CAR_Public/180404.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


             Wednesday, April 4, 2018, Vol. 20, No. 68



                            Headlines


ADIR INT'L: Valdovinos Sues for Illegal Termination
AETNA HEALTH: Accused by Young Over Blind-Inaccessible Web Site
ALLERGAN INC: Rigged Eye-drop Prices, Says Louisiana Health
ALLTRAN FINANCIAL: Bid to Certify Class Denied without Prejudice
AMAZON.COM DEDC: Renewed Class Certification Bid Denied as Moot

AMERICAN HOME: "Mojer" Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages
APPLE INC: Ward Appeals Denial of Class Cert. Bid to 9th Cir.
ARS NATIONAL: Faces "Rowand" Suit in District of New Jersey
ASSOCIATED WHOLESALE: Piazza Seeks to Certify Class of Employees
ATTENDING HOMECARE: Appeals Order in "Abdullayeva" to 2nd Cir.

AUSTRALIA: Yarra's Edge Residents Mull Suit Over Tram Bridge
AVIACODE INC: Parties Seek to Inform Medical Coders of Class Suit
AVIOR AIRLINES: "Cavalieri" Suit Seeks to Certify Class
BANK OF AMERICA: Bingham Sues Over OON Fees on ATM Withdrawals
BANRO CORP: Faces EMA GARP Investors Suit Over Congo Operations

BARNES & NOBLE: Second Circuit Appeal Filed in "Bernardino" Suit
BATTERY WAVE: Padilla Files Suit Over Illegally Withheld Tips
BAYCARE HEALTH: Figueroa Seeks to Certify Employees Class
BLOOMBERG LP: Fails to Design Deaf-Accessible Site, Sullivan Says
BLUE STAR: Court Certifies Agricultural Workers Class

BRUNSWICK, GA: Faces Class Action Over Property Taxes
BUCKS COUNTY, PA: Water Contamination Lawsuits Continue
BUFFALO WILD: Borenkoff Appeals S.D.N.Y. Order to Second Circuit
BUILDZOOM INC: Innovative Design Sues for Trademark infringement
CABOT INVESTMENT: Court Certifies Class & 6 Subclasses

CALLIDUS SOFTWARE: "Stein" Class Suit Challenges Merger With SAP
CENTENE MANAGEMENT: Certification of Employees Class Sought
CHEEVER DEV'T: Finishing Workers File Suit Over RICO Breach
CHICAGO, IL: Proceedings and Discovery in "Campbell" Stayed
CLARENCE DAVIDS: Notice of "Balderrama-Baca" Class Action Okayed

COMMONWEALTH BANK: May Face Credit Card Insurance Class Action
CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Accused by "Brown" of Violating FDCPA
COOK COUNTY, IL: Class Certification Bid in "Shyne" Continued
CRAFTMASTER PAINTING: Certification of Opt-Out Class Sought
EASTAR JET: Faces KYW1.5MM Class Action Lawsuit

FARMERS RESTAURANT: Stephens, et al. Seek Class Certification
FAST ADVANCE: Fabricant Seeks Certification of Classes
FINANCIAL RECOVERY: Rehman Seeks Certification of 2 Classes
FLOWERS FOODS: Distributors Class Conditionally Certified
FOOT LOCKER: May 8 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline

FRANCESCA'S HOLDINGS: Conditional Certification Sought in "Magee"
FYRE MEDIA: Founder Pleads Guilty to Fraud Amid Class Action
GC SERVICES: "Ocampo" Suit Seeks to Certify Class
GC SERVICES: Green Asks Court to Certify FDCPA Class
GENESCO INC: "Chen" Class Suit Moved From Illinois to Indiana

GILBERT ENTERPRISES: Walsh Seeks to Certify Exotic Dancers Class
GLYNN COUNTY, GA: ACLU Sues Officials Over Cash Bail
GOLD STANDARD: Certification of Laborers Class Sought
HARVARD COLLECTION: Debt Collection Violates FDCPA, "Bond" Says
HCA HEALTH: Sued by Clark for Not Paying Minimum Wage Under FLSA

HIDAY & RICKE: "McCray" Disputes Vague Collection Letter
HOME DEPOT: Court Terminates Bid to Certify Class in "Manopla"
HOSPITALITY VENTURES: Certification of FLSA Collective Sought
HRHH HOTEL/CASINO: "Mason" Sues Over Internet Tax in Resort Fee
HSBC BANK: Royal Park Appeals Denial of Cert. Bid to 2nd Circuit

HSBC BANK: BlackRock Appeals Denial of Bid to Certify Class
HUNTER WARFIELD: Faces "Troutt" Suit in Tenn. for Violating FDCPA
ILLINOIS: Court Denies Class Certification Bid in "Kolton"
INTELLICHECK LLC: Cunha Seeks to Certify Background Check Class
IOOF: In Whistle-blower Dispute with Maurice Blackburn

JONATHAN SWEENEY: Class Certification Bid in "Bragg" Suit Denied
KISWANI TRUCKING: Haggerty Asks Court to Join as Party-Plaintiffs
KROGER CO: Court Denies as Moot Bid for Class Certification
LANDAU UNIFORMS: Parker Seeks OT Pay for Off-the-Clock Work
LORALI BUILDING: "Stein" Sues Over Substandard Living Conditions

LOUISIANA: Sued Over Inadequate Medical Care at Angola Prison
MDL 2804: Lowell, Billerica Join Opioid Crisis Class Action
MECTA CO: Class Certification Denied in ECT Shock Treatment Suit
MERCHANTS & PROFESSIONAL: "Patterson" Disputes Collection Letter
MERCK & CO: Rigged Cholesterol Meds Price Claims Painters' Fund

MESSERLI & KRAMER: Proceedings in "Kleczewski" Suit Stayed
MIDLAND CREDIT: Hernandez Amended Class Certification Bid Denied
MILWAUKEE, WI: Collins, et al. Seek to Certify Class & Subclass
MIMEDX GROUP: "Gordon" Sues Over Share Price Drop
MODERNIZE INC: Morris Seeks to Certify Class & Subclass

MONARCH RECOVERY: Hartman Seeks to Certify Consumers Class
MONAT: Faces Consumer Claims Over Hair Product Line
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Court Denies "Long" Class Certification Bid
NEW MEXICO: Wage Theft Settlement Approved
NEW POWER INC: "Calderon" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT, Wage Statements

NEW YORK: NYCHA Fails to Address Mold Issues After Settlement
NFL: Patriots Report Brain Injuries, Suit Claims
NORTHSHORE UNIVERSITY: Barrett Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective
ONTARIO: Suit Accuses Gov't of Leaving Foreign-Born Crown Wards
OPTIMUM OUTCOMES: Class Cert. Proceedings in "Dunn" Suit Stayed

PLY GEM: Faces Shareholder Class Action in Delaware
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: "O'Brien" Case Settlement Has Initial OK
PURDUE PHARMA: Lynnfield Hopes to File Opioid Crisis Class Action
REVOLUTION MOTORSPORTS: Billings Sues over Robocalls
RIVMAR CORP: Delgado Seeks to Recover OT Pay Under FLSA & IMWL

ROWDY FARMS: Faces "Smith" Suit in Western Dist. of Texas
SCI DIRECT: Motion to Certify Class in "Romano" Underway
SEVENTY SEVEN: Sudarsan Appeals Order and Judgment to 2nd Circuit
SK BEAUTY: Underpays Cashiers, "Jeon" Suit Claims
SKYLINE METRICS: Sued by Shainsky for Illegally Contacting Phone

SOS INTERNATIONAL: Certification of Interpreters Class Sought
SPRINT CORPORATION: "Rubio" Case Settlement Wins Final Approval
STARJEM RESTAURANT: "Mera" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wage under FLSA
STEINHOFF: Veldhuizen Discusses Possibility of Class Action
STONEHOUSE REST: Refuses to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, Sanchez Says

SUNRISE FAMILY: "Mendez" Action to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
SURETEMPS LLC: Court Certifies Hoppers Employees Class
TECH MAHINDRA: Kumar Seeks to Certify 2 Classes of Engineers
TEXAS CES: Debord Seeks to Certify Class of Employees
THE NOW: "Richards" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages, Reimbursements

THOMAS DART: Class Certification Denied in "Polletta" Suit
THOMAS DART: Class Certification Denied in "Hacker" Suit
TIGER BRANDS: Richard Spoor Attorneys, Marler Clark Hit with Suit
TIGER BRANDS: Richard Spoor to Launch Listeriosis Class Action
TIGER BRANDS: CEO Comments on Possible Listeriosis Class Action

TIGER BRANDS: Products Implicated in Listeriosis Still Being Sold
TOKYO ELECTRIC: Class Actions Over Fukushima Disaster Ongoing
TOWNE PROPERTIES: Court Certifies Equitable Remedy Class
TRANSGLOBAL SERVICES: "Bradbury" Seeks to Recover OT Under FLSA
U.S. CARGO: Court Certifies FLSA Class in Hall, et al. Suit

UBER TECH: Vehicles not Wheelchair Accessible Claims "Smith"
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: "Safe Rides Fee" Class Action Heads to Trial
UBIQUITI NETWORKS: "Xiya" Sues Over Share Price Drop
ULTA BEAUTY: Kessler Topaz Files Securities Class Action
UNITED AIRLINES: Class Certification Bid in "Pumputyte" Denied

UNITED COLLECTION: Class Action Settlement Has Initial Approval
UNITED NORTHERN: Kline Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls
UNIVERSAL TRANSPORTATION: Sprague Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS: Sued Over Embryo Freezer Malfunction
VALLEY CREDIT: Asks Court to Deny Class Cert. in "Schweinhart"

VOLKSWAGEN AG: Emissions Higher Than Allowable Australian Limits
WAGEWORKS INC: Faces Class Action, May 8 Lead Plaintiff Deadline
WAGEWORKS INC: Kessler Topaz Files Securities Class Action
WALGREEN CO: Faces Lawsuit Over U.S. Generic Drug Pricing
WESTERN EXPRESS: Elmy Seeks Certification of Collective Action

WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION: Schechner, et al. Seek to Certify Class
YELP INC: April 19 Hearing on "Sapan" Bid to Certify Class
ZION HEALTH: Bid to Certify Nationwide & California Classes Nixed







                            *********


ADIR INT'L: Valdovinos Sues for Illegal Termination
---------------------------------------------------
Yuliana Valdovinos, an individual, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. Adir International,
LLC, Alex Hernandez, , Eric Vital Rubio and Does 1 through 50,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. BC695541, (Cal. Super., February
27, 2018), seeks to recover loss of earnings, including
commissions and bonuses and back pay including any increased tax
liability thereon, pension, insurance and other employment
benefits, general damages, compensatory damages, restitution and
disgorgement, punitive damages where applicable, litigation
costs, attorney's fees, civil penalties, interest and any other
relief resulting from discrimination, violations of the
California Family Rights Act, California Labor Code and
applicable orders of the Industrial Welfare Commission and
California Business and Professions Code.

Adir International operates as "Curacao," a chain of retail
stores that sell electronics, home furnishings, entertainment
products, fragrances and personal care products and gifts.
Valdovinos worked as a sales associate at Curacao's store located
at 5980 Pacific Blvd. Huntington Park, CA 90255.

Valdovinos claims that her paystubs did not accurately reflect
the number of hours they had worked during the pay period. On or
around February 7, 2017, Plaintiff was terminated allegedly for
complaints of understaffing, failure to get proper duty-free rest
and meal breaks, compensation claims and accommodation for her
medical condition. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Twila S. White, Esq.
      Matthew H. Tesfai, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF TWILA S. WHITE
      6033 West Century Boulevard
      Los Angeles, CA 90045
      Telephone: (213) 381-8749
      Facsimile: (213)381-8799


AETNA HEALTH: Accused by Young Over Blind-Inaccessible Web Site
---------------------------------------------------------------
LAWRENCE YOUNG AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY
SITUATED v. AETNA HEALTH INC. AND AETNA HEALTH INSURANCE COMPANY
OF NEW YORK, Case No. 1:18-cv-02068-PGG (S.D.N.Y., March 7,
2018), accuses the Defendants of violating the Americans with
Disabilities Act by failing to design, construct, maintain and
operate its Web site -- http://www.aetna.com/-- to be fully
accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other
blind or visually-impaired people.

Mr. Young is a visually-impaired and legally blind person, who
requires screen-reading software to read Web site content using
his computer.

Aetna Health Inc. is a domestic business corporation with offices
and locations throughout New York State and New York County.
Aetna Health Inc. owns and operates locations, subsidiary
companies and the Web site, which provides a variety of insurance
options and products nationwide, such as life insurance, dental
insurance, medicare, claims processing and updates, etc.

Aetna Health Insurance Company of New York, is a privately held
company and subsidiary of Aetna Health Inc. with offices and
locations throughout New York State and New York County.  Aetna
Health Insurance owns and operates locations and the Web site,
which provides a variety of insurance options and products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bradly G. Marks, Esq.
          THE MARKS LAW FIRM, PC
          175 Varick St., 3rd Floor
          New York, NY 10014
          Telephone: (646) 770-3775
          Facsimile: (646) 867-2639
          E-mail: brad@markslawpc.com

               - and -

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


ALLERGAN INC: Rigged Eye-drop Prices, Says Louisiana Health
-----------------------------------------------------------
Louisiana Health Service and Indemnity Company (d/b/a Blue Cross
Blue Shield of Louisiana) and HMO Louisiana, Inc. on behalf of
itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
Allergan, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-00186 (M.D. La.,
February 26, 2018), seeks damages, injunctive relief, and all
other relief available under Sherman Anti-trust Act.

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

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

Plaintiffs are health insurance corporations involved in the
business of providing health benefits, third party administrative
services and managing health care services for its insureds and
members. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      James R. Dugan, II, Esq.
      Douglas R. Plymale, Esq.
      David S. Scalia, Esq.
      Bonnie A. Kendrick, Esq.
      THE DUGAN LAW FIRM, APLC
      365 Canal Street, Suite 1000
      New Orleans, LA 70130
      Telephone: (504) 648-0180
      Facsimile: (504) 648-0181
      Email: jdugan@dugan-lawfirm.com
             dplymale@dugan-lawfirm.com
             dscalia@dugan-lawfirm.com
             bonnie@dugan-lawfirm.com

             - and -

      Charles A. O'Brien, Esq.
      HMO LOUISIANA, INC. (BLUECROSS BLUESHIELD OF LOUISIANA)
      5525 Reitz Ave.
      P.O. Box 98029
      Baton Rouge, LA 80809
      Telephone: (225) 295-24454
      Facsimile: (225) 297-2760


ALLTRAN FINANCIAL: Bid to Certify Class Denied without Prejudice
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled GORDON SIEVERT, Individually and on Behalf
Of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. ALLTRAN
FINANCIAL, LP, the Defendant, Case No. 16-CV-1309 (E.D. Wisc.),
the Hon. Magistrate Judge William E. Duffin entered an order on
March 26, 2018:

   a. granting Defendant's unopposed motion for extension of time
      to submit settlement documents; and

   b. denying without prejudice pending amended motion to certify
      class and motion to compel discovery.

The Court said, "This motion will be granted and settlement
documents shall be submitted by April 6, 2018. In light of the
parties' pending settlement, and with consideration to
administrative requirements, the currently pending amended motion
to certify class and the motion to compel discovery will be
denied without prejudice. Plaintiff may re-file the motion to
certify class with the settlement documents."

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=eVnYEuL7


AMAZON.COM DEDC: Renewed Class Certification Bid Denied as Moot
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled DOVOVAN HARGRETT, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. AMAZON.com DEDC
LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 8:15-cv-02456-RAL-AAS (M.D. Fla.),
the Hon. Judge Richard A. Lazzara entered an order on March 13,
2018:

   1. staying all deadlines in this case to afford the parties an
      opportunity to paper their settlement and file a motion for
      preliminary approval of their settlement no later than
      April 30, 2018; and

   2. denying as moot Plaintiff's Renewed Motion for Class
      Certification and Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=oLomiEN1


AMERICAN HOME: "Mojer" Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages
-------------------------------------------------------
Genaia Mojer, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. American Home Solutions, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 18-cv-00470 (M.D. Pa., February 27, 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 the
Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act.

Defendant is in the business of providing home care services
where Mojer worked as an hourly employee at their Avoca PA
location. She claims to have regularly worked in excess of 40
hours per work week without being paid overtime premium.  [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Peter Winebrake, Esq.
     WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC
     715 Twining Road, Suite 211
     Dresher, PA 19025
     Phone: (215) 884-2491
     Facsimile: (215) 884-2492
     Email: pwinebrake@winebrakelaw.com


APPLE INC: Ward Appeals Denial of Class Cert. Bid to 9th Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Zack Ward and Thomas Buchar filed an appeal from a
court ruling denying class certification in their lawsuit styled
Zack Ward, et al. v. Apple Inc., Case No. 4:12-cv-05404-YGR, in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California,
Oakland.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Feb. 26, 2018, the
Hon. Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers denied the Plaintiffs' motion for
class certification.

In the lawsuit, the Plaintiffs allege that "[b]y locking the
iPhones and refusing to give consumers the software codes needed
to unlock them, Apple and AT&T unlawfully prevented iPhone
customers from exercising their legal right to switch carriers."
Among other injuries, the Plaintiffs allege that iPhone consumers
were unable to switch to a less expensive carrier and unable to
use local carriers while traveling abroad, thus incurring
"exorbitant roaming charges."

The Plaintiffs seek to represent a class comprised of all
persons, other than Apple and non-party AT&T Mobility ("ATTM")
and their employees, who purchased an iPhone anywhere in the
United States at any time from October 19, 2008, through April 8,
2012, and who purchased voice and data service for their iPhones
from ATTM.  The Plaintiffs allege that Apple conspired unlawfully
to monopolize the aftermarket for iPhone voice and data service
through a number of means that forced iPhone purchasers to use
ATTM after the expiration of their initial service contracts
without their knowledge or consent.

The appellate case is captioned as ZACK WARD and THOMAS BUCHAR,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs-Petitioners v. APPLE INC., Defendant-Respondent, Case
No. 18-80027, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit.

The Plaintiffs want the Ninth Circuit to determine whether:

   1. the District Court manifestly err in concluding that
      Plaintiffs' methodologies for demonstrating impact and
      calculating damages on a class-wide basis did not satisfy
      the predominance requirement of Rule 23(b)(3) because the
      methodologies were not "data-driven" and did not include a
      "functioning" damages model; and

   2. the Order is a questionable class certification decision
      that is a "death knell" for Plaintiffs.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Petitioners ZACK WARD and THOMAS BUCHAR, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, are represented by:

          Rachele R. Rickert, Esq.
          Brittany N. Dejong, Esq.
          WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
          750 B Street, Suite 2770
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 239-4599
          Facsimile: (619) 234-4599
          E-mail: rickert@whafh.com
                  dejong@whafh.com

               - and -

          Mark C. Rikfin, Esq.
          Demet Basar, Esq.
          Michael Liskow, Esq.
          WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
          270 Madison Ave.
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 545-4600
          Facsimile: (212) 545-4653
          E-mail: rifkin@whafh.com
                  basar@whafh.com
                  liskow@whafh.com

Defendant-Respondent APPLE INC. is represented by:

          Daniel M. Wall, Esq.
          Christopher S. Yates, Esq.
          Sadik Huseny, Esq.
          Aaron T. Chiu, Esq.
          LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
          505 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000
          San Francisco, CA 94111-6538
          Telephone: (415) 391-0600
          E-mail: dan.wall@lw.com
                  chris.yates@lw.com
                  sadik.huseny@lw.com
                  aaron.chiu@lw.com


ARS NATIONAL: Faces "Rowand" Suit in District of New Jersey
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against ARS National
Services Inc. The case is captioned as JESSICA ROWAND, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
ARS NATIONAL SERVICES INC. and JOHN DOES 1-25, the Defendants,
Case No. 1:18-cv-03353-RMB-AMD (D.N.J., March 9, 2018). The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Renee Marie Bumb.

ARS offers accounts receivable management services. It caters to
financial services organizations; banks; and credit card
companies. The company is based in Escondido, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph K. Jones, Esq.
          JONES, WOLF & KAPASI, LLC
          375 Passaic Avenue, Suite 100
          Fairfield, NJ 07004
          Telephone: (973) 227 5900
          Facsimile: (973) 244 0019
          E-mail: jkj@legaljones.com


ASSOCIATED WHOLESALE: Piazza Seeks to Certify Class of Employees
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled MICHAEL PIAZZA, JR, On behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, the PLAINTIFFS, v. ASSOCIATED
WHOLESALE GROCERS, INC., the DEFENDANT, Case No. 2:17-cv-10289-
JTM-KWR (E.D. La.), the Plaintiff moves the Court for an order:

   1. conditionally certifying a class of:

      "all individuals who were employed by AWG at any point from
      October 7, 2014 to the present, were compensated on an
      hourly wage basis, and had 30 minute lunch breaks
      automatically removed from their recorded work hours";

   2. directing Defendant to produce to Plaintiff, in electronic
      form, the full names, last known address, telephone numbers
      and e-mail addresses of all putative collective members
      within 15 days of the Court's granting of conditional
      certification;

   3. authorizing Plaintiff to send notice along with a consent
      to opt-in form to the members of the putative collective
      via regular mail, and email;

   4. authorizing Plaintiff to send notice to the members of the
      putative collective via text message as follows:

      "If you worked for AWG as a laborer at any time since
      October 7, 2014, you may be entitled to join a lawsuit
      claiming unpaid overtime pay. For additional information
      about the case, including how to join, please call the
      employees' attorney at 985-590-5026 or 985-898-6368";

   5. directing Defendant to post notice in Defendant's Pearl
      River Facility in a location easily visible to current
      employees.

   6. setting an opt-in deadline 60 days after the date in which
      notice is mailed to members of the collective, and that any
      opt-ins who seek to join the action after that deadline
      must establish good cause for their delay; and

   7. directing parties to file a joint motion to approve a third
      party administrator with the Court within 14 days of the
      order conditionally certifying the collective action.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=kXFhB2ax

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Chad A. Danenhower, Esq.
          DANENHOWER LAW FIRM, LLC
          212 Park Place
          Covington, LA 70433
          Telephone: (985) 590 5026
          E-mail: chad.danenhower@danenhowerlaw.com

               - and -

          Dale E. Williams, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF DALE E. WILLIAMS
          212 Park Place
          Covington, LA 70433
          Telephone: (985) 898 6368
          E-mail: dale@daleslaw.com


ATTENDING HOMECARE: Appeals Order in "Abdullayeva" to 2nd Cir.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Attending Homecare Services LLC filed an appeal from
the District Court's memorandum and order entered on March 5,
2018, in the lawsuit titled Abdullayeva v. Attending Homecare
Services LLC, Case No. 17-cv-5951, in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of New York (Brooklyn).

The lawsuit alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
was filed on October 11, 2017.  Attending Home Care is a New York
home health care agency, serving elderly New Yorkers with home
care needs.

The appellate case is captioned as Abdullayeva v. Attending
Homecare Services LLC, Case No. 18-651, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellee Tatyana Abdullayeva, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, is represented by:

          Steven L. Wittels, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF STEVEN L. WITTELS
          18 Half Mile Road
          Armonk, NY 10504
          Telephone: (914) 319-9945
          E-mail: slw@wittelslaw.com

Defendant-Appellant Attending Homecare Services LLC, DBA
Attending Home Care, is represented by:

          Daniel Gomez-Sanchez, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
          290 Broadhollow Road
          Melville, NY 11747
          Telephone: (631) 247-4713
          E-mail: daniel.gomezsanchez@jacksonlewis.com


AUSTRALIA: Yarra's Edge Residents Mull Suit Over Tram Bridge
------------------------------------------------------------
Jemimah Clegg, writing for Domain, reports that a proposed tram
bridge will prevent large boats and yachts from entering
Docklands' Yarra's Edge marina, causing property prices in the
ritzy locale to drop, residents say.

The bridge is part of a state government draft proposal for the
new Fishermans Bend precinct, and, if approved, will extend the
tram line at Collins Street, connecting Docklands with the new
suburb.

A group of Yarra's Edge locals were planning to hold a rally on
Tuesday, March 13, at which Footy Show host and local resident
Sam Newman was expected to speak, to pressure the government to
consider an alternative to the tram bridge.

Resident Keith Sutherland said the group plans to bring a class
action lawsuit against the government should the bridge plan go
ahead.

"Most of us, including myself, bought into the area with the
ability to look down at the marina seeing all these large yachts
and boats that come in," Mr Sutherland said.

Many of the 2500 Yarra's Edge residents also owned yachts which
they berthed in the marina, and Mr Sutherland said they were
worried the tram bridge could cut their property values by up to
$100,000.

He said he understood there was a certain amount of risk when
buying property for the view -- but that he did not expect it
would be a factor at Yarra's Edge.

"There's an open marina, a river and basically you buy there not
expecting anything to be changed," he said.

Fishermans Bend is expected to house 80,000 residents along with
80,000 jobs.  The project is proposed to be built in stages, with
the tram bridge slated to be completed by 2025.  Also proposed is
an underground rail connection and two off-road cycling paths.

Mr Sutherland said instead of the tram bridge, he would like to
see an immersed tube -- a tunnel which is pre-built in sections
and then submerged in the river -- to take on the trams to
Fishermans Bend.

"The alternate we've come up with is an immersed tube which would
run down trams 86 and tram 70 -- they are the least utilised
trams," he said.  "The current proposal is to use the Collins
Street tram which is already at maximum capacity."

Mr Sutherland said he has consulted experts about the possibility
of an immersed tube, but they were unable to comment on it
without planning specifications.

"I'm not an engineer, I can't offer any technical support, and
that's what I want the government to look at and offer their
support to have a look at it."

Up to 300 people were expected at the rally on Tuesday, March 13,
and Mr Sutherland said most of the residents he had spoken to did
not want the tram bridge.

He said if it went ahead, it would be costly for the government.

"If they have to spend $300 million to $500 million paying out a
class action -- that's well and truly going to cover the cost of
the immersed tube," he said.  "This could be the largest class
action in Victoria if it goes ahead -- but we're wanting sanity
to prevail."

Transport for Victoria considered a number of routes for the tram
connection to Fishermans Bend, including a tunnel option, a
government spokeswoman said.

"The government is currently considering feedback provided on the
draft Fishermans Bend Framework," the spokeswoman said. [GN]


AVIACODE INC: Parties Seek to Inform Medical Coders of Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled BRIAN HAZEL, individually and on behalf of
all similarly situated persons, the Plaintiff, v. AVIACODE, INC.,
the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-01065-BSJ (D. Utah), the parties
jointly ask the Court to approve a Notice of Collective Action
Lawsuit to certain Medical Coders that worked for Aviacode, Inc.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=AS0MAvJx

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Eric D. Barton, Esq.
          WAGSTAFF & CARTMELL LLP
          4740 Grand Ave. Suite 300
          Kansas City, MO 64112
          Telephone: (816) 701 1100
          E-mail: ebarton@wcllp.com

               - and -

          Jack McInnes, Esq.
          MCINNES LAW LLC
          3500 West 75th Street, Suite 200 1600
          Prairie Village, KS 66208
          Telephone: (913) 220 2488
          Facsimile: (913) 273 1671
          E-mail: jack@mcinnes-law.com

               - and -

          Patrick G. Reavey, Esq.
          Kevin C. Koc, Esq.
          REAVEY LAW
          Gennessee St Ste 303
          Kansas City, MO 2018
          Telephone: (816) 474 6300
          Facsimile: (816) 474 6302
          E-mail: preavey@reaveylaw.com
                  kkoc@reaveylaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Andrew W. Bagley, Esq.
          CROWELL & MORING LLP
          1001 Pennsylvania Avenue
          Washington, DC 20004
          Telephone: (202) 624 2672
          Facsimile: (202) 628 5116
          E-mail: abagley@crowell.com

               - and -

          Cheylynn Hayman, Esq.
          Austin J. Riter, Esq.
          NW PARR BROWN GEE & LOVELESS, P.C.
          101 South 200 East, Suite 700
          Salt Lake City, UT 84111
          Telephone: (801) 532 7840
          Facsimile: (801) 532 7750
          E-mail: chayman@parrbrown.com


AVIOR AIRLINES: "Cavalieri" Suit Seeks to Certify Class
-------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled ROBERTO HUNG CAVALIERI, individually, and
SERGIO ENRIQUE ISEA, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. AVIOR AIRLINES C.A., a
Venezuelan company, the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-22010-FAM
(S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for class certification
of:

   "all persons that the Airline charged an Exit Fee, from five
   years prior to the filing of the Complaint through the date
   of class certification".

Excluded from the Class are 1) the Airline, the Airline's agents,
subsidiaries, parents, successors, predecessors, and any entity
in which the Airline or its parents have a controlling interest
and their current and former employees, officers, and directors,
2) the Judge or Magistrate Judge to whom this case is assigned
and the Judge or Magistrate Judge's immediate family, 3) persons
who execute and file a timely request for exclusion, 4) the legal
representatives, successors, or assigns of any such excluded
person; and 5) Plaintiff's counsel and the Airline's counsel.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=ZtcDy1Wu

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          G. Crabtree, Esq.
          George R. Baise Jr., Esq.
          Brian C. Tackenberg, Esq.
          CRABTREE & AUSLANDER
          240 Crandon Boulevard, Suite 101
          Key Biscayne, FL 33149
          Telephone: (305) 361 3770
          Facsimile: (305) 437 8118
          E-mail: jcrabtree@crabtreelaw.com
                  gbaise@crabtreelaw.com
                  btackenberg@crabtreelaw.com
                  floridaservice@crabtreelaw.com

               - and -

          Jose L. Baloyra, Esq.
          BALOYRA LAW
          201 Alhambra Cir., Ste. 601
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 442 4142
          Facsimile: (305) 442 4377
          E-mail: jbaloyra@baloyralaw.com
                  rcruz@baloyralaw.com

               - and -

          Milton Fuentes, Esq.
          M. FUENTES & CO.
          201 Alhambra Circle, Suite 601
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 447 1960
          Facsimile: (786) 288 3808
          E-mail: mf@mfuenteslaw.com
                  sc@mfuenteslaw.com

               - and -

          Brian M. Torres, Esq.
          BRIAN M. TORRES, P.A.
          One S.E. Third Ave., Ste. 3000
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 901 5858 ext. 101
          Facsimile: (305) 901 5874
          E-mail: btorres@briantorres.legal
                  mrodriguez@briantorres.legal
                  e-service@briantorres.legal

               - and -

          John Cody German, Esq.
          COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE, P.A.
          Cole, Scott, & Kissane Building
          9150 South Dadeland Blvd., Ste. 1400
          Miami, FL 33156
          Telephone: (786) 268 6415
          Facsimile: (305) 373 2294
          E-mail: cody.german@csklegal.com
          yvonne.orosa@csklegal.com

Attorneys for Avior Airlines, C.A.:

          Pedro Alejandro Gonzalez, Esq.
          James Kellner, Esq.
          SANCHEZ-MEDINA, GONZALEZ,
          QUESADA, LAGE, GOMEZ&
          MACHADO LLP
          201 Alhambra Circle, Suite 1205
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 377 1000
          Facsimile: (855) 327 0391
          E-mail: PGonzalez@SMGQLAW.com
                  JKellner@SMGQLAW.com
                  CPrieto@SMGQLAW.com


BANK OF AMERICA: Bingham Sues Over OON Fees on ATM Withdrawals
--------------------------------------------------------------
JOSH BINGHAM, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Case No. 2:18-cv-00498-JAM-AC
(E.D. Cal., March 7, 2018), is brought on behalf of BANA
consumers arising from its alleged unfair and unconscionable
assessment of two out-of-network ATM fees on out-of-network ATM
withdrawals in which an accountholder performs a balance inquiry.

BANA is a national bank with its headquarters and principal place
of business located in Charlotte, North Carolina.  Among other
things, BANA is engaged in the business of providing retail
banking services to consumers, including the Plaintiff and
members of the putative classes, which includes the issuance of
debit cards for use by its customers in conjunction with their
checking accounts.  BANA operates banking centers and, thus,
conducts business, throughout the state of California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BANRO CORP: Faces EMA GARP Investors Suit Over Congo Operations
---------------------------------------------------------------
EMA GARP FUND, L.P. and LAWRENCE LEPARD, Individually and on
Behalf of all Others Similarly Situated v. BANRO CORPORATION and
JOHN CLARKE, Case No. 1:18-cv-01986 (S.D.N.Y., March 5, 2018),
arises out of the Defendants' alleged deliberate and unlawful
conduct to promote and mislead investors and the public to
believe that Banro's operations in the Democratic Republic of the
Congo were stable and free from interference.

The Defendants touted and assured investors that Banro had
obtained operational stability in the DRC by forming close and
sustainable relationships with the local communities, the
Plaintiffs contend.  Indeed, the Defendants represented that
Banro's operations in the Eastern DRC were free of the
instability that had plagued the region for some time -- all for
the purpose of deceiving investors and artificially inflating
Banro's stock price, the Plaintiffs allege.

Unbeknownst to Plaintiffs and Class Members, a violent and
ongoing conflict between Banro -- one of the world's leading gold
mining companies with 100% ownership rights to over $19 Billion
in gold reserves in the DRC -- and a local population of
disenfranchised inhabitants has persisted for years, according to
the complaint.  The violence has caused significant disruption to
Banro's operations in the DRC, which ultimately rendered the
Company insolvent by late 2017.

EMA GARP Fund, L.P., is a limited partnership organized and
existing under the laws of the state of Delaware.  Lawrence
Lepard, is an individual residing in Norfolk County,
Massachusetts.

Banro Corporation is a corporation organized and existing under
the laws of Canada with a principal place of business located in
Toronto, Canada.  John Clarke, a resident of Cardiff, United
Kingdom, is the Chief Executive Officer of Banro.

Banro is a Canadian mining company operating exclusively in the
DRC, with a focus on the exploration, development and production
of gold.  The DRC is reported to have the 10th highest gold
reserves in the world.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Kurt T. Kalberer II, Esq.
          KALBERER LLP
          7 World Trade Center
          250 Greenwich Street, 46th Floor
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 266-0044
          E-mail: kkalberer@kalbererlaw.com


BARNES & NOBLE: Second Circuit Appeal Filed in "Bernardino" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Melina Bernardino filed an appeal from a District Court
judgment dated February 1, 2018, in the lawsuit titled Bernardino
v. Barnes & Noble, Inc., Case No. 17-cv-4570, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York (New York
City).

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
was filed on June 16, 2017, seeking to recover money damages,
statutory money damages, injunctive relief and declaratory relief
on behalf of similarly situated customers, who purchased DVDs or
other video media from Defendant's online store.  Barnes & Noble
operates an Internet bookstore, offering books, eBooks,
magazines, toys and games, music, and DVDs.

According to the complaint, the federal Video Privacy Protection
Act and its New York state counterpart (the Video Consumer
Privacy Act or "NY VCPA") both prohibit the disclosure of
personally-identifiable video purchase records to third parties
without the express written consent of the customer in a separate
stand-alone consent form. In violation of these statutes, the
Defendant does not obtain any consent, let alone the required
express consent, prior to disclosing video purchase records to
Facebook.

The appellate case is captioned as Bernardino v. Barnes & Noble,
Inc., Case No. 18-607, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant Melina Bernardino, individually and on behalf
of other similarly situated persons, is represented by:

          David A. Straite, Esq.
          KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
          850 3rd Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 687-1980
          E-mail: dstraite@kaplanfox.com

Defendant-Appellee Barnes & Noble, Inc., is represented by:

          Sandra C. Goldstein, Esq.
          CRAVATH, SWAINE & MOORE LLP
          Worldwide Plaza
          825 8th Avenue
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 474-1000
          E-mail: sgoldstein@cravath.com


BATTERY WAVE: Padilla Files Suit Over Illegally Withheld Tips
-------------------------------------------------------------
Edwin Padilla and Luis Turcio, on behalf of themselves and FLSA
Collective Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs, v. Battery Wave, LLC and
Thomas Makkos, Case No. 18-cv-01738, (S.D. N.Y., February 26,
2018), seeks unpaid overtime, unpaid minimum wages, illegally
retained tips, liquidated damages, unpaid spread of hours
premium, statutory penalties and attorneys' fees and costs
pursuant to the New York Labor Law and the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Defendants owned and operated a restaurant, "Battery Gardens"
located at 1 Battery Place, New York, New York 10004 where
Padilla and Turcio worked as bussers, waiters and food runners.
Both claims to have worked six days a week f from 10:00 a.m. to
11 p.m. but were only paid for 20-30 hours a week. Defendants
also maintained a tip pool but did not maintain accurate records
of their tip credits. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BAYCARE HEALTH: Figueroa Seeks to Certify Employees Class
---------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled ELAYNE FIGUEROA, on behalf of herself and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
BAYCARE HEALTH SYSTEM, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 8:17-cv-
01780-JSM-JSS (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff moves the Court for and
order:

   1. certifying Fair Credit Reporting Act case as a class action
      for the following class of similarly-situated persons:

      "Disclosure and Authorization Class: All of Defendant's
      employees and prospective employees in the United States
      for whom Defendant procured consumer reports without first
      making proper disclosures in the format required by 15
      U.S.C. section 1681b(b)(2)(A)(i), and as a result of the
      improper format failed to obtain proper authorization,
      within five years of the filing of this Complaint through
      the date of final judgment in this action";

   2. appointing Plaintiff as class representative, and
      appointing the law firm Wenzel, Fenton, Cabassa, P.A. as
      class counsel.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=cHR9D2oX

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brandon J. Hill, Esq.
          WENZEL FENTON CABASSA P.A.
          1110 N. Florida Avenue, Suite 300
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 224 0431
          Facsimile: (813) 229 8712
          E-mail: lcabassa@wfclaw.com
                  twells@wfclaw.com
                  bhill@wfclaw.com
                  jcornell@wfclaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Thomas M. Gonzalez, Esq.
          Nathan Paulich, Esq.
          THOMPSON, SIZEMORE,
          GONZALEZ & HEARING, P.A.
          One Tampa City Center
          201 North Franklin Street, Suite 1600
          Tampa, FL 33602-5246


BLOOMBERG LP: Fails to Design Deaf-Accessible Site, Sullivan Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PHILLIP SULLIVAN, JR. on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. BLOOMBERG L.P., Case No. 1:18-cv-01954
(S.D.N.Y., March 5, 2018), is a civil rights class action brought
against the Defendant for allegedly failing to design, construct,
and/or own or operate a Web site that is fully accessible to, and
independently usable by, deaf and hard of hearing people.

Mr. Sullivan contends that the Defendant is denying him and other
deaf and hard of hearing individuals throughout the United States
equal access to the goods and services it provides to non-
disabled individuals through http://www.bloomberg.com/ The Web
site provides to the public a wide array of the goods, services,
employment opportunities and other programs offered by the
Defendant.

Bloomberg is a limited partnership organized under the laws of
Delaware and is registered in the state of New York to do
business.  Based in New York City, the Defendant runs the Web
site, which provides business market news, data, analysis, and
videos featuring stories from Businessweek and Bloomberg
news.[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


BLUE STAR: Court Certifies Agricultural Workers Class
-----------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled RICARDO MARTINEZ, et al., the Plaintiffs,
v. BLUE STAR FARMS, INC., et al., the Defendants, Case No.
1:16-cv-00681-RJJ-PJG (W.D. Mich.), the Hon. Judge Robert J.
Jonker entered an order:

   1. certifying a class of:

      "migrant and seasonal agricultural workers employed at Blue
      Star Farms to harvest blueberries in 2011, 2012, or 2013";

   2. appointing Plaintiffs' counsel as class counsel.

   3. cancelling hearing regarding renewed motion for Class
      Certification; and

   4. rescheduling hearing regarding motions for summary judgment
      to May 8, 2018 at 3:00 p.m.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=DqP8wrYm


BRUNSWICK, GA: Faces Class Action Over Property Taxes
-----------------------------------------------------
Taylor Cooper, writing for Brunswick News, reports that the
county may be racking up a larger potential bill as three class-
action lawsuits against it alleging overcharging for property
taxes continues through the court system.

Jay Roberts, a St. Simons Island attorney representing the
taxpayers, said the total amount he estimates to be as high as
$15-17 million is still increasing as the case drags on because
the alleged problem has not been remedied and interest is
accruing.

The case started with the first-class action filed in 2012. It
alleged some taxpayers using the Scarlet Williams homestead
exemption were overtaxed because the tax commissioner at the time
assigned their properties the wrong base year.  Two more class-
action suits were filed in 2013 and 2014 alleging that more
taxpayers had been overcharged.

Under the Scarlet Williams exemption, a homeowner's property
taxes will not increase if the assessed value of their home rises
above what it was in the base year.

The three class-action lawsuits cover somewhere in the
neighborhood of 6,500 to 9,000 taxpayers, Mr. Roberts said.  Some
drop in and out of the class for various reasons, such as their
appraised value dropping below the allegedly correct base year.

Because the alleged error hasn't been corrected, Mr. Roberts said
the county is continuing to overtax the people in the three class
action suits at a rate of around $2 to $2.5 million per year.
Mr. Roberts also believes the taxpayers are due interest, which
he said is accumulating at somewhere around $840,000 a year.

The crux of the case is how the base year is determined.  The law
establishing the exemption states that the year prior to the year
the exemption is granted should be the base year.

In the case of J. Matthew and Elizabeth Coleman, who filed the
original case, the homeowners were granted the exemption in 2006,
and 2006 was set as their base year.  According to the class-
action lawsuit, the Colemans and several thousand others were
overcharged on their property taxes because they were assigned
the wrong base year.  The Colemans contend 2005 should have been
the base year used.

Due to the language used the law, the county's lawyers maintain
it couldn't have used 2005 as the Colemans' base year.

The law states that anyone with the exemption won't be charged
any property taxes on the assessed value of their homestead
beyond the "base year value of that homestead."

Because the Colemans' property allegedly did not meet the legal
definition of a homestead in 2005, the Colemans' homestead did
not have an assessed value in 2005.  As such, the county argues
it had no choice but to assign 2006 as the base year.

While a Cobb County Superior Court judge decided in favor of the
county last year, the Georgia Court of Appeals affirmed the
plaintiff's case in January.  The appeals court upheld one part
of the Superior Court's ruling, which restricted the plaintiffs
from seeking refunds on taxes paid outside of the three years
before and after the case was filed, as stipulated by state law.

Both the county and Roberts appealed to the Georgia Supreme Court
to hear the case.  The county asked to have the appeals court's
ruling overturned, and Roberts asked to have the three-year
window restriction removed.

Due to the large sum at stake, county officials asked State Rep.
Don Hogan, R-St. Simons Island, to look into passing legislation
at the state level to prevent future lawsuits of this nature from
being brought against counties and municipalities. Such
protections already exist for the state.

County officials have said such legislation likely wouldn't help
them with the three class-action suits they're fighting now.

County commissioners said, should the plaintiffs win the case,
the county and Glynn County Schools would be significantly
impacted.  The school system would likely be hit harder, as it
collected a larger portion of property taxes than the county
does, according to county staff.

Mr. Hogan ultimately shelved the bill due to lack of support, but
said the issue is too important to drop it for good.  He plans to
do some more investigation before bringing it back up, he said.
[GN]


BUCKS COUNTY, PA: Water Contamination Lawsuits Continue
-------------------------------------------------------
Kyle Bagentose, writing for Bucks County Courier Times, reports
that eighteen months after a slew of lawsuits were filed over
drinking water contamination in Bucks and Montgomery counties,
the cases still are in limbo in county and federal courts.

The suits represent more than a thousand area residents who were
presumably exposed to unregulated perfluorinated chemicals in
their drinking water, which are believed to have originated from
firefighting foam used at military bases near the counties'
shared border. The suits seek myriad remedies, including blood
testing, health screenings, and monetary damages related to
health conditions, property values and other related costs.

"We're still in the infancy," said Donald Soutar, Esq. an
associate attorney of New York City law firm Weitz & Luxenberg
and lead counsel of the largest area lawsuit. "It's fair to say
(it'll be) a matter of years."

In total, eight significant lawsuits have been filed on behalf of
residents affected by the contamination since 2016, although
several have since been consolidated. Soutar, whose firm is
associated with consumer advocate Erin Brockovich, is lead
counsel on a consolidated class-action lawsuit, joined by
attorneys from Creedon & Feliciani of Norristown, as well as
attorneys from three Philadelphia-based firms: Anapol Weiss,
Levin Sedran & Berman and Napoli Shkolnik.

More than a thousand residents have signed on to the suit, filed
in September 2016, Soutar said. However, if successful, its
class-action status means that any of the tens of thousands of
residents meeting certain criteria for their exposure to the
chemicals would be eligible for awards, including a medical
monitoring program to screen for potential illnesses, a blood
testing program and certain monetary damages.

The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for Eastern
Pennsylvania, located in Philadelphia. It lists as defendants
five companies that manufactured firefighting foam: 3M, the
Buckeye Fire Protection Co., Chemguard, National Foam Inc. and
Tyco Fire Products.

"We want to hold the companies responsible," Soutar said. "Our
opinion is they manufactured a dangerous product, that they knew
it was dangerous, and that they sold it without providing proper
warnings."

This news organization reached out to several defense attorneys
court records show as being the most active in cases involving
the foam manufacturers, but did not receive a response by press
time.

Court records show the defendants filed motions to dismiss the
case last April, but that Judge Petrese Tucker ultimately
dismissed them in December. She then put a stay on the case as
two other suits related to the contamination work their way
through the court system.

One of those cases is the first lawsuit to be filed in the area,
brought by the Philadelphia-based Cuker Law Firm, on behalf of
the Giovannis, a Warrington family allegedly affected by the
contamination.

That case, filed in August 2016, is suing the U.S. Navy for blood
testing for the family and other area residents affected by water
contamination, as well as medical monitoring and attorney fees.

A second case, filed in February 2017 by Weir & Partners, also of
Philadelphia, is also suing the Navy on behalf of Ivyland
resident Dorothy Palmer and her son. Court records show the elder
Palmer allegedly has a PFOA blood level of 31 parts per billion,
which is about 15 times the national average.

Both the Giovanni and Palmer cases have followed a similar track,
first being successfully pulled out of county court by the Navy,
which then successfully had the suits dismissed in federal court
by arguing that the military is immune due to area bases' status
as federal Superfund sites.

"The judge said that under the Superfund law, you can't sue for
blood testing or a health study until clean-up is complete,"
Cuker said. "Our argument was that Pennsylvania gives residents
affected by contamination a right to sue ... federal law doesn't
block it."

Steven Angstreich, Esq. -- sangstreich@weirpartners.com -- a
partner at Weir and lead attorney on the Palmer case, said he
made a similar argument.

"Medical monitoring does not interfere with the (clean-up) work
that's being undertaken by the Navy, as required by the
Environmental Protection Agency," Angstreich said. "Therefore we
believe the . . .  judge got it wrong in his analysis, and that
we should be permitted to proceed."

This news organization reached out to defense attorneys for the
federal government for comment but did not receive a response by
press time.

Both Cuker and Angstreich appealed the dismissals of their cases
to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, in
Philadelphia. The cases have been consolidated and a hearing is
set for late April.

Meanwhile, Tucker, the eastern district judge overseeing the
large class-action case, is holding off until the appeals are
resolved. Attorneys for all three cases said they were surprised
at the decision, noting that the appealed cases are suing the
U.S. government, while the class-action suit seeks damages from
private companies.

"I don't necessarily agree with Judge Tucker," Soutar said. "(But
she) believes that some of the issues that are up on appeal
overlap some of the issues in our case."

Soutar said a teleconference was held with Tucker and defense
attorneys in February, in which both sides laid out their
arguments about why the case should be stayed or not. Soutar said
the judge sided with the defendants, prompting the plaintiffs to
file a motion asking her to reconsider. That request has not yet
received a ruling.

Soutar added he believes the speed of litigation is important.

"My clients were exposed to these chemicals. They're fearful for
what's going to happen to their health," he said. "And we'll be
two years in to it and nothing will have moved forward at all."

However, other cases are not yet bogged down in legal
proceedings.

The five firms involved in the class-action suit have also filed
a mass-tort case representing more than 500 area residents who
believe the chemicals may have impacted their health. Some
studies have linked the chemicals to a variety of health effects
including high cholesterol, ulcerative colitis, developmental
delays, low birth weight and some cancers.

Soutar said the tort case, which was filed in February 2017 and
is also suing foam manufacturers, is still in early stages.
Counsels are getting organized and strategizing on the best way
forward.

"We're trying to put a model on top of this so we're not trying
to litigate all 500 cases all at once," Soutar said. "Where we
can pick some cases to go forward as test cases."

Similar mass-tort cases litigated elsewhere in the country have
led to lump-sum settlements from defendants. In 2017, chemical
company DuPont agreed to a $670 million settlement with 3,500
plaintiffs along the Ohio River who allegedly were exposed to
PFOA from a nearby plant. The settlement came after the
plaintiffs won several "test" cases in which juries returned
multi-million dollar awards.

Also working their way through the system are three additional
cases filed by Cuker: one in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims on
behalf of Horsham's Penna family, another in the eastern district
on behalf of Warminster's Menkes family, and a third filed in
Montgomery County Court on behalf of two former Warminster
residents who have bladder cancer.

In the first case, Cuker said he's arguing that the U.S.
government essentially "took" the Horsham family's property
illegally due to contaminated runoff and groundwater from the
nearby NASJRB Willow Grove. Cuker said judge is scheduled to
visit the property this spring to get the "lay of the land."

"It's fascinating, I've never had that happen," Cuker said. "I
think it's to her credit that she takes it that seriously."

The Menkes case, which sues the foam manufacturers, has been met
with a motion to dismiss by the defendants, who are arguing the
claim is invalid under products liability law, Cuker said. The
judge in that case has yet to rule because he is waiting to see
the outcome of a similar case in New York state, Cuker said. The
third case is still in the earliest stages.

Plaintiff attorneys on each case said they believe the ongoing
litigation is important, despite the lengthy legal process.

"If you contaminate someone's water supply, you ought to be
responsible for any health problems you cause," Angstreich said.
[GN]


BUFFALO WILD: Borenkoff Appeals S.D.N.Y. Order to Second Circuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Alexa Borenkoff filed an appeal from the District
Court's opinion and order entered on January 19, 2018, in her
lawsuit entitled Borenkoff v. Buffalo Wild Wings, Inc., Case No.
16-cv-8532, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York (New York City).

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Feb. 8, 2018, the
District Court ruled that vegetarians cannot sue Buffalo Wild
Wings for failing to disclose that its french fries, mozzarella
sticks and other fried non-meat items are cooked in beef tallow.

Alexa Borenkoff, a vegetarian, says she visited Buffalo Wild
Wings on multiple occasions and ordered non-meat items off the
menu but was never informed that the restaurant fries its food
using rendered beef fat.  In a class-action complaint filed in
Manhattan federal court, she claimed that it is industry standard
to fry non-meat items in vegetarian-friendly cooking oil, and "a
reasonable consumer would not expect non-meat items to be fried
in beef tallow."

But on January 19, U.S. District Judge Katherine Forrest said Ms.
Borenkoff could not show she was injured by Buffalo Wild Wings'
non-disclosure of its cooking methods.  "Borenkoff does not
allege how the use of beef tallow affects the objective economic
value of the food items she received," Judge Forrest said in her
12-page opinion.

The complaint does not allege that Ms. Borenkoff's fries were
defective in any way, that she was harmed by eating them, or that
the menu prices for fried foods were inflated because the
restaurant used beef tallow.  "Borenkoff paid for french fries
and mozzarella sticks, and that is ultimately what she received,"
Judge Forrest said.

The appellate case is captioned as Borenkoff v. Buffalo Wild
Wings, Inc., Case No. 18-615, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant Alexa Borenkoff, On behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Michael Louis Braunstein, Esq.
          KANTROWITZ, GOLDHAMER & GRAIFMAN P.C.
          747 Chestnut Ridge Road
          Chestnut Ridge, NY 10977
          Telephone: (845) 356-2570
          E-mail: mbraunstein@kgglaw.com

Defendants-Appellees Buffalo Wild Wings, Inc., and Blazin Wings,
Inc., are represented by:

          Francis X. Riley, III, Esq.
          SAUL EWING ARNSTEIN & LEHR, LLP
          650 College Road East
          Princeton, NJ 08540
          Telephone: (609) 452-3150
          E-mail: friley@saul.com


BUILDZOOM INC: Innovative Design Sues for Trademark infringement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Innovative Design Build, Inc. individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Buildzoom, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-01330 (N.D. Cal., February 28, 2018),
seeks damages, restitution, and injunctive relief for violation
of Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, common law trademark
infringement, contributory trademark infringement, vicarious
trademark infringement, violation of California Business and
Professions Code.

San Francisco-based BuildZoom, owns and operates the website
"www.buildzoom.com" to assist homeowners with finding licensed
contractors for home remodeling and construction projects.
However, only a small percentage of the 3.5 million profiles are
BuildZoom Preferred Contractors. If a customer searches for
contractors in a particular location, and then seeks to contact
one of the many listed non-Preferred Contractors, Defendant will
only connect the customer to a Preferred Contractor -- and only
after leveraging the non-preferred contractor's trademark and
reputation to obtain the customer's valuable personal information
and project details for passing off to its preferred contractor.

Defendant profits from such infringement because it gets paid for
each referral it makes that culminates in a contract for one of
its Preferred Contractors, says the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      David A. Straite, Esq.
      Ralph E. Labaton, Esq.
      KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
      850 Third Avenue
      New York, NY 10022
      Telephone: (212) 687-1980
      Facsimile: (212) 687-7714
      Email: dstraite@kaplanfox.com
             rlabaton@kaplanfox.com

             - and -

      Marc A. Wites, Esq.
      WITES LAW FIRM
      4400 North Federal Highway
      Lighthouse Point, FL 33064
      Telephone: (954) 933-4400
      Facsimile: (954) 354-0205
      Email: mwites@witeslaw.com


CABOT INVESTMENT: Court Certifies Class & 6 Subclasses
------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled Cabot East Broward 2 LLC, and Cabot East
Broward 34 LLC, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Carlton P. Cabot, Timothy
J. Kroll, Cabot Investment Properties, LLC, Cabot East Broward
LeaseCo, LLC, Cabot North Orange LeaseCo, LLC, Cabot Oak Grove
Asset Manager, LLC, Cabot Trafalgar/Avion LeaseCo, LLC, Cabot
Cypress Creek LeaseCo, LLC, Cabot North University LeaseCo, LLC,
CBRE, Inc., Gloria Hernandez, and Harry L. Silverman, the
Defendants, Case No. 0:16-cv-61218-WPD (S.D. Fla.), the Hon.
Judge William P. Dimitrouleas entered an order

   1. certifying a class of:

      "179 limited liability companies, each of which held a
      fractional ownership interest in one of the following six
      commercial office buildings in Florida (collectively, the
      "Florida Properties"): (i) East Broward Corporate Center
      (100 and 110 East Broward Blvd, Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301);
      (ii) Cypress Creek Tower (800 West Cypress Creek Road, Ft.
      Lauderdale, FL 33309); (iii) Trafalgar / Avion (5300 N.W.
      33rd Avenue and 2200 N.W. 50th Street, Ft. Lauderdale, FL
      33309); (iv) North University Preferred Exchange (3111
      North University Drive, Coral Springs, FL 33065); (v) North
      Orange Wachovia Tower (20 North Orange Avenue, Orlando, FL
      32801); and (vi) Oak Grove (7575, 7585, and 7595 Baymeadows
      Way, Jacksonville, FL 32256)".

      Excluded from the Class are any limited liability company
      which is currently owned and/or controlled in whole or part
      by: (i) any employee of the Court; (ii) any of the
      Defendants in this action or any of their respective
      subsidiaries, affiliates, directors, or officers; and (iii)
      the legal representatives, heirs, successors, assigns, and
      family members of any such excluded party.;

   2. certifying six management Subclasses under Rule 23(d)(1),
      for management purposes on the issue of damages, with each
      Subclass consisting of:

      "the limited liability companies which invested in a
      particular Florida Property";

   3. certifying Donald Hauptman (member of Plaintiff Cabot East
      Broward 34, LLC) and Stephen Souza (member of Plaintiff
      Cabot East Broward 2, LLC) as representatives of the Class;

   4. certifying law firm of Stearns Weaver Miller Weissler
      Alhadeff & Sitterson, P.A., as Class Counsel pursuant to
      Rule 23(g)(1);

   5. directing the to jointly file for approval by the Court a
      proposed notice to Class members on or before March 30,
      2018;

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=TyK2VIJA


CALLIDUS SOFTWARE: "Stein" Class Suit Challenges Merger With SAP
----------------------------------------------------------------
SHIVA STEIN, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. CALLIDUS SOFTWARE INC., CHARLES M. BOESENBERG, LESLIE
J. STRETCH, MARK A. CULHANE, KEVIN M. KLAUSMEYER, NINA L.
RICHARDSON, MURRAY D. RODE, JAMES D. WHITE, Case No. 5:18-cv-
01453-EJD (N.D. Cal., March 6, 2018), is brought on behalf of
public holders of the common stock of Callidus against the
Defendants for their alleged violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, in connection with the proposed merger
between Callidus and SAP America, Inc.

On January 29, 2018, the Board caused the Company to enter into
an agreement and plan of merger, pursuant to which the Company's
shareholders stand to receive $36 in cash for each share of
Callidus stock they own (the "Merger Consideration"), comprising
a total enterprise value of $2.4 billion.

Callidus is incorporated in Delaware and maintains its principal
executive offices in Dublin, California.  The Individual
Defendants are directors and officers of the Company.

Callidus is a provider of cloud-based sales, marketing, learning
and customer experience solutions.  The Company, which does
business as CallidusCloud, enables its customers to manage their
Lead to Money process with a suite of solutions that identifies
leads, trains personnel, implements territory and quota plans,
enables sales forces, automates configuration pricing and
quoting, manages contracts, streamlines sales compensation,
captures customer feedback and provides predictive analytics for
competitive advantage.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Benjamin Heikali, Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
          10866 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1470
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Telephone: (424) 256-2884
          Facsimile: (424) 256-2885
          E-mail: bheikali@faruqilaw.com

               - and -

          James M. Wilson, Jr.
          FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
          685 Third Ave., 26th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 983-9330
          E-mail: jwilson@faruqilaw.com

               - and -

          Gloria Kui Melwani, Esq.
          WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
          270 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 545-4600
          Facsimile: (212) 686-0114
          E-mail: melwani@whafh.com


CENTENE MANAGEMENT: Certification of Employees Class Sought
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled JODY GUDGER AND RHONDA KING, on behalf of
themselves and those similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v.
CENTENE MANAGEMENT COMPANY, LLC, a Foreign Limited Liability
Company, and SUNSHINE STATE HEALTH PLAN, INC., Florida Profit
Corporation, the Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-14281-JEM (S.D.
Fla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an Order permitting,
under court supervision, notice to following class of similarly
situated employees:

   "any and all salaried employees who worked for Defendants,
   anywhere in Florida, from August 7, 2014, through current, in
   any of the following positions:

   - Case Manager, Long Term Care; or
   - Nursing Home Transition Specialist; or
   - Medical Necessity Specialist;

   and who worked 40 or more hours in one or more workweeks, were
   misclassified as exempt under the FLSA by Defendants, and were
   not paid time and one-half overtime compensation for their
   overtime hours worked.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=poiLOqOf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Noah E. Storch, Esq.
          Richard Celler, Esq.
          RICHARD CELLER LEGAL, P.A.
          7450 Griffin Road, Suite 230
          Davie, FL 33314
          Telephone: (866) 344 9243
          Facsimile: (954) 337 2771
          E-mail: noah@floridaovertimelawyer.com


CHEEVER DEV'T: Finishing Workers File Suit Over RICO Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------
Joel Nunez Jimenez, Efrain Lopez, Jonathan Vega, Leandro Calvo,
Alfredo Villanueva, Ruben Correa, Carlos Sanchez, Jilber Norales,
Fernando Osorio, Angel Colon, Noel Castillo, Ezequiel Nunez,
Jorge Olvera (a/k/a Franciso Olvera), Juan Salas, Jesus Castillo,
Efrain Lebron, Joseph Laubriel and Jose A. Palacios,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. Cheever Development Corp., Sheer Taping, Matthew
Lonuzzi and Eric Graves, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-01806, (S.D.
N.Y., February 28, 2018), seeks to recover minimum wages and
overtime compensation as required under the Fair Labor Standards
Act and New York Labor Law, remuneration for unlawful deductions
and liquidated damages and actual damages, treble damages and
punitive damages for violations of the Organized Crime Control
Act of 1970 and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations.

Cheever is a general contractor that performs construction work
for various projects in the New York City area while Sheer Taping
conducts business as a finish subcontractor for construction
projects where Plaintiffs were employed as finishers.

Defendants allegedly demanded "kick-backs" from Plaintiffs in
exchange for continuing employment and their submission of
falsified business records and willfully false certifications to
public agencies. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CHICAGO, IL: Proceedings and Discovery in "Campbell" Stayed
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled Immanuel Campbell, et al., the Plaintiff,
v. City of Chicago, et al., Case No. 1:17-cv-04467 (N.D. Ill.),
the Hon. Judge John Z. Lee entered an order granting parties'
joint motion to stay proceedings and discovery relating to claims
asserted against the City of Chicago, including the Monell claims
brought by individual Plaintiffs.

According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on March 21,
2018, the Parties informed the Court that they have entered into
a memorandum of understanding allowing them to participate in the
ongoing discussions between the State of Illinois and the City in
the separately filed action State of Illinois v. City of Chicago,
No. 17-cv-6260.

The Motion to Stay is granted.

Pursuant to the motion, the City's pending motion to dismiss and
motion to strike are stricken without prejudice with leave to
refile at a later date, if necessary. In light of the stay,
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification also is stricken
without prejudice and with leave to refile.

The case is stayed, except for the claims asserted by the
individual plaintiffs' for money damages against individual
defendant officers.

A copy of the Docket Entry is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=kfQuCuyo


CLARENCE DAVIDS: Notice of "Balderrama-Baca" Class Action Okayed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to the Court's March 10, 2017 order granting Plaintiffs'
Rule 23 Motion for Class Certification in the case styled, RAMIRO
BALDERRAMA-BACA, A/K/A ROMAN BALDERRAMA-BACA, SALVADOR MATEOS
SR., AND PEDRO ESCUTIA, on behalf of themselves, and all other
similarly situated plaintiffs known and unknown, the Plaintiffs,
v. CLARENCE DAVIDS AND COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 1:15-cv-
05873 (N.D. Ill.), the Plaintiffs are prepared to forward Notice
Of Class Action to the members of the three subclasses identified
in the Court's Certification Order.  Accordingly, the Plaintiffs
asked the Court for an order granting their Unopposed Motion for
Approval of Class Notice.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=05C8HqK0

The Hon. Judge John Z. Lee has entered an order granting the
Plaintiffs' Motion.  According to the docket entry made by the
Clerk, a hearing on the Motion was held March 15.  The
Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for approval of class action notice
was granted with the revisions ordered by the Court.

A copy of the Docket Entry is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=cwvSxDs5

Attorney for Plaintiffs:

          John W. Billhorn, Esq.
          BILLHORN LAW FIRM
          53 W. Jackson Blvd., Ste. 840
          Chicago, IL 60604
          Telephone: (312) 853 1450
          E-mail: jbillhorn@billhornlaw.com


COMMONWEALTH BANK: May Face Credit Card Insurance Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Simone Ziaziaris, writing for The Australian Associated Press,
reports that the big banks could face a class action over the
sale of millions of dollars of "worthless" credit card insurance.

Commonwealth Bank admitted selling insurance to customers who
were not eligible to make claims, and law firm Slater and Gordon
is now investigating potential class actions on behalf of short-
changed consumers. Slater and Gordon class actions senior
associate Andrew Paull said consumer credit insurance -- which is
often sold alongside financial products to provide coverage if a
person is unable to meet repayments -- is "notorious for being
unsuitable and consistently poor value".

"We have found substantial evidence to suggest that a large
number of Australian credit card holders are paying hundreds, if
not thousands, of dollars a year for essentially worthless
insurance," Mr Paull said on March 12.

"Many policyholders are ineligible to claim some or all of the
available benefits, and others are either completely unaware they
have the insurance or incorrectly believe it is a requirement for
obtaining a credit card."  CBA said it was refunding $16 million
to about 140,000 credit card and loan insurance customers after
finding more people were sold policies they would not be able to
claim on.

Australia's biggest bank said it would also stop selling its
Credit Card Plus and Personal Loan Protection products and
contact customers whose employment status at the time they bought
their policies may have made them ineligible for payouts.

The refund came on top of $10 million it last year agreed to pay
back after the same credit card insurance was sold to 65,000
students and unemployed people who were ineligible to claim on
it.

"The banks should know when this insurance is likely to be of no
or limited value to their customers, however the evidence
suggests that they have continued to push these products widely
and have collected millions in premiums while doing so," Mr Paull
said. [GN]


CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Accused by "Brown" of Violating FDCPA
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lovena Brown, n/k/a Turner, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Convergent Outsourcing, Inc., a
Washington corporation, and Jefferson Capital Systems, LLC, a
Georgia limited liability company, Case No. 3:18-cv-00085 (E.D.
Tenn., March 5, 2018), is brought under the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act for a finding that the Defendants' debt collection
letter violated the FDCPA, and to recover damages.

Convergent Outsourcing, Inc., is a Washington corporation that
acts as a debt collector because it regularly uses the mails
and/or the telephone to collect, or attempt to collect, directly
or indirectly, defaulted consumer debts.  Convergent operates a
nationwide debt collection business and attempts to collect debts
from consumers in virtually every state, including consumers in
the state of Tennessee.

Jefferson Capital Systems, LLC, is a Georgia limited liability
company that acts as a debt collector because it regularly uses
the mails and/or the telephone to collect, or attempt to collect,
directly or indirectly, defaulted consumer debts that it did not
originate.  Jefferson operates a nationwide debt collection
business and attempts to collect debts from consumers in
virtually every state, including consumers in the State of
Tennessee.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David J. Philipps, Esq.
          Mary E. Philipps, Esq.
          PHILIPPS & PHILIPPS, LTD.
          9760 S. Roberts Road, Suite One
          Palos Hills, IL 60465
          Telephone: (708) 974-2900
          Facsimile: (708) 974-2907
          E-mail: davephilipps@aol.com
                  mephilipps@aol.com

               - and -

          Cynthia T. Lawson, Esq.
          Heather Banks, Esq.
          BOND, BOTES & LAWSON, P.C.
          6704 Watermour Way
          Knoxville, TN 37912
          Telephone: (865) 938-0733
          Facsimile: (865) 938-7931
          E-mail: cynthialawson@bbllawgroup.com
                  heatherbanks@bbllawgroup.com


COOK COUNTY, IL: Class Certification Bid in "Shyne" Continued
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled Martenia Shyne, et al., the Plaintiff,
v. Cook County Sheriff's Merit Board, et al., the Defendant, Case
No.: 1:18-cv-01231 (N.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Andrea R. Wood
entered an order continuing Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary
injunction and motion for class certification to April 3, 2018.

According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on March 14,
2018, Defendants' motion for extension of time to answer is
granted. Defendants shall answer or otherwise plead by April 11,
2018. Status hearing set for March 20, 2018, has been stricken
and reset for April 3, 2018 at 12:30 p.m.

A copy of the Docket Entry is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=GDk0nrEn


CRAFTMASTER PAINTING: Certification of Opt-Out Class Sought
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled Anthony Boutell et al., On behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v.
raftmaster Painting, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-00317-
bbc (W.D., Wisc.), the Plaintiffs move the Court pursuant to Rule
23(a) and (b)(3), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to certify
Anthony Boutell and Brian Stout as the class representatives of
the following opt-out class:

   "all hourly employees of Craftmaster Who Worked on Jobsites
    for Craftmaster on or after April 28, 2015".

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=QSdUaK6x

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          Yingtao Ho, Esq.
          THE PREVIANT LAW FIRM, S.C.
          310 W. Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 100MW
          Milwaukee, WI 53203
          Telephone (414) 271 4500
          Facsimile (414) 271 6308
          E-mail: yh@previant.com


EASTAR JET: Faces KYW1.5MM Class Action Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------
Kim Hyun-bin, writing for The Korean Times, reports that Eastar
Jet has been hit with a class action lawsuit from passengers
forced to remain onboard a plane for nearly 15 hours last
December.

Law firm Yeyul said March 9 177 passengers filed a class lawsuit
against Eastar Jet, a low-cost airline, demanding 1.5 million won
($1,400) compensation per person.

The passengers onboard flight ZE605, departing from Incheon
International Airport headed to Narita International Airport in
Japan on Dec. 23, were trapped inside for 14 hours and 20 minutes
after takeoff was delayed due to bad weather.

The passengers were not briefed on the situation and were only
notified after being onboard for more than 14 hours.
Many passengers suffered financial losses because they could not
get refunds for their accommodation.

Some passengers showed panic attack symptoms from being trapped
in an enclosed area for such a long time.

According to aviation law, a delayed flight cannot exceed three
hours with passengers onboard for domestic flights and four hours
for an international flight. The airline is obligated to inform
passengers every 30 minutes about what is happening.

In the U.S., all passengers are given an option to leave a plane
if there is any delay during takeoff. It is mandatory to serve
water and food to passengers on a postponed flight. If there is
any violation, the airline will be fined $27,500 for each person
onboard.

"Classifying the bad weather delay as a force majeure is not
sufficient," the law firm said. "Eastar Jet's cancellation rate
is seven times higher than that of other airlines on the same
day. This is not acceptable." [GN]


FARMERS RESTAURANT: Stephens, et al. Seek Class Certification
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled SHAYN STEPHENS, et al., the Plaintiffs, v.
FARMERS RESTAURANT GROUP, et al., the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-
cv-01087-TJK (D.D.C.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order:

   1. granting Rule 23 class certification for Counts II-III of
      plaintiffs' amended complaint, covering claims brought
      pursuant to the District of Columbia Minimum Wage Act and
      D.C. Sick Leave Act;

   2. granting Rule 23 class certification for Counts IV-V of
      plaintiffs' Amended Complaint, covering claims brought
      pursuant to the Maryland Wage and Hour Law, and Maryland
      Wage Payment and Collection Law;

   3. appointing Molly A. Elkin of Woodley & McGillivary LLP to
      serve as class counsel; and

   4. direct the parties to submit a joint proposed class notice
      within 14 calendar days.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=9RIBiHA2

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Molly A. Elkin, Esq.
          Gregory K. McGillivary, Esq.
          Molly Elkin, Esq.
          T. Reid Coploff, Esq.
          Sarah M. Block, Esq.
          WOODLEY & McGILLIVARY LLP
          1101 Vermont Ave., N.W., Suite 1000
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 833 8855
          E-mail: gkm@wmlaborlaw.com
                  mae@wmlaborlaw.com
                  trc@wmlaborlaw.com
                  smb@wmlaborlaw.com


FAST ADVANCE: Fabricant Seeks Certification of Classes
------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled TERRY FABRICANT, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. FAST ADVANCE
FUNDING, LLC; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, the Defendant,
Case No. 2:17-cv-05753-AB-JC (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff will move
the Court on February 22, 2019, for an order granting Plaintiff's
motion for class certification and appointment as class Counsel
against the Defendant pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(B)(2) and
(B)(3), concerning violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

The Plaintiff will move the Court to certify two classes pursuant
to 47 U.S.C. section 227(b)(1)(A)(iii) consisting of:

   "all persons within the United States who received any
   collection telephone calls from Defendant to said person's
   cellular telephone made through the use of any automatic
   telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice
   and such person had not previously consented to receiving such
   calls within the four years prior to the filing of this
   Complaint"; and

   "all persons within the United States who received any
   solicitation/telemarketing telephone calls from Defendant to
   said person's cellular telephone made through the use of any
   automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or
   prerecorded voice and such person had revoked any prior
   express consent to receive such calls prior to the calls
   within the four years prior to the filing of this Complaint".

The Plaintiff will additionally move the Court to certify two
classes under 47 U.S.C. section 227(c) consisting of:

   "all persons within the United States registered on the
   National Do-Not-Call Registry for at least 30 days, who had
    not granted Defendant prior express consent nor had a prior
   established business relationship, who received more than one
   call made by or on behalf of Defendant that promoted
   Defendant's products or services, within any twelve-month
   period, within four years prior to the filing of the
   complaint"; and

   "all persons within the United States registered on the
   National Do-Not-Call Registry for at least 30 days, who
   received more than one call made by or on behalf of Defendant
   that promoted Defendant's products or services, after having
   revoked consent and any prior established business
   relationship, within any twelve-month period, within four
   years prior to the filing of the complaint".

The Plaintiff will also move the Court for appointment of
Plaintiff as Class Representative, and for appointment of
Plaintiff's attorneys as Class Counsel.

A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=QStSJygV

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

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


FINANCIAL RECOVERY: Rehman Seeks Certification of 2 Classes
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled NAJIB REHMAN, the Plaintiff, v. FINANCIAL
RECOVERY SERVICES OF MINNESOTA, INC.'s, the Defendants, Case No.
9:17-cv-81395-DMM (S.D. Fla.), Mr. Rehman moves the Court to
certify two classes.

The FDCPA class is defined as:

   "(i) all persons with Florida addresses (ii) who was mailed2 a
   letter (iii) between December 25, 2016 and December 25, 2017
   (iv) from Defendant (v) in an attempt to collect a debt
   incurred for personal, family, or household purposes, (vi) of
   which Defendant was not the original-creditor, (vii) and, in
   said letter, Defendant does not identify itself as "Financial
   Recovery Services of Minnesota, Inc.""

The FCCPA class is defined as:

   "(i) all persons with Florida addresses (ii) who received a
   collection letter (iii) from Defendant (iv) between December
   25, 2015 and December 25, 2017 (v) that was an unlawful
   attempt to collect a debt (vi) in violation of Fla. Stat.
   section 559.72(9)."

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Dobmz2gC

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Thomas J. Patti, Esq.
          THOMAS-JOHN LAW, P.A.
          1451 W. Cypress Creek Road, Suite 300
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33309
          Telephone: (954) 543 1325
          Facsimile: (954) 507 9975
          E-mail: tpatti@thomasjohnlaw.com


FLOWERS FOODS: Distributors Class Conditionally Certified
---------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled DANIEL MARTINS, individually and on behalf
of others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. FLOWERS FOODS,
INC., FLOWERS BAKING CO. OF BRADENTON, LLC, and FLOWERS BAKING
CO. OF VILLA RICA, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 8:16-cv-03145-
MSS-JSS (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Mary S. Soriven entered an
order on March, 28 2018:

   1. granting Plaintiff's amended motion for conditional
      certification;

   2. conditionally certifying collective action for the
      following class:

      "all Independent Distributors who distribute fresh bakery
      products for Flowers Foods, Inc., Flowers Baking Co. of
      Bradenton, LLC, Flowers Baking Company of Villa Rica, LLC,
      and any other bakeries, affiliates or subsidiaries of
      Flowers Foods, Inc. within the state of Florida or Georgia,
      excluding Independent Distributors who worked for Flowers
      Foods, Inc. through Derst Baking Company, LLC";

   3. denying without prejudice Defendants' motion to dismiss,
      or, in the alternative, to compel individual arbitration;

   4. granting Plaintiff's Motion to toll statute of limitations;

   5. directing Defendants within 14 days of the date of this
      Order, to produce to Plaintiff's counsel a list, in an
      electronic readable format, containing the names,
      warehouse/bakery locations, and last known mailing
      addresses of all persons falling within the certification
      granted; and

   6. directing Plaintiff shall, within 21 days from the date of
      this Order, file a revised proposed notice to be sent to
      potential opt-in plaintiffs BY mail is consistent with this
      Order and accurately reflects the current posture of the
      case.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=8rAz3Xpl


FOOT LOCKER: May 8 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
----------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney
General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors that
they have until May 8, 2018 to file lead plaintiff applications
in a securities class action lawsuit against Foot Locker, Inc.
(NYSE:FL), if they purchased the Company's shares between August
19, 2016 and August 17, 2017, inclusive (the "Class Period").
This action is pending in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of New York.

What You May Do

If you purchased shares of Foot Locker and would like to discuss
your legal rights and how this case might affect you and your
right to recover for your economic loss, you may, without
obligation or cost to you, contact KSF Managing Partner Lewis
Kahn toll-free at 1-877-515-1850 or via email
(lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com), or visit
https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nyse-fl/ to learn more. If you
wish to serve as a lead plaintiff in this class action, you must
petition the Court by May 8, 2018.

About the Lawsuit

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

On August 18, 2017, the Company revealed negative financial
results for the second quarter of fiscal year 2017, including
revenue significantly below expectations, attributed in part to
lower same-store sales, that many more stores were being closed
than previously announced, and that weaker sales were expected
for the rest of the fiscal year.

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

               About Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC

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

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

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


FRANCESCA'S HOLDINGS: Conditional Certification Sought in "Magee"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled MEGHAN MAGEE, SAMANTHA BAILEY and ROBERT
BLOOMINGER JR., Individually and on Behalf of All Other Persons
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiffs, v. FRANCESCA'S HOLDINGS CORP.
and FRANCESCA'S COLLECTIONS, INC., the Defendants, Case No.:
1:17-cv-00565-RBK-JS (D.N.J.), the Plaintiffs move the Court, for
conditional certification, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b).

The Defendants' answering papers, if any, are due to be served
and filed on April 5, 2018, and Plaintiff's Reply papers are due
to be served and filed on April 19.

A copy of the Notice Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=EeqI3eDt

Attorneys for Plaintiffs, the FLSA Collective, and Classes:

          Marc S. Hepworth, Esq.
          Charles Gershbaum, Esq.
          David A. Roth, Esq.
          Rebecca S. Predovan, Esq.
          Joshua P. Cittadino, Esq.
          HEPWORTH GERSHBAUM & ROTH PLLC
          192 Lexington Avenue, Suite 802
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 545 1199
          Facsimile: (212) 532 3801

               - and -

          Paolo C. Meireles, Esq.
          SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
          1515 S. Federal Highway, Suite 404
          Boca Raton, FL 33432
          Telephone: (561) 447 8888
          Facsimile: (561) 447 8831

               - and -

          Michael Palitz, Esq.
          SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
          830 3rd Avenue, 5th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (800) 616-4000
          Facsimile: (561) 447-8831


FYRE MEDIA: Founder Pleads Guilty to Fraud Amid Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Complex's Sajae Elder, citing Billboard, reports that the
disaster that was Fyre Festival kept getting hit with lawsuits
after it was all said and done, and its founder Billy McFarland
has been ordered to pay back millions in investor funds after he
pled guilty to two counts of wire fraud.

Showing up in Manhattan federal court on March 9, Mr. McFarland
admitted he lied to obtain upwards of $26 million from investors
in a bid to pull off the festival in the Bahamas last year.
Using fake documents detailing financial holdings he didn't
actually have, Mr. McFarland was able to funnel funds from
investors and ticket outlets for the festival.

Fyre Fest was set to feature luxury accommodations, catered food,
and artists like Major Lazer and Migos, but the festival grounds
were an unfinished collection of haphazard tents, with no food
and complete chaos.  Food was eventually provided in the form of
prepackaged sandwiches, and a band of local musicians performed
before the festival was postponed indefinitely -- after it had
technically already started.  Return flights were fraught with
delays and rescheduling, dragging the debacle out even more, and
many of the employees didn't get paid for their work on the
festival.

Mr. McFarland was arrested last summer after an FBI investigation
into the festival, and according to the U.S. Attorney's Office,
accepted a plea deal.  In addition to paying back the money, he
faces eight to 10 years in prison, but he isn't scheduled for
sentencing until June 21.  The aftermath saw many lawsuits
against McFarland, including a $100 million class-action lawsuit,
and the LLC that owns Fyre has been forced to file for
bankruptcy.

In court, Mr. McFarland seemed remorseful.  "I deeply regret my
actions, and I apologize to my investors, team, family, and
supporters who I let down," he said. [GN]


GC SERVICES: "Ocampo" Suit Seeks to Certify Class
-------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled JOSE LUIS OCAMPO, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the PLAINTIFF, v. GC
SERVICES INTERNATIONAL, LLC, and GC SERVICES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP,
the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-09388 (N.D. Ill.), the Plaintiff,
Jose Luis Ocampo, brings this action individually and as a class
action on behalf of a class defined as:

   "(1) all persons with addresses in the State of Illinois (2)
   from whom Defendant attempted to collect a delinquent consumer
   debt, (3) upon which Defendants sent a form letter, which
   contained the following paragraphs:

   (a) While we have not reported this account to any consumer
   reporting agency as of the date of this letter, our client has
   authorized us to report your account to the three major
   consumer reporting agencies unless we are able to resolve your
   account; and

   (b) Please read the following message provided by DISH
   Network: The balance that has been placed in collections may
   include the cost of your leased DISH Network equipment. If you
   choose to return the equipment to DISH Network they will
   reverse the leased equipment fees and/or refund any payments
   made that were applied to equipment charges.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=BEzDbv4w

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Celetha C. Chatman, Esq.
          Michael J. Wood, Esq.
          COMMUNITY LAWYERS GROUP, LTD.
          73 W. Monroe Street, Suite 514
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 757 1880
          Facsimile: (312) 265 3227
          E-mail: cchatman@communitylawyersgroup.com
                  mwood@communitylawyersgroup.com

                           *     *     *

The Hon. Judge Robert M. Dow Jr. entered an order terminating
Plaintiff's motion for class certification as moot as it is
superseded by Plaintiff's renewed motion for class certification
which is taken under advisement.

According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on March 21,
2018, by agreement of the parties, the status hearing set for
March 26, 2018 is cancelled and reset to April 12, 2018 at 10:00
a.m.

A copy of the Docket Entry is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Ddoasejb


GC SERVICES: Green Asks Court to Certify FDCPA Class
----------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled Kayla Green, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. GC Services
Limited Partnership, a Delaware limited partnership, Owners
Resource Group, GC GP Buyer, LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company, the Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-00314-CLC-DCP (E.D.
Tenn.), Ms. Green asks the Court to certify a class consisting
of:

   "all persons similarly situated in the State of Tennessee from
   whom Defendants attempted to collect a delinquent consumer
   debt allegedly owed for a Synchrony Bank credit card account,
   via the same form collection letter that Defendants sent to
   Ms. Green, from one year before the date of the Complaint to
   the present."

This action seeks a finding that Defendant's form letter violates
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Acts, and asks that the Court
award damages as authorized by section 1692k(a)(2) of the FDCPA.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=3Tdci8Dm

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David J. Philipps, Esq.
          Mary E. Philipps, Esq.
          PHILIPPS & PHILIPPS, LTD.
          9760 S. Roberts Road, Suite One
          Palos Hills, IL 60465
          Telephone: (708) 974 2900
          Facsimile: (708) 974 2907
          E-mail: davephilipps@aol.com
                  mephilipps@aol.com

               - and -

          Cynthia T. Lawson, Esq.
          Heather Banks, Esq.
          BOND, BOTES & LAWSON, P.C.
          6704 Watermour Way
          Knoxville, TN 37912
          Telephone: (865) 938 0733
          Facsimile: (865) 938 7931
          E-mail: cynthialawson@bbllawgroup.com
                  heatherbanks@bbllawgroup.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Seth M. Friedman, Esq.
          William S. Helfand, Esq.
          LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH, LLP
          1180 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 2900
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          E-mail: seth.friedman@lewisbrisbois.com
                  bill.helfand@lewisbrisbois.com

               - and -

          Cynthia T. Lawson, Esq.
          Heather Banks, Esq.
          BOND, BOTES & LAWSON, P.C.
          6704 Watermour Way
          Knoxville, TN 37912
          E-mail: cynthialawson@bbllawgroup.com
                  heatherbanks@bbllawgroup.com


GENESCO INC: "Chen" Class Suit Moved From Illinois to Indiana
-------------------------------------------------------------
The putative class action lawsuit styled MELISSA CHEN and DARIO
SALAS, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated
v. GENESCO, INC. and HAT WORLD, INC. d/b/a LIDS, Case No. 1:17-
cv-03767, was transferred on March 7, 2018, from the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Indiana
(Indianapolis).  The Indiana District Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 1:18-cv-00690-SEB-TAB to the proceeding.

The lawsuit seeks to recover alleged unpaid overtime compensation
for the Plaintiffs and similarly situated individuals, who worked
for the Defendants as Store Managers and were subject to the
Defendants' policy of misclassifying them as "exempt" from
federal and/or state overtime protections.  The Plaintiffs bring
the action to recover unpaid overtime compensation for themselves
and similarly situated SMs as a collective action under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Juno E. Turner, Esq.
          Justin Mitchell Swartz, Esq.
          OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
          685 Third Avenue, 25th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 245-1000
          E-mail: jturner@outtengolden.com
                  jms@outtengolden.com

               - and -

          Paul William Mollica, Esq.
          OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
          161 N. Clark St., Suite 1600
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 809-7010
          E-mail: pwmollica@outtengolden.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Bonnie Keane DelGobbo, Esq.
          Joel Griswold, Esq.
          BAKER HOSTETLER LLP
          191 N. Wacker Dr., Suite 3100
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 416-6200
          Facsimile: (312) 461-6201
          E-mail: bdelgobbo@bakerlaw.com
                  jcgriswold@bakerlaw.com


GILBERT ENTERPRISES: Walsh Seeks to Certify Exotic Dancers Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled ARIELLE WALSH, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. GILBERT ENTERPRISES,
INC. d/b/a CLUB FANTASIES, and FRANCIS DELUCA, the Defendants,
Case No. 1:15-cv-00472-WES-PAS (D.R.I.), the Plaintiffs ask the
Court to:

   1. certify a class for the Plaintiff's state law claims
      (Counts III, IV, and V) pursuant to R.I. Gen. Laws section
      28-14-19.2(b) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, consisting of:

      "all individuals who have worked as exotic dancers at Club
      Fantasies at any time since November 6, 2012";

   2. appoint Plaintiff Arielle Walsh as a Rule 23 class
      representative;

   3. appoint as counsel for the class Lichten & Liss-Riordan,
      P.C., and Citadel Consumer Litigation, P.C.;

   4. direct parties to meet and confer and present this Court,
      within 15 days of an Order granting class certification, a
      proposed notice to the class pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
      23(b)(3); and

   5. direct Order that Defendant produce a list of the names,
      last-known mailing and e-mail addresses, and telephone
      numbers for all individuals who currently work and/or
      previously worked at Club Fantasies as an exotic dancer at
      any time in the last three years.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=PoK6IfqR

Arielle Walsh, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated:

          Peter Delano, Esq.
          Harold Lichten, Esq.
          Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq.
          LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
          729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
          Boston, MA 02116
          Telephone: (617) 994 5800
          E-mail: hlichten@llrlaw.com
                  sliss@llrlaw.com
                  pdelano@llrlaw.com

               - and -

          John T. Longo, Esq.
          CITADEL CONSUMER LITIGATION, P.C.
          996 Smith Street
          Providence, RI 02098
          Telephone: (401) 383 7550
          E-mail: jtlongo@citadelpc.com


GLYNN COUNTY, GA: ACLU Sues Officials Over Cash Bail
----------------------------------------------------
Wes Wolfe, The Brunswick News, reports that the American Civil
Liberties Union filed a federal lawsuit March 9 morning accusing
Glynn County, Sheriff Neal Jump, Magistrate Judge Alex Atwood and
attorney Reid Zeh, Esq. for the parts they play in what the group
alleges is "an unconstitutional cash bail system that
discriminates against people who are financially strapped."

The class-action lawsuit is brought on behalf of Margery Mock and
Scott Ogden -- both of whom were in the Glynn County Detention
Center after arrests for criminal trespassing March 7 -- and
other people detained in Glynn County for misdemeanor offenses
because they cannot come up with the money to bond out of jail.

At 5 p.m. March 9, ACLU of Georgia Legal Director Sean Young
announced Mock and Ogden are to be released.

"We have just learned that a court has ordered our clients'
release, though we still await news of actual release from our
clients," Young said in a statement. "And we will continue to
push forward with this class action. Every single day, Glynn
County throws people like Ms. Mock into jail simply because they
cannot afford the predetermined cash bail required.

"We are moving forward with this case to ensure equal justice for
all."

Mock was jailed under a $1,256 bond and Ogden faced the same
amount. The complaint lays out the process.

"A person arrested in Glynn County who can afford to pay the
predetermined monetary amount is immediately eligible for release
from jail upon payment (except those facing Family Violence Act
charges)," according to the complaint. "Those arrestees who
cannot afford their release may remain in jail for weeks, even
months, without being afforded any hearing to meaningfully argue
for their release.

"Moreover, persons accused of misdemeanors who cannot afford to
pay bail or hire a private attorney are deprived of the
opportunity to request an adversarial preliminary hearing to seek
their release, either by challenging probable cause for their
arrest or requesting lower bail. They are further denied the
ability to bring subsequent motions or habeas petitions to modify
or reduce bail through counsel.

"In fact, the only process available in Glynn County for
misdemeanor arrestees who cannot afford their monetary bail or to
hire private counsel is a hearing to enter a guilty plea and face
sentencing."

The complaint then points to Zeh, who serves as the state court
public defender. State court usually handles cases that involve
misdemeanors only.

"None of these plaintiffs can afford to hire a criminal defense
attorney," according to the complaint. "They are therefore
eligible for representation only be defendant Zeh as a public
defender. However, plaintiffs have never met with Zeh, who has a
policy of not visiting public defense clients in the detention
center, representing clients at their bail-setting hearing or
requesting a preliminary hearing or bail-modification hearing on
their behalf."

A message left for Zeh was not returned as of press time. Jump
did not return a phone call March 9.

Atwood said the processes for setting bail were already in place
when he took the bench in 2017. As a state legislator, lawyer and
judge, he said has always striven to follow the constitution and
due process.

In all, the county, Atwood and Jump are alleged, by administering
the cash bond procedure, to have violated the 14th Amendment
regarding equal protection and due process, and the county and
Zeh are accused of violating indigent misdemeanor arrestees' 6th
Amendment right to counsel and equal protection through counsel.

James Yancey, Esq. -- jykerr@southernco.com -- is representing
the plaintiffs in U.S. District Court in Brunswick, along with
Young, Kosha Tucker, Andrea Woods, Twyla Carter and Brandon
Buskey. Yancey filed the class certification motion March 9,
along with a temporary restraining order motion and motion for
preliminary injunction on behalf of similarly situated detained
defendants who face only misdemeanor charges and cannot afford to
bond out.

U.S. District Court Judge Lisa Godbey Wood set a hearing for
March 15 at 9:30 a.m. for the TRO and injunction motions. [GN]


GOLD STANDARD: Certification of Laborers Class Sought
-----------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled JAMES ZOLLICOFFER, ANTWOIN HUNT and NORMAN
GREEN, on behalf of themselves and similarly situated laborers,
Plaintiffs, v. GOLD STANDARD BAKING, INC., PERSONNEL STAFFING
GROUP, LLC d/b/a MOST VALUABLE PERSONNEL d/b/a MVP, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:13-cv-01524 (N.D. Ill.), the Plaintiffs
ask the Court to:

   a. certify a class for all issues under Fed. R. Civ. P.
      23(b)(3);

      "African-American laborers who sought work assignments
      through MVP and were otherwise eligible to work at GSB, but
      on one or more occasions were not assigned to work at GSB
      when a position for which they were otherwise qualified was
      available during the period of four years prior to the
      filing of the Plaintiffs' Original Complaint for the Sec.
      1981 claims and three hundred days prior to the filing of
      Plaintiffs' EEOC charges for the Title VII claims up
      through and including December 31, 2015";

   b. appoint Named Plaintiffs Norman Green, James Zollicoffer
      and Antwoin Hunt as class representatives;

   c. appoint Plaintiffs' counsel to serve as counsel for the
      class; and

   d. authorize notice to the class of the action and their right
      to opt out.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=MfYDvO26

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Joseph M. Sellers, Esq.
          Shaylyn Cochran, Esq.
          Miriam R. Nemeth, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
          1100 New York Avenue, N.W. Suite 500
          Washington, D.C. 20005
          Telephone: (202) 408 4600

               - and -

          Christopher J. Williams, Esq.
          Alvar Ayala, Esq.
          WORKERS' LAW OFFICE, P.C.
          53 W. Jackson Blvd, Suite 701
          Chicago, IL 60604
          Telephone: (312) 795 9121


HARVARD COLLECTION: Debt Collection Violates FDCPA, "Bond" Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
BROOKE BOND, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. HARVARD COLLECTION SERVICES, INC. and JOHN DOES 1-25,
Case No. 2:18-cv-00149-UA-MRM (M.D. Fla., March 7, 2018), alleges
that the Defendants' debt collection efforts directed towards the
Plaintiff violated various provisions of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act, including use of false and misleading
representation.

Harvard Collection Services, Inc., is a debt collector with an
address at 4839 N. Elston Ave., in Chicago, Illinois.  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.  The identities of the Doe Defendants are currently
unknown.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Justin Zeig, Esq.
          ZEIG LAW FIRM, LLC
          3475 Sheridan Street, Suite 310
          Hollywood, FL 33021
          Telephone: (754) 217-3084
          Facsimile: (954) 272-7807
          E-mail: Justin@zeiglawfirm.com


HCA HEALTH: Sued by Clark for Not Paying Minimum Wage Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
ALISA CLARK, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. HCA HEALTH SERVICES OF FLORIDA, INC. d/b/a
BLAKE MEDICAL CENTER, Case No. 8:18-cv-00553-VMC-CPT (M.D. Fla.,
March 7, 2018), is an action for damages under the Fair Labor
Standards Act arising from the Defendant's alleged failure to pay
a minimum wage and unpaid wages under Florida common law.

HCA Health Services of Florida, Inc., doing business as Blake
Medical Center, operates a hospital in Bradenton, in Manatee
County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Donna V. Smith, Esq.
          WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A.
          1110 North Florida Avenue, Suite 300
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 224-0431
          Facsimile: (813) 229-8712
          E-mail: dsmith@wfclaw.com
                  rcooke@wfclaw.com


HIDAY & RICKE: "McCray" Disputes Vague Collection Letter
--------------------------------------------------------
Desseri McCray, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Hiday & Ricke, P.A., Defendants, Case No.
18-cv-00458 (M.D. Fla., February 26, 2018), seeks declaratory
judgment, monetary damages, liquidated damages, prejudgment
interest and costs, including reasonable attorney's fees pursuant
to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Florida
Consumer Collection Practices Act.

McCray obtained a personal vehicle loan with Fidelity Bank but in
2016, she became permanently disabled and could no longer work
causing her to fall behind in her monthly payments. Said vehicle
was then repossessed and subsequently sold it at auction.
Defendant sent McCray a collection letter pertaining to the
balance of the said loan but is unclear as to who the current
creditor and who the original creditor is. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Alex D. Weisberg
      WEISBERG CONSUMER LAW GROUP, PA
      5846 S. Flamingo Rd, Ste. 290
      Cooper City, FL 33330
      Tel: (954) 212-2184
      Fax: (866) 577-0963
      Email: aweisberg@afclaw.com


HOME DEPOT: Court Terminates Bid to Certify Class in "Manopla"
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled Manopla et al., the Plaintiffs, v. Home
Depot USA, Inc., et al., the Defendants, Case No. 3:15-cv-01120-
PGS-TJB (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Tonianne J. Bongiovanni entered
an order directing the Clerk of the Court to administratively
terminate Plaintiff's motion to certify class.

The Court said, "In light of the schedule set in the Court's
Letter Order of March 19, 2018 for expert discovery and the
briefing on Plaintiffs' motion to certify a class, the oral
argument currently scheduled for April 23, 2018 is adjourned with
no new date. The Clerk of the Court is directed to
administratively terminate Plaintiff's motion to certify class.
The motion shall be reactivated and given the next available
return date after expert discovery and briefing on the motion is
complete."

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=QzJ5nxUg


HOSPITALITY VENTURES: Certification of FLSA Collective Sought
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled WAI MAN TOM, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. HOSPITALITY VENTURES
LLC, d/b/a UMSTEAD HOTEL AND SPA, NC CULINARY VENTURES LLC, d/b/a
AN ASIAN CUISINE, and SAS INSTITUTE INC., the Defendants, Case
No. 5:17-CV-00098-FL (E.D.N.C.), the Plaintiff moves the Court
for an order:

   1. conditional certifying the action as a representative
      collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act;

   2. approving proposed FLSA notice of this action and the
      consent form;

   3. directing production of names, last known mailing
      addresses, alternate addresses, telephone numbers, email
      addresses, Social Security numbers, dates of birth, dates
      of employment, and job titles for all putative class
      members;

   4. directing ability to email and/or text message the proposed
      Notice, along with utilizing regular U.S. Mail;

   5. certifying this action as a class action under Rule 23(a)
      and (b)(3) for the claims pursuant to the North Carolina
      Wage and Hour Act; and

   6. appointing Plaintiff Tom as class representative, and the
      Law Offices of Gilda A. Hernandez, PLLC, as class counsel.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=NOjdJB10

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gilda Adriana Hernandez, Esq.
          Michael B. Cohen, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF GILDA A.
          HERNANDEZ, PLLC
          1020 Southhill Dr. Ste. 130
          Cary, NC 27513
          Telephone: (919) 741 8693
          Facsimile: (919) 869 1853
          E-mail: ghernandez@gildahernandezlaw.com
                  mcohen@gildahernandezlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Arch Y. Stokes, Esq.
          John R. Hunt, Esq.
          Jordan A. Fishman, Esq.
          STOKES WAGNER, ALC
          One Atlantic Center, Suite 2400
          1201 West Peachtree Street
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Telephone: (404) 766 0076
          Facsimile: (404) 766 8823
          E-mail: astokes@stokeswagner.com
                  jhunt@stokeswagner.com
                  jfishman@stokeswagner.com

               - and -

          Kevin M. Ceglowski, Esq.
          POYNER SPRUILL LLP
          301 Fayetteville Street, Suite 1900
          Raleigh, NC 27602-01801
          Telephone: (919) 783 6400
          Facsimile: (919) 783 1075
          E-mail: kceglowski@poynerspruill.com


HRHH HOTEL/CASINO: "Mason" Sues Over Internet Tax in Resort Fee
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jeffery Mason and Eric Serrano, an individual, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. HRHH
Hotel/Casino, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company d/b/a
Hard Rock Hotel & Casino, Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-00366, (D.
Nev., February 28, 2018), seeks damages and restitution for the
total amount of taxes Defendants unlawfully charged and collected
on the portion of the Resort Fees that constitutes charges for
Internet access pursuant to the Internet Tax Freedom Act.

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

Both Mason and Serrano were guests at the Hard Rock Hotel and
were charged the Clark County Combined Transient Lodging Tax in
Resort Fees charged by Hard Rock Hotel for goods and services
that included Internet access.

HRHH Hotel/Casino, LLC operates as Hard Rock Hotel & Casino
located at 4455 Paradise Road, Las Vegas, Nevada. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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

             - and -

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

             - and -

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


HSBC BANK: Royal Park Appeals Denial of Cert. Bid to 2nd Circuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Royal Park Investments SA/NV filed an appeal from the
District Court's order denying its motion for class certification
entered on February 1, 2018, in its lawsuit styled ROYAL PARK
INVESTMENTS SA/NV, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. HSBC BANK USA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as
Trustee, Case No. 14-cv-08175, in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York (New York City).

The appellate case is captioned as ROYAL PARK INVESTMENTS SA/NV,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v.
HSBC BANK USA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Trustee, Case No. 18-455,
in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

Royal Park presented these questions to the Second Circuit:

   1. Is Rule 23(f) review warranted when a district court fails
      to engage in the mandatory comparative inquiry required to
      determine whether common questions predominate over
      individual questions?

   2. Is Rule 23(f) review warranted when a district court finds
      that speculative individual questions predominate over
      common questions which that court leaves undefined and
      unexamined? and

   3. Is there a compelling need for immediate resolution when
      recent district court opinions manifestly misinterpret
      evolving Second Circuit precedent in a manner that impacts
      claims for hundreds of billions of dollars in losses?

In its complaint, Royal Park alleges that HSBC violated its
contractual and common law obligations as Trustee for three
residential mortgage-backed securities ("RMBS") trusts.  Royal
Park contends that HSBC is granted certain rights that it is
obligated to exercise for the benefit of the Class.  If HSBC
discovers that loans underlying the Covered Trusts (the "Loans")
breach one of the representations and warranties ("R&Ws") made by
a "Depositor," "Loan Sellers/Sponsors" and/or an originator or
Other Transferor of the Loans (i.e., one of the "Warrantors")
concerning the Loan's characteristics, HSBC is required to notify
the Warrantor of the violation and to enforce the breaching
Warrantor's obligation to either substitute or repurchase the
defective Loan.[BN]

Plaintiff-Petitioner Royal Park Investments SA/NA, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented
by:

          Christopher Martin Wood, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          414 Union Street
          Nashville, TN 37219
          Telephone: (615) 244-2203
          Facsimile: (615) 252-3798
          E-mail: cwood@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Joseph D. Daley, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101-8498
          Telephone: (619) 231-1058
          Facsimile: (619) 231-7423
          E-mail: jdaley@rgrdlaw.com

Defendant-Respondent HSBC Bank USA, N.A., is represented by:

          Andrew W. Rudge, Esq.
          George A. Borden, Esq.
          Kevin M. Hodges, Esq.
          Vidya Atre Mirmira, Esq.
          Edward Reddington, Esq.
          Eric C. Wiener, Esq.
          WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP
          725 Twelfth Street, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 434-5000
          Facsimile: (202) 434-5029
          E-mail: arudge@wc.com
                  gborden@wc.com
                  khodges@wc.com
                  vmirmira@wc.com
                  ereddington@wc.com
                  ewiener@wc.com


HSBC BANK: BlackRock Appeals Denial of Bid to Certify Class
-----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs BlackRock Balanced Capital Portfolio (FI) and Royal
Park Investments SA/NA filed an appeal from the District Court's
order denying their motion for class certification and
appointment of class representatives and class counsel entered on
February 1, 2018, in their lawsuit entitled BLACKROCK BALANCED
CAPITAL PORTFOLIO (FI), ET AL., v. HSBC BANK USA, N.A., Case No.
14-cv-9366, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York (New York City).

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the
Plaintiffs are investors suing HSBC Bank over its handling of
more than 200 residential mortgage-backed securities trusts.

The appellate case is captioned as BLACKROCK BALANCED CAPITAL
PORTFOLIO (FI), ET AL., v. HSBC BANK USA, N.A., Case No. 18-450,
in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

The Plaintiffs-Petitioners want the Appellate Court to determine
whether:

   1. it should review the District Court's denial of class
      certification where, in ruling that Plaintiffs failed to
      meet Rule 23(b)(3)'s predominance requirement, the District
      Court erred by failing to conduct a rigorous, comparative
      analysis of the material legal and factual questions at
      issue in the action, including whether Defendant's
      liability can be determined on a classwide basis;

   2. it should review the District Court's erroneous
      determination that individualized questions as to whether
      some class members have standing to sue predominate over
      common liability questions, where Plaintiffs offered common
      and uncontroverted evidence establishing that New York law,
      including New York General Obligations Law Section 13-107,
      governs all transfers of the RMBS at issue and establishes
      Class members' standing; and

   3. it should review the District Court's denial of class
      certification, where the District Court's ruling departs
      from well-established law that an affirmative defense must
      first be shown to be meritorious to defeat
      predominance.[BN]

The Plaintiffs-Petitioners are represented by:

          Timothy A. Delange, Esq.
          Benjamin Galdston, Esq.
          Lucas E. Gilmore, Esq.
          Richard D. Gluck, Esq.
          Brett M. Middleton, Esq.
          Robert S. Trisotto, Esq.
          Jacob T. Spaid, Esq.
          BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
          12481 High Bluff Drive, Suite 300
          San Diego, CA 92130-3582
          Telephone: (858) 793-0070
          Facsimile: (858) 793-0323
          E-mail: timothyd@blbglaw.com
                  beng@blbglaw.com
                  Lucas.Gilmore@blbglaw.com
                  richard.gluck@blbglaw.com
                  brettm@blbglaw.com
                  robert.trisotto@blbglaw.com
                  jacob.spaid@blbglaw.com

Plaintiff-Petitioner Royal Park Investments SA/NA is represented
by:

          Christopher Martin Wood, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          414 Union Street
          Nashville, TN 37219
          Telephone: (615) 244-2203
          E-mail: cwood@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Arthur C. Leahy, Esq.
          Steven W. Pepich, Esq.
          Cody R. Lejeune, Esq.
          Ashley M. Robinson, Esq.
          Hillary B. Stakem, Esq.
          Jennifer N. Caringal, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101-8498
          Telephone: (619) 231-1058
          Facsimile: (619) 231-7423
          E-mail: artl@rgrdlaw.com
                  stevep@rgrdlaw.com
                  clejeune@rgrdlaw.com
                  arobinson@rgrdlaw.com
                  hstakem@rgrdlaw.com
                  jcaringal@rgrdlaw.com

Defendant-Respondent HSBC Bank USA, N.A., is represented by:

          George A. Borden, Esq.
          Kevin M. Hodges, Esq.
          Andrew W. Rudge, Esq.
          Edward C. Reddington, Esq.
          Vidya Atre Mirmira, Esq.
          Eric C. Wiener, Esq.
          Noah M. Weiss, Esq.
          Meghan A. Ferguson, Esq.
          Matthew B. Underwood, Esq.
          Jonah E. Perlin, Esq.
          Eric A. Kuhl, Esq.
          William P. Ashworth, Esq.
          Tanya M. Abrams, Esq.
          Lauren H. Uhlig, Esq.
          WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP
          725 Twelfth Street, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 434-5000
          Facsimile: (202) 434-5029
          E-mail: gborden@wc.com
                  khodges@wc.com
                  arudge@wc.com
                  ereddington@wc.com
                  vmirmira@wc.com
                  ewiener@wc.com
                  nweiss@wc.com
                  mferguson@wc.com
                  munderwood@wc.com
                  jperlin@wc.com
                  ekuhl@wc.com
                  washworth@wc.com
                  tabrams@wc.com
                  luhlig@wc.com


HUNTER WARFIELD: Faces "Troutt" Suit in Tenn. for Violating FDCPA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Latamara Troutt, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Hunter Warfield and John Does 1-25, Case
No. 3:18-cv-00261 (M.D. Tenn., March 6, 2018), seeks damages and
declaratory and injunctive relief pursuant to the Fair Debt
Collections Practices Act on behalf of a class of Tennessee
consumers.

Based in Tampa, Florida, 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.  John Does l-25, are fictitious names
of individuals and businesses alleged for the purpose of
substituting names of Defendants whose identities will be
disclosed in discovery and should be made parties to this
action.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Susan S. Lafferty, Esq.
          LAFFERTY LAW FIRM, P.C.
          555 Marriott Drive, Suite 315
          Nashville, TN 37214
          Telephone: (615) 878-1926
          E-mail: susanl@laffertylawonline.com


ILLINOIS: Court Denies Class Certification Bid in "Kolton"
----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled ANTHONY D. KOLTON, S. DAVID GOLDBERG, and
JEFFREY S. SCULLEY, individually and on behalf of a class of all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. MICHAEL W.
FRERICHS, Treasurer of the State of Illinois, the Defendant, Case
No. 1:16-cv-03792 (N.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Charles P. Kocoras
entered an order denying Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.

Plaintiffs challenge the constitutionality of a provision of the
Illinois Uniform Disposition of Unclaimed Property Act, 765 ILCS
Sec. 1025/1, et seq.  The Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint claims
that the Act authorizes the State to take certain private
property for public use without just compensation.

The Act is not an escheat statute; it is purely custodial in
nature. While Frerichs retains custody of the property, title to
the property remains with the owner.  The owner may reclaim his
or her property from the State at any time. An owner who makes a
claim on such property, however, is entitled only to the property
that the holder submitted to the State (or the proceeds from the
sale thereof) -- "the owner is not entitled to receive income or
other increments accruing thereafter."  Plaintiffs allege the Act
prohibits owners from receiving interest, dividends, or other
income or increments earned on their property while in the
State's custody.  Plaintiffs allege that the Act, by allowing the
State to retain interest and other income on unclaimed property,
as well as beneficially use the property without paying the
owner, constitutes a taking without just compensation.

The Court held that, "by focusing on the form of the property now
that it is in the State's custody, Plaintiffs neglect the case
law that makes explicit that property owners are only entitled to
the interest on their property if they were already earning
interest on it before the State took custody. It would be
difficult to apply this law across-the-board to the proposed
class because it would first require a determination of whose
property was previously earning interest and whose was not.
'Dissimilarities within the proposed class are what have the
potential to impede the generation of common answers.'"

The Court added, "Plaintiffs' proposed class may include members
whose property was previously earning interest and those whose
property was not. This precludes commonality. Furthermore,
typicality does not exist where class representatives have to
rely on a different legal theory than the rest of the class. See
Chi. Teachers Union, Local No. 1 v. Bd. of Educ. of City of Chi.,
307 F.R.D. 475, 482 (N.D. Ill. 2015)."

The Court also held that, "As Frerichs points out, even the named
Plaintiffs' claims may be atypical, as the Complaint specifically
describes only Kolton's property, an interest-bearing account,
which very well may be different than Goldberg's or Sculley's.
Plaintiffs' proposed class thus does not satisfy the commonality
and typicality requirements of Rule 41(a), and their Motion is
denied. Finally, Frerichs raises a point that is worthy of short
discussion in case Plaintiffs desire to reframe their class and
seek certification again. Frerichs argues that any injunctive
relief sought by the proposed class must be prospective, not
retrospective. Plaintiffs seem to agree with Frerichs, pointing
out that the class is defined in such a way that only persons who
are still property owners under the program, i.e., those who have
not yet claimed their property or whose claims are still pending,
will benefit from declaratory and injunctive relief. Thus,
Frerichs' concern about retrospective relief should be relieved.
Frerichs further contends that the proposed class' right to
interest should begin from the date of the injunction going
forward. Such a determination is beyond the scope of class
certification and is not yet ripe for consideration."

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=rUVO04OM


INTELLICHECK LLC: Cunha Seeks to Certify Background Check Class
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled JAMES CUNHA, an individual, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
INTELLICHECK, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company; CHICO
PRODUCE, INC., d/b/a PROPACIFIC FRESH, INC., a California
Corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, the Defendant, Case No.
3:17-cv-00597-JST (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff will move the Court
on May 10, 2018 for an order:

   1. certifying a Background Check Class:

      "all persons employed by ProPacific or who applied for a
      job with ProPacific who, on or after December 20, 2014
      through and including March 1, 2018, were the subject of a
      consumer report that was obtained by ProPacific;

   2. appointing Plaintiff James Cunha as the class
      representative for the Background Check Class; and

   3. appointing Patrick N. Keegan of the law firm of Keegan &
      Baker, LLP, and Walter Haines of The United Employees Law
      Group as Co-Lead Counsel for the Background Check Class.

A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=LTvIgKl6

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Patrick N. Keegan, Esq. (SBN 167698)
          James M. Treglio, Esq. (SBN 228077)
          KEEGAN & BAKER, LLP
          6156 Innovation Way
          Carlsbad, CA 92009
          Telephone: (760) 929 9303
          Facsimile: (760) 929 9260
          E-mail: pkeegan@keeganbaker.com
          jtreglio@keeganbaker.com

               - and -

          Walter Haines, Esq.
          THE UNITED EMPLOYEES LAW GROUP
          5500 Bolsa Avenue, Ste 201
          Huntington Beach, CA 92649
          Telephone: (310) 234 5678
          Facsimile: (562) 256 1006
          E-mail: walter@whaines.com


IOOF: In Whistle-blower Dispute with Maurice Blackburn
------------------------------------------------------
Mike Taylor, writing for Money Management, reports that IOOF has
had its recent brush with a whistle-blower squarely taken before
a Parliamentary Committee with plaintiff law firm, Maurice
Blackburn, citing the matter as a reason for amendments to
whistle-blowing legislation.

In doing so, the law firm has argued that further legislative
amendments should be implemented to protect both the whistle-
blowers and their lawyers, in circumstances where it alleged IOOF
had used legal tactics to restrain the law firm.

It said that alleged wrongdoers should be prevented from suing
whistle-blowers or their lawyers in circumstances where the
whistle-blower had provided incriminating confidential
information to lawyers in litigation against the alleged
wrongdoer.

"In AG Australia Holdings v Burton and Anor (2002), a whistle-
blower was sued for talking to class action lawyers for
shareholders in breach of a confidentiality agreement," the
Maurice Blackburn submission said.  "Burton has had a chilling
effect on whistle-blowers in the context of civil litigation,
with lawyers understandably now very reticent to talk to whistle-
blowers."

"It is contrary to the interests of justice for wrongdoers to be
protected from the consequences of unlawful behaviour in this
way, and the recent IOOF matter illustrates how Burton is being
abused," the submission claimed.

"In this case, the whistle-blower sent incriminating documents to
[the Australian Securities and Investments Commission] ASIC,
Senators and Fairfax Media and subsequently provided these
documents to Maurice Blackburn at the time when our lawyers were
investigating a potential class action on behalf of shareholders
in IOOF against the company for breaches of the Corporations
Act," it said.

"IOOF sued Maurice Blackburn to restrain it from acting in the
class action but did not pursue the whistle-blower or Fairfax
Media.  It seems clear that the true purpose of the suit was to
avoid the class action, or at least to frustrate it, and to
increase the costs involved in its pursuit, in an attempt to
mitigate IOOF's liabilities to its shareholders." [GN]


JONATHAN SWEENEY: Class Certification Bid in "Bragg" Suit Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled ROBERT BRAGG, the Plaintiff, v. JONATHAN
SWEENEY, et al., the Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-03693 (S.D.
W.Va.), the Hon. Judge Joseph Goodwin entered an order:

   1. dismissing Bragg's complaint;

   2. denying Bragg's motion for appointment of counsel and
      motion for certification of class; and

   3. denying Bragg's application to proceed without prepayment
      of fees and costs, but the filing fee is waived.

The Court said, "Bragg correctly recognizes that, even were his
claim to survive the preliminary screening stage, there is no
right to appointment of counsel in a civil matter such as this
and that a class action may not be brought by a pro se plaintiff.
Additionally, Rule 23 provides that "a court that certifies a
class must appoint class counsel." Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g). Thus,
Bragg requests that the court exercise its discretion to appoint
an attorney to represent the putative class, with Bragg serving
as the class representative. However, as the Fourth Circuit has
instructed, courts should "exercise this power 'only in
exceptional circumstances.' Whether the circumstances are
exceptional depends on 'the type and complexity of the case, and
the abilities of the individual bringing it.'"

In the matter, Bragg has not demonstrated a colorable individual
claim or any actionable claim on behalf of the putative class.
Consequently, even if Bragg had stated a claim upon which relief
could be granted, appointment of counsel would not be warranted.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=v3EfZatJ


KISWANI TRUCKING: Haggerty Asks Court to Join as Party-Plaintiffs
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled BRIAN HAGGERTY, on behalf of himself, and
all other plaintiffs similarly situated, known and unknown, the
Plaintiffs, v. KISWANI TRUCKING INC., AND JEHAD MOHAMMAD,
INDIVIDUALLY, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-06662 (N.D. Ill.),
the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an Order granting his
motion for leave to file additional consents and to join as
Party-Plaintiffs.

The parties have agreed to this scope of past and present
employees who will receive Notice and Consent forms as approved
by the Court:

   "all current employees and all former employees who performed
   services for Defendants between September 15, 2014 to the
   present and who were paid either hourly or salary, worked
   hours in excess of 40 in a week, and who did not receive time
   and one half their regular rate of pay for those overtime
   hours."

On or about September 15, 2017, on behalf himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff filed his claim for back overtime
wages and other relief against Defendants, pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=3S8PCQ2p

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John W. Billhorn, Esq.
          BILLHORN LAW FIRM
          53 W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 840
          Chicago, IL 60604
          Telephone: (312) 853 1450


KROGER CO: Court Denies as Moot Bid for Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled DELORES REID, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v, THE KROGER CO., et
al., the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-00815-TS (S.D, Ohio), the
Hon. Judge Timothy S. Black entered an order:

   1. granting motion of Defendants The Kroger Company and Kroger
      Limited Partnership I for summary judgment;

   2. denying as moot Plaintiff's motion for class certification;
      and

   3. directing Clerk to enter judgment accordingly, whereupon
      this case is terminated on the docket of the Court.

The Court said, "Ms. Reid argues that she was not provided a
"meaningful opportunity" to dispute the Initial Background Check.
She asserts two arguments in support of this contention; both
lack merit. First, Ms. Reid argues that, immediately after she
received the Initial Background Check, she called Ms. Austin to
challenge her report, and Ms. Austin informed her there was
"nothing [Ms. Austin] could do." Ms. Reid argues this statement
demonstrates that her employment opportunity was lost as of June
27, 2017, when Ms. Burgess ratified GIS's initial classification
of "Not Clear for Hire." This argument fails for two reasons.
First, Ms. Austin was right -- there was nothing she could do,
because she was not in a position to make any decisions regarding
the grading of Ms. Reid's background check. While the Court is
required to make all reasonable inferences in favor of the non-
movant, it is unreasonable to infer that this out-of-context,
factually accurate statement from Ms. Austin actually meant
something completely different -- that Ms. Reid's opportunity was
lost forever -- in light of the undisputed evidence that her job
offer was conditioned upon passing a background check and that
she remained eligible for employment while she disputed the
Initial Background Check. Second, the FCRA does not require users
of consumer reports, like Kroger, to make individual employees,
like Ms. Austin, available to assist applicants, like Ms. Reid,
with their disputes. The FCRA required Kroger to provide Ms. Reid
a copy of the Initial Background Check and a summary of her FCRA
rights prior to concluding she was ineligible for employment; the
undisputed evidence is that it did. Ms. Reid argues further that
Kroger's "preliminary grade" was itself an "adverse action"
because Kroger's adjudication process is "illusory."
Specifically, Ms. Reid argues that Kroger does not "hold" jobs
for applicants while they dispute their reports, and speculates
that her job as a deli clerk would not have been available to her
had the revised background check resulted in her grade being
changed to eligible for hire (which, she admits, it did not).
This argument fails for three reasons. First, the evidence is
that Ms. Reid's job offer was conditioned upon her passing a
background check, and she remained under consideration for
employment pending the resolution of her dispute. Second, while
Ms. Reid argues that Kroger does not "hold" positions open, she
has not pointed to any evidence that her opportunity was "lost;"
i.e., that the job for which she was conditionally offered
employment was filled, or otherwise became unavailable, while she
disputed the contents of the Initial Background Check. Third --
and relatedly -- Ms. Reid cannot show that her opportunity was
"lost" because, as she admits, she remained ineligible for hire
at Kroger even after she successfully disputed the information in
the Initial Background Check. Ms. Reid's hypothetical argument
that if she passed the background check, Kroger would not have
hired her, is not supported by any evidence and cannot create an
issue of fact precluding summary judgment."

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=JY4lJtav


LANDAU UNIFORMS: Parker Seeks OT Pay for Off-the-Clock Work
-----------------------------------------------------------
Tamra Parker, Individually, and on behalf of herself and others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Landau Uniforms, Inc. and
Nathaniel Landau, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-02138 (W.D. Tenn.,
February 28, 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.

Landau designs, manufactures and sells healthcare uniforms, among
other healthcare related accessories and items, throughout the
United States and internationally under the brand names, Landau,
Urbane Scrubs and Smitten. Parker worked as an hourly-paid worker
who claims to have worked in excess of 40 hours per work week
without overtime pay. She was also required to work off-the-clock
and worked through meal breaks despite having 30 minutes
automatically deducted. [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


LORALI BUILDING: "Stein" Sues Over Substandard Living Conditions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Stein, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, The Lorali Building, LLC, The Lorali
Company, LLC and James Stoller, individually, Defendants, Case
No. 2018-CH-02632, (Ill. Cir., February 27, 2018), seeks damages
and declaratory and injunctive relief pursuant to the Chicago
Residential Landlord and Tenant Ordinance.

Defendants operate "Lorali," a single Room Occupancy building at
1039-1045 West Lawrence Avenue in downtown Chicago. Stein is a
tenant in this building who claims to be subjected to unsafe,
unsanitary and uninhabitable conditions. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Berton N. Ring, Esq.
      Sheryl Ring, Esq.
      BERTON N. RING, P.C.
      #12735 123 West Madison Street
      15th Floor Chicago, IL 60602
      Tel: (312) 781-0290


LOUISIANA: Sued Over Inadequate Medical Care at Angola Prison
-------------------------------------------------------------
BJ Hetherington, writing for Medical Daily Times, reports that a
class action lawsuit has been launched for the inmates at the
Angola prison in Louisiana due to Francis Brauner.  The suit
states the medical care caused needless suffering and pain.
According to NPR, the situation began in 2005 when
Francis Brauner had an accident at the Dixon Correctional
Institute in Louisiana.  He had been imprisoned for rape and
claims the charge was wrongful and instigated by a corrupt judge.
He was sentenced to hard labor and was cutting grass.  He bent
over to pick something up and had a sharp pain in his back.

The pain continued to get worse and he could barely stand.  He
was sent to Charity Hospital in New Orleans but re-routed to
Angola prison due to Hurricane Katrina.  There was a surgery that
might have helped but he was denied.  He was left for a month in
bed and developed wounds that became infected on his backside.
These sores ate at his muscle tissue and he nearly died.  He was
paralyzed from the waist down.

Angora prison has more than 6,000 men and most are there for a
life sentence.  The prison is in a remote area so it has a
medical staff living on the grounds.  The staff were so careless
regarding treatments Mr. Brauner began keeping a journal.  He
shared this information with attorney Nick Trenticosta during a
visit regarding another case.  Mr. Trenticosta has been to the
prison monthly for the last thirty years but never saw the
hospital ward.  He saw everything from fly tape filled with dead
flies handing over beds where the patients had open bedsores to
open containers of garbage.

A lawsuit was filed in 2015 due to the increasing complaints from
the inmates.  Judge Shelly Dick agreed the case could proceed as
a class action lawsuit.  The prison claims the medical staff is
small and trying to care for 6,000 inmates.  Mr. Trenticosta said
the prison lacked proper equipment and medication and compared it
to a MASH unit.  The only group in the United States entitled to
health care under the constitution are the prisoners.  The
question became the quality of the health care they are entitled
to.  The lawsuit is demanding a bigger budget, reforms and
additional oversight.  Mr. Brauner is one of few survivors from
the chronic care ward at the prison.  He is currently at a
medical facility awaiting the surgery necessary to heal his
wounds. [GN]


MDL 2804: Lowell, Billerica Join Opioid Crisis Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Rick Sobey, writing for Lowell Sun, reports that it's time for
Big Pharma to pony up and take responsibility for flooding cities
and towns with opioids.

That's the message from lawyers with Massachusetts Opioid
Litigation Attorneys, a group representing communities in a
class-action lawsuit against prescription opioid manufacturers
and distributors.

The MOLA lawsuit seeks monetary damages for past and future costs
of emergency response, emergency services training, law-
enforcement actions, Narcan, workers' compensation, education
campaigns, treatment and more.

Lowell and Billerica have recently signed on to the effort, which
officials hope will bring about meaningful change in the
pharmaceutical industry.

The litigation has already resulted in positive movement,
according to Richard Sandman, a lawyer with MOLA.

He pointed to one of the major pharmaceutical companies, Purdue
Pharma, announcing recently that the company slashed its sales
force by more than 50 percent.  The company will no longer
promote opioids to prescribers.

"It's from the pressure of all these lawsuits," said Mr. Sandman,
of the firm Rodman, Rodman & Sandman in Malden.

"You get the sense that we're going to see a significant response
at how we administer or prescribe painkillers," added Sandman,
who was set to brief the Lowell City Council on the lawsuit on
March 13.

The lawsuits are not limited to Massachusetts.

It has been a nationwide movement to sue Big Pharma for costs
resulting from the opioid crisis.

The pharmaceutical companies committed fraud by marketing opioids
as a treatment for chronic pain, according to the lawsuits.  It
has resulted in opioids pouring into cities and towns, causing
this public-health crisis, MOLA states.

In addition, the distributors failed to detect and report
suspicious opioid orders to authorities as required under the
Controlled Substances Act, Mr. Sandman said.  Instead, they
shipped large amounts of pills to pharmacies, he said.

"You had millions of pills going to a community of fewer than
1,000 people in two years," Mr. Sandman said. "That's what you
would call a suspicious order."

Since the litigation started, there has been an incredible
difference in the number of suspicious orders getting reported,
he added.

In addition to Purdue Pharma, the pharmaceutical companies
involved in these lawsuits are Endo Health Solutions, Teva
Pharmaceutical Industries and subsidiary Cephalon, Johnson &
Johnson and subsidiary Janssen Pharmaceuticals and Allergan.

The distributors connected to these lawsuits are McKesson Corp.,
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corp., and Cardinal Health Inc.

"We are deeply troubled by the prescription and illicit opioid
abuse crisis, and we are dedicated to being part of the
solution," Purdue Pharma said in a statement. "As a company
grounded in science, we must balance patient access to FDA-
approved medicines, while working collaboratively to solve this
public health challenge.

"Although our products account for less than 2 percent of the
total opioid prescriptions, as a company, we've distributed the
CDC Guideline for Prescribing Opioids for Chronic Pain, developed
three of the first four FDA-approved opioid medications with
abuse-deterrent properties and partner with law enforcement to
ensure access to naloxone," the company added. "We vigorously
deny these allegations and look forward to the opportunity to
present our defense."

Some have compared these lawsuits to the Tobacco Master
Settlement Agreement in 1998.  Tobacco companies ended up
reimbursing states for Medicaid funds they spent on treating
patients with lung cancer and emphysema.

With these opioid lawsuits, the money would directly help out
cities and towns, Sandman pointed out.

"Certainly it worked well with the cigarette lawsuits, with a lot
of prevention money to help in the battle against smoking,"
Lowell House CEO Bill Garr said.  "Any resources we can get in
this community in our battle against the opioid crisis would be
more than welcome."

Billerica officials signed on to the lawsuit.

Selectmen Chairman Andrew Deslaurier said it was an "obligation"
to join.

"We have to do something.  We need to take our own action," he
said.  "There's no one not touched by this." [GN]


MECTA CO: Class Certification Denied in ECT Shock Treatment Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled RIERAM, ET AL., the Plaintiffs, v. MECTA,
CO., et al., the Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-06686-RGK-PJW (C.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge R. Gary Klausner entered an order denying
Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification of:

   1. "all individuals in the United States who received ECT
      shock treatment in California after May 28, 1982,
      administered by an ECT shock device that was manufactured,
      sold, and/or distributed by Defendants after May 28, 1982,
      and who suffered an injury as a result thereof, with the
      exception of [government entities, and all judges assigned
      to hear any aspect of this litigation, as well as their
      immediate family members]; and

   2. "all spouses of such individuals that have suffered related
      loss of consortium damages".

A copy of the Civil Minutes is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=ysuKELEt


MERCHANTS & PROFESSIONAL: "Patterson" Disputes Collection Letter
----------------------------------------------------------------
Erica Patterson, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Merchants & Professional Credit
Bureau, Inc. and John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-
00183, (W.D. Tex., February 28, 2018), seeks damages and
declaratory and injunctive relief under the Fair Debt Collections
Practices Act.

Merchants & Professional Credit Bureau, Inc. is a debt collection
agency located at 5508 Parkcrest Drive, Suite 210, Austin, TX
78731. Merchants attempted to collect an obligation incurred by
Patterson involving a medical debt Austin Regional CL-TCMS via a
collection letter that threatened to write it up on her credit
report. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MERCK & CO: Rigged Cholesterol Meds Price Claims Painters' Fund
---------------------------------------------------------------
Painters District Council No. 30 Health and Welfare Fund, on
behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
Merck & Co., Inc., Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., MSP Singapore Co.
LLC, Glenmark Pharmaceuticals, Ltd. and Glenmark Generics Inc.,
USA, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-00116 (E.D. Va., February 28,
2018), seeks damages plus interest, including reasonable
attorneys' fees and such other and further relief resulting from
unjust enrichment, conspiracy and combination in restraint of
trade and in violation of various state consumer protection laws.

Merck and Glenmark allegedly connived for Glenmark not to compete
in the Zetia market. Zetia is a cholesterol drug that counteracts
plaque development in arteries. Merck avoided patent invalidation
and retained its lucrative Zetia monopoly until Glenmark entered
with its generic product. Merck allegedly gained from Glenmark's
agreement to postpone generic entry during the six months in
which Glenmark enjoyed generic exclusivity due to Merck's
agreement not to launch an authorized generic version of Zetia.
Such anticompetitive agreement monopolized the price of Zetia,
says the complaint.

Painters District Council No. 30 Health and Welfare Fund is an
employee welfare benefit plan providing benefits to active and
retired painters, drywall finishers, and glaziers in the
construction trade and to their dependents.

Merck & Company, Inc., Merck Sharp & Dohme Corporation, Schering-
Plough Corporation, Schering Corporation and MSP Singapore
Company LLC are pharmaceuticals companies that operate under the
Merck brand.

Glenmark is an Indian pharmaceutical company with US presence.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      James A. Cales, III, Esq.
      Alan Brody Rashkind, Esq.
      FURNISS, DAVIS, RASHKIND AND SAUNDERS, PC
      6160 Kempsville Circle, Suite 341B
      Norfolk, VA 23502
      Tel: (757) 461-7100
      Fax: (757) 461-0083
      Email: ARashkind@furnissdavis.com
             JCales@furnissdavis.com

             - and -

      Marvin A. Miller, Esq.
      Lori A. Fanning, Esq.
      MILLER LAW LLC
      115 South LaSalle Street, Suite 2910
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Tel: (312) 332-3400
      Email: MMiller@millerlawllc.com
             LFanning@millerlawllc.com

             - and -

      Joseph M. Burns, Esq.
      Brandon Anderson, Esq.
      JACOBS, BURNS, ORLOVE, & HERNANDEZ
      150 North Michigan Avenue, Suite 1000
      Chicago, IL 60601
      Tel: (312) 327-3431
      Email: JBurns@jbosh.com
             BAnderson@jbosh.com

             - and -

      Marvin A. Miller, Esq.
      Lori A. Fanning, Esq.
      MILLER LAW LLC
      115 S. LaSalle Street, Suite 2910
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Tel: 312.332.3400
      Fax: 312.676.2676
      E-mail: mmiller@millerlawllc.com
              LFanning@millerlawllc.com


MESSERLI & KRAMER: Proceedings in "Kleczewski" Suit Stayed
----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled MATTHEW G. KLECZEWSKI, the Plaintiff, v.
MESSERLI & KRAMER P.A., et al., the Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-
00422-WED (E.D. Wisc.), the Hon. Judge William E. Duffin entered
an order granting Plaintiff's motion to stay further proceedings
is granted.

The Court said, "The parties are relieved from the automatic
briefing schedule set forth in Civil Local Rule 7(b) and (c).
Moreover, for administrative purposes, it is necessary that the
Clerk terminate the plaintiff's motion for class certification.
However, this motion will be regarded as pending to serve its
protective purpose under Damasco."

In Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891, 896 (7th Cir. 2011),
the court suggested that class-action plaintiffs "move to certify
the class at the same time that they file their complaint." "The
pendency of that motion protects a putative class from attempts
to buy off the named plaintiffs." However, because parties are
generally unprepared to proceed with a motion for class
certification at the beginning of a case, the Damasco court
suggested that the parties "ask the district court to delay its
ruling to provide time for additional discovery or
investigation."

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=OkHKyFr7


MIDLAND CREDIT: Hernandez Amended Class Certification Bid Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled DANIEL HERNANDEZ, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. MIDLAND CREDIT
MANAGEMENT, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 1:15-cv-11179 (N.D.
Ill.), the Hon. Judge Joan B. Gottschall entered an order denying
Plaintiff's amended motion for class certification.

The Court said, "This lawsuit has been plagued with problems from
the outset. Initially, the court denied class certification on
ascertainability grounds. In a July 24, 2017 order, the court
ruled that plaintiff's proposal that the class received "one or
more letters or other communications similarly in the form of the
October 5th Letter" encompasses an amorphous group of people who
may have received telephone communications as well as letters, as
well as providing no way to tell whether a communication other
than one of the two letters was or was not "substantially
similar." Moreover, the class definition proposed by plaintiff
had no time limitation other than the conclusion of the
litigation, a problem noted by numerous cases. Now, the court is
faced with two different letters, which the plaintiff claims are
materially identical, but which, as far as the court is
concerned, raise the real problem of class members who
understood, or misunderstood, very different language. At this
point, skeptical about the viability of plaintiff's cause of
action, but even more skeptical about the propriety of class
certification when two very different letters are involved, not
to speak of the fact that the court has no relevant information
or analysis given that it has found the two letters materially
different, the court is forced to conclude that it has done
enough work on class certification on its own, and the issue has
dragged on for too long. Plaintiff's amended motion for class
certification is denied. A status hearing is set for April 20,
2018 at 9:30 a.m."

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=OAq0WKdA


MILWAUKEE, WI: Collins, et al. Seek to Certify Class & Subclass
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled Charles Collins, et al., the Plaintiffs, v.
The City of Milwaukee, et al., the Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-
00234-JPS-DEJ (E.D. Wisc.), Charles Collins, Tracy Adams, Jeremy
Brown, Gregory Chambers, Caleb Roberts, David Crowley, Stephen
Jansen, and Alicia Silvestre ask the Court for an order:

   a. certifying Main Class of:

      "all persons who, since January 7, 2008, have been or will
      be stopped and/or stopped and frisked by MPD officers";

   b. certifying Subclass of Black and Latino members of the Main
      Class:

   c. appointing themselves as representatives of the Main Class
      and Subclass; and

   d. appointing American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, the
      American Civil Liberties Union of Wisconsin Foundation, and
      Covington & Burling LLP as Class counsel.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=M5fYg7wo

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          Nusrat J. Choudhury, Esq.
          Jason D. Williamson, Esq.
          AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION, INC.
          125 Broad Street, 18th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 549 2500
          E-mail: nchoudhury@aclu.org
                  jwilliamson@aclu.org

               - and -

          Anthony Herman, Esq.
          Shanya Dingle, Esq.
          Jon-Michael Dougherty, Esq.
          Justin Golart, Esq.
          Kerrel Murray, Esq.
          Jessica Jensen, Esq.
          Hwa Young Jin, Esq.
          COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
          One City Center
          850 Tenth Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20001
          Telephone: (202) 662 5615
          E-mail: sdingle@cov.com
                  jdougherty@cov.com
                  jgolart@cov.com
                  kmurray@cov.com
                  jjensen@cov.com
                  hjin@cov.com

               - and -

          Karyn L. Rotker, Esq.
          Laurence J. Dupuis, Esq.
          AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF WISCONSIN FOUNDATION
          207 East Buffalo Street, Suite 325
          Milwaukee, WI 53202
          Telephone: (414) 272 4032
          E-mail: krotker@aclu-wi.org
                  ldupuis@aclu-wi.org


MIMEDX GROUP: "Gordon" Sues Over Share Price Drop
-------------------------------------------------
Kenneth Gordon, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Mimedx Group, Inc., Parker H.
Petit, And Michael J. Senken, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-01831
(S.D. N.Y., February 28, 2018), seeks damages, prejudgment and
post-judgment interest, as well as reasonable attorneys' fees,
expert fees and other costs and such other and further relief
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

MiMedx Group Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company that focuses on
biomaterials for soft tissue repair, such as tendons, ligaments,
and cartilage, as well as other biomaterial based products for
other medical applications. Defendants failed to disclose that
MiMedx engaged in a "channel-stuffing" scheme designed to
inappropriately recognize revenue that had not yet been realized
and failed to disclose its financial ties to physicians, as
required by federal law. The company allegedly lacked adequate
internal controls over financial reporting and its shares traded
at artificially inflated prices.

MiMedx's share price fell $5.72, or 39.53%, to close at $8.75 on
February 20, 2018. Gordon acquired MiMedx securities at
artificially inflated prices and lost upon the revelation of the
alleged corrective disclosures.

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


MODERNIZE INC: Morris Seeks to Certify Class & Subclass
-------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled SYLVIA MORRIS, on Behalf of Herself and all
Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. MODERNIZE INC., the
Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-00963-SS (W.D. Tex.), the Plaintiff
asks the Court for an order:

   1. certifying a class of:

      "all persons in the United States who: (a) received more
      than one telephone solicitation calls, initiated by
      Defendant to promote products or services; (b) in a
      12-month period; (c) on their cellular telephone line or
      residential telephone line; (d) more than 30 days after
      registering their telephone number(s) on the National Do
      Not Call Registry; (e) at any time in the period
      that begins four years before the filing of the complaint
      in this action to the date that class notice is
      disseminated, (f) and where Defendant obtained the lead
      for that person through findsolarrebates.com";
      alternatively,

   2. certifying a subclass of:

      "all persons in the United States who: (a) received more
      than one telephone solicitation calls, initiated by
      Defendant to promote products or services; (b) in a 12-
      month period; (c) on their cellular telephone line or
      residential telephone line; (d) more than 30 days after
      registering their telephone number(s) on the National Do
      Not Call Registry; (e) at any time in the period
      that begins four years before the filing of the complaint
      in this action to the date that class notice is
      disseminated, (f) and where the lead for the class member
      was obtained through findsolarrebates.com between June 1,
      2015 and December 31, 2016";

   3. appointing Plaintiff as Class Representative for the class
      and subclass;

   4. appointing Bursor & Fisher, P.A. and Hughes Ellzey LLP as
      Class Counsel; and

   5. granting any such further relief as this Court deems
      reasonable and just.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=kyMHp8CE

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Joshua D. Arisohn, Esq.
          Scott A. Bursor, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          888 Seventh Avenue
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 989 9113
          Facsimile: (212) 989 9163
          E-Mail: scott@bursor.com
                  jarisohn@bursor.com

               - and -

          W. Craft Hughes, Esq.
          Jarrett L. Ellzey, Esq.
          HUGHES ELLZEY, LLP
          2700 Post Oak Blvd., Ste. 1120
          Galleria Tower I
          Houston, TX 77056
          Telephone: (713) 554 2377
          Facsimile: (888) 995 3335
          E-mail: craft@hughesellzey.com
                  jarrett@hughesellzey.com


MONARCH RECOVERY: Hartman Seeks to Certify Consumers Class
----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled MELISSA HARTMAN, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. MONARCH RECOVERY
MANAGEMENT, INC., and DOES 1 - 25, the Defendants, Case No. 2:15-
cv-01364-CB (W.D. Pa.), the Parties will jointly move the Court
on April 17, 2018, for an Order certifying the case to proceed as
a class action, and granting final approval of the settlement, on
behalf of the following class:

   "all Pennsylvania consumers who were sent collection letters
   from Defendant in an attempt to collect an obligation owed to
   Synchrony Bank, similar to the Collection Letter annexed to
   the complaint as Exhibit A, where Monarch's File Number was
   visible through the lower glassine window of the enclosing
   envelope, during the time period spanning October 20, 2014 to
   the present."

A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=9zFXnlu9

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ari H. Marcus, Esq.
          MARCUS & ZELMAN, LLC
          1500 Allaire Avenue, Suite 101
          Ocean, NJ 07712
          Telephone: (732) 695 3282
          Facsimile: (732) 298 6256
          E-Mail: Ari@MarcusZelman.com

Attorneys for MRM Recovery Management, Inc.:

          Andrew M. Schwartz, Esq.
          MARSHALL DENNEHEY WARNER
          COLEMAN AND GOGGIN, P.C.
          2000 Market Street, Suite 2300
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 575 2765
          Facsimile: (215) 575 0856
          E-mail: Amschwartz@mdwcg.com


MONAT: Faces Consumer Claims Over Hair Product Line
---------------------------------------------------
Darcy Spears, writing for KTNV, reports that scalp sores,
breakage and hair falling out in chunks.  It's a hair care
nightmare and some women are blaming it on the Monat hair care
product line.

"I took a picture of my hair, compared it to a picture of before
I stared Monat, and my eyes just filled up with tears.  It was so
thin and it was stringy and I was just sick," said Erin Ostby, a
military spouse who used and sold Monat products.

Women like Ostby say they watched their hopes for beautiful,
healthy hair wash down the drain after using Monat.

"It's devastating!" said Heather Fox, a customer in Phoenix.

"I had bald spots in the back of my hair," reported Amber
Alabaster of Oklahoma City.

Autumn Thomas, a mother in Canada, sent us pictures of her 2-
year-old son's abrupt and acute hair loss.  She included a
doctor's diagnosis tying it, as well as pain and redness on the
scalp, directly to Monat shampoo.

Heather Fox used it on her son too.

"And right away he had a reaction to his scalp.  He had big, red,
open sores throughout his scalp. It was really itchy."

As a salesperson, Erin is what the company calls a Market
Partner.

"I have over 100 people in my downline, customers and Market
Partners.  I reached up to five figures in those eight months in
additional income.  So realizing what was happening was a hard
pill to swallow."

Her decision to stop selling Monat didn't come easily.

"I was crying to my husband," she recalls.  "I was vacuuming
every day because I was losing so much hair.  And I think I was
in denial. I  didn't want to believe it was the product."

All three women say their Market Partners told them that it was a
problem with them and they needed to go to their doctor.

"So I did go to the doctor," said Amber.

"I had a full panel done, blood work, everything," Heather
explained.

"And there was nothing that pointed to a reason -- besides
product use -- of why I lost my hair," Erin said.

They and consumers who complained online were told it was normal
and part of a detox process documented in the company's own sales
literature.

"We no longer do that.  We don't do it," said Monat spokesperson
Gene Grabowski regarding using the term "detox."

Monat would only agree to a phone interview where they told us
all the complaints just don't add up.

"To have this happen in such a short period of time,
statistically is impossible," Mr. Grabowski said.

They question consumer claims about their products.

"It's been a real challenge because we have seen the pictures
online and we've heard the complaints but we haven't seen any
documentation of accuracy of a single one."

There's a lot more to this story including FDA adverse event
reports, class action lawsuits and more. [GN]


NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Court Denies "Long" Class Certification Bid
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled ANTHONY D. LONG, the Plaintiff, v.
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 2:15-cv-01202
(S.D. W.Va.), the Hon Judge Thomas Johnston entered an order:

   1. granting in part and denying in part Defendant's motion for
      partial summary judgment; and

   2. denying Plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment and
      Plaintiff's motion for class certification.

The Court said, "This action will proceed against Nationstar on
Long's second individual claim, insofar as it is related to phone
calls allegedly made after the Effective Date, and Long's fourth
individual claim insofar as it is related to the request or
charging for attorneys' fees after the Effective Date."

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=6c3LkyK5


NEW MEXICO: Wage Theft Settlement Approved
------------------------------------------
Andy Stiny, writing for Sta. Fe New Mexican, reports that they
exchanged hugs, handshakes and congratulations in Spanish and
English, both inside and outside the Santa Fe courtroom March 9
afternoon. They came from the Navajo Nation, Santa Fe,
Albuquerque, Farmington and Gallup, but they all had one thing in
common.

They were low-wage workers who charged in a lawsuit against the
New Mexico Department of Workforce Solutions that they were
victims of wage theft. Their employers didn't pay or underpaid
them, they said, but when they filed complaints, the state did
not investigate and failed to enforce wage payment laws.

State District Judge David Thomson gave final approval March 9 to
an agreement worked out last year and commended the plaintiffs
and the state agency. "It was a good resolution to a difficult
issue," Thomson told the courtroom where about 30 plaintiffs and
their battery of attorneys and supporters were present.

Under the agreement, Workforce Solutions will now reopen
investigations into cases that were previously closed and
will begin to investigate cases with wage theft claims over
$10,000, which it had declined to investigate in the past.

After spelling out what plaintiffs' attorneys and attorneys for
Workforce had cooperatively agreed on, lead attorney Elizabeth
Wagoner with the New Mexico Center on Law and Poverty said a key
reason for the hearing was to hear any objections to the
agreement. There were none, but four people who alleged they were
victims of wage theft, including Jose "Pancho" Olivas, who was
the lead plaintiff in the case when it was filed in 2017,
addressed the court. The litigation had been joined by several
workers' rights organizations including Somos Un Pueblo Unido and
the Center on Law and Poverty.

Olivas, a member of Somos Gallup, said he moved his family to
Farmington in 2014 to help remodel a restaurant and get it
operating. He and his wife worked there for six months.

"I would work between 65 and 100 hours per week, but the owner
would always pay me far fewer hours than I worked," Olivas told
the court. "And my wife would not get paid at all." Olivas tried
to file a complaint with Workforce Solutions shortly after he
left the job in 2015. "But they [Workforce] sent me a letter
saying they could not take my case because I was owed more than
$10,000."

That cap has been eliminated under the agreement, lead attorney
Elizabeth Wagoner, Esq. told the court, and Olivas' case will now
be reopened. Olivas said he joined the class-action lawsuit
because he "thought it was wrong the department would not
investigate my case because my ex-boss had stolen too much of my
hard-earned money."

Another party to the lawsuit, Madeline Cadman of Tohlakai on the
Navajo Reservation, also addressed the court. She said she worked
for a home care service provider for 12 years and in 2009 became
a field coordinator and would get paid an extra $15 per week for
16 hours of work.

"I estimated close to 3,000 hours in unpaid wages and overtime,"
Cadman told the judge. "I am looking forward to my case moving
forward and finally getting the justice and the wages that I
deserve."

Attorney Wagoner told the court the state agency had sent out
2,50o notices to class-action members and had received no
objections to the settlement. No money was sought in the lawsuit,
only "injunctive relief," she said.

The settlement requires that the department "vacate prior
practices" including not investigating claims over $10,000;
abandon prior procedures on investigating wage theft claims; stop
the practice of requiring that claimants make their claims in
English; and use a new "investigative manual," which is almost
200 pages, in future investigations. "We are close to a final
version now," Wagoner told the court.

There also will be radio ads to inform claimants of the right to
reopen claims for one year after March 9's settlement approval.

Gabriela Ibanez Guzman, Esq. staff attorney for Somos Un Pueblo
Unido, told the court, "We look forward to seeing it help recoup
their unpaid wages."

Workforce Solutions attorney Daniel Apodaca said they had worked
closely with the plaintiff's attorneys on the settlement. "We are
very much in favor of the settlement," he told the court.

After the hearing, five Somos clients -- three former and two
current employees of the Santa Fe Bar and Grill -- announced that
they have filed wage theft complaints unrelated to March 9's
settlement. "I don't think there is any validity to it," business
owner Robbie Day said March 9.

Day said he received a letter from the National Labor Relations
Board. He said the lead complainant is a disgruntled former
employee. He noted that he has about two dozen kitchen workers
who have not joined the complaint. Day said the National Labor
Relations Board told him they would look into it "to see if it
will go forward." [GN]


NEW POWER INC: "Calderon" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT, Wage Statements
---------------------------------------------------------------
Fernando Calderon, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. New Power, Inc., a California
corporation, and Does 1 to 100, Inclusive,, Defendants, Case No.
695542 (Cal. Super., February 27, 2018), seeks redress for
Defendants' failure to provide meal periods, rest periods,
minimum wages, overtime, complete and accurate wage statements,
reimbursement of business-related expenses resulting from unfair
business practices; waiting time penalties for unpaid wages due
upon termination in violation of the California Labor Code,
California Business and Professions Code; and declaratory relief,
damages, penalties, equitable relief, costs and attorneys' fees.

New Power Inc. -- www.newpower.company.com -- is a solar energy
company in Los Angeles where Calderon worked as an installer.
[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael R. Crosner, Esq.
      Zachary M. Crosner, Esq.
      Alfredo Nava, Esq.
      CROSNER LEGAL, PC
      433 N. Camden Dr., Ste. 400
      Beverly Hills, CA 90210
      Tel: (310) 496-4818
      Fax: (310)510-6429
      Email: mike@crosnerlegal.com
             zach@crosnerlegal.com
             alfredo@crosnerlegal.com


NEW YORK: NYCHA Fails to Address Mold Issues After Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Khristina Narizhnaya and Emily Saul, writing for New York Post,
report that an elderly Bronx woman who told The Post that her
home's mold infestation has been ignored by the city Housing
Authority even after she sued was finally paid a visit by the
agency over the weekend.

"I guess they got some word from somebody," 83-year-old
Albertha Fernandez said on March 11 from her Forest Houses
apartment.

The female NYCHA worker "came here on a Saturday, and they never
do no business on a Saturday," Ms. Fernandez said.

The worker said "she knew about" the mold, according to the
senior, adding the worker swore other staffers would be to
address the issue.

Ms. Fernandez, who has lived in the complex since 1956, said she
first started reporting the uninhabitable conditions in 2015 and
filed a lawsuit against NYCHA in December.

NYCHA is required to address most mold repairs within a week, as
per a 2013 settlement following a class-action lawsuit.  The law
allows them 15 days to resolve more complicated cases.

The city has not met either requirement, according to Fernandez.

"They think they can do this in two days, but they can't do this
in no two days," she said, gesturing to the mold-coated
structure.  "My feelings haven't changed, they ain't done nothing
yet."

NYCHA did not respond to a request for comment on March 11.

Ms. Fernandez said she plans to file another suit against the
department once she gets her hospital records -- claiming she
broke her hip moving items for NYCHA inspectors who never showed.
[GN]


NFL: Patriots Report Brain Injuries, Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------
Bob Hohler, writing for Boston Globe, reports that three times
between 2002 and 2005, convoys of duck boats carried
New England's Super Bowl champions through cascading confetti and
adoring crowds to Boston City Hall during the infancy of the
Patriots dynasty.

Of all the men on the boats, only three -- 40-year-old Tom Brady,
45-year-old Adam Vinatieri of the Colts, and 37-year-old Ben
Watson of the Ravens -- remained active last season in the
National Football League.

They are the fortunate few.  Dozens of their teammates who rode
those boats and shared their championship glory are now coping
with the consequences of football head injuries, their memories
in some cases wilting.

Some 42 of about 100 Patriots who were members of New England's
first three Super Bowl title teams have alleged in a landmark
class-action concussion suit against the NFL and the helmet maker
Riddell that they have experienced symptoms of brain injuries
caused by the repetitive head impacts they absorbed in games and
practices. [GN]


NORTHSHORE UNIVERSITY: Barrett Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled SAKEENA BARRETT, individually, and on
behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. NORTHSHORE
UNIVERSITY HEALTHSYSTEM, the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-09088
(N.D. Ill.), Ms. Sakeena Barrett, on behalf of herself and all
other similarly situated individuals, moves the Court pursuant to
Section 16(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act, for entry of an
order:

   1. conditionally certifying a FLSA Collective, defined as:

      "all current and former hourly Patient Access
      Representatives employed by Northshore University Health
      System at any time from December 19, 2014 through the date
      of judgment in this case;

   2. requiring Defendant to identify all putative members of the
      proposed Collective by providing a list of their names,
      last known addresses, dates of employment, phone numbers,
      and e-mail addresses in electronic and importable format,
      e.g., a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet, within 14 days of the
      entry of the order;

   3. permitting Plaintiff's counsel to send Court-approved
      Notice of this action to putative members of the proposed
      Collective via US Mail and email;

   4. permitting Plaintiff's counsel to send the shortened
      reminder Notice to putative members of the Collective via
      text message 30 days into the opt-in period; and

   5. approving a 60 day opt-in period from the date the Court-
      approved Notice is sent during which putative members of
      the Collective may join this case by returning their
      written consents.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=zyNbYOHr

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Jason T. Brown, Esq.
          Nicholas Conlon, Esq.
          Zijian Guan, Esq.
          JTB LAW GROUP, LLC
          500 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 600
          Chicago, IL 60611
          Telephone: (877) 561 0000
          Facsimile: (855) 582 5297
          E-mail: jtb@jtblawgroup.com
                  nicholasconlon@jtblawgroup.com
                  cocozguan@jtblawgroup.com

               - and -

          Matthew L. Turner, Esq.
          Charles R. Ash, IV, Esq.
          SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
          One Towne Square, Suite 1700
          Southfield, MI 48076
          Telephone: (248) 355 0300
          E-mail: MTurner@sommerspc.com
                  crash@sommerspc.com



ONTARIO: Suit Accuses Gov't of Leaving Foreign-Born Crown Wards
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jacques Gallant, writing for The Star, reports that Kiwayne Jones
was 21, when, after having spent about a decade moving around
foster homes as a Crown ward, he was given some of his
documentation by the Children's Aid Society. Among the papers was
a nearly-expired permanent residency card and a Jamaican birth
certificate no longer considered valid in that country.

Despite having lived here since he arrived with his parents at
age 10, Jones was not a Canadian citizen.

And he still isn't today.

He's now the representative plaintiff of a proposed $200-million
class-action lawsuit brought against the Ontario government by
individuals, who, as non-citizen children, were taken into the
care of CAS and made Crown wards.

The lawsuit alleges, among other things, that the government
failed in its duties "to take all reasonable steps to maintain
permanent residency status and pursue and obtain Canadian
citizenship for the non-citizen Crown wards in its care,"
according to a statement of claim filed in Superior Court.

Genevieve Oger, spokesperson for the Ministry of Children and
Youth Services, said the ministry "is committed to supporting the
highest quality services for children and youth who are in need
of protection.

"We are committed to protecting the best interests of Crown
wards. The Government of Ontario is currently reviewing the
claim, but, as this matter is subject to litigation, it would be
inappropriate to comment further," she said.

Jones, now 29, was born in Jamaica and became a permanent
resident of Canada in 1999, having arrived here with his parents.
Within less than a year after their arrival, Jones was
apprehended by the Toronto CAS and he was made a permanent Crown
ward in 2000, according to the statement of claim.

"I kind of felt disowned. I felt confused. I couldn't understand
what happened," Jones said in an interview with the Star, talking
about the confusion over his status in Canada after he was no
longer a Crown ward.

"When you're in your teenage years, you're trying to just be
comfortable in your skin, and here I was now at 21 and just not
knowing what my status is. I was disappointed.

"In theory, being a Crown ward, the likelihood of me returning to
my parents is less than one per cent, so the Crown has decided
they're going to be my parents, and all the circumstances around
that would mean I'm adopted as a Canadian, but that's not the
reality of it."

None of the allegations in the lawsuit have been proven in court;
it hasn't yet been certified by a judge as a class-action.

The proposed class members would include anyone who became a
Crown ward in Ontario after Jan. 1, 1966, and who was not a
Canadian citizen when he or she ceased to be a Crown ward.

It's unclear at this point just how many people could qualify to
be class members.

"The government is the legal parent of the children that it takes
into its permanent care. This action asserts that the government
has the parental duty to take steps to secure the immigration
status, permanent residency, and Canadian citizenship of its
Crown wards. Where that legal duty is ignored, the impact is
obviously very significant, both for the individual and for
society as a whole," said one of Jones' lawyers, Julie
Kirkpatrick, Esq. -- juliekirkpatrick@me.com

The proposed class-action comes as a 24-year-old Nova Scotia man
who arrived in Canada as a Somali child refugee, and who never
received Canadian citizenship while in foster care, fights to
remain in the country.

The case of Abdoul Abdi , who faces a deportation hearing after
serving five years in prison for offences including aggravated
assault, has sparked protests across the country, and drawn
attention to the issue of provincial governments failing to put
the children in their care on the path to citizenship.

Abdi was moved 31 times between foster homes. He lost his native
language and developed behavioural problems that advocates say
were not adequately treated. Those issues led to problems with
the justice system and his non-citizenship put him at risk of
deportation.

The Immigration and Refugee Board will decide on March 21 if the
deportation hearing should proceed; Abdi's lawyer has argued it
should be put on hold pending the outcome of a judicial review of
the case, which will be heard May 29 in Federal Court.

"In a way, (Abdi) is an extreme example of what happens when
children's aid societies don't fulfil their responsibilities,"
said Nova Scotia-based lawyer Mike Dull, Esq. who is co-counsel
on the Ontario class-action.

"And so Kiwayne's story is similar to what happened here in Nova
Scotia, but to, perhaps, a less pronounced degree. I think what
we've learned in preparing this class-action is that the issues
and affairs of children's aid societies in Ontario aren't unique
in Ontario."

Jones said he now has all of his documentation and is ready to
apply to become a citizen. He hopes the lawsuit will lead to
action and concrete policies on ensuring children's aid societies
stay on top of the immigration status of the children in their
care.

After he ceased being a Crown ward, Jones pursued post-secondary
education, studying construction and engineering. He now works as
a project co-ordinator in Toronto, and wants to pursue his dream
of building community centres.

"I felt I should dedicate a path of my life, working with CAS and
the government, to ensure that these facilities exist," he said.
"I want to consider myself a success story." [GN]


OPTIMUM OUTCOMES: Class Cert. Proceedings in "Dunn" Suit Stayed
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled KEVIN DUNN, the Plaintiff, v. OPTIMUM
OUTCOMES, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 18-CV-369 (E.D. Wisc.),
the Hon. Judge William E. Duffin entered an order granting
Plaintiff's motion to stay further proceedings on class
certification.

On March 9, 2018, the plaintiff filed a class action complaint.
At the same time, the plaintiff filed what the court commonly
refers to as a "protective" motion for class certification.
In this motion the plaintiff moved to certify the class described
in the complaint but also moved the court to stay further
proceedings on that motion.

In Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891, 896 (7th Cir. 2011),
the court suggested that class-action plaintiffs "move to certify
the class at the same time that they file their complaint." Id.
"The pendency of that motion protects a putative class from
attempts to buy off the named plaintiffs."  However, because
parties are generally unprepared to proceed with a motion for
class certification at the beginning of a case, the Damasco court
suggested that the parties "ask the district court to delay its
ruling to provide time for additional discovery or
investigation."

The parties are relieved from the automatic briefing schedule set
forth in Civil Local Rule 7(b) and (c). Moreover, for
administrative purposes, it is necessary that the Clerk terminate
the plaintiff's motion for class certification. However, this
motion will be regarded as pending to serve its protective
purpose under Damasco.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=x63YDMUw


PLY GEM: Faces Shareholder Class Action in Delaware
---------------------------------------------------
Andrews & Springer LLC, a boutique securities class action law
firm focused on representing shareholders nationwide, on March 12
disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed by another
law firm on behalf of shareholders of Ply Gem Holdings, Inc.
(NYSE:PGEM) ("Ply Gem" or the "Company") for possible corporate
misconduct and breach of fiduciary duty.

A copy of the complaint is available from the Court or from
Andrews & Springer LLC.  If you currently own shares of Ply Gem
and want to receive additional information and protect your
investments free of charge, please visit us at
http://www.andrewsspringer.com/cases-investigations/ply-gem-
class-action-investigation/ or contact Craig J. Springer, Esq. at
cspringer@andrewsspringer.com, or call toll free at 1-800-423-
6013.

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

On January 31, 2018, Ply Gem and Clayton, Dubilier & Rice
("CD&R"), a private equity firm, announced the signing of a
definitive merger agreement pursuant to which CD&R will acquire
Ply Gem in a merger worth $2.4 billion (the "Merger").  As a
result of the merger, Ply Gem's shareholders are only anticipated
to receive $21.64 per share in cash in exchange for each share of
Ply Gem.

A Ply Gem shareholder represented by another law firm has filed a
class action complaint against Ply Gem for breach of fiduciary
duty.  The complaint was filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery,
Case No. 2018-0151-AGB.

According to the lawsuit, on February 14, 2018, defendants filed
a preliminary information statement (the "Proxy") with the United
States Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") in connection
with the Merger.

The Proxy omits material information with respect to the Merger,
which renders the Proxy false and misleading.  Accordingly,
plaintiff seeks that the Merger should be enjoined until
defendants disclose more information to stockholders.

If you own shares of Ply Gem and want to receive additional
information and protect your investments free of charge, please
visit us at http://www.andrewsspringer.com/cases-
investigations/ply-gem-class-action-investigation/ or contact
Craig J. Springer, Esq. at cspringer@andrewsspringer.com, or call
toll free at 1-800-423-6013. You may also follow us on:

   LinkedIn -- www.linkedin.com/company/andrews-&-springer-llc
   Twitter -- www.twitter.com/AndrewsSpringer
   Facebook -- www.facebook.com/AndrewsSpringer for future
updates.

Andrews & Springer -- http://www.andrewsspringer.com-- is a
boutique securities class action law firm representing
shareholders nationwide who are victims of securities fraud,
breaches of fiduciary duty or corporate misconduct. [GN]


PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: "O'Brien" Case Settlement Has Initial OK
------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled MICHAEL O'BRIEN, on behalf of himself and
all other similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. PORTFOLIO
RECOVERY ASSOCIATES, LLC; and JOHN DOES 1-25, the Defendants,
Case No. 2:16-cv-04634-SCM (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Steve Mannion
entered an order:

   1. granting preliminary approval to a proposed settlement
      within the range of fairness and reasonableness; and

   2. provisionally certifying a class solely for settlement
      purposes:

      "all persons in the State of New Jersey to whom PRA sent a
      written communication to Plaintiffs Complaint, in an
      attempt to collect a debt, which originated with Washington
      Mutual Bank and/or Providian National Bank, and was not
      returned as undeliverable by the United States Post
      Service, during the period beginning August 1, 2015 to
      August 1, 2016".

The Class described above includes approximately 421 persons.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=hAUrGzQJ


PURDUE PHARMA: Lynnfield Hopes to File Opioid Crisis Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Itemlive.com reports that Lynnfield is a little town hoping to
bring pharmaceutical companies manufacturing opioid-based drugs
to court with a class-action lawsuit.

The town isn't undertaking its David versus Goliath routine
alone: By definition, class-action suits against opioid
manufacturers bring together communities intent on fighting the
addiction and drug overdose scourge sweeping the nation with a
number of goals in mind.

The most obvious goal is to help through legal action to
minimize, if not eliminate, the opportunities for high-powered
opioid painkillers to lead people down the road to addiction.
Another goal is to recover, on the behalf of communities, the
municipal costs related to fighting the war against addiction.

The Board of Selectmen gave Lynnfield's town counsel the green
light to retain a Connecticut firm in connection with the class
action suit.  The board's interest stems in no small part from
the Healthy Lynnfield anti-substance abuse initiative
wholeheartedly supported by board members.

Town Counsel Thomas Mullen told selectmen the town has nothing to
lose financially-speaking with its decision to challenge drug
companies.  But what is the so-called upside for Lynnfield and
any other community using the courts to fight addiction?

As in any other community across America, compassionate people in
Lynnfield know other people -- young and old from all ethnic and
socioeconomic classes -- who are in addiction's grips.  These
people are trying to steer addicts, in some cases, family
members, to treatment.

The people trying to fight addiction locally are police officers,
school employees -- people in the private and the public sector.
Some of their efforts save lives, but lives continue to be lost
to addiction.

Viewed from a cynical perspective, class-action suits against
drug companies are just another tactic generating mountains of
legal documents and billable hours for attorneys.  Viewed from a
progressive perspective, the suits are another weapon in the
arsenal assembled to fight addiction and battle it until no one
dies as a result of an overdose, or walks through life like a
zombie, stealing from family members and forfeiting ties with
family and society.

No one can deny every weapon in the arsenal needs to be in action
to defeat addiction.  It is an epidemic filling obituary pages in
newspapers and leaving behind broken families.

Again, cynics will say class-action suits against drug companies
are high-profile stunts signifying nothing and producing no
tangible results, even after years of legal maneuvering.  On the
other hand, maybe a high profile is exactly what is needed to
start scoring major wins in the fight against addiction. [GN]


REVOLUTION MOTORSPORTS: Billings Sues over Robocalls
----------------------------------------------------
FOSTER BILLINGS II, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. REVOLUTION MOTORSPORTS
d/b/a HARLEY-DAVIDSON OF COOL SPRINGS, a Louisiana company, the
Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-00277 (M.D. Tenn., March 9, 2018),
seeks to stop Defendant's practice of placing calls using an
automatic telephone dialing system and/or using an artificial or
prerecorded voice to the cellular telephones of consumers
nationwide without their prior express written consent; enjoin
Defendant from continuing to place prerecorded telephone calls to
consumers who did not provide their prior express written consent
to receive them -- and to those on the National Do Not Call
Registry; and obtain redress for all persons injured by its
conduct.

According to the complaint, the Defendant is a company that sells
new and used Harley-Davidsons to consumers. The Defendant has
turned to unsolicited telemarketing as a way to increase its
customer base, sell more motorcycles, and ultimately increase its
bottom line. Accordingly, Defendant makes prerecorded
telemarketing calls and/or has hired agents to make its
prerecorded telemarketing calls on its behalf.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian T. Boyd, Esq.
          Bennett J. Wills, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF BRIAN T. BOYD
          750 Old Hickory Blvd
          Bldg. 2, Ste. 150
          Brentwood, TN 37027
          Telephone: (615) 371 6119
          Facsimile: (615) 523 2595
          E-mail: brian@boydlegal.co
                  bennett@boydlegal.co

               - and -

          Manuel Hiraldo, Esq.
          HIRLADO P.A.
          Hirladolaw.com
          401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Ste 1400
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: Phone: (954) 400 4713
          E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com

               - and -

          Stefan Coleman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF STEFAN COLEMAN, LLC
          201 South Biscayne Boulevard, 28th Floor
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (877) 333 9427
          Facsimile: (888) 498 8946
          E-mail: law@stefancoleman.com


RIVMAR CORP: Delgado Seeks to Recover OT Pay Under FLSA & IMWL
----------------------------------------------------------------
ARMANDO DELGADO, on behalf of himself and all other plaintiffs
similarly situated v. RIVMAR CORPORATION and JESUS MARTINEZ, Case
No. 1:18-cv-01616 (N.D. Ill., March 5, 2018), seeks to recover
overtime pay pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
Illinois Minimum Wage Law.

Rivmar Corporation is incorporated in Illinois.  Rivmar offers a
complete and diverse range of construction services.  Jose
Martinez is the owner and president of Rivmar.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David J. Fish, Esq.
          Kim Hilton, Esq.
          John Kunze, Esq.
          THE FISH LAW FIRM
          200 E 5th Ave., Suite 123
          Naperville, IL 60563
          Telephone: (630) 355-7590
          Facsimile: (630) 778-0400
          E-mail: dfish@fishlawfirm.com
                  khilton@fishlawfirm.com


ROWDY FARMS: Faces "Smith" Suit in Western Dist. of Texas
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rowdy Farms, L.L.C.
The case is captioned as Timothy Smith, Individually and On
Behalf Of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. Rowdy
Farms, L.L.C., doing business as: 1845 Oil Field Transport;
Spotted Lakes, L.L.C., doing business as: 1845 Oil Field
Services; and Professional Drivers of Georgia, Inc., doing
business as: ProDrivers, the Defendants, Case No. 7:18-cv-00043-
DC (W.D. Tex., March 9, 2017). The case is assigned to the Hon.
Judge David Counts.

Rowdy Farms is a licensed and bonded freight shipping and
trucking company running freight hauling business from
Colleyville, Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joshua C. Borsellino, Esq.
          BORSELLINO, P.C.
          1020 Macon St., Suite 15
          Fort Worth, TX 76102
          Telephone: (817) 908 9861
          E-mail: josh@dfwcounsel.com


SCI DIRECT: Motion to Certify Class in "Romano" Underway
--------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled Nicole Romano, the Plaintiff, v. SCI
Direct, Inc., et al., the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-03537-ODW-
JEM (C.D. Cal.), the Court has heard oral argument from counsel
as stated on record for motion to certification class.  The
matter stands submitted. An order will issue, the Court said.

A copy of the Civil Minutes is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=7mXOXoCq

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adrian Robert Bacon, Esq.
          Thomas Edward Wheeler, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
          21550 Oxnard St Ste 780
          Woodland Hills, CA 91367 7104
          Telephone: (888) 595 9111
          Facsimile: (866) 633 0228
          E-mail: abacon@toddflaw.com
          twheeler@toddflaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Lonnie J Williams, Jr.
          Christopher P Leyel
          Quarles & Brady LLP
          Tucson Office
          One South Church Avenue, Suite 1700
          Tucson, AZ 85701
          Telephone: (520) 770 8700
          Facsimile: (520) 623 2418


SEVENTY SEVEN: Sudarsan Appeals Order and Judgment to 2nd Circuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Garud Sudarsan filed an appeal from the District
Court's memorandum decision and order dated February 6, 2018, and
judgment dated February 7, 2018, entered in the lawsuit entitled
Sudarsan v. Seventy Seven Energy, Inc., et al., Case No. 17-cv-
2342, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York (New York City).

The nature of suit is stated as other contract action.

The appellate case is captioned as Sudarsan v. Seventy Seven
Energy, Inc., et al., Case No. 18-637, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant Garud Sudarsan, Individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Olimpio Lee Squitieri, Esq.
          SQUITIERI & FEARON, LLP
          32 East 57th Street
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 421-6492
          E-mail: Lee@sfclasslaw.com

Defendants-Appellees Seventy Seven Energy, Inc., Patterson - UTI
Energy, Inc., and Pyramid Merger Sub, Inc., are represented by:

          Marisa Antos-Fallon, Esq.
          VINSON & ELKINS LLP
          666 5th Avenue
          New York, NY 10103
          Telephone: (212) 237-0104
          E-mail: mantosfallon@velaw.com


SK BEAUTY: Underpays Cashiers, "Jeon" Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------
KYEONG HO JEON and JIN RANG JEON, on behalf of themselves and
other similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. SK BEAUTY SUPPLY aka
SASSY BEUATY MART and SON CHON, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-
01020-TCB (N.D. Ga., March 9, 2018), seeks to recover overtime
wages, liquidated damages, interest, and reasonable attorneys'
fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

This action challenges Defendants' misclassification of
Plaintiffs and similarly situated Cashiers as exempt from the
overtime provisions of the FLSA. The Plaintiffs bring this action
on behalf of himself and similarly situated Cashiers in the
United States who worked for Defendants but were not paid
properly in accordance with the FLSA.

The Plaintiffs worked 57.5 hours per week for Defendants. The
Defendants failed to provide Plaintiffs with one and one-half
times his regular rate of pay for his work in excess of forty
hours in a workweek.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian G Kim, Esq.
          LEON & KIM LLC
          1815 Satellite Blvd. #303
          Duluth, GA 30097
          Telephone: (678) 878 4200
          Facsimile: (404) 878 4208
          E-mail: brian@leonandkim.com


SKYLINE METRICS: Sued by Shainsky for Illegally Contacting Phone
----------------------------------------------------------------
VICTOR SHAINSKY, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. SKYLINE METRICS, LLC DBA ONCEDRIVEN.COM;
BRYANT CASS; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, and each of them,
Case No. 2:18-cv-01867 (C.D. Cal., March 6, 2018), arises from
the Defendants' alleged illegal actions in negligently, knowingly
and willfully contacting the Plaintiff on his cellular telephone
in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Skyline Metrics, LLC, doing business as oncedriven.com, is a
business engaged in marketing and selling automobiles of others.
Bryant Cass is the president, chief executive officer and
founding partner of Skyline.  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


SOS INTERNATIONAL: Certification of Interpreters Class Sought
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled JOANNGUTIERREZ-BEJAR, MARIA PORTILLO,
ANDSTEPHANY MAGANA, on behalf of themselves and all other
similarly-situated persons, the Plaintiffs, v. SOSINTERNATIONAL,
LLC and DOES 1-10, the Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-09000-JAK-JEM
(C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs will move the Court on June 11, 2018,
to certify Plaintiffs' Third through Eighth Cause of Action as a
class action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, and defining the Class as:

   "all California interpreters "contracted" with SOSi from
   December 2015 to the present".

The Plaintiffs will also ask the Court to:

   a. require Defendant SOS International to disclose the names
      and contact information for all members of the putative
      Class who do not opt out pursuant to the parties' Belaire
      notice;

   b. certify the Plaintiffs Jo Ann Gutierrez-Bejar, Maria
      Portillo, and Stephany Magana as Class representatives;

   c. certify Plaintiffs' counsel Costa Kerestenzis and Lorrie
      Bradley as Class Counsel; and

   d. require Defendant SOSi or a third party administrator to
      send the Court-approved Notice of Class Action by U.S. Mail
      to all Class members.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=0uibUdqq

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Costa Kerestenzis, Esq.
          Lorrie E. Bradley, Esq.
          BEESON, TAYER & BODINE, APC
          483 9th St,
          Oakland, CA 94607
          E-mail: ckerestenzis@beesontayer.com
                  lbradley@beesontayer.com


SPRINT CORPORATION: "Rubio" Case Settlement Wins Final Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled SAMUEL RUBIO, individually and on behalf of
all other similarly situated employees, and on behalf of the
general public, the Plaintiff, v. SPRINT CORPORATION, a SPRINT
COMMUNICATION COMPANY, L.P., a Delaware Corporation,
SPRINT/UNITED MANAGEMENT CO., a Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1
through 20, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-02231-
SVW-GJS (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Stephen V. Wilson entered an
order granting Plaintiff's unopposed motion for final approval of
class settlement.

The following Settlement Class remains properly certified as a
class action for settlement purposes only: "All persons who are
or who have been employed by Defendant as anon-exempt employee in
one of Defendant's California retail stores from December 9, 2012
to March 4, 2018 who were employed as Lead Technical Consultant
during the Class Period.

The Plaintiff shall continue in his role as Class Representatives
and Class Counsel shall continue in its role as class counsel
with respect to all acts of consents required by, or which may be
given pursuant, the Settlement Class, and which are reasonably
necessary to consummate the Settlement.

The amounts agreed to be paid by Defendants, including the
Settlement Payments to be paid to Class Members as provided for
by the Settlement, are fair and reasonable under the facts of
this case.

A copy of the order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=HUyJFuC7


STARJEM RESTAURANT: "Mera" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wage under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------
DANILO MERA, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs
and the Class, the Plaintiff, v. STARJEM RESTAURANT CORP. d/b/a
FRESCO BY SCOTTO, STARJEM LLC d/b/a FRESCO ON THE GO, MARION
SCOTTO, ANTHONY SCOTTO, ELAINA SCOTTO and ROSANNA SCOTTO, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-02152-GHW (S.D.N.Y., March 9, 2018),
seeks to recover unpaid minimum wage, unpaid wages due to time
shaving, liquidated damages and attorneys' fees and costs
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor
Law.

According to the complaint, throughout his employment with
Defendants, the Plaintiff worked five hours per week with a
regular work schedule as follows: (i) 4:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. on
Mondays and Tuesdays, (ii) 5:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. on Wednesdays,
(iii) 10:30 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. with a one-hour lunch break
Fridays, and (iv) 3:30 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. on Saturdays. Based on
Plaintiff's observations and conversations with other employees,
all FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and Class members had similar work
hours. The Defendants knowingly and willfully violated the rights
of Plaintiff and Class members by failing to pay them minimum
wages in the lawful amount for hours worked. Defendants were not
entitled to take any tip credits because they failed to meet the
statutory requirements under the NYLL. As a result of Defendants'
unlawful employment practice, Plaintiff sustained injury,
including economic damages, the past and future emotional
distress, and the costs of bringing this action.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and the
Class:

          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


STEINHOFF: Veldhuizen Discusses Possibility of Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Biz Community reports that the abrupt and devastating wipe-out of
80% market value in the multi-national retailer, Steinhoff, has
without any doubt brought about more questions than answers in
the area of corporate law.  Naturally, the question on investors'
lips was whether Steinhoff can be held accountable for the
massive damages they suffered.  The mutual sentiment shared
between individual and institutional investors alike, naturally
leads one's thoughts to the possibility of instituting a class
action lawsuit in which all parties can claim their damages
against a single scapegoat.

Veldhuizen Attorneys, explains: "In basic terms, a 'class action'
is merely multi-party litigation which can also be referred to as
a collective lawsuit.  A class action concerns a group or class
of persons who share a sufficient common right or interest that
is being infringed by a common perpetrator.  By grouping these
individual interests, one has a single lawsuit on the same
merits."

The dramatized class action which we have become accustomed to
thanks to Hollywood seems far-fetched and is not intrinsic to our
Common Law.  According to our South African case law, a party or
parties have 'standing' (loci standi) if the matter relates to a
direct and substantive interest in the right of a person or
persons who institute legal proceedings that concern the subject
matter and outcome of litigation. Despite our common law
following a rather restricted approach to locus standi, enter the
Constitution.  Section 38(c) relaxed the position by giving
anyone, including a group or class, standing in instances
concerning the infringement of a right set out in the Bill of
Rights.  It must, however, be noted that this acknowledgement of
class action is confined to circumstances in which Constitutional
rights are infringed.

Locus standi in the case of Steinhoff:

Stephan Haynes of Gillan and Veldhuizen Inc. suggests that "one
must first establish whether the recent developments regarding
Steinhoff influenced or infringed either (i) a direct or
substantive right or sufficient interest, or (ii) a right as
provided for in the Bill of Rights.  The latter seems to be
unlikely, at face value, even in the most generous terms.
Therefore, we would need to look at The Companies Act*, The
Consumer Protection Act* and Common Law* for Clarity."

Application to the case of Steinhoff:

Since Steinhoff is a multi-national company registered in South
Africa, has its primary listing in Frankfurt, and registered
office in Amsterdam, its liability is not restricted to a single
jurisdiction.  Consequentially, class action has been initiated
in the Netherlands for the recovery of damages caused by
Steinhoff's actions misleading investors by providing incomplete
market information.

Recent reports have pointed to South African investors
approaching European law firms in the hope of joining their class
action suits.  Given the unestablished status of class action law
suits in South Africa, this option might be preferable to testing
the willingness of our courts to firstly allow such action and
secondly award large-scale damages on such grounds.

Summing up the plausibility of a successful class action,
Mr. Haynes says: "The information currently available to the
public leaves one to speculate and consider far-reaching legal
remedies.  It is important to be mindful of the fact that the
actions of the free-market trade caused share prices and investor
values to plummet.  It is therefore difficult to determine the
significance of the damage that was truly caused by the actions
of Steinhoff.  As stocks are still trading, investors' so-called
'damages' may be temporary.  It is important to consider that a
company cannot be held liable for harm suffered by investors who
sold their shareholding at a reduced price, as that is how the
exchange works.

It nevertheless seems evident that Steinhoff has committed
corporate governance contraventions, specifically with regard to
its accounting practices, and may have contravened the Companies
Act in various ways.  These causes of action will indeed provide
legal standing against the company or its directors, and could
very well be dealt with by means of collective litigation."
[GN]


STONEHOUSE REST: Refuses to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, Sanchez Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
CARLOS SANCHEZ, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. THE STONEHOUSE REST LLC and PETER BOTROS, in his
individual and professional capacities, Case No. 1:18-cv-01397-
ERK-ST (E.D.N.Y., March 6, 2018), alleges that the Defendants
engage in a company-wide pattern and practice of deliberately
denying their restaurant employees minimum and overtime wages, in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law
and the New York City Human Rights Law.

The StoneHouse Rest LLC is a domestic limited liability company
with its principal place of business located at 1150 Clove Road,
in Staten Island, New York.  Peter Botros is the owner of Stone
House and a resident of the state of New York.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant and party venue in
Staten Island called the Stone House at Clove Lakes.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SUNRISE FAMILY: "Mendez" Action to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jorge Mendez on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly
situated, known and unknown, Plaintiff, v. Sunrise Family
Restaurant of Loves Park, Inc. and Gani Jao, Individually,
Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-50074, (N.D. Ill., February 28, 2018),
seeks to recover all back wages owed, prejudgment interest on the
back wages owed, punitive damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and
costs incurred in the filing and prosecution of this action and
such other and further relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act
and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law.

Plaintiff worked at Defendant's restaurant as a cook from
approximately 2008 until approximately August 29, 2017. He claims
to have worked more than forty hours per work week without being
paid overtime. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Christopher J. Williams, Esq.
      Alvar Ayala, Esq.
      WORKERS' LAW OFFICE, PC
      53 W. Jackson Blvd, Suite 701
      Chicago, IL 60604
      Tel: (312) 795-9121
      Email: cwilliams@wagetheftlaw.com
             aayala@wagetheftlaw.com

             - and -

      Douglas M. Werman, Esq.
      Maureen A. Salas, Esq.
      Sarah J. Arendt, Esq.
      WERMAN SALAS P.C.
      77 West Washington, Suite 1402
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Tel: (312) 419-1008
      Email: dwerman@flsalaw.com
             msalas@flsalaw.com
             sarendt@flsalaw.com


SURETEMPS LLC: Court Certifies Hoppers Employees Class
------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled TERRY CATHERINE AND JAMIL LEE, the
Plaintiffs, v. SURETEMPS, LLC; FULL FORCE STAFFING, LLC; AND
METRO SERVICE GROUP, INC., the Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-
07561-SM-JVM (E.D. La.), the Hon. Judge Susie Morgan entered an
order:

   1. certifying a class of:

      "all persons employed by Defendants as hoppers since March
      2015 who were paid on a daily flat rate of basis but were
      not paid at a rate equal to or higher than the federal
      minimum wage rate and/or who were not paid at an overtime
      rate of one and one-half times their regular rate of pay
      for each hour worked in excess of 40 per week";

   2. directing Defendants to provide the names, addresses, and
      e-mail addresses (if known) for the Putative Class Members
      no later than 14 days following the date of this Order.
      This information will be provided in a usable electronic
      format, such as Excel.;

   3. directing Plaintiffs' counsel, 14 days from receipt of the
      Putative Class Members' contact information, to distribute
      the notice and consent forms to the Putative Class Members;

   4. directing Plaintiffs' counsel to send the Putative Class
      Members an initial Notice and Consent form by (a) regular
      First Class Mail and (b) e-mail. In the event that more
      than 25% of the Notices are returned as Undeliverable via
      First Class Mail within 30 days of the beginning of the
      Notice Period, Defendants will provide telephone numbers
      for the Putative Class Members whose Notices were returned
      Undeliverable within seven days of being provided with the
      names of Putative Class Members whose Notices were returned
      Undeliverable. The telephone numbers shall be used only to
      text a mutually agreeable text message to individuals whose
      Notice was returned containing of a picture of the Notice
      and a link to the Opt-In Form;

   5. directing Putative Class Members, within 90 days from the
      initial mailing of the Notice and Consent form to file the
      Consent form;

   6. directing Plaintiff's Counsel to provide Defendant's
      Counsel with copies of the signed consent forms on a
      regular, rolling basis as they are received and Plaintiff's
      Counsel to file signed consent forms with the Court within
      14 days of receipt;

   7. directing Plaintiffs' counsel to maintain the physical
      addresses, and e-mail addresses as confidential records and
      shall not share the information with any third-party. At
      the conclusion of the opt-in period, Plaintiffs' counsel
      must destroy/delete all copies of the information
      pertaining to any Putative Class Member who did not timely
      file a Consent form; and

   8. directing Plaintiffs' counsel to avoid using the e-mail
      addresses for any purpose other than to send an electronic
      copy of the Court-approved Notice and Consent Form to the
      Putative Class Members.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=iWvq8WCn


TECH MAHINDRA: Kumar Seeks to Certify 2 Classes of Engineers
------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled PANKAJ KUMAR, MUSTAFA BAIG, DANIEL
KLOSOWSKI, and IVAN CRADDOCK, on behalf of themselves, those
similarly situated, and the proposed Rule 23 Class, the
Plaintiff, v. TECH MAHINDRA (AMERICAS), INC., the Defendant, Case
No. 4:16-cv-00905-JAR (E.D. Mo.), the Plaintiffs move the Court
for an Order:

   1. certifying Missouri and Washington classes of:

      "U3 IT Delivery Engineers whose job it was to provide
      hands-on client-facing IT services during the final stages
      (testing and production support) of the SDLC";

   2. appointing Counsel for Plaintiffs as Class Counsel;

   3. appointing Plaintiffs Pankaj Kumar and Ivan Craddock as
      Class Representatives; and

   4. directing parties to meet and confer and submit to the
      Court the notice to be sent to all members of the proposed
      Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 classes within fourteen (14) days of the
      Court's order granting the instant motion.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=ZIjzp8cW

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Rachhana T. Srey, Esq.
          Brittany B. Skemp, Esq.
          NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
          80 South 8th Street, Suite 4600
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 256 3239
          Facsimile: (612) 215 6870
          E-mail: srey@nka.com
                  bskemp@nka.com

               - and -

          Benjamin F. Westhoff, Esq.
          Jessica M. Scales, Esq.
          SEDEY HARPER WESTHOFF, P.C.
          2711 Clifton Ave.
          St. Louis, MO 63139
          Telephone: (314) 773 3566
          Facsimile: (314) 773 3615
          E-mail: bwesthoff@sedeyharper.com
          jscales@sedeyharper.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Robert A. Kaiser, Esq.
          Jovita M. Foster, Esq.
          Jeremy M. Brenner, Esq.
          Ida Shafaie, Esq.
          Armstrong Teasdale, Esq.
          7700 Forsyth Blvd., Suite 1800
          St. Louis, MO 63105


TEXAS CES: Debord Seeks to Certify Class of Employees
-----------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled JERRY DEBORD, Individually and on behalf of
Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. TEXAS CES INC., and
TEXAS CES INC. d/b/a FELDERHOFF BROTHERS DRILLING SERVICES, Case
No. 7:17-cv-00215-DC (W.D. Tex.), the Plaintiff asks the Court
for an order:

   1. conditionally certifying a class of:

      "all persons employed by Defendants as Salaried Supervisors
      and/or Salaried Coordinators at any time since November 1,
      2014"; and

   2. directing approval and distribution of notice and for
      disclosure of contact information.

The Plaintiff brought this suit to recover overtime wages and
other damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=dJXP9c4k

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lawrence D. Smith, Esq.
          Mark A. McNitzky, Esq.
          Andrew P. Burnside, Esq.
          William H. Payne, Esq.
          OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
          2700 Weston Centre
          112 East Pecan Street
          San Antonio, TX 78205
          Telephone: (210) 354 1300
          Facsimile: (210) 277 2702
          E-mail: larry.smith@ogletreedeakins.com
                  mark.mcnitzky@ogletreedeakins.com
                  drew.burnside@ogletreedeakins.com
                  bill.payne@ogletreedeakins.com


THE NOW: "Richards" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages, Reimbursements
--------------------------------------------------------------
Copeland Richards as an individual, and on behalf of all
similarly situated employees, Plaintiff, v. The Now LLC and Does
1 through 50, inclusive, Defendant, Case No. BC695628 (Cal.
Super., February 27, 2018), seeks redress for Defendants' failure
to provide meal periods, rest periods, minimum wages, overtime,
complete and accurate wage statements, reimbursement of business-
related expenses resulting from unfair business practices.  The
Plaintiff also seeks waiting time penalties for unpaid wages due
upon termination pursuant to the California Labor Code,
California Business and Professions Code, plus declaratory
relief, damages, penalties, equitable relief, costs and
attorneys' fees.

The Now owns and operates massage boutiques in at least four
locations in Los Angeles, and its principal place of business is
located at 8419 Santa Monica Boulevard #269, Los Angeles,
California 90046. Richards worked as a masseuse at their Silver
Lake location.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kevin Mahoney, Esq.
      Alina B. Mazeika, Esq.
      MAHONEY LAW GROUP, APC
      249 E. Ocean Blvd.,Ste. 814
      Long Beach, CA 90802
      Telephone: (562) 590-5550
      Facsimile: (562) 590-8400
      Email: kmahoney@mahoney-law.net
             amazeika@mahoney-law.net


THOMAS DART: Class Certification Denied in "Polletta" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled Nicholas Polletta, the Plaintiff, v. Thomas
Dart, et al., the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-09492 (N.D. Ill.),
the Hon. Judge John Z. Lee entered an order denying Plaintiff's
motion for class certification.

According to the docket made by the Clerk on March 28, 2018,
Plaintiff Polletta's motion for class certification is denied. A
written order will be issued shortly.

A copy of the Docket Entry is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Rp7BS4SM


THOMAS DART: Class Certification Denied in "Hacker" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled Gerald Hacker, the Plaintiff, v. Thomas
Dart, et al., the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-04282 (N.D. Ill.),
the Hon. Judge John Z. Lee entered an order denying Plaintiff's
motion for class certification.

According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on March 28,
2018, Plaintiff Hacker's motion for class certification is
denied. A written order will be issued shortly.

A copy of the Docket Entry is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Ezki9FK4


TIGER BRANDS: Richard Spoor Attorneys, Marler Clark Hit with Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Koketso Motau, writing for Eyewitness News, reports that Richard
Spoor Incorporated Attorneys and the US food safety firm Marler
Clark have teamed up to file a class action lawsuit against Tiger
Brands.

The lawsuit is filed on behalf of the families of people who died
after eating processed meat contaminated with listeria produced
and distributed by the company.

This comes after the Health Minister Aaron Motsoaledi's
announcement that the source of the listeriosis outbreak is two
brands of polony by Tiger Brands of Enterprise Foods and Rainbow
Chicken.

The company has already recalled the processed meat products.

Richard Spoor, Esq. says the class action lawsuit is aimed at
bringing justice to the victims.

"We've looked very closely at the work that was done by the
National Institute of Communicable Disease, it's research that
they've done over many months and together we're absolutely
convinced and satisfied that we have a very strong case against
Tiger Brands." [GN]


TIGER BRANDS: Richard Spoor to Launch Listeriosis Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Burkhardt, writing for Bloomberg News, reports that victims
of the world's biggest listeriosis outbreak in South Africa plan
to file a class-action case against Tiger Brands Ltd. within the
next two weeks, according to a lawyer involved in the case.

Richard Spoor, known in South Africa for his work for mineworkers
seeking compensation for lung damage, is teaming up with Seattle-
based firm Marler Clark on the listeriosis case, he said on
March 12.  Tiger Brands's Enterprise unit has closed two
factories and recalled ready-to-eat meat products after
government tests linked one of its facilities to the outbreak.

"We have instructions from a large enough group of victims and a
representative group of victims" to file a suit, Mr. Spoor said
by phone.

Tiger Brands hasn't received notification of any class action,
said Nevashnee Naicker, a company spokeswoman.

The Department of Health traced the outbreak, in which more than
180 people have died, to Tiger Brands' Enterprise factory in
Polokwane, in Limpopo province, and said it would support anyone
intending legal action.  While the department showed Tiger Brands
confirmation that the ST6 strain of listeria, which has been
linked to the deaths, was found at the facility, tests haven't
shown the strain in the company's products, Mr. Naicker said.

Consumer protection rules state that harm caused by a defective
product can hold the distributor strictly liable, Mr. Spoor said.

"I can't see how it would be in Tiger Brands' interest to contest
this aggressively," he said. [GN]


TIGER BRANDS: CEO Comments on Possible Listeriosis Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chronicle reports that as calls mount for the families of the 183
people who died from the listeriosis outbreak to launch a class
action, Tiger Brands CEO Lawrence MacDougall believes it's still
too early to make that decision.

However, he said, the company would face each case on "its
merits".

The dominant outbreak strain of the food-borne disease, ST6, was
officially confirmed to be present at the company's Enterprise
Foods Polokwane factory.

"We'll have to deal with [the class action] when we get to it,
right now our focus is on food safety.  Our immediate priority
has been to shut our facilities, stop deliveries and withdraw our
products from the shelves," Mr. MacDougall said on March 9.

The day before, Health Minister Aaron Motsoaledi had assured
South Africans in a parliamentary debate that his department
would help any family with the necessary information and data on
the outbreak and disease should they want to sue the company.

"We are prepared to help families in whatever way, including
giving them information and data, even advice if they so wish to
litigate," he said.

Mr. MacDougall, however, maintained that no direct link had been
established yet between its products and the deaths resulting
from the listeriosis outbreak.

"It is premature to speculate," Mr. MacDougall said.

The World Health Organisation labelled the country's outbreak as
the largest recorded in the world. A total of 967 cases had been
reported since January last year, with a rising death toll of 183
- 79 of which were newborn babies.

On March 11 law firm Richard Spoor Incorporated announced it had
teamed up with top US food safety firm Marler Clark to file a
class action against Tiger Brands on behalf of the victims'
families.

Economic Freedom Fighters leader Julius Malema said his party
would instruct its lawyers to file court papers instituting legal
action this coming week.

Tiger Brands closed its Enterprise facilities in Polokwane and
Germiston and said it had withdrawn 3 500 tonnes of ready-to-eat
processed meat, which would be incinerated according to
guidelines set out by the National Consumer Commission.

Enterprise reportedly produces 60 000 tonnes of processed meat
every year at the two plants.

Polony products from Rainbow Chicken's Wolwehoek facility also
tested positive for the bacterium, but the sequence type hadn't
been confirmed yet as the deadly ST6 strain.  The polony products
were recalled by the company, as the health department continued
its investigation into the facility.

During a visit to the Enterprise facility in Polokwane, several
workers confirmed they were deep-cleaning the machinery and had
been told they would be continuing with cleaning operations.
They did not know when they would return to their regular food-
processing jobs.

The company still maintained at the weekend that, through its
testing, it had been "well within" the Listeria guidelines as per
the SA National Standard for Processed Meat Products. According
to regulations, a certain level of Listeria bacteria is allowed -
- less than 100 colony forming units (CFUs)   Tiger Brands said
its swabs measured 10 CFUs.

"The industry has not been guided on what the infectious dose of
ST6 is in products -- in other words, while the government
standard for Listeria is below 100 CFU, the industry has not been
informed about the level of ST6 that could make you sick.
Enterprise Foods is [now] applying a measured standard of "not
detected'," company spokesperson Nevashnee Naicker said.

Asked if any of the employees at either Enterprise facilities had
contracted the disease, Mr. Naicker said: "None that we are aware
of.  We have, however, begun health monitoring and screening
employees at the two facilities, in consultation with the union."
[GN]


TIGER BRANDS: Products Implicated in Listeriosis Still Being Sold
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bulelwa Payi, writing for Weekend Argus, reports that the
listeriosis outbreak has not deterred some Cape Town retailers
from continuing to sell food products similar to those implicated
in at least 183 deaths across South Africa, as their suppliers
have not advised them to remove the items.

The Department of Health issued a recall notice of processed meat
products after the killer bacterium was traced to Enterprise
factories in Polokwane and Germiston and advised the public to
avoid all processed meat products that were sold as ready-to-eat.

The department said that while polony was definitely implicated,
there was a risk of cross-contamination of other ready-to-eat
processed meat products, either at production, distribution or
retail.

This was because listeria on the exterior casing of polony could
be transferred to other products it comes into contact with,
including viennas, Russians, frankfurters, other sausages and
other "cold meat" products that are typically not cooked before
eating.

A human rights lawyer plans to launch a class action lawsuit
against South African food producer Tiger Brands on behalf of the
families of people who died and those affected by the listeria
outbreak.

The planned class action is being prepared by Richard Spoor, who
has spearheaded legal action against gold producers over the
fatal lung disease silicosis for which the companies have made R5
billion in provisions.

"I expect to launch it in two to three weeks," Spoor told
Reuters.

Major retailers have removed products from their shelves
following the recall, but other small businesses claimed their
products were safe to eat as they were "not from the implicated
manufacturers", Enterprise and Rainbow.

In Wynberg, an owner of three businesses that continues to sell
viennas and other ready-to-eat meat products said their supplier,
Britos, had not advised them not to.

Delores Melim said the business had, however, taken a knock over
the past few days as there was a decline in the demand for those
products.

"People are aware of the recall.  We queried with our suppliers
and we were told that the products were safe to eat.  But
customers are clever, they're not buying.  We've not discarded
any products yet.  The stock is sitting there, but it's in small
quantities.  This week, I didn't place any orders," she said.

Ms. Melim said she would now assess the situation and her
decision on the products would be guided by the customers.

Atlantic Meat, which has several stores across the city, put up a
notice inside the Wynberg store and on the shelves, informing
customers that their products were safe to eat as they were not
from the implicated factories.

According to food technologist for Anchor Foods, which supplies
Atlantic Meat, tests done at its facilities showed no trace of
the killer bacterium as the company took food safety seriously.

Melanie Britow said the company had heightened its staff training
on how to handle food in the wake of the outbreak.

"If there is a safety risk, we will initiate a recall," she
added.

Some of the street vendors who sell vetkoek had stopped selling
processed meat products and replaced these with other protein
sources such as liver and burger patties.

"The replacements are not selling as fast as the polony and
Russian sausages, even though they cost the same price.
Customers love their vetkoek with polony and sausages," one of
the sellers said.

However, others continued to sell the products as they claimed
they were not aware of the recall of the products.

The Cape Chamber of Commerce said it had no idea at this stage
what financial impact the recall has had on local businesses.

The Muslim Judicial Council Halal Trust cautioned Muslim
consumers to heed the advice of the health minister.

"I encourage Muslims to abstain and steer clear of all processed
meats, whether from Muslim butchers or other outlets until the
listeriosis issue is contained and the root cause actually
determined.

"Even though the processed chicken is halal, because of the
listeriosis bacterial infection, it is unsafe to eat, therefore
we are discouraging anyone to eat it and declaring it as unfit
for Muslim consumption," trust director, Shaykh Sedick said.

A large catering service said it had moved swiftly to act on the
recall.

Roy van der Zwan, marketing director of Fedics which supplies
services businesses, schools, colleges, hospitals and care
facilities, said the company had isolated the implicated
suppliers from its procurement chain.

"We've stopped ordering from the category of products from them
and have found other suppliers. We've also disposed of stock in
our system and sterilised our kitchens and equipment throughout
the country," he added.

The Western Cape Department of Education said it had alerted
schools about the outbreak, although its school nutrition
programme did not include processed meat.  In a circular it sent
to the schools it advised caution when buying food from merchants
who might be selling food near schools.

The School Governing Bodies Foundation warned governing bodies to
be vigilant about any processed foods being sold in tuck shops,
at fàtes or at sporting fixtures.

Meanwhile, Tiger Brands said it had withdrawn about 3500 tons of
the products and its partners would manage the safe disposal of
all the returned products. [GN]


TOKYO ELECTRIC: Class Actions Over Fukushima Disaster Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------------
Shizume Saiji, writing for Nippon, reports that legal fallout
from the March 2011 accident at Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power
Station continues, as dozens of lawsuits and injunctions make
their way through Japan's judicial system.  The final rulings
could have a profound impact on the government's energy policy
and approach to risk mitigation.

Court cases stemming from the meltdown at Fukushima Daiichi can
be divided broadly into two categories.  In the first are efforts
to assign responsibility for the accident, including one high-
profile criminal case and numerous civil suits by victims seeking
damages from the government and owner-operator Tokyo Electric
Power Company.  The second group consists of lawsuits and
injunctions aimed at blocking or shutting down operations at
plants other than Fukushima Daiichi (whose reactors have been
decommissioned) on the grounds that they pose a grave safety
threat. In the following, we briefly survey these cases and their
implications.

A Foreseeable Danger?
According to lawyer Managi Izutaro, who is handling the largest
class-action suit against TEPCO and the government, about 30 such
cases are currently moving through courts around the nation.
Most of the plaintiffs are Fukushima evacuees who filed suit in
the districts to which they fled after the accident.

Meanwhile, TEPCO's former chairman and two former vice-presidents
are facing charges of professional negligence resulting in death
and injury in a criminal case currently before the Tokyo District
Court.  Tokyo prosecutors initially declined to bring charges,
but in an unusual reversal, they were overruled by a
prosecutorial review panel composed of ordinary citizens.

In all of these cases, the pivotal issues facing the court are
(1) whether TEPCO and the state could have foreseen the danger
posed to the Fukushima plant by a tsunami on the order of that
triggered by the Great East Japan Earthquake, and (2) whether
they could realistically have prevented a serious accident
through risk-mitigation measures.  The "state" in this case is
the defunct Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency (NISA), the
regulatory body formerly in charge of the inspection and
licensing of nuclear power facilities.

Construction of Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station began in
1967, when the government's ambitious nuclear energy development
program was shifting into high gear.  Seismology and tsunami
simulation have advanced considerably since those days, but at
the time, the maximum height of any potential tsunami relevant to
the Fukushima Daiichi site was estimated at a little more than 3
meters.  When the facility was built, in other words, there was
no way for TEPCO or the government to foresee that waves 10-15
meters in height could one day inundate the plant.

However, as scientists continued to collect and analyze data on
earthquake and tsunami activity around Japan, their thinking
evolved.  In July 2002, a government panel of seismologists
issued a report estimating a 20% chance that a magnitude-8
earthquake would trigger a dangerous tsunami off the coast of
northeastern Japan within the next three decades.  That August,
NISA asked TEPCO to conduct a tsunami simulation for Fukushima
Daiichi and other plants on the basis of that report, but TEPCO
refused, and NISA did not press the matter.

When TEPCO finally did conduct such a simulation in 2008, it
concluded that a major earthquake could trigger a tsunami as high
as 15.7 meters, tall enough to flood the Fukushima Daiichi plant.
However, the utility took no action to mitigate the risk (as by
building up the facility's seawalls or taking other measures to
protect backup generators), and it failed to report the findings
to NISA until early 2011, just weeks before the disaster.

Complacency and Opacity
In the wake of the Fukushima accident, NISA (since replaced by
the Nuclear Regulation Authority) was faulted for its lack of
independence.  The agency was under the authority of the Ministry
of Economy, Trade, and Industry, which promotes the use of
nuclear power, and officials maintain that its regulatory powers
were limited.  In addition, a closed, inbred environment
encouraged unhealthy ties between NISA and the electric power
industry.  As a consequence, NISA had fallen into the habit of
accommodating and supporting the utilities instead of overseeing
them.  TEPCO, for its part, had developed a deeply rooted culture
of denial, habitually concealing information that might supply
ammunition to anti-nuclear activists or fuel fears among the
local citizenry.  The company brushed off the warnings,
convincing itself that the danger from a giant tsunami was purely
hypothetical.

So far, district courts have reached decisions on three major
class-action suits, and in each case they have agreed with the
plaintiffs that the state and TEPCO could have foreseen the
danger from a major tsunami once the 2002 report on earthquake
risks was released.  Two of the district courts, Maebashi and
Fukushima, found both the state and TEPCO negligent for failing
to prevent the meltdowns.  The Chiba District Court, on the other
hand, dismissed claims against the state on the grounds that the
government was focusing on earthquake safety at the time and may
not have been able to formulate effective measures in time to
protect Fukushima Daiichi against the March 2011 tsunami.  With
the government and TEPCO girding up to appeal the lower courts'
decisions, the cases could drag on for years.

The final verdicts could have important ramifications in a
country prone to natural disasters.  Despite the scientific
advances of the last few decades, our ability to predict major
earthquakes, tsunami, and volcanic eruptions remains extremely
limited.  How can we ensure that the design and operation of
existing nuclear power plants reflect the latest scientific
assessments of long-term risks? Are the government and industry
responsible for guarding against catastrophic events, however low
their probability?

A Tsunami of Lawsuits
Attorney Managi Izutaro estimates that more than 10,000
plaintiffs are currently involved in class-action suits against
TEPCO and the state.  He represents 4,200 victims in the largest
of these cases so far. Managi argues that allowing TEPCO to keep
Fukushima Daiichi operating after learning of the risks from a
tsunami was "like giving an airline permission to fly an unsafe
jetliner."

In its ruling on Managi's case last October, the Fukushima
District Court agreed that both TEPCO and the state were
negligent and ordered damages paid to a majority of the
plaintiffs.  But the victims and their lawyers deemed the amount
and scope of the damages inadequate and opted to appeal.  TEPCO
and the state have appealed the ruling as well.

The case now moves to the Sendai High Court.  "Ultimately, we're
demanding that Fukushima Prefecture be restored to the way it was
before the nuclear accident," Managi explains. "At the same time,
we're fighting to end the use of nuclear power."

Managi stresses the importance of mobilizing a large number of
victims.  "Unless you get together a big group of plaintiffs,
their case won't resonate with the judges," says Managi.  "The
number of people involved in litigation and the intensity of
public sentiment are key. I believe the real battle takes place
outside the courtroom."

In organizing victims into large class-action suits, Managi and
others lawyers are following the same playbook that helped turn
the tide against big industrial polluters in the 1960s and 1970s,
when victims of Minamata disease (mercury poisoning) and itai-
itai disease (cadmium poisoning) successfully banded together to
seek legal redress.  Whether the current movement will have a
comparable impact remains to be seen. [GN]


TOWNE PROPERTIES: Court Certifies Equitable Remedy Class
--------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled Connie J. Duggan, the Plaintiff, v. Towne
Properties Group Health Plan, et al., the Defendants, Case No.
1:15-cv-00623-MRB (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Michael R. Barrett
entered an order:

   1. denying Plaintiff's motion for class certification as to
      Injunction Class (MedBen Only):

      "all current and past participants in any ERISA-governed
      employee welfare benefit plan for which MedBen serves as
      third-party administrator"; and

   2. granting certification as to Towne Properties and the
      Equitable Remedy Class:

      "all participants in any ERISA-governed employee welfare
      benefit plan for which Defendant Medical Benefits
      Administrators, Inc. acted to adjudicate claims for
      benefits and issued at least one notification of an
      "adverse benefit determination" during the class period,
      September 25, 2009 to present.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=gTTKBcQL


TRANSGLOBAL SERVICES: "Bradbury" Seeks to Recover OT Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
JOSH BRADBURY; SHELDON SIDES; TRACY EVERETT; JEREMY BERRY;
CYNTHIA BROADWAY; JOSH BROADWAY; Individually and On Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated v. TRANSGLOBAL SERVICES, LLC;
JEFFERY COLWELL; and JOHN RATLIFF, Case No. 7:18-cv-00036 (W.D.
Tex., March 5, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
compensation and all other available remedies under the Fair
Labor Standards Act of 1938.

Transglobal Services, LLC, is a Texas limited liability company
with its principal place of business in Texas.  Transglobal is a
full service field service provider in the energy industry and
primarily provides surveying, right of way and seismic services
to oil and gas producers.  Messrs. Colwell and Ratliff are the
owners and the primary decision-makers of Transglobal.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Josh Borsellino, Esq.
          BORSELLINO, P.C.
          1020 Macon St., Suite 15
          Fort Worth, TX 76102
          Telephone: (817) 908-9861
          Facsimile: (817) 394-2412
          E-mail: josh@dfwcounsel.com


U.S. CARGO: Court Certifies FLSA Class in Hall, et al. Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled DAVID HALL, et al., the Plaintiffs, v. U.S.
CARGO AND COURIER SERVICE, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-
00330-EAS-EPD (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Edmund A. Sargus, Jr.
entered an order:

   1. conditionally certifying class pursuant to the Fair Labor
      Standards Act:

      "all individuals who have performed or currently perform
      delivery services for the Defendant as independent contract
      delivery Drivers within the State of Ohio at any time from
      March 15, 2014 through and including the present and until
      the final resolution of the case, and who have not been
      paid the statutory minimum and/or overtime wage during
      anytime in their employment";

   2. directing Defendants to identify all putative class members
      within 21 days of the issuance of this Opinion and Order;
      and

   3. approving opt-in notice for distribution to the putative
      class.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=zzaKUQJ7


UBER TECH: Vehicles not Wheelchair Accessible Claims "Smith"
------------------------------------------------------------
Judith Smith, Julie Fuller, Sascha Bittner, Independent Living
Resources Center of San Francisco and Community Resources for
Independent Living, on behalf of all others similarly-situated,
Plaintiffs, v. Uber Technologies, Inc. and Rasier, LLC,
Defendants, Case No. RG18894507 (Cal. Super., February 27, 2018)
seeks injunctive and declaratory relief under the Unruh Civil
Rights Act.

Plaintiffs are wheelchair-ridden individuals who claim that Uber
has failed to provide its transportation service to individuals
who use wheelchair accessible vehicles.

Uber Technologies, Inc., is a ride hailing service that connects
drivers with passengers who are looking for a vehicle for hire.
Uber markets its ride hailing service to passengers and drivers,
including through a website it operates, www.uber.com. Rasier is
a subsidiary of Uber Technologies, Inc.

Independent Living Resource Center of San Francisco and Community
Resources for Independent Living are disability rights advocacy
and support organizations. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Sidney Wolinsky, Esq.
      Melissa Riess, Esq.
      DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES
      112001 Center Street, Fourth Floor
      Berkeley, CA 94704-1204
      Telephone: (510) 665-8644
      Facsimile: (510) 665-8511
      Email: swolinsky@dralegal.org
             mriess@dralegal.org

             - and -

      Mark A. Chavez, Esq.
      Nance F. Becker, Esq.
      CHAVEZ & GERTLER LLP
      42 Miller Avenue
      Mill Valley, CA 94941
      Telephone: (415) 381-5599
      Facsimile: (415) 381-5572
      Email: mark@chavezgertler.com
             nance@chavezgertler.com


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: "Safe Rides Fee" Class Action Heads to Trial
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bloomberg Law reports that Uber Technologies Inc. paid thousands
of drivers less than they were entitled to, a federal judge in
California ruled.  Now the ride-hailing company likely heads to
trial to determine how much the drivers are owed.

"I believe that this is the first case that they've lost on the
merits in a national class action," John Crabtree, an attorney
for the 9,602-member class, told Bloomberg Law March 9.  They
rang up $1.4 million in fares on which the company paid them less
than it was supposed to, he said.

The dispute arose out of a $1 per trip "Safe Rides Fee" Uber
began charging passengers in April 2014 to fund driver background
checks and safety campaigns.  Uber said it would assess the fee
on riders and that it wouldn't affect drivers' pay, which was
calculated as a percentage of the fare.  The minimum fare was $4
per ride.

Under the terms of the company's agreement with drivers, it
wasn't clear that minimum fare trips were subject to the safe
rides fee, Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers of the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California said.  "By
extracting $1.00 from the 'Minimum Fare' before making its
remittance to drivers, Uber breached the plain terms of the
Agreement," she wrote in a March 8 ruling for the drivers.

The ruling decides only the question of liability.  The amount of
damages drivers are due remains to be determined, Mr. Crabtree
said. He anticipated a trial on damages.

"We'll do discovery for punitive damages on what they knew and
when they knew it," Mr. Crabtree said.  "I would think that
Uber's going to have to produce evidence to show exactly how much
money it took from the class."

"We are reviewing the decision," Uber told Bloomberg Law by email
March 9.

Mr. Crabtree, Charles Auslander, George Baise Jr., and Brian
Tackenberg with Crabtree & Auslander, LLC in Key Biscayne, Fla.;
Andrew August -- aaugust@bgrfirm.com -- with Browne George Ross
LLP in San Francisco; and Mark Morrison --
mark@mpaclassaction.com -- with Morrison and Associates in
Seattle represent the class.

William Stern -- wstern@mofo.com -- Claudia Vetesi --
cvetesi@mofo.com -- Alexandra Laks -- alaks@mofo.com -- and
Lucia Roibal -- lroibal@mofo.com -- with Morrison & Foerster LLP
in San Franscisco; and Ariel Ruiz, in-house counsel with Uber in
San Francisco represent Uber.

The case is Congdon v. Uber Techs., Inc., N.D. Cal., No. 16-cv-
02499, summary judgment, class certified 3/8/18. [GN]


UBIQUITI NETWORKS: "Xiya" Sues Over Share Price Drop
----------------------------------------------------
Xiya Qian, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Ubiquiti Networks, Inc., Robert J. Pera,
Kevin Radigan, Craig L. Foster and Mark Spragg, Defendants, Case
No. 18-cv-01841 (S.D. N.Y., February 28, 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.

Ubiquiti Networks Inc. offers a broad and expanding portfolio of
wireless networking products and solutions.

Ubiquiti had allegedly overstated the number of members of its
purported user community and exaggerated its publicly reported
accounts receivable.

On this news, Ubiquiti's share price fell $18.76, or 25.34%, to
close at $55.28 on February 20, 2018. Xiya acquired Ubiquiti
securities at artificially-inflated prices and lost 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


ULTA BEAUTY: Kessler Topaz Files Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP announces that
a shareholder class action lawsuit has been filed against Ulta
Beauty, Inc. (Nasdaq: ULTA) ("Ulta" or the "Company") on behalf
of purchasers of the Company's securities between March 30, 2016
and February 23, 2018 , inclusive (the "Class Period").

Investors who purchased Ulta securities during the Class Period
may, no later than May 1, 2018 , seek to be appointed as a lead
plaintiff representative of the class. For additional information
or to learn how to participate in this action please visit
https://www.ktmc.com/new-cases/ulta-beauty-inc#join

Ulta investors who wish to discuss this action and their legal
options are encouraged to contact Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check,
LLP (Darren J. Check, Esq., D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq. or Adrienne
Bell, Esq.) at (888) 299-7706 or at info@ktmc.com.

Ulta operates a chain of beauty stores. The Company offers
cosmetics, fragrance, skin and hair care products, and salon
service throughout the United States.

The shareholder class action complaint alleges that Ulta and
certain of its senior executive officers made false and
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose to investors
that: (i) the Company was engaged in the widespread practice of
repackaging returned cosmetics and re-shelving them alongside
unblemished products to sell at full retail price; and (ii) that
as a result of the foregoing, Ulta's public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On February 9, 2018, various media outlets reported that a
consumer class action lawsuit had been filed against Ulta
alleging that the Company engaged in the "widespread and
surreptitious" practice of repacking returned cosmetics and re-
shelving them alongside unblemished products to sell at full
price. According to the lawsuit, "dozens of other current and
former Ulta employees from retail locations all over the country
confirmed that substantially similar practices also occurred at
the Ulta stores where they worked."

Following this news, shares of Ulta's stock fell $9.07, or over
4.1%, to close on February 12, 2018 at $209.48.

Then, on February 23, 2018, CBS News ran a story entitled "Former
Ulta Beauty employee says she felt pressured to resell used
products."  That report discussed the consumer class action
lawsuit in detail, and reported additional statements made by
former Ulta employees supporting the allegations made in the
consumer class action lawsuit.

Following this additional news, shares of Ulta's stock fell an
additional $8.18 per share, or nearly 4%, to close on February
26, 2018 at $198.93.

Ulta investors may, no later than May 1, 2018 , seek to be
appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class through
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, or other counsel, or may choose to
do nothing and remain an absent class member. A lead plaintiff is
a representative party who acts on behalf of all class members in
directing the litigation.  In order to be appointed as a 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 in the action.
Your ability to share in any recovery is not affected by the
decision of whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff.

Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check prosecutes class actions in state
and federal courts throughout the country. Kessler Topaz Meltzer
& Check is a driving force behind corporate governance reform,
and has recovered billions of dollars on behalf of institutional
and individual investors from the United States and around the
world. The firm represents investors, consumers and
whistleblowers (private citizens who report fraudulent practices
against the government and share in the recovery of government
dollars).  The complaint in this action was not filed by Kessler
Topaz Meltzer & Check. For more information about Kessler Topaz
Meltzer & Check, please visit www.ktmc.com.

         Darren J. Check, Esq.
         D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq.
         Adrienne Bell, Esq.
         Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP
         280 King of Prussia Road
         Radnor, PA 19087
         Tel: (888) 299-7706
         Tel: (610) 667-7706
         Email: dcheck@ktmc.com
                skaskela@ktmc.com
                abell@ktmc.com [GN]


UNITED AIRLINES: Class Certification Bid in "Pumputyte" Denied
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled Neringa Pumputyte, et al., the Plaintiff,
v. United Airlines, Inc., et al., the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-
cv-04868 (N.D. Ill.), the Hon0 Judge Gary Feinerman entered an
order denying Plaintiff's class certification motion.

According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on March 9, 2018,
Defendant United Airlines's summary judgment motion is granted,
Plaintiff's class certification motion is denied, and Defendant
United Airlines's motion to strike Plaintiff's affidavit is
denied as moot. The Defendant United Airlines is awarded summary
judgment. Status hearing set for April 10, 2018 is stricken.

A copy of the Docket Entry is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=gztVUZQJ


UNITED COLLECTION: Class Action Settlement Has Initial Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit RE: UNITED COLLECTION BUREAU. INC., Case No.
2:15-cv-01306-CLW (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Cathy L. Waldor
entered an order:

   1. granting motion for preliminary approval of proposed
      settlement, and directing Parties to comply with the
      schedule and to comply with the terms of the Settlement
      Agreement; and

   2. certifying Settlement Classes for purposes of settlement:

      Class One:

      "all natural persons with addresses in Hackensack, New
      Jersey to whom, from February 19, 2014 to February 19,
      2015, Defendant or its letter vendor(s) sent one or more
      collection letter(s) on behalf of Citibank, N.A., which was
      not returned by the United States Postal Service as
      undeliverable, and was sent in a windowed envelope such
      that Defendant's reference number associated with the debt
      and/or the barcode containing Defendant's reference number
      associated with the debt was visible from outside the
      envelope". Excluded from this Class is Hyun Soon Chung;

      Class Two:

      "all natural persons with addresses in the State of New
      Jersey to whom, from February 4, 2015 to February 20, 2016,
      Defendant or its letter vendor(s) sent one or more
      collection letter(s) on behalf of Citibank, N.A., which was
      not returned by the United States Postal Service as
      undeliverable, and was sent in a windowed envelope such
      that the barcode containing Defendant's reference number
      associated with the debt was visible from outside the
      envelope"; and

      Class Three:

      "all natural persons with addresses in the State of New
      Jersey to whom, from March 22, 2015 to March 22, 2016,
      Defendant or its letter vendor(s) sent one or more
      collection letter(s) on behalf of LVNV Funding LLC, which
      was not returned by the United States Postal Service as
      undeliverable, and was sent in a windowed envelope such
      that the barcode containing the Defendant's reference
      number associated with the debt was visible from outside
      the envelope".

The Settlement Agreement provides, in part, for Defendant to:

   a) establish a class settlement fund in the amount of
      $107,180.00, to be distributed evenly among Settlement
      Class members;

   b) separately pay Plaintiffs' reasonable counsel fees, costs
      and expenses, subject to approval by the Court;

   c) make payment in the amount of $4,000 to Plaintiff Sungsoo
      Park, $2500 to Plaintiff Tremaine K. Watkins, $2500 to
      Plaintiff Georgina Sandoval and $2500 to Plaintiff
      Elizabeth E. Jun, which amount includes an incentive
      payment for their efforts on behalf of the Settlement
      Classes;

   d) separately pay the costs of administration of the
      settlement and Notice to the Settlement Class, as specified
      more fully in the Settlement Agreement; and

   e) pay a cy pres award to Northeast New Jersey Legal Services,
      Inc. in the amount of any funds remaining in the settlement
      fund due to uncashed or undeliverable checks.

Atticus Administration, LLC is approved and appointed as the
Notice and Settlement Administrator.

Plaintiff Park on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, was slated to seek initial court approval of the
settlement at a hearing for April 16, 2018, or "as otherwise
determined by the Court", according to a Notice of Motion
available at no charge at:

     http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=tNUPBYjg

The Court issued the Initial Approval Order on March 19.  A copy
of the Initial Approval Order is available at no charge at:

     http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=s04dJHV3

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bharati Sharma Patel, Esq.
          THE WOLF LAW FIRM, LLC
          E-mail: bpatel@wolflawfirm.net

Attorneys for United Collection Bureau, Inc.:

          Ethan G. Ostroff, Esq.
          TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP
          222 Central Park Ave., Suite 2000
          Virgina Beach, VA 23462


UNITED NORTHERN: Kline Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls
------------------------------------------------------------
Robert D. Kline, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. United Northern Mortgage Bankers Limited,
Access Funding, LLC, Access Holding, LLC and Reliance Funding,
LLC, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-00489 (M.D. Pa., February 28,
2018) seeks an injunction requiring Defendants to cease all
unsolicited telephone calling activities and an award of
statutory damages together with costs and reasonable attorneys'
fees pursuant to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

United Northern works together with Access Funding, Access
Holding, and/or Reliance Funding to market their mortgage,
lending, and other financial services to consumers. They placed
unsolicited telemarketing calls to cellular telephones of
consumers, including that of Kline's, without obtaining their
prior express consent, says the complaint. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Benjamin F. Johns, Esq.
      Andrew W. Ferich, Esq.
      Mark B. DeSanto, Esq.
      CHIMICLES & TIKELLIS LLP
      361 W. Lancaster Avenue
      Haverford, PA 19041
      Telephone: (610) 642-8500
      Facsimile: (610) 649-3633
      Email: bfj@chimicles.com
             awf@chimicles.com
             mbd@chimicles.com

             - and -

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


UNIVERSAL TRANSPORTATION: Sprague Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT SPRAGUE, on behalf of himself and similarly situated
employees v. UNIVERSAL TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS LLC (d/b/a "UTS")
and QUALITY TRANSPORTATION SERVICES LLC, Case No. 1:18-cv-00165-
MRB (S.D. Ohio, March 6, 2018), accuses the Defendants of
violating the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Ohio's Minimum Fair
Wage Standards Act and the Ohio Prompt Pay Act by failing to pay
overtime premium to the Plaintiff and other drivers for all hours
worked over 40 in a week.

Universal Transportation Systems LLC, doing business as UTS, is
an Ohio limited liability company headquartered in Fairfield,
Ohio (Butler County).  Quality Transportation Services LLC is an
Ohio limited liability company headquartered in Hamilton, Ohio
(Butler County).

The Defendants provide transportation services throughout Ohio,
including in Butler, Hamilton, Warren, Montgomery, Clinton,
Clermont, Franklin, Fairfield, and Preble Counties.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert E. DeRose, Esq.
          Jason C. Cox, Esq.
          BARKAN MEIZLISH HANDELMAN GOODIN DEROSE WENTZ, LLP
          250 E. Broad Street, 10th Floor
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Telephone: (614) 221-4221
          Facsimile: (614) 744-2300
          E-mail: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com
                  jcox@barkanmeizlish.com

               - and -

          Peter Winebrake, Esq.
          R. Andrew Santillo, Esq.
          Mark J. Gottesfeld, Esq.
          WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC
          715 Twining Road, Suite 211
          Dresher, PA 19025
          Telephone: (215) 884-2491
          Facsimile: (215) 884-2492
          E-mail: pwinebrake@winebrakelaw.com
                  asantillo@winebrakelaw.com
                  mgottesfeld@winebrakelaw.com


UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS: Sued Over Embryo Freezer Malfunction
----------------------------------------------------------
Homa Bash, writing for News5 Cleveland, reports that two class
action lawsuit has been filed against University Hospitals
following a refrigerator malfunction that has left the viability
of 2,000 eggs and embryos in question.

On March 12, a lawsuit was filed by the Peiffer Rosca Wolf
Abdullah Carr & Kane law firm in the names of a Pennsylvania
couple on behalf of the estimated 700 patients affected by
University Hospital's fertility clinic malfunction.

In a formal declaration of the class action lawsuit, Lydia Floyd,
a representative of the firm, said the Pennsylvania couple filing
the suit called the hospital on March 12, March 5 to set up an
appointment to begin the implantation procedure using frozen
embryos stored in the clinic's storage bank.

Later that evening, the couple, who has been trying to have
children through this in vitro fertilization (IVF) process for
eight years, received the heartbreaking news that their embryos
had been destroyed by a temperature fluctuation.

"Those embryos represented their hopes, their promise of having
children and a family," Ms. Floyd said.

Ms. Floyd said the lawsuit seeks to hold University Hospitals and
other defendants in this case responsible.

"There is the loss of having a child here, and the pain and tie
and expense that many of these victims already had invested in
their fertility journey," Ms. Floyd said.

The Pennsylvania couple filing the suit had already been
subjected to an invasive and technical IVF process, which
includes surgical procedures and an intense drug regiment.  They
are also now much older than when they started this process, and
the chances of them producing viable and strong eggs in order to
become pregnant have decreased, lessening their chances of having
a child.

A lawsuit was also filed on March 11 by attorney Robert DiCello -
- rjdicello@dicellolaw.com -- of DiCello, Levitt & Casey on
behalf of Amber and Elliott Ash, a local couple who had two
embryos stored with UH.

The couple received notification of the failure on March 9 and
over the weekend, were told by physicians that their embryos are
no longer viable.

"It's heartbreaking.  Just heartbreaking," Amber Ash said.  "The
medical community calls it tissue, I like to think of it as my
children.  My frozen children."

The Ash family welcomed Ethan, now 2-years-old, into their lives
through in-vitro fertilization, or IVF, at UH.

Elliott was diagnosed with a rare cancer in 2003, and at age 23,
decided to bank his sperm before they were destroyed by
chemotherapy.  The couple have had their embryos stored at UH
since 2014, paying about $400 a year for the service.

They had hoped to give Ethan a genetic sibling.

"You put so much faith into the physicians and the medical team,
and like I said, to have this taken away -- your hopes and dreams
destroyed.  It's a tremendous loss," Amber said.

The hope and ultimate goal with the lawsuit, the family said, is
to make sure another family doesn't feel the same loss ever
again.

"I find it very hard to believe that in this day and age, there
are not better safeguard and practices that could be put in
place," Amber added.

Mr. DiCello said he is in talks with other patients to add them
to the class-action complaint.

"I just urge everyone, before you judge what they've gone
through, or what they're going through, or what their motives for
doing it, ask yourselves, 'What would it be like if I had my
family's treasure lost by a hospital that just didn't care enough
to check on it?'" Mr. DiCello said.

The Ash family said they still have many unanswered questions
regarding the failure, even after speaking with two physicians.
UH has not clarified if it was a mechanical or human error at
this point.  The malfunction occurred sometime between the
overnight hours of Saturday, March 3 and Sunday, March 4.

"What is most disturbing to me is that everyone I talked to has
been informed by UH that their embryos are not viable, they've
been destroyed, different from what has been out there publicly
which has been that they've been compromised, we don't know.  I
think this problem is far more serious than has been presented so
far," said Team LGM attorney Tom Merriman.

"Our intent is to file a lawsuit on behalf of a large group of
women and couples who have lost their embryos.  We intend to do
that within the next couple of days," he said.

In a statement regarding the lawsuits, UH officials told News 5
the following:

"We understand why some people might feel compelled to take this
step.  Any lawsuits being filed will have no bearing on the
independent review being conducted or our determination to help
patients who have suffered this loss." [GN]


VALLEY CREDIT: Asks Court to Deny Class Cert. in "Schweinhart"
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled ASHLEY SCHWEINHART, the Plaintiff, v.
VALLEY CREDIT SERVICE, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-
00002-GEC (W.D.Va.), the Defendant moves this Court to deny class
certification to Ashley Schweinhart and to strike the class
allegations, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=NBXf2ERt

Counsel for Ashley Schweinhart:

          Kenneth McLeod, Esq.
          5 N. Bedford Street
          Arlington, VA 22201

Counsel for Valley Credit Service, Inc.

          Mark R. Colombell, Esq.
          Michael G. Matheson, Esq.
          THOMPSONMCMULLAN, P.C.
          100 Shockoe Slip, Third Floor
          Richmond, VA 23219
          Telephone: (804) 649 7545
          Facsimile: (804) 780 1813
          E-mail: mcolombell@t-mlaw.com
                  mmatheson@t-mlaw.com


VOLKSWAGEN AG: Emissions Higher Than Allowable Australian Limits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Packham, writing for The Australian, reports that world-first
testing in Australia on recalled VW cars shows they use up to 14
per cent more fuel after an enforced pollution fix, and still
emit four times the allowable level of noxious gases.

The tests, conducted by the Australian Automobile Association in
conjunction with the Paris-based Federation Internationale de
l'Automobile, were carried out in real driving conditions -- not
laboratories -- before and after the VW recall to rectify
performance and pollution problems hidden by illegal "defeat
device" software.

Almost 100,000 Australians, who believed they had bought clean,
high-performance cars, have been caught up in the VW "dieselgate"
scandal.

The latest revelations will be examined closely by lawyers, both
internationally and in Australia, amid ongoing litigation against
the carmaking giant.

The tests found a 2010 Golf 2.0 turbo diesel wagon used an
average 7 per cent more fuel after the recall fix, which is 26
per cent -- higher than the car's stated fuel efficiency level.

The higher fuel usage was the result of vehicle software
changes.

The real-world tests also found the output of poisonous nitrogen
oxides remained 4.11 times higher than allowable Australian
limits, down from 6.71 times higher before the software fix.

"No one has done more than Volkswagen to undermine the
credibility of global vehicle emissions standards or the
community's faith in regulatory efforts to reduce pollution," AAA
chief executive Michael Bradley said.

Volkswagen has been under pressure internationally since 2015
when it was revealed that more than 11 million of its diesel
vehicles had been sold with "defeat device" software designed to
beat laboratory emissions tests.

It issued a voluntary recall of affected vehicles, saying the
fix would rectify emissions problems without affecting fuel
economy or vehicle performance. But the claim had not been
subject to independent, real-world tests in any of its markets
until now.

The AAA-commissioned tests measured emissions, fuel economy and
performance before and after the software fix, with the results
to be released globally.

They were carried out on Melbourne roads last year by ABMARC, a
leading transport and engineering consultancy.  After the recall,
the car used 2 per cent more fuel on urban roads, 7 per cent more
on rural roads, and 14 per cent more on highways.

The amount of nitrogen oxides emitted by the car fell, but
?remained well above the Australian-adopted Euro 5 standard.

The testers noted a slight increase in the car's power and
torque after the software fix.

An estimated 78,400 VWs purchased in Australia had the "defeat
device" software installed, along with 16,000 Audis and 5200
Skodas -- both Volkswagen Group brands. A class action on behalf
of Australians who bought the cars resumes in the Federal Court
tomorrow.

VW rejected the test results, saying recalled vehicles continued
to satisfy Australian and European emissions standards.

"The KBA (Germany's Federal Motor Transport Authority) approved
Volkswagen's software update on the basis that it did not
adversely affect the emissions or fuel economy of vehicles in
test conditions," the company said in a statement.

"Several reputable automobile organisations in Germany, Austria
and Switzerland have since tested vehicles and concluded that
vehicles continue to perform as expected after the software
update."

Consumer group Choice said the AAA test results were "deeply
concerning". "It seems clear VW has no intention of ending its
smoke screen around emissions," Choice campaigns lead Katinka Day
said. "Drivers have a right to know their cars are using more
fuel and emitting more noxious emissions than
Australian-standards allow."

The secret software detected when a vehicle was being operated
under test conditions, putting the vehicle into a "test mode",
which enabled the car to meet laboratory emissions standards.

At other times, the car ran in "customer mode", delivering better
performance but much higher emissions.

Law firm Maurice Blackburn, which is leading the Australian class
action, said VW owners had suffered significant financial loss
and were entitled to "substantial and appropriate redress".

Volkswagen pleaded guilty in the US to criminal conduct in
connection with the dieselgate scandal, and has paid fines,
compensation and penalties totalling almost $30 billion in the US
and Canada.

But in Australia the company has refused to admit wrongdoing. It
argues it is not responsible for the impact of the "defeat
device" scandal on Australian consumers, because Australian
authorities accepted the results of European tests.

The AAA's international counterpart has been at the forefront of
the push to introduce mandatory real-world tests for carmakers
internationally.

"Motorists around the world must be able to trust that vehicle
manufacturers are providing accurate information regarding
emissions and fuel use," FIA secretary-general Andrew McKellar
said.

The real-world test results come as the federal government
prepares to release new vehicle emissions standards to meet
Australia's Paris Agreement climate change commitments.

Mr Bradley said it was crucial the new standards did not rely on
flawed laboratory tests that could be cheated by car companies.
"The AAA's results underscore the importance of real-world
testing, which now must be central to any credible plan to
protect consumers or the environment," he said.

The new standards will impose fuel-efficiency measures for light
vehicles and potentially see Australia move to the more stringent
Euro 6 emissions standard. The AAA warned in a submission to the
Ministerial Forum on Vehicle Emissions that stringent emissions
standards might force consumers to sacrifice engine power and
carrying capacity, and could force up car prices.

"It is possible that the government has not fully considered the
real costs to consumers of CO2 emission standards," the AAA said.

A spokeswoman for Urban Infrastructure and Cities Minister Paul
Fletcher said the government considered household costs "a matter
of priority". She said Australia operated within an international
testing system to ensure the lowest costs for consumers.

"The Australian government is aware of proposals that there
should be additional testing conducted in Australia.  In
considering whether there is a case to introduce additional
testing, the government will weigh up a range of factors,
including cost impacts for Australian motorists and whether such
testing would offer valuable additional information."

Australia relies on "New European Drive Cycle" tests, which run
cars through a set procedure on rollers, with slow acceleration
and constant cruise speeds, for about 20 minutes.

Volkswagen is not the only car company to have tried to beat the
tests.  It was revealed last year that some Fiat cars were
designed to turn off pollution control after 22 minutes -- two
minutes after the standard test.

Previous real-world testing of 30 Australian-bought vehicles by
the AAA revealed average real-world fuel consumption was 23 per
cent higher than claimed. [GN]


WAGEWORKS INC: Faces Class Action, May 8 Lead Plaintiff Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on March 11
announced the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of WageWorks, Inc. (NYSE:WAGE) from
May 6, 2016 through March 1, 2018, inclusive (the "Class
Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for WageWorks
investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the WageWorks class action, go to
https://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1302.html or call Phillip Kim,
Esq. or Zachary Halper, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email
pkim@rosenlegal.com or zhalper@rosenlegal.com for information on
the class action.

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

According to the lawsuit, defendants during the Class Period made
materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) there were material weaknesses in WageWorks'
systems of internal controls and that its practices and controls
were ineffective; (2) WageWorks failed to adequately manage and
assess risk relating to certain complex transactions, including
certain government contracts; (3) WageWorks improperly recognized
revenue thereby inflating its earnings and related financial
metrics; and (4) as a result, WageWorks' 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.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed.  If you wish to
serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than
May 8, 2018.  A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting
on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If
you wish to join the litigation, go to
https://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1302.html or to discuss your
rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact
Phillip Kim, Esq. or Zachary Halper, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll
free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
zhalper@rosenlegal.com.

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


WAGEWORKS INC: Kessler Topaz Files Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP disclosed that
a shareholder class action lawsuit has been filed against
WageWorks, Inc. (NYSE: WAGE) ("WageWorks" or the "Company") on
behalf of purchasers of the Company's securities between May 6,
2016 and March 1, 2018, inclusive (the "Class Period").

Investors who purchased WageWorks securities during the Class
Period may, no later than May 8, 2018, seek to be appointed as a
lead plaintiff representative of the class. For additional
information or to learn how to participate in this action please
visit: https://www.ktmc.com/new-cases/wageworks-inc#join

WageWorks investors who wish to discuss this action and their
legal options are encouraged to contact Kessler Topaz Meltzer &
Check, LLP (Darren J. Check, Esq., D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq. or
Adrienne Bell, Esq.) at (888) 299-7706 or at info@ktmc.com

WageWorks provides tax-advantaged programs for consumer-directed
health, commuter, and other employee spending account benefits in
the United States.

The shareholder class action complaint alleges that WageWorks and
certain of its senior executive officers made false and
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose to investors
that: (i) there were material weaknesses in WageWorks' systems of
internal controls and that its practices and controls were
ineffective; (ii) WageWorks failed to adequately manage and
assess risk relating to certain complex transactions, including
certain government contracts; (iii) WageWorks improperly
recognized revenue thereby inflating its earnings and related
financial metrics; and (iv) as a result of the foregoing,
WageWorks' financial statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times. As a result of the issuance of
these false and misleading financial statements, throughout the
Class Period the common stock of WageWorks traded at artificially
inflated prices.

On March 1, 2018, WageWorks disclosed that it was delaying the
filing of its Form 10-K for the fiscal year ending December 31,
2017.  Following this news, shares of the Company's common stock
declined $9.75 per share, or over 18.5%, to close at $42.70, on
heavy trading volume.

The following day the Company reported that it "has concluded
that it has a material weakness in its internal control over
financial reporting . . . . related to managing change and
assessing risk in the areas of non-routine and complex
transactions."  Additionally, the Company disclosed that "[t]he
Audit Committee of the Company's Board of Directors is conducting
an independent investigation of the Company's internal control
over financial reporting in fiscal 2016 and 2017.  Among other
matters, the investigation consists of a review of certain
issues, including revenue recognition, related to the accounting
for a government contract during fiscal 2016 and associated
issues with whether there was an open flow of information and
appropriate tone at the top for an effective control
environment."

WageWorks investors may, no later than May 8, 2018, seek to be
appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class through
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, or other counsel, or may choose to
do nothing and remain an absent class member.  A lead plaintiff
is a representative party who acts on behalf of all class members
in directing the litigation.  In order to be appointed as a 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 in the action.
Your ability to share in any recovery is not affected by the
decision of whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff.

Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check prosecutes class actions in state
and federal courts throughout the country. Kessler Topaz Meltzer
& Check is a driving force behind corporate governance reform,
and has recovered billions of dollars on behalf of institutional
and individual investors from the United States and around the
world.  The firm represents investors, consumers and
whistleblowers (private citizens who report fraudulent practices
against the government and share in the recovery of government
dollars).  The complaint in this action was not filed by Kessler
Topaz Meltzer & Check. For more information about Kessler Topaz
Meltzer & Check, please visit www.ktmc.com.

         Darren J. Check, Esq.
         D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq.
         Adrienne Bell, Esq.
         Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP
         280 King of Prussia Road
         Radnor, PA 19087
         Tel: (888) 299-7706
         Tel: (610) 667-7706
         Email: dcheck@ktmc.com
                skaskela@ktmc.com
                abell@ktmc.com [GN]


WALGREEN CO: Faces Lawsuit Over U.S. Generic Drug Pricing
---------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Stempel, writing for Reuters, reports that a federal
judge on March 9 ordered Walgreen Co to face most of a proposed
class action lawsuit accusing the drugstore chain of fraudulently
overcharging customers for a decade when they bought generic
drugs through private insurance, Medicare or Medicaid.

Walgreen was accused of wrongly requiring insured customers to
pay more than members of its Prescription Savings Club, who for a
low annual fee could buy more than 500 widely prescribed generic
drugs for $5, $10 and $15 for 30-day prescriptions, and $10, $20
and $30 for 90-day prescriptions.

U.S. District Judge John Lee in Chicago said the plaintiffs
plausibly alleged that these prices were Walgreen's "usual and
customary" prices, and that the company misled their insurers by
reporting higher prices when seeking reimbursement.

He also found plausible the plaintiffs' argument that because
they had health insurance with prescription benefits coverage,
they reasonably believed they would pay "at least the same as and
not more than a direct-pay customer."

Lee dismissed two of the 29 claims, including many brought under
various state laws, against Deerfield, Illinois-based Walgreen,
part of Walgreens Boots Alliance Inc.

Walgreen did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
Lawyers for the plaintiffs did not immediately respond to similar
requests.

The lawsuit sought damages for insured customers nationwide since
2007, when the Prescription Savings Club began, who said Walgreen
collected inflated copayments, coinsurance and deductibles
through its improper "dual pricing" scheme.

Walgreens Boots has more than 13,200 stores in 11 countries. It
is acquiring 1,932 stores from Rite Aid Corp for $4.4 billion, in
a process that Rite Aid said should be completed in the spring.

The case is Forth et al v Walgreen Co, U.S. District Court,
Northern District of Illinois, No. 17-00246. [GN]


WESTERN EXPRESS: Elmy Seeks Certification of Collective Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled JOHN ELMY, individually and on behalf of
all other similarly situated persons, the Plaintiffs, v. WESTERN
EXPRESS, INC., NEW HORIZONS LEASING, INC., and JOHN DOES 1-5, the
Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-01199 (M.D. Tenn.), the Plaintiff
asks the Court to enter an Order:

   1. granting the Plaintiff's request to conditionally certify
      this collective action and to authorize notice to the
      putative class by first class mail, email and Qualcomm;

   2. directing the Defendants to provide in an electronic
      spreadsheet format such as Excel, the following
      information, each contained in a separate column: names,
      addresses, email addresses, and an employee number or
      unique identifier of the FLSA collective members;

   3. approving the Plaintiff's forms of notice, Qualcomm
      message/reminder and reminder postcard to putative FLSA
      collective members;

   4. directing the Defendants to supply to the Plaintiff the
      last four digits of the social security numbers of those
      FLSA collective members whose notice is returned as
      undeliverable;

   5. permitting Plaintiff's counsel to call any individual whose
      notice is returned as undeliverable for the purpose of
      obtaining a current address for re-mailing of the notice;

   6. authorizing Plaintiff's counsel to re-mail notices that are
      returned as undeliverable for those individuals counsel can
      find better addresses; and

   7. authorizing Plaintiff's counsel to mail and email reminder
      postcards and send via Qualcomm a reminder message 21 days
      before the expiration of the opt-in period to those
      putative FLSA collective members who have not opted in to
      the collective action at that point.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=n6XqTTh4

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lesley Tse, Esq.
          Michael J.D. Sweeney, Esq.
          GETMAN, SWEENEY & DUNN, PLLC
          260 Fair Street
          Kingston, NY 12401
          Telephone: (845) 255 9370
          Facsimile: (845) 255 8649
          E-mail: ltse@getmansweeney.com

               - and -

          Justin L. Swidler, Esq.
          SWARTZ SWIDLER, LLC
          1101 Kings Hwy N., Ste 402
          Cherry Hill, NJ 08034
          Telephone: (856) 685 7420
          Facsimile: (856) 685 7417
          E-mail: jswidler@swartz-legal.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Mark E. Hunt, Esq.
          R. Eddie Wayland, Esq.
          KING & BALLOW LAW OFFICES
          315 Union Street Ste. 1100
          Nashville, TN 37201
          Telephone: (615) 259 3456
          Facsimile: (615) 726 5417


WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION: Schechner, et al. Seek to Certify Class
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled TOBY SCHECHNER, BARBARA BARNES, LAURA
BLISS, KATHLEEN JORDAN, KATHRYN LIMPEDE, LOUISE MILJENOVIC,
CANDACE OLIARNY, BEVERLY SIMMONS, RICHARD THOME and MARY ELLEN
THOME, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiffs, v. WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION, the
Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-12409-SJM-RSW (E.D. Mich.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order:

   a. certifying Plaintiffs' claims as a class action, under Rule
      23(a) and Rule 23(b)(3);

   b. appointing Plaintiffs as Class Representatives for the
      Class and their respective Classes;

   c. appointing Plaintiffs' counsel, the law firms of Robbins
      Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, and the Miller Law Firm, P.C. as
      Class Counsel under Rule 23(g); and

   d. ordering Plaintiffs to provide the Court with a proposed
      form and manner of notice to the certified Classes under
      Rule 23(c).

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=hpQNGrjD

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class and Classes:

          E. Powell Miller, Esq.
          Sharon S. Almonrode, Esq.
          THE MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C.
          950 West University Drive, Suite 300
          Rochester, MI 48307
          Telephone: (248) 841 2200
          Facsimile: (248) 652 2852

               - and -

          Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
          Marks. Reich, Esq.
          Jordan D. Mamorsky, Esq.
          STUART A. DAVIDSON, ESQ.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          58 South Service Road, Suite 200
          Melville, NY 11747
          Telephone: (631) 367 7100
          Facsimile: (631) 367 1173


YELP INC: April 19 Hearing on "Sapan" Bid to Certify Class
----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled JONATHAN SAPAN, individually and on Behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. YELP, INC., a
Delaware Corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-03240-JD
(N.D. Cal.), Mr. Jonathan Sapan and the putative class will move
the Court on April 19, 2018, for an order to certify class.

A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=bGhWJhsP

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Proposed Class:

          Christopher J. Reichman, Esq.
          Justin Prato SBN 246968, Esq.
          PRATO & REICHMAN, APC
          8555 Aero Drive, Suite 303
          San Diego, CA 92123
          Telephone: (619) 886 0252
          E-mail: JustinP@prato-reichman.com


ZION HEALTH: Bid to Certify Nationwide & California Classes Nixed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled JONG ICK SHIN, individually and on behalf
of those similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. DIANA LEE, ZION
HEALTH TECH, INC., ION CO. LTD., and DOES 1 through 10, the
Defendants, Case No. 8:16-cv-01225-CJC-DFM (C.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge Cormac J. Carney entered an order:

   a. denying Plaintiff's motion for class certification of:

      Nationwide class:

      "all persons who purchased the Ionizer [which includes the
      SMART 3000, SMART 5000, SMART 7000, and SMART 9000] from
      Defendant Zion throughout the United States from June 1,
      2012 to the present";

      California class:

      "all persons who purchased [Defendant Zion's] Ionizers,
      which includes SMART 3000, SMART 5000, SMART 7000, and
      SMART 9000, in California, on or after June 1, 2012"; and

   b. denying as moot Plaintiff's requests that the Court appoint
      class counsel and approve notice to the class.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=79MdnfZu




                            *********


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  * * *