damages and statutory penalties, including
interest, reimbursement of the reasonable expenses occasioned by
the sale, for damages and for reasonable attorney fees resulting
from fraudulent concealment, breach of implied and express
warranty, unjust enrichment and negligence and in violations of
the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, Magnuson-
Moss Warranty Act and Michigan Consumer Protection Act.

Road Tested Parts is an automotive parts recycler located at 774
Highway 320, Carnesville, GA 30521. Road Tested purchased
vehicles containing Takata airbags for purposes of resale. Under
ordinary conditions, including daily temperature swings and
contact with moisture in the air, Takata's ammonium nitrate
propellant transforms and destabilizes, causing irregular and
dangerous behavior ranging from inertness to violent combustion
in their airbags.

Takata Corporation is a foreign for-profit corporation with its
principal place of business in Tokyo, Japan. Takata is a
specialized supplier of automotive safety systems that designs,
manufactures, tests, markets, distributes and sold airbags to the
named Defendants. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Cale Conley, Esq.
      CONLEY GRIGGS PARTIN LLP
      4200 Northside Parkway NW
      Building One, Suite 300
      Atlanta, GA 30327
      Phone: (404) 467-1155
      Fax: (404) 467-1166
      Email: cale@conleygriggs.com

             - and -

      R. Bryant McCulley, Esq.
      Stuart H. McCluer, Esq.
      Frank B. Ulmer, Esq.
      MCCULLEY MCCLUER PLLC
      1022 Carolina Boulevard, Suite 300
      P.O. Box 505
      Charleston, SC 29451
      Phone: (205) 238-6757
      Fax: (904) 239-5388
      Email: bmcculley@mcculleymccluer.com
             smccluer@mcculleymccluer.com
             fulmer@mcculleymccluer.com

             - and -

      Christopher J. Stucky, Esq.
      Benjamin C. Fields, Esq.
      STUCKY & FIELDS LLC
      214 W. 18th St., Suite 200
      Kansas City, MO 64108
      Telephone: (816) 659-9970
      Facsimile: (816) 659-9969
      Email: chris@stuckyfields.com
             ben@stuckyfields.com

             - and -

      Richard B. Drubel, Esq.
      Jonathan R. Voegele, Esq.
      BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP
      26 South Main Street
      Hanover, NH 03755
      Tel: (603) 643-9090
      Fax: (603) 643-9010
      Email: rdrubel@bsfllp.com
             jvoegele@bsfllp.com


MDL 2613: Court Orders Revision of Class Definition
---------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of South
Carolina, Greenville Division, issued an Opinion and Order
granting in part and denying in part Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification in the case captioned IN RE: TD BANK, N.A. DEBIT
CARD OVERDRAFT FEE LITIGATION, MDL No. 2613, Civil Action No.
6:15-MN-2613-BHH (D.S.C.).

Defendant TD Bank, N.A., is a combination of several U.S. banks
acquired by its Canada-based parent, Toronto-Dominion Bank, since
2004.  The Bank maintains more than 1200 branches across the
United States and has more than 8.5 million customers.

Plaintiffs maintain two overarching theories of liability. First,
they allege the Bank has engaged in a regular practice of
extracting overdraft fees from customers even when their accounts
were not actually overdrawn (available balance theory), to the
tune of millions of dollars in improper fees.  Second, Plaintiffs
allege that TD has systematically violated federal law by failing
to comply with mandatory opt-in requirements imposed by
Regulation E (Reg E theory) prior to assessing overdraft fees on
one-time debit card and automated teller machine (ATM)
transactions.

Applicability of the Reg E Theory

In November 2009, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve
System (Board) amended Regulation E (Reg E), which implements the
Electronic Fund Transfer Act (EFTA), in order to limit the
ability of a financial institution to assess an overdraft fee for
paying ATM and one-time debit card transactions that overdraw a
consumer's account, unless the consumer affirmatively consents,
or opts in, to the institution's payment of overdrafts for these
transactions.

In the motion for class certification, Plaintiffs raise
generalized theories of unfairness regarding the Bank's
implementation of the amendments to Reg E. Specifically,
Plaintiffs assert that the Bank, in an effort to stem projected
losses to overdraft revenue, engaged in strategies to maximize
customer opt-in to TDDCA, particularly targeting vulnerable
customers who may be least able to afford fee-based overdraft
products.

Plaintiffs allege that TD's enterprise-wide opt-in process failed
to comply with Reg E in five specific ways. First, they assert
that the Bank's Reg E Form inaccurately described an overdraft as
occurring when you do not have enough money available in your
account to cover a transaction.

Second, Plaintiffs allege that, for customers who opted into
TDDCA by telephone or online, TD either failed to provide the Reg
E Form, or failed to ensure that it was provided to customers
segregated from all other information prior to obtaining their
affirmative opt-in.

Third, Plaintiffs allege that TD failed to obtain affirmative
consent during the opt-in process.

Fourth, Plaintiffs allege that customers enrolled online from
December 2011 through July 2015 did not receive the requisite
confirmation letter or copy of their signed Reg E Form, including
a statement informing the customer of the right to revoke
consent, following the opt-in procedures.

Fifth, Plaintiffs allege that TD's enrollment confirmation forms
were universally deficient because they do not include notice
that the customer has a right to revoke his/her consent to DCA
enrollment.

Legal Standard

Rule 23(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure identifies the
prerequisites for a class action as follows:

(a) Prerequisites to a Class Action. One or more members of a
class may sue or be sued as representative parties on behalf of
all only if (1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all
members is impracticable, (2) there are questions of law or fact
common to the class, (3) the claims or defenses of the
representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of
the class, and (4) the representative parties will fairly and
adequately protect the interests of the class.

The Bank does not contest Rule 23(a)(1) numerosity or Rule
23(a)(4) adequacy,10 so the remaining areas of dispute deal with
Rule 23(a)(2) commonality, Rule 23(a)(3) typicality, and
Plaintiffs' burden to demonstrate the predominance of common
issues and the superiority of class treatment under Rule
23(b)(3).

Class Certification is Appropriate for Claims Pertaining to the
Available Balance Theory

Defendant argues, first, that Plaintiffs cannot meet their burden
to establish Rule 23(a)(2) commonality under the heightened
standard of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes. Dukes v. Wal-Mart
Stores, Inc., 603 F.3d 571, 652 (9th Cir. 2010).  In Wal-Mart,
the United States Supreme Court concluded that a class of female
employees alleging Title VII discrimination in the form of pay
and promotion disparities had been improperly certified because
Rule 23(a)(2) commonality could not be satisfied.

In stark contrast to the nuanced, individualized, fact-intensive
employment decisions challenged in Wal-Mart, Plaintiffs in this
case complain about the universal application of computer
accounting software to systematically and algorithmically assess
overdraft fees before customer accounts were overdrawn. In light
of these differences, the Rule 23(a)(2) commonality holding in
Wal-Mart has little relevance to this case, other than as a
helpful reminder to the Court to look beyond the pleadings in
determining whether Plaintiffs have met their burden.

In order to reach a finding that commonality has been satisfied,
the Court must be convinced that there is at least one common
question that is "of such a nature that its determination 'will
resolve an issue that is central to the validity of each one of
the claims in one stroke.'

In order to reach a finding that commonality has been satisfied,
the Court must be convinced that there is at least one common
question that is of such a nature that its determination 'will
resolve an issue that is central to the validity of each one of
the claims in one stroke. The Court agrees with Plaintiffs
regarding the common nature of the questions of law and fact
invoked by the available balance theory, and hereby finds that
Rule 23(a)(2) commonality is satisfied.

Defendant next argues that Rule 23(a)(3) typicality has not been
satisfied. Typicality requires that the claims of the named class
representatives be typical of those of the class; a class
representative must be part of the class and possess the same
interest and suffer the same injury as the class members.

The Court finds that the Bank's liability under the available
balance theory, in each cause of action through which it is
alleged, depends on legal and factual issues that are the same
for all Plaintiffs and class members, and that Rule 23(b)(3)
predominance is therefore satisfied. This conclusion arises from
the fact that TD's checking account policies and practices were
governed by form contracts with terms applicable to Plaintiffs
and class members alike, and from the context of computer
controlled processing systems that treated all checking account
customers and transactions in like fashion.

Similar to the commonality analysis, the common issue that
predominates over all individual issues pertaining to the
available balance claims is whether it was permissible under the
Bank's materially uniform contract with its customers, and
associated common law and statutory duties, for the Bank to
impose overdraft fees before the money associated with pending
debits, which brought the available balance below zero, had
actually left the accounts. This overarching question will, no
doubt, be briefed in multitudinous ways and from myriad
perspectives at the summary judgment phase.

But just as assuredly, the resolution of this question, whether
from the standpoint of state unfair trade practice statutes or
from technical construction of the relevant contract provisions,
will permit resolution of Plaintiffs' and class members'
available balance claims in the aggregate.

For the same reasons, the Court also finds that Rule 23(a)(3)
typicality has been satisfied for these claims.

Predominance with Respect to the Breach of Contract (Count I) and
Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith (Count II) Claims

Defendant argues that Plaintiffs do not actually bring a
straightforward breach of contract claim (Count I) under the
available balance theory because the plain text of the PDAA
entitled the Bank to use customers' available balances when
assessing overdraft fees: "If your negative available balance
exceeds $5 at the end of the day, we will charge you for each
transaction that overdraws your account."

According to Defendant, Plaintiffs can, at best, only claim that
the relevant contractual language is ambiguous and therefore
proper interpretation of the contract to resolve the implied
covenant of good faith claim (Count II) will require
consideration of extrinsic evidence.

Turning to Defendant's assertion that the necessity of extrinsic
evidence to interpret an ambiguous term(s) and to resolve an
implied covenant claim precludes satisfaction of Rule 23(b)(3)'s
predominance requirement, the Court finds that the relevant
extrinsic evidence will not thwart predominance of common issues
in this litigation. First, the Court disagrees with Defendant's
general assertion that resolution of the implied covenant claim
will require examination of each class members' subjective
expectations. To the contrary, a breach of the duty of good faith
and fair dealing may be shown by class-wide evidence of a
defendant's subjective bad faith or objectively unreasonable
conduct.

Second, while it is true that the states at issue permit
consideration of extrinsic evidence to resolve ambiguities in
form contracts, the extrinsic evidence that will assist the fact
finder in resolving the instant breach of contract claim consists
of uniform documents, disclosures, and practices.

If the Court were to find that this case could not be certified
as a class action based on breach of contract and implied
covenant theories due to Defendant's assertions regarding the
predominance of individual issues, the logical consequence would
be that no contract-based claims could be certifiable, because
any prospective defendant could defeat certification simply by
raising the specter of putative class members' idiosyncratic
understanding of the term(s) at issue, irrespective of the form
nature of the contract and the absence of negotiation regarding
terms.

Such a result would be an entirely nonsensical interpretation of
class actions as a vehicle for the resolution of mass disputes,
particularly disputes where the harm suffered by any one class
member may be too small to incentivize a lawsuit for vindication
of that class member's rights. Given the Bank's repeated
affirmation that uniform disclosures were provided to its entire
customer base, individualized proof is peripheral, if necessary
at all, and the predominance requirement of Rule 23(b)(3) is
satisfied with respect to the breach of contract and implied
covenant claims.

Predominance with Respect to the Conversion (Count IV) Claim

Conversion is defined as the unauthorized assumption and exercise
of the right of ownership over goods or personal chattels
belonging to another to the exclusion of the owner's rights.

Plaintiffs' may seek to express their conversion theory through
proof that, by deeming accounts overdrawn before pending debits
settled, the Bank pre-emptively and improperly exercised dominion
and control over the currency related to those pending debits,
thereby interfering with Plaintiffs' ongoing ownership interest.
In either case, given the uniform, automated processes at issue,
it is clear that the questions relevant to whether the Bank's
taking or detention of funds was wrongful can be answered on a
class-wide basis. The resolution of these questions with respect
to one account holder will resolve the conversion claims of all
class members, irrespective of any individual knowledge, intent,
or understanding on the part of those class members.

Accordingly, the Court finds that common questions predominate
with regard to the conversion claim.

Predominance with Respect to the Unjust Enrichment (Count V)
Claim

Defendant argues that common questions will not predominate in
resolving Plaintiffs' unjust enrichment claim because class
members' understandings of the Bank's overdraft practices vary,
and thus the element of inequity will turn on determination of
individualized issues.

In this case, even assuming that Plaintiffs and class members
were adequately informed and understood that overdraft fees would
be assessed based on available balance accounting, resolution of
the unjust enrichment claim will turn on the substantive equity
or inequity of the practice a priori. Specifically, a customer's
mere awareness of and understanding of the results of the
practice may not be enough to defeat his or her unjust enrichment
claim where certain mechanics of the practice were either
deliberately obscured or simply not disclosed for example, the
Bank's use of OD Points to unilaterally decide, without
explanation or notice to the customer, the degree to which an
account would be authorized into overdraft.

More generally, a finding of inequity could result from a legal
determination that the Bank was not entitled to exercise an
ownership interest over the funds pertinent to pending debits
before they settled, a question closely related to the conversion
theory as well. Because the questions relevant to resolution of
the unjust enrichment claim relate to uniform corporate policies
and practices, the Court joins other courts that have found the
predominance requirement satisfied for unjust enrichment classes
in similar context.

Predominance with Respect to State Unfair Trade Practices (Count
VI) Claims

The matter of class certification with respect to the state
statutes that require proof of reliance-- North Carolina and
Maryland presents a close question. While it is true that
reliance as an element of proof typically forecloses class
treatment because of the individualized questions it raises,
courts have presumed class-wide reliance and certified Rule
23(b)(3) classes under the statutes at issue where the alleged
misrepresentation or omission (1) is material or likely to
deceive a reasonable consumer and (2) was uniformly made to the
putative class.
The Court finds that sufficient evidence of the uniformity and
materiality of the putative misrepresentations and omissions has
been presented to presume class-wide reliance under the North
Carolina and Maryland statutes and satisfy the predominance
requirement in this case.

First, the vast majority of class members have a de minimus
interest in individually controlling the prosecution of their
available balance claims because the monetary value of their
damages would be dramatically outweighed by the cost of
litigating an individual case. Here, as in many consumer
protection lawsuits, the low amount of damages available means no
big damages award on the horizon, thus making an individual
action unattractive from a plaintiff's perspective.

Second, numerous putative class action lawsuits based on the same
facts and containing substantively identical claims have already
been filed against the Bank. The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation has seen fit to consolidate the handling of those
common claims in this Court, which favors a consolidated
disposition generally.

Third, the difficulties that would necessarily be presented by
thousands upon thousands of individual actions far outweigh any
difficulties the Court may encounter in managing a class action
in this case. Accordingly, the Court finds that a class action is
the superior means for litigating the available balance claims.

Class Certification is Appropriate for Claims Pertaining to
Carolina First Bank and Mercantile Bank's Pre-Merger Conduct

Defendant's arguments on this issue are unavailing. The Court
finds that common questions predominate with respect to the
posting order claims, and that a class action is the superior
method for adjudicating those claims. As with the available
balance claims, CF Plaintiffs and class members' expectations are
immaterial in the context of the uniform contracts and conduct at
issue. In this instance, the reasonable expectations of the class
can be measured by an objective standard and determined with
common evidence. This is especially true where, as here, Carolina
First used standardized contracts of adhesion. Accordingly, the
Court finds that all of the requirements for certification of the
posting order claims have been satisfied.

Class Certification is Inappropriate for Actual Damages Claims
Under the Reg E Theory

The Federal Reserve Board promulgated Reg E's overdraft
provisions pursuant to its authority under EFTA. EFTA's civil
remedies provision creates a private right of action for
consumers affected by violations of the statute and its
implementing regulations.

That provision states, in pertinent part:

"(a) Individual or class action for damages; amount of award;
Except as otherwise provided by this section and section 1693h of
this title, any person who fails to comply with any provision of
this subchapter with respect to any consumer, except for an error
resolved in accordance with section 1693f of this title, is
liable to such consumer in an amount equal to the sum of--

(1) any actual damage sustained by such consumer as a result of
such failure;

(2)(A) in the case of an individual action, an amount not less
than $100 nor greater than $1,000; or

(B) in the case of a class action, such amount as the court may
allow, except that (i) as to each member of the class no minimum
recovery shall be applicable, and

(ii) the total recovery under this subparagraph in any class
action or series of class actions arising out of the same failure
to comply by the same person shall not be more than the lesser of
$500,000 or 1 per centum of the net worth of the defendant; and

(3) in the case of any successful action to enforce the foregoing
liability, the costs of the action, together with a reasonable
attorney's fee as determined by the court."

The Bank argues that Plaintiffs' claim for actual damages under
the Reg E theory would require proof of detrimental reliance,
therefore making the claim impossible to adjudicate on a class-
wide basis because of the intricate factual questions regarding
what each class member knew about TD's overdraft program, when
they knew it, whether any lack of knowledge or understanding was
a result of failure(s) by the Bank, whether the consumer would
have made a different DCA election(s) if his or her knowledge had
been complete, and so forth. In other words, the Bank maintains
that an actual damages claim under Section 1693m(a)(1) implicates
individualized proof, necessarily precluding certification under
Rule 23(b)(3) because individual questions will improperly
predominate over common questions.

The Court agrees with Defendant and declines to certify a
putative class seeking actual damages under the Reg E theory. The
Court finds that proof sufficient to substantiate actual damages
under Section 1693m(a)(1) would necessitate the adjudication of
highly individualized issues, and that such issues would vastly
outweigh the common questions applicable to actual damages
claims.

Class Certification is Appropriate for Statutory Damages Under
the Reg E Theory

In contrast to the actual damages claims, Plaintiffs' statutory
damages claims under the Reg E theory are ideally suited for
class certification. As the Bank concedes in its opposition
memorandum, To recover statutory damages, a plaintiff need only
prove a technical violation of the substantive provisions of the
statute or its implementing regulations, and need not prove that
he or she suffered any resulting harm. The Bank further states,
The case law under EFTA is clear: consumers may recover statutory
damages without proof that the violation caused them harm, but
they must prove injury and causation to recover actual damages.

Given these concessions, and the lack of any argument by TD that
the statutory damages claims do not satisfy Rule 23, the Court
finds that the requirements of commonality, typicality, and
predominance are satisfied for this portion of the Reg E theory.

The Court denies certification of a class seeking actual damages
under the Electronic Funds Transfer Act. The Court preliminarily
grants Plaintiffs' motion with respect to a class seeking
statutory damages under the EFTA but directs Plaintiffs to submit
for the Court's consideration, within fourteen (14) days, a
revised class definition of the EFTA Class that conforms with
Rule 23 and applicable case law, particularly that law which
prevents certification of a fail-safe class.

A full-text copy of the District Court's February 22, 2018
Opinion and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y9y5xqlp
from Leagle.com.

James King, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Edward Adam Webb --
adam@webllc.com -- Webb Klase and Lemond, Mark Charles Tanenbaum
rjenner@myadvocates.com, Mark C Tanenbaum PA & William E.
Hopkins, Jr., Hopkins Law Firm, 12019 Ocean Highway Pawleys
Island, SC 29585

Jan Kasmir, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Shawn Balensiefen, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, JoAnne McLain, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, Michael McLain, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated & Keith Irwin, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, represented by Edward Adam Webb, Webb Klase and
Lemond & William E. Hopkins, Jr., Hopkins Law Firm.

TD Bank NA, formerly known as, Defendant, represented by Donald
R. Frederico, dfrederico@pierceatwood.com Pierce Atwood, pro hac
vice, Joshua D. Dunlap jdunlap@pierceatwood.com, Pierce Atwood
LLP, pro hac vice, Lucus A. Ritchiem -- lritchie@
pierceatwood.com -- Pierce Atwood, pro hac vice, Thomas William
McGee, III -- billy.mcgee@nelsonmullins.com -- Nelson Mullins
Riley and Scarborough & Kate R. Isley -- kisley@pierceatwood.com
-- Pierce Atwood, pro hac vice.


MIDLAND FUNDING: Sued for Collecting Time Barred Debt v. Miller
---------------------------------------------------------------
MARYLOU MILLER, individually and on behalf of other similarly
situated persons v. MIDLAND FUNDING, LLC, and MIDLAND CREDIT
MANAGEMENT, INC., Case No. 1:18-cv-00218 (W.D. Mich., March 2,
2018), alleges that the Defendants violated the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act in attempting to collect a time barred
debt without informing the debtor that they cannot be sued on the
debt because of the age of the debt.

Midland Funding, LLC, is engaged in the business of taking title
to charged-off consumer debts, including credit card, auto
deficiency and telecom receivables purchased from national
financial institutions, major retail credit corporations, telecom
companies and resellers of such portfolios.  Midland owns
portfolios of consumer receivables, which it attempts to collect.

Encore Capital Group, Inc., through its subsidiaries Midland
Credit Management, Inc. and Midland Funding LLC, file hundreds of
thousands of lawsuits a year in state courts using, in part,
robo-signed affidavits of persons with no real knowledge, and sue
on time barred debts in such volume that the attorney generals of
several states have taken action against them, the Plaintiff
contends.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Curtis C. Warner, Esq.
          WARNER LAW FIRM, LLC
          350 S. Northwest HWY., Suite 300
          Park Ridge, IL 60068
          Telephone: (847) 701-5290
          E-mail: cwarner@warner.legal

               - and -

          B. Thomas Golden, Esq.
          GOLDEN LAW OFFICES, P.C.
          2186 West Main Street, P.O. Box 9
          Lowell, MI 49331
          Telephone: (616) 897-2900
          E-mail: btg@bthomasgolden.com


MIMEDX GROUP: April 25 Lead Plaintiff Deadline
----------------------------------------------
ClaimsFiler, a FREE shareholder information service, reminds
investors that they have until April 25, 2018 to file lead
plaintiff applications in securities class action lawsuits
against MiMedx Group Inc. (Nasdaq:MDXG), if they purchased the
Company's securities between the expanded period of March 7, 2013
and February 21, 2018, inclusive (the "Class Period").  These
actions are pending in the United States District Courts for the
Northern District of Georgia and Southern District of New York.

Get Help

MiMedx investors should visit us at
https://www.claimsfiler.com/cases/view-mimedx-group-inc-
securities-litigation-2 or call to speak to our claim center
toll-free at (844) 367-9658.

                          About the Lawsuit

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

On February 20, 2018, MiMedx revealed it postponed its 2017
earnings report and "engaged independent legal and accounting
advisors to conduct an internal investigation into current and
prior-period matters relating to allegations regarding certain
sales and distribution practices."  Then, on February 22, 2018,
media reports revealed that MiMedx had "financial ties to more
than 20 doctors" that it had not disclosed to the government,
which MiMedx claimed was not required.

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

About ClaimsFiler

ClaimsFiler has a single mission: to serve as the information
source to help retail investors recover their share of billions
of dollars from securities class action settlements.
ClaimsFiler's team of experts monitor the securities class action
landscape and cull information from a variety of sources to
ensure comprehensive coverage across a broad range of financial
instruments.


MIMEDX GROUP: Klein Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
The Klein Law Firm announces that a class action complaint has
been filed on behalf of shareholders of MiMedx Group Inc.
(NASDAQ:MDXG) who purchased shares between March 7, 2013 and
February 19, 2018. The action, which was filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York,
alleges that the Company violated federal securities laws.

In particular, the complaint alleges that throughout the Class
Period, defendants made materially false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that (i) MiMedx was engaged
in a "channel-stuffing" scheme designed to inappropriately
recognize revenue that had not yet been realized; (ii) the
Company lacked adequate internal controls over financial
reporting; and (iii) that as a result of the foregoing, MiMedx's
publicly disseminated financial statements were materially false
and misleading. On February 20, 2018, MiMedx announced that it
would postpone the release of its financial results and Form 10-K
filing for the year ended December 31, 2017. MiMedx stated it had
engaged "independent legal and accounting advisors to conduct an
internal investigation into current and prior-period matters
relating to the allegations regarding certain sales and
distribution practices at the Company." Following this news,
shares of MiMedx fell from a close of $14.47 per share on
February 16, 2018 to a close of $8.75 on February 20, 2018.

Shareholders have until April 25, 2018 to petition the court for
lead plaintiff status. Your ability to share in any recovery does
not require that you serve as lead plaintiff. You may choose to
be an absent class member.

If you suffered a loss during the class period and wish to obtain
additional information, please contact Joseph Klein, Esq. by
telephone at 212-616-4899 or visit
http://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-c/mimedx-group-inc.

Joseph Klein, Esq. represents investors and participates in
securities litigations involving financial fraud throughout the
nation. [GN]


N.A.R. INC: "Brooks" Suit Alleges FDCPA Violation
-------------------------------------------------
Tonya Brooks, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. N.A.R., Inc. and John Does 1-25, Case No. 3:18-cv-
00362 (N.D. Ohio, February 14, 2018), seeks damages and
declaratory and injunctive relief under the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

Plaintiff Tonya Brooks is a resident of the State of Ohio, County
of Lucas, residing at 5814 Firethorne Drive, Toledo, OH 43615.

Defendant N.A.R., Inc. is a debt collector with an address at
1600 West 2200 South, Suite 410, Salt Lake City, UT 84119. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Amichai E. Zukowsky, Esq.
      ZUKOWSKY LAW, LLC
      23811 Chagrin Blvd, Ste 160
      Beachwood, OH 44122
      Tel: (216) 800-5529
      E-mail: Ami@zukowskylaw.com


NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Faces "Michelo" Class Suit in New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
Mutinta Michelo, Katherine Seaman, and Mary Re Seaman,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
National Collegiate Student Loan Trust 2007-2; National
Collegiate Student Loan Trust 2007-3; Transworld Systems Inc.;
EGS Financial Care Inc., fka NCO Financial Systems Inc.; Forster
& Garbus LLP, Case No. 1:18-cv-01781-PGG (S.D.N.Y., February 27,
2018), was initiated against the Defendants in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York.

National Collegiate Student Loan Trust 2007-2 and National
Collegiate Student Loan Trust 2007-3's line of business includes
the management of funds, trusts, and foundations organized for
purposes other than religious, educational, charitable, or
nonprofit research.

Transworld Systems Inc. provides accounts receivable, debt
recovery, and past due accounts services for businesses, medical
companies, dental companies, education facilities, Fortune 500
companies, and small businesses in the United States and
internationally.

EGS Financial Care Inc., formerly known as NCO Financial Systems
Inc., operates as a customer service organization that delivers
outsourced solutions for finance, healthcare, retail, technology,
telecommunication, transportation and logistics, travel and
hospitality, and utility industries in the United States and
internationally.

Forster & Garbus LLP provides legal services.  The Company
specializes in collecting debts.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Gregory A. Frank, Esq.
          FRANK LLP
          370 Lexington Ave., Suite 1706
          New York, NY  10017
          Telephone: (212) 682-1853
          Facsimile: (212) 682-1892
          E-mail: gfrank@frankllp.com


NATIONAL CREDITORS: Accused by "Reizes" Suit of Violating FDCPA
---------------------------------------------------------------
MENDEL REIZES on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. NATIONAL CREDITORS COLLECTION, INC., Case
No. 1:18-cv-01258 (E.D.N.Y., February 27, 2018), seeks redress
for the alleged illegal practices of the Defendant concerning the
collection of debts, in violation of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

Headquartered in Lake Forest, California, the Defendant is
regularly engaged, for profit, in the collection of debts
allegedly owed by consumers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adam J. Fishbein, Esq.
          ADAM J. FISHBEIN, P.C.
          735 Central Avenue
          Woodmere, NY 11598
          Telephone: (516) 668-6945
          E-mail: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com


NEW YORK, NY: Mitchell Appeals Judgment and Opinion to 2nd Cir.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Harvey Mitchell and Melinda Mitchell filed an appeal
from a District Court judgment dated February 1, 2018, and a
District Court memorandum opinion dated January 31, 2018, entered
in their lawsuit titled Mitchell, et al. v. City of New York, et
al., Case No. 12-cv-2674, in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York (New York City).

The lawsuit arose from alleged civil rights violations.

The appellate case is captioned as Mitchell, et al. v. City of
New York, et al., Case No. 18-588, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants Melinda Mitchell, individually and on
behalf of a class of all others similarly situated, and Harvey
Mitchell, individually and on behalf of a class of all others
similarly situated, are represented by:

          Jeffrey A. Rothman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JEFFREY A. ROTHMAN
          315 Broadway
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 227-2980

Defendants-Appellees City of New York, a municipal entity; NYC
Police Officer James Schuessler, Shield No. 28718; Police Officer
Joseph Brinadze; NYPD Captain Joseph Gulotta; NYPD Sergeant
Danielle Roventini; NYPD Lieutenant Kathleen Caesar; Richard Roes
1-50, New York City Police Supervisors and Commanders; and John
Does 1-50, New York City Police Officers, individually, and in
their official capacities, jointly and severally, are represented
by:

          Zachary W. Carter, Esq.
          NEW YORK CITY LAW DEPARTMENT
          100 Church Street
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (2120 356-1000
          Facsimile: (212) 356-1148
          E-mail: zcarter@law.nyc.gov


NEW YORK, USA: West Appeals W.D.N.Y. Judgment to Second Circuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff James M. West filed an appeal from a District Court
judgment entered on January 24, 2018, in the lawsuit entitled
West, et al. v. DOCCS, et al., Case No. 05-cv-447, in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of New York (Buffalo).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violations of prisoners'
civil rights.

The appellate case is captioned as West, et al. v. DOCCS, et al.,
18-578, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit.

Plaintiff-Appellant James M. West, currently incarcerated at the
Five Points Correctional Facility, in Romulus, New York, appears
pro se.

The Defendants-Appellees are Glenn S. Goord, Commissioner of the
New York State Department of Correctional Services; Stephan
Bernardi, Deputy Commissioner, of Policy & Compliance, of the New
York State Department of Correctional Services; Thomas Poole,
Supt. of Five Points Corr. Fac., of N.Y. State Department of
Correctional Services; Thomas Eagen, Director of Grievance
Program, of N.Y. State Department of Correctional Services;Jane
Doe, (Denis/Dennis), Regional Grievance Supervisor, of the N.Y.
State Department of Correctional Services; Janice Henrich, Inmate
Grievance Supervisor, Five Points, N.Y. State Department of
Correctional Services; Lisa Lauber, Correctional Officer, of N.Y.
State Department of Correctional Services; David Napoli, Deputy
Supt. of Security, Five Points, N.Y. State Department of
Correctional Services; Donald Selsky, Director of Tier III
Disciplinary Hearings and Special Housing, of N.Y. State
Department of Correctional Services, in their individual and
personal capacities; John Doe, 1-9 IGRC Sgt./Staff
Representatives of Five Points, of the New York State Department
of Correctional Services; Sgt. Case, N.Y. State Department of
Correctional Services; Sgt. Pabon, N.Y. State Department of
Correctional Services; Sgt. O'Keefe, N.Y. State Department of
Correctional Services; C.O.L. Lauber, of NYS Department of
Correctional Services; Department of Corrections and Community
Supervision; and Lucien Leclaire, Deputy Commissioner of
Correctional Facilities, of N.Y. State Department of Correctional
Services.[BN]

The Defendants-Appellees are represented by:

          Barbara D. Underwood, Esq.
          NEW YORK STATE OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
          120 Broadway
          New York, NY 10271
          Telephone: (212) 416-8921
          E-mail: barbara.underwood@ag.ny.gov


NEW YORK & COMPANY: "Becker" Suit Alleges TCPA Violation
--------------------------------------------------------
Lori Becker, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. New York & Company, Inc., Case No. 18-cv-60338 (S.D.
Fla., February 13, 2018), is brought against the Defendant for
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The case arises from the transmission of text messages to the
cellular telephones of Plaintiff and members of the class for the
purpose of promoting Defendant's goods and services.

Plaintiff Lori Becker was a resident of Broward County, Florida.

Defendant is a New York corporation with its principal place of
business located at 330 West 34th Street, New York, New York
10001. Defendant directs, markets, and provides business
activities throughout the State of Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq.
      HIRALDO P.A.
      401 E. Las Olas Boulevard Ste 1400
      Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
      Tel: (954) 400-4713
      E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com


NEXTEP FUNDING: Fails to Give TILA & CLA Disclosures, Danger Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LuANN DANGER, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated
v. NEXTEP FUNDING, LLC and MONTEREY FINANCIAL SERVICES, LLC, Case
No. 0:18-cv-00567 (D. Minn., February 28, 2018), accuses the
Defendants of failing to provide adequate disclosures under the
Truth in Lending Act and the Consumer Leasing Act with regard to
consumer credit sales disguised as leases for personal property.

Nextep is a for-profit limited liability company with its
principal office in Loudoun County, Virginia.  Nextep "offers a
retailer to customer closed end consumer lease platform designed
to increase retailer sales by offering customers the ability to
finance goods and services on the spot, in the store and without
delay."

Monterey is a for-profit limited liability company with corporate
headquarters in San Diego County, California.  Monterey offers a
host of services related to loan servicing, debt recovery, and
consumer finance.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark L. Vavreck, Esq.
          GONKO & VAVRECK, PLLC
          Designer's Guild Building
          401 North Third Street, Suite 600
          Minneapolis, MN 55401
          Telephone: (612) 659-9500
          Facsimile: (612) 659-9220
          E-mail: mvavreck@cgmvlaw.com

               - and -

          Jesse S. Johnson, Esq.
          GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC
          5550 Glades Road, Suite 500
          Boca Raton, FL 33431
          Telephone: (561) 826-5477
          Facsimile: (561) 961-5684
          E-mail: jjohnson@gdrlawfirm.com


NQ MOBILE: "Chen" Suit Alleges Exchange Act Violations
------------------------------------------------------
Shiqiang Chen, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated v. NQ Mobile Inc., Vincent Wenyong Shi, Roland
Wu, and Zemin Xu, Case No. 4:18-cv-00096 (E.D. Tex., February 10,
2018), seeks to recover compensable damages caused by Defendants'
violations of federal securities laws, and to pursue remedies
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

This is a federal securities class action on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons and entities, other than Defendants and
their affiliates, who purchased publicly traded NQ Mobile
securities from March 30, 2017 through February 6, 2018, both
dates inclusive.

Plaintiff Shiqiang Chen acquired NQ Mobile securities at
artificially inflated prices during the Class Period and was
damaged upon the revelation of corrective disclosures.

Defendant NQ Mobile provides internet services in the People's
Republic of China ("PRC") and internationally. The Company is
incorporated in the Cayman Islands with its principle executive
offices located in Beijing, PRC. NQ Mobile securities trade on
New York Stock Exchange under the symbol "NQ."

The Individual Defendants directly participated in the management
of the Company. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Dean Gresham, Esq.
      Bruce W. Steckler, Esq.
      L. Kirstine Rogers, Esq.
      STECKLER GRESHAM COCHRAN PLLC
      12720 Hillcrest Rd., Suite 1045
      Dallas, TX 75230
      Tel: (972) 387-4040
      Fax: (972) 387-4041
      E-mail: dean@stecklerlaw.com
              bruce@stecklerlaw.com
              krogers@stecklerlaw.com


OTB ACQUISITION: "Esry" Suit Seeks Unpaid Minimum Wages
-------------------------------------------------------
Jacqueline Esry, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. OTB Acquisition LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-00155 (E.D. Ark., February 23, 2018),
seeks declaratory judgment, monetary damages, liquidated damages,
prejudgment interest and costs, including reasonable attorney's
fee as a result of failure to pay minimum wages as required by
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act.

Defendant owns and/or operates "On the Border" restaurant in
Pulaski County, located at 11721 Chenal Parkway, Little Rock,
Arkansas 72211. Esry, server, claims to have been paid below the
mandated minimum wage rate considering that she was required to
perform non-tipped work. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


OUTFIELD BREW: "Beal" Suit Alleges TCPA Violation
-------------------------------------------------
Colby L. Beal, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Outfield Brew House, LLC dba Budweiser Brew House,
Case No. 2:18-cv-04028 (W.D. Mo., February 13, 2018), seeks
redress for Defendant's practice of sending text messages to
Plaintiff's and other individuals' cellular telephone numbers in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Plaintiff Colby Beal has been a resident of Boone County,
Missouri.

Defendant Brew House is a sports bar with principal place of
business at 601 Clark Street, Suite C, St. Louis, Missouri 63102.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      William C. Kenney, Esq.
      BILL KENNEY LAW FIRM, LLC
      1100 Main Street, Suite 1800
      Kansas City, MO 64105
      Tel: (816) 842-2455
      Fax: (816) 474-8899
      E-mail: bkenney@billkenneylaw.com

          - and -

      Ari N. Rodopoulos, Esq.
      WOOD LAW FIRM, LLC
      1100 Main Street, Suite 1800
      Kansas City, MO 64105-5171
      Tel: (816) 256-3582
      Fax: (816) 337-4243
      E-mail: ari@woodlaw.com


PALM BEACH: "Jackson" Sues Over Illegal Auto-dialed Calls
---------------------------------------------------------
Monique Jackson, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Palm Beach Credit Adjustors, Inc. (d/b/a
Focus Financial Services), Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-80214, (S.D.
Fla., February 22, 2018), seeks money damages and injunctive
relief for violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Defendant is a debt collector and collects debts for health care
providers. Palm Beach does business as Focus Financial Services
and may do business under other names as well. Jackson received a
telephone call to her cellular phone number seeking to recover a
debt from a different person using an automatic dialer with a
pre-recorded voice. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      William Peerce Howard, Esq.
      Geoffrey E. Parmer, Esq.
      THE CONSUMER PROTECTION FIRM, PLLC
      210-A South MacDill Avenue
      Tampa, FL 33609
      Telephone: (813) 500-1500
      Facsimile: (813) 435-2369
      Email: Billy@TheConsumerProtectionFirm.com
             Geoff@TheConsumerProtectionFirm.com


PAY-O-MATIC CHECK: "Buchanan" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
David Buchanan, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. Pay-O-Matic Check Cashing Corp., and the Pay-O-Matic
Corp., Case No. 2:18-cv-00885 (E.D. N.Y., February 9, 2018),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages and
attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the New York Labor Law.

In 1997, Plaintiff David Buchanan was hired by C.L.B. Check
Cashing, which was integrated into Defendants' Pay-O-Matic check
cashing business in 2008. From 2011 until the termination of his
employment on or about September 26, 2016, Plaintiff worked for
Defendants at the Pay-O-Matic store located at 1294 Fulton
Street, Brooklyn, NY 11216.

The Defendants own and operate a check cashing enterprise
comprised of approximately 150 stores operating under the common
trade name "Pay-O-Matic" located throughout the New York City
metropolitan area. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PLAINS ALL AMERICAN: Seeks 9th Cir. Review of Ruling in "Andrews"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants PLAINS ALL AMERICAN PIPELINE, L.P., and PLAINS
PIPELINE, L.P., filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit entitled Keith Andrews, et al. v. Plains All American
Pipeline, L.P., et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-04113-PSG-JEM, in the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Los
Angeles.

The appellate case is captioned as Keith Andrews, et al. v.
Plains All American Pipeline, L.P., et al., Case No. 18-80026, in
the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Feb. 16, 2018, the
District Court entered an order on Feb. 9, 2018:

   1. denying Plaintiffs' motion to certify a Real Property
      Subclass of:

      "(1) residential beachfront properties on a beach, (2)
      residential properties with a private easement to a beach,
      and (3) residential properties that are within one-half
      mile of a beach (collectively 'Included Properties') where
      oil from the Line 901 spill washed up, and where the oiling
      was categorized as Heavy, Moderate or Light";

   2. granting certification to proposed Oil Industry Subclass
      of:

      "[i]ndividuals and entities who were employed, or
      contracted, to work on or to provide supplies, personnel,
      or services for the operations of the off-shore oil
      drilling platforms, Hidalgo, Harvest, Hermosa, Heritage,
      Harmony, Hondo, and/or Holly, off the Santa Barbara County
      coast, or the on-shore processing facilities at Las
      Flores/POPCO, Gaviota, and/or Venoco/Ellwood, as of May
      19, 2015";

   3. appointing counsel at Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein,
      LLP; Keller Rohrback L.L.P.; Cappello & Noel LLP; and Audet
      & Partners, LLP as lead counsel for the Oil Industry
      Subclass.

   4. appointing moving Plaintiffs as Subclass representatives;
      and

   5. denying Defendants' motion to strike the declaration of
      Peter Rupert and finds Defendants' motion to strike the
      declarations of Randall Bell and Igor Mezic rendered
      moot.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Respondents KEITH ANDREWS; ALEXANDRA B. GEREMIA, as
Trustee for the Alexandra Geremia Family Trust dated 8/5/1998;
TIFFANI ANDREWS; SARAH RATHBONE; RICHARD LILYGREN; BACIU FAMILY,
LLC, a California limited liability company; JACQUES HABRA; HWA
HONG MUH; MIKE GANDALL; EAGLE FLEET LLC, a California limited
liability company; ROBERT BOYDSTON; SOUTHERN CAL SEAFOOD, INC., a
California corporation; PACIFIC RIM FISHERIES, INC., a California
corporation; OCEAN ANGEL IV, LLC, a California limited liability
company; ZACHARY FRAZIER; COMMUNITY SEAFOOD LLC, a California
limited liability company; JIM GUELKER; CAPTAIN JACK'S SANTA
BARBARA TOURS, LLC, A California limited liability company;
MORGAN CASTAGNOLA; WEI INTERNATIONAL TRADING INC., a California
corporation; ISURF, LLC, a California limited liability company;
TRACTIDE MARINE CORP., a California corporation; SANTA BARBARA
UNI, INC., a California corporation; STEPHEN WILSON, an
individual, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated; MARY KIRKHART and MARK KIRKHART are represented by:

          William M. Audet, Esq.
          AUDET & PARTNERS, LLP
          711 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 500
          San Francisco, CA 94102
          Telephone: (415) 568-2555
          E-mail: waudet@audetlaw.com

               - and -

          Elizabeth J. Cabraser, Esq.
          Wilson M. Dunlavey, Esq.
          Robert L. Lieff, Esq.
          Sarah Robin London, Esq.
          Robert J. Nelson, Esq.
          LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN LLP
          275 Battery Street
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 956-1000
          Facsimile: (415) 956-1008
          E-mail: ecabraser@lchb.com
                  wdunlavey@lchb.com
                  rlieff@lieff.com
                  slondon@lchb.com
                  rnelson@lchb.com

               - and -

          A. Barry Cappello, Esq.
          David Cousineau, Esq.
          Leila Noel, Esq.
          CAPPELLO & NOEL LLP
          831 State St.
          Santa Barbara, CA 93101
          Telephone: (805) 564-2444
          Facsimile: (805) 965-5950
          E-mail: abc@cappellonoel.com
                  dcousineau@cappellonoel.com
                  lnoel@cappellonoel.com

               - and -

          Gretchen Freeman Cappio, Esq.
          Juli E. Farris, Esq.
          Daniel Parke Mensher, Esq.
          Lynn Lincoln Sarko, Esq.
          KELLER ROHRBACK LLP
          1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 623-1900
          E-mail: gcappio@kellerrohrback.com
                  jfarris@kellerrohrback.com
                  dmensher@kellerrohrback.com
                  lsarko@kellerrohrback.com

               - and -

          Matthew J. Preusch, Esq.
          KELLER ROHRBACK LLP
          1129 State Street, Suite 8
          Santa Barbara, CA 93101
          Telephone: (805) 456-1496
          E-mail: mpreusch@kellerrohrback.com

Defendants-Petitioner PLAINS ALL AMERICAN PIPELINE, L.P., a
Delaware limited partnership; and PLAINS PIPELINE, L.P., a Texas
limited partnership, are represented by:

          Brad D. Brian, Esq.
          Thomas Paul Clancy, Esq.
          Melinda Eades LeMoine, Esq.
          Daniel Benjamin Levin, Esq.
          Jordan X. Navarrette, Esq.
          Henry Weissmann, Esq.
          MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP
          350 South Grand Avenue, 50th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 683-9280
          E-mail: brad.brian@mto.com
                  Thomas.Clancy@mto.com
                  melinda.lemoine@mto.com
                  daniel.levin@mto.com
                  Jordan.Navarrette@mto.com
                  Henry.Weissmann@mto.com


PLAZA HOTEL: Sued by Hanson Over Illegal Fees for Internet Access
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JULIE HANSON an individual; on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. PLAZA HOTEL & CASINO, LLC, a Nevada limited
liability company d/b/a Plaza Hotel and Casino; PLAYLV GAMING
OPERATIONS, LLC, a Nevada limited liability company, Case No.
2:18-cv-00378-APG-NJK (D. Nev., March 1, 2018), seeks damages and
restitution for the total amount of taxes the Defendants
unlawfully charged and collected on the portion of the Resort
Fees that constitutes charges for Internet access.

Ms. Hanson alleges that the Defendants charge overnight guests a
mandatory, per-night Resort Fee, which includes wired and
wireless Internet access, an in-room coffee and tea maker, and
all local phone calls.  She contends that despite the Internet
Tax Freedom Act's prohibition on the taxation of Internet access,
the Defendants improperly and illegally charged their overnight
guests the Clark County Combined Transient Lodging Tax on the
entire Resort Fee, including the portion of the Resort Fee that
constitutes charges for Internet access.

Plaza Hotel is a Nevada limited liability company doing business
as Plaza Hotel & Casino located at 1 Main Street, in Las Vegas,
Nevada.  PlayLV is a Nevada limited liability company doing
business in Clark County, Nevada, as the sole manager/member of
Plaza Hotel.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Don Springmeyer, Esq.
          Jordan J. Butler, Esq.
          WOLF, RIFKIN, SHAPIRO, SCHULMAN & RABKIN, LLP
          3556 E. Russell Road, 2nd Floor
          Las Vegas, NV 89120-2234
          Telephone: (702) 341-5200
          Facsimile: (702) 341-5300
          E-mail: dspringmeyer@wrslawyers.com
                  jbutler@wrslawyers.com

               - and -

          Stuart McCluer, Esq.
          MCCULLEY MCCLUER PLLC
          1022 Carolina Blvd., Suite 300
          Charleston, SC 29451
          Telephone: (855) 467-0451
          Facsimile: (662) 368-1506
          E-mail: smccluer@mcculleymccluer.com

               - and -

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


POLLACK & ROSEN: Demand Letter Violates FDCPA, "Doane" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
JEAN G. DOANE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. POLLACK & ROSEN, P.A., a Florida Corporation, and
JOSEPH F. ROSEN, individually, Case No. 2:18-cv-14069-RLR (S.D.
Fla., February 26, 2018), alleges violations of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

On January 19, 2018, the Defendants mailed, or caused to be
mailed, a written communication to the Plaintiff seeking payment
of an alleged debt, according to the complaint.  The Plaintiff
alleges that the Defendants' Demand Letter is represented to be
from Defendant Rosen, which misleadingly leaves the Plaintiff and
Class to believe that Defendant Rosen has meaningful involvement
in the collection of the debt.  The Plaintiff contends that the
Defendants' Demand Letter would be deceptive to the least
sophisticated consumer with regard to his/her legal rights.

Pollack & Rosen, P.A., is a Florida Corporation and law firm
engaged in the business of collecting consumer debts, which
operates from offices located in Coral Gables, Florida.  Joseph
F. Rosen, Esq., is an attorney and is engaged in the business of
collecting consumer debts.  Defendant Rosen is a managing partner
of the Firm.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Leo W. Desmond, Esq.
          DESMOND LAW FIRM, P.C.
          5070 Highway A1A, Suite D
          Vero Beach, FL 32963
          Telephone: (772) 231-9600
          Facsimile: (772) 231-0300
          E-mail: lwd@desmondlawfirm.com


PROGRESSIVE SELECT: UR Health Appeals Ruling to Eleventh Circuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff UR Health Chiropractic Corp. filed an appeal from a
court ruling in the lawsuit entitled UR Health Chiropractic Corp.
v. Progressive Select Insurance Company, Case No. 0:17-cv-62086-
FAM, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on March 5, 2018, the
District Court issued an Order granting the Defendant's motion to
dismiss the case.

Oxana Kouzmenko assigned personal injury protection benefits from
her Progressive automobile insurance policy to UR Health.  In
turn, UR Health provided chiropractic services to help Kouzmenko
recover from personal injuries she sustained during an accident.
Progressive subsequently reimbursed UR Health for certain medical
services covered by the policy.

UR Health contends that Progressive still violated the law by
arbitrarily applying the Multiple Procedure Payment Reduction
Rule to some healthcare providers but not to others.  It alleges
that Progressive did not apply the Multiple Procedure Payment
Reduction Rule to reduce reimbursement amounts owed to
diagnostic/imaging providers.  UR Health argues that by applying
the Multiple Procedure Payment Reduction Rule to providers like
the Plaintiff' and arbitrarily choosing not to apply it to
diagnostic/imaging providers, Progressive engaged in unlawful
discriminatory conduct.

Progressive maintains that it has no obligation to employ the
Payment Reduction Rule uniformly for all providers, or to notify
insureds when it applies the Payment Reduction Rule non-
uniformly.  It notes that UR Health offers no support for its
all-or-nothing rule or its notice requirement.

The appellate case is captioned as UR Health Chiropractic Corp.
v. Progressive Select Insurance Company, Case No. 18-10681, in
the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.

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

   -- The appellant's brief is due on or before April 2, 2018;

   -- The appendix is due no later than 7 days from the filing of
      the appellant's brief;

   -- Appellee's Certificate of Interested Persons was due
      March 20, 2018, as to Appellee Progressive Select
      Insurance Company.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant UR HEALTH CHIROPRACTIC CORP., on behalf of
itself and all others similarly situated, other Oxana Kouzmenko,
is represented by:

          Valorie S. Chavin, Esq.
          James E. Mitchell, Esq.
          CHAVIN MITCHELL SHMUELY, PA
          12955 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 201
          North Miami, FL 33181
          Telephone: (866) 345-2033
          Facsimile: (305) 981-1054
          E-mail: vchavin@cmslawgroup.com
                  jmitchell@cmslawgroup.com

               - and -

          Andres H. Lopez, Esq.
          THE ANDRES LOPEZ LAW FIRM
          101 Ne Third Ave., Suite 1500
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 237-8138
          Facsimile: (877) 395-7558
          E-mail: andres@alopezlawfirm.com

Defendant-Appellee PROGRESSIVE SELECT INSURANCE COMPANY is
represented by:

          Marcy Levine Aldrich, Esq.
          Ari H. Gerstin, Esq.
          Ross E. Linzer, Esq.
          AKERMAN, LLP
          3 Brickell City Center
          98 SE 7th Street, Suite 1100
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 982-5600
          E-mail: marcy.aldrich@akerman.com
                  ari.gerstin@akerman.com
                  ross.linzer@akerman.com


RACHAEL RAY: "Burbon" Suit Alleges ADA Violation
------------------------------------------------
Luc Burbon, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v.
Rachael Ray Digital LLC and CBS Interactive, Inc., Case No.
1:18-cv-01265 (S.D. N.Y., February 13, 2018), is brought against
the Defendants for violation of the Americans with Disabilities
Act.

The Plaintiff brought this action because the Defendants'
websites, www.rachaelray.com and www.rachaelrayshow.com, are not
equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, and
they violate the ADA.  Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to
cause a change in the Defendants' corporate policies, practices,
and procedures so that the Defendant' websites will become and
remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers.

Plaintiff Luc Burbon, at all relevant times, is a resident of
Queens, New York. Plaintiff is a blind, visually-impaired,
handicapped person and a member of a protected class of
individuals under the ADA.

The Defendants offer the commercial websites, www.rachaelray.com
and www.rachaelrayshow.com and those affiliated or directly
linked, to the public. The websites offer features which should
allow all consumers to access the goods and services which the
Defendants offer in connection with their physical location. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Avi A. Naveh, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF AVI A. NAVEH, ESQ.
      175 Varick Street, 3rd Floor
      New York, NY 10014
      Tel: (646) 881-4471
      Fax: (661) 430-4471
      E-mail: avi@navehlaw.com

          - and -

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


RED LOBSTER: Fails to Pay Overtime Under FLSA, "Gardner" Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
SHERI GARDNER, Individually and on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. RED LOBSTER RESTAURANT, LLC, Case
No. 2:18-cv-00306 (E.D. Wisc., February 28, 2018), alleges that
the Plaintiff worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek, without
receiving overtime compensation as required by the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Red Lobster Restaurants, LLC, is a foreign limited liability
company registered and authorized to transact business in
Wisconsin.  The Company operates seafood restaurants.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Larry A. Johnson, Esq.
          Summer Murshid, Esq.
          Timothy Maynard, Esq.
          HAWKS QUINDEL, S.C.
          222 East Erie, Suite 210
          P.O. Box 442
          Milwaukee, WI 53201-0442
          Telephone: (414) 271-8650
          Facsimile: (414) 271-8442
          E-mail: ljohnson@hq-law.com
                  tmaynard@hq-law.com
                  smurshid@hq-law.com

               - and -

          Seth R. Lesser, Esq.
          Fran L. Rudich, Esq.
          Michael H. Reed, Esq.
          Alexis H. Castillo, Esq.
          KLAFTER OLSEN & LESSER, LLP
          Two International Drive, Suite 350
          Rye Brook, NY 10573
          Telephone: (914) 934-9200
          Facsimile: (914) 934-9220
          E-mail: seth@klafterolsen.com
                  fran@klafterolsen.com
                  michael.reed@klafterolsen.com
                  alexis.castillo@klafterolsen.com


RIOT BLOCKCHAIN: "Roys" Suit Hits Share Price Drop
--------------------------------------------------
Richard Roys, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. Riot Blockchain, Inc., John O'Rourke,
Jeffrey G. McGonegal and Barry Honig, Defendants, Case No. 18-CV-
80225 (S.D. Fla., February 22, 2018), seeks to recover damages
caused by violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue
remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

Riot Blockchain, Inc. operates as a digital currency company
focusing on buying cryptocurrency and blockchain businesses, as
well as supporting blockchain technology companies with a
particular focus on the Bitcoin and Ethereum blockchains. Riot
common stock trades on the NASDAQ Capital Market under the symbol
"RIOT."

Defendants failed to disclose that Riot lacked a meaningful
business plan with respect to the cryptocurrency business and had
only minimal investments in cryptocurrency products, that the
company changed its name to Riot Blockchain, Inc. as part of a
scheme to capitalize on public interest in cryptocurrency
products, thereby driving up its stock price and enriching inside
shareholders, and that Riot never intended to hold its Annual
General Meetings scheduled for December 28, 2017 and February 1,
2018.

On this news, Riot's share price fell $5.74, or over 33.37%, to
close at $11.46 on February 16, 2018, damaging investors. Roys
acquired Riot securities at artificially inflated prices and lost
substantially upon the revelation of alleged corrective
disclosures. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jack Reise, Esq.
     Robert J. Robbins, Esq.
     ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
     120 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500
     Boca Raton, FL 33432
     Telephone: (561) 750-3000
     Fax: (561) 750-3364
     Email: jreise@rgrdlaw.com
            rrobbins@rgrdlaw.com


RIOT BLOCKCHAIN: "Greenawalt" Sues Over Share Price Drop
--------------------------------------------------------
Bruce Greenawalt, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Riot Blockchain, Inc. (f/k/a
Bioptix, Inc.), John O'Rourke and Jeffrey G. McGonegal,
Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-00440 (D. Colo., February 22, 2018),
seeks to recover damages caused by violations of the federal
securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Riot Blockchain, Inc. operates as a digital currency company
focusing on buying cryptocurrency and blockchain businesses, as
well as supporting blockchain technology companies.

Defendants failed to disclose that Riot lacked a meaningful
business plan with respect to the cryptocurrency business and had
only minimal investments in cryptocurrency products; that the
company changed its name to Riot Blockchain, Inc. as part of a
scheme to capitalize on public interest in cryptocurrency
products, thereby driving up its stock price and enriching inside
shareholders; and that Riot never intended to hold its Annual
General Meetings scheduled for December 28, 2017 and February 1,
2018.

On this news, Riot's share price fell $5.74, or over 33.37%, to
close at $11.46 on February 16, 2018, damaging investors.
Greenawalt acquired Riot securities at artificially inflated
prices and lost substantially upon the revelation of the alleged
corrective disclosures. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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

             - and -

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

             - and -

      Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
      BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC
      60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600
      New York, NY 10165
      Telephone: (212) 697-6484
      Facsimile (212) 697-7296
      Email: peretz@bgandg.com


SAINT-GOBAIN PERFORMANCE: Removes "Albert-Brown" Suit to D.N.H.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corporation removes
on February 26, 2018, the lawsuit captioned LYNDA ALBERT-BROWN,
DIANNE HUNTER, HEATHER IRVING, BRIAN MCCROSSIN, GERARD MINER,
TANYA O'MARA, Individually and as Natural Parent and Personal
Representative for A.O.(1), A.O.(2), L.O., and V.O., PHYLLIS
PROVENCHER, RICHARD PROVENCHER, APRIL PROVENCHER, SARAH RICARD,
THOMAS RUSSELL, KYLE RUSSELL, KAREN RUSSEL, Individually and as
Natural Parent and Personal Representative for K.R.(1), and
K.R.(2), ALAN SANDLER, WALTER SCOTT, PRISCILLA SEPESSY, GEORGE
SIMARD, DORIS SIMARD, MELISSA SIMARD, DEBBIE SIMON, DESIRE UPTON,
and CHARLES WILLIAMS v. SAINT-GOBAIN PERFORMANCE PLASTICS CORP.,
Individually and as a Successor In Interest to Chemfab, CHRIS
GILMAN, GWENAEL BUSNEL, and JOHN DOE 1-5, Case No. 216-2018-CV-
000120, from the New Hampshire Superior Court, Hillsborough,
Southern District, to the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Hampshire.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:18-cv-00181 to the
proceeding.

The action and its accompanying sister action, Dowling v. Saint-
Gobain Performance Plastics Corp., are two putative class actions
that were originally filed in the District Court and then refiled
in state court on February 12, 2018, following voluntary
dismissal of their claims without prejudice in federal court.

The Plaintiffs are 28 New Hampshire residents, who allege, on
behalf of putative classes, that the Defendants' actions have
"unnecessarily exposed the Plaintiffs and class members to unsafe
water" that was allegedly contaminated by a facility in
Merrimack, New Hampshire.  The Plaintiffs seek various relief on
behalf of themselves "and the putative classes," including
compensatory and enhanced compensatory damages, a remediation
protocol, a medical monitoring program, interest, attorneys'
fees, and disgorgement.  They assert their claims against Saint-
Gobain (the owner of the Merrimack facility), Gwenael Busnel and
Chris Gilman (the "Individual Defendants," alleged former and
current plant managers of the Merrimack facility), and five John
Doe Defendants.[BN]

Defendant Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corporation is
represented by:

          Bruce W. Felmly, Esq.
          Nicholas F. Casolaro, Esq.
          MCLANE MIDDLETON, P.A.
          900 Elm Street
          Manchester, NH 03101
          Telephone: (603) 628-1448
          Facsimile: (603) 625-5650
          E-mail: bruce.felmly@mclane.com
                  nicholas.casolaro@mclane.com

               - and -

          Sheila Birnbaum, Esq.
          Mark S. Cheffo, Esq.
          Douglas E. Fleming, Esq.
          Patrick Curran, Esq.
          Lincoln Davis Wilson, Esq.
          QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
          51 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10010
          Telephone: (212) 849-7000
          Facsimile: (212) 849-7100
          E-mail: sheilabirnbaum@quinnemanuel.com
                  markcheffo@quinnemanuel.com
                  douglasfleming@quinnemanuel.com
                  patrickcurran@quinnemanuel.com
                  lincolnwilson@quinnemanuel.com


SAINT-GOBAIN PERFORMANCE: Removes "Dowling" Class Suit to D.N.H.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corporation removes
on February 26, 2018, the lawsuit entitled JEAN DOWLING, JAMES
BOLLENGIER, BRIAN MENDEZ, AMY MENDEZ, Individually and as Natural
Parent and Personal Representative for M.M., BEVERLY VOLNER,
JAMES VOLNER, THE ESTATE OF JUDITH VOLNER, James Volner,
Administrator, DAWNA WORCESTER, CRAIG WORCESTER, RICHARD SLIDE,
ERIN SLIDE, Individually and as Natural Parent and Personal
Representative for C.S. and M.S., JONATHAN KILEY, JENNIFER KILEY,
Individually and as Natural Parent and Personal Representative
for A.K., K.K., E.K.1 and E.K.2, SHAUNA MORTEN, RAYMOND FORREST,
BARBARA FORREST, JOHN MOONEY, LINDA MORRISON, JEFFREY RICHELSON,
BRENDA MORSE, JEAN MURPHY, THE ESTATE OF MICHELLE PATCH, Stephen
Patch, Administrator, STEPHEN PATCH, Individually and as Natural
Parent and Personal Representative for C.P., L.P., and M.P.,
JENNIE PAULETTE, VIRGINIA SLIDE, and CATHRYN WARRINGTON v. SAINT-
GOBAIN PERFORMANCE PLASTICS CORP., individually and as successor
in interest to CHEMFAB; MERRIMACK VILLAGE DISTRICT WATER WORKS;
CHRIS GILMAN; GWENAEL BUSNEL; and DOES 1-5, Case No. 226-2018-CV-
00071, from the New Hampshire Superior Court, Hillsborough,
Southern District, to the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Hampshire.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:18-cv-00180 to the
proceeding.

The action and its accompanying sister action, Albert-Brown v.
Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp., are two putative class
actions that were originally filed in the District Court and then
refiled in state court on February 12, 2018, following voluntary
dismissal of their claims without prejudice in federal court.

The Plaintiffs are 28 New Hampshire residents, who allege, on
behalf of putative classes, that the Defendants' actions have
"unnecessarily exposed the Plaintiffs and class members to unsafe
water" that was allegedly contaminated by a facility in
Merrimack, New Hampshire.  The Plaintiffs seek various relief on
behalf of themselves "and the putative classes," including
compensatory and enhanced compensatory damages, a remediation
protocol, a medical monitoring program, interest, attorneys'
fees, and disgorgement.  They assert their claims against Saint-
Gobain (the owner of the Merrimack facility), Gwenael Busnel and
Chris Gilman (the "Individual Defendants," alleged former and
current plant managers of the Merrimack facility), and five John
Doe Defendants.[BN]

Defendant Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corporation is
represented by:

          Bruce W. Felmly, Esq.
          Nicholas F. Casolaro, Esq.
          MCLANE MIDDLETON, P.A.
          900 Elm Street
          Manchester, NH 03101
          Telephone: (603) 628-1448
          Facsimile: (603) 625-5650
          E-mail: bruce.felmly@mclane.com
                  nicholas.casolaro@mclane.com

               - and -

          Sheila Birnbaum, Esq.
          Mark S. Cheffo, Esq.
          Douglas E. Fleming, Esq.
          Patrick Curran, Esq.
          Lincoln Davis Wilson, Esq.
          QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
          51 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10010
          Telephone: (212) 849-7000
          Facsimile: (212) 849-7100
          E-mail: sheilabirnbaum@quinnemanuel.com
                  markcheffo@quinnemanuel.com
                  douglasfleming@quinnemanuel.com
                  patrickcurran@quinnemanuel.com
                  lincolnwilson@quinnemanuel.com


SHANGHAI ORIGINAL: Denied Staff OT Pay, Paytubs, Says "Lin" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jian Ying Lin, Hui Qiu Chen and Xin He, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Shanghai
Original, Inc., East Brother Corp., Shanghai City Corp., Shanghai
Duplicate Corp., Kiu Sang Si, Yiu Fai Fong, Tun Yee Lam, Gui Bing
Shi, Solomon C. Liou, Mimi Si, William Ko, Lillian Liou, Cheng
Kueng Liu, Yun Cai and John Zhang, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-
01715 (S.D. N.Y., February 25, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages, unpaid "spread-of-hours" premium, liquidated
damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest and attorneys'
fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and New
York Labor Laws.

Defendants operate as Joe's Shanghai, a chain of Chinese
restaurants in New York where Plaintiffs were employed as kitchen
workers. They all claim to be denied overtime pay and wage
statements. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      John Troy, Esq.
      TROY LAW, PLLC
      41-25 Kissena Boulevard Suite 119
      Flushing, NY 11355
      Tel: (718) 762-1324
      Fax: (718) 762-1342
      Email: johntroy@pllc.com


SHIMA LIMOUSINE: "Beavers" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
----------------------------------------------------------
Robert Beavers, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Shima Limousine Services, Inc. and Michelle
Carothers, Case No. 1:18-cv-00352 (N.D. Ohio, February 14, 2018),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Plaintiff Beavers was employed by Defendants from approximately
February 1, 2016 through approximately November 30, 2017 as a
driver.  At all material times during his employment with
Defendants, Plaintiff Beavers was non-exempt from the FLSA's
overtime requirements.

Defendants own and operate Shim Limousine Services, Inc., an
enterprise located in Lake County, Ohio. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Clifford P. Bendau, II, Esq.
      THE BENDAU LAW FIRM PLLC
      P.O. Box 97066
      Phoenix, AZ 85060
      Tel: (216) 395-4226
      Fax: (602) 956-1409
      E-mail: cliffordbendau@bendaulaw.com

          - and -

      James L. Simon, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICES OF SIMON & SIMON
      6000 Freedom Square Drive
      Freedom Square II - Suite 165
      Independence, OH 44131
      Tel: (216) 525-8890
      Fax: (216) 642-5814
      E-mail: jameslsimonlaw@yahoo.com


SIGNICAST LLC: "Friedemann" Sues Over Unpaid Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------
Matthew Friedemann on behalf of himself and all others similar
situated Plaintiff, v. Signicast LLC, Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-
00278 (E.D. Wisc., February 22, 2018), seeks unpaid overtime
compensation, unpaid agreed upon wages, liquidated damages,
costs, attorneys' fees, declaratory and/or injunctive relief
and/or any such other relief pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act of 1938 and Wisconsin's Wage Payment and Collection Laws.

Signicast LLC, is a component manufacturer utilizing the
investment casting process. Plaintiff worked as a non-exempt,
hourly-paid manufacturing employee in the positions of Master
Technician, Finishing Technician and Melt Technician from April
4, 2011 until on or about December 7, 2017. Friedemann claims to
have worked in excess of twelve hours without overtime pay. [BN]

Plaintiffs are represented by:

      James A. Walcheske, Esq.
      Scott S. Luzi, Esq.
      WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC
      15850 W. Bluemound Rd., Suite 304
      Brookfield, WI 53005
      Phone: (262) 780-1953
      Fax: (262) 565-6469
      Email: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com
             sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com


SILVERSTAR DELIVERY: "Smith" Suit Alleges FLSA Violations
---------------------------------------------------------
Aaron Smith, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated
individuals v. Silverstar Delivery Ltd. and Amazon.com, LLC, Case
No. 2:18-cv-10501 (E.D. Mich., February 12, 2018), is brought
against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Plaintiff was a non-exempt driver employed by Defendants
delivering items purchased from Amazon.com to the customers who
purchased those items. Plaintiff was hired in or around November
2016 and his employment ended in or around June 2017.

Silverstar is an Illinois Corporation that operates a carrier and
logistics business and, among other activities, provides trucks
and/or drivers to deliver goods for its client companies'
customers in Michigan, including customers of Amazon in Michigan.

Amazon is a Delaware Limited Liability Company that is an
electronic commerce and cloud computing company and one of the
largest internet retailers in the world. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Amy E. Keller, Esq.
      DICELLO LEVITT & CASEY
      Ten North Dearborn Street, 11th Floor
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Tel: (312) 214-7900
      Fax: (312) 253-1443
      E-mail: akeller@dlcfirm.com


SMITH AUTO: Ferguson Seeks to Recover Minimum and Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
CAROL FERGUSON and LYNDA FREEMAN, on behalf of themselves and, in
addition, on behalf of others similarly situated v. MARIA SMITH,
an individual; ALL STAR AUTO GROUP, INC., a Delaware corporation;
the SMITH AUTO GROUP, an unregistered conglomeration of entities
owned by Maria Smith; GLADSTONE AUTO, LLC, an Oregon limited
liability company; and CARROS, INC., an Oregon corporation, Case
No. 3:18-cv-00372-SB (D. Ore., March 1, 2018), seeks to recover
alleged unpaid minimum wages, overtime wages, liquidated damages,
statutory penalties, and prejudgment interest pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Maria Smith owns and operates various automobile dealership
companies, both directly and through various shell companies and
corporations and registered and unregistered business names.
These include All Star Auto Group, Inc., Smith Auto Group,
Gladstone Auto, LLC, and Carros, Inc.

The Oregon constituents of Smith Auto (including Ms. Smith and
Gladstone Auto, LLC and Carros, Inc.) were and are joint
employers of the Plaintiffs and the class members.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jon M. Egan, Esq.
          JON M. EGAN, PC
          547 Fifth Street
          Lake Oswego, OR 97034-3009
          Telephone: (503) 697-3427
          Facsimile: (866) 311-5629
          E-mail: Jegan@eganlegalteam.com


SQUAW VALLEY: Court Extends Time to Respond to "Pinto" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
California issued an Order Extending Time to Respond to First
Amended Complaint and Order in the case captioned JOAO GABRIEL
PINTO, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SQUAW VALLEY RESORT, LLC, a
Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-02281-MCE-CKD (E.D. Cal.).

Plaintiff filed this action against defendant Squaw Valley and
defendant KSL Resorts on September 26, 2017 alleging eight causes
of action as class-wide claims, inter alia: (1) Failure to Pay
Minimum Wages; (2) Failure to Pay Wages and Overtime Under Labor
Code Section 510.

Squaw Valley's current deadline to respond to the FAC is February
22, 2018.

Squaw Valley contends that Plaintiff entered into an arbitration
agreement that precludes him from pursuing claims in this forum.

The Parties stipulate and ask that Squaw Valley's deadline to
respond to the FAC be extended by forty-five (45) days, from
February 22, 2018, until April 9, 2018.

The Court, having reviewed the Stipulation of the Parties and
good cause having been shown, orders that the deadline for
defendant Squaw Valley Resort, LLC file a responsive pleading to
Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint is hereby extended by forty-
five (45) days, from February 22, 2018, until April 9, 2018.

A full-text copy of the District Court's February 22, 2018 Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/ydh73m4l from Leagle.com.

Joao Gabriel Pinto, Plaintiff, represented by Alvin B. Lindsay --
alvin@yeremianlaw.com -- David Yeremian & Associates, Inc. &
David Harmik Yeremian -- david@yeremianlaw.com -- David Yeremian
& Associates, Inc.

Squaw Valley Resort, LLC, Defendant, represented by Alexander M.
Chemers -- alexander.chemers@ogletreedeakins.com -- Ogletree,
Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., Lori A. Bowman --
lori.bowman@ogletreedeakins.com -- Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak
and Stewart PC & Kelsey A. Webber --
kelsey.webber@ogletreedeakins.com -- Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak
& Stewart, PC.


SWIFT TECHNICAL: "Binning" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Justin Binning, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Swift Technical Services, LLC, Case No. 3:18-cv-00043
(S.D. Ohio, February 14, 2018), seeks to recover all unpaid wages
and other damages owed under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff Justin Binning worked for Defendant from February 2015
to November 2017.

Defendant is a staffing company that provides workers to energy
and infrastructure companies throughout the U.S.  Defendant
provides its services in multiple states including Texas,
California, North Dakota, and Wyoming. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Don J. Foty, Esq.
      KENNEDY HODGES, LLP
      4409 Montrose Blvd., Ste 200
      Houston, TX 77006
      Tel: (713) 523-0001
      Fax: (713) 523-1116
      E-mail: DFoty@kennedyhodges.com


SYSTEMS & SERVICES: "Chavez" Suit Seeks Damages under FDCPA
-----------------------------------------------------------
Adrian Chavez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Systems & Services Technologies, Inc., Case No. 3:18-
cv-00446 (S.D. Calif., February 28, 2018), seeks damages pursuant
to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Plaintiff Adrian Chavez is a resident of the County of San Diego,
within the State of California.

Defendant Systems & Services conducted business in the State of
California and in the County of San Diego. Defendant is a debt-
collector. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
      Mona Amini, Esq.
      Veronica Cruz, Esq.
      KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
      245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1
      Costa Mesa, CA 92626
      Tel: (800) 400-6808
      Fax: (800) 520-5523
      E-mail: ak@kazlg.com
              mona@kazlg.com
              veronica@kazlg.com


TITLEMAX INC: "Sistrunk" Settlement Has Final Approval
------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for Western District of Texas,
San Antonio Division, issued a Judgment granting Joint Motion for
Final Approval and Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorney's Fees and
Cost and Class Representative Award in the case captioned DEXTER
SISTRUNK, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly
situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. TITLEMAX, INC., et al.,
Defendants, United States District Court, No. 5:14-CV-628-RP
(W.D. Tex.).

The parties seek final approval of a Settlement Agreement that
sets forth the terms and conditions of a proposed settlement and
dismissal of this action with prejudice, with the Court retaining
jurisdiction to enforce the Settlement.

Having read the motions and supporting evidence and considered
the parties' arguments and relevant legal authority, the Court
finds as follows, inter alia:

Plaintiff's requested award of $1,557,675.00 in attorney's fees,
which is to be paid separately from compensation to the
Settlement Class, is reasonable. In considering the reasonability
of the requested fee award, the Court considers both (a) how the
fee award compares to the total recovery obtained in favor of the
class (the "percentage method") and (b) the reasonableness of the
award under the twelve factors set out in Johnson v. Georgia
Highway Exp., Inc., 488 F.2d 714(5th Cir. 1974).

The percentage method counsels in favor of approving the
requested fee award. Class Counsel obtained a settlement of
$1,500 per Class Member, which carries a total potential value of
$7,417,500 for the 4,945 Class Members who could make claims.
Plaintiff's requested fee award is 21 percent of the Settlement's
maximum cash value to the class as a whole. 21 percent is well
within the range approved by the Fifth Circuit.   This Court has
previously approved fee awards consistent with the Fifth
Circuit's benchmark of 30 percent in common-fund cases where,
unlike here, the fee award reduces class members' total recovery.

The Court therefore orders that the Settlement is finally
approved as being fair, reasonable, adequate, and in the best
interests of the Settlement Class Members. The Parties are
directed to implement the Settlement in accordance with its
terms. The parties and Class Members are bound by the terms and
conditions of the Settlement and this order.

The parties and their counsel are directed to implement and
consummate the Settlement according to its terms and conditions.

The Court awards Class Counsel attorney's fees in the amount of
$1,557,675.00. Defendants shall pay that amount to Class Counsel
within 30 days of this order.

The Court awards Class Counsel expenses in the amount of
$14,392.50. Defendants will pay that amount to Class Counsel
within 30 days of this order.

The Court awards Plaintiff Dexter Sistrunk a service award in the
total amount of $15,000.00. Of that sum, Defendants shall pay Ten
Thousand Dollars ($10,000.00) and Class Counsel shall pay Five
Thousand Dollars ($5,000.00) within 30 days of this order. Except
as otherwise set forth in this order, the Parties shall bear
their own costs and attorneys' fees.

A full-text copy of the District Court's February 22, 2018
Judgment is available at https://tinyurl.com/y7fcbtnm  from
Leagle.com.

Dexter Sistrunk, Plaintiff, represented by Leslie J. Strieber,
III- lstrieber@lawdcm.com -- Davis, Cedillo & Mendoza, Inc.,
Michael E. Pierce -- michael@pcsblaw.com -- Pierce Skrabanek
Bruera, PLLC, Ricardo G. Cedillo -- rcedillo@lawdcm.com -- Davis,
Cedillo & Mendoza & Cory S. Fein -- cory@coryfeinlaw.com -- Cory
S. Fein, PC.

TitleMax, Inc. & TMX Finance Holdings, Inc., Defendants,
represented by L. Bradley Hancock -- Brad.Hancock@hklaw.com --
Holland & Knight LLP & Marcy Hogan Greer -- mgreer@adjtlaw.com --
Alexander Dubose Jefferson & Townsend.

TitleMax Holdings, LLC, Defendant, represented by Christopher
David Johnsen -- chris.johnsen@hklaw.com -- Holland & Knight,
LLP, Gerald Thomas Drought -- gdrought@mdtlaw.com -- Martin &
Drought, P.C., L. Bradley Hancock -- Brad.Hancock@hklaw.com --
Holland & Knight LLP, Marcy Hogan Greer  Alexander Dubose
Jefferson & Townsend & Mathis B. Bishop -- mbishop@mdtlaw.com --
Martin & Drought, P.C.

TMX Finance, LLC, formerly known as, Defendant, represented by
Gerald Thomas Drought, Martin & Drought, P.C., L. Bradley
Hancock, Holland & Knight LLP, Marcy Hogan Greer, Alexander
Dubose Jefferson & Townsend & Mathis B. Bishop, Martin & Drought,
P.C.

TitleMax of Texas, Inc., Defendant, represented by Christopher
David Johnsen, Holland & Knight, LLP, Gerald Thomas Drought,
Martin & Drought, P.C., L. Bradley Hancock, Holland & Knight LLP,
Marcy Hogan Greer, Alexander Dubose Jefferson & Townsend, Martin
G. Durkin, Holland & Knight & Mathis B. Bishop, Martin & Drought,
P.C.


TOUCH OF CUBAN: "Castaneda" Suit Alleges FLSA Violations
--------------------------------------------------------
Ana Castaneda, and other similarly situated individuals v. A
Touch of Cuban Corp. dba A Touch of Cuba, Yoandra Piedra Vilar
and Michael Barata, Case No. 18-cv-60353 (S.D. Fla., February 15,
2018), seeks to recover money damages for unpaid overtime wages
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff Ana Castaneda was employed by the Corporate Defendant
as a server/cook/cashier/cleaner from November 2013 until January
2018.

Defendants own and operate a restaurant in Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


TOWERS WATSON: "Fort Myers" Suit Alleges Breach of Fiduciary Duty
-----------------------------------------------------------------
City of Fort Myers General Employees' Pension Fund, on behalf of
itself and all other similarly situated former stockholders v.
Towers Watson & Co., et al., Case No. 61735099 (Del. Chancery
Ct., February 27, 2018), is brought against the Defendants for
breach of fiduciary duty.

This action arises from the merger of Willis and Towers whereby
Towers stockholders received Merger consideration that had a
value that was at a material discount to the value of their
Towers shares. In the Merger, Towers stockholders received 49%
ownership of the combined Willis Towers despite Towers having
nearly a $1 billion market capitalization larger than Willis, and
a business that consistently beat street expectations compared to
Willis' business, which was struggling to implement a turn-around
plan.

Plaintiff Fort Myers GEPF was a shareholder of Towers and owned
Towers common stock at all material times alleged in this
Complaint.

Defendant Towers was a global professional services firm focused
on helping organizations improve performance through risk
management, human resources and actuarial and investment
consulting. Towers was located in Virginia and incorporated under
the laws of Delaware.

The Individual Defendants are directors and officers of Towers.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael J. Barry, Esq.
      Christine M. Mackintosh, Esq.
      GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A.
      123 Justison Street
      Wilmington, DE 19801
      Tel: (302) 622-7000

          - and -

      Geoffrey C. Jarvis, Esq.
      KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER
      & CHECK, LLP
      280 King of Prussia Road
      Radnor, PA 19087
      Tel: (610) 667-7706
      Fax: (267) 948-2512


UNITED FOOD: 6th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of "Ohlendorf"
------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, issued an
Opinion affirming the District Court's dismissal of the Complaint
in the case captioned ROBBIE OHLENDORF; SANDRA ADAMS, and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. UNITED FOOD
& COMMERCIAL WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION, LOCAL 876, Defendant-
Appellee, No. 17-1864 (6th Cir.).

The district court dismissed the complaint as a matter of law,
prompting this appeal.

The Labor Management Relations Act makes it a crime for an
employer to deduct union dues from an employee's paycheck and for
the union to accept the dues, except if the employee consents by
signing an authorization form, often called a dues checkoff.

Robbie Ohlendorf and Sandra Adams signed dues checkoff
authorizations with their employer in 2013. When they tried to
revoke them three years later, they did not follow the protocol
for revoking their consent, and the union insisted that they do
so. Ohlendorf and Adams sued the union in response. Their
putative class action lawsuit seeks damages and injunctive relief
on the ground that the union violated the Act and its duty of
fair representation.

To prove such a claim, the employees must show that the union's
conduct was arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith. The
employees claim that the union's enforcement of the window-period
and certified-mail requirements satisfies that standard.

The problem with the employees' claim is that they agreed to the
window-period and certified-mail requirements when they signed
the authorization form. Even if the requirements may seem
burdensome, no one forced the employees to sign the checkoff
authorizations.  Having agreed to the two requirements, they are
not in a position to say that the union acted arbitrarily in
enforcing them.

The union's decision to enforce the requirements does not qualify
as bad faith. To demonstrate bad faith, a plaintiff must show
that the union acted with an improper intent, purpose, or motive
encompassing fraud, dishonesty, and other intentionally
misleading conduct. The employees have not met that standard.
They do not allege that the union's decision to enforce the
requirements was misleading or a product of fraud or dishonesty.
The authorization form signed by each of them spelled out the
requirements they would need to follow to revoke their
assignments. In holding the employees and itself to this
contract, the union did not act in bad faith.

The Court affirms the district court's judgment.

A full-text copy of the Sixth Circuit's February 22, 2018 Opinion
is available at https://tinyurl.com/y88c66zt from Leagle.com.

ARGUED: Amanda K. Freeman, NATIONAL RIGHT TO WORK LEGAL DEFENSE
FOUNDATION, INC., 8001 Braddock Road, Suite 600 Springfield,
Virginia 22160, for Appellants.

J. Douglas Korney -- dkorney@dkorneylaw.com -- LAW OFFICES OF J.
DOUGLAS KORNEY, Farmington Hills, Michigan, for Appellee.

ON BRIEF: Amanda K. Freeman, William L. Messenger, Glenn M.
Taubman, NATIONAL RIGHT TO WORK LEGAL DEFENSE FOUNDATION, INC.,
Springfield, Virginia, for Appellants.

J. Douglas Korney, LAW OFFICES OF J. DOUGLAS KORNEY, Farmington
Hills, Michigan, for Appellee.


UNITED PARCEL: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Holl" Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Randall Holl filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit styled RANDALL HOLL v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC., Case
No. 4:16-cv-05856-HSG, in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, Oakland.

The appellate case is captioned as Randall Holl v. UNITED STATES
DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, OAKLAND,
Case No. 18-70568, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Petitioner RANDALL HOLL, individually, on behalf of
others similarly situated, and as a representative of the class,
is represented by:

          Adam W. Hansen, Esq.
          APOLLO LAW LLC
          400 South 4th Street, Suite 401M-250
          Minneapolis, MN 55415
          Telephone: (612) 927-2969
          E-mail: adam@apollo-law.com

               - and -

          Matthew C. Helland, Esq.
          NICHOLS KASTER, LLP
          235 Montgomery Street, Suite 810
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 277-7235
          Facsimile: (415) 277-7238
          E-mail: helland@nka.com

               - and -

          Kai Heinrich Richter, Esq.
          NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
          4600 IDS Center
          80 South Eighth Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 256-3200
          Facsimile: (612) 215-6870
          E-mail: krichter@nka.com

Defendant-Real Party in Interest UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC., is
represented by:

          Stacey M. Sprenkel, Esq.
          MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
          425 Market Street
          San Francisco, CA 94105-2482
          Telephone: (415) 268-6040
          E-mail: SSprenkel@mofo.com

               - and -

          Gregory Bryant Koltun, Esq.
          MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
          707 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 6000
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 892-5551
          Facsimile: (213) 892-5454
          E-mail: gkoltun@mofo.com


UNITED SERVICES: Vaughn Appeals Ruling to Kansas Supreme Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Meredith Vaughn filed an appeal from a court ruling in
the lawsuit titled MEREDITH VAUGHN, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED v. UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE
ASSOCIATION, Case No. 15CV38G, in the Kansas District Court,
Crawford.

The lawsuit arises from contract-related issues.

The appellate case is captioned as MEREDITH VAUGHN, INDIVIDUALLY
AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED v. UNITED SERVICES
AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION, Case No. 118974, in the Kansas Supreme
Court and Court of Appeals.[BN]


UNITED STATES: Appeals Amended Order in "Vidal" Suit to 2nd Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Kirstjen M. Nielsen, Jefferson B. Sessions III and
Donald J. Trump filed an appeal from the District Court's amended
order entered on February 13, 2018, in the lawsuit styled Vidal,
et al. v. Nielsen, et al., Case No. 16-cv-4756, in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Brooklyn).

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, several
appeals have already been filed by the parties of the lawsuit.

The Plaintiffs challenge the rescission of the Deferred Action
for Childhood Arrivals program, as well as other actions that the
Defendants are alleged to have taken in connection with the
rescission of that program.  The Plaintiffs challenge the
rescission on substantive and procedural grounds under the
Administrative Procedure Act.  The Plaintiffs also alleged that
the rescission violated equal protection and that the
implementation of the rescission violated due process.

The appellate case is captioned as Vidal, et al. v. Nielsen, et
al., Case No. 18-485, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellees Martin Jonathan Batalla Vidal; Make the Road
New York, on behalf of itself, its members, its clients, and all
similarly situated individuals; Antonio Alarcon; Eliana
Fernandez; Carlos Vargas; Mariano Mondragon; and Carolina Fung
Feng, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated
individuals, are represented by:

          Karen Cassandra Tumlin, Esq.
          NATIONAL IMMIGRATION LAW CENTER
          3450 Wilshire Boulevard
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Telephone: (213) 639-3900
          Facsimile: (213) 639-3911
          E-mail: tumlin@nilc.org

Defendants-Appellants Donald J. Trump, President of the United
States; Kirstjen M. Nielsen, Secretary of Homeland Security; and
Jefferson B. Sessions III, United States Attorney General, are
represented by:

          Mark B. Stern, Esq.
          Abby Christine Wright, Esq.
          UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
          950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20530
          Telephone: (202) 514-5089
          E-mail: Mark.Stern@usdoj.gov
                  Abby.Wright@usdoj.gov


UNITED STATES: Class Action Over DACA Program Pending
-----------------------------------------------------
Sophie Smith, writing for Willamette University Collegian,
reports that in January, a California court ruled that the
Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program (DACA) must stay
in place, a decision that outraged the firmly anti-immigration
White House.  Donald Trump's administration believes the program
is unconstitutional, claiming that its offer of work permits and
other government benefits is illegal.

In an attempt to fight the rule, the White House brought an
appeal to the Supreme Court.  This was an unusual choice because,
in accordance with the federal court system, appeals are normally
brought to a federal circuit court before reaching the Supreme
Court.  The White House bypassed the ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals in the Western US, a court with the reputation for making
liberal-leaning decisions.  The administration believed the
currently Republican controlled Supreme Court would be more
likely to rule in its favor.

Instead, the Supreme Court deferred to rule on the appeal,
deciding to keep DACA in place until a decision could be made.
Now the appeal will return to lower courts.  Experts believe a
decision will not come for several months, considering how slowly
the federal court process moves.  This is a win for U.S.
DREAMers, since DACA was set to expire this Monday, March 5 --
deferring the appeal will extend DACA, protecting DREAMers for
now.

However, welcome this advancement may be, we should not be too
quick to praise the Supreme Court.  Days later the court
overturned a recent ruling from the ninth Circuit which decided
detained immigrants must be granted bond hearings.  Immigrants --
whether undocumented or legal residents of the US -- can be kept
in detainment centers for an indefinite amount of time before
being given hearings.  Currently there are no provisions in place
that require hearings to be held.

The case the Supreme Court heard, Jennings v. Rodriguez, was
brought by the ACLU on behalf of Alejandro Rodriguez, a permanent
resident of the U.S. who arrived from Mexico as an infant.
Rodriguez was held in a detainment center in the early 2000's for
infractions involving joyriding and illegal of possession
substances, but he was never convicted for his alleged crimes.
He spent three years in detainment before being granted a
hearing.  Unfortunately, cases like Rodriguez's are anything but
unique.  Yet regardless of how many lives these statues have
harmed or put on pause, the Supreme Court still returned the case
to lower courts.  The Supreme Court poses two questions to these
courts.  Firstly, is it constitutional for detainees to be held
indefinitely without trials, and secondly, can this case be
brought as a class-action one, even though each immigrant's
circumstances are unique?

If the goal of our country's leaders is to protect the liberty of
its residents, neither question should require months to be
answered.  The statues completely disregard habeas corpus and the
Due Process clause. Many detainees, like Alejandro Rodriguez, are
legal U.S. residents.

As for the second question, of course this case can and should
continue to be class-action, or a case involving several
individuals that operate as a single defendant.  It was the U.S.
government itself that lumped the detained immigrants in one
group, regardless of criminal record or legal status, and trying
to hear cases individually would create an insurmountable backlog
in the court system. Furthermore, many people being detained,
particularly undocumented immigrants, do not have access to
individual lawyers. Allowing this to be a class-action case
should be a no-brainer.

To me, it seems the Supreme Court's 5-3 decision is yet another
powerplay by conservatives in leadership positions (Justice Elena
Kagan recused herself from the case).  We have seen time and time
again that the American government is systematically
discriminatory: consider the so-called 'Muslim ban,' mandatory
minimum sentencing, the continued wage gaps between genders and
races or anti-Black Lives Matter rhetoric.  It could even be
argued that Congress' lack of action when it comes to gun control
is further proof of this systematic discrimination -- the Pew
Research Center finds that most gun owners are white men.  This
ruling from the Supreme Court inarguably favors Republicans, who
gain massively from large-scale immigration detainment.
According to AJ+, an Al Jazeera online news channel, 62 percent
of Immigration and Customs Enforcement's (ICE) over 200
detainment centers in 2014 were run by private companies. Like
the U.S.'s corrupt prison system, detention centers are wrapped
up in the complicated and growing web among the wealthiest of
Americans: private corporations and politicians.  It makes sense,
then, that five Supreme Court justices would rule along their
financially-driven party lines.

The Supreme Court is meant to be above this conscious
discrimination, with its meticulous design to be an impartial
body that keeps checks on the other two branches of government.
But in today's dangerously bipartisan country, all that has been
thrown out the window.  The court's ruling is yet another example
of the institutionalized discrimination in this country, and a
blatant disregard for human rights that should outrage all of us.
[GN]


UNITED STATES: ACLU Sues Against ICE Over Asylum-Seeking Families
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Brandon Carter, writing for The Hill, reports that the American
Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) announced March 9 it has filed a
national class-action lawsuit against multiple federal government
agencies over the practice of separating asylum-seeking families.

The suit, filed on behalf of two plaintiffs in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of California, accuses the
federal government of a "nationwide unlawful practice of
separating parents and children absent any showing that the
parent presents a danger to the child."

Multiple government agencies are named as defendants in the
complaint, including Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE),
the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Customs and Border
Protection, and the Office of Refugee Resettlement, as well as
top officials at the agencies.

The lawsuit expands on a previous lawsuit filed by the ACLU in an
effort to reunite a Congolese mother and her 7-year-old daughter
who were detained 2,000 miles apart.

The woman was released from a detention center in San Diego,
according to The Associated Press, but her daughter remains
detained in Chicago.

The lawsuit also mentions a Brazilian woman it calls Ms. C., who
fled to the U.S. with her 14-year-old son in August 2017. The
suit claims the two were seeking asylum, but the woman was
detained for entering the U.S. illegally and spent nearly a month
in prison, and her son was sent to a holding facility in Chicago.

The two have been separated since last year, according to the
suit.

"Ms. C. is desperate to be reunited with her son, who has been
having a difficult time emotionally since being separated from
his mother," the complaint reads. "Ms. C. worries about him
constantly and does not know when she will be able to see him."

The lawsuit seeks a judge's declaration that the separation of
families is against the law.

"Whether or not the Trump administration wants to call this a
'policy,' it certainly is engaged in a widespread practice of
tearing children away from their parents," Lee Gelernt, the
deputy director of the ACLU's Immigrants' Rights Project, said in
a statement. "A national class-action lawsuit is appropriate
because this is a national practice."

DHS has no set policy to separate asylum-seeking parents from
their children, according to the AP.

In a statement on the original lawsuit filed on behalf of the
Congolese woman and her daughter, DHS press secretary Tyler
Houlton said the complaint should be treated with "skepticism."

"We ask that members of the public and media view advocacy group
claims that we are separating women and children for reasons
other than to protect the child with the level of skepticism they
deserve," Houlton reportedly said at the time. [GN]


VENICE HMA: "Briggs" Suit Seeks Damages under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------
Rebecca Briggs and Joan Mikluscak, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated v. Venice HMA, LLC, dba Venice
Regional Bayfront Health, Case No. 8:18-cv-00478 (M.D. Fla.,
February 28, 2018), seeks damages under the Fair Labor Standards
Act for failure to pay overtime wages under the Florida Private
Whistleblower's Act.

Plaintiffs Rebecca Briggs and Joan Mikluscak are residents of
Sarasota County, Florida.

Defendant Venice HMA operates a hospital in Venice, in Sarasota
County, Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Donna V. Smith, Esq.
      WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A.
      1110 North Florida Avenue, Suite 300
      Tampa, FL 33602
      Tel: (813) 386-0995
      Fax: (813) 229-8712
      E-mail: dsmith@wfclaw.com


VENKY'S FOOD: Accused by "Sanchez" of Not Paying Minimum Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
JUVENTINO GALEANA SANCHEZ and VICTOR GALEANA SANCHEZ,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v.
VENKY'S FOOD CORP. (D/B/A OM REAL INDIAN FOOD RESTAURANT) and
RITA SABHARWAL, Case No. 1:18-cv-01916 (S.D.N.Y., March 2, 2018),
alleges that the Plaintiffs worked for Defendants as delivery
workers without appropriate minimum wage compensation for the
hours that they worked.

Venky's Food Corp. is a domestic corporation organized and
existing under the laws of the state of New York and maintains
its principal place of business in New York City.  Rita Sabharwal
is an owner, officer or agent of the Defendant Corporation.

The Defendants own, operate, or control an Indian Restaurant
located at 1593 2nd Avenue, in New York City, under the name "Om
Real Indian Food Restaurant."[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


VITA-MIX CORP: Pittman Appeals Decision in "Gooding" to 9th Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Objector Randall Pittman filed an appeal from a court ruling in
the lawsuit titled RAINOLDO GOODING and NADEEN GOODING, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated v. VITA-MIX
CORPORATION and KELLY SERVICES, INC., Case No. 2:16-cv-03898-ODW-
JEM, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California, Los Angeles.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
is a wage-and-hour class action suit against Defendants Vita-Mix
Corporation and Kelly Services, Inc.  The Plaintiffs, as proposed
class members, work for or worked in the past for Vita-Mix, and
they allege that Vita-Mix misclassified their employee
designations and failed to pay them overtime wages and other
benefits, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The appellate case is captioned as Randall Pittman, et al. v.
Vita-Mix Corporation, et al., Case No. 18-55269, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

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

   -- Transcript was to be ordered by March 26, 2018;

   -- Transcript is due on April 25, 2018;

   -- Appellant Randall Pittman's opening brief is due on June 4,
      2018;

   -- Appellees Nadeen Gooding, Rainoldo Gooding, Kelly Services,
      Inc. and Vita-Mix Corporation's answering brief is due on
      July 5, 2018; and

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

Objector-Appellant Randall Pittman of Sherman Oaks, California,
appears pro se.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellees RAINOLDO GOODING and NADEEN GOODING, as
individuals, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are
represented by:

          Paul Keith Haines, Esq.
          HAINES LAW GROUP, APC
          222 N. Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 1550
          El Segundo, CA 90245
          Telephone: (424) 292-2350
          E-mail: phaines@haineslawgroup.com

               - and -

          Christine Ann Hopkins, Esq.
          TREMAIN ARTAZA PLLC
          4925 Greenville Avenue, Suite 200
          Dallas, TX 75206
          Telephone: (469) 573-0297
          E-mail: christine@tremainartaza.com

Defendant-Appellee VITA-MIX CORPORATION, DBA Vitamix, is
represented by:

          David Fuad, Esq.
          ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
          777 S. Figueroa Street
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 612-2369
          E-mail: dfuad@orrick.com

Defendant-Appellee KELLY SERVICES, INC., is represented by:

          Chantelle Cappa Egan, Esq.
          Laura Jean Maechtlen, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
          560 Mission Street
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 732-1106
          E-mail: cegan@seyfarth.com
                  lmaechtlen@seyfarth.com

               - and -

          David D. Jacobson, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
          2029 Century Park East
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-3021
          Telephone: (310) 277-7200
          E-mail: djacobson@seyfarth.com

               - and -

          Gerald Leonard Maatman, Jr., Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
          233 S. Wacker Drive, Suite 8000
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 460-5965
          E-mail: gmaatman@seyfarth.com


WAGEWORKS INC: Barrack, Rodos Files Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Barrack, Rodos & Bacine has commenced a securities class action
lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities of WageWorks,
Inc. (NYSE:WAGE) ("WageWorks" or "WAGE") from May 6, 2016 through
March 1, 2018, inclusive (the "Class Period").  The complaint is
styled Government Employees' Retirement System of the Virgin
Islands v. WageWorks, Inc., et al., Case No. 5:18-cv-01523, and
was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California.  A copy of the complaint will be
available at: www.barrack.com/newsroom/recent-news

On March 1, 2018, WageWorks announced that it would delay filing
its annual report on Form 10-K. On the news, shares of WAGE
closed at $42.70 per share, down $9.75 per share, or 18.6%, on
more than 10-times the stock's average daily trading volume.

The next day, on March 2, 2018, the company said that the delay
in reporting its financials was due to a material weakness in
internal control over financial reporting as of December 31,
2017, and that its audit committee was conducting an
investigation into the company's revenue recognition practices
during fiscal 2016. The investigation is also looking at whether
there was an open flow of information and appropriate "tone at
the top" for an effective control environment at the company.
WageWorks said that the investigation is ongoing and may result
in the identification of other accounting issues, further
material weaknesses, and/or require the restatement of the
company's financial statements for previously reported periods.

If you suffered a loss arising from your investment in WageWorks
common stock during the Class Period, you have until May 8, 2018,
to file a motion with the Court seeking appointment as lead
plaintiff.

To discuss your rights regarding the appointment of lead
plaintiff and for additional information about your interest in
this class action, please contact either Jeffrey A. Barrack,
Esq., by email at JBarrack@barrack.com or by telephone at (215)
963-0600 or Samuel M. Ward, Esq. by email at SWard@barrack.com,
or by telephone at (619) 230-0800.

Barrack, Rodos & Bacine is a highly experienced securities
litigation firm with offices in Philadelphia, PA, New York City,
NY, and San Diego, CA. During its 40 years serving institutional
investors and public pension fiduciaries, BR&B has recovered over
ten billion dollars on behalf of victims of corporate fraud.
Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. [GN]


WELLS FARGO: April 16 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
-------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC, notifies investors that a
class action lawsuit has been filed against Wells Fargo & Company
("Wells Fargo" or the "Company") (NYSE:WFC)  and certain of its
officers, on behalf of shareholders who purchased or otherwise
acquired Wells Fargo securities between January 13, 2017 and July
27, 2017, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). Such
investors are encouraged to join this case by visiting the firm's
site: http://www.bgandg.com/wfc

This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for
alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period,
Defendants made materially false and misleading statements and/or
failed to disclose that: (1) Wells Fargo had charged more than
800,000 customers for unneeded auto insurance, the expense of
which pushed approximately 274,000 Wells Fargo customers into
delinquency and resulted in almost 25,000 vehicle repossessions;
(2) the foregoing conduct, when it came to light, would
foreseeably subject Wells Fargo to heightened regulatory scrutiny
and/or enforcement actions; and (3) as a result, Wells Fargo's
public statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times.

On September 8, 2016, the U.S. Consumer Financial Protection
Bureau published a Consent Order with a Stipulation to its entry
signed by Mary Mack, Executive Vice President of Wells Fargo
Bank, detailing fraudulent practices at the Company, which were
centered on a corporate culture intent on growing its cross-
selling opportunities and unlawfully and without its customers'
consent opening millions of unauthorized deposit and credit card
accounts, and imposing a fine of more than $185 million.

On July 27, 2017, post-market, The New York Times published an
article entitled "Wells Fargo Forced Unwanted Auto Insurance on
Borrowers."  Citing an internal report prepared for Wells Fargo's
executives, the article reported that "[m]ore than 800,000 people
who took out car loans from Wells Fargo were charged for auto
insurance they did not need," that "[t]he expense of the unneeded
insurance . . . pushed roughly 274,000 Wells Fargo customers into
delinquency and resulted in almost 25,000 wrongful vehicle
repossessions," and "that the bank owed $73 million to wronged
customers." Following publication of this article, Wells Fargo
stock dropped $1.41 per share, or 2.58%, to close at $53.30 on
July 28, 2017.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the firm's site:
http://www.bgandg.com/wfcor you may contact Peretz Bronstein,
Esq. or his Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz, Esq., of
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC, at 212-697-6484. If you
suffered a loss in Wells Fargo you have until April 16, 2018 to
request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff.  Your
ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve
as a lead plaintiff.

Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a corporate litigation
boutique.  Our primary expertise is the aggressive pursuit of
litigation claims on behalf of our clients.  In addition to
representing institutions and other investor plaintiffs in class
action security litigation, the firm's expertise includes general
corporate and commercial litigation, as well as securities
arbitration.

         Contact:
         Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
         Yael Hurwitz, Esq.
         Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC
         Tel.No.: 212-697-6484
         Email: peretz@bgandg.com [GN]


WESTERN DENTAL: Mack Files Suit Over TCPA Violation
---------------------------------------------------
NETIA MACK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. WESTERN DENTAL SERVICES, INC., and DOES 1 through 10,
inclusive, Case No. 2:18-cv-00468-TLN-DB (E.D. Cal., March 2,
2018), accuses the Defendants of illegal actions under the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act in negligently, knowingly, and
willfully contacting the Plaintiff on her cellular telephone.

Western Dental Services, Inc., is a retail company engaged in
collection activity in connection with debts allegedly owed to
it.  The true names and capacities of the Doe Defendants are
currently unknown to the Plaintiff.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


WHITEROC DRYWALL: "Herrera" Suit Seeks to Recoup Unpaid OT Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Arnoldo Herrera, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Whiteroc Drywall, LLC and GD&D
Drywall, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-00558, (S.D. Tex.,
February 23, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
compensation, liquidated damages, and attorney's fees under the
Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

Defendants are involved in the construction business, performing,
among other services, carpentry and drywall work for commercial
construction projects. Herrera worked as an hourly construction
worker from 2013 until approximately July of 2016 for Whiteroc
only, and then until January 10, 2018 for both Defendants. During
his tenure with the Defendants, Plaintiff regularly worked in
excess of 40 hours per week but was not paid an overtime premium
for hours worked over 40 hours per workweek, says the complaint.
[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Josef F. Buenker, Esq.
      Vijay A. Pattisapu, Esq.
      THE BUENKER LAW FIRM
      2030 North Loop West, Suite 120
      Houston, TX 77018
      Tel: (713) 868-3388
      Fax: (713) 683-9940
      Email: jbuenker@buenkerlaw.com
             vijay@buenkerlaw.com


WILLIAMSBURG GARDEN: "Ernandez" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------
Tomas Escorza Ernandez, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. Williamsburg Garden Company, Inc. and Jeff Hewitt,
Case No. 1:18-cv-01009 (E.D. N.Y., February 15, 2018), seeks to
recover unpaid overtime compensation under the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

Plaintiff Ernandez worked as a construction worker for the
Defendant from on or about 2003 through December 26, 2017.

Defendant Hewitt owns and maintains control, oversight, and the
direction of Williamsburg Garden, a sidewalk construction company
located at 259 Wythe Avenue, Brooklyn, NY 11249. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jacob Aronauer, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICES OF JACOB ARONAUER
      225 Broadway, 3rd Floor
      New York, NY 10007
      Tel: (212) 323-6980
      E-mail: jaronauer@aronauerlaw.com


WINN MANAGEMENT: Court OKs $250K Class Settlement in "Goodwin"
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
California issued an Order granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Final
Approval of Class Settlement in the case captioned ADAM GOODWIN,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. WINN MANAGEMENT GROUP LLC, Defendant, No. 1:15-cv-
00606-DAD-EPG (E.D. Cal.).

The court finds final certification of the following class is
appropriate:

     All non-exempt employees who worked for Defendant in
California and both (i) received non-discretionary compensation
and (ii) worked over 8 hours in a day or 40 hours in a week in at
least one pay period between April 16, 2011 and July 26, 2017.

Here, the court reviewed the class notice that was proposed when
the parties sought preliminary approval of the settlement and
found it sufficient. Notice was sent by the settlement
administrator to the 1,562 class members on September 19, 2017.Of
those notices, 119 were returned to the sender, of which sixteen
had a forwarding address on file. For the remaining 103 class
members, notice was again attempted at new addresses for ninety-
six of the class members, ultimately resulting in only twenty-
four class members to whom no notice could be delivered.

Therefore, it appears that approximately 98 percent of the class
members received notice of this settlement.

The court concludes adequate notice was provided to the vast
majority of the class here.

In assessing whether a district court's determination of the
fairness of a class action settlement was within its discretion,
the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals balances the following
factors:
(1) the strength of the plaintiffs' case; (2) the risk, expense,
complexity, and likely duration of further litigation; (3) the
risk of maintaining class action status throughout the trial; (4)
the amount offered in settlement; (5) the extent of discovery
completed and the stage of the proceedings; (6) the experience
and views of counsel; (7) the presence of a governmental
participant; and (8) the reaction of the class members to the
proposed settlement.

Plaintiff explains in his brief in support of the motion for
final approval that the class faced risks at the class
certification stage due to two factors: (1) the issue of whether
Winn's bonuses and commissions were discretionary and therefore
would not need to be included in the regular rate of pay for
purposes of overtime; and (2) the fact that defendant advised
plaintiff that it had settled another class action previously
which incorporated certain of the same class members, such that
only about seven months of the class period remained relevant.

According to class counsel, there was perhaps a 50% chance that
the class would not prevail on the merits of some or all of their
claims. Both counsel confirmed at the hearing on the pending
motion that defendant had a good faith argument regarding the
discretionary nature of the bonuses.  Since demonstrating the
bonuses were not discretionary was a necessary component of
plaintiff's case, resolution of this issue against plaintiff
would have resulted in the class recovering nothing. Therefore,
while plaintiff believes his claims had merit, it was not certain
that he would ultimately prevail in this matter on behalf of the
class.

Plaintiff has indicated he believes there was substantial risk
the class would not be awarded significant damages because of the
possibility that defendant might successfully claim the bonuses
were discretionary. It is not only possible but likely that
further litigating this case to a final resolution would have
required significant investments of both time and expenses,
absent a settlement.

It is unclear whether there are any risks associated with
maintaining class action status throughout a trial in this
matter. No information is currently before the court suggesting
that individuals in this matter are governed by different
policies. Therefore, the court concludes there was little risk in
maintaining the suit's status as a class action until its
resolution.

The amount offered in settlement in this case is $250,000.
Plaintiff's counsel estimates that the realistic total recovery
here for both the California Class and the FLSA Class would be
$400,524.46, and therefore a settlement of $250,000 reflects a
recovery of more than half of what the class could reasonably
expect to recover.

Overall, the court concludes the amount offered in settlement is
not unreasonable in this case, since there were apparently not an
unduly large number of instances in which the alleged labor law
violation could have occurred.

Consideration of this factor weighs slightly against finding the
settlement fair in this case. The parties engaged in little to no
formal discovery here. According to plaintiff's counsel, both
parties propounded written discovery, and then the parties agreed
to engage in informal discovery and explore the possibility of
the cost effective alternative of settlement.

It appears the parties sought to settle this case from the outset
and did not engage in any substantive discovery or motion
practice. Aside from simply weighing against the fairness of the
settlement, the dearth of discovery completed in this case also
suggests class counsel's views regarding the adequacy of the
settlement should be accorded somewhat less credence than would
be the case had significant discovery been undertaken.

Plaintiff's counsel declares that he received his B.A. from the
University of California at Santa Barbara in 1998 and his J.D.
from the University of California at Davis in 2002. He became a
member of the California State Bar in 2002, and worked for two
different law firms until August 2007, when he started his own
practice concentrating on wage and hour class actions. This
opinion weighs only slightly in favor of finding the settlement
reasonable, given the limited discovery undertaken by the
parties.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1715(b), defendants are required to
serve any proposed settlements in class actions on certain state
and federal officials within ten days of settlement.  The court
may not give final approval to any proposed settlement until at
least 90 days have passed since all of the necessary officials
were served. The requisite 90 days have now passed, and no
governmental agency has sought to intervene. This weighs in favor
of the settlement.

No class members have objected to the settlement, and only one
class member has opted out of being included in it. The lack of
objections or large numbers of class members opting out of the
settlement suggests general approval of the settlement by the
class.

The award of attorneys' fees sought here -- thirty percent of the
settlement fund is on the high end of amounts typically awarded
in the Ninth Circuit. See Morales v. Stevco, Inc., No. 1:09-cv-
00704, 2011 WL 5511767 AWI JLT, (E.D. Cal. Nov. 10, 2011), the
typical range of acceptable attorneys' fees in the Ninth Circuit
is 20% to 33 1/3% of the total settlement value, with 25%
considered the benchmark. That said, both the fee award and
settlement amount are relatively small, and plaintiff's counsel
voluntarily reduced the amount of fees sought in this case.

Therefore, the amount of attorneys' fees sought here is not
indicative of collusion between class counsel and defendant.

Plaintiff's motion for final approval of the settlement and
certification of the settlement class is granted, the settlement
class is certified, and the court approves the settlement as
fair, reasonable, and adequate.

A full-text copy of the District Court's February 22, 2018 Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/ydxh4zmd from Leagle.com.

Adam Goodwin, individually and individually on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Michael Malk
-- mm@malklawfirm.com -- Michael Malk, Esq., Apc.

Winn Management Group LLC, a Massachusetts Limited Liability
Company, Defendant, represented by Mark J. Jacobs --
mjacobs@laborlawyers.com -- Fisher & Phillips LLC & Shaun Jordan
Voigt -- svoigt@fisherphillips.com -- Fisher & Phillips LLP.


YEREIM OF SPRING VALLEY: "Lorenzana" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Leandro Flores Lorenzana, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Yereim of Spring Valley, Inc.,
Yereim of Spring Valley New York, Inc., Yereim of Monsey, Inc.,
Sholum Heimowitz and Lazar Katz, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-01708
(S.D. N.Y., February 23, 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, or control a Jewish private school,
located at 33 Union Road, Spring Valley, New York 10977 under the
name "Talmud Torah Khal Adas Yereim," where Lorenzana was
employed as a janitor and a handy man. Plaintiff worked for
Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate
minimum wage and overtime compensation for the hours that he
worked and repeatedly failed to pay him wages on a timely basis.
[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


* Alston & Bird Attorneys Discuss Recent Class Action Rulings
-------------------------------------------------------------
Alex Akerman, Esq. -- alex.akerman@alston.com -- Christina Bortz,
Esq. -- christina.bortz@alston.com -- Sam Bragg, Esq. --
sam.bragg@alston.com -- David Carpenter, Esq. --
david.carpenter@alston.com -- Caitlin Counts, Esq. --
caitlin.counts@alston.com -- and Charles Cox, Esq. --
charles.cox@alston.com -- of Alston & Bird, in an article for
JDSupra, present Class Action Roundup: Winter 2018.

Where the (Class) Action Is

Welcome to 2018 and the latest edition of Roundup covering
significant decisions and settlements from the last quarter of
2017.  On the docket this quarter is another slate of cases
covering a variety of industries, products, and legal arguments
that keep class action practitioners so busy.  Consumer
Protection and Products Liability cases were the most common in
this quarter and dealt with issues that included the pricing of
burritos and Super Bowl tickets as well as claims of odors in
cars and alleged side effects of pills.  Standing issues and the
enforceability of arbitration agreements were common themes in
these cases.

For the financial industry, notable cases covered issues of labor
standards for bank employees and retirement plan participants,
overlapping with other common employment issues of age bias and
unpaid time while complying with company rules.  Major
settlements finalized this quarter included the Takata airbag
MDL, with four settlements totaling more than $500 million, and a
settlement of more than $200 million in an antitrust class action
from student athletes over scholarships.

Looking ahead to the first quarter of 2018, we'll feature a
summary of the recent Hyundai ruling overturning a nationwide
class action settlement in an MDL on choice-of-law issues and
establishing a "heightened need" to undertake choice of law
analysis in the settlement context.  This ruling could
have far-reaching implications in the class action world. Another
case worth watching will be an upcoming argument in the Ninth
Circuit on a core Spokeo issue -- more to follow when the
decision comes in on that one.

Antitrust/RICO

Rail Shippers' Damages Model Runs Off the Tracks
In re Rail Freight Fuel Surcharge Antitrust Litigation, No. 1:07-
mc-00489 (D.D.C.) (Nov. 13, 2017). Judge Friedman. Denying class
certification.

Judge Friedman denied the direct purchaser rail shippers' motion
for class certification, holding that the rail shippers could not
satisfy Rule 23(b)(3)'s predominance requirement because their
damages model contained too many uninjured shippers.  Judge
Friedman explained that to satisfy the predominance requirement
at the class certification stage, the rail shippers had to show
that "all or virtually all" of the class members' injuries can be
proved through common evidence.  Because 12.7 percent of the
members were uninjured, Judge Friedman held that the rail
shippers failed to meet that burden.

Uninjured Class Members Don't Hurt Plaintiffs' Bid for Class
Certification

In re Asacol Antitrust Litigation, No. 1:15-cv-12730 (D. Mass.)
(Nov. 9, 2017). Judge Casper. Granting class certification.

Purchasers of ulcerative colitis drugs moved for class
certification.  The defendant drug manufacturers argued that
inclusion of potential uninjured purchasers in the proposed class
precluded class certification because (1) there was no
administratively feasible mechanism for distinguishing
between injured and uninjured class members; and (2) the presence
of uninjured class members meant that individual issues
predominated. Judge Casper rejected both arguments because the
purchasers could use affidavits and supporting documentation at
the claims stage to distinguish between injured and uninjured
class members.  And, according to Judge Casper, since just 10
percent of class members were uninjured, individual issues did
not predominate.

Common Corporate Parent Doesn't Provide Basis for Numerosity
Challenge

In re Solodyn (Minocycline Hydrochloride) Antitrust Litigation,
No. 1:14-md02503 (D. Mass.) (Oct. 16, 2017). Judge Casper.
Granting class certification.

Direct purchasers of acne medication proposed a class of 48
members and argued that joinder was impracticable due to the size
of the class and geographic dispersion of the members.  The
defendant drug manufacturers took issue with the purchasers'
calculation of class size, contending that limiting class members
to their common corporate parent resulted in a class of less than
40, which failed to satisfy the numerosity requirement.  Judge
Casper rejected the drug manufacturers' argument, finding no
evidence that the plaintiffs were artificially inflating the
class size and holding that the plaintiffs should be considered
distinct entities for class certification purposes even though
they share a common parent.

Banking, Financial Services & Insurance

On Second Thought . . .
Ambulatory Surgical Center of Somerset, et al. v. Allstate Fire
Casualty Insurance Co., No. 3:16-cv-05378 (D. N.J.) (Oct. 5,
2017). Judge Thompson. Reconsidering denial of motion to compel
arbitration and reversing.

In a class action brought by a hospital and car accident victims
asserting claims for personal injury protection (PIP) coverage
benefits for medical bills, Allstate moved to compel arbitration
under the New Jersey Automobile Insurance Cost Reduction Act
(AICRA) and New Jersey's "deemer statute."
After initially denying the motion, Judge Thompson reversed
herself and held that the broad arbitration language in the AICRA
extended to the deemer statute.  She explained that her prior
decision was "misplaced," failed to consider the impact of
amendments to the PIP statute that allow insurers to force
arbitration, and to deny arbitration would be "unjust and
inconsistent with the scheme set forth in the New Jersey
legislature."

Insurer Not Required to Indemnify Class Action Under California
Labor Code

The Talbots Inc. v. AIG Specialty Insurance Co., No. 1:17-cv-
11107 (D. Mass.) (Sept. 29, 2017). Judge Stearns. Granting motion
to dismiss.

A Massachusetts district court held that AIG had no duty to
indemnify Talbots for a putative class action alleging labor
violations arising from "a uniform policy and systematic scheme
of wage abuse against" their employees.

The plain language of the insurance policy excluded claims
brought under either the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) or the
California Labor Code, and all of the claims were "either
directly tied to, or a natural outgrowth of, the company's
employment and labor practices."

Mortgage Servicer Finds Reporting Mortgage Interest to Be Taxing

Rovai v. Select Portfolio Servicing Inc., No. 5:14-cv-01738 (S.D.
Cal.) (Oct. 18, 2017). Judge Bashant. Denying motion to dismiss.

Judge Bashant denied defendant Select Portfolio Servicing's (SPS)
motion to dismiss the plaintiff's amended complaint for lack of
subject-matter jurisdiction. SPS was the servicer of Rovai's
mortgage loan.  She filed suit alleging that the company sent her
tax forms in 2011 and 2012 that incorrectly reported the amount
of mortgage interest she paid to SPS. She alleged that her
reliance on the incorrect forms caused her to file inaccurate
tax returns and that she received smaller tax deductions as a
result. SPS moved to dismiss, arguing that Rovai did not have
Article III standing due to her failure to plead both injury-in-
fact and causation.  The court disagreed and held that
allegations of receiving smaller tax deductions in 2011 and 2012
were sufficient to show economic injury, and those injuries were
fairly traceable to SPS's failure to provide correct tax forms.

Judge Grants Class Certification to Retirement Plan Participants

Leber v. The Citigroup 401(k) Plan Investment Committee, et al.,
No. 1:07-cv-09329 (S.D.N.Y.) (Nov. 27, 2017). Judge Stein.
Granting motion for class certification.

Judge Stein certified a class of Citigroup 401(k) plan
participants alleging that the committees responsible for
overseeing the plan breached their fiduciary duties of prudence
and loyalty by favoring certain investment options that
had higher management fees than comparable alternatives.  The
court rejected an argument that the named plaintiffs did not have
standing to assert claims related to funds they did not invest
in, and went on to find that the Rule 23 requirements were
satisfied.  The court held that common questions predominated,
such as whether Citibank failed to prudently and loyally monitor
the plan's investments, and that the plaintiffs' claims were
typical of those of the class because Citibank's misconduct
affected each of those funds in the same way.

Seventh Circuit Declines Relief to Elderly Insureds

Toulon v. Continental Casualty Co., No. 16-1510 (7th Cir.) (Dec.
14, 2017). Affirming dismissal.

Sophia Toulon argued that Continental Casualty had engaged in a
scheme to lure elderly people into purchasing long-term care
insurance by offering low premiums and not disclosing that
premiums would substantially increase when the elderly insureds
would be likely to need the coverage.  Unfortunately for Toulon,
neither the district court nor the Seventh Circuit was convinced
that any of Continental's statements or actions were fraud
since the policy expressly conferred upon Continental the right
to increase premiums. [GN]


* DOJ Probe May Spark Generic Drug Price Fixing Class Actions
-------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Lane, writing for National Public Radio, reports that
forty-five states and the Department of Justice are claiming that
generic-drug prices are fixed and the alleged collusion may have
cost U.S. business and consumers more than $1 billion.

In their complaint, prosecutors say that when pharmacies asked
drugmakers for their lowest price, the manufacturers would rig
the bidding process.

"The companies would work out in advance who would get the lowest
price and then the other competitors may put in what we would
call a cover bid," says Michael Cole, who heads the antitrust
department at the Connecticut attorney general's office. (Such
bids give the appearance of competitive bidding.)

Through subpoenas, Mr. Cole's team has assembled millions of
texts, emails and phone calls between 2012 and 2015.  The
prosecutors say the records show executives divvying up
customers, setting prices and giving the illusion that generic
pharmaceuticals were transacted in an open and fair marketplace.

Because of this price-fixing scheme, prosecutors say, health
insurance premiums and copays increased.  They also say tax-
funded programs like Medicare and Medicaid overspent on drugs.

So far, two executives from Heritage Pharmaceuticals have pleaded
guilty to antitrust crimes.  Both are now feeding information to
prosecutors who say the two rigged prices on, among other drugs,
the common antibiotic doxycycline, which shot the price up 8,000
percent.

"To the extent that taxpayers have had to pay that bill, I think
that the taxpayers should recover. And we will get involved on
the civil side and recover damages for the U.S. government,"
Makan Delrahim, head of the Department of Justice's antitrust
division, said at a seminar.

The fact that the Department of Justice is involved has caught
the attention of class-action lawyers.

Jason Dubner -- jdubner@butlerrubin.com -- an attorney for
Butler, Rubin, Saltarelli & Boyd, says the allegations are so
massive that prices throughout the generic industry could have
been affected.  "You start to get an understanding just how
widespread this alleged conspiracy was to cover so many different
types of cures," he says.

Law firms that specialize in class actions have already lined up
as many as 80 companies that may have paid too much, including
retail pharmacies, employee unions and insurance companies.
Mr. Dubner predicts more will join as the lawsuit progresses,
perhaps even individual consumers.

The pharmaceutical manufacturers named in the complaint have
either declined to comment or denied the allegations, saying they
have a robust compliance program.

Ronny Gal, a market analyst for Sanford Bernstein, says on
average, the generic-drug industry has lowered prices for
consumers.  But, he says, in an efficient marketplace, generic-
drug wholesalers should have kept prices in check.

"In a market that has only three or four really large
distribution organizations, they are sometimes tempted to
maximize their own profits in a way that does not always 100
percent reflect the best interest of their clients," Mr. Gal
says.

This is what investigators are looking at now.  In their
complaint they suggest -- but don't allege -- that the price-
fixing conspiracy also involved drug distributors.  Prosecutors
are sending more subpoenas and planning a new complaint.

"It could be more generic manufacturers, it could be more drugs,
it could be more entities in the distribution chain.  It could be
all of that," Mr. Cole, of the Connecticut attorney general's
office, says.

A spokesperson for McKesson, one of the largest generics
distributors, said the company is cooperating with requests for
information from prosecutors and that it competes aggressively
for the lowest price available.

Based on what's in the current lawsuit, Mr. Gal estimates an
eventual settlement would be around $1 billion.  But he says that
number could go as high as $5 billion, especially if more drugs
are included. [GN]


* Gig Economy Renews Debate Whether Contractors Are Misclassified
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Yuki Noguchi, writing for National Public Radio, reports that
freelancers and contract workers make up the fastest-growing
segment of the American workforce, and are expected to surpass
half of all workers within a decade.  But, under current
employment law, these workers are ineligible for most of the
rights and benefits of traditional employees.

As their ranks grow so, too, do the court challenges from workers
who say they are improperly classified as contractors, and
wrongfully denied eligibility for things like unemployment
insurance, workers' compensation, and protections under most
federal anti-discrimination laws.

Popular gig platforms -- such as Uber, Handy, Lyft and Instacart
that allow workers to find episodic work -- are at the center of
many new court cases.  And the disputes are renewing a debate on
the issue of whether contractors are misclassified, which has
existed in other industries for decades.

Last month, a case pitting food-delivery business Grubhub against
a former driver, Raef Lawson, became the first gig economy case
in the country to reach a trial verdict.

In that case, Mr. Lawson, an aspiring Los Angeles actor, worked
as a part-time driver.  He sued Grubhub in 2015, saying the
company exerted significant control over when and where he
delivered food during his shifts -- much the way a manager
controls an employee.  Therefore, he argued, he should be
considered an employee, with rights to minimum wage, overtime
pay, and reimbursement of expenses.

The magistrate judge in the U.S. District Court of Northern
California disagreed, ruling Lawson was appropriately classified
as an independent contractor, largely because of the ways in
which Lawson was unlike a traditional employee.

"He didn't receive performance evaluations, he didn't have to go
through training or orientation, he didn't have to wear a
specific uniform," says Richard Meneghello, an attorney who
represents companies in similar cases.  "Those are all the kinds
of things that are really hallmarks of a typical employee-
employer relationship."

A loss for Grubhub would've reverberated throughout the new gig
economy, Mr. Meneghello says.  It would "would open up a whole
range of benefits -- not only potentially increased pay for
minimum wage and overtime, but also protection under civil rights
laws and workers' compensation, and a whole raft of benefits," he
says.

The judge, Jacqueline Scott Corley, acknowledged the ruling was a
close call, noting that the booming class of gig workers has
attributes of both employees and contractors. However, the law
forces her to choose between two stark designations, in what she
called an "all-or-nothing proposition."

That means each case is going to depend on particular
circumstances, Mr. Meneghello says.  "It's a real roll of the
dice every time a gig economy company has a case like this," he
says.

(One major class-action case, involving Uber drivers, is on hold
at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, pending a Supreme Court
ruling on whether employers can force the workers to arbitrate
their cases individually, instead of acting as a class.)

Over the last century, a full-time employment model has dominated
the American workforce, and the country's workplace laws are
built around it.  But as employers and workers alike embrace the
greater flexibility of contract work, there are more questions
about which laws should apply, and to whom.

Many companies are skirting their employer obligations by
misclassifying workers as independent contractors, says
David Weil, dean of the Heller School at Brandeis University.

"Businesses can get all the benefits of closely controlling
everything that happens in the delivery of a service or the
creation of a product," says Mr. Weil, a former Labor Department
administrator under President Obama who enforced fair wage laws.
"And yet when it comes to responsibility for basic employment
conditions like health and safety, or like compliance with labor
standards, our laws let them off the hook completely."

Moreover, people working as contractors cannot sue for workplace
violations under most federal laws, making them vulnerable to
exploitation, Mr. Weil says.  In his work at the Labor
Department, he says he saw cases involving exploitation of
warehouse workers, for example, who were labeled contractors
doing the work of employees but earning below the minimum wage.

"The probability of violation was very high where you had
subcontracting, outsourcing relationships," Mr. Weil says.

Even where there are no clear violations, many contractors say
the legal structure gives employers the upper hand.

Seth Dudzinski, for example, has worked in quality control for
two San Francisco-area pharmaceutical companies as a contractor
for the last five years.  Mr. Dudzinski, 33, feels he should be
classified as an employee, because he does the same work as
employees, except he wears a different color ID badge.

"There is a shuttle that only full-time employees could use that
is six blocks from my house, but I would have to pay to use it,
so that's a little messed up," he says.  The shuttle would make
his commute 45 minutes, but taking public transportation takes up
to two hours.

Mr. Dudzinski says he desperately wants to be hired so he can be
eligible for things like stock options and employer retirement
contributions, but he feels he can't push for it.

"There isn't much room to negotiate," he says.  And, he says,
he's keenly aware that his contractor status restricts his
ability to complain. [GN]


* Polsinelli Attorneys Say Token Issuers May Face Class Actions
---------------------------------------------------------------
Michael S. Foster, Esq. -- mfoster@polsinelli.com -- Mark A.
Olthoff, Esq. -- molthoff@polsinelli.com -- and Richard B. Levin,
Esq., of Polsinelli, in an article for JDSupra, wrote that
cryptocurrencies, like Bitcoin and Ethereum, had a breakout year
in 2017.  The price of Bitcoin rose from approximately $1,000 per
Bitcoin on January 1, 2017, to $13,000 per Bitcoin on
December 31, 2017, with a high of approximately $20,000 per
Bitcoin.  Ethereum increased from approximately $10 per Ether to
$755 during the same time period.  Both Ether and Bitcoin are
used by investors to buy into Initial Coin Offering ("ICO")
opportunities, which are similar to Initial Public Offerings
("IPOs") and were an extremely popular way of raising capital in
exchange for "crypto tokens" in 2017.  These ICOs, however, have
spurred recent class action lawsuits.

"Given the wide fluctuations in the price of cryptocurrencies --
and recent precipitous drop -- and the fact that many people paid
for tokens of blockchain based start-ups, we have only likely
begun to see the beginning of class action lawsuits filed
relating to blockchain-related companies or companies that
participated in ICOs.  Because anyone with an idea for a project
can gain financial backing without going through the formalities
of an IPO, there are obvious chances for the public to be
scammed, leading to potential lawsuits," they said.

"We believe it is highly likely other issuers of tokens will face
class action lawsuits.  Any company planning to conduct a token
offering using an ICO should proceed with caution.  Similarly,
anyone looking to invest in a token offering should make sure the
offering is conducted in compliance with applicable state and
federal laws." [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  * * *